CC Minutes 08-12-2013Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INC./OWNER: ANITA
BENSON: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN
CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This request is for a variance on a lot
at 960 Carver Beach Road. Applicant’s David Moore, representing the property owner Anita Benson.
The variance from the Section 20-615 of the Chanhassen City Code to construct a single home. There’s
1,888 square feet of living area and a two car garage and a 5% hard cover variance for the 25%. Again
there is a minimum standard for a home size in the city of Chanhassen depending on the type. The
location is Carver Beach. Carver Beach Road. It’s a combination of 3 lots. So the non-conforming lots
of record. There’s no variance required to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-
conforming lot of record, excluding platted lots and outlots provided that it fronts on a public street or
approved private street and provided that the structure meets the minimum requirements. So the
requirement that this home does not meet is the impervious surface requirement. As I stated before, this
Carver Beach, this is the original plat for the Carver Beach area. It includes 3 lots. So those 3 lots are 20
feet wide, 100 feet deep for the total of the 6,000 square feet. Again a standard lot would be RSF would
be 15,000. Some of the subdivisions that we’ve been approving recently, and some you’ll see tonight are
at the 10,000 square foot lot size. So again the, it’s zoned RSF. Minimum lot size of the 15,000. The
setbacks, 30 in the front, 30 in the rear and 10 on the side which it meets. This lot meets all that. The one
deficiency then would be the hard surface coverage, the 25%. This then would be at the 30%. So here’s
how the house sits on the lot meeting the setbacks again just except for the 30% hard surface coverage.
So again the optimum house design for this would be, and this was something that was brought up in the
neighborhood before about keeping a lower profile. I think at one previous attempt that did go through,
it’s in the staff report for a variance request. There was desire in the neighborhood to have a rambler and
it was also brought up at the Planning Commission too that they would like to see a rambler but really the
optimum for this size of a lot would have been a two story because that would reduce your hard surface
coverage but in working, trying to meet the setbacks and get a reasonable sized house for the
neighborhood, this was the direction the applicant went with the coverage as proposed. Again the staff
believes it’s well suited home style for that area and believe it’s consistent with the ordinance. One of the
questions that came up at the Planning Commission meeting was that, you know there was never any
service ties to this lot. Any stub services to this lot, therefore it was never intended to be built but
throughout the city and I just focused on a couple in Carver Beach so people can split off part of their lot
and some of it with another lot. Combine certain, to make an actual buildable lot and there is the example
rd
on 1661 63 Street. An example where there’s not a tie put in and the owner of that lot had to provide the
sewer and water tie in as there was on Broken Arrow so it does happen in the city. Not every lot as it’s
platted comes in, particularly in this area, but there’s some other older parts of town too but I just focused
on two that were in Carver Beach. So with that when this item did go to the Planning Commission on
th
July 16 they did recommend support for the variance. The reason why this is before you tonight is the
neighbors filed the petition to appeal the recommendation so that is why it is before you tonight so with
that staff is recommending that you approve the 5% hard cover and I’d be happy to answer any questions
that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, could you go back to the ordinance that
you had at the beginning of your presentation regarding non-conforming lots. What constitutes or what
creates, what meets the condition that would be a non-conforming lot of record.
4
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Kate Aanenson: Well back when these lots were created they were the 20 by 100 feet. The city
ordinance now is 15,000 square feet so there’s all different types of assembling of those lots so if those 3
together only makes 6,000 square feet. Because it is a lot of record you are, we try to give them the
reasonable use of that lot so we think that home size is reasonable for considering the area. It does meet
all the setbacks so, within that, you know it could be somebody that had a house that was already in
existence and had been torn down over time and that the standard had changed. Again this is the older
part of town. That’s where most of the non-conforming lots of record be, which would be also up on
maybe Lake Minnewashta. Some of those older, smaller lots up there and then the Carver Beach area
probably the most of them.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s not unusual to have non-conforming lots.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: In the city.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, so the variance specifically is 70 square feet of hard coverage more
than would be allowable, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Are there any lots or any, yeah any lots in and around this area where the
hard surface exceeds 25%, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: There may be. We didn’t go through that. We did put some other variances in the area
but we have granted variance for hard cover in the area.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: There’s ways we could have accommodated too. You could have pulled the house
closer to the street. Shorten up the driveway but when you have a smaller lot to begin with, it does
provide additional guest parking and the like so there’s other ways to, to give it, you still have to give
some sort of a variance.
Councilman Laufenburger: But in fact if you had moved the house then we would have had to have
setback variances.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Kate.
Mayor Furlong: You just made the comment there would have had to been some sort of variance.
5
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Is it not physically possible?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think if you would have done a two story house and kept the footprint smaller
there may have been a way to do that but there was a lot of pressure from the last time this came through
from the neighborhood that they didn’t want to see a two story house and that the Minutes that were at the
Planning Commission meeting, there was still concern about the height of this house. There is a two
story across the street but some felt that that was not in character with the neighborhood so I think this
type of development, this application tried to incorporate more of a split entry design.
Mayor Furlong: So is this house, would this house as it’s proposed be shorter? Have a lower...
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Than a true two story correct.
Mayor Furlong: Than a two story, okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: What are some disadvantages do you think for granting this variance as far as
water flow goes and drainage and situations with the other neighbor’s properties?
Kate Aanenson: I don’t think there’d be a problem with that. I can see if the City Engineer wants to
comment on any concerns that he may see.
Paul Oehme: Ms. Aanenson, Mayor, council members. Carver Beach, we are looking at making
improvements to Carver Beach in the next couple years. There are some areas where we do have
stormwater deficiencies that we’re going to be addressing in several years. This particular area the
stormwater capacity seems acceptable for the time being with the small impervious coverage surface
above the recommended or the amount that’s in the ordinance. I don’t see a problem right now with
moving forward with this variance.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: So Kate I had the opportunity to talk with some of the neighbors during National
Night Out and one of the comments that actually was presented to me was that at one time the neighbors
asked if that property was buildable and they were told no so can you, do you have any information
regarding that? Was there a time when that property was not buildable or?
Kate Aanenson: That was also brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. Not to our knowledge
that that we would have said something like that through the planning department. Without it being a
wetland or anything on that, I don’t know why that would have been communicated so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Then the other question that came up is, some of the neighbors had wanted to buy
that property and they were told that they, and I don’t remember the reasons exactly why but they were
told that they could not buy that property and I don’t know if that was a point, I can’t even tell you who
owned it at that time but would there be a possibility that.
Kate Aanenson: No, we wouldn’t be involved in any decision there if someone wanted to buy a piece of
property and attach it to their lot. That’s, they’d just go down and record it with the County. We
wouldn’t have to you know, if someone’s taking a part of their property and splitting it off or adding to
6
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
another one, then we’d do an administrative subdivision but they’re adding a piece, if it was a lot of
record, that happens over time throughout the city so.
Councilwoman Ernst: And then reading from some of the notes in the packet, and I think the year was
like around 1999 where a variance was passed.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: Was approved for a 36% impervious.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilwoman Ernst: And that has always been the case but then there was, that was only allowed for a
certain number of years.
Kate Aanenson: What the law is, if you don’t, our ordinance says if you don’t use a variance within one
year it becomes null and void so it was granted with a higher percentage of hard cover. I mean the 36%
but after one year it expired so the applicant is now choosing now to go forward with it.
Councilwoman Ernst: And asking for the 30 rather than the.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: Because they can’t get the 36% now but.
Kate Aanenson: Well they could ask again for that same number but you know we try to encourage them
to try to minimize it as much as possible.
Councilwoman Ernst: Because I think they were asking for 33%.
Kate Aanenson: Well the hard they got, yeah they actually got more. A greater variance last time so
they’re asking for less, yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So the reason it didn’t go through is again it expired after one year.
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions of staff at this time? Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah I’ve got one question. When this plan was brought to you and everything,
did you talk to the builder about what it would take to actually put a house on that property that would
require no variances?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. I mean we talked about the two story home, which I indicated. I think he can talk
about that a little bit more too.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the choices are we could have gone to a two story home that would
have then put something in the neighborhood that’s not typically there or you go to a lesser sized home
7
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
with a smaller bedroom, or maybe with just one bedroom and that would fit but what they’re wanting to
do, that’s why they need a variance.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, again I think we were trying hard to fit into the neighborhood. Trying to you
know not go the full two stories. Minimize, so we’re coming in less than what was approved before so
that was our goal to try to work within that framework.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? At this point I’d like to invite the people that
initiated the appeal from the Planning Commission. Again the Planning Commission approved the
variance request. This is on appeal by residents Wally and Cheryl Schwab, Robert and Doris Nelson and
Keith and Julie Peterson so I would certainly invite each of them or their representative to come up. They
mentioned in their letter disagreements with the variance because of Findings that were brought forth by
the staff report and so, Planning Commission so good evening. If you could state your name and address
for the record.
Keith Peterson: My name is Keith Peterson. I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive in Chanhassen.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Keith Peterson: The reason I guess our neighborhood kind of got fired up about this is multiple numbers
of us called in to the City and they told us this lot was not buildable when it came up for sale and so
Wally, Bob and I were going to buy it and then we were going to divide up our property so each one of
our lots would be bigger and actually I think they all might have reached the 15,000 square feet. And so
while we were getting our finances together and whatever gonna you know buy this lot, we found out it
got sold by somebody that worked at the City and all of a sudden it was buildable. So how many of you
would like to buy a lot in Chanhassen for $4,200? That’s buildable. I think everybody would. And that’s
what this lot originally sold for and so, and Anita Benson who has never been to one of her own meetings
bought the lot. I think she was a city engineer at that time and so the next thing we know it was buildable
so you know we fought it last time. We won at that Planning Commission and then the City Council
approved, basically they approved on a house that nobody wanted to build just to kind of keep everybody,
us happy and not get sued by her. We’re not even sure but now it came up again and my beef and all of
us, our beef is Anita Benson bought this property for $4,200. The next time we find out about anything
she’s trying to sell it for $27,500. Never mowed it once. Didn’t do anything. She hasn’t even mowed it
in 12 years. It’s just a jungle right now. And the way we look at it, one of the regular stipulations is the
purpose of this variation is not based upon the desire to increase the value or income potential of this
parcel of land. That’s where we’re coming from and by her buying this, never building a house herself to
live in and actually she wrote a letter to the Planning Commission. I don’t know if you have a copy of
that, stating that in January, 1999 I developed building plans. Applied and received necessary variances
to build on this property and it wasn’t 1999. It was 2001 when it was approved and it wasn’t here that got
it approved. It was, she was trying to build a house for Habitat for Humanity, or that’s who was going to
do with that and she wrote a letter stating that in 1999 it was approved. That she had it approved, her
plans and it was 2001 and it wasn’t her plans. She was just trying to sell it for $27,000, let’s see where it
was at. $27,200 to Habitat for Humanity without even mowing one stitch of grass on this property. To
me that sounds like profit. If this variance it’s full profit and now the last 12 years she hasn’t mowed it.
Nothing got built there. I think they backed out of it but so our contention is this is just for pure profit. I
talked to Mr. Generous and he’s saying well you know, this gentleman here is applying for it but the
owner is the one that’s going to make the pure profit if this goes through and so, and there’s another thing
here too that I talked to Mr. Generous about and he told me it wasn’t true. The 1999 isn’t the year that it
was approved. It was 2001 and she’s saying it was 1991 separate from the Habitat for Humanity and she
8
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
wrote here in this letter to the city that I was approached by city staff regarding city interest in purchasing
this property using Community Development Block Grant funding for the building of a Habitat for
Humanity home on the property. An agreement was reached with the community development staff for
the purchase of this property. However the City Council didn’t approve it but I went and talked to Mr.
Generous and that didn’t happen so these two paragraphs to me show that she’s trying to cover that this is
just for profit. So anyway that’s, trying to think. So that’s where our beef is you know when the City
tells us it’s not buildable, I mean we would have jumped on it that day if we knew that somebody was
going to, it was only worth anything to somebody that lived next to it so you know we would have bought
it instantly if we knew there could have been somebody from the city coming up you know and then all of
a sudden it’s buildable. I mean stuff like this is why people don’t like government you know. You know
we have nothing against all you guys but when.
Mayor Furlong: It’s the other government guys.
Keith Peterson: Yeah, it’s the other government but you know when you tell us that it’s not buildable and
then somebody from the city.
Mayor Furlong: And if I can ask, because you mentioned that a couple times. Who told you, I think you
were.
Keith Peterson: See we don’t know. We called the City. This land is for sale.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Keith Peterson: Mr. Schwab and I and I think the owner of the land. You know if I was the owner of the,
if I was the guy that sold this lot for $4,200 and all of a sudden it’s selling for $27,000 and it’s buildable
and he thinks it’s not, I’m surprised he wasn’t on your tail.
Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess that’s the question.
Keith Peterson: You know we don’t know who. It was a female that’s all I know so.
Mayor Furlong: 10-15 years ago.
Keith Peterson: Yeah it was back in, when did it first come for sale? ’99.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Keith Peterson: It was probably end of ’98 when we were inquiring on it. I believe Anita bought it
January 5th, 1999.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Keith Peterson: And so that’s kind of where we’re coming from and.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Keith Peterson: And with this being approved, you know this, even the house now it’s probably still
going to be 10 feet taller than Wally’s house which is going to be 20 feet next to it and you know
basically by putting that in, I don’t know if you want to turn the rest of the houses into tear down’s or you
know if you want, you know you start doing this and then true if you want Chanhassen as number 4 in the
9
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
country but you’re selling Minneapolis sized lots you know so. You know you’re approving houses to be
built, you know if you want to cram them in like Minneapolis that’s kind of what it’s going to happen
here so, I don’t know if anybody else has anything to say but that’s my.
Mayor Furlong: Please. Alright Mr. Peterson, thank you.
Wally Schwab: Good evening.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Wally Schwab: I’m Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road which is just east of the property in
question. Lived there for 33 years. Needless to say will be quite impacted by whatever decisions take
place on this piece of property. Just to throw a little light on some of what Keith was saying. Back when
Mr. Osmundson, who then owned the property, let me know that he was going to put it on the market. He
gave me a price on it. We kicked it around with Keith and Bob. I personally went over to the City
planning office to inquire as to whether or not it was a buildable lot. I was told by I don’t know who.
Whoever I talked to pulled it up on the computer. Looked at it. He said no, that can’t be built. It’s too
small. It doesn’t have sufficient square footage. Nor is it stubbed. It can’t be built. So that’s what we
got from the person then at the Planning Commission and from there it just has kind of snow balled to
where we are at today. Needless to say we who are very impacted by this would like to see nothing
happen and there are other offers on the table from us that will allow Ms. Benson to sell the property not
as maybe a great a profit as she might like but she would still be able to sell the property. So I’m
requesting that you take this really under serious consideration. There are other split level houses in the
area. Our immediate area. They are all on full sized lots. Not a dinky little 60 by 100 lot and that’s
pretty much my viewpoint on it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. or Mrs. Nelson here or do you want to comment?
Mr. Nelson: I’m here but I’m the one that handed that…read that and go over the same stuff…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Ms. Aanenson, thoughts and comments on the
objections raised by the residents?
Kate Aanenson: Those were the same points, those were raised at the Planning Commission.
Unfortunately I’m not sure how that was communicated. I think as the City Attorney knows that if it’s a
lot of record, we do our best to see if it can be built on so.
Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess Mr. Knutson a question for you based on the comments raised by the
residents. First is whether or not the lot is buildable as it is, and while it’s 3 lots they are assembled as a
single lot, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So originally they were 3 of the 20 by 100 but now it is a single lot of record.
Roger Knutson: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And is it a, does it meet the definition of being a non-conforming lot of record?
Roger Knutson: Definitely.
10
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: The minimum lot size I believe Kate said was 15,000. This is 6,000 and city code and
the zoning ordinance as you know better than I do I think, evolves over time so what, I’m not sure what
the zoning ordinance said in 1999. I’m not sure about this but the current provision that says for example,
regardless of your lot size if you’re a lot of record and the only thing you’ve got wrong with your lot is
the lot size or lot dimensions, you don’t even need a variance. It’s buildable. That wasn’t always in the
city code but it sure is there today so the size of the lot is really not an issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: That’s taken off the table. It’s deemed buildable. The only thing before you is the
question of the 5% variance on impervious surface coverage.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: And the question there is, is that a practical difficulty and, which is a new standard. It’s
only a year old. It means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter so the question for you is, is this extra 5% of impervious surface reasonable
under the circumstances or will it cause stormwater problems and I heard what your city engineer had to
say about that but it’s ultimately your decision.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the requirement, you mentioned practical difficulties. There’s also a
requirement here I’m reading that the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic conditions
alone.
Roger Knutson: The applicant wants to build a house and live there. You don’t look what the property
owner making more money is not the issue. The question is, is this applicant who wants to build this
house, does he just want to build this house for economic consideration or is he looking for a place to
live. People to live.
Audience: He’s not going to live there.
Roger Knutson: For people to live. A reasonable house.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other comments by either, yes sir?
Todd Gerhardt: The applicant.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, yep. If you’d like to come up and respond, please.
David Moore: I’m David Moore. I live at 3811 Williston Road, Minnetonka. I am the applicant and
buyer for the property. I’m not representing Anita Benson. Edina Realty is at my office.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
David Moore: My, to answer one of your questions. 33.5% was my hard cover application originally. I
didn’t realize that the deck was not part of that. That’s why it was approved by planning department at
30.8 I believe. And I did research this property quite extensive at the City. I’ve been doing this for
several years. Back in the 1970’s the property abutting me to the west, it’s address was 960 Carver Beach
Road. I assume right about that time, 1977-78 is when it was split. Made a lot of record for whatever
11
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
reason back then I don’t know. I’m aware of the side yard and the setbacks and the impervious
applications that I’ve made. This home is very well designed. I probably went through 500 prints and
viewed them to get the aesthetic view of the front of the house to fit a value that would be agreeable to the
neighbors I would hope. It is 3 bedrooms on the main floor. Two full bathrooms, including a master.
Kitchen, living room, fireplace. Lower level, fourth bedroom and another bath so it’s 4 bedrooms, 3
baths. Around 1,900 square feet finished. Yes, I could go smaller on a house on there and with 1,500
square feet of impervious surface area. Do a 960 split. Double tuck under garage. Wouldn’t be standing
here tonight. Would it be economical sound judgment on my part to do that? We were talking about
maybe a one or two bedroom house. That’s what would be served on that lot, a lot of record. Would it
help the neighbors over here in values? No it wouldn’t. This home now was in beginning stages was
appraised for a little over $300,000 so it certainly fits the value and I wouldn’t build anything cheap. I’ve
been doing this for 37 years. Any other questions of me? That’s about all I can say tonight I guess.
Hope you approve this…
Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Moore? No, okay.
David Moore: Okay, thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Just because the variance law is changed multiple times, and I’ve been in situations
where there’s some confusion. The variation before, the law before this current statute was passed about
a year ago was undue hardship and without the variation are you prevented from having any reasonable
use of the property. That is no longer the standard. It is not the standard so you don’t look at could they
build without a variance. That’s not the question.
Mayor Furlong: That was the old.
Roger Knutson: That’s the old standard.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Now the question is, is what they want reasonable? Is this a reasonable use of the
property? Not could they build without it but is this reasonable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments from the public? Okay, thank you. Let me bring it to
council then for discussion and consideration. Thoughts and comments. Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I’ll go first. Well based upon my understanding of our standards, and I thank
Mr. Knutson for that because I was probably asking the wrong questions. Yeah, it seems to me as though
it’s a reasonable use of the property. It’s a house. It fits into the neighborhood. Whether or not they
make profit, it’s not the City’s problem. It’s not our business so I discount all of that and all I’m left with
is, is it reasonable? I don’t see why it’s not reasonable and you haven’t brought forth reasons for me to
consider that it’s not reasonable so I’d be in favor of granting the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
12
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have to concur with Councilman McDonald. While I feel your frustration
and I understand that you had another vision for this piece of property, as a council member it’s not my
role to determine whether or not someone makes a profit on a lot or.
Audience: …put that in the thing that it can’t be for profit. Then you can’t consider that.
Mayor Furlong: She can continue her comments please.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It’s not my role to determine if a private citizen buys a piece of property and
what that profit is and if that’s correct or not. I asked the question tonight whether or not there was any
surface water issues because as a council member that is what I’m most concerned about is making sure
that there’s no harm done to any of the other neighboring properties and I was answered by the engineer
that he didn’t feel there was any issues with that and so for that reason I also will be approving for the
variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, so this is a hard one for me because it’s just a few houses down from me
and I’m very sympathetic to the situation. I have to say that I like, from what I’ve seen I like the design
of the house and I, it sounds like with the impervious surface issue that the stormwater issue is covered
and it sounds like there is a hardship that’s involved here and that constitutes a variance as this type of a
change. You know my neighbors are really caught in a hard place and simply due to circumstances that
have happened over the past years and what it is today and I’m disappointed with those circumstances.
However with the situation and the variance and what has been proposed, I have to do the right thing for
the City as well and I feel that the right thing to do is to vote in favor of the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger, thoughts or comments.
Councilman Laufenburger: Just a brief one Mr. Mayor. I think that Mr. Knutson in describing the rules
under which we can approve a variance now and how they are different from a year ago, I think it falls on
us as a council to provide a real solid test of reasonableness and I’m thinking about, I think that Mr.
Moore and his efforts to build a very nice home that would contribute to the neighborhood as opposed to
detract from the neighborhood, I think that’s a good thing and I think that 70 feet of impervious is not
unreasonable. 70 square feet of imperviousness is not an unreasonable reason to deny this variance so I
would support the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think the issues have been pretty well defined. Is it buildable? Currently
our ordinances it is. Whether it was before or what information was received before, we can’t say but
today it is. Is there a hardship? Does it meet the conditions of a variance request and to the standpoint of
not could they do something else, which was the old standard, but is what they’re requesting reasonable?
I look at this and with the city engineer’s statement that the additional impervious surface would not
cause a public problem from stormwater management. I think it is reasonable. The issue of economic
considerations here I think certainly there’s a desire to increase the value of the property by improving the
property but I think that’s very consistent with everyone who has built a home or might take a lot and
build a home on the lot. It’s to improve the property for their use or to sell so I think that’s just the
marketplace and a very reasonable use of this property. If they were seeking to build a type of building or
improve upon the property that wasn’t consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, that wasn’t in
harmony with the area, then that would be different but I think what is being proposed here and the
expectations that they follow all the permitting process and all the ordinance, where the one area of
variance from city ordinance is the impervious surface cover I think it’s reasonable and so if that’s the
standard by which we are charged to make a decision, that makes sense to do for me so with that, unless
13
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
there are other comments I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. McDonald, since you were leaning
forward.
Councilman McDonald: I make a motion that the Chanhassen City Council approves a 5.8% hard cover
variance to permit the construction of a single family home subject to the conditions of the staff report
and adoption of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council approves a 5.8 percent hardcover variance to permit the construction of a single family
home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments Findings of Fact:
1. The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall
try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property.
2. The building shall be limited to the split level house design.
3. The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your understanding.
BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK
BOULEVARD, APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC/OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ:
REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO
MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY; CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT;
AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING REMOVAL OF THE SITE FROM THE RURAL SERVICE
AREA.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This request did appear before the
th
Planning Commission on July 16. Whoops. Got the wrong project up. Sorry. It’s located off of
Pioneer Trail. This is a property that, it was impacted by the 212 interchange. At one time before the
design build came forward with the 212 there was potentially proposed an interchange at this location of
the confluence of Pioneer Trail and actually the new Pioneer Pass Road, Bluff Creek Road going into
Pioneer Pass. So part of this property shown here will eventually be vacated and that would be this area
right in here so it’s a little, and we have steep slopes on the back side as we go towards Liberty on Bluff
Creek so this site, while it was given medium density, it’s kind of topographically separated from the rest
of the city. The land use on, the current land use and zoning on this property is medium density but it’s
zoned agricultural so surrounding it, as I mentioned we have the Liberty on Bluff Creek which is also
PUD Medium Density. We have a neighborhood from Chaska that’s immediately to the west of this
property, and then the new park for Pioneer Pass and the Pioneer Pass subdivision. Again then eventually
14