PC 2003 10 21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Beth Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, and Craig
Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Bruce Feik
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jeff, Senior Planner; Angie
Auseth, Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
LOCATED AT 900 HIAWATHA DRIVE, KENT AND MARY BRAUN.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff.
Lillehaug: One real quick one. On page 3, the second paragraph from the bottom. It said that
there may be a desire to divide and sell a portion of the parcel in the future. Do we know
anything on that or is that just.
Auseth: I wanted to address that right away. Because it is 28,000 square feet rather than 30,000,
it's not likely that the lot can be rezoned. Therefore the addition could go to the back or to either
one of the sides to maintain the setback.
Sacchet: So you're saying it could not be subdivided.
Auseth: Right.
Sacchet: Okay.
Papke: Is there a sidewalk in front of the building?
Auseth: No there's not.
Papke: There's no sidewalk?
Auseth: No.
Sacchet: Is there a reason why the applicant wants to put it towards the road and not on the side
or the back?
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
Auseth: The reasoning is for, they want to do a garage and convert. They'd like to convert the
existing garage into livable space, bringing the garage forward rather than out to the side to make
it more aesthetically pleasing as you drive by.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bethany.
Tjomhom: The other homes on Hiawatha, do they conform to the setbacks now? So then this
would be the only one that is non-conforming?
Auseth: If you look on page 4 in the staff report it shows the variances within 500 feet. The only
one that has a variance that is a standard lot, which is over 15,000 square feet is 16.5 feet to the
rear yard setback. There aren't any in the front setbacks. Also on 6711, that's also standard but
that's for the side yard setback. So there aren't any front yard setback variances.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff? We're at the Hiawatha variance. Do you have any
questions Craig?
Claybaugh: No, no questions.
Sacchet: No further questions. Thank you very much. If the applicant is here, do you want to
present your case to us? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record
please.
Kent Braun: Kent Braun, 900 Hiawatha.
Mary Braun: And Mary Braun, same address.
Kent Braun: We've got a little thing here that, can I bring it up and.
Mary Braun: I'm not sure which way it goes.
Sacchet: Yeah, I've got extra copies. We'll take it. Yeah, this is small enough.
Mary Braun: Okay, we have some reasons for doing this, for bringing it forward. As Angie said,
for the appearance of the house itself. In order to make it look more pleasing to the
neighborhood, that would be one thing. I know that she had asked us if there's another way that
we could do it, we could you know possibly go the side, which would make the house run very
long and it would look like a train car sitting there. Also there's a large existing tree that would
have to be knocked down, which is you know, one that we have in the yard that is a beautiful tree.
And as we're adding on, it's a two bedroom house and we do have children and so to convert
that.
Sacchet: Space helps.
Mary Braun: It's getting tight. But that would be our reasons for doing it basically, and we knew
initially that it was going to be denied but we are at a dead end street. When we bought the
house, when we initially had the copy that you guys have right now, it shows like to the road, you
know from yard to yard, both on both sides of the streets but this stated showing us that but we
didn't realize that part of our yard is basically road also. I don't know if you've seen the house or
whatever, driven by but he can explain that better than I can.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Kent Braun: Well I think when, this plat that was drawn up was the late 1900's. Or early 1900's.
And we tried to get some information on and from this plat, I mean it's real tough to get any kind
of information out there. We had checked on others...when we were looking into Chanhassen
and we were told that you know 30 feet off the road you know was what we were thinking. But
once we got surveyed we found out that where the stakes are, he thought there was a 13 foot
right-of-way which kind of put a large twist in the whole plan of what we were planning to do.
When this was surveyed out, you can see that they were planning on having Hiawatha go all the
way through to Powers Boulevard, which was a big swamp back there. They were planning on
putting another road in, which was Club Court there, which I can see where they would want the
variances. It'd be wider but since all this has happened, they vacated the Club Court Road and
there's only one other house I believe that has a driveway to the property so we're one of two
residential homes that use that road. And so a chance of it being widen I think are pretty small so
we feel that just with the appearance of our house that there would be a permanent driveway.
That they would be looking, we'd still be 30 feet off the road with the proposed structure we'd be
30 feet off the road, and there would be a driveway that would be 30 feet by roughly 44, so
there'd be ample room to park cars so they would not be...
Mary Braun: Yeah, because on the one side it's a no parking on the side of the street where our
house is too because there's a park right across the street. It's Carver Beach Park and we're right
across from the play set and on our side there's no parking signs the whole way down so we're
not allowed to park on that side.
Papke: Could you indicate where you garage door or doors will be on your plan.
Kent Braun: Facing the road.
Papke: Both would be so is it 3 doors? Two double doors?
Kent Braun: That's kind of up in the air. We'd like 3 doors but 2 doors is a little bit cheaper so.
Sacchet: One big one for the boat. Any other questions of the applicant?
Papke: What's the increase in square footage of your garage space from what you current have?
Do you know the size of your current garage?
Mary Braun: It would actually be like a double and then go two deep.
Papke: So you're doubling the size of your garage?
Mary Braun: Oh no. Well yeah, a little more, yeah.
Kent Braun: Pretty close.
Mary Braun: But the existing garage would be turned into bedrooms.
Papke: Right, right, right. So if you were to take your proposed garage and cut it off flush with
the front of the house, would it be approximately the size of your current garage in terms of
square feet?
Sacchet: It'd still be bigger.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Papke: Or bigger.
Mary Braun: Yeah, it'd probably be bigger because it does go deep. There is a room behind the
existing garage right now. There's a dining room.
Papke: So in terms of what you're trying to accomplish by doing that, you achieve your
additional bedrooms and you maintain the existing size of your garage, correct?
Mary Braun: It would be a little bit bigger because it would be like.
Kent Braun: Well it would be, well we're planning on going 18 feet off this side so it would be
tough to get two cars and some bikes and stuff.
Papke: But maybe widening it just a little bit it would be a full size two car width garage. Would
that be a true statement?
Kent Braun: That would be accurate.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: The boat is big though. I saw it. Any other questions of the applicant? Now the
question we had from staff, I'm still kind of curious to see what you have to say then. There is
this statement in the staff report kind of alludes to the possibility of there might be an intent to
possibly subdivide the lot, and I'm kind of curious. I mean what's happening on the other side
there? It looks like a mix between a dump and a camping ground, I hope I don't offend you by
saying that but.
Mary Braun: No, that would be the part of getting the garage because right now, I mean we just
moved in the end of the month of August.
Sacchet: Oh, so you're new there?
Mary Braun: Yeah. We just moved there and that's the whole thing of getting the garage so,
because we have, ! mean we moved from a 3 car garage, 4 bedroom home.
Sacchet: Okay. Do you have any plans to do something with the back yard?
Mary Braun: Yes, yeah, well no. Just extend the fence. Yeah, it will be cleaned up, yes.
Kent Braun: Putting all the stuff in the garage.
Sacchet: That's pretty much what I'm asking. Even though that's not my business. So your
intent is not to make this into two lots?
Mary Braun: No.
Sacchet: Okay, okay. Anything else you'd like to add? If not we'll move onto the public
hearing part. Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody would like to
come forward. Address this item. This is your chance. Nobody seems to be jumping up so I will
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
conclude that nobody wants to speak up to this item. And close the public hearing and bring it
back to commission for comments. Who wants to start with comments on this one'?.
Lillehaug: I suppose I can.
Sacchet: You want to start Steve? Go ahead.
Lillehaug: Yeah. First thing is, I didn't see a no parking sign there so I could have probably got
a ticket today. Thanks for meeting with me today when I stopped by there. I agree with the
applicant. It is the most ideal layout for the garage aesthetic wise, but I'm having a tough time
with it because I do agree with staff that if we did approve this variance it would set, it would
certainly set a precedent, not only for this neighborhood but I think as Chanhassen as a whole, we
would increase a conforming lot. We would increase it from zero percent to be a non-conforming
by 43 percent on the front yard setback, and I really do believe the applicant has other reasonable
options that wouldn't need a variance that may not be as aesthetically pleasing but that would
work with the house. I know it's not ideal but I do think there's other options that are feasible for
this. ! hate to do it but I can't support it. The variance because doing so I think would set a very
undesirable precedence for the variance.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bethany.
Tjomhom: I don't really have anything.
Sacchet: No comments? Kurt.
Papke: I don't see any indication of hardship here and it's not a request for a small variance, a 1
or 2 foot variance here. We're talking a substantial amount, 17 feet is huge and so I'm not in
favor of this one.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, as Steve had stated I'm concerned about setting a precedence. I'm also
equally concerned about the degree of the variance being applied for, 43 percent and I do believe
that there are options. They may not be as appealing but I would be more receptive to it if it was
a partial that mitigated that 43 percent and you were coming in and you needed 15 percent to
make it work. Or something along those lines and it represented more of a balance compromise
with the amount of square footage you have available to you, going out the different directions. I
realize it isn't your first choice but I think it's one that I would like to see you explore.
Sacchet: I don't have too much else to add. I mentioned in my opening statement that our task is
to see to what extent the applications comply with the ordinance and regulations. Applying the
ordinance and regulations, we are really don't have much of an option except denying this on the
basis that there are definitely other options to do this without a variance and so with that I'm open
to get a motion.
Papke: I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2003-13 for a 13 foot
variance from the 30 foot yard setback requirements based on the findings of the staff report.
Sacchet: We have a motion, Is there a second?
Claybaugh: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Papke moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request
W2003-13 for a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirements based on
the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: You do have the option to appeal this to the City Council. If you want to do that, please
let staff know and hope you find a good solution for your garage.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND PATIO LOCATED AT 2350 HUNTER DRIVE,
ROBERT KRUEGER.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Any questions from staff? Craig, go ahead.
Claybaugh: I'll start off, does the city when we're dealing with properties specifically I recall
around like Carver Beach where we've got unconventional lot sizes of 5,000 or 7,000 square feet,
we use the standard if someone has a rambler and needs a variance to expand on the square
footage, we use the standard of 960 square feet as the threshold of what we consider current
standard livable spaces for that type structure. Is there anything in the city guide books with
respect to decks, patios? What I'm looking at is, we've got 474 square feet. That's a lot of
square footage considering where we're placing it in the wetland buffer, and then also take into
context how it's going to be used, and I was wondering if we had any standard for that type
square footage that we would consider is a reasonable threshold. You understand the question?
Generous: Yes. And the ordinance specifies that you need a 30 foot rear yard area.
Claybaugh: I'll get to that next, but with respect to the threshold, the square footage of a deck or
patio, is there anything that the city identifies as having achieved a reasonable use at X amount of
square feet?
Generous: As part of the subdivision ordinance it talks about a 12 foot deck on the rear yard but
it's not a standard per se. It's just in reviewing it, is it a sufficient size lot to accommodate that.
Claybaugh: Let me ask you this. I'm hoping that since this went through I believe Lundgren
Brothers was the builder.
Auseth: Correct.
Claybaugh: Since this situation happened I'm hoping through the permit process, that they've
integrated something in the process that identifies that everybody's going to want a deck or a
patio and that when they come in and they provide the setbacks on their permit application, that
they're allowing sufficient square footage or distance for people to accommodate a deck at this
point in our plan review process.
Generous: That's what we do currently and also if there's no or if there's a problem, we'll state
that right on the permit application that there's only a 5 foot expansion or 10 foot or whatever,
that the restrictions are. So that at least they're aware of them.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Claybaugh: Well the builder's aware of it at that time.
Generous: Yes.
Claybaugh: But it doesn't, that's the situation that we have now with this particular homeowner.
That the builder's aware of what they're doing but the homeowner is the one that, okay. With
respect to that, what does the city identify as a reasonable setback when they're reviewing that?
What do they look for for a minimum?
Generous: 15 feet.
Auseth: In depth.
Claybaugh: 15 feet in depth. And what do we have in depth with this particular application?
Auseth: In depth of this one? This is 26 feet.
Claybaugh: 26 feet, okay. That's ali the questions I have right now.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Kurt.
Papke: What's the construction of the deck? Is it concrete? Paver? I'm looking for the
impermeability.
Auseth: It's pavers.
Papke: It is pavers so.
Auseth: Yes, and I've got photographs also.
Papke: That would be helpful.
Lillehaug: Well the deck is wood. The patio is pavers.
Sacchet: Any other questions Kurt?
Papke: No.
Sacchet: Bethany, any questions?
Tjornhom: When they did the deck they got a permit to build the deck, is that correct?
Auseth: Correct.
Tjornhom: But they did not need a permit to put a patio in?
Auseth: Not to put in a patio you don't, but you have to comply with setbacks.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Tjornhom: So before this was built did someone come into the city to ask what the setbacks
were or how do they get this far along without someone catching it or figuring out what was
happening?
Auseth: Because of the patio, because they don't need a permit, they don't need a survey.
Sacchet: They can just do it.
Claybaugh: Can I?
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Craig.
Claybaugh: That raised an interesting point because I know we've had some difficulties in the
past with hard surface coverage so what would be our procedure? I thought that there was
something in place so to prevent that. I know we went through it with a Sport Court not long ago.
Generous: Yep.
Claybaugh: So am I to understand we still don't have a procedure in place to.
Generous: Not for patios or those type of surfaces. We do it for driveways now. They have to
come in to engineering.
Claybaugh: I'm sorry.
Tjornhom: I think that was all I had.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I've got a few more. What was Lundgren required to do when they previously
violated the easement and cleared 840 square feet of trees when they weren't supposed to?
Nothing?
Auseth: As far as I'm aware, just the letter went out to them and they needed to, another lot that
they constructed they needed to stand by the 20 feet from the easement when constructing homes.
Lillehaug: On page 5, Finding B. The last statement you indicate the applicant is doing what
others in the neighborhood have done. I'm not quite clear what that is referring to.
Auseth: Referring to reasonable use of improving the rear yard.
Lillehaug: Okay. But as far as what others have done, others have done it outside of the setback
SO.
Auseth: True.
Lillehaug: Finding D. It says the homeowners was unaware of the wetland buffer setback
requirement when purchasing the property. Just a little while ago you indicated that, who built
the deck on this house?
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
Auseth: The homeowner built the deck and I believe it was missed when permitted, which is why
we're including it on this one just to legitimize the entire rear yard.
Sacchet: So part of the deck is actually encroaching too?
Auseth: Encroaching into the.
Sacchet: Setback.
Auseth: A little bit into the setback, right.
Sacchet: But staff did not catch it at the time?
Auseth: Correct.
Sacchet: Sorry Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: So when a permit is granted, do they get typically does the city draw the porch on the
registered survey that the city has? Which also indicates, I mean it shows where the edge of the
wetland is. Shows where the edge of wetland buffer is and it shows where the tree preservation
line is. So that would have been known to them or known to city staff that these easements are
there. That's correct, right?
Auseth: Yes.
Lillehaug: So it's not like the city overlooked it or the owner should have been aware of it. Or
had the opportunity to be aware of it because they did get a permit for the porch, Or for the deck.
Auseth: True.
Lillehaug: Okay, I'll move on. I'm beating that one to death. I think that is all the questions I
have for you, thank you.
Sacchet: I have a little more. What I'm struggling with is the responsibility. ! mean the builder
does something they're not supposed to do. They know there is a wetland setback. They know
there is a tree preservation zone. They go ahead and put the building right on the line. The city
has some responsibility to tell them you're right on the line. Did we do that? You mentioned that
we would mark that on the plat. Did we happen to do that in this case or did we not?
Generous: It didn't show up on the survey.
Sacchet: We did not do it in this case. Because is it a correct assumption that the responsibility
from the builder gets transferred to the responsibility for the owner when the owner buys it. But
then the city kind of had a few things that went through the cracks too, correct? Like we didn't
catch that and we gave the deck permit, is that an accurate representation? Okay. Let me see if I
have other questions? Now in Finding B there's a statement that other surveys show homes too
close to the tree preservation easement. Are there other cases similar to this and how did we deal
with those or how did they deal with the situation?
Auseth: Those do the letter that Lundgren Brothers received from the Forester stating that other
homes were being constructed within the 20 foot easement.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: So we send a letter and then business just goes on as usual. We don't really have any
leverage it seems.
Auseth: I can't answer that.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm sorry to put you on the spot with that one. But these are big questions and I
think they're very important to look at in this context but let's stick with the issue in front of us. I
think that's all my questions. Thank you. If the applicant is here, if you want to come forward
and present your case. Please forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know
what you have to tell us.
Bob Krueger: My name's Bob Krueger. I live 2350 Hunter Drive.
Sacchet: You look very prepared.
Bob Krueger: Just like to give a little bit of background for our project. First of all we did
purchase our house as a spec back in '96, as the staff report mentions. I believe they mentioned in
meeting with them directly that the construction was started like in August. We purchased it in
October. We didn't have any say in siting of the home. We did landscape partially in 1997. That
landscaping in the back yard consisted of some retaining walls. There is a partial lookout in the
rear of the property. That is the part of the property that Lundgren Brothers graded and ended up
removing all of these trees. And pushing out some 20 feet or so away from the house. The deck
was.
Sacchet: Let me just clarify. You're saying that Lundgren's are the ones that encroached onto
the tree preservation easement?
Bob Krueger: Well they started. I'm there too, clearly, but there wasn't anything, I didn't have
to cut down any trees or anything to put in what I've done.
Sacchet: That's basically what I'm asking.
Bob Krueger: It was cleared off already. We built our deck in 2000, and commenced our patio
here late this summer. Show a couple pictures. Couple of additional pictures.
Lillehaug: So you said you didn't cut any further trees down from what Lundgren cut down then,
correct?
Bob Krueger: Now there's been some trees that have been cut down over the course of being on
the property. In 1998 a significant tree that's located here, and actually a clump of a few trees
and fell down in a violent wind storm that summer. I have a picture of that later if you're
interested in it. Basically a picture of our deck with the paver patio. This is the deck was
existing. The paver patio's new. The walkway down around. This part of the retaining wall is
new this summer .... pasted together.
Papke: Can I ask a question while you're... How tall is the retaining wall?
Bob Krueger: 4 feet. Fourish feet. In preparation for this I asked my immediate neighbors, since
they would be the most impacted by any of this, if they had any problems with it and I have a
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
petition by the husband and wife of each of the three immediate neighbor's homes that I can give
to the staff.
Sacchet: I assume it's in your favor. The petition is in your favor?
Bob Krueger: Amazingly.
Claybaugh: Sounds like a traffic study.
Bob Krueger: Should the variance be granted, what's left to do. Well we have some gravel and
soils to be brought back in. There's some filling to be done inside of the retaining wall. Little bit
of gravel left to do. Like I said in my application, we were about a day from being complete.
There's final grading of the disturbed areas that would be done by hand and since there's a tree
line there, we'll pull the dirt away from the trees. Make sure that they're not impacted by any of
this. Final clean-up, there are some building materials back there still. That has to be taken out.
Plantings next season inbetween the patio and the tree line. Leaning towards a shade garden at
this point. And other plantings to satisfy the conditions of the variance that the staff has so kindly
recommended. In our request for a variance we'd like to stress really one key point. We believe
that we have an unreasonable hardship in this case. The standard of the neighborhood clearly is
improvable ground surrounding homes. You asked earlier if these were being done within
setbacks. I think it would be hasty to say that all the improvements that are being made in the
neighborhood are within all the setbacks, because people don't, fire pits and retaining walls and
things, all of these non-permitted type things, well those are happening around the pond. Clearly
the city intends for the builder to make provisions for rear yard. Rear yards. You have your 30
foot rear yard setback and your residential single family rules. You have a 30 foot guideline in
the planned unit development rules. There's a recognition that the need for a rear yard in your
discussions about adding accessory structures to your zoning back in 2000. In fact the first
recommendation the planning made had basically half of the setbacks being given back, or given
back to accessory uses for homeowners, recognizing that builders were pushing up against these
limits. And the letter to Lundgren Brothers citing that they built too close to the tree preservation
and a recommendation for 20 feet from the easements. I think it shows, I guess I'll leave that
open for questions.
Sacchet: Alright, are you ready for some questions?
Bob Krueger: I'll mention one additional thing.
Sacchet: Oh, the tree that fell down.
Bob Krueger: Yeah, tree that fell down.
Sacchet: That's a good picture.
Bob Krueger: You can see, there's the existing tree line. And perhaps you'll notice that this lot
next to me looks a little different now. Literally.
Sacchet: Yeah, quite a bit different as a matter of fact.
Bob Krueger: This is the area that was graded out by Lundgren Brothers and now we have our
patio in there so I'm ready for questions.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Questions from the applicant. Want to start Craig?
Claybaugh: Yes sir. Could you tell me when the retaining walls were put in? Were those put in
by Lundgren or were those done by you after you purchased the home?
Bob Krueger: Well Lundgren Brothers graded to the daylight and then put a very, very steep
slope in there. To daylight. And so we put in this one, and the first half of this one in our first
landscaping job back in the summer of '97.
Claybaugh: Okay, and the balance of them was done currently or?
Bob Krueger: This here and well this one was done with our first landscaping. This extension
right here and then all of the patio was done in the current project.
Claybaugh: Okay. Does the 474 square feet or the 20 foot, 26 foot setback, does that include any
of the work done on the retaining walls or the retaining walls outside of those dimensions?
Bob Krueger: The 26 feet is at the very tip of the circle.
Claybaugh: Okay. Let's see, just to make sure I understood the city. When you came and
applied for the deck permit, there was no mention at that time on the part of city staff that there
was a wetland setback buffer them that needed to be adhered to?
Bob Krueger: In my building permit process there was a movement of the staircase down to the
deck. We originally had it here and on advice from them we moved it where it's shown here.
Maybe not quite that long but.
Claybaugh: Could you expand on what the advice was? Was it specifically that you were in.
Bob Krueger: When looking at the drawing that I submitted, that line that basically it's comes
close to the house here and then slopes away was hooking the stairway as I originally drew it.
Claybaugh: The line is the line of the setback?
Bob Krueger: The setback line.
Claybaugh: Setback line. So at that time you were aware that there was a wetland setback buffer
because you had to revise your deck plan in order to accommodate the stairs, so you weren't in
violation.
Bob Krueger: At that time, right.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Any questions Kurt? Bethany?
Tjornhom: I have one question but I think it's for staff so I'm sorry but do you treat different
surfaces differently? Like had he poured a concrete surface instead of his paver surface, is that
considered different?
Sacchet: It's both impervious.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Tjornhom: It's both impervious?
Generous: As a patio it would not be permitted to the city.
Tjornhom: Okay. So would it be different if he had just hauled in loose rock and put back there?
Instead of a paver. Do you know what I'm saying?
Sacchet: Loose rock would be pervious, right?
Generous: Well loose rock and landscape rock we don't consider impervious. It's pervious.
Sacchet: Yeah, it's pervious.
Generous: But in this instance it's not the imperviousness that's the issue.
Tjornhom: Right, right, right.
Sacchet: Okay. Steve.
Lillehaug: Just to add on that a little. You can't do anything in these buffer and easement areas,
correct? In setback areas. As far as anything, building a structure. A patio. A fence.
Generous: That's correct. They'd have to meet setbacks.
Lillehaug: Alright. My question to the applicant would be, sorry if I come off a little harsh but
you indicated that you were aware that there was a wetland setback when you built the deck, and
this was back in '96-97, was that correct?
Bob Krueger: Yes, but at that time your rule was accessory structures, which this is, were
considered, or weren't considered in your setback requirement. Now I learned that after the fact
but yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. And that would kind of lead me into my next question. It appears you're very
well versed in the setbacks and easements.
Bob Krueger: I am now.
Lillehaug: So my question would be is when were you aware that the tree preservation easement
was at that location?
Bob Krueger: I've always been aware of the tree preservation easement but the language of the
tree preservation easement is you can't cut down trees and you can't build anything that would
affect the trees. So you can build stuff that's out in the clearing because that's what the language
says.
Lillehaug: That's all I have for questions.
Sacchet: Just to follow up on that a little bit. So basically you stated you didn't cut down any
trees. The trees were already gone, so you didn't really need to do any clearing for what you're
13
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
doing. As a matter of fact, if I remember right, from having seen it, there is still quite a bit of
open space between where you put pavers in and where the tree line actually starts.
Bob Krueger: Yeah, it's as close as maybe 5-6 feet here and then roughly the tree line is all the
way across there.
Sacchet: It's distinctly further down still, right.
Bob Krueger: A bit further down, yes. Essentially all of the buffer zone and, which is at this
point is almost 30 feet deep, still has trees and will have natural vegetation.
Sacchet: And to get real clear in terms of when you learned why took out these things. When
you put in the deck, you got, this was approved in, so there was, what I gather from staff
presentation was that staff actually didn't, wasn't fully aware of the setback at that time. Now
that you said you had to rearrange the stairs a little bit and to stay further back so there was some
consideration, you became aware there were some setback requirements at that point. Could you
clarify just a little bit how that works?
Bob Krueger: Yeah, setback for the deck which is considered part of the primary structure I
guess.
Sacchet: Okay, and that was the wetland setback at that point. Were you aware of the tree
preservation at that time as well?
Bob Krueger: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. And your understanding was, there's no trees so the tree preservation is moot. I
mean what can you preserve if there's no tree if it's a tree preservation, right?
Bob Krueger: In the drawing that ! submitted I didn't think I was in the tree preservation area.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? Okay, thank you very much. Now this is a
public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who'd like to address this item, come forward. State
your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to hear. See if we have any
takers here. I'm getting curious what you guys are all here for tonight. No takers for this one?
Then I close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission. Comments from the commission.
Do you want to start Craig?
Claybaugh: I have a comment but I have one more question for staff.
Sacchet: One more question, go ahead.
Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to state what the purpose is of a wetland buffer from obviously
the staff and city's perspective. We've talked about how minimal any the encroachment is and so
on and so forth and all the things around it but I think it's important to state specifically what the
purpose is of a wetland buffer. That's to staff, yes.
Sacchet: So you're off the hook.
Haak: There's a distinction here. There's the wetland buffer and the wetland buffer setback.
The wetland buffer provides water quality and rate control benefits as well as habitat for the
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
preservation of the wetland and to try and maintain the integrity. And the wetland buffer setback
provides an open area that also provides limited water quality treatment functions, but it also
provides an open space so that there is basically a back yard of sorts that can be used by the
property owner at that, in that location.
Claybaugh: Could you qualify the limited quality benefits? Because I'm trying to assign some
weight to clearly the buffer is, like you said, it's a habitat, but the buffer setback, how much
weight do you assign to that?
Haak: Well certainly the grass in that area does slow down runoff from adjacent properties, and
as the applicant has indicated, there is quite a slope that comes in from the side so it would
function to slow down the water a little bit. I can't really, it's difficult to quantify, I'm sorry. It
varies depending on the situation.
Claybaugh: Well this particular situation is what I'm speaking to.
Haak: Yeah, you can't quantify things like that very well.
Claybaugh: Okay, appreciate it.
Sacchet: While you're up there Lori.
Haak: I should have just come down for my item.
Sacchet: How can the impact of this encroachment in the wetland buffer be mitigated other than
just stripping out what's been built? I mean do you have any wisdom on that?
Haak: Well certainly mitigating for not only the impervious surface but the flow, the rate of flow
and any water quality impacts, so vegetation is always a good buffer.
Sacchet: What type of vegetation? I mean we're not talking lawn here. We're talking something
else.
Haak: No. I would say some sort of a native vegetation. Certainly something that staff could
work with the applicant to present some alternatives for, depending on, you know the applicant
has indicated that he was maybe interested in a shade garden or something like that, and that's
definitely something that's within the ability of staff to provide some assistance there.
Sacchet: Thank you Lori.
Haak: You're welcome.
Sacchet: Are we ready for comments? You're ready. Do you want to start Bethany?
Tjornhom: I'm looking at this and I'm thinking, if the patio hadn't been built and it would have
been before us, we probably would have said no. And that's just what I'm guessing. But right
now the patio has been built. Whether it was built knowingly or not knowingly, that's kind of not
the issue right now, I think the issue right now is the fact that you know, the buffer's there to
protect the wetland. Logically the damage that it would do to take everything out and put
everything back to the way it was I think probably would do even more harm at this point. And
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
so if there is some way he can provide a buffer or he can provide some sort of surface to protect
the runoff into the pond, I think that's the wisest and the best solution at this point.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Steve, want to go next?
Lillehaug: If I have to. One of the conditions in the recommendation indicates that no further
encroachments or alterations shall be permitted within the tree preservation easement. My honest
opinion on putting a recommendation like that in there, it totally degrades any merit that a tree
preservation has. I think that knowingly, or not knowingly doing this, it does have merit. By
approving this tonight I think we're just sending a message, do it and we'll work it out later and it
will be okay. I don't think that's the answer. I don't want to send the resident there and rip it all
out, that's not the answer either but some how we need to send a message that you can't do this.
People need to take responsibility for their property, just like I do with mine. It's their
responsibility to know. My house is over my property line. That's my problem. He's
encroaching on his tree preservation. The wetland buffer easement. He shouldn't, and it sounds
like he may have known that he was doing that and I do not support doing that because that's why
we're here right now. I don't think that the homeowner being unaware of the setback justifies a
self created hardship, or not being a self created hardship. I don't agree with that at all. I'm
coming off harsh on this but if we don't enforce these things it's going to give these easements
and preservation easements zero merit. And also I'd like to comment on, we're getting a
Klingelhutz development where the wetland setback is right up to the back of the house. Are we
going to have the same issue back then and who's responsibility is it to know that that wetland
setback is there? It's the owners of the properties to know that it's there. That's my opinion so
I'm really kind of, I really don't know which way I want to support this because some how we
need to send a message that it's not right to do these after the fact variances. That's my
comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Kurt.
Papke: I think we're in a bit of a dilemma here. Getting back to the message issue. The
applicant intimated that there are other neighbors who are in perhaps similar situations, and if you
look at the two scenarios, if we deny the application, then we're saying okay, this applicant came
forward. You know we have all the facts and we denied it. Okay. Now if we do that, what are,
are we going to do anything with potentially the other homeowners in the neighborhood who may
also be encroaching. Okay, if we approve it on the other hand, what message is that sending so
I'd like the other commissioners just to consider. We're in the horns of a dilemma here. We're
kind of damned if we do, damned if we don't, and we're just going to have to decide which door
to go through here.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Craig, any comments?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I agree with fellow commissioner Bethany about trying to go backwards and
put things back. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It would degrade the site to a
greater degree than it's already been damaged. That being said, I agree with Steve that people
need to take a certain degree of responsibility. I think the city needs to look at that very carefully
and see what their role is in that, and that maybe they need to take a more active participation
with the builders, developers in getting those lands marked properly. It's just like when we're
getting near a gas line when we're out developing. The phone number's on it. The rest of it, they
are putting you on notice that if you are doing something in this area, you need to call. That may
be one consideration. It doesn't help us with this particular one, but I'm troubled by the fact that
he had some degree of knowledge when he came in for his deck permit. The reorientation of the
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
deck steps. I'm sure there was a dialogue associated with that. That's something that should
have triggered something. I guess given the situation, given the delicate nature of the property
there, going backwards isn't going to help. Although I hate to condone it, I would like the fullest
extent of what Lori can come up with to put the most positive spin on what buffer is left in our
setback area ahead of the buffer to help provide the best atmosphere for that to function as it was
intended to function. So I would at this point be willing to support it with a stringent condition
that it is actually followed through to the nth degree. That the maximum amount of plantings to
restore that or provide the best possible buffer for the amount of footage we have left is actually
in place. Seeing that it's done and confirmed on the back end.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. I've been thinking about this one a little bit because this is kind of a
chain reaction here. We have a builder that originally violated the agreement of the tree
preservation. We also have a city responsibility in this where city staff didn't catch that at the
time when that plan was brought forward. So I think the ultimate cost responsibility is shared
between the builder and the city. Now, obviously the owner takes all the responsibility from the
builder at the time when it's bought. And I certainly don't like to encourage, it's easier to ask for
forgiveness type of principle. But I'm inclined to give this applicant the benefit of the doubt.
That it was done in good faith. The improvements were stopped just basically a day before
completion. There's very little left to do. The applicant showed definitely good will by removing
a fire pit that was encroaching onto the wetland. The applicant seems to get very clear indication
that he's interested to protect the environment and work with staff to put a buffer vegetation in.
And I don't see what good comes out of having to rip out that patio that's already in there. I
think it'd be more damaging then helpful, and certainly wouldn't generate any particular good
will in terms of working with the city and working with taking care of that wetland so I think at
this point I'm supporting this application with the context that I think it's a reasonable request
under the circumstances, on the basis that this was kind of an accumulation of responsibilities
from the builder and from the city and I would like to ask staff to really be careful to catch these
things when they come up. And also I'd like to have some leverage I mean to deal with these
builders. I mean this letter is way too sweet to Lundgren Brothers about this. I mean they made
agreements and don't live up to them. They expect us to live up to our agreements so I expect the
builders to live up to their agreements too. When they make a tree preservation easement, I
expect them to honor that and not go cut down at least 10 feet or more of those trees. And so
there it is. With that I think I talked enough. I'd like to have a motion.
Claybaugh: I'd like to make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-14 for
a 26 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland buffer setback requirement with the following
conditions 1 through 4.
Sacchet: Any additional condition on there?
Claybaugh: Yes, I'd like to attach the condition that the applicant work with city staff and that to
the fullest extent possible that plantings are put in place to mitigate the degree or the degree of
damage that's been done and I guess that's it.
Sacchet: Mitigate the impact.
Claybaugh: Mitigate any further impact, yes.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Tjornhom: Second it.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: We have a second.
Claybaugh moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance
#2003-14 for a 26 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland buffer setback requirement with
the following conditions:
An Encroachment Agreement shall be signed by the applicant allowing him to construct
the patio within the easement.
The applicant shall plant a minimum of three native overstory trees within the easement
as replacement plantings. The applicant shall revegetate all disturbed areas.
The fire pit clearing shall be seeded and allowed to grow back to it's previous wooded
state.
No further encroachments or alterations shall be permitted within the tree preservation
easement.
e
The applicant shall work with city staff to install plantings to mitigate any further
impact.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF A
DOCK LOCATED AT 6539 GRAY FOX CURVE~ KENTON AND .JULIE KELLY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Kent and Julie Kelly
Jeff Dahl
Ron & Leanne Harvieux
Susan & Ladd Conrad
Dave Susla
6539 Gray Fox Curve
6537 Gray Fox Curve
6605 Horseshoe Curve
6625 Horseshoe Curve
7409 Frontier Trail
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Questions from staff.
Lillehaug: Sure, one real easy one. Recommendation, or condition number 2. You indicate that
a boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure. I guess before I put
my yes on this vote, are we sure we want it as a permanent structure? And maybe you can just
discuss why we would want that a permanent structure.
Haak: Absolutely.
Papke: Could you also clarify whether the existing one is a permanent structure or whether this is
a change to what's there.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Haak: I certainly will. My understanding is that the boardwalk is a permanent structure at this
point, and the purpose behind that is to minimize the annual impact. If you were putting in a
dock every year you would have far more impact to the wetland than putting it in, letting it stay
and installing it in that fashion, so that's why that recommendation is in there and actually when
these permits have been issued in the past, that's been a standard condition so, and we have, staff
has talked to the applicant and I believe they'll come up in a minute and relay that that's
absolutely their intent is to leave that in permanently.
Lillehaug: So the boardwalk holds up well over the winter months?
Haak: That's correct. Yeah, it's designed to do that.
Sacchet: Questions?
Tjornhom: I do, and I could be confused but hopefully you can straighten me out here. In the
letter that the City of Chanhassen wrote to Mr. Kelly, it stated the lot at 6539 Gray Fox Curve
does not abut Lotus Lake and is not part of a homeowners association with a beach. So does that
mean that this dock or this whatever, it's butting up to a private association's beach?
Haak: That is how it appeared initially. If we go back to this diagram. The lot that the Kelly's
home is on is at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, and it's the northeastern one here. This northern portion
of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, up until 1986 was combined with this southern piece that I've
indicated here at the southern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates. And that is a beachlot, so
when staff initially received a complaint, because we couldn't find record of the subdivision, it
appeared that that was all one parcel .... that the dock had been extended across private property
that was not their's. However since then we've learned that they did acquire it through tax
forfeit.
Tjornhom: But they aren't using any part of the association's beach?
Haak: That's correct.
Tjornhom: Okay. And in another letter, I think from someone who couldn't be here tonight,
their concern was that if we do this, everybody will start doing it. Now is this true? That if we
allow them to keep their dock all of a sudden there will be other neighbors thinking hey, I want
one too.
Haak: Well certainly anyone who lives around the lake I believe would want that sort of ability.
In this instance it's a very, very unique situation and I don't believe that there are any such
situations out there. Now going on record saying that, someone will bring one up tomorrow, and
I realize that but it is very unique. To be a non-lakeshore lot and with a parcel like this adjacent
to you, that is subdivided and then goes tax forfeit. In speaking with the attorneys to try to
resolve this issue, they had never seen anything like it so staff is quite confident that this is a one
of a kind situation.
Tjornhom: Okay. Would you recommend other people being allowed to do this? Have a dock
like they have done in the neighborhood?
Haak: Certainly not. Again, this is a unique situation. Exactly. If they do own lakeshore
property they do have that right, and the Kelly's obtained that lakeshore property after the fact.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
After they had built their original residence. But no, certainly if you don't own that property, you
don't have that right.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Okay.
Papke: Yeah, the staff report is a little bit confusing at times because it appears that there's
actually, we're talking about two structures here. We're talking about a permanent boardwalk
and a seasonal dock, is that correct?
Haak: Sure, yes.
Papke: So in recommendation 2, we're only speaking of the permanent boardwalk, and in
recommendation 4 we're talking about only the seasonal dock, is that correct?
Haak: Correct.
Papke: Now to clarify recommendation number 4, is the boardwalk where it currently sits, and
positioned, when the seasonal dock is constructed off that existing boardwalk, is it outside of the
dock setback zone... ?
Haak: Yes it is.
Papke: So to satisfy recommendation number 4, there are no changes required to the structure?
Haak: Correct.
Papke: Okay, that's all. Thank you.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: Just want to clarify Lori. Through the riparian rights, that's what enables this
particular applicant to have the right to put that boardwalk across the property they acquired, is
that part of their riparian rights? Do they have that or is this, is that a stretch?
Haak: No. Riparian rights are quite difficult, and as you might imagine, quite contentious in the
state of Minnesota. And there are certain riparian rights that arise from having a wetland adjacent
to a lake abut your property. That being said, it does not give an individual necessarily a right to
put a dock across someone else's property. The letter from the DNR was primarily because it
was something that we had on file and something that the Kelly's believe was quite important,
and to show that the DNR had reviewed this and had been taking a look at it, so there was some
right originally. Of course when they acquired the northern part of Outlot B, they actually owned
the property between their house and the lake, which basically in legal opinion we see as a slam
dunk sort of a deal because they do own the property from their back door out to Lotus Lake.
Claybaugh: Were they in that dialogue with the DNR in advance of putting in this boardwalk, or
was that after the fact?
Haak: No, that particular letter was written after the fact, and I'm not certainly whether or not the
applicant was in contact with the DNR before that time.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Claybaugh: And then the wetland alteration permit, that's a function of the LGU?
Haak: Correct.
Claybaugh: So it has nothing to do with the DNR or any other governmental agency?
Haak: That's right. That's something that we require as a city.
Claybaugh: Okay. And then last item, on page 4 or 5 under findings. The rear portion of the lot,
at such and such address is encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. An encroachment
agreement is necessary. That's going to be in place?
Haak: Absolutely, yes.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Real quickly Lori. We're talking about riparian rights and I would think some of the
people here probably hear that for the first time tonight. Could you just in a couple sentences tell
us what riparian rights are?
Haak: Well again, it's quite complicated. Most simply it is the right to access public bodies of
water, and the rights associated with that.
Sacchet: And it goes with having land adjacent to the body of water.
Haak: Correct.
Sacchet: Now the challenge here is that we have legally two lots. We have one lot that is not a
riparian lot that the house sits on and then we have that huge piece of wetland that abuts the lot
and also abuts the lake. What happens if they would not stay under the same ownership?
Haak: Well, that's why staff is recommending that first condition in the recommendation for the
wetland alteration permit. That is one of staff's fears in going, in proceeding with this permit.
And basically the fear is this, that it is against city ordinance to have an accessory use on a
property that doesn't have a primary use. And by.
Sacchet: Okay, so we have regulations that make that very clear?
Haak: Exactly. Exactly. And the Kelly's have shown great intent to get these parcels combined,
and that shows to staff that they're not intending to sell these lots. Now if they sell it to someone
who has another idea, then we would have this recorded agreement on file with both properties.
Sacchet: The letter that the Kelly's sent to you states that prior to installing the dock they
contacted City of Chanhassen and tried to find out what the regulations frmnework are. Do we
have a record of that?
Haak: The City receives a number of calls every year, I personally, and we may not have a
specific record of the conversation.
Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. And what part of that dock is seasonal?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Haak: It would be the portion that extends from the edge of the wetland into the lake. So the
boardwalk, the permanent portion of the boardwalk would be from the high ground near the back
of the primary.
Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions. Thanks Lori. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to
come forward and state your case. Tell us your name and address for the record.
Kent Kelly: Good evening. I'm Kent Kelly and this is my wife Julie. We live at 6539 Gray Fox
Curve and I guess I'm afraid maybe it's why we're here is why the big crowd.
Sacchet: We'll find out before long.
Kent Kelly: I think the report that city staff put together summarizes the situation quite well. I
would just, I was going to point out Exhibit 8, which is in front of you which does talk about the
riparian rights that this property has, but counsel has already discussed that with Lori and there's
little I can add to that. I would like to comment that no damage was done to the wetlands during
the construction of this dock, and that's attested to by the city staff who came out right after they
were aware that it was put in and they wrote us a letter to the effect that no damage was done.
We asked Carver County Soil and Water to come out and they too came out and inspected it and
found no damage to be done to the wetlands, and we've talked to the DNR and they have no
problems with what we've done. Back in my first contact, well we bought the property in, we
bought the northern part of the outlot in '97, many years after we bought our house. And in '98 I
did contact, or my wife contacted the city and the DNR to get the regulations at that time. And as
Lori said, that far long ago we don't really have any record of it, but in early 2002 we contacted
both the DNR and the City a second time, just to make sure that there were no changes and we
didn't know anything about a wetland alteration permit, and in our discussions with the city and
the DNR, that subject never came up. We got the regulations for putting in a dock and also the
city web site talks about a dock. There's no mention of any wetland alteration requirement, so we
went ahead and put the dock in according to the dock regulations. And then as Lori kind of
mentioned briefly, a whole lot of other issues came up once the city was aware of it. We worked
with Lori and the city staff and we think we've resolved all the issues. What you have in front of
you is a wetland application permit which really we haven't done any alterations to the wetland.
We put a dock. The dock extends from the back yard of our house property, across the wetlands
and if your question, how much extends into the open water, 32 feet extends into the open water.
Sacchet: And is that seasonal or permanent?
Kent Kelly: Yes, and so what our intention is, all along and this is in agreement with staff, our
intention is to leave the part in effect the application states it. There's a little, just a one or two
sentence attachment to the application. To minimize impact to the wetland, a portion of the dock
that is over the wetland vegetation will be left in place over the winter. So all but that part of the
dock that extends into the open water will stay.
Julie Kelly: And in regard to is there a record, I have the original fax from Lori with it's date on
it about wetland dock regulations. And we talked and she said what's happening and we told her
and didn't realize you know the extend of what it was when we got that.
Sacchet: But you should have the record?
Julie Kelly: I do have the record.
22
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
Sacchet: And you brought it with you.
Julie Kelly: I have a lot of things...but yeah, we have the original fax and it wasn't in there. It
was a surprise to us. We didn't think we were altering anything but we realize now it's the city's
way of protecting the wetlands so it' s a good thing.
Kent Kelly: And we're aware of the four conditions, or recommendations or requirements.
Okay, the four itemized recommendations that the city has in their report and we're in agreement
with those. So to keep matters brief, if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer those.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from staff. I mean from the applicant.
Claybaugh: I don't have any.
Sacchet: No questions? Questions from the applicant? Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I try to make this brief. The outlot or portion of property that was tax forfeited, my
assumption was is that would have been a part of the association or the homeowners association
and it was all one. Do you know?
Julie Kelly: It never was part of it.
Lillehaug: It never was part of it, okay.
Kent Kelly: I don't know what the term tax forfeiture means. If it means that the property went
through the procedure where back taxes were not paid for many years. If that terms means that it
went through the legal procedure where it gets, goes up to auction or that, it didn't get that far. I
bought it before it got that far.
Julie Kelly: We bought it and paid taxes on it.
Kent Kelly: And the other part of your question was sir?
Lillehaug: I guess my underlying question was, was it previously part of the homeowners
association and their beach front property?
Kent Kelly: It never was.
Lillehaug: Okay, and let me kind of preface that with something because when they figure out
how many boats or docks they can put on that beach property, they take into the amount of
shoreline here so.
Julie Kelly: They always showed the smaller amount of the southern portion so it doesn't appear
they're in violation.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. That's it.
Julie Kelly: In what we calculate, because we know how much we own. We know how much
they own. We know how much the whole thing is, and all their documentation always seemed to
be appear to the small area.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay.
Kent Kelly: Over the years Outlot B has had two definitions. The original definition was the
entire parcel. It extends from the northern part here, and then goes around in a serpentine fashion
and ends here. During the period where the homeowners association bought the property, Outlot
B, this portion was platted and approved but the plat was never acted upon and never filed. And
at that time the parcel Outlot B took on different naming. And it was the southern part, this part
right here that the homeowners association did purchase and if you look at their conditional use
permit application, all of the maps and documents and records on file at the city, at the City Hall,
clearly shows the southern part, and it does not show the northern part.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Now we'll find out how many of you are here to talk
about this. This is a public hearing. I'd like to open the hearing. I'd like to invite you to come
forward, if you have comments about this particular item. This is your chance. Any takers?
Wow. There's one. Alright. Welcome Ladd. You may still want to state your name and address
though.
Ladd Conrad: Ladd Conrad. Live on Lotus Lake. 6625 Horseshoe Curve. Now that I'm back, I
thank you for doing what you're doing. Variances are a pain. I've got several thoughts. ! think
there's a bottom line here. I do have a bottom line. The thoughts don't take you any place so !
tried to weave a logical step here but I was around when we subdivided, granted this subdivision
and I think the intent, which is always important. The intent or the logic was that this is going to
be a wetland. When we looked at it, it probably said outlot and we're thinking, we sort of saved
some land and granted, or kept the integrity of the wetland, and you find the integrity of a
wetland's real important. You break it and you lose much of what you've got, from a filtration
standpoint so whether we knew that at the time, and whether I made some of this stuff up
between then in '86 and right now, I'm not sure but I'm just, I find it interesting. In your job that
you really have to think some of this stuff through. Who would have guessed that when we were
preserving something, that it could have defaulted. Goes to Ducks Unlimited, well not defaulted
but ! think they gave it Ducks Unlimited and maybe the ducks didn't like it so they now.
Claybaugh: Ducks limited.
Ladd Conrad: And obviously somebody has the right to buy it, and we weren't wise enough with
staff to figure that out back then. So a message here. The intent statement, and we didn't do, and
going back 20 years or whatever, 15 years to figure out if we really documented our intent, but I
think the logic was, we wanted to keep the integrity. I don't know if that counts today. ! really
don't. As I look at the ordinance, and as I look at what you're looking at, I really don't see a
reason you have to grant it. It's two different properties. The issue, which is beyond me, is the
legal implication. It's just confusing so now they don't own the lot, or it's not a, it's a contiguous
lot but they have two parcels so it's just very confusing. So parcels like this in the future and
maybe there will be none, but would have the right to do this. I guess I'd ask you that you make
sure the legal folks give you the straight. That make sure they look at it and they've been
involved with, you know they've been involved but make sure that you're not really setting a
precedent because it's sort of like this whole deal. Who would have guessed this would have
happened. A couple things bother me about wetlands and what the DNR allows you to do. They
really do have the right on a lake, the DNR will grant 15 percent of the lakeshore. 15 of the lake,
as I recall, and ! make up stuff. You can destroy, you can use a herbicide to eradicate the wetland
to provide access. And that's just the truth. It happens on Lotus Lake and there are people that
do it, because there are rules that the DNR follows, so all of a sudden you put a dock in, and so
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
that's one of those other things. You put this dock in, and a boardwalk, which I think boardwalk
is fine. The ordinance allows it and you've got, but all of a sudden you're opening something
else up that they literally I think would have the right to go to the DNR and petition. They're not
asking for that in their, but again as somebody who lives there, we try to protect the lake a little
bit, and we probably damage it as much as people who have riparian rights right now are doing
things that aren't right. And they're not sensitive, whatever, and you trust everybody but the
only, the one thing I would hope you would do on this one, so my bottom line is, just a lot of...
deals and you say wow, how did this happen but the bottom line is, could they subdivide this?
Because there are two other landowners that abut this, and I'd really like to make sure you don't
allow that to happen. I'd really like, and conditions that kind of give your intent may not be what
the staff needs in there for execution, but they sure tell people in the future what your intent was.
Whether they were needed or not. ! would really appreciate that you make sure that this lot, it's 3
acres. Why couldn't you subdivide it? Why couldn't you attach it to the other two lots that abut
this and go to the lake? That would be abusive and I don't think you want to do that.
Sacchet: Let me clarify what you just said Ladd. It would be, what would be abusive?
Ladd Conrad: If you allow, I think they bought this in good faith. They wanted access but if they
could duly subdivide...
Sacchet: Right, I understand that part.
Ladd Conrad: So all of a sudden, now we've got multi docks and I think as you try to protect
wetlands.
Sacchet: So it'd be abusive to the wetland?
Ladd Conrad: Yeah. Why would you want more in there?
Sacchet: Yep, got it. Thanks.
Ladd Conrad: Thanks.
Sacchet:
forward.
this.
Thank you very much Ladd. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come
State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say about
Jeff Dahl: Hi. I'm Jeff Dahl. Address is 6537 Gray Fox Curve. I live next to the Kelly's. It
does sound like an unusual situation. The way this came about. But nevertheless the situation is
that they do own that land that adjoins their property and reaches the lake. I guess my point in
being here tonight is just give some testimony to their interest in preserving wetland. If you look
at a lot of lake owners, not all owners are really careful about nature and it's preservation and the
Kelly's are certainly not those kind of people. They take good care to preserve the area and the
wetland, and from my observation that the dock was carefully put in with the intention of
preserving that wetland. They're not going to be running speed boats or anything around on that
dock. It would further endanger that wetland. On the future of course is when they leave and
who would, it's always a consideration but from what I can see in an application to be able to
alter that wetland, there's really very little damage that has been done and I assume that you've
already checked that out yourselves. I guess that's all I have to say.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comment. Anybody else wants to address this
item. This is your chance. Are there any takers? If not, I'm closing the public hearing and I'll
bring it back to the commissioners. Want to start on this one Craig?
Claybaugh: I guess thoughts I'd open up with the gentleman's question here to staff with respect
to, in their discussions with the attorney, exactly how do you rope this in and exactly how many
openings are left in this agreement with respect to specifically the herbicide and the potential to
subdivide for those other two contiguous lots. Was that discussed at all with the city attorney by
any chance?
Haak: Well we have talked at length with the attorney over the year or so that this has been going
on, and in most recent conversations with the attorney, and that was my initial question about the
condition, number one ! believe that we added was if we could prevent the subdivision or the sale
of these lots if they were not bound together. And it was the attorney's opinion, the way I
understood it that it was very difficult to make that as a condition, and certainly the Planning
Commission can make whatever comments they'd like but.
Claybaugh: It's not intended to be an exercise in futility. I was just interested in what could
actually be done.
Haak: Understood. Yeah, I couldn't say for certain. We haven't posed that specific question
about subdivision of that lot splitting it off to adjacent lots.
Claybaugh: How about with respect to using herbicides to defoliate for the dock area. Do we
have the ability to restrict that or is that outside of our jurisdiction?
Haak: I'm not certain,
Claybaugh: Not certain about that.
Sacchet: Okay. Kurt, any questions?
Papke: Are we in questions or comments?
Sacchet: Comments. Just one comment to my fellow commissioners. We've heard from staff
that they believe that the Kelly's have made good faith efforts to combine the lots and that signals
their intent to keep this as a unified whole, and we've heard from a neighbor that he believes that
the Kelly's are good custodians of the lake. But we do need to keep in mind that this property
will not be in the hands of the Kelly's forever. Eventually it will move onto someone else, and I
think we have to kind of, for all the good, I think we have to disregard those statements in our
deliberations. With that said I'm in support of this particular application. I think it's the right
thing to do. Clearly there's, the only limitation here is the County's or the City's inability to
combine the two lots and I don't think that should prevent the landowner from being able to enjoy
their property.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjornhom: Well this is an issue where I'm going to be talking out of both sides of my mouth.
We own a lake home on a lake that is untouched. There are probably 10 cabins on it. Well
someone across the street sold the farm, and subdivided the farm into lots and so all of a sudden
on our take we have docks. We probably have 5 more docks and you know, I don't want them
26
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
there but it's their legal right to purchase the property and put a dock on the lake. Is Lotus like
that? Does it have a public access to it? So, whether they have one boat and dock, if it's a nice
day, 10 people can come and drive their boats on the lake, is that correct?
Audience: Hundreds it would be.
Tjornhom: Okay. Well I guess we have a small lake so I'm thinking small. I agree with what
has been said so far with the Kelly's intent to make a good, safe shot at doing the right thing with
the DNR. And I think they're within their legal rights obviously to do this and because this
property has been purchased by them, whether or not we allow them to do it now, and if it
someday changes hands, it's still going to happen. That's I guess, if I'm understanding it
correctly. So whether they have their dock, if we allow them not to have it, someone's going to
have a dock there sometime anyway I guess. So I also am in favor of them and I'm sorry, but...
Sacchet: That's alright. Thanks Bethany. Steve, do you have any comments?
Lillehaug: Before I make my comments, I would like to discuss with staff the property that we're
talking about the outlot or tax forfeiture property. Is that fully encompassed by a wetland
easement boundary? Or is it designated by the DNR as a wetland?
Haak: Yeah, it meets the three criteria.
Lillehaug: Okay. So it is a DNR wetland.
Haak: That's correct.
Lillehaug: What is the policies of subdividing property fully encompassed by DNR wetland? I
mean would the city ever support...I don't see myself doing that I guess.
Haak: ...that a portion of each, a portion of the shoreline could be allocated to each lot. So not
necessarily that there would be a subdivision on the wetland, because certainly that's prohibited
by city code, as well as state law and even federal law.
Lillehaug: But that's what you would have to do though to attach that to other properties is
subdivide that because it's an individual property?
Haak: But you wouldn't necessarily have a home standing on the wetland. You could parcel out
the, it's just about 2 acres or so. Little more than that maybe, of that wetland complex. Let me
show you.
Lillehaug: Sure. This is really my only hang-up on it and I want to make sure that we're
covering everything here.
Haak: Sure. And maybe Ladd you can correct me if I'm incorrect, but I believe that the concern
is that this portion, the southern, southwestern portion highlighted in blue could be divided
somehow like this. Giving additional property owners riparian land. Is that correct?
Lillehaug: So they do have the right to subdivide then?
Generous: By state statute it wouldn't be a subdivision. It would be a lot line change.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Claybaugh: By whatever name you'd like to give it, could they in a way subdivide riparian rights
to this contiguous land?
Lillehaug: I don't see how we can prevent that though.
Sacchet: Can we prevent it?
Lillehaug: How can we prevent it? I mean how small of parcels can they divide this property
into because that's what they're going to be doing. They're going to be dividing this property
into different parcels.
Generous: They would still have to meet the dock setback.
Haak: And the width requirement for riparian lots.
Lillehaug: So they could divide this...20 docks? I mean what standards would we hold them to
on dividing this and breaking down this property? You can't put a structure on the property. It's
in a wetland.
Sacchet: If I may jump in. It seems like there's really only 2 or 3 lots that also abut that wetland
property. I mean most of it, the big stretch, and you may want to show that on the picture for
everybody to see. The big stretch of abutting land is wetland, is that accurate?
Haak: Sorry.
Sacchet: The big stretch abutting that wetland is also wetland. How many properties actually
touch on that wetland lot? Could you just clarify that Lori? ! think that's very crucial.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair? The acreage of those lots may be an issue as well, because those could
potentially be further subdivided if they're of adequate acreage.
Sacchet: Accurate.
Haak: And the lots would have to meet the city's requirements. It appears that there's 1, 2, 3 that
abut this particular parcel. This is also wetland, back in this area so certainly it's something that
staff would take a close look at with the city attorney. Hearing the concern that we're having
from the Planning Commission. Because I think there's some question among staff, at least my
questions about it haven't been.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I think the applicant has shown due diligence to combine these lots. Not being of the
same plat I think is the only hold up here, so I appreciate that. I'm not one to table things.
Definitely not one to table things, but I don't think we have a clear understanding on how we can
prevent, if we can prevent this lot from being subdivided, and I would like to do everything that
we can to prevent that, and I don't think we have a took right now or understand how we can do
that. And I think I would like to table this upon further discussion of the city attorney to figure
out what tool we can use.
Sacchet: Okay, Craig. You want to add something?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Claybaugh: Yeah. Actually I skipped over my comments and that was it. That I would prefer to
table it. Not only do you have the 2 or 3 contiguous lots, but they appear, at least on the plat, to
have some substantial acreage. So until we know what their drop dead response is to the potential
to subdivide it, I'd definitely be in favor of tabling it.
Sacchet: How we doing with the time line on this? And this not an application that is on a short
time line, or that we impact by tabling is it?
Haak: No.
Sacchet: The dock is there and winter's coming so.
Haak: Right, right. They wouldn't, you know the dock's been in for some time. Go ahead.
Generous: Well statutorily we could take an additional 60 days. November 17th is their initial 60
day review period, If you can require additional information, we can take another 60 days.
Sacchet: It does appear like we have some fuzzy areas, in a rather crucial area here in terms of
can we, what tools do we have available to make such this stays contiguous. That we can perfect
it at least to the maximum possible that is still there. Do you want to add to that?
Claybaugh: I'd just like to comment that my concern with this is no reflection on the current
applicant. It's just a concern down the road if the property's sold and someone doesn't pursue it
with the due diligence that this particular applicant has to this point, so.
Sacchet: Right, but it's certainly in line with the applicant's attempt to...so there is no contention
with the applicant at all.
Claybaugh: ...very straight forward. It's my concern lies beyond that.
Sacchet: Right. Do you want to add something?
Generous: Mr. Chair if I could. You could always add that as a condition that these two
properties be combined and between now and council, we could get that decision. If that's the
only thing that's holding it up.
Sacchet: Yes, this has to go to council. This is not a variance. This is a wetland alteration
permit, so we're only making a recommendation so I would concur with you.
Lillehaug: A point of clarification. I thought the report indicated that they can't combine the two
lots.
Haak: The County will not combine the two parcels as is. If there is a very cumbersome way
that they could potentially be combined through platting the outlot with the lot, they could be
combined, and that would require the standard requirements for the platting procedure. That is
one way that the two parcels could be combined, if they were combined as a separate addition
because it is an outlot and, well basically a lot.
Lillehaug: They could still subdivide then even if they combine them though so we still would
have the issue.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: My comments basically, I would be willing to recommend approval on this with an
additional condition that before this goes to council, these questions are cleared up. What it
would take to combine the lots. What the possibility is with that. I think that'd be the preferred
solution...open for the subdivision. And in addition therefore, to be clear what kind of
restrictions we can anchor in as conditions. Not as statements of intent but as clear conditions on
this application to restrict further subdivision of that wetland. Of that outlot. I think that's very
much in the interest of the city and it's very important. I do believe since this has to go to council
that it would be reasonable to pass this tonight and have staff work on that before it gets to
council, so that's my comment. With that, I'm willing to take a motion.
Lillehaug: Okay, I'll make a motion. I changed my mind. I put the confidence in the staff and I
think they can deal with it so I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-2 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6539 Gray
Fox Curve subject to the following conditions I through 4.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? We have to make amendments after the second.
Papke: I'll second that.
Sacchet: So we have a second. Do we have friendly amendments? I would like to make a
friendly amendment. That'd be condition number 5. Staff, before this goes to council, staff will
establish a clear understanding what it would take to combine the outlot and the lot into one lot.
And in addition, maybe make that a sixth condition, just to be real clear. Staff will establish a
clear understanding and make recommendation to the City Council to put clear condition on this
application that restricts further subdivision of that wetland lot. Of that outlot. Is that acceptable?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-2 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6539 Gray Fox
Curve, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall work with city staff to draft and record an agreement that will prohibit
accessory uses and/or structures on the outlot if the adjacent property at 6539 Gray Fox
Curve is not under the same ownership.
The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a seasonal
dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft.
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation
of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement.
4. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone.
e
Before this goes to City Council staff will establish a clear understanding what it
would take to combine the outlot and the lot into one lot.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Staff will establish a clear understanding and make recommendation to the City
Council to put a clear condition on this application that restricts further subdivision of
that wetland outlot.
All voted in favor, except Claybaugh who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
Sacchet: We have one opposed and 4 in favor. Do you want to add why you're opposed briefly.
Claybaugh: Sure. Why I'm opposed is in the event that, from a legal standpoint we're not able to
restrict the further subdivision, and that's still out there a question to be answered, I would not
approve the boardwalk so.
Sacchet: In order to summarize for council. We struggled with this application, not in terms of
whether the applicant is in their right to have that dock. We also have high confidence that the
applicant is a good steward of that wetland. Our concern is what happens with that big wetland
outlot. We are concerned if that would be further subdivided, that it would give rights to
additional landowners to cut into that wetland, which would definitely start degrading it very
significantly and we'd like staff to have a very clear picture how that can be prevented so that a
condition to that effect can be added to this application should the council choose to approve this.
This will go to council on November l0th, is that accurate? And we wish you luck with this.
Thank you for your comments too. Those that spoke up. With that, we're moving on. Actually
we're moving on to a short break. We'll take a 5 minute break as I mentioned in my opening
comments. I do intend to enforce our curfew of being closing this meeting at 10:30. We'll assess
during the break time to get a sense whether we'll be able to address all the remaining items on
the agenda or not, and we will let you know when we come back from the break at 5 to 9:00 we'll
reconvene. Thank you.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
Sacchet: Before we continue, I would like a show of hands. How many of you are here for the, I
don't think there's that many for the next one. The Datalink. Is there any people for the Datalink
hearing here? There's the applicant, yes. I'm more curious, how many are here for the Walnut
Grove development. Alright, there's a fair amount here. Okay. How many are here for the Park
Nicollet public hearing? There are a couple here, okay. How many are here for the Halla
hearing. Okay. We will not get to the Halla tonight. That's very clear so I would like to ask you
to be patient til our next meeting, which is on, now with the Park Nicollet. Considering it's a
relatively big application to go through. I think it's going to be a significant amount of questions
to address. To really do that justice, considering how many people we have here for the Walnut
Grove application, there is no way we'd get through by 10:30. So I would also like Park Nicollet
to come back next time, rather than wait here and then sort of maybe get to it or not. I think it
would be fair to you if we postponed that to the next time. You will be on as the first thing.
That's according to our framework if we push you back to the next meeting, so I'd rather tell you
now then at 11:00 when we're trying to stay awake. If you wouldn't mind coming back next
time, we'd greatly appreciate it.
Audience: When's next time?
Sacchet: Next time is November 18th since on the 4th it's election night so we will not have a
Planning Commission meeting on the 4th. In terms of when actually those applications will go to
31
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2 l, 2003
council, it makes a smaller difference I think instead of going on the, what is it, the 24th of
November, it would go to council on December 8th or something like that.
A1-Jaff: That's correct. So if that is at all workable for you, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you
very much. Thank you for your understanding. Alright, with that we get to our fourth item on
our agenda for tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A PARKING LOT VARIANCE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED
lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8160 UPLAND CIRCLE,
DATALINK.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: So you don't really have a recommendation? ! mean you recommended yes and no as
two options.
AI-Jaff: Correct. I wanted to give you all the facts.
Claybaugh: Outstanding. Outstanding.
Sacchet: Are we getting to questions yet? I'm sorry I interrupted.
A1-Jaff: And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you Sharmeen. Who wants to start? Kurt, you want to start?
Papke: I'll start. I have two questions. Both have to do with if this building were to change
hands, and we have a new tenant. The first question is, is it feasible to change these generous
features to reconfigure the building? Are these metal stud walls that could be without exorbitant
cost reconfigured to house many more people?
A1-Jaff: It's always a possibility. Any time a new tenant takes over a building, that's always a
possibility. However, if they are, their offices are made of partitions. For those you don't need a
building permit. You just purchase your partitions and create your cubicles for your employees.
If they are removing walls however, or if they needed a demolition permit, then it's more than
likely that they will apply for the permit. Our building department will come to us and request
planning staff to review those changes and it's at that time that we catch it and say, parking
doesn't work.
Papke: Okay, so in that scenario that the existing tenant sells the building and then someone new
moves in and decides to reconfigure walls, in that scenario it would come before this Planning
Commission again to request this same variance again or what, I'm not so clear on how the
process would flow.
A1-Jaff: Let's assume that this building is sold and you purchased the building.
Papke: Yes, but assume the scenario that we approve the variance this evening. Okay, now does
that variance, does approval.
AI-Jaff: It runs with the land. It runs with the land.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Papke: It runs with the land.
Al-Jaff: You are not giving the variance to Datalink. You are granting the variance for the
building located on Lot 5, Block 1. And I don't remember the Addition.
Papke: Right. So in that scenario where there's a sale and the new tenant reconfigures the walls,
asks for a building permit, we are completely out of the loop. We are powerless to require, to say
you can't have, you know you need more parking spaces. You need to find more parking or.
AI-Jaff: Actually if they came in with a building permit, requesting more office space and let's
say we calculate their parking requirements and they are short 20 spaces. We can turn down their
application. We can deny their permit at staff level.
Papke: Okay, because I'm a little confused. You said before that the variance goes with the
building.
A1-Jaff: Correct. Well, based upon this breakdown that you are approving today.
Papke: So we are approving the variance with the building as it is configured today. So if that
configuration is changed, then we start with a clean slate.
Al-Jaff: If that configuration was changed and it required, for instance if the training room was
turned into office space, and if they are building walls requiring building permits, versus just
putting up partitions, that's when the city will get involved.
Papke: Yes. Okay.
AI-Jaff: Can I guarantee you that that will be the case? I can't.
Sacchet: Bethany, any questions?
Tjornhom: I have one question. It's probably a dumb question but on the lot he's thinking of
hoping to sell, what happens to them? Do they have enough parking spaces in the property that
he's going to be selling because you don't know who's coming in or what?
A1-Jaff: Well there isn't a building on that site yet, so what will happen is someone will purchase
that parcel. They'll come in for a site plan. That I will have to bring before the Planning
Commission for site plan approval. Part of that process is looking at the breakdown for office
versus warehouse, manufacturing, and we calculate the parking spaces accordingly.
Tjornhom: Okay. I understand that building will have to...
Sacchet: Alright, Craig?
Claybaugh: Let's see here if I got it right. If we were to grant this variance the current building
in it's current state would be approximately probably less than 10 percent deficient under parking
stalls per the square footage. Now how the owner's using it. I see they're only utilizing about 25
percent of it so you can play street hockey with the rest of it so. I mean the way you describe the
building, I think it's fair to say that it would be a major renovation to start closing the gap on
those numbers. They're not going to be able to do that with bull pens to get that number up the
33
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
way you at least described the building with how it's laid out and the rest of it so. Is that a fair
statement?
Sacchet: Well you could put in simple dividers in the training room.
Claybaugh: You can put in simple dividers in the training room but what I'm saying is, they are
less than 10 percent deficient if we grant the variance.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay, and that's based on square footage.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Not on how the current user uses the building.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. So under that scenario, okay if someone was to come in there and maximize
the space, that's going to entail major remodel. In order to maximize it and get the ultimate
square footage in there, they're going to have to come in and pull a permit. They can only get so
far with bull pens.
A1-Jaff: It's likely that that will happen. However, if you're asking me to guarantee that, I can't
do that.
Claybaugh: Okay, in your professional experience under this scenario, okay. Alright, with trying
to hedge your yes and no vote, okay. Given the scenario I just give you, is that plausible?
A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Claybaugh: Okay. Has that been your experience? Has that, in similar situations when you have
something that's configured like that, it takes a major remodel for somebody to come in.
Reorient that space to maximize it for their employees.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Good questions Craig. Steve, I'm sure you have questions.
Lillehaug: If you could turn to page 3 in the report. I'm trying to figure out exactly how we
computed the required spaces here. Where there's a 2 under applicable regulations, it says the
requirement is 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Gross floor area. And then if you go underneath
background, second paragraph, second sentence at the very end it says we require 4 parking stalls
per 1,000 square feet. I am not too clear on how it was calculated here. Not that I.
A1-Jaff: That sentence is incomplete. It's the first 100,000 and then the second, the number
actually decreases.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: So let me add to this before you answer. When you first computed the required
number of parking stalls, was it based on a configuration of their office building?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: Or was it, okay. So really it's depending on how it were reconfigured, the parking's
going to change from tenant to tenant depending on how they configure.
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Lillehaug: So, how do we.
A1-Jaff: If it's warehousing.
Lillehaug: So how do we stay consistent with the requirements on parking? Because there's a lot
of offices out there right now where they can reconfigure it and we're not going to have enough
parking spaces on how they reconfigured it. And that's going to be applicable to a lot of offices.
AI-Jaff: It will be applicable to all the offices that you approve.
Lillehaug: So how can we figure out right now, how can we plan in the future for the worst case?
I mean how do we know? I guess it's just kind of a gray area. You know what, let me just leave
that and let me ask a better question. Why do we have, why did they get an easement on that
property in the first place? And why do you think, what has changed that says we can...
AI-Jaff: ...the process. Trying to prove a hardship or that there is no need for this parking space.
For the additional parking spaces since we really don't have any background on the company and
their style of parking and how many spaces they need. My approach was, you own this parcel
next door to you. Provided with proof of parking, and in my opinion that was the safest approach
to the situation that we had at hand. When all is said and done and let's assume that there wasn't
enough parking spaces, staff wanted to make sure that we've done everything possible to enforce
the requirements of the ordinance. And guarantee that we provided.
Lillehaug: So in designating this parking easement, was that a worst case scenario on the number
of parking stalls?
AI-Jaff: Yes. I mean the other alternative is take all of the warehouse portion of this building and
turn it into office.
Lillehaug: That's a tough one.
A1-Jaff: But you take that risk with every single building that you approve.
Sacchet: That's not unique.
Lillehaug: Right.
Sacchet: Any other questions Steve?
Lillehaug: I think that's it.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: Really quick a few questions. Just to be real clear, that easement. There's no parking
that's no hard surface on it right now. That's just empty land next door and the parking lot that is
there is used at about 20-30 percent, and I went out there during business hours. There were
actually about 55 cars, which is even less than the 90. I guess we're basing it here on 92
employees so, I hope that' s not a reflection of how the employees go down in numbers but, in that
industry, that is certainly possible. Question. You explained very well what makes this unique.
However Finding C. I have a problem with Finding C. I mean the purpose of the variance is to
maintain the integrity of the adjoining parcel. It's definitely to increase the value of that parcel. I
mean there's no two ways about it. And I don't have an issue with it. I mean but the purpose is
to maintain the integrity of the parcel. I think that would be a little more swallowable. Is that an
English word?
Claybaugh: Palatable.
Sacchet: Palatable. Thank you Craig. Palatable. I'm learning English here. Now in the worst
case this could lead to cars parked in the right-of-way. Public right-of-way. That's basically
what we want to prevent, correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Now, since you so generously provided the recommendation of yes and another
recommendation of no, with no particular indication which one you prefer, I wonder, I mean if
we consider approving this. There needs to be some condition on it. I mean there has to be a
give and take. And how could we restrict the use of the building? Could we restrict the number
of people? What could we put in there to give us a sense of balance? Do you understand where
I' m trying to go?
Claybaugh: No idea.
AI-Jaff: To ensure there is no parking in the streets for instance and the parking ratios meet the
building needs.
Sacchet: Should something like should the use of the building be intensified to the point that, the
use could. Could we say something like the use of the building could not be intensified beyond
the capacity of the parking for instance?
A1-Jaff: I think that's a very fair condition.
Sacchet: Something like that. Okay. Okay. Well that's all my questions. Thank you. Thanks
Sharmeen.
A1-Jaff: Thank you.
Sacchet: With that, I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and add anything you'd like to
add to this. State your name and address for the record please. You may want to get that
microphone pointed towards you please.
Dan Kinsella: My name is Dan Kinsella. I'm Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of Datalink at 8170 Upland Circle. Just a couple points of clarification and just make
some general comments and open it up to questions. The first is that Datalink does not own the
building or the land. At one time it did. When we chose the City of Chanhassen to build our
36
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
headquarters, we owned the land and bought the two lots. And then decided well we're really not
in the real estate business and sold the land to a developer who built the building to our specific
design. So we sold the lot where the building now stands, but retained the other lot and said we
thought that land value would maintain well and it was kind of nice to have that there in case we
decided to expand further, and so it was nice to have that option. That is one of the reasons why
we granted the current owner of the building the parking easement. We said well, this parking,
additional parking spot need came up relatively last minute. The initial plans, we had enough
spots but with some design changes that were made, the city voiced it's concerns and said that
we're now out of compliance and it seemed like a reasonable solution at the time. Since then,
things have changed quite a bit with our company. We don't see the need to expand with,
currently actually I have 75 employees in the building now so things, conditions have been
relatively rough and if you saw the Star Tribune or the Pioneer Press this morning you saw an
article on us, on our recent layoff's. So things are, we don't have a viability issue but certainly
we're being hurt by the current economic environment. We would like to sell the lot and pretty
obviously if it's got a parking easement on it, it will encumber the value of the lot. I don't how
much but we would like to market it free and clear of the easement. The staff, in it's comments
and findings, I think has noted the unique nature of the building. I don't know if anybody's had a
chance to be in the building, but it's quite nice. It has a lot of very unique areas, a lot of open
areas that I won't try to interpret for you or for the city. What that means for the calculations but
I would just state pretty convincingly that that is, it's a unique building and that should be
considered. When you think about the calculations, we're coming up with parking spots and it is
my belief that if you were going to try and get that capacity up to 350 employees, there would
have to be significant modifications made to the building. Other comments, just on the findings.
I think you hit on some of them and that was less than, we're talking about less than a 10 percent
variance. And so given the uniqueness of the building, where we are today, then the fact that it's
kind of holding up a selling of property, which is the last remaining empty lot in that area, is
something that I would ask you to consider also. I think those are really my comments and I'll
just open up for questions and see if I can help fill in any gaps.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Questions from the applicant, Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah. How long is your current lease?
Dan Kinsella: Eleven years.
Claybaugh: Eleven years. That's all the questions that I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Kurt, any questions?
Papke: And how far are you into that lease?
Dan Kinsella: It was actually originally a 13 year lease and we have 11 years left.
Papke: 11 years is left. That's it.
Sacchet: Bethany? Steve?
Lillehaug: Who's selling this property?
Dan Kinsella: Datalink Corporation. My company.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: I thought you indicated that you didn't own the property.
Dan Kinsella: We own the empty lot. We do not own the building or the lot that we are, or
where our building sits.
Lillehaug: I really don't have any questions, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. This is a public hearing so
I'd like to invite anybody who wants to step forward and comment to this item to come forward
now. If there is nobody, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for comments.
Who wants to make comments?
Papke: I'll start.
Sacchet: You want to start Kurt? Go ahead.
Papke: I think it's pretty clear that the existing tenant of the building is grossly under utilizing the
existing parking accommodations there, and from my questions and staff's answers I think we're
running reasonable risk here that were the building to change hands, that I think the city's
reasonably protected so I support this variance.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. You want to comment Craig?
Claybaugh: I would just concur with my fellow commissioner.
Sacchet: Good enough. Bethany.
Tjornhom: You know I concur too.
Sacchet: Ditto. Steve.
Lillehaug: Small variance. I concur. Small percentage of increase in variance.
Sacchet: I feel the same way as long as we add a condition that further intensification should be
limited to the capacity of the available parking. I think with that stipulation we're in very good
shape, so with that I'm ready to get a motion please.
Claybaugh: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-15 to
allow a reduction of the required parking spaces for Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
Papke: Second.
Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Condition number one. The intensification of the use of the
building will be limited by the available parking.
Claybaugh: That's acceptable.
Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance
#2003-15 to allow reduction of required parking spaces for Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, subject to the following condition:
38
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2 I, 2003
1. Intensification of the use of the building will be limited by the available parking.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 3.09 ACRES FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT TO R-4~ MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL CREATING FIVE LOTS CONSISTING OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME
AND FOUR TWIN HOME UNITS WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST; AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
CORRIDOR~ KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT~
ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name
Address
WALNUT GROVE SECOND
Bob Hanson (For Kathy Homes)
Brad Throdahl
Elden Bott
Audrey Tulberg
Marry Campion
Erik Johnson
Ilene Leister
Maureen Wissel
Susan & Roger Remaley
Jeanne Gilbertson
Laurie Lenertz
Julie Wand
Annette Cieszkowski
Chenk Wai Chong
Hang Chan
Jodi Pitschka
Stein Settergrgn
Jan Maruska
Chuck & Shirley Engh
Jenny Van Aulsburg
Elissa K. Ellefson
2145 Baneberry Way West
2190 Baneberry Way West
7626 Prairie Flower Boulevard
7674 Primrose Place
Otto Associates
Klingelhutz Development Inc.
3738 Hickory Lane
2031 Blue Sage Lane
2198 Baneberry Way West
2170 Baneberry Way West
7676 Blue Bonnet Boulevard
2133 Baneberry Way West
2141 Baneberry Way West
2201 Baneberry Way West
2201 Baneberry Way West
9600 Rosewood Lane
Gittleman Management, Bloomington
2175 Baneberry Way West
7642 Prairie Flower Boulevard
2171 Baneberry Way West
2194 Baneberry Way West
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions of staff. You want to start Kurt?
Papke: No.
Sacchet: No questions? Questions?
Lillehaug: Always. Lot 4 and 5, there is a property line, if you look at the placement of the
driveway versus the property line. The property line nowhere near splits the driveway in half.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Does staff have any concerns that really the driveway to the garages would be the ownership of
Lot 4 and not Lot 5?
Generous: Well we could require that there be that access agreement across that to make sure
that if that's the case, that is covered. Also that they have some type of maintenance agreement in
that. Generally we stop at the private street area but this one we may want to extend for those
two lots.
Lillehaug: Some easy questions. We're showing another hydrant about 100 feet away from an
existing hydrant. Do we need another hydrant? I guess that'd probably be a Matt question.
Saam: It's actually to the fire marshal's discretion so. You know at the time of final plat he'll
say whether to add one or not so, that's good enough for now.
Lillehaug: And then the storm sewer line, coming out of the man hole between Lot 3 and 4. It's
simply not centered in the drainage and utility easement. Boy, that's not a question is it?
Sacchet: That's a comment.
Lillehaug: Sorry.
Sacchet: Observation.
Lillehaug: Okay. Here's a question. The outlet of the pond, it just appears to be out letting over
land. And I walked back there and I really didn't see a channel or anything that we're out letting
a pond into. Do we have any concerns with that? I'm not too sure if that would be typical.
Saam: You know if you look on the grading plan, Commissioner Lillehaug, it shows that outlet.
They basically have it right at the edge of the, I believe the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay zone.
So they don't want to extend it into there any more. We could have them revise the grading plan
slightly to create a swale, if that's what you're getting at. Maybe just a place to make sure the
water stays in there.
Lillehaug: Yeah, I guess I'm not sure what the best answer is. I'm just seeing that we're out
letting it over land.
Saam: Yeah, I'm confident it's going to go into that wetland though and then filter out from
there. Follow the natural course drainage.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's good enough there. Bear with me...
Sacchet: That's alright.
Lillehaug: Here's my one that I hit on earlier tonight. The house structure. This goes back to
Bob. The house structure right at the edge of the 40 foot setback. It's right at the edge. Do we
have, obviously I think we have problems with doing that. Do we think that, does staff think that.
Sacchet: It's actually more on 5 right? 4 and 5.
Lillehaug: Well, 4 and 5. I mean does staff really think that Lot 4 and 5 can really support a
townhome there? And what would your comment be on.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Papke: As an elaboration on that question, are there patio doors on that side that would facilitate
building a patio in the future or a deck?
Generous: Currently the plans show that their deck area, patio would be out to the sides of it.
They don't have any specific building plans right now because.
Sacchet: We don't have details.
Generous: Right. They show a building area that's about 13,000 square feet footprint. That's a
pretty big unit you know. And they are showing it's a walkout.
Saam: I'm sure the applicant could add some details on that too.
Lillehaug: A couple more here. I'm getting there. Lot 4 and 5. They're walkout. Carver
County Soil and Water letter that we received here. They had concerns with the walkout being
below or at the high water level of the pond, and I didn't see that addressed in your staff report at
all. Any comments on that?
Saam: Yeah, they do show it in one-tenth below the high water level. However, if you look at it
realistically, if that pond overflows or gets to that level, it's not going to get into the house. It's
going to get out and go down to the creek.
Lillehaug: How about for Lot 4 though? I mean the pond really stretches pretty close to the
house at Lot 4... I guess looking at the grading, it would probably still head towards the wetland.
Saam: That's what our thinking was. That realistically it's not going to get into the house. It
would go down to the creek. Technically, yeah I see your point but realistically we don't feel it's
an issue.
Lillehaug: Okay. One more than I think I'm done here. The turn around in the temp cul-de-sac,
boy I sure would like to see that implemented in this plan. Does staff have an opinion on what
we would do here, because I'm not seeing, really a good viable option here to put a cul-de-sac
anywhere there. There was a temporary one there and something needs to be done with that
because it's pretty ugly looking. What does staff think we can do there? I don't see anything
fitting in down there.
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, I met with the Fire Marshal out on site when we were reviewing
this. His opinion to me was that the existing turn around would suffice for their vehicles. Now I
do see.
Sacchet: Turn around with what Matt?
Saam: The existing turn around, but basically the pavement outside of the curb.
Sacchet: The temporary cul-de-sac you're talking about?
Saam: Yeah, and I'm talking the radius, the dimensions. That sort of thing would work for him.
Now I do see added a condition saying that it's got to be made permanent, or something to that
effect. I didn't discuss that with him. What I'm thinking is he may want that to be touched up.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2 i, 2003
Curb. Maybe an even radius, circular radius. So I guess unless Bob has anything to offer, I'd
have to double check with him to see what he's getting at.
Lillehaug: But if I could make a comment to maybe get your mind thinking. Obviously we're
going to need more right-of-way for a cul-de-sac to go in there, and these existing buildings are
probably under the assumption that that's a temporary cul-de-sac and soon or later that temporary
cul-de-sac wasn't going to be there. It's a temporary cul-de-sac, so where do we put the
permanent cul-de-sac? I don't want to see it beside those existing houses. I don't think that'd be
fair to the tenants, so where do we put a permanent cul-de-sac? I don't see an option here. That's
presented in this layout.
Saam: I guess if the existing one with some tweaking won't work, the only place that it could go
then would be at the end of the street. Yeah, and then it would have to encroach into Lot 1 so
then we'd be talking about an easement then. You know over that.
Lillehaug: I've got one more and then I'm done here. On the, our approval list here, we got
preliminary plat approval. I'm just seeing a lot of things on the preliminary plat that aren't plat
level dimensions and bearings. Particularly, what would your comment be on the southwest
comer, if you look at the center line of the road and then you look at the new property line. It's
skewed at an angle. It's not parallel all the way up, especially right at the south. And ! probably
need to find that, if I'm going to do that. See the highlighted orange area. There's items on here
that aren't, that are just not dimension and it's going to cause confusion of property owners and I
guess I'll ask the applicant.
Saam: That's what ! would suggest. I'm thinking the applicant had discussions with the County
and maybe that was a requirement from the County for right-of-way width there, but ! would
suggest you ask him.
Lillehaug: Okay, because I wouldn't sign this plat.
Sacchet: Alright, I have a few questions as well. Lot 4 has this huge kink in it. It makes it pretty
narrow at one point. And I can see the rationale behind it is to put that two dwelling unit in there,
but does that meet ordinances? When the lot kind of has the right width and then it goes real
narrow, then it goes out again. I mean it's like an hour glass.
Generous: Actually the east property line is the front of that lot.
Sacchet: The east property line, okay. And then it can narrow. So you could have your right lot
width and then go down to an hour glass narrow and then go up again? That's within ordinance?
Okay. Just want to be clear about that. You touched on the cul-de-sac Steve. That's a real issue.
The silt fence and tree preservation fence. At this point it looks like there is just a little bit around
the wetland of that, is that accurate? Silt fence and tree preservation.
Generous: And it would follow the primary zone boundary basically.
Sacchet: Yeah, it seemed like on the plan right now, it's just around the wetland part. I don't see
it necessarily through the rest of it. I mean I don't know what I missed on some of the other
drawings.
Lillehaug: I didn't see it at all.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: You didn't see it at all, but if you actually look at it, it has like 20 foot away from, well
maybe that's just the setback. Not even a silt fence. So it's certainly not there sufficiently, okay.
That answers that question. In the description of the lot it says this is currently two lots.
Generous: Two parcels.
Sacchet: Two parcels. It's currently two parcels, and they're being combined for this. How does
that work?
Generous: Well it's just that both parcels are described as part of the subdivision.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's not really an issue. Steve, you touched on the proximity of the pond to
the buildings. And Matt, you answered where the water would go, but I still have a little bit of a
concern. I mean that pond is awfully close to the, certainly on Lot 3. Is that sufficient distance
there?
Saam: For duplexes like the ones that are shown here? We had it this close before. Now, for
single family homes I would say you wouldn't have much of a back yard. The pond being there
that close.
Sacchet: For this type of thing we would allow?
Saam: Yes, and the thinking there is that typically the yards aren't owned by each property
owner. I mean I guess they could be here but typically it's like an association or something of
that nature so.
Sacchet: Oh, that's an interesting point in terms of the land that goes with these units, to come
back to the lot line issue. The easement line issue on Lot 4, and especially 5. The lot would be
not owned by the owner of the building. The owner would just own the building with the land it
stands on? Is that.
Generous: I believe they're going to own the land.
Sacchet: They own the land with it, so do we have an issue? Okay. And Matt, one more last
question. The staff report talks about swale between the two units I believe that is. I wasn't quite
sure I understood that.
Saam: That was between Lot 3 and 4. Going down from the private street just to make sure that
the water gets.
Sacchet: Can go between the buildings.
Saam: Yeah. And gets away from the building.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you very much. With that, I'd like to ask
the applicant to come forward and. Do you have another one?
Claybaugh: Sure.
Sacchet: Alright.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Claybaugh: Most the questions have been asked Matt but.
Sacchet: Did I get to you at all?
Claybaugh: Yeah, you skipped me.
Sacchet: Oh no way. I apologize.
Claybaugh: Just kind of a question comment Matt I just wanted to touch on. Most the questions
have been asked but item 37 pertains to the testing of the inspections for a private street
construction. The language we have in here on condition 37 is the developer will be required to
provide inspection reports verifying the private street construction complies with the requirement
of a 7 ton design. I was under the impression that we were requiring the testing and inspection
reports by an approved testing agency.
Saam: Yes. That's what we mean there. Maybe it isn't spelled out like you like but that's our
intention...
Claybaugh: That's the extent of the questions I had.
Sacchet: Okay, Steve.
Lillehaug: I'd like to hit on Lot 4 again. In your compliance table chart, page 7 you indicate that
the width of Lot 4 is 50 feet and I assume that that's a requirement for the front yard width.
Where do you consider the front yard at with a private driveway?
Generous: On the east property line.
Lillehaug: On the east property line. But then it necks down to 35-40 feet.
Generous: Yeah, and then it widens up.
Lillehaug: Does that really follow ordinance? I mean what can they knock it down to, 10 feet?
Generous: Well then you don't meet your driveway setback.
Lillehaug: Okay, 30 feet.
Generous: Conceivably. Flag lots are 30 feet wide.
Sacchet: Scary. I have one more question, since we're at a few more. You know, and this is a
staff question. This is a staff question. With recommendation for the conditional use permit.
The second condition says the site shall develop substantially in compliance with subdivision.
What does substantially mean? Does that it mean more or less or, help me out please.
Generous: Well as part of any final plat you do have variations. It could be a changed turn
around. It could be additional elevation on the housing.
Sacchet: Or there could be some small tweaks but generally it should have to comply?
Generous: Yes.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: Okay, okay. I just want to be clear about it. Alright. I didn't miss anybody now so if I
can ask the applicant to come forward. Please tell us your part of the story. If you want to
mention your name and address for the record please.
Marty Campion: Good evening. My name is Marty Campion, civil engineer with Otto
Associates. Project engineer for the Walnut Grove Second Addition project. Also with me is
Erik Johnson with Klingelhutz Development, so either of us will be available for questions
afterwards. The piece of property presents some unique problems in that we don't have access, or
we aren't going to be granted private road or public road access from the county road. We will be
granted or be able to maintain the existing driveway to the single family home, so we're
essentially playing with the cards that were dealt as part of the Walnut Grove project, which
located the existing private drive. The private drive, as it's located, wasn't, I believe Walnut
Grove was developed prior to the Bluff Creek Overlay Zone being implemented so with the
setbacks in the Bluff Creek Overlay Zone, the private drive located where it is, presents some real
particular problems to this site, relative to the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay. So that
coupled with the additional wetland that we found on site and the wetland again served to move
the Bluff Creek Overlay Zone, the primary zone up gradient farther into the site. But we're left
with very limited possibilities for development and it's our belief that we do comply with the city
ordinances. In proposing this it wasn't proposed without plenty of thought and a number of
meetings with city staff to come up with this design. There was a couple of comments relative to
the setbacks from the wetland. The setbacks are just that. They are setbacks. We're allowed to
build to the setback as we would be allowed to build to a front setback, so whether, would it be
our choice to have more room if it was available? Yes. The room isn't available so we are
building to the setback. There was another comment relative to the silt fence there, and if you
look at the grading plan, we do show a silt fence along, between the construction and the overlay
zone along the entire property. The silt fence is inbetween the pond and the grading area there.
SF denotes the silt fence and then it does come back into play behind the units here so we are
intending to protect the bluff and the creek. There are a number of final engineering issues that
are also mentioned in the staff report which we do concur with. We've worked with Matt on a
number of projects and I don't see those as being issues. End of July we did send this proposal to
the fire chief. Asked him to take a look at the existing turn around and whether that would be
adequate. As Matt had mentioned, he and the fire chief did meet on site and we did hear back
that the existing turn around was adequate, so we moved forward with that design, or with that in
mind. Any other questions relative to the submittal, either Erik or myself will attempt to answer
them.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Want to?
Lillehaug: Sure. Could you touch on a few, on the preliminary plat. Specifically the west
property line. It looks like there's an attempt to make it parallel to the existing center line of the
road, or line description there. But it does not appear to be parallel to that. Is this fine tuned to
the point that we're ready to.
Marry Campion: Well this is a long way from a final plat. We're at preliminary at this point. So
I don't know the origination. I'm an engineer. That was a survey issue. As you're aware, the final
plats when they're prepared will be reviewed by the County and when they're adjacent to a
county road, will be reviewed by the county highway department. So I don't see that as being an
issue that would hold up the plat.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. And what would your comment be on Lots 4 and 5, and really the, is it feasible
to put the, to break that up and put a pair of townhomes there? You know specifically with a
couple things we hit on before, that 50 foot frontage, really necking down. The other issue would
be the driveway, really not split by that property line at all, even though the driveway would be
under the ownership of Lot 4 for the most part.
Marty Campion: My comment would be I believe it meets the ordinance. Is it ideal? Probably
not. Is the piece of property ideal? No, it's not but I believe that does meet the ordinance.
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, could I add one point to your comment? Just on your concern
for the driveway, the Lot 5 that goes across Lot 4. If it goes outside of the private cross access
easement, we would require additional easement to contain the driveway to Lot 5, which goes
across Lot 4. So that's something we'd require at final plat. So if that addresses that concern at
all.
Lillehaug: Sure. Okay. What would your comment be on, as far as looking at the option of
trying to work, reducing it to a single unit.
Marty Campion: I don't think that's an option for us. If it doesn't meet the ordinance, that
certainly would be something we'd be required to do, but again given the road location relative to
the overlay zone, we're doing what we can to work with the property.
Lillehaug: And let me dig into it a little more. You're saying it meets the ordinance, but there's a
temporary cul-de-sac here that my opinion is that it's not going to work with this development
here, so there needs to be a solution here and ! hope that maybe you have an idea for a solution to
get a permanent cul-de-sac to work either on your parcels or to work with the adjacent land
owners to get a permanent cul-de-sac there. Because I'm not seeing a viable option presented
here.
Marry Campion: Until it was brought up this evening it wasn't brought to our attention that that
was an issue. We submitted the plan. The fire marshal looked at it. It wasn't an issue until this
evening.
Lillehaug: I think that's probably all I have for you, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. You already said no. Kurt said no. I do have a few things. Well we just
touched on the cul-de-sac. The shape of Lot 4, is that really ideal? I mean based on the setback
requirements you were forced to do that? Is that your position or?
Marty Campion: I will be the first to admit it's a long ways from ideal. Ideal would be more of
one, or excuse me 2 and 3. But it's what we had to work with. And you can see we're, the
buildings or the proposed building that's on 2 and 3 is a larger unit. We would have preferred to
get larger units throughout the entire project as well, but that didn't work.
Sacchet: Now you stated you're within rights to build all the way out to the setback lines.
What's your opinion about having some sort of a handle that the residents that will be there are
not going to encroach on that setback?
Marty Campion: Well and I don't have any objection to signing the buffer, or excuse me, signing
the overlay zone and signing the wetland. As far as encroaching upon the setback, I think it's the
46
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
same as any other lot in the city where a resident, it's difficult to control if they don't come in for
a permit, but it's no different in my opinion than any other lot in the city.
Sacchet: Yeah, you see that's why we're trying to have more setback because people are going to
go out there. They're going to put a fire pit, what have you and there's absolutely nothing we can
do about it. That's why we have to deal with it now. The other aspect, you touched on the silt
fence and actually I did discover the silt fence. I was aware of where you put it. In your opinion
there wouldn't be further silt fence needed further south? What's your rationale about that?
Marty Campion: The staff recommendation was recommending additional silt fence and again
we don't have an issue with that.
Sacchet: How about tree preservation fencing?
Marty Campion: Again, with the staff recommendation we're in concurrence with those.
Sacchet: Okay. No problem with that? Okay, that's all the questions I have for you. Thank you
very much.
Claybaugh: I have one question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Craig.
Claybaugh: With respect to the design, obviously you just have the footprint on a preliminary
plat. There isn't anything in the design of these twin homes that you're aware of that's going to
have like we said, a patio door or something that's going to encourage the people to go out the
back?
Marty Campion: No, and we're not to the point on the final design. I don't know if within the
setback, I think we can have a door going out to the back, but ! don't know what, if a patio is off
limits within the setback. Whatever the city requirements are the builder will adhere to.
Claybaugh: I understand that you want to build right up, and you're entitled to build right up to
the setback. I just would like to see that there isn't a patio door with a horizontal board across it
in the back, just...
Marty Campion: Oh I understand. So patio door in the upper level rather than the walkout level.
For a deck, yeah. That I imagine would be a building permit issue which wouldn't be allowed so
we are showing the three season porches or the porches off to the south.
Claybaugh: Is that what those are?
Marty Campion: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much.
Marty Campion: Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate you answering our questions. Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite
any of you that want to address this item to come forward at this time. State your name and
address for the record. Let us know what we have to hear. This is your turn.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Stein Settergrgn: My name is Stein Settergrgn with Gittleman Management. We are the
management company representing the Walnut Grove Villas Association, which is immediately
to the east of this parcel. The association has a couple questions regarding this development and
their concerns. They acknowledge that the lots were bought with the knowledge that this was a
road easement that would continue and service those lots. There's no issue with that. The issue
is with how we get there and developing this property. Specific concern about construction
traffic coming down the private road, or what that does to the private road and hoping that that
could possibly come off of the county road. Also the issues about the turn around or cul-de-sac
that have been brought up here. That all of these homeowners were under the assumption, and
given the word that that was a temporary turn around and that it would be moved when these, into
the next parcel when that was developed, and it does come very close to the homes on either end
of those buildings. The other questions are about the utilities and what that' s going to do. Where
they need to be attached to the road, or in the roadway. What that's going to do to the road and
where they need to be accessed. And I think that's about it. Just wondering about those issues
and what can be done about that. I know there are a number of other homeowners that have
probably similar questions.
Sacchet: Would you want to address the issue about the utilities briefly Matt? Since the question
came up.
Saam: Sure. They're proposing, the developer is proposing to extend sewer and water from the
end of the, basically where that temporary cul-de-sac is right now. Will connect to and extend
those west into this property.
Sacchet: So those issues, they are no issues from an engineering point of view?
Saam: No, not from my standpoint.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Well, this is a public hearing. Who else would like to address this
item? Please come forward.
Jan Maruska: I'm Jan Maruska, 2175 Baneberry Way West. Not only am I a homeowner on
Baneberry Way West. I'm also President of our association. I would like to reiterate what Stein
has already said about the concern about the turn around. Also, being a private road, our
association pays for the maintenance of that road and we have a concern with that cost being
shared. The plowing, the blacktopping, all of those things that we're paying for, we need to know
that that's going to be shared with the new people in that development and again the construction
traffic we would like to see come off of Galpin rather than down Baneberry.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Is that a feasible option? Construction traffic from Galpin.
Saam: I think it would be. I would think the County would allow that on a temporary basis for
construction.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Very good comment. Any other comments? Please come forward.
This is your turn. State your name and address for the record please.
Sue Remaley: My name is Sue Remaley and I live at 2198 Baneberry Way West with my
husband Roger. We're at the very end and so we have a lot vested in what's happening in this
development, and we're right to the north at the very end. Basically this plan looks like it's shoe
48
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
homed in there. The developer is saying this is what we have to work with. Probably in
profitability, yes. In aesthetics, no. I don't think you should shoe horn a design in just to make
money and I appreciate business and investment but the plan I think is very flawed by a lot of
comments I've heard. Also the cul-de-sac. We've been putting up with that for 4 years. It's
awful. It's ugly. We've been waiting for something to happen. So we're anxious to get that
taken care of too. And I just don't really think that it fits in our area. Our townhomes are of a
certain style. They have a lot of character to them. I know we're not that far in the planning yet
but I've seen some Klingelhutz homes and I really don't know if they fit very well design wise. I
guess that's all I have to say.
Roger Remaley: I guess a couple of the other concerns again is we were told when we purchased
the house that the original plan was that that road go straight through. Sort of as it goes now and
it would just be extended. And that the cul-de-sac would go away. So as you guys have talked
about something needs to be developed there, now we're looking at a road that makes a right
hand turn and runs right besides our townhouse so now we're going to have a road in front of us
and to our right, and behind us. So we're going to end up with a road basically on two, maybe a
little more than half of our house, which isn't optimum obviously from our point of view. And
I'm also concerned that that will affect the value of our home. Having that as close as it would
be. I also feel like units 4 and 5 are really squeezed in there from a standpoint of the front, that
hour glass shaping, very awkward and then also the backs being right on the easement. And
aesthetically how that's going to affect the value of the houses that are adjacent to it. I guess
that's about it.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to comment to this proposal? Please come
forward. This is your chance.
Audrey Tulberg: My name is Audrey Tulberg and I live at 7674 Primrose Place, which is on the
east end of Baneberry so I'm far away from this particular construction. My concern is again the
appearance of this neighborhood, which is being patched kind of into a property that seems not
really suitable for 9 units. And I don't know what these units are going to look like. I have no
idea what style, but my concern is that we have invested considerable monies in our homes in
Walnut Grove. Take great pride in them and want to be certain that the neighboring community
is compatible with that to preserve property values. Also I've raised the same concern with
regard to construction traffic because coming in on, I can't think. Prairie Flower Drive, which
then comes into Baneberry West and...goes north, or go west and east from that. This is a very,
you know it's a family community and there's a lot of movement in and along that corridor and
I'm just concerned about heavy trucks and so forth, particularly if it's in a season when the roads
would be breaking up and then what happens on the reconstruction of those roads after this all
happens? So those are the concerns that I have and I'd just ask that you look very carefully at
what is being proposed as far as style of the units, access and some of the questions that have
been raised by other people. Appreciate that.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Papke: Just a question to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding of. Excuse me just one
second. You mentioned 9 units.
Audrey Tulberg: Well there's 4 twinhomes. There's 4 twin home units.
Papke: No, there's 4 total units.
49
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
Sacchet: It's 4 units total.
Papke: Total including the single family development.
Audrey Tulberg: Now is that the single family building that's going to stay there? The one that's
on this property?
Papke: Right, right. So there's two new buildings, each with 2 units. Right, so we're talking a
total of 4 living units.
Sacchet: Four new ones, yeah.
Audrey Tulberg: Do you know the square footage of those units?
Sacchet: Not yet.
Erik Johnson: If I could add something to that.
Sacchet: Sure, go ahead.
Erik Johnson: Erik Johnson, Klingelhutz Development. The units themselves, even the smallest
ones, if you're looking at 4 and 5, I believe they're on the order of about 1,300 square feet as you
look at the footprint and the other ones are substantially larger than that. The lots themselves,
even the one that seems to be causing some consternation here with the odd shape to it. Even at
it's narrowest point it's width is greater than most all the other lots in the Walnut Grove area.
The lots themselves, the value wise, market value on them is going to be such that the price point
of these units is probably going to be a fair amount higher than the units that are already there.
So if anything, what we're planning on doing there is going to increase the market value of what
has already been built in the previous development.
Sacchet: Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to address this
item? This is your turn. Please state your name and address for the record. Let us know what
you have to say.
Jodi Pitschka: My name is Jodi Pitschka. ! actually live up in Maple Grove but I'm representing
the person that's trying to purchase the single family home that's listed there and their only
concerns are that the twin home that backs immediately up to the single family home is extremely
close. They're obviously interested in the property so they're willing to take the gamble on what
that property is going to look like and the fact that it is going to come extremely close to the
single family home now but something that's been raised but is kind of a concern to me for my
client is with the traffic coming off of Galpin, the construction traffic, that that wouldn't interrupt
the single family home there because as the road comes up, there's quite a ditch there so I guess
that would be a concern for them.
Sacchet: If I may ask you, since you're representing that parcel, do you see it feasible for the
construction traffic to come, because if it comes off of Galpin, it would have to use the current
access to Galpin which is the access for that single family home. And then from there to go
down south, how feasible is that?
Jodi Pitschka: It's really hard to say. Now with being here and not there as to what's the size of
the ditch there, you know what I'm saying? If they could actually come from Galpin and get to
5O
Planning Commission Meeting- October 21, 2003
where they're going to build, if they would have to come down the single family residence to get
through that, that's going to cause hardship on their property. And I would have to say do some
extensive damage to what's there, just from looking at it.
Sacchet: Thank you. Alright, who else would like to address this item?
Lillehaug: Could they address?
Sacchet: I was going to get back to that. If you want to address that now maybe, if you would.
Marty Campion: Relative to the construction access. I would anticipate the construction traffic,
with the exception of maybe workers in their vehicles, would access the site via Galpin. And we
would petition the County to grant us temporary access probably somewhere in this location. If
we were to try and use the existing driveway with the trees and the configuration of the home and
the garage, it would be difficult so we'd be looking for some temporary access, probably in this
area south of the existing pine trees. Again that would take some cooperation from the County in
order to do that but it wouldn't be our intent to be running the construction traffic through that
residential lot. Or through the private drive.
Sacchet: From our experience Matt, is that something that is feasible?
Saam: Yes, it's feasible. Now I don't want to speak for the County but they do grant temporary
access...that sort of thing. I would think they'd make this accommodation. That's a reasonable
request.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Alright, public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address
this? Or re-address this?
Jan Maruska: You're a lot taller than I am. He just brought up another issue. Where are the
workers going to park? That private road is no parking on either side.
Saam: Chairman Sacchet, I could address that. As part of our standard development contract it
says worker vehicles inside the site, or on adjacent right-of-way so in this case, as the developer's
engineer stated, I would guess they'd come down the existing private road with their own cars
and drive into the site. Or ! guess they could come off Galpin too, but they would park within
their own site. Yeah, we would require that.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. Yes, go ahead. The public hearing is still open. Please state
your name and address.
Eldon Bott: My name's Eldon Bott. I'm at 7626 Prairie Flower. To begin with, that access,
that's a really steep incline and it's crossing a bike trail, and you plan on taking construction
vehicles across that to gain access off of Galpin?
Marty Campion: You want me to address that?
Sacchet: You want to address that? If you have an answer, we sure what to hear it.
Marty Campion: The answer hasn't changed. Again we would petition the County to access that
and yes, we might have to cross an existing path and repair it once we're done.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Sacchet: You would have to put a gravel, whatever, 75 feet of construction entrance that'd be
required, yes.
Eldon Bott: And the speed limit's 50 there on Galpin so.
Sacchet: 40.
Eldon Bott: It's 40? Okay.
Sacchet: My son driving there... Alright, who else wants to address this?
Sue Remaley: I just want to say that when I purchased the property I knew that there would be
homes going in there, and I signed a purchase agreement and it's not that I don't want homes
being built there. It's not that at all, but I want homes that fit in that area, that work in that area,
that don't look like they're shoe homed in .... halt construction, I just want it to the right fit.
Papke: Could I ask you to try to be more specific about what you find objectionable.
Sue Remaley: I think single family homes would fit a little bit better. Maybe only one fits in that
area. Or two, maybe. But I just don't think that squeezing in that amount of homes, with all the
difficulties that are being presented tonight, work. In my oh so humble opinion. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Alright, without getting redundant, is there anybody else who likes to add
something to this picture here for us? This is your chance. Grab it or otherwise I'm going to
close the public hearing. Looks like we're done with the public hearing. I close the public
hearing and bring it back to the commission. This became more complex here rather than
simpler.
Lillehaug: Can I ask a couple questions?
Sacchet: Yes, you can ask questions Steve.
Lillehaug: Matt, the pond. Do we require drainage and utility easement to encompass the entire
area of the pond?
Saam: Yes, up to the high water level. And then also an access easement coming off that private
road. I think that's a condition stated.
Lillehaug: So that, I don't think that shown on the plans here. It's a condition.
Saam: No, it's a condition, yes.
Lillehaug: But what do we need for a setback then from that easement? To the back of houses.
Saam: None.
Lillehaug: Zero setback?
Saam: Yeah, they can.
Generous: ...property setback or primary zone boundary wetland.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. That's an easy question. Another one, Outlot A. Is that, who pays taxes on
that right now?
Generous: The property owner does.
Lillehaug: Who will pay taxes on it when it's subdivided here, or platted?
Generous: Well the property, if they keep it in private ownership, the property owner would. If
they donate it to the city, then there would be no taxes.
Lillehaug: Or tax forfeiture to the city. Is that something that we commonly practice, is giving
an area like this to the City? And would we want that to happen?
Generous: I believe so. We did get the land south of the creek as part of the Galpin Business
Park. It was donated to the City. Because it's in the primary zone, we can't get park credits for
the land but we can, it' s up to council to accept any donations of land but they could do that.
Lillehaug: And then one more and then I'm done with questions. Would be the temporary cul-
de-sac. What do we know about an existing temporary easement? A permanent easement for
that temporary cul-de-sac. What, you know is there an agreement with the property owners?
What do we have there for that? I think it does have a lot of merit.
Generous: Yeah, I know that easement for the private street is 40 feet so if it's outside of that, it
would only have been a temporary easement as part of the original subdivision.
Lillehaug: So therefore defining it's a temporary cul-de-sac, period?
Generous: Yeah.
Saam: Actually we have a copy of that easement, if you grant me a minute I can show it to you.
I thought it was permanent but.
Sacchet: Yeah, that would be good to know if you have it Matt. If you..
Saam: Yeah, permanent easement for access, and that's just to be specific, a 30 foot easement.
Generous: For access into the site across Baneberry Way.
Saam: Yes, that's right. That's what I thought you were asking.
Generous: The cul-de-sac I don't know how wide is that?
Lillehaug: Really just specifically the cul-de-sac. What type easement do we have that covers
the temporary cul-de-sac?
Saam: Typically we get a private easement. Well yeah, it's not a public easement. It's typically
a private easement over the pavement area. 30-40 foot. In this instance maybe it's 60 to cover
the pavement. I thought you, just to be, to correct myself. I thought you were concerned with the
easement into the property.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: No. It'd really be the outer limits, the width of the cul-de-sac to the north and to the
south. I don't have any more questions.
Sacchet: Alright. Comments. I think we're getting ready for comments. Who wants to attempt
comments?
Claybaugh: Was that question sufficiently answered, because I didn't get it. What is the status?
Generous: I'm not certain if it's within the 40 foot, which is the existing easement, or if it
extends out beyond. I'd have to research that one.
Sacchet: Would you want to address what we're discussing here?
Marty Campion: I did not find any easement at all beyond the access.
Sacchet: With just an access, okay. That would be consistent with the idea of a temporary.
Marty Campion: ...that it become permanent.
Lillehaug: Would staff kind of concur with that and agree with that? That that's probably fact or
do you think.
Generous: I thought at the time that it was a temporary easement for turnaround purposes.
Sacchet: It's certainly built like a temporary.
Generous: Yeah. Well they're right. The intent was that the road would be extended further and
we thought that there would actually be double rows of townhouses in there, but then we
discovered the wetland, which truncated the developability of the site. Forced their private street
to move east rather than going farther west.
Sacchet: Alright, I think we should try to make comments. Try to go somewhere with this. If we
have enough reason that it's not clear, we may have to table it but let's see what we can do with
this. Do you want to start Steve?
Lillehaug: Well, obviously my concerns are, my main concerns are with the cul-de-sac. First, the
applicant has indicated that his lots meet ordinance. However, you know there's a variance in
here with use of a private street that is being approved here also and to approve a variance for the
use of that private street, it needs to work with the site and adjacent sites, and in my mind it does
not work. You don't have a solution for a turn around and my opinion is the existing property
owners on the adjacent development shouldn't be subjected to the cul-de-sac turn around on their
property right now. I think it's very clear that their assumption was that the permanent cul-de-sac
would not be there, and I don't think we should subject those landowners to that. And I think that
a cul-de-sac should be incorporated under this site plan. That's my opinion but I think that was
the true intention here, and it's really the only feasible option in my mind is to put a turn around
on this new subdivision area somehow. Other than that, my hang up would be with condition
number 39. If I can take a look at that. I won't support approval of this application based on
condition number 39. Typically we leave staff with a lot of leeway on conditions and they're able
to follow through on that and we put our faith in them doing that, but on this condition I think it
needs to be taken out as a condition and it needs to be part of the public hearing process to
determine a way that cul-de-sac. Where a permanent cul-de-sac needs to be put. I don't think, I
54
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
think we need to give the residents an opportunity to address that and we are not doing that with
the site plan and it needs to address that. And for that reason I will not support approval of this
site plan. Preliminary plat and variance. And a conditional use permit.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bethany, you want to give it a stab?
Tjornhom: Not really. I think Commissioner Lillehaug probably summed it up best I guess.
The whole cul-de-sac issue is kind of fuzzy still, in my mind. I've been listening trying to still
piece it together and figure it out. I feel bad for the developer because he does have the setbacks
to deal with, and so he does have some goofy lots to try to put some townhouses on, and so I do
understand his dilemma also. I guess that's all I have to say.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt.
Papke: There's been some concerns raised about the aesthetics of the development here. I think
the developer has sufficiently addressed that. I think these are substantially sized units and it's
really not our function as a planning commission to make any comments on the aesthetics. So
outside of the concerns with the cul-de-sac, I think if that can be addressed, I think we're good to
go.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Kurt. Craig, want to give it a try?
Papke: Yeah. I guess I agree with some of the comments from the residents that it does look like
a development that has been shoe horned into place. I understand that it meets the specific
requirements but in front of us we do have a CUP. We do have a variance. And as such I look at
it a little bit differently. If I'm going to give something, I'd like to get something back so while it
may meet the letter of the ordinance, I don't think it necessarily meets the spirit and what the
neighbors should come to expect. It may have the square footage. It may have the dollar value
but how it's orientated on the lots. How you come in and you leave the property in my mind
leaves something to be desired, and more specifically item 39 is a substantial issue. And like
Commissioner Lillehaug I believe that should be a function of the public hearing.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. I don't have too much further aspects to add. I'm a firm believer that if
there are agreements put in place, that they need to be honored and we have to build upon them
and it's my understanding that the agreement was, this is a temporary cul-de-sac which implies
that the cul-de-sac is going to move further down the road because the cul-de-sac currently is at
the other road. That's at least my understanding. Now I can understand how that creates an issue
for the applicant, with all the constraints from the wetland, from the primary zone and so forth,
but to make the temporary cul-de-sac permanent is just simply not a solution. I mean that's not
honoring the agreement that was made in the beginning, when how this was approached, and
that's what we have to build upon. That's the foundation of this. I do think that's a reason to
table or deny. Especially since there are other concerns. I mean I do have to agree with the
resident that made a comment that this looks shoe horned in. I mean it's, you are within the
zoning requirements, that's correct, and you have the right to build right up onto the setback line.
However, I don't think that this is sufficiently in line with our comprehensive plan, which very
clearly states that our aim in the city is to be as sensitive as we can to the natural resources. To be
building something that fits a little more than just the letter of the law. And given that you made
these units relatively big, I do think that you have some leeway in terms of working that into a
framework that might take these aspects into better consideration. We have just earlier, and I
don't know whether you were here, we had this issue with the builder that built right onto the
setback line, and there's just no two ways about it, it's going to be encroaching. The neighbors
55
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2 I, 2003
are going to do stuff in that part that we're trying to preserve. And to some extent that's just the
way it is. That going in with the situation that kind of makes that a given from the start I think is
not in compliance with our comprehensive plan. With the intent of what we're trying to do with
the quality of development in the city so with that I do have an issue about that. It manifests in
the funky shape of lots and stuff like that too. I mean it might be in compliance but as you said
yourself, it's far from ideal. I'd like to see a little more effort to improve that in order to give the
green light for that, so that's my comments. With that, somebody want to venture a motion
please.
Lillehaug: I will but can I ask staff a question here first? Recommendation number A is for the
rezoning of the property. I don't disagree. I support rezoning the property, but how, if we
approve one and not the other, I'm not sure how they go or don't go together.
Sacchet: They do go together, don't they?
Generous: Rezoning's a rezoning. Either you approve it or you don't. You want to keep it as a
package though, if you're going to review this.
Lillehaug: What if we approve the rezoning and not the site plan?
Claybaugh: I guess my comment would be, like you said, there's a CUP on the table. There's a
variance on the table. That goes together and part of the reservations that I have, like I said, if
I'm going to give something, I don't want to give that and get a shoe homed in development by
rezoning it to a more intense district. I would like to see them take it back and try and re-cook
something that fits the parcel a little bit better, and whether that's SF or if it's less intensity with
the twin homes or whatever, I'd like to keep that open rather than nail that down at this point, if
that's acceptable to the rest of the commission.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'd make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
denial of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Mixed Low
Density, Residential District R-4.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Sacchet: We have a motion and a second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Mixed Low Density,
Residential District R-4. Ail voted in favor, except Tjornhom who abstained, and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 in favor and 1 abstention.
Sacchet: Did we have an abstain?
Tjomhom: I vote no because I think we should table it.
Sacchet: Okay, so you abstain because you think we should table. Okay. And we have 4 ayes.
One abstain to deny the rezoning. Do we need to address the other ones or are they automatically
taken care of if we deny this one?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Generous: You'd have to deny it because then it's inconsistent with the rezoning.
Sacchet: Alright, motion next.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat
for Walnut Grove Second Addition, plans prepared by Otto Associates dated 8-18-03, subject to.
Sacchet: Well there's no conditions to a denial. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the preliminary plat for Walnut Grove Second Addition, plans prepared by Otto Associates
dated 8-18-03. All voted in favor, except Tjornhom who abstained. The motion carries
with a vote of 4 in favor, 1 abstention.
Sacchet: I think there is a third motion in this, yes.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Conditional Use
Permit #2003-6 for the development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the Conditional Use Permit//2003-6 for the development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. All voted in favor, except Tjornhom who abstained. The motion carries with a
vote of 4 in favor, 1 abstention.
Sacchet: Now this is the recommendation that goes to City Council but it means City Council is
going to have to look at that and either deny it, and then it may come back to us, or approve it and
then it's gone. It is going to City Council on November 10t~. In summary for City Council, and
you want to help me out probably with this. We recommend denial on the basis that we have
pretty unanimous agreement amongst commissioners here that the cul-de-sac situation has not
been addressed by this proposal. It's currently a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of that private
road. Temporary with the intent that it would go away at some point and there will be a turn
around further down that road. There is no such provision in this proposal. At least some of us
have concerns about the, should I say intensity of how the current proposal places dwellings right
on the setback lines, and puts them in a way that could be termed shoe horned in. That makes
very funky lot shapes, That's the main things.
Lillehaug: Can I add something?
Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I just want to indicate the reason why I didn't think it was appropriate to table is
because adding a cul-de-sac, putting a cul-de-sac in really changes the scope, the outlook on the
whole site.
Claybaugh: I definitely concur with that.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003
Lillehaug: And I don't think it's a matter.
Claybaugh: I don't think you'll have the same animal.
Sacchet: Yeah, and also to add the notion that, at least I felt that the way this is put together is not
really sufficiently complying with the intent of the comprehensive plan in terms of maximizing
the quality of the development, and preserving the natural environment. I would however want to
again reiterate that I do think with the size of those units, the applicant does have some leeway to
work that and it's a very special site. I think something really nice can be worked with this and
we look forward to work with you further on that. Thank you very much. With that, we're done
with that item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Claybaugh noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated October 7, 2003, as amended on page 5 of the summary minutes by
Commissioner Lillehaug to indicate that staff should be educated on underground retention
systems, not the Planning Commission.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
58