PC 2005 03 15
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 15, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug
and Jerry McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer;
and Josh Metzer, Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF FOX HOLLOW DRIVE, WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, AND SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (6500 CHANHASSEN ROAD), FOX DEN. APPLICANT, 10
SPRING, INC., PLANNING CASE 05-08.
Public Present:
Name Address
Richard Herr 120 Fox Hollow Drive
James Rosenlund 771 Hyacinth Circle
Cara Otto Otto Associates, 9 West Division St, Buffalo
nd
Scott Rosenlund 622 W. 82 Street, Chaska
Tonia & Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive
Tim & Melissa McNeill 6441 Pleasant View Circle
James Nicholls 6451 Pleasant View Circle
Maria Vanderzanden 50 Hunters Court
Kim & Dave Robinson 25 Pleasant View Road
Rogue Swenson 35 Pleasant View Road
Jim Theis 6400 Chanhassen Road
st
Devin Talberg 3304 1 Avenue
Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Yep, I think we’ll have a few questions Sharmeen. Thank you. Who wants to start?
Start on this side? Want to start Jerry?
McDonald: Yeah, I have some questions for staff. Okay, how’s that? Is that on? Okay, I have
some questions for staff. One of the things that I guess I’m unsure of as I read through the
report, I’d like to ask you about the retaining pond. Reading here about this floating fair cloth
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
skimmer and some of the other work that you intend to do, as part of the development then will
the retaining pond be drained so that it can be expanded? Is that what we’re talking about here?
Saam: Yeah. Based on preliminary talks that I’ve had with the applicant’s engineer, I believe
that’s what they plan on doing is temporarily pumping it down, expanding it and then allowing it
to fill back up.
McDonald: Okay, and currently on that pond there is no grate covering over the metal pipe that
drains into the area, is that correct?
Saam: I’ll say currently the outlet, the pipe that controls the outlet for the pond or that drains
down the pond, doesn’t meet our current specifications. We’re requiring them to update that to
current standards so after this project it will have the metal grate, the manhole. What we call an
outlet control structure so.
McDonald: Okay. Then you had mentioned on the roadway going into the new Fox Drive in the
area where we’re talking about a retaining wall, that they may be able to raise the road a little bit
and at that point eliminate the retaining wall. Okay, on the west side that would bring that up but
on the east side, that is a significant drop off toward the pond. What’s the effect over there as far
as the road?
Saam: Yeah, that’s a good point. I mean when we raise the road we lessen the slope on one
side. We may be increasing it on the other so we may need a small wall on the east side. And
we do have those adjacent to ponds. Just at Highlands on Bluff Creek, about half a year ago that
has one along an entire side. What we’d be talking about here would maybe be one course of
block. You know a one foot type wall. Something small. 1 and 2 feet.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I’ve got, the question about the trees on the lines
came up. When I looked at these, they looked to be right on the line. What’s the concern there?
Is there a problem as far as construction maybe destroying those trees or are there other trees that
are concerned with here? You know the ones I’m talking about? As you look down, most the
trees are right on the fence, and then the question is, is the fence right on the lot line or is it off
and those trees are in jeopardy or what’s the concern with the trees at that point?
Al-Jaff: Well the fence is, according to surveys that we have looked at, it appears as if the fence
is on the neighboring property. We are working with the developer to ensure that trees are
saved.
McDonald: Okay, so at this point we really don’t know the impact on those particular trees
then?
Al-Jaff: In looking at, and I spoke to the City Forester as well. She said that the trees on site are
fairly tolerate to construction and the applicant should make an effort to save them. Again, we
will work with the developer to make sure that as many trees are saved as possible.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
McDonald: Okay. And on the issue about the width of Fox Drive itself. Of taking that down to
I believe 21 feet as far as surface area. You say that that’s wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass but
no parking.
Saam: Yeah. At least it would have to at least go down to parking on one side of the street. Our
private streets are 20 feet wide. We don’t allow any parking there. So here at 24 feet we’re a
little less than half where we allow both side parking so we would definitely be restricting the
parking if we would decrease the street width.
McDonald: Okay, and there’s no plans for this to be a private street, is that correct?
Saam: No. Private streets are limited to 4 lots so based on them applying for 6, that kind of
threw out that option.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I guess I have would be for the developer so I’ll
wait for those.
Sacchet: Okay Jerry. Questions Rich? Debbie, any questions?
Larson: I think he covered.
Sacchet: Okay, Dan.
Keefe: Just a couple follow up’s. The proposed retaining wall on the west side is, how far is that
from the curb? Would that be the proposed retaining wall. Just out of curiosity.
Saam: It would be just inside the right-of-way so it’d be approximately 9. Well let me throw my
scale on it quick. Yeah, approximately 9 feet, give or take you know half a foot.
Keefe: Okay. And in regards to the trees in the buffer, I’m kind of paging through some of this
information you gave us right before and it looks like the neighbor wanted to have, it says 1
conifer tree shall be planted every 6 to 14 feet. I saw that. Code says 30 feet, is that correct?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Keefe: And then, am I reading this correctly? That planning would like them to see, be planted
20 feet? Is that your?
Al-Jaff: No. What we did was, we took Mr. Ashline’s suggestions and we wanted to respond to
them. Why have we made the recommendations that we have? We can’t just pick numbers
arbitrarily. We have guidelines. We need to follow those guidelines.
Keefe: Yeah, which is 30 feet right?
Al-Jaff: Which is 30 feet.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Keefe: Yeah, it just states in here, and I’m looking at number 6 on the second page of the
response to questions. And it says we would like to see and planted 20 feet apart, as opposed to
30 feet, and I just want to make sure I’m clear on what.
Saam: I think that’s Mr. Ashline’s memo.
Keefe: Is it? It just says…
Sacchet: It has his words and inbetween are the answers.
Keefe: Okay so, number 6 is actually what he’s saying, is that correct?
Al-Jaff: Correct. Where the number is…
Keefe: The answer is the city’s sticking by 30 feet.
Al-Jaff: …why have we made our recommendation.
Keefe: Just trying to be clear. The answer is the city says 30 feet, is that right?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Okay, that’s what I want to know there. One more question on the street width. If we
were to take it down to 24 feet and not only allow parking on one side of the street. The houses
which are in the back, that would mean that, or in the development itself, that means people who
visited them would have to park on the opposite side potentially if we were to take it down.
They wouldn’t be able to park necessarily in front of the house if they came to visit them,
correct?
Saam: Correct.
Keefe: Reasonably.
Saam: Yeah, correct.
Keefe: Would we typically sign that to say parking only allowed or what is it?
Saam: Yeah, if we would impose no parking on one side of the street, yeah. To be able to
enforce it, ticketing, that sort of thing, we’d have to have it sign. The sheriff wouldn’t enforce it
otherwise.
Keefe: Okay. That’s it.
Sacchet: Steve.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Couple questions. Matt and Sharmeen, is there any potential for expanding a
regional pond downstream at all or have you guys looked at that at all? In lieu of expanding the
one on Lot 8.
Saam: No, I didn’t look downstream and the reason why is the outlet for this goes under 101
into Eden Prairie so drainage from this area goes into Eden Prairie and out of the county so.
Lillehaug: Let’s see. On your response to question sheet. One of the answers regarding they
need to show a contour elevation at 912 in the bottom of the pond, is that a condition we need to
add or that you’re recommending that we add?
Saam: We thought we caught that by, we said there are minor changes needed in the stormwater
calculations. You can certainly add it. I’ve alerted the developer’s engineer to it. I don’t think
it’s a huge, I believe it’s going to be taken care of but we can add it if it’s not there.
Lillehaug: Okay. Now the big question. One of my biggest pet peeves. Sharmeen, can you
explain to me what the code is regarding a, is the 60 by 60 pad in the code or isn’t it in the code?
Al-Jaff: It’s not in the code.
Lillehaug: It’s not in the code. Are we absolutely sure? I can’t believe it’s not in the code.
Al-Jaff: It’s not in the code. It is not.
Lillehaug: Is this something we reviewed recently where we, as a planning commission wanted
to add it in the code? And it’s going forward to the council.
Sacchet: We discussed it. I know we discussed it but I don’t think it became code Steve.
Lillehaug: Got to be kidding me. Okay. I’m done with questions.
Sacchet: I have a few questions too. First of all, the property to the west of the subject site, is
that being accessed from Pleasant View?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: So we’re not land locking those?
Al-Jaff: No, and we looked at potential future development of those parcels, whether they can
subdivide and they couldn’t.
Sacchet: And they have currently access.
Al-Jaff: They do have existing access off of Pleasant View Road, or.
Saam: There’s a private drive I think.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Al-Jaff: There is a private drive.
Sacchet: In terms of the expansion of the pond, right now the developer is proposing to pretty
expand it to the north. Use the whole space there, I guess it’s a question for you Matt. Trouble
is there’s some nice evergreens there, so has there been efforts to explore how the pond could be
expanded without using that whole space to the north there?
Saam: Yeah, I believe we have. We’ve looked at that. Myself and the City Forester brought
that issue up. She would like to keep those if we can. Let me go up here. Really the only decent
size area that we have to get some significant volume is, as I see it in this area. We can’t pond in
the right-of-way. We have to keep that on private property. We own the property but still,
consider it private. But in this area, I believe the entrance monument to the development is in
that area.
Sacchet: Oh, that’s used, okay.
Saam: Yeah, excuse me. So I guess it would be possible to dig that out. Relocate the entrance
monument somewhere. And then we could maybe cut some of this down. That would be in my
opinion about the only option you have. There’s a little corner here but again with sloping up
and everything, I don’t think you’re going to get the water quality. What we need is the below
water level. That volume. So we really need some area down low because by the time you come
up to the top then at a slope, you know you start to get out so we could, we can investigate this
further. We probably have to talk, I believe they have a homeowners association and talk with
that to see if they would mind moving that.
Sacchet: Thanks Matt. I don’t know whether this is related on page 8 of the staff report, on the
bottom. It talks about replacing city trees that get lost. Are we talking about those trees around
the pond or?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Let’s see. That might be it for my questions. Yep. So with that I’d like to
invite the applicant, if you want to come forward. We’ll hear from the applicant and after that
we do the public hearing. So if you want to add how happy you are with what and which ones
maybe you’re a little less happy with.
nd
Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, my name is Scott Rosenlund. I live at 622 West 82 Street, Chaska.
And I’m an owner of 10 Spring Inc. with my son Jamie. And we have worked with Cara Otto
from Otto Engineering extensively and with the city staff and I think pretty much it’s been
covered. We’re pretty, you know there are some issues. One issue I had, want to bring up on the
trees. I think Jason did have his property surveyed and we were out there. We met with him. I
think the trees are pretty clearly on the property on Fox Den and someone asked if we could
maintain them. It is in our best interest to leave the trees there. It just increases the value of the
property but there are a few of them that are leaning quite extensively to the north and they might
interfere with, if we put a two story home up there. So those we would look at, if they might
6
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
have to come down. But if possible we’d like to maintain the trees. That was one issue on the
trees. The issue on the pond, I know Matt had brought up the fact that some of the ponding, the
existing pond, the staff is not up to city code and it just seems like it’s an unfair burden that all of
a sudden now it’s our responsibility to bring it up to code when maybe things have changed so
that was just an issue. As far as the issues with the grading and the depth of that, if that’s our
burden, it’s our burden. It just seems maybe a little unfair to, if you do have something that’s out
of date, that maybe the city needs to address that. But we’d be happy to answer any questions
and Cara is here from Otto Engineering, if you have any technical questions.
Sacchet: Maybe Matt, could you address the point that he just brought up. I mean how far is this
pond off of code? Are they being stuck with an undue burden to bring it up to code plus to
accommodate the new thing? What’s the proportion? Can you give us an idea please?
Saam: Sure. Yeah, I think there may be a little miscommunication. The current pond is sized
just for the developed area of Fox Hollow that’s going there.
Sacchet: It’s properly sized for that.
Saam: Yes. We’re not asking this developer to increase it to bring it up to cover the existing
area. He’s being asked to increase it for his area and then the 912 contour is for additional area
to the north. A regional area if you will. The code allows for a small credit of the SWMP fees,
the Surface Water fees at time of final plat for doing that. I don’t think the 2 foot depth will,
you’ll see a large increase or decrease I should say of his fees but, so just to clarify. We’re not
asking him to bring the current up to any code. We are asking the outlet structure to be updated.
He’s asking to expand that so to control the rate, that’s got to be updated. We feel that’s well
within his burden.
Sacchet: Is that a satisfactory answer to you?
Scott Rosenlund: It was more of a grading issue….a grade even if we add onto it.
Sacchet: Do we have questions?
Slagle: I’ve got one. If I may. The application as I see it with 6 lots, staff mentioned some
concerns, perhaps 2 of the lots, I don’t want to read into it but at any point did staff share with
you the concerns that perhaps you’re trying to put too many lots into a parcel this size?
Scott Rosenlund: Yeah we had, the point we talked about was specifically Lots 1 and 4 and the
width of those and the question came up, can a house even fit on there so we actually provided a
picture and plans that we have. We have this house built in Mound and I think we shared the
address, and that is the exact plan that we built. It’s probably about a $600,000 house that we
have built in Mound on a 50 foot lot.
Slagle: Is that on the lake?
Scott Rosenlund: No. Not a $600,000.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Slagle: So you, if I can just ask again, so you’re comfortable with the number of lots? I mean
you think it’s not going to appear as though 2 are being squeezed. At least 1 for sure, being
squeezed into this development.
Scott Rosenlund: No I do not. I’m comfortable with it.
Slagle: Okay.
McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? Have you looked at the rest of the development as far
as lot sizes and houses and spacings and those things and will what you put in here be in
character with the rest of the neighborhood?
Scott Rosenlund: You mean with Fox Hollow?
McDonald: With Fox Hollow.
Scott Rosenlund: I would say that the, this will probably be you know obviously newer but
probably a little bit the price point I think will be quite a bit higher just based on the value of the
property today.
McDonald: I’m not talking about price. What I’m looking at is spacing and the way houses fit
on the lot. The size of the lots in comparison to the rest of the development. Is this going to be
comparable to that or is this going to be smaller to where it looks out of place compared to the
rest of the development or is it bigger? Where is it in relation?
Al-Jaff: May I answer that question?
McDonald: Sure.
Al-Jaff: I’m more familiar with the area of Fox Hollow. That subdivision is actually a planned
unit development. Parcels were permitted to go down as small as 11,000 square feet. The
overall average lot size for the entire Fox Hollow had to maintain 15,000. There will be some
parcels within the Fox Hollow subdivision that are below the 15,000 square feet. The
subdivision you’re looking at before you today is 100% 15,000 or larger.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I’ve got concern Lots 4, 5, and 6. On the backs
of those lots is now a trail. That is also out to 101. It’s very flat at that point. All those lots are
pretty much open to the trail and also to 101. Do you have any plans as far as barriers or buffers
or berms or anything such as that for the back of those lots?
Scott Rosenlund: We have built on similar sites like on Highway 5 before that back up to
Highway 5 and usually it’s in our best interest to put some sort of berm or trees on the back side
there. I know we’re a little bit limited with the trailway there and the possible easement there,
widening of Highway 5 but definitely some planting many trees back there would help that site.
If there was room we could put a berm in there. I’m not sure if we had planned.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Cara Otto: Drainage wise it would be tough.
Scott Rosenlund: Drainage wise it would be tough so we’ll probably just end up with a tree.
McDonald: Okay, and have you given any consideration to a barrier fence or something along
those back lines?
Scott Rosenlund: I really haven’t gotten to that point but that’s not a bad idea. Might be a little
uncharacteristic for the neighborhood but.
McDonald: Well it would actually fit in with the neighborhood if you go north of Pleasant View,
there’s a fence there. If you go south.
Scott Rosenlund: The Eden Prairie side?
McDonald: Right on the Chanhassen side and also on the Chanhassen side within Fox Hollow
itself as you go down there are fences.
Cara Otto: I just wanted to note, Cara Otto with Otto Associates. One of the project engineers.
There is, as part of the staff conditions, some additional buffer planting that is in addition to what
we had originally proposed. And that’s mentioned I believe in one of the conditions. It lists a
certain number and type that they want of that so, we would comply with that buffer planting.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Any questions this side of the crowd? No? Anything you want to add from your end?
Scott Rosenlund: Maybe just a chance to respond later if necessary.
Sacchet: Okay. You can always come back. With that I’d like to open the public hearing.
We’d like to invite any of the residents that have comments to this item in front of us to come
forward and express what you want to tell us. I do want to point out, since we have quite a good
number of people here tonight, that if I could ask you not to keep repeating the same thing over
and over in the interest of time. Then ideally if you have like a spokesperson of the
neighborhood, that’s the best solution. But certainly everybody’s welcome to speak up so is
anybody here that wants to address this proposal in front of us? This is your chance. Yes, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say
please.
Jason Ashline: Hi. I’m Jason Ashline, 10 Fox Hollow.
Sacchet: Do you want to put the mic a little in front? There you go.
Jason Ashline: Okay. As you guys are aware, I have some concerns about the proposed
development. I’m not opposed to development in general but I do not support this development
9
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
in it’s current form. Further study and modifications need to be made. I will cover several issues
as timely as possible. I’ll try to get through these as fast as possible. I would refer you to my
memo, I think all of you have that, and further information. First of all I’d like to point out that
in Section 20-1182 regarding foundations and aesthetic plantings, it specifically states that
boulevard plantings are at a minimum of 1 tree for every 30 is required. So it’s a minimum
standard. It’s not a maximum standard. It’s a minimum. So I would like to focus on the word
minimum and I would refer the commission to my asking for a modification of the condition
attached to the staff report, page 12, number 12, letter (I), to say one conifer tree should be
planted for every 6 to 14 feet except within the sight triangle. I would refer the members to my
proposals and condition add on’s and maybe possibly friendly amendments. I would also like to
see adherence to Section 20-1176, Section F(8). Basically this section of the code says in
instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may
designate that all plantings be conifers. So that’s the first area that I wanted to cover. The
second area is Section 18-61(D)(4). It’s in regards to providing relief to preserving trees in
adjusting lot lines and advocating modified grading. I would refer you to the expanded language
that I included in the current condition in the staff report, page 12, number 12(H). I would
remind the commission that trees 142 and 143 may possibly be considered boundary line trees
and be co-owned by myself and then the current owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Number 3,
regarding the proposed retaining wall on page 3 of the staff report, we’d like to explore the
retaining wall option with the developer if it is passed by the commission here and also work
with the city and the engineer if they don’t have an objection to that. I’ve had discussions with
the developer and his engineer and if a wall is put in, we’d like to make sure it’s fit in as
aesthetically as possible with our property to minimize it’s length as much as possible as well.
We’d like to see a landscape architect’s rendition of how the retaining wall would look like and
what type of stone material could be used. We’d also like to see how the street would look like
if the wall did not go as well, and I would refer you to a friendly amendment that I’ve proposed
as add on language that I’ve submitted as well. The next area that I’d like to cover regarding the
street width variance on page 10 of the staff report. I believe that a 24 foot wide street is more
than adequate and I believe that there is an environmental hardship and safety reason for going to
24 feet and also adjusting the cul-de-sac radius accordingly. I’ve gone out there and I’ve
measured it, you know 9 ½ feet off my property line to the east for a 31 foot paved surface, back
of curb to back of curb, and basically the edge of the curb on the eastern side of the proposed
Fox Drive comes extremely close to the edge of the current pond slope. There would be virtually
no room to plant boulevard trees which is what the environmental resource coordinator is
advocating. And I want to be very clear, we do not want, we do need at least a partial buffer
with evergreens because of the noise and the headlights and other visual impacts from Route
101. As you know all of the buffers, the 15 large trees that are currently north of the pond are
being removed, and also there is a safety issue of the road being located so very close to the edge
of this pond. I believe there is a true hardship reason here and as far as addressing the concerns
for on street parking and access to emergency vehicles, and in my memo I referenced an 8 year
study conducted by a consulting firm, Swift Associates in Longmont, Colorado and I’m sure
there are other studies out there that basically concluded that the safest street in residential
neighborhoods is a 24 foot wide paved street. Basically it concluded that speeds were slower,
provided ample room for emergency vehicles. It decreased impervious surface, which reduced
storm water runoff, which in turn reduces the size of storm water ponds. Additionally a 24 foot
wide paved surface reduces maintenance costs for the city and also construction costs for the
10
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
developer. It will also increase for the developer front lot size, and who wouldn’t want that?
Other municipalities in Minnesota use 24 feet wide, 24 feet wide streets very effectively. I
would refer the commissioners to Afton, Minnesota, Lake Elmo as examples. Parking could be
on one side of the street, and we’re talking about a very small area here between the pond and
east of my property line. And we’re only talking with access to this proposed subdivision, only
60 trips a day. So really instead of asking for maybe an after the fact variance, you know maybe
we can do it right the first time around and look at ways to address low impact development.
Lastly I want to address the proposed pond expansion. I believe that the current proposal is
premature. Basically on September 21, 2004 Lori Haak wrote to Todd Gerhardt a memo about
the storm water management program basically saying it is out of date and there are also specific
design standards for storm water ponds. Not just NURP standards but other standards that must
be adhered to for an effective storm water pond. Before we go ahead with this pond expansion I
think the commission really needs to ask itself you know several questions. First of all, are there
any reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and wipe out
the needed buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure there
are no alternatives to expand the pond by such a large amount? And third, is there anything else
that we can do to reduce impervious surface that will reduce runoff? And I propose you know
one area where we could reduce the street width. I mean I think most engineers would agree that
reducing impervious surface reduces runoff. And are there any other unintended consequences
with the decision to expand the pond? Basically there are alternatives. I proposed some. I’m
sure there are others. I would recommend that before we approve this plat, the City should hire
an independent firm to look at the proposed expansion, and this is why an expansion may not be
necessary. The contributing watershed would be, is still rather small. It’s a little over 12 acres.
According to the Metropolitan Council, which is the regional planning agency serving the Twin
Cities area, in their best management practices for urban small sites, the wetland size to a
watershed area ratio should be a minimum of 1%. According to storm water center.net, this type
of pond should not consume more than 2 to 3 percent of the contributing drainage area. Based
upon the calculations submitted, the area consumed would be at least 3.8%. It’s really too large
for this drainage area. The last thing we want to do is increase the size of our pond and then
MnDot decides to comes in and expand 101 to 4 lanes which may happen in the future.
Furthermore the design and shape of this pond, if you go through with this, is not consistent with
how storm water ponds should be designed. Firstly, the pond length to width ratio should be at
least 3 to 1. This pond, if expanded, will be as long as it is wide. Or nearly so. The length to
width ratio of the sediment forebay should be 2 to 1 to avoid short circuiting. No one even
seems to be able to address this issue regarding the forebay. I’ve raised it several times and no
one can really seem to respond to it. The riser, is there a riser associated with this pone near the
outlet? All inlets really should enter through the first cell of the storm water pond. There are
multiple inlets. In fact at least one inlet is very close within 2 feet of the outlet, and then the
pond really should be a tear drop shape. The pond is very rectangular. Tear drop shapes
minimize dead zones caused by corners. And then also there should be emergent wetland
vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs, plantings such as soft stem bulrush,
arrowhead, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual
enhancement and to reduce runoff.
Slagle: Excuse me Mr. Ashline, if I can ask Mr. Chair.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Sure.
Slagle: First of all I appreciate everything you’ve done and researched into this. I guess the
simple question is, did you have discussions with the developer? It sounds like you have, and of
what areas of those discussions did you guys reach any mutual agreement or was everything that
you’re bringing up not agreeable with the developer?
Jason Ashline: Well we did meet I believe last Thursday for the first time, and we did raise some
of these issues. Actually most of these issues were raised. The pond, the road width, the trees in
my back, trees 142, 143 and 144 on the tree inventory. So all of these issues, maybe not as in
depth as what we’re presenting here, or what I’m presenting here or in my memos but they were
raised in generalities. There were no agreements. There’s no signed agreements.
Slagle: Was there any just outright refusal to work with you on them?
Jason Ashline: No. I mean there was, no.
Slagle: Okay.
Jason Ashline: But then again there were no agreements, I think it was more of an informational
exchange of ideas type meeting more than anything else.
Slagle: And just what I’m trying to gather is sort of where we are today, tonight. Common
ground, if any and how we proceed. I mean just as one voice up here. As an example, if I may.
As an example, on your lot, what I will call the eastern boundary, and I apologize for not having
been out there but you know are there, do you have your own trees? Have you considered
planting your own buffer? Have you talked to the developer about helping you out in that
respect?
Jason Ashline: Not specifically about along my eastern line, no.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Before we get into questions, do you mind wrapping up. You’ve been going for about
20 minutes.
Jason Ashline: Oh sure, no. I was just going to wrap up and basically you know, before we rush
to judgment you know I think we need to investigate here a little further. There are several
issues that need to be resolved and basically in closing you know, I presented to the commission
a memo and some proposals for additional conditions and friendly amendments and I would like
you guys to consider those. Obviously if you do vote in favor of this, obviously I still remain
opposed for the reasons that I’ve mentioned but I would, you know I appreciate your full
consideration and thank you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else who would want to address this issue? This is your chance.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Please come forward. State your name and your address and let us know what you have to say
please.
Kim Robinson: Council members, my name is Kim Robinson and I live at 25 Pleasant View
Road so I’m on the opposite side from Fox Hollow people.
Sacchet: Right next to it or, you want to point it out?
Kim Robinson: This is our lot right here. It’s our back garage. And my question, or I’m glad to
hear that trees are an issue with the planning but, and trees that were on the same lot line and
stuff but I have trees in my yard that I inherited. We didn’t plant them. I would have never
planted them this close to the lot line but they exist. They’re mature ash trees and there are 4 of
them within feet of the property line. And a weird circumstance. We have also directly behind
our lot, the ground slopes away quite steeply and for some reason not so much here and here but
right here, and so my tree roots are primarily on that side of the trees are in that steeply sloping
area. And what we’re wondering there is what’s going to happen to that slope during
construction, because it looks like if it was mine to do, I would dig that out and put a retaining
wall there because who’s going to want to mow it? Mr. Bongaard didn’t like doing it when he
had to, and so my concern is the trees.
Sacchet: Matt can you address what the grading is happening there… I don’t see too many
grading lines there but can you give us an idea please.
Saam: Yeah. Of course the developer’s going to be staying on their property, but it sounds like
the concern is that the roots may go in off of the resident’s property into the south property.
What the developer is showing there is a drainage swale. A small swale for drainage along that
north side of the house.
Sacchet: Okay.
Saam: So it does look like there will be a little cutting. Doesn’t look to be severe as in multiple
feet. More like 6 inches to a foot. Without looking at how far the roots come into the property
out there, I’m not sure if they can be saved or what the impacts would be. I guess I would maybe
suggest we explore this further later maybe with the City Forester. Definitely if we can save
those trees, you know we would.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Thank you, good concern. Anybody else want to address this item?
Please come forward and state your name and your address for the record.
Maria Vanderzanden: Hi. Maria Vanderzanden at 50 Hunters Court and that is right here. Trees
are popular tonight. Just some clarification. In the outline along the entire perimeter of this
property I believe the trees are like 100 years old minimum. They’re beautiful, gorgeous trees.
Is the proposal to remove all of those trees around the perimeter?
Al-Jaff: What you see in green in areas that, there will be a silt fence out here. Anything beyond
the silt fence will not be removed. It will remain natural.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And what is the distance between the homes? From here to here.
I want to get to your question in terms of it being consistent with what’s really going on in the
neighborhood.
Al-Jaff: Sure. The city code requires a 10 foot side yard setback, so at a minimum you’ll have a
20 foot separation. Rarely, a typical parcel is 90 foot wide.
Maria Vanderzanden: Between two homes?
Al-Jaff: From this, per ordinance, from this point to this point you have a 90 foot minimum.
Assuming a 10 foot separation from setback from the property line, your house is going to be 70
feet wide. Now rarely do we see 70 foot wide homes, but that’s a possibility.
Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. It’s clearly not consistent with what is going around, going on
along the perimeter of this property. I mean we have minimum 30 feet between our homes so
I’m real concerned about changing the look and feel of the neighborhood with this type of set-up.
That’s one thing. I wonder too, if any consideration has been given to move this road elsewhere
and what I’m really concerned about is the distance between 101 to here. This neighborhood is
full of children, and there’s not a whole lot of opportunity to slow down on 101 before you turn
onto this road, and cars whip around that corner as it is. They already take this whole street just
to turn this corner. It’s not safe already and then you’re going to have additional vehicles
coming at us here and trying to turn either way. I’m very concerned about the safety of that. Not
only for the children but for the pure speed of the vehicles going this way, so has consideration
been to perhaps reduce the homes from 6 to 4 and relocate this road. Where the existing road
already is on 101, if they went down to 4, it would be a much safer access and you could use the
existing access. You wouldn’t have to mess with other people’s property. You could maintain
those beautiful trees that area already there. You wouldn’t have to change the landscaping so
drastically. This is a real security issue.
Sacchet: Matt, what’s the speed limit on what is this, Fox Drive? Fox Hollow Drive.
Saam: I would guess it’s 30. I mean 30 maximum. It may be at 25 but in terms of moving the
street access.
Sacchet: There isn’t any no alternative is there?
Saam: No. And Highway 101 is a state road. Arterial roadway. I don’t believe, again going
back to Yoberry, I don’t believe they would allow access, direct access onto 101. Wouldn’t be
the first preference, especially when we have street right-of-way dedicated for the sole purpose
as Sharmeen said. We’re trying to limit access to those type of highways. And that, frankly in
my opinion this access will be safer than a direct street coming out onto 101. Another street
coming out onto 101. There are already many access points onto 101 so we want to try to limit
those.
Sacchet: It’s probably not what you want to hear but.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Maria Vanderzanden: Well but wasn’t there a comment made earlier about if they were 4
houses, the access could be different than 6 houses…
Sacchet: It could be a private road. And it wouldn’t change where it comes out.
Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And how tall are these houses going to be? They look like…
Al-Jaff: Our city code permits up to 35 feet in height.
Maria Vanderzanden: I’m just, I’m not clear on how the houses as scoped here are really you
know, I don’t get how only this much can be house. My concern is that the house is actually
going to be much closer to the property line. I don’t understand how you can have such a big
house this size that’s 60 by 60. I’m not clear on that.
Slagle: If I can, Sharmeen, do we have a picture? Did you have a picture earlier, a photo of, I’m
assuming it’s something that they’ve built.
Al-Jaff: Somewhere else, correct. I also want to point out that our city code has requirements
for hard surface coverage.
Slagle: I think you wrapped it in a piece of paper. I saw it earlier.
Al-Jaff: Is that what I did?
Slagle: I didn’t see where you put it but I did.
Al-Jaff: And I know I had it in my hand.
Maria Vanderzanden: Well I understand if there’s floorplans, and that’s okay, you don’t have to
present the floorplans. I’m just, I don’t see how you can have…
Sacchet: And we don’t know what they’re going to build. I mean this is, it’s not to the stage of
knowing what they’re going to build. This is just an example. Do you want to zoom in to it
Nann?
Al-Jaff: If I may add, there are several things, several mechanisms in which what’s built on a
property is regulated. Number one, you have a 25 foot, 25% hard surface coverage. Now when
it’s 25% hard surface, that includes the house, the driveway, sidewalks. Anything that water
does not penetrate through. That is calculated as hard surface coverage and the developer
or…right there. You can’t just pave the entire parcel and put a house on the entire thing. That’s
not an option.
Sacchet: So there are some safeguards in place.
Al-Jaff: Correct. There are mechanisms and then you have the setbacks. That’s another thing.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Slagle: But this photo that we’re seeing here, if I can ask, does this resemble the house in
Mound, the floorplan that you?
Scott Rosenlund: Exactly.
Slagle: Okay, so this would be something that you might see on Lot 4?
Scott Rosenlund: Exactly.
Slagle: Okay.
Saam: I’ll mention one thing too in regards to a resident brought up building back toward the
rear lot line. The silt fence is shown on this plan. They’re not going to be taking out trees in
back of that. We inspect that. There’s penalties if something like that would happen so there are
safeguards in place. We get financial security from the developer if he would do something so
we can use that to correct…
Sacchet: So in other words what you see in green on this plan is what the developer agrees to,
and the city’s going to hold him to it.
Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And maybe I can just, I don’t know who I can talk with after this
but all over my property are all these little flags and now I’m getting concerned that people think
that it’s their property so I really want to make sure I’m clear on property lines.
Sacchet: Flags as in little marker things?
Maria Vanderzanden: Well you know, little markers and orange tags and you know, I mean
they’re all on my property. Several feet.
Sacchet: You want to address that Matt? Or you want to talk with her?
Maria Vanderzanden: Well I can speak to him afterwards. I can meet you in my yard, you
know.
Saam: Yes, we can set that up.
Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing’s still open. Yes, please come
forward. Tell us who you are and what you have to say.
Tim McNeill: This will be real quick.
Sacchet: That’s alright. Just get up there and tell us.
Tim McNeill: I’m Tim McNeill. I live actually right behind Lot 3. Over there. And definitely
happy to hear that the green areas are saved because there are a lot of good trees back there. The
16
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
water in that area just basically builds up. There’s no, we don’t have any sewer in our small
subdivision. It’s a private road with no sewer and I was just wondering whether or not there
were any plans to maybe use city sewer to get some of the water out of that area otherwise the
water from Lots 1, 2 and 3 will probably pool somewhere you know in this area.
Sacchet: What’s the drainage? Can you explain the drainage a little bit Matt and how that would
affect them? Generally it should improve.
Saam: Yes. And the engineer’s done a relatively good job I think in this area. They are
installing a rear yard catch basin that will collect storm water in this low area back here. Now
they’re not going to be going again into the green area so there might be, if there’s pooling there
today, that will continue but as it builds up, it will drain in here versus going to the existing
homes or the new homes so.
Sacchet: Is that what you asked about?
Tim McNeill: Yes, that’s exactly it.
Keefe: So it may not be perfect but it will be improved probably over…
Saam: Yes. Yeah, I would say it’d be an improvement.
Sacchet: It’s a trade off. We don’t want to go into the trees. We want to preserve the trees,
right.
Tim McNeill: Okay. And I had that same question about the actual survey of the land and
different tags on different trees so.
Sacchet: Yeah, basically all the trees get inventoried so a tag on a tree doesn’t mean it’s going to
be cut. It means that it was actually surveyed.
Tim McNeill: Right. There’s also stakes in the middle of our yard so you know, we just think
you know, well actually it brings up another question. Our subdivision, the 4 houses on Pleasant
View Circle which are off the private road, there’s no official survey by the City of Chanhassen
on file. And it might be a good idea.
Sacchet: To know where you are.
Tim McNeill: To know you know, for the City to know where we are.
Sacchet: So you’re on Pleasant View Circle. I wondered about that when I drove by, and that’s
the property right adjacent. Okay, that was my question earlier. Okay.
Tim McNeill: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Matt, can you comment on who’s responsibility it is to actually verify that their lots
are their lots.
Saam: Yeah. As you probably know it’s the homeowner’s responsibility. The City, we don’t do
mass surveys of the entire city. That would be nice to have every lot. Certainly when every new
lot comes in, we require one now but we don’t have existing, older neighborhoods we don’t have
a lot of those surveys on file.
Sacchet: Sometimes not even that old.
Saam: No.
Sacchet: But I just want to ask the question of the applicant. I mean I assume you verified
where you’re lot lines are. Is it possible that there are some possible unclarities with the
neighbors to the west? I think that’s an issue since we have heard it from two people now that
maybe you could say something about.
Cara Otto: I don’t know how much definition I can give to it other than yes, there is a boundary
survey that was done as part of the property. I have not been brought up to any, know of
anything that was you know ambiguous with any of the property lines. I’m not sure what the
stakes are. I can check in and see if that’s something that is from our stakes or not. I don’t know
if Matt.
Saam: I was thinking maybe it might be utility locates. If you guys were.
Cara Otto: Oh like a Gopher, yeah. Private utilities.
Saam: Yeah, maybe your, their survey crew had called in for those to get them on the plans.
Sacchet: Definitely important to clear that up.
Cara Otto: But typically if there’s something that is researched that’s a gap or ambiguous with
the description, usually that’s pointed out and further research. I haven’t heard that at this point.
McDonald: Yeah excuse me. Is that property abstract or Torrens?
Cara Otto: I would have to look. I believe it’s just abstract.
McDonald: And when you did the survey, did you do it according to the property description
within that document?
Cara Otto: The property’s description from an abstract, yeah.
McDonald: Were there any irregularities that you found in verifying the information on the
abstract?
18
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Cara Otto: That’s what I’m saying. I don’t, I’m not aware of it. I’m not the person who does,
I’m an engineer, not the surveying end but typically if there’s some issue with a property line,
that’s brought up fairly early because the boundary survey is the first piece of work that we do do
so.
Lillehaug: The bottom line is, a registered land surveyor is doing this period, right?
Cara Otto: Yes they are, yep. And a new one has been done. We’re not going off of old
information.
Saam: And I’ll just add at time of final plat, what they do is reviewed at the County too so it’s
not like Otto’s surveyors are the only ones to do it and nobody else looks at it so.
Cara Otto: Yeah, the final plat is sent for plat checking with all the neighboring properties.
Slagle: But if I can throw out though, it might be helpful if the applicant, along with your
survey, could work with staff and the neighbors.
Saam: Oh sure, yeah.
Cara Otto: Oh yeah. Yeah. I’m just saying that I don’t know, this is the first I’ve heard of
anything. I don’t know if it’s our stakes or just like a Gopher One call, but I’m not aware of
anything that’s ambiguous.
Sacchet: Thank you. Public hearing is still open so please come forward. Let us know who you
are. There you go.
Richard Herr: I’m Richard Herr and I live at 120 Fox Hollow Drive so I’m not adjacent to the
property.
Sacchet: Little further down on Hollow Drive.
Richard Herr: Little further down the line and I’m not sure if this is necessarily the right forum
for this but the one thing that I have thought about that would be of general value to the
neighborhood would be, like some other neighborhoods have further down 101. They have a
neighborhood pool, and I guess I bring that up as an idea that may change the layout here and
could potentially change this from a 5 property, or a 6 property to a 5 property area and might
address some of the runoff concerns and that type of thing so I just thought I’d bring that up. I
don’t know even how to approach such a thing but only to say maybe that the neighborhood
might have an opportunity to purchase one of the lots, or to be involved in one of the lots or half
lot.
Sacchet: Well you met the developer. Better talk to him afterwards. Thank you very much.
Anybody else? Yes, please come forward.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Dave Robinson: My name’s Dave Robinson. I’m at 25 Pleasant View. Right there.
Sacchet: Okay.
Dave Robinson: And I guess my only question is, when construction starts, what can we expect
as far as, are all the houses going to be built pretty much at the same time and sold, or is it going
to be people buying lots and building houses one at a time? By the developer.
Sacchet: Does the developer want to address that quickly? It’s my understanding you’re also the
construction so you’re actually the builder?
Scott Rosenlund: All of the above.
Sacchet: Okay. You’re the whole thing.
Scott Rosenlund: It’s pretty hard to predict at this point exactly how it will go down but if they
were all sold out immediately, that’d be a good thing for us.
Sacchet: So it’s market driven.
Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, exactly so I can’t…
Sacchet: From your experience would you say likely 2-3 years?
Scott Rosenlund: Probably 2 years.
Sacchet: About 2 years? Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else wants to speak up
at this public hearing. This is your chance. So you’d better come forward before I close the
hearing. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to say please.
Jim Theis: My name is Jim Theis. I live at 6400 Chanhassen Road. I’m the bigger corner lot
here. I guess I’ve kind of looked over some of the stuff and I’m up to speed on it some. My
only issue was when Kim brought up about the have to grade here. My only concern is here
there, again there are most of the trees I believe that are on this line are actually on these
properties. Off the Pleasant View side. I have some concerns here when I heard Matt say that
they were going to maybe do a swale, if they are going to inbetween here, that I want to make
sure that we’re up on that before we start getting into any kind of roots on those things because
those are mature trees that are our buffer right now and are going to buffer us from that
development. Otherwise, I don’t really have anything. I guess I would also say, I’m on the fire
department too. The road wise, I’ll just say from the public safety side of it that our ladder, when
we set it up, if we have something in here, we got you know 2 story houses going up. If we go to
the 24 foot road and we set our ladder up, it’s 16 feet wide so you basically shut that road off for
anything else getting in or out. So it’s just a consideration and…happy with 31 foot. And I only
say that just more so from the public safety side. I don’t know how much impact there really is
visual or on any of the other stuff but from the public safety side I think that is an issue so. Other
than that, it’s just I want to make sure that the developer, that we can work along with that
20
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
because I would be concerned about trees and stuff there, and I’m sure both sides, there are
people that are going to be buying the lots are going to want the buffer both ways, so we just
want to make sure that we don’t lose anything that way.
Sacchet: Thank you. Good comment.
Keefe: Quick question. Matt, maybe you can answer this. What safeguards are there in regards
to protecting trees that are on adjacent properties that may have root systems which go in? I
mean anything that you can comment on?
Saam: That’s a good, I mean other than putting up the tree fence. You know walking it. The
City Forester always walks it as do our inspectors and other than putting up tree fence, you know
where we see kind of the edge of the root or the drip line, I don’t know that there’s a lot. I mean
basically you’ve got to move away from them as much as you can.
Keefe: So it’s making the developer aware that the Forester typically has a discussion with the
developer.
Saam: Well she’s out there with his contractor and everything so. I think it’s something we can
work through.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, public hearing is still open. Do we have any other people who’d like to
speak up? Yes.
Cara Otto: I was going to just speak to a few of the engineering comments that were made.
Sacchet: Please. From the developer’s viewpoint.
Cara Otto: Probably one of the most important ones is possibly the pond. There was a lot of
discussion on the pond. It really makes a lot of sense water quality wise and maintenance wise.
Space wise to have a larger existing pond than to have several ponds throughout every single
2.77 acre development. We did try to do what we could to save the trees and I understand that
it’s tough to have those trees removed. I wouldn’t want it if I were Jason sitting there too.
There’s a lot of things that Jason, or Mr. Ashline I should say, you know has a hardship because
he didn’t have this originally. A lot of times the city requires that road to be extended to the
property line and built as part of the development. In this case it wasn’t done and now we’re
taking over, or the developer’s taking over that cost of it and some of the political back fire that
comes with that. It’s sort of unfortunate and we’re doing the best we can. As far as with the
pond design, we are meeting the city standards. I would suggest that the independent party that’s
looking at it is the city. I certainly don’t have any kind of relationship with Matt that I think he’s
going to tell me that I can do a pond different than anyone else in the city. There are things that
we have to change. We’re working through that with staff. There also are some of the criteria
that was thrown out, and there’s a lot of different design criteria. Not all of it is any sort of bible.
There’s different methods. There’s different means. You can say a lot of different types of
design criteria to use, but that is not all inclusive of what the requirements are for the city, so we
did meet volume requirements, depth requirements and some of those issues. There’s certainly
21
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
things that you’ll find in text books that they a pond should do this or a pond should have that.
In an ideal world we might have all those but there’s very few ponds that do so we’re doing what
we can…
Sacchet: Basically have to work with what we’ve got, right?
Cara Otto: Right. The only other thing is just to mention that the buffering on the pond that is
currently existing is all on the north side of the pond so in thinking about what we would do for
replacement, the developer’s fine with doing buffer replacement along 101 that’s required. The
boulevard trees, but the 6 to 11 foot trees along Fox Hollow and Fox Hollow Drive, there’s no
existing buffer in that area now so I think that the boulevard trees would provide something for
that. If that cover it, thank you.
Sacchet: Excellent comment, thank you. Alright, we have somebody else who wants to speak
up. Please come forward and let us know who you are.
Rogue Swenson: Rogue Swenson, 35 Pleasant View. Right over here. A question I have is just
to understand this. The developer was talking about $600,000 houses. Is that correct in this area
or was he just giving an example of an area in Mound that has a house of that amount? Is that
the type of homes we’re looking to building this area?
Scott Rosenlund: Probably in that range.
Rogue Swenson: Okay. I’m just curious with 101 there, what happens if nobody wants to buy a
house that costs $600,000 along the highway there? What happens to the property then? Just a
question. Thank you.
Sacchet: I don’t know whether we’re qualified to answer that question. It’s the way the real
estate market is going, I wouldn’t necessarily be personally too concerned about it. What
probably happens is the price comes down a little bit. I mean that’s the risk that any developer
accepts.
Rogue Swenson: Lot size…to ask for homes then to pay for everything else?
Sacchet: To put more homes? No. He cannot put in more homes. Definitely not. That stands
firm. Anybody else?
Rogue Swenson: It will always remain single family then too? No townhomes or…
Sacchet: That’s the zoning. Single family and not more than 6. That’s the maximum that fits in
there. Anybody else? If I don’t see anybody else getting up I will close the public hearing.
Alright. Well, I want to thank you all for your comments. Very interesting, good comments.
We’ll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Comments from this side.
Saam: Mr. Chair, could I correct one thing I said earlier?
22
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Please.
Saam: It goes to the point of two residents. In just looking at that north lot line, where I think
Mr. Theis and the Robinson’s brought up, initially I thought they were cutting. It does look like
they’re filling there slightly so maybe that will help…that was brought up. I just looked at it
again and I just wanted to point that out. Looks like just along the north side of that Lot 4, they
are filling for that swale in there. They don’t need to cut so I think that will maybe even help if
there are exposed roots in that area, it might not be as much of an issue.
Sacchet: They’ll fill a little bit but then after that they cut down, right?
Saam: It does look like they’re filling just because the house pad’s being raised up in that area
so.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, yeah that’s a good point. Appreciate your clarifying that. So it’s back
to the commission. Further issues to clarify. Things to discussion. There’s certainly plenty of
material in front of us from all the comments from the residents and we have to make a decision
about this tonight. A recommendation that is to City Council. Anybody want to start?
Lillehaug: I can start.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Pond design. It’s an adequate pond design. Absolutely. I think you summed it up
very well. It’s not ideal pond design. It’s not perfect but it does meet our standards. You’ve got
to, that’s all there is to it. The access on Fox Hollow, that is the safest spot for the access so I
fully support that’s where the access does need to be. Not off 101. The roadway should be 31
feet. Why would we consider anything different? I mean there’s some pretty valid points raised
but it is safer to have a 31 foot, especially for fire trucks. Also needed for snow removal to get
our trucks turned around there. The roadway next to the pond, I don’t totally agree with that.
There’s, it’s curb and gutter. It’s a 6 inch curb. That’s considered a barrier. It’s not a safety
hazard for that road to be next to the pond. Absolutely not. I always kind of, it’s hard to weigh
out taking out trees to put in a pond, but I think there’s been a valid point that most of these trees
are at the north end of the pond. The applicant is putting pretty adequate trees as a buffer there.
So I do support how the trees are laid out at this time. The question with staff would be, good
questions about having changing trees to conifers. Are we okay with what’s shown here? What
were the trees lined up on the west side of the pond, if I can ask that question quick like.
Al-Jaff: They are evergreens and…
Lillehaug: Okay, there we go then. My big hang up and it’s, if you look, if you can switch to the
overhead there, what’s wrong with that layout? You can see it, it just stands right out to you.
It’s Lot 4 and Lot 1. You’ve got a 60 by 60 foot pad on Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 5, Lot 6. You don’t
have it on Lot 1 and 4. Why not? Because it can’t fit. So what happens, the lot size is pretty
sub-standard and simply put, I’m not happy with Lot 1 and 4. Is it the developer’s fault?
Absolutely not. I mean he’s adhering to our city code. So I would almost like, not like to
23
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
support this because it doesn’t meet a 60 by 60 foot lot, but I can’t do that because it meets our
code. So I challenge the commission as well as our city council and staff that there should be a
60 by 60 foot pad requirement on our lots in Chanhassen. I fought for this for 3 years, and this is
a prime example of why, I mean I don’t know what else I can say. I do support the proposal
based on current city code.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Dan, you want to go next?
Keefe: Just a couple of comments. One is in regards to, I guess it would be in regards to, well
maybe I add these a little bit later but one of the conditions talks about the retaining wall and
Matt, you talked about we’re going to kind of reassess that and whether we actually need that or
not. Perhaps raise the road up a little bit so it doesn’t require, maybe we need to have some word
smithing on number 23 in regards to that because if we put it onto the east side, because right
now I think it refers to the west side. We may need to look at rewording that. And then in
general I support the proposal. I think the developer’s actually done a pretty good job in regards
to this. I appreciate all the comments by the residents. I think they’re all very valid but I do also
think the developer’s done a good job of trying to you know, preserve some of the trees. I think
he’s worked with city staff to preserve a lot of the trees. The street width, I’d like to see a 24
foot width in a situation like this but actually I think from a safety perspective I think you’ve got
to keep it at 31 feet just you know so that (a), that new residents who are in there have enough
room to park. Also there’s room for fire trucks to get back in there and other emergency vehicles
to go back in there if needed, so I support this.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie.
Larson: Just my main concern or question. Not necessarily concern, regarding the pond and the
removal of all the trees. I was out there today and it’s really a lot of beautiful trees along that
edge and what I would like to see possibly is the conversation about re-shaping the east edge
where the signage is. And if we could somehow you know expand the pond more that way,
which would lessen some of the tree loss on the other side. If that’s something that could be
done, I mean they really are some old gorgeous trees in there and quite a few trees are going
away that is. When I was looking at the property today, pretty much everything in the middle
gets cleared out so that’s my main concern. Other than that, the proposal, as you said, it’s within
the city code and I would support it.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comments? Jerry, any additional comments?
McDonald: I guess the only thing I would say is I’ve lived in that area for 20 years. I knew
what it was like. Pleasant View and 101 used to flood all the time. The City went in there to
correct the pond. They corrected that drainage. I have confidence in what the City says as far as
the drainage pond so I feel quite comfortable in leaving that up to them. The comment about the
access to 101, I do have to speak to that because that is also, that is a major safety hazard.
You’re 25 feet away from Pleasant View. That road’s already bad enough. I believe they need a
light there, especially in the morning and the evening. You would just really make that a very
bad situation so that is not even close to being easy as far as safety. That we would be creating a
hazard. You talk about dangers, there would be wrecks there for sure. As far as the road and
24
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
everything, I did go out to the property. I’ve looked at it. It’s consistent with the neighborhood.
I do not believe that you can make that road narrower and at that point be inconsistent with the
neighborhood. I was surprised to know that you’re going to try to put $600,000 houses there.
Good luck with that but again, that’s the risk that the developer takes. The other thing on the two
lots. I do have to address that because a couple weeks ago we did bring that up about the, both
the pad size and everything, and as was pointed out and one of my concerns at that point is that,
what do we do about developable land, and if you now, again a 60 foot pad, you now have lots
that cannot be developed and I think that is a problem and you’re right. I would agree with that
the council needs to address it but that’s not an issue here. As far as some of the other concerns,
I think that the trees are being addressed. I did walk the property lines and everything and as
long as the surveys have been done correctly and everything, I think most of the trees, especially
along the lot lines, should be saved. So I don’t have any major concerns there. The barrier trees
that you talk about, I remember a lot of those were new so I think that if we could, and again that
comes back to pond design, if you could save a couple of those, they are mature trees but I would
defer to the City Engineer on that. I guess as far as some of the other issues, the comment I
would make about the gentleman about the swimming pool is I think you need to address that
with the homeowners association and if there’s something that can be done there, you probably
need to come back to the city and petition something because there is a park down at Lotus Lake
and there’s a lot of land there and that’s something that should be addressed through them. And
I guess that’s it.
Sacchet: First of all I want to thank all the neighbors who spoke up and certainly Mr. Ashline
who seems to have done a tremendous effort researching all this. And I’d like to invite, where is
he? There he is. I’d like to invite you to continue giving input to the city. The difficulty that
we’re facing is that when we have a proposal like that in front of us, and I mentioned that in the
beginning. We’re not at liberty to change the rules. We have to apply the ordinances and codes
of the city as they are now. Now are they necessarily perfect? Well no, they’re not. None of us
is perfect. That’s why we try to improve them as we go. We do the best we can but we can’t
hold something up because we know it’s not perfect because it’s never going to be perfect. That
way we never get anything done. So a couple of the issues that were raised by several residents.
Reducing the number of lots in order to reduce traffic. We hear that quite routinely with…and
the number of homes. This is not determined by the number of traffic. It’s determined by the
size of the property. And the city code makes it very clear that we allow, in this zoning which is
clearly single family residential, a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Now all of these lots
fulfill that requirement. Are they necessarily the perfect shape? I mean I would think it could be
better but under the circumstances can be done better, I don’t think it’s that easy to improve this.
I really think the developer did a very admirable job to make the best out of this situation. With
the details of boulevard planting and all that, I would refer those details to staff. To work with
staff. Work with the City Forester. The street width, you know street width of Fox Hollow
Drive right now I believe is standard sized streets so that’s 31 feet wide. The people are going to
live in that Fox Den place. They’re going to want to park their cars. To just allow parking on
side of the street is in my opinion unenforceable. It would be a very unhappy situation and we
heard about the safety concern about getting in and out with fire trucks and all that. So I do think
that we have to live again by our city ordinance and rules that say we ask for the 31 feet curb to
curb, and there is lots of reasons on when to do that. That doesn’t, can it be changed? It can get
changed but it can’t be changed just for one development. It’s something that I would invite
25
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
anybody who has an interest to think, that thinks that some of these rules are not quite right, to
work with city staff. Work with us. Apply for commissions and make an effort to line things up
that you think need to be lined up. The ponding design, we have to work with the code as it is
now and obviously there are some areas it can be improved. The developer you mentioned that
you felt it was a little bit of a concern that you have to bring it up to standard while it wasn’t
before. Engineering clarified that it wasn’t necessarily sub-standard in terms of what’s already
there. With exception maybe of that outlet structure and stuff like that, which is not that big a
deal. The tree cutting, I looked at the tree survey and really relatively few trees are very old
growth that get cut. I mean I think there’s one tree that’s over 20 inches in diameter that gets cut,
and most of the significant trees, the way I’ve been able to determine by looking at the survey
and the lot, are around the periphery so I think that is reasonably mitigated. However the things I
think we can do something about is, and I don’t know whether that justifies a condition is to
make sure the boundary survey is correct because we have had situations in this city where,
especially something that has not been official surveyed, I think we want to make doubly sure
that we don’t drawn into any bad surprises there for either developer or some of the neighbors.
The pond, the pond. What I think we can do is we can ask that the developer work with staff to
evaluate alternative designs. Maybe to use available space, as far as it’s available to minimize
the cutting into the trees to the north of the pond. I wouldn’t want to make it a condition that it
has to be that way but certainly that it gets further explored. Then also to look into putting
plantings around the pond. I think that’s a very valid concern that was brought up. That a pond
with just sod going over the edge is not really an ideal situation. And then the other concern that
was brought up was the trees to the north side where there was a concern about cutting into the
roots. That’s also something I would like to ask that the developer work with staff to evaluate
what can be done. How much impact those trees will have. I mean there might be a compromise
necessarily if there’s some cutting into the roots that maybe the trees have to be cut down in size
a little bit so it gets balanced so that they have a fair chance of survival. But ideally of course we
would like to have no impact to those trees so that buffer gets preserved. That’s in the interest,
as much of the neighbors as of the developer. It’s equal, of equal benefit. Okay. Let’s see, what
else? The retaining wall, same thing. Work with staff. I don’t think that’s an item that warrants
holding this up or something that be worked out. It’s a detail in the overall scheme of things, and
I would want to address you once more Mr. Ashline. I’d like to encourage you to work with the
city staff and also with the developer. A lot of the comments I believe you made, specific
comments, very constructive. To some extent into a detail level that is not in our discretion as a
planning commission but it certainly a good thing to work with the developer. We have to keep
in mind that the developer, the owner of the land has obviously the right to develop it and
according to the plans and the rules that are in place at this time. So that’s my comments.
Unless somebody has any other aspects you want to bring up, I’d like to ask for a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way
width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates, stamped received February 11, 2005,
subject to the following conditions, 1 through 25.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
McDonald: I second.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Friendly amendments? I’ll have some, if I may. I’d like to
make, I don’t know whether that integrates anywhere in particular. Let me see, do we want to
keep trees where trees are mentioned or, well let’s make a new ones. Condition number 26.
Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the
pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. Or space as available. Is
that acceptable?
Keefe: You want to add it to 12(j)? Make it 12(j).
Sacchet: Make it 12(j). Okay. We can make it 12(j). That’s fine. So that’s that one. And that
can go with the same one, staff work with developer to consider buffer plantings around the
pond.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: Staff, developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the
north of the cul-de-sac, or we can mention Lot 4.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Okay. And do we want to say something about boundary survey? I guess that’s just a
request from staff. That’s not a condition.
Lillehaug: Yeah, there’s through the final plat.
Sacchet: Through the final plat, that should be an automatic verification in there, okay. Do we
want to say anything about the type of trees? We have a request for emphasis of conifers versus
deciduous trees. I guess that goes with work with city staff on plantings.
Lillehaug: Is that an added condition then?
Sacchet: We can state it. Work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus
deciduous for buffering purposes.
Lillehaug: Sounds good. And then one more. Condition 23. Staff is recommending. Maybe
add that developer work with staff, because there was a comment about it may not even be
necessary so how do we make that compatible with number 23?
Saam: Yeah, well these conditions are per what was submitted. So based on those street grades
we would need…
Sacchet: Okay, so we would need it. Okay, so we leave that one alone.
Saam: …they be working to try to eliminate that as they do all these conditions. They try to get
them down by the time of final plat.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: So no amendment to that. I think that’s it. Anybody else? No?
Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a
variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto
Associates stamped “Received February 11, 2005”, subject to the following conditions:
1.The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and
volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that
pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced.
2.An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water
management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D,
Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow.
3.A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering.
The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water
basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan
with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy
dissipation, shall be provided.
4.Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing
and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east
side of Hwy 101.
5.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
6.A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots
2 and 3.
7.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
8.The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021.
9.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
and comply with their conditions of approval.
10.Building Department conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City
Code.
11.Fire Marshal conditions:
a.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
b.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
d.Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of
the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
12.Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a.Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted.
b.A minimum of two 2 ½” deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
c.No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
d.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
e.Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction
activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
f.All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan
will be required prior to final approval.
g.A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5
overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs.
29
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
h.Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the
south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved.
i.The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to
replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except
within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city.
j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the
north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space.
k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond.
l. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north
of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4.
m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus
deciduous for buffering purposes.
13.On the Utility plan:
a.Show all easements.
b.Add a note “Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled.
14.Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301.
15.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
16.The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The
water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer
will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary
sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main
hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met
Council.
17.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH.
18.A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
19.The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a
temporary easement.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
20.The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have
been completed.
21.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
22.Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
23.Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-
of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and
provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage.
24.A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the
right-of-way.
25.The developer shall pay full park dedication fees.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to none. Good luck with this. Thanks again to all the residents for
your input. This will go as a recommendation to City Council. City Council will look at it on
th
April 11. I don’t know whether they will take further comments from residents or not. That’s
up to their discretion, but you certainly can follow it through that way. I don’t think we need to
summarize for council. I think it’s pretty clear with the comments we made and amendments so
do we want to take a 5 minute recess before we continue? Let’s take 5 minutes.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN SINGLE
ND
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3891 WEST 62 STREET,
APPLICANT GARY AND MAUREEN CARLSON, PLANNING CASE 05-09.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Jerry.
McDonald: I have a question that concerns property. Seem to remember from 2 weeks ago,
isn’t there a plan that at one point this becomes one of the outlet properties to put a street through
nd
to get up to West 62 Street?
Al-Jaff: If at the time this property comes in for development, we will definitely research that. I
apologize, I don’t have.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
McDonald: You don’t understand?
Al-Jaff: No, I know exactly what you’re talking about. You did review the subdivision
immediately north of Highway 7. I don’t recall the exactly layout for future development of the
Carlson’s property.
McDonald: Okay it was one of my, I think understanding there that that was going to be near
term development as far as that property and everything because I know we talked extensively
about those 3 lots that face onto County Lane and there was a lot of discussion about that road
and you know the fact that it would be going away at some point. I’m just trying to put this in a
frame of reference. That’s fine, you answered the question. The next one I’ve got is, and this is
a question to staff and as far as finding a variance, do we have to find for all 5 of these or is it
any one to grant. I’m on page, it looks like 6. No, page 6. It’s not labeled 6…and it’s actually
the only place I could find anything about what you have to demonstrate to get a variance.
Sacchet: The findings of fact?
McDonald: Findings of fact. It lists, in order to grant a variance there’s 5 factors there and my
question is, do we have to find them for all 5 of them or will any one of them do to grant a
variance?
Sacchet: Basically you need them all.
Al-Jaff: You need them all.
Metzer: And I believe there’s 4 of them.
Al-Jaff: Under number 4. A through D.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Any questions from staff?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: I read some conflicting things, and maybe this could be just clarified. It sounded like
they’re trying to get 3 units but there’s 5 units or 5 kitchens. Which is it? I’m confused as to
what.
Metzer: There is the main dwelling unit which the applicant occupies. There are 2 separate
rental units that have existed since before current code, which are grandfathered in.
Larson: Okay, so there’s 3.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Metzer: There’s 3 there. This new addition that was made.
Larson: There’s 2 more.
Metzer: There’s 3 levels. The main level, the applicant’s daughter occupies as part of the main
dwelling unit that the applicant occupies. The upper and lower are separate. Considered
separate. They have separate cooking, eating, sleeping, sanitary facilities.
Larson: So we have 5 units in one building? Or is it 2 buildings?
Metzer: Right, where this variance is for to allow the upper level dwelling unit of the new
addition to be granted.
Larson: Okay. So the old dwelling doesn’t matter?
Metzer: Right. That’s grandfathered in.
Larson: Okay, that’s all I need. Yeah.
Keefe: And I just have a quick question. How do we, if we grant a variance on this, it says one
of the conditions, shall not be rented to a non-family member other than a live in. How do we, is
that enforceable in any way or what do we do?
Metzer: Well because.
Keefe: Why do we put that in?
Metzer: Part of the basis for recommending approval of this is a need for a second dwelling unit
based on disability. If the person not living in that dwelling unit, the purpose for this dwelling
unit is for the care of the applicant’s daughter. If that personal care attendant isn’t the one living
there, then there should be no need for the second dwelling unit.
Keefe: So we’re just putting it in as if we’re going to grant the…the only way that the variance
can be approved is if…specific use. Okay.
Larson: Okay, one more question now that you’ve brought that up. If the property’s sold, do
you have a rental property with 5 units? Amongst a neighborhood of single family houses. No?
Al-Jaff: No. The two existing rental properties, they’re grandfathered in.
Larson: Correct.
Al-Jaff: Those run with the property but they won’t remain in that. As far as the 3 remaining or.
Larson: The 2 remaining.
33
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Al-Jaff: The 2 remaining units, those would, for as long as the applicant is living there, and the
family members, that variance would carry. If they’re not the ones in those units then.
Larson: Does it revert back then or how does it?
Keefe: The variance expires or how does that?
Al-Jaff: …technically it would expire.
Keefe: Okay.
Larson: So then the new people wouldn’t be able to go in and rent that out, you know say hey.
I’m buying a duplex here and I can live in half and rent out the other half, or whatever. So it can
only.
Al-Jaff: We’re talking about the new units?
Larson: Correct. The 2. The upstairs/downstairs, right?
Al-Jaff: The upstairs/downstairs. Well they will no longer be rental. They will be rental as far
as the family member that’s the care giver.
Larson: Right, I understand that.
Al-Jaff: Specifically for that purpose. If that is no longer, let’s assume that they choose to move
or sell.
Larson: Right.
Sacchet: Then it doesn’t apply.
Al-Jaff: They lose that.
Larson: Alright.
Sacchet: Well technically.
Larson: So parents and child could still live separately in a house.
Keefe: This is, I’m knowledgeable in regards to some of these things. Why wouldn’t we go,
what’s the difference between a variance in this case and a conditional use permit? In regards to
that. Why wouldn’t we grant a conditional use on something like that? Because that is we can
stipulate time frames better on conditional use, could we not?
Sacchet: Or the conditions of the use, yeah.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Keefe: I’m curious to know, or does it matter? Just gone with the variance in this.
Al-Jaff: It’s always been done through the variance process and it’s something that we could
investigate should you direct us to.
Sacchet: Okay. Any comments Steve from your end?
Lillehaug: Yes. Do you have a map of the site that you can put up and actually point to where
the, where all the units are. I mean are the 3 in the main.
Metzer: Maybe Gary you should help me with this.
Lillehaug: And I can ask the applicant too. Is it the separate building to the west where those
two?
Metzer: The new addition is this area here. And…
Sacchet: We can ask the applicant.
Lillehaug: No other questions.
Sacchet: Just to be really clear, because it was a little confusing to me. I think I do understand
but I want to make real sure. Currently there are 5 units on this property. Two I would think are
in a separate building the way I understand it, that are the grandfathered in, that can be rented
because they have been renting and that’s the way it was before we came up with our zoning
framework. Then we have the main building, which was one unit so far. It was expanded and
now it’s technically considered 3 units. We’re saying that we’re granting potentially what’s in
front of us to make recommendation about or a decision in this case, that we would allow 2 units,
one for the caretaker. The other one for the family. What happens with the third one?
Metzer: It would have to either be made, as it is right now, as far as what we have for
information at the city, is it’s completely separated. You cannot access the main dwelling unit
from inside. It has a separate entrance. Separate cooking facilities. So it either has to be totally
taken out or it has to be made, in the staff report it says integral part of the main.
Sacchet: Define integral part. Put a door in?
Metzer: It would have to use the same main entrance. I believe the cooking facilities would
have to be removed.
Sacchet: So there would have to be some removal not, just making a door connection would not
be enough.
Metzer: Right.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: And there has been discussion between city staff and the applicant to understand what
that means?
Metzer: The building official.
Sacchet: We can address the applicant about that too, thank you. That’s my only question.
With that, I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward and tell us what you want to tell us
about this.
Gary Carlson: Good evening fellow citizens and members of the Planning Commission. My
nd
name is Gary Carlson and I live in the main section of the residence at 3891 West 62 Street.
It’s, I can go into a really long detail or I can keep it.
Sacchet: We’ll take the condensed version, if you don’t mind.
Gary Carlson: There’s no other property like this in the seven county area until you go into the
City of Minneapolis. We got zoned into an R1 district and it should remain an R1, and the city
basically has it’s zoning ordinances to work with. I’ve been on this hobby farm for the last 30
plus years. It was the original Cathcart home and so it has some things in it that would never be
allowed in the R1 district. It does have some things that are different than a normal residential
lot because we’re on about 4 acres. And I’m in the corner of the city. I have 2 neighbors and I
don’t think they’re here tonight. And you know the city doesn’t have any letters of any
complaints of my residence being there all these years. An addition was started in ’96. You
know I took out permits and actually as we got into the addition, my daughter’s here tonight, the
one who we put the addition on for. Why didn’t the attendant just live in one of my other
apartments? Good question. That was probably never even brought up but you’ve got to start
there because I already had apartments in this building. She needed an expanded one level, we
changed the dimensions of her bathroom, even during construction. And she can’t have any
stairways out. I mean I’ll bring that up later and that will show why couldn’t connect her room
to the lower level that’s underneath here, so I live on the main level. Molly’s addition went
straight out from the main level. And it gives you a huge handicap bathroom, and her separate
bedroom, computer room and a large play area to run, living area to run around in. What do you
do with the second floor over that? It’s entrance is right at her bedroom so that was occupied by,
always been her aide and right now it’s a family, one of her sisters and their family. They live
above Molly in that addition. As part of the addition of the second floor. The basement level,
what do you do with that? Molly can’t use the basement. I don’t need any more space. I can’t
connect it.
McDonald: Excuse me, can I interrupt you just a second?
Gary Carlson: It’s a very involved home. I’ve had the best realtors in the area trying to find me
the similar situation because we could have…
McDonald: Okay, as you’re explaining this, my question is, can you go through this with the
drawings to kind of put this…
36
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Gary Carlson: …the drawings, sure.
McDonald: Because I’m having trouble discerning upper level, lower levels and everything like
that and if you could just kind of refer to those.
Gary Carlson: Well the whole print of the homes aren’t in the packet. Just the addition.
McDonald: Okay, that’s all I really care about is the addition right now.
Gary Carlson: Is that right there for projection?
Sacchet: Yep.
Gary Carlson: Let’s move to the main level, which is on the back of that page there. This is
Molly’s floor. Move that down a little bit. And so where the existing kitchen, existing bedroom,
that’s where she’s serviced for eating and our bedroom, and then a whole addition out from that
is her’s. And he had to have a handicap entrance put on. That was, I think I made 3 alterations
to the original building permit. Because, put yourself in my shoes and I’d be glad to be in your
shoes. Any time a parent, a child, can come back home, or can, and so you make a provision for
that. Well, geez dad, it’s working out great and how do you like the basement, or how do you
like the second floor of our home? Fine. Do you need a stove? We put in a stove. I mean let’s
put a stove, and there’s already, or it can happen to any of us. We need to have some flexibility
in our homes. We have children that can come back sometimes bringing what parents my age
call baggage. Or due to injury or anything, and so in Molly’s case I had to adapt and develop
this addition as she grew and as we saw her capabilities. We did the addition, put the second
floor above it. This was all done in, starting in ’95 with plans. ’96 was the first permit issue.
’97 we changed it. ’98 we changed it again. ’99 it was completed with all of the, you know by
the building inspector.
Slagle: Mr. Carlson, if I can ask. If I may.
Gary Carlson: …call me into a halt and, but I just.
Slagle: I’m looking for the cliff notes if I may but specifically, you’ve had a chance to look at
the recommendations from the staff. Are there any of those recommendations that you’re not
willing to adhere to?
Gary Carlson: No, I am, in all of the, in all of the people that live in our building are very
appreciative of the City of Chanhassen. We love being here, and the staff is doing, the city staff
is doing what they are available and what they can do. They only have zoning ordinances and
building codes to work with.
Slagle: Okay so let me.
Gary Carlson: Come up against a building such as mine, they were a little bit, well you’re out of
code. Okay, this is what we can do to get you in code. You’re out of violation. This is what we
37
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
do, so I’ve made, taken out permits. I’ve had two building inspectors and a fire inspector. All
my apartments are licensed. Meet building codes and this addition was put on with you know
full plans they looked at.
Slagle: Sure, I’m with you but let me ask you this. Are you okay with making the lower
dwelling an integral part of the house?
Gary Carlson: The 6 conditions are.
Slagle: It’s on page 5. The reason I’m asking Mr. Carlson is because, because I think if I sense
there’s an agreement, we probably could speed this up a bit.
Gary Carlson: Sure. If possible, a couple of the conditions are interesting because see again,
planning and zoning through, or through the planning department is doing this variance. It’s
separate from the building inspection which they have certain concerns and that’s where the
recommendations, the 5 or 6. The conditions apply. Now some of them are, I was going to
quickly go through them, if you want me to. Lower, let’s look at that plan of the building again.
I mean, and the staff knows I’ve worked with them all that I can. I’m trying to stay within the
building codes, within the zones but you know, I only have…
Slagle: Let me be more specific.
Gary Carlson: It’s hard to put the basement, like the basement for instance into an integral part
of the home. If I were to open the basement into the rest of the home, it would open into my
other apartment. So why would the other apartment want to go into this basement under Molly?
The only other way to make it an integral part of the house is to drop a door out of Molly’s
addition. Molly’s, it’s just a basement under Molly’s addition. It’s very easy to take a stove out
of it so we can do that. This was built in…lived in that for a couple of years because I was able
to keep him at home, so I had my dad, had my daughter and above her an aide. Every one of you
folks should be very fortunate to be able to have a building like I have to be able to take care of
your in-laws and out-laws and so forth. It’s something that’s worked out since 90, since the
building was completed. The only thing we’re trying to do here, and I just bring it a little closer
to, the city can’t you know it’s hard for them, the staff to work with this one, I’m out of lot
variance. I’m out of code, so I brought a lot of the building parts up to code and because a
couple other points here. You know I’ve already, when I took out the permit for finishing the
basement they came out and approved a final but then they printed, it’s called printing. It’s on
my paperwork. They print the permit but not issued. So you have a permit. You pay for it. You
can go and do the work but they are still concerned whether they’re actually going to issue it. So
the building department said no, we can’t issue it because you’re out of code with the RS1. You
know you’ve got a 2 family dwelling here so we can’t issue a building permit for you to build it
when you’re not even in so, and we go back to the process of what we’re doing tonight is get it
closer to code. But that’s.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think Commissioner Slagle had a very good, Mr. Carlson.
Gary Carlson: Most of these conditions.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Yeah, that’s very important. How do you feel about, like the first one. To eliminate
the separateness of the lower level.
Gary Carlson: Yeah, we could take out a stove. That’s something that we can do.
Slagle: Okay, we’ve got that.
Gary Carlson: Okay the next one. That’s perfectly fine, number 2. Number 3, those are pretty
much, will have to go over the building inspection but mine all show they’re not final on all.
Now if they, the proposed, the number for the proposed building must be constructed in
accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code.
Slagle: I’m sure that’s okay then. Staff?
Gary Carlson: I’m sure of that because I built it according to most codes…
Metzer: Steve in the building department will work with him on that.
Gary Carlson: I mean if they rezone me, reclassify me as an apartment building.
Sacchet: Well we’re not doing that.
Gary Carlson: There’s some more codes there.
Sacchet: We’re not doing that Mr. Carlson. Don’t worry about that.
Gary Carlson: The rental license I already have, and I’ll be glad to just add this unit that’s above
Molly to the license and when they come out for their annual review. Now they have an annual
review of apartment licenses and they’ve already been through and look at but they can certainly
come and look at it again. The applicant, property owner must obtain permits for accessory
structures constructed without, I’m not, I guess I can throw that up as something here. And
being on a farm, there’s 8 of them illustrated on there now. There’s one more right…that’s a
play house for my grand daughter. There’s a structure there that has the hay in it.
Slagle: I just want to know who put point 6.
Gary Carlson: …there’s another construction there…
Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, I have a real specific question and hopefully.
Gary Carlson: I hope I’m not, I’m not making light of this but it is a farm and I have structures
coming down, going up. As soon as that hay one blows down, it won’t go back up.
Lillehaug: I need to understand.
39
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Gary Carlson: If they need me to get a building permit for all those 8 little things, I don’t know
what.
Slagle: Mr. Carlson, I think you have a fair amount of support here and the quicker we can get
through this I think the better.
Gary Carlson: You ready for Molly’s statement?
Sacchet: Sure.
Gary Carlson: I’ll be available for helping.
Sacchet: Yeah, appreciate your input. So basically you’re, you don’t have an issue with the
conditions. To be summary. I mean.
Gary Carlson: No. I see some day development going on this and like I said, the best of realtors
in the 5 county area looking to find me a similar structure with the same, my family does not
want to move out of Chanhassen.
Sacchet: Nobody says you have to move Mr. Carlson. We’re trying to find the balance that
accommodates what you need to do and we’re trying to work together here. That’s really what it
boils down to, okay.
Gary Carlson: Yep. Molly, my wife Maureen and Molly has a statement that she’ll make. I
guess she can get to that mic there.
Sacchet: Do you want to use this mic? Might be a little better in terms of the height for her. Do
you want to hold it for her or is it going to work like that? Okay.
nd
Molly Carlson: My name is Molly Carlson. My address is 3891 West 62 Street in
Chanhassen. Council members, please pass this variance for me. Thank you. If you’ve got any
more questions, ask my dad please.
Sacchet: Thank you Molly. Appreciate it. Well, this is a public hearing so I’d like to invite
anybody else who likes to make a statement to this, to come forward at this time. Yes, we have
somebody there if you want to, yeah you’re coming up there. Okay. If you want to state your
name and your address, you can move the microphone down to you a little bit.
Margaret Carlson: My name is Margaret Carlson and I am a sister and… This is not a sad
occasion but emotional…
Sacchet: I understand. I’m with you.
Margaret Carlson: I provide what I guess you would call it, I’m kind of an on call services
trained for Molly and due to her physical condition limitations she needs to have immediate
access for whatever rotations and massaging she may need due to muscle cramping during the
40
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
night and, and that’s part of my responsibility when she needs that. In continuing strength as she
ages and just having a safe and secure dwelling place for whoever provides that services is an
integral part of her well being and obviously I fully support this variance, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Appreciate it. Anybody else wants to address this.
Seeing nobody, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comments and
discussion. Is there any comments? Any discussion?
Keefe: In full support of it.
Sacchet: Steve?
Lillehaug: I do have a comment.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: Yes, yes it is grandfathered in that there’s 2 other dwellings that are being rented in
this house, but a variance there’s always a trade off. I absolutely support this addition, or the
variance for this addition but the trade off to me would be taking away the non-conforming rental
units. The legal non-conforming rental units, so for me to support the variance there would have
to be a trade off, and that’s what it would take in my mind. This is comparable. Mr. Carlson’s
right. There is no other property in Chanhassen like this where we, in the R1 District and
residential district that we allow 5 rental units on the property, or 5 separate units, and simply put
there has to be a trade off on this for me to support it.
Sacchet: Okay. Good comment. Any response to that Jerry? Or other comment.
McDonald: Yeah, the one thing he brings up I guess, as I understand it this is strictly for family.
I guess maybe a conditional use might cover that but I think we’ve got to look at that a little bit
too. I mean this is not a commercial venture, at which point I think I would maybe agree with
you more and I’d have more reluctance as far as getting involved by setting some precedence and
everything but again, this is a family compound. They were here long before us. I really don’t
see where, and again we just went through this whole property a couple weeks ago so I realize all
the problems that are in there. I mean this is key to a lot of other things but at this point, we just
went through whether a variance or conditional use and I guess the city uses variances so I don’t
want to set new ground here as far as doing that, but I do tend to agree that maybe this would fit
better under that, to make sure that it is limited to family use but, I trust what Mr. Carlson says.
He’s got a history of doing things on this. I don’t have any problems supporting this at this
point.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. It’s a tricky thing you’re bringing up Steve because generally we do
want to decrease any non-conformance when we allow something extra. I personally would be
willing however in this case to consider it two separate items. Since they are, I mean they’re not
that closely intertwined. I mean physically it’s even two separate structures, if I understand this
correctly, and. Is it?
41
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: …haven’t really had it explained to me, I don’t know.
Sacchet: It is two physical, separate physical structures isn’t it?
Gary Carlson: Yeah, with that question that you asked, her addition went out from me. And the
other apartments wouldn’t be around by her, you know the other apartment space wouldn’t be
around by her bathroom or her bedroom. Whereas the attendant care person, which right now is
my daughter and we would still be within the city’s codes probably as long as it stays my family
members because it’s one family. Only thing there is you know the two stoves. Well again the
City doesn’t really run out and look to see if you have two stoves. But the reason we’re asking
for the variance is my daughter can take a position with another school district and her family
can move away. Well then I have to bring in an attendant that might not be family. And also, I
mean I’m looking way down the way. I mean I’m not going to be always available and
retirement is there around the horizon. I can see my daughter moving down into my level. For
instance, if I can have one of my daughters, maybe not. I may have an aide live there and
another aide live above Molly. Again, not family members. Whereas they would trade off.
They’d get living, very inexpensive living.
Slagle: But I think if I can, we have that covered.
Sacchet: Yeah, I don’t think that’s an issue Mr. Carlson.
Slagle: It’s just a question of, is the two, if I can ask, the two apartments or rental units, are they
in one of the separate structures and I think the answer is yes.
Sacchet: They’re adjacent.
Gary Carlson: The whole home is one solid building, it’s just that you, it’s 70 by, almost 70 by
70.
Sacchet: It is all the same building.
Gary Carlson: I mean I can open the building…upper part and now the upper care attendant
now…
Slagle: Mr. Carlson, if I can ask. You have your main house here and then you have this
separate structure over here that staff.
Gary Carlson: Oh, that’s mistaken a lot. That’s a two story pole barn.
Slagle: Okay, so there’s no rental units in there?
Gary Carlson: No. It looks, I’ve had people come down the street and say well why don’t…
Sacchet: So there goes my argument about that one Steve.
42
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Are all 5 units family?
Gary Carlson: No. No, the two grandfathered, I provide economical rentals for, I have for years.
My ex-tenants are, one’s a VP at Super Valu. One owns his own nursery. I mean I provide low
cost housing which the city’s in need of. In the other two apartments. And the only reason I
have those is the house was so big and if we were to discontinue one of them, my wife and I can
barely use the floor we’re on, let alone then have another whole apartment.
Sacchet: Alright.
Slagle: 5 are in the big house.
Sacchet: Thank you Mr. Carlson. I think you answered the question. Basically do, and actually
it clarified where I stand with this too Steve in terms of giving you the response, at least from my
vantage point to your comment. I do believe there is a mitigating factor in that we’re actually
asking it to be reduced by one unit. We do ask, condition number 1 says to eliminate one of the
units. One of the three new ones and the other two new ones are justified because they’re family
occupied in the context of the care, of the personal care that’s needed. So I do believe there’s a
balancing and mitigating factor in there that within the framework I think is reasonable and since
this is a very complex situation, I would really defer to the time that staff put into this and I think
this is a pretty balanced proposal in view of that.
Lillehaug: Can I ask you a question?
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: Is your interpretation of this right now there’s 5, with the conditions in here there will
be 4?
Sacchet: Yes. But nevertheless, I mean units. With 2 having grandfathered in to be rental and
the other 2 being family use and it makes it very clear that the upper dwelling unit shall not be
rented to a non-family member, other than a live in personal care. So it is tied into a specific use,
which to some extent accommodates what the condition use element would have.
Keefe: Two that were grandfathered and then one.
Slagle: So you’re not including the main residence of Mr. Carlson? I mean his area, right?
Sacchet: Is one of them.
McDonald: It is 1of the 4.
Lillehaug: It’s 1 of the 5 and it’s 1 of the 4.
Sacchet: Right.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Metzer: We consider Molly and the applicant, Mr. Carlson to be the same dwelling unit.
Slagle: Oh okay. I got you.
Sacchet: As one unit. Okay. Okay. So that’s how I would respond to your.
Al-Jaff: Also the variance that you’re approving is temporary in nature. That’s what staff is
recommending with this.
Sacchet: Where is the temporariness?
Slagle: Yeah, where does it show that? That it ends with them selling the property.
Lillehaug: They’ve been non-conforming since 1988. I mean it’s a variance that isn’t
temporary.
Sacchet: Not the non-conforming part. I think staff made that clear, that carries forward. The
non-conforming.
Al-Jaff: Correct, but number 2. The upper level dwelling unit shall not be rented to a non-
family member other than a live in person care attendant.
Sacchet: So in other words, the Carlson’s wouldn’t use and somebody else in a similar situation
would use it, they could use it in this same way. So it’s not expiring with the Carlson’s but the
specific use is defined. Is that what you’re saying?
Larson: So if somebody else had a similar need?
Sacchet: Right.
Larson: Right.
Al-Jaff: It is tied to, I mean if you.
Keefe: It’s not tied to the Carlson family. It’s tied to the use.
Sacchet: The use. It’s tied to the use.
Keefe: Yeah.
Sacchet: It’s tied to the use which is viewed I think.
Keefe: …Carlson family make that expire.
Sacchet: Would that accommodate the concern?
44
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Can we do that?
Sacchet: I’m a little concerned whether that’s possible.
Larson: I mean my opinion is, if you had another situation where another family would need that
and these guys are willing to sell it, it’s a perfect fit. Why not? You know. I don’t think it has
to be strictly just for them. But what I don’t want to see is that to turn into a rental unit of 5
separate anybody’s you know, but in this case I think it’s a wonderful situation what he’s put
together and this house is just, like he said, it’s a very unique property and wow.
McDonald: I guess what I’d feel more comfortable with, I’d like staff to research to put the
conditions on there that it’s strictly for the Carlson’s because getting back to the original point
about non-conforming property. If one of the things the city is trying to do is as possible to you
know have that become conforming, at the sale, when it’s no longer of use to the Carlson’s, that
use should go away and it should then have to become conforming. So I would like to see it tied
to the Carlson’s if at all possible.
Sacchet: I don’t know whether that’s legally feasible, is it?
McDonald: I don’t know but that’s my question to staff. I don’t know.
Keefe: Can you do it upon the sale?
Sacchet: So you feel very strongly it should be specific to this applicant?
McDonald: Well I think Steve brings up a good point, and if that’s one of the things that we’re
supposed to look at as far as when does non-conforming become conforming, I think at the
expiration of the use, that’s when it should be re-looked at. It should not just go on in perpetuity
that way.
Al-Jaff: We have done it on mother-in-law apartments. We have specifically stated the name of.
Sacchet: We have done it.
Al-Jaff: Of the parent.
Sacchet: Yep.
Al-Jaff: For as long as they are living in this unit.
Sacchet: So we have a precedent.
Al-Jaff: And if they are not living in that unit, then that use would cease.
Sacchet: So we can do it. That’s a clear answer for that.
45
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Can I make a comment on that?
Sacchet: Yes.
Lillehaug: We did...maybe within a year ago, or year or two ago.
Slagle: Right behind the Weather Station.
Lillehaug: And as a commission and staff, I think we made it look, or we made it that these
were, that this would be a unit of one if it were ever sold. I mean just the way things were built
in the house and constructed. This is absolutely not the case in this case. I mean it’s very
different and it’s totally holding people to different standards. Absolutely it is in my mind. It
really is.
Sacchet: If we make it specific to the Carlson’s, would that mitigate your concern there?
Lillehaug: We were going to do that on the last one and that totally got thrown out. Totally
went away from that. It was going to be a condition, the commission as a whole totally threw
out making it specific to this family. It was an approval of a variance.
Sacchet: Now Sharmeen seems to remember that we did make it.
Slagle: I thought we made it.
Sacchet: I don’t remember.
Al-Jaff: What I’m saying is we have done it in the past. We have.
Slagle: It’s the Graves.
Keefe: Well there’s support for it here isn’t there?
Sacchet: The one you remember we didn’t want the name.
Lillehaug: That’s my, that’s my.
Sacchet: I don’t remember the detail. I remember the case but. Well if we have a precedent that
we added it, made it specific, I think that would mitigate some of the concerns that are voiced
here in terms, because we have to be careful that we’re fair to the rest of the city. I mean that’s
one of the things we’re trying to do is that we try to treat everybody with some similarity. That’s
our attempt to be fair to everybody, okay. So in that case I think that would be a balance point if
you would make it specific to the Carlson. Add that element in there with the variance, which
would tie it into what the use is at this point, and as such would not carry forward. Which is I
believe a fair position to take. Any other aspects here? Otherwise I’d like to have a motion.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Keefe: I’ll make a motion Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single
family dwelling as a two family dwelling in a single family residential RSF District at 3891 West
nd
62 Street based upon the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions, 1
through 6 and I’d like to add one additional condition. That this variance will expire upon the
sale of the property to a non-Carlson family owner.
Sacchet: Let’s do a second, just on 1 through 6 and then deal with the amendment. Do we have
a second?
McDonald: I’ll second 1 through 6.
Sacchet: Now your addition Dan is to, is that it would expire upon the sale to somebody not
Carlson. Not of the same family. Is that?
McDonald: I’m sure we can wordsmith and massage that but that is the general.
Sacchet: That’s the idea, and maybe that this variance is specific to the Gary Carlson family or
something.
McDonald: Well the thing to say is this variance would expire upon the sale of the property by
the Carlson’s.
Sacchet: Yes. That’s basically.
Slagle: To a non-Carlson.
McDonald: Well upon the sale by the Carlson’s means if they sell it to another Carlson, it
expires.
Sacchet: By the Carlson family, something like that?
McDonald: Yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. You’re fine with that? Okay.
Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for
the use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in Single Family Residential
nd
(RSF) District at 3891 West 62 Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and
with the following conditions:
1. The lower level dwelling unit must be eliminated or made an integral part of the home.
2. The upper level dwelling unit shall not be rented to a non-family member other than a
live in personal care attendant.
47
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
3. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must
receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit.
4. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code.
5. Rental licenses must be obtained in accordance with Chanhassen City Code.
6. The applicant/property owner must obtain permits for accessory structures constructed
without the required permits.
7. The variance shall expire upon the sale of the property by the Carlson family.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
Sacchet: The motion carries 5 to 1, which is enough for it to carry right? Sharmeen and Jason?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Sacchet: So this does, is considered approved unless somebody complains about it to the City
th
Council. If it has to go to City Council, it can go to City Council on the 11 of April, according
to staff report so I wish you luck with this and thanks for coming in. It was nice to meet Molly.
Slagle: Thank you Mr. Carlson.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT
SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, PLANNING CASE 05-10.
Public Present:
Name Address
nd
Michael Sharratt 464 2 Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
nd
Lissa Tenuta 464 2 Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Jason. Any questions?
McDonald: I had some questions for staff. On that sentence where you say that you would
support the variance to allow the applicant to maintain, at that point what kind of a home are they
48
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
building? This is where you get me confused a little bit. Is that within the almond colored area?
On your map on page 6. We’ve got kind of an almond colored area.
Sacchet: That’s the buildable area, right?
McDonald: Yeah, what is that? Okay, that’s the buildable area. And then that would go back to
where the current back of the house is at? Is that…
Metzer: Right, where the same footprint is which encroaches on the shoreline setback. Because
once they demolish the home, they lose their non-conforming status.
McDonald: Okay, so what you’re recommending is that in order to allow them to better utilize
the property, they could go ahead and keep their setback but the buildable area is as defined and
right now the current house does not meet that.
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: Okay.
Sacchet: Jerry, basically all the houses in that neighbor have problems with setback. Side
setback. Front yard setback. Lakeshore setback, and basically everybody who does something
in that neighborhood has to come up here. For variances and then as you can see the list that
staff gave us, there’s a lot of variances in that area. And what we’re trying to do is that we have
some mitigating factors. And I’m not sure whether the current plan has some, does it mitigate?
Does it lower any of things, non-conformances? It intensifies all the non-conformances, okay.
That’s one of the problems. Any other questions?
Slagle: I’ve got a couple. Looking at this sheet that you were kind enough to provide, I am
trying to understand, and I don’t know, Sharmeen if you want to put it up there. But where is a
variance File #1996-9 relating to a 33 foot shoreland variance. What lot is that or what? Do you
know what I’m saying?
Al-Jaff: Would you call out that.
Slagle; It’s 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard.
Metzer: It should be the one that says 7262 I believe.
Slagle: 7262.
Sacchet: The one right next to it.
Metzer: The one that she handed out is from another…
Slagle: I understand, yep.
49
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Metzer: The map you’re looking at is south of where we, where this southern property is
located.
Sacchet: Oh that’s not, okay. Subject is, okay. That’s not the same thing.
Al-Jaff: It is located right here in relationship to the subject property.
Slagle: Yeah. And just for the fellow commissioners, the reason I’m asking is, it’s the only one
I see on 9 or 10 other homesites on this side of the lake that has anything close to a request for a
variance from a shoreland that this applicant is asking for. And if I understand, getting back to
my question, am I correct that right now they are 36 feet from the overall, okay. And they want
to move it to 33.7 with the new home.
Metzer: Correct, but the area, if you see here.
Slagle: Show me where 33.7 is.
Metzer: 33.7 is this deck footing here.
Slagle: So it’s a corner of the deck, okay.
Metzer: Right. I have outlined the existing home in black here. The 37.3, or 36 actually is here.
And they’re proposing this but this.
Slagle: I’m with you. Let me ask this question then of staff, and I don’t know if it would have
been fair to ask the City Engineer but I mean when they came to you with this plan, I mean was
there a question asked back to them why aren’t you moving it closer to the street?
Metzer: It was not asked.
McDonald: Can I follow up Rich’s question because he brings up a point about the 33 feet. The
topography of that area is such that where the subject site is at, it is flat and right on the lake but
then directly below that, or directly south, the land begins to rise. This particular one at 9225,
what is the site on that? And what I’m getting at is, I noticed the house next door, again it is at a
higher elevation so at that point I wouldn’t worry so much about the setback versus this one
where the setback is on flat property. That becomes to me a bigger problem. What was the
property at 9225 like because I didn’t go down there.
Sacchet: Do you know?
Slagle: If I remember, that’s next to the Hamilton’s. I think you had a little bit of a hill.
McDonald: Okay, so that one’s also on a rise, okay. Thank you.
Keefe: I’ve got one question. The properties on either side of this subject property, both those I
think are relatively new houses, particularly the one to the south, and then the one to the north.
50
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
What is the setback? Do we know what the setback is on both of those properties, the one to the
north? Directly to the north and then the one directly to the south.
Metzer: Yes. It’s 50 some feet. 57 feet approximately on the property to the north. I got that
based off of a survey that didn’t measure from the ordinary high water mark.
Larson: 57 from the lake?
Metzer: Yeah.
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: It looked to be on your map that this particular property, the proposed building would be
in front of the properties on either side, so if I looked, if these buildings are placed, perhaps not.
I can’t quite tell on the, from the contour of the.
Sacchet: If you look at this, you actually see where.
Keefe: I can’t quite tell from the contour where the lakeshore goes though.
Metzer: The lakes are kind of.
Sacchet: You don’t know, yeah. I mean if you assume this is straight, and the properties, or the
buildings are here.
Keefe: It looks like it’s.
Sacchet: It’s definitely sticking out more.
Keefe: Okay. That’s what I really wanted to know. And both of those properties are newer than
this property.
Metzer: Right, yeah.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Okay, if not, do you have something to add Jason? Okay. With
that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you want to give us your side of this
story, we’d greatly appreciate it. State your name and your address for the record please.
Mike Sharratt: Chairman and Planning Commission members, my name is Mike Sharratt. I’m
the architect for the project. Been working with the Cooper/Walker family and trying to justify
pretty difficult planning constraints. We have a property that is about, I believe it’s 84% of lot
size, sub-standard lot size and the buildable area as a result of the lake setback and creating a
very narrow, buildable area. This is a diagram. The shaded area is the buildable area of the lot.
It’s, as staff said, it was a little over 2,000 square feet, which is about 62% or so of what was
mentioned earlier as a 60 by 60 pad as being desirable. 3,600 square feet. It’s not an easy site to
deal with. Programmatically what we’ve been trying to solve for the client is handicap
51
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
accessibility. This site is fairly flat but they have 2 handicap members, and friends that visit their
home regularly and presently their garage is a tuck under situation. So they would not be able to
access the first floor, so we’ve been working with our client to try to bring the driveway up to the
first floor. We looked at recessing, at the same time of course solving all the programmatic
constraints of the space that they need on the first floor. Need and want. As opposed to what we
heard earlier, we did talk with staff regularly on the phone and we were, it was suggested to us
that we bring the garage forward and ask for a street side variance. There’s a little bit of
resistance from the client that they don’t want to be a whole lot closer to the street but, and so we
decided to leave the front yard setback as it was and not propose that. This is a diagram, and I
apologize that this was not on the original survey of the two adjacent structures.
Sacchet: I think you’ve got it upside down sir.
Mike Sharratt: Upside down. Well the two adjacent structures and.
Metzer: Lake Riley’s here.
Mike Sharratt: Right. This is the most projecting bay in the back of this house. And this I
believe is a deck, as this is a deck. And on this side, again it does not show on our survey.
Unfortunately our surveyor was in Florida at the time the project was corrected but there’s a
projected pointed bay on the back of this, as well as a stair over here in this location. If we take a
straight line in those two non-conformities that are existing, it adds this sliver of possible
reasonable, buildable area. This line being, this diagonal line here being the one that is created
by the existing structure that will be removed, so we understand that a lakeside setback, it is the
neighbor’s or the 50 feet I think it is, whichever is greater and that creates the other, the very
narrow space. Which by almost any standard is very difficult to work with. So given the
constraints that we had to work with, and that was to try to bring a garage up to the first floor.
We couldn’t just come straight in from Lake Riley Boulevard. We could not come straight in
and give enough rise to the driveway. We had to make some length on the driveway to get that
up to the upper level. The client is willing to only have a 2 car garage at the first floor rather
than a 3. We had originally started with a 3 car garage. We have looked at many, many options
including these which show alternative configurations and, hard to read but we’re playing with
how do we manipulate this. We’re looking here at 15 foot setback to the street and asking for
that as a variance.
Sacchet: Would that work? In view of you just explained what the topography.
Mike Sharratt: Well 15 feet is so tight. We’re substantially improving the.
Sacchet: How bout with the grades? How about the grade aspect that you just pointed out.
Mike Sharratt: The grade will work.
Sacchet: Okay.
52
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: It requires retaining walls in the front yard unfortunately but the grade will work.
At the same time the client doesn’t want to be 15 feet from the street. Maybe 25 might work.
People ask for a 5 foot variance, which case the house would be behind the existing position of
that existing rear wall. So we would be making our structure than existing footprint as it is now.
Slagle: Mr. Sharratt, is that right?
Mike Sharratt: Yep.
Slagle: Would it be fair to ask, in the scheme of things if someone was watching this from their
home that an applicant would be as equally or more concerned about the setback to the lake than
they would be to the street? I guess what I’m getting at is, we’re intensifying the non-conformity
by moving closer to the lake and I’m hearing that it’s the client’s, your client’s desire not to be as
close to the street that’s pushing them closer to the lake. But I’m sitting here going, that doesn’t
seem fair.
Sacchet: Let’s hold that for discussion.
Slagle: Well I ask, I want to hear his comment.
Mike Sharratt: My comment would be, is that they were concerned about that and that’s why we
tried to pull the back corner of the structure no closer than where the back corner of the existing
is, and the decks are exceeding. You know we could possibly get back behind the existing line,
the existing structure if we were to have a 5-6 foot encroachment into the front yard. We didn’t
know really what to ask for. We didn’t know really what was going to be the set points. We
hear from staff that a lot of variances have been granted on this lakeshore, particularly for lake
side setback. There also have been some granted for front yard setback. The reason we looked
at all these options and we were faxing these back and forth with the staff at the end of last week,
was because of the staff report that we got early and we wanted to try to address where’s our
flexibility? In accommodating the client’s program of getting handicap accessibility to the first
floor as well as balancing, okay what’s the hotter point here? What’s the bigger concern? I
think we can get behind the existing setback of the existing structure if we come into the front
yard a little bit with the proposed design. We also, there’s a curious line on this drawing. I don’t
know if you guys have, I think you have the survey that was originally from the adjacent house
here. There’s a line here that says, that this is the, this is I believe it is, this line right here, that is
to grant a variance for when this house was built. And I don’t, that’s well outside of the
envelope of where the house was, as well as way outside of the envelope of where the existing
house is, so I don’t know what that was about. This is the survey we got from the contractor who
built this house, and here you can see on the survey the variance setback line that was granted is
right here.
Sacchet: Is there a year on that sir?
Mike Sharratt: There’s not on this because we reduced it from the original survey but we can get
a year on that survey. Mid 80’s? Mid 80’s when that house was built.
53
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Does it show where the existing structure was?
Mike Sharratt: Ah yeah. This really light dotted line as you can see going through here, right
there, that was the old structure.
Lillehaug: It looks like the house moved forward, right? …on the lake, right.
Mike Sharratt: The deck, no. The actual, the house is maybe 3 or 4 feet more forward than
where the house is. Here’s the light dotted line right there and the deck is substantially forward
from where the old house was.
Sacchet: Alright, let’s stick to the current situation.
Mike Sharratt: Right.
Sacchet: You want to add anything else from your end?
Mike Sharratt: Maybe the client would like to speak.
Sacchet: Okay, please. Do so.
Laura Cooper: My name is Laura Cooper and I live in this house and I have for 8 years. I have
to say, excuse me. We have made all, probably 15 to 16 different versions of this and our goal,
first and foremost was the handicap accessibility and a lifetime house. Pat Swenson, who used to
be on the City Council and her husband Ben left this house. I bought it from them because of
their age and infirmities. This isn’t our preferred design. This is 10 feet from both sides and as
far using the corner of the existing property, which we took the deck into account because we
didn’t know about whether it was a deck or the back wall to work with. I don’t like that we’re 15
feet to the front. When you come down Lyman Boulevard, it’s kind of a nice view and the
houses, both to the north and the south. If we, our preferred view for the same footprint would
be to be halfway into both variance lines so you’ve got the fronts of the houses and the backs of
the houses in line with each other.
Sacchet: Line them up.
Laura Cooper: I think that would make Norm and Kim happy and Joan’s happy anyway so, I
think we’ve definitely done our diligence with this one. Every single proposal we put with the
garage, the grade was too high. I don’t really like having the garage on this side, the north side
of the property anyway, but that’s the only way that we can meet the grade as well as hit the
setbacks. We spent hours trying to get something that would be amenable to the neighbors.
Amenable to the spirit of the intention of the non-conforming and 9225 is a flat lot and many of
them up in that corner are actually fairly flat. There’s some rise but it’s not like the ones just to
the south of us where some of them go straight up. I think it would be, you know we should
probably have just asked some of our neighbors to come. I don’t think that we’re trying to, we
don’t want to change the character of the neighborhood, and if it means that we have to go to the
front setback instead of the back, that’s great but I think if it was 15 feet from the front edge of
54
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
the property, when you come down Lyman Boulevard you’re going to see Joan’s house, my
house, Kim and Norm’s house and the rest and I think what we, why we put it where we put it
was to meet the spirit of the variances. Not because it makes good sense for the neighborhood.
So we’re not stuck on that placement as much as doing the right thing.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anything you wanted to add?
Tim Walker: No, I think I’d just re-emphasize what Laura said, really trying to strike a balance
as far as positioning the house on the lot between the road and the lake. Not being to the
detriment of neighbors to the north or south on either the street side or the lake side, and to where
Mike was trying to show if you struck a band between the north and the south houses, we’re
trying to fit in that band and get as much of the house in that band as possible. As Laura said,
we’ve gone through many iterations, starting out with the garage on the south side of the lot. It’s
sort of a parallelogram. There’s more room. East/west on the south edge of the lot. Put a garage
there but the lot actually slopes upwards to the south so then you end up with more grading in the
driveway, so that’s why we ended up putting the garage at the north end and trying to strike a
balance there.
Sacchet: I do have a question for you. I mean your current design, it has a lower level garage
and an upper level, correct? Now how would that access the street?
Tim Walker: The lower level would be a shop more or less so we would not use that for regular
driving in and out of. We would use the upper level for.
Sacchet: So your main driveway would be the upper level, but you would need a driveway to the
lower level, a separate one don’t you?
Tim Walker: Actually we would not.
Laura Cooper: Tim’s a car guy. He’s got more parts and more pieces and he, that’s what he
does to keep himself sane. We’ve got a Porsche. We’ve got an Audi. We’ve got a BMer.
Larson: I’m married to one of those, I know exactly.
Sacchet: The reason why I’m asking is because that would potentially be another need for a
variance because having two driveways would need a variance I believe.
Tim Walker: Actually we are not requesting two driveways. One driveway to the upper level
and the lower level garage, if we had anything we’d consider using grass pavement. I’m not sure
if you’re heard of that. It’s like a grid under the grass so you can drive over it without creating
ruts.
Sacchet: Would that be considered a driveway from city viewpoint or not? Kind of wonder
about that.
Al-Jaff: If it’s grass.
55
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Grass is not a driveway. Grass pavers, then you’re kind of halfway.
Larson: Is it considered partially used possibly for a boat or anything too or? I mean when I
looked at this, that’s the first thing, cars did not pop into my mind but obviously boat deal or
storage did.
Tim Walker: Yeah, and hobby shop, garage if you will.
Sacchet: Toys. Ultimately known as toys.
Larson: Gotch ya.
Tim Walker: Getting back to the second driveway, if we could use, and it sounds like staff
doesn’t consider paver driveway as permeable.
Sacchet: I don’t think they answered really yet.
Metzer: Pavers we would consider, this grid, I’m not an expert on it. I’ve heard of this grid
being laid out and allows grass to grow through.
Mike Sharratt: It’s actually a plastic grid that you put under the grass and it resists ruts and you
can drive occasionally across it. I mean I would be surprised if you’re going in and out of this
garage once every 2 weeks or something. I mean it’s not that it’s being used as a garage. So
there’s no desire to pave it and there’s grass going through a soft cover. Not hard cover.
Actually below the grass. Below the soil.
Sacchet: Okay. Thanks for answering that one. Any other questions from the applicant? Jerry?
McDonald: Yes, I have a lot of questions. I won’t ask that many. I’ve been out to the site. The
house to the north is higher. That’s why I think the variances are there, so I don’t think it’s
apples to apples. The problem I have with all of this over under garage, the new access, how are
you going to elevate to get up there because according to the drawings you show this new
driveway coming in off the street level, yet it has to be below. You’re going, you’d have to be
going up a hill. Are we changing? Are we talking about changing the topography on the south
end to bring the house up because otherwise I don’t see where there’s room for an over under
garage on that current site with it the way it is without changing the lot.
Mike Sharratt: We’re not changing the lot. The lot is not higher to the north. It’s higher to the
south.
McDonald: You said it’s not that much higher. I mean right here are the pictures. You’ve got a
slight rise. The lot directly to the south rises steeply. It goes up quite a bit, but to show where
this driveway’s at and everything, I cannot picture this because how are you going to get that up
from the street without raising the grade or that part of the lot.
56
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: We’re going to leave the grade where the driveway…
McDonald: Okay. And then what’s the impact on the other lots? I mean now you’re changing
the lot, the character of the lot completely at that point.
Mike Sharratt: Explain character.
McDonald: Explain character. The current lot is a flat lot that drains from the front to the back
toward the lake. At this point you’re going to bring up a lot that almost is going to create a
valley between the lot to the south and your new lot as you raise things up, unless you’re now
going to go the lot to the south and fill in where they have that boulder wall.
Mike Sharratt: The drainage, the existing drainage to the lot right now drains between the
houses down the property lines.
McDonald: Right.
Mike Sharratt: It would not change. The drainage, the driveway would drain down the driveway
back onto the street.
McDonald: Okay, then I need further clarification. I need some drawings that are going to show
that because right now the way this is with the setbacks and everything, I cannot visualize doing
this and I just see a lot of problems as far as variances.
Mike Sharratt: Did you see the front elevations?
McDonald: Right, the front and that’s the one I’ve got the most problem with it because that
shows everything being relatively flat across the lot and it’s not that way.
Mike Sharratt: The grade on the street is about 4 feet higher on the south end than it is on the
north end.
McDonald: Okay, and a typical garage is going to be anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. Your under
garage. What I have a problem with is, I mean this begins the looks of, right now this lot is
relatively flat across here. Yes, there’s a slight rise but there’s a hill that comes down with
boulder walls here and you’ve got the drainage. It’s flat and you’ve got pictures in here to show
it. It goes down to the lake.
Mike Sharratt: And it’s going to continue to do that…
McDonald: But then how can you put this house on that lot when this is coming down and if this
is street level, there’s not that much variance from that end of the lot to that end to rise up 6 to 8
feet.
57
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Can you comment of the grades of your driveway? It’s less
than 10% right? And in your grading plan it shows a tying in on the south property line?
Relatively with, yeah we want flatter slopes. I mean it doesn’t exceed 3 to 1 slopes.
Mike Sharratt: The grades?
Lillehaug: Right.
Mike Sharratt: Other than retaining walls, no.
Lillehaug: Exactly, right. Okay.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions?
Slagle: I’ve got a couple. Have you seen these photos? Have we distributed that to the
applicant?
Sacchet: No.
Slagle: Can we do that? I just want their input. You’re going to see on the bottom right hand
side a photo of looking down Lake Riley Boulevard to the south and having been through a few
cases before us, you can show it on there. There are homes that are close to the street as you go
down. I would not argue the point but I would say that there, it gets hillier down there. And so
again, the necessity for them to be a little further up towards the street, any thoughts on that?
Laura Cooper: If you go down to the corner I think it looks really cramped and crowded. And
from the perspective of character, you know Kim and Norm for example on our south side built a
beautiful house. If we pulled that garage forward, maybe not as you come directly up the road
but as you come towards it, that garage structure I believe will look out of character with what is
there on the road, if we go too far towards the road.
Slagle: Let me ask one more question then. Was it ever contemplated in your 15 or 16 versions
or variations, which I applaud your patience, of somehow incorporating a house that has more of
a garage that you drive straight into. House above it. I mean instead of having a, I’m just trying
to think how you could have built a house there that.
Tim Walker: You just can’t get the driveway and the garage up to the first main level. You just
can’t get it up there.
Laura Cooper: It’s the handicap accessibility that’s really what we’ve struggled because if we
put it right in the front say and face it directly and tuck it in with I don’t know, a bedroom or
something above, the grade on the, where we want it on the south side was greater than the 9 or
10 percent that you allow. If you put it on the front of the house. That’s why we’ve got, it’s so
long.
Slagle: And did you say that you have a family member who’s.
58
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Laura Cooper: Actually a very good friend and his friend, best friend who visit the house and
have you know, played on the water toys and had their families out with us, but it’s a very
difficult thing to do.
Tim Walker: They’re both in wheelchairs.
Laura Cooper: They’re both in wheelchairs and one of them lives in England. He comes back
for the MS150, the first time again this year and we’d like to have him stay with us in the future.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant?
Larson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: So they’re non-residents. They would not be residents.
Laura Cooper: They wouldn’t be for anything other than a visit.
Larson: But they’re just frequent visitors, okay.
Laura Cooper: Correct.
Larson: I had a question if, going back to your many attempts at trying to redo this. Was it ever
a consideration to, because of the setback to the lake. I mean there’s a pretty decent setback right
now. 30, whatever, 7 feet or 5 feet. Was it ever a consideration to try and do a 50% add on to
that house or to restructure what’s already there? I mean I don’t know if that was.
Laura Cooper: It’s a split level and that’s the issue.
Larson: That’s the issue, okay.
Laura Cooper: I’ve dragged Rob at 170 pounds up those stairs and I’ve also got, he’s got a great
ability to get down the stairs from my deck, but it scares the living daylights out of me every
time. It’s not that it’s not physically possible to make it work, but also this is our lifetime house.
We don’t want to have to leave at some point because either one of us is incapacitated. And I
think the families who was here before, Chanhassen would do well to have a few more places
like that in the long run.
Larson: Okay, that’s all I had.
Lillehaug: I had a question.
59
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Sharmeen, can you put that up. I want to ask you a question. I highlighted in the
area on your map that you provided. Would you agree with me that that is an area that you are
intensifying and increasing and expanding into, intensifying the variance that you’re requesting.
Is that an area that goes deeper into the wetland setback than what’s there currently? That that
darken area is intensifying.
Laura Cooper: Based on the angle, yes. The one corner I think is probably pretty dang close to
where the existing property is. It’s just that.
Lillehaug: So, at that corner?
Laura Cooper: Yes.
Sacchet: That’s why he didn’t color it. Because there you’re not intensifying.
Lillehaug: …is specifically the area compared to the existing house, your proposed house
according to that drawing, you’re intensifying the wetland setback, would you agree with that?
Tim Walker: You’re including the patio and…
Sacchet: Yes.
Laura Cooper: Yes we would agree with that. And we would also be amenable to turning that
so that it didn’t as much as well. The challenges then, we’re asking you for a different variance
which is a front variance, and to Mike’s point, when we went through this process we asked
okay, we want to minimize the variances. Let’s do 2. Hard cover and we heard that the front
setback was going to be the issue so that’s where, no we heard the front was going to be the issue
so we didn’t, we avoided that.
Slagle: Who, can I ask who shared with you that the front setback would be more of an issue
than the water?
Mike Sharratt: …we were trying to minimize the number of variances we’re asking for.
Sacchet: Well, that’s besides the point.
Slagle: It is but, but let me just throw this out for consideration. We’ve seen a number of cases
on this lake. At least in my 4 years, at least 3 or 4. If you had a chance to watch any of those or
research them, I mean we literally spent a lot of time talking 1 foot, 2 foot. Moving a room, and
I mean, so I’m just sharing with you, I’m hoping that you understand and get the concern that
we’re talking 7 feet I think. Something like that and just what Commissioner Lillehaug showed
you, I’m just surprised you wouldn’t have come with not encroaching in any of those areas. Just
sharing that with you.
60
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Laura Cooper: And we are novices. …I’ve had the variance notices but I’m not come to any
one. I think as Mike shows you this picture here, if we, we are willing to move. We met after
the fact when we saw the denial. If you see that straight line there, to your point, if we move the
angle back on the…where the garage fits, do we have to go through the variance process again
for 4 or 5 feet on the front? Do you see where the challenge is?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Laura Cooper: We are okay with moving back to that line if the intensification of the back is the
true issue.
Sacchet: You see the problem we have is, we have to make a decision on the proposal in front of
us. We can’t make a decision on something that hasn’t been worked out in detail. That hasn’t
been studied by staff so we can maybe give you a little bit of a reference point, but these can’t go
further than that. So we have to contend with that. That’s the best we can do tonight for you.
Laura Cooper: Well and then that gets back to the, if you do recommend approval, which we
hope you will, the conditions that are included at the back. Can those conditions, to avoid us
getting into.
Sacchet: Well we’re not quite there yet. I mean you’ll just have to wait til we get there, I mean
we will get to that pretty soon I hope.
Lillehaug: Can I ask one more question?
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Did you consider any mitigating factors such as, you know we saw one a year ago
regarding a variance and we have this whole list of variances out in that area. This is the map for
that. It shows variances. But in this case they mitigated something. Like the case we saw, they
moved their whole, the existing structure, they moved it away from the shoreland so there is a, in
my mind you can’t just look at these and say well, they have a setback. They have a variance.
They have a variance. They have a variance. You should grant us one. In these cases there is
most, in more than likely a mitigating factor and do you have any mitigating factors? I mean I
don’t see any, do you?
Tim Walker: Well I guess what we hear a lot is that they should be able to put their property to
similar use that others are having granted. We have maybe a 36 foot here and maybe about 45
foot here, setback to these structures. I think it’s pretty unreasonable to assume that we should
be significantly tied in with the existing neighboring structures are, or have been permitted to do
by the city. I think if we can verify scientifically this line for you, that we stay behind this line,
that seems to be a reasonable approach to me.
McDonald: If I could make a suggestion. Are you willing to table this and to come back to us at
some other point because.
61
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: Well, I’m not sure I’m willing to table it.
McDonald: Okay. I’ll wait.
Laura Cooper: I think another mitigating factor, we have lots not only behind but in front of
these houses and looked, and it’s 30 foot, 30 foot, 20 foot, 20 foot, so I mean in terms of have we
investigated their variance reports? No. But have we looked at the houses? Yes. The last 4 on
the corner that were built, some of them have side variances as well as front and back variances
and the bottom line is it’s a hardship lot. I’ve got 12,936 feet and even in your new guidelines,
15,000 feet. I’m still a hardship.
Sacchet: Yeah, and that’s the case with just about every property there because we have quite a
bit of experience, at least those of us that have been sitting here for a while because we have
these cases come in several times a year. And again, our aim is to be somewhat consistent with
how we treat everybody, and we’re not there yet in our discussion but I think you certainly
picked up some of the elements is that we look for a lessening of the intensification. What I see
here is intensification only in terms of the lakeshore setback and if you would have looked at
some of the debates that we had in the past in similar situations, I would definitely think that you
could back up that this lakeshore setback is the most significant in this gang here, okay. But
we’ll get to that when we get to the discussion but I mention that here because there is no way of
spinning our wheels here. We have a proposal in front of us that we make a decision about it.
We cannot make a decision about another proposal at this point because it’s not in front of us.
It’s as simple as that. And I’m sorry because that basically means that you’re going to have to
come back for another variance, okay. We’re not there yet but I don’t really see much other
possibility to be honest with you, and I mention that here because there is no point in us debating
this over and over and over because we’re not making headway with it. Do you understand
where I’m at? I mean.
Laura Cooper: I think based on the fact that we are going to have to come back, it will be very
helpful if you knew exactly what we really need to come back with.
Sacchet: Yeah, and give you an idea. Absolutely. And that’s what we’re trying to clarify too at
some point here.
Slagle: But if I can, point of clarification. I mean truthfully that, those discussions and those
helpful points if you will would really come from staff. I mean we’re 1 of 7 or 6 that we have
our own opinion but that’s really, you know. I would suggest whatever happens tonight you
really work with them in refining. That’s assuming it doesn’t pass. It might pass, who knows.
Laura Cooper: And from that perspective, we would like to thank Josh because I know he’s
worked a lot with Melissa on…
Sacchet: We haven’t made a decision yet so, let’s take it in steps definitely. By all means.
Anything else you’d like to add from your end. Let’s open the public hearing and see what
anybody else wants to address this item. This is a public hearing so if any of the other residents
62
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
want to speak up to this item, this is your chance. Seeing nobody getting up, I’ll close the public
hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to start?
Lillehaug: Can I blurt a few things out?
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: I have to believe that based on staff’s recommendation that most of this stuff has
been discussed with them. Or some of our opinions anyways. Is that a fair statement?
Metzer: Particularly which?
Lillehaug: Well particularly I mean one in my mind reasonable use. You know I’d love to have
storage for my boat at my house. I mean I see a pretty significant 14 plus foot by 32 foot lake
storage as labeled on the plan. I mean is that a reasonable use? I mean it’s a little more than a
reasonable use in my mind. So that’s one thing. Because the main thing is, I absolutely don’t
support intensifying and increasing the encroachment on the wetland setback, and we have some
footages in here, 33.7 foot setback. Well, if you really look at it, it’s worst than that. If you look
at an area intensification because the house is skewed right now. You straighten it up with the
shoreland and, on the map that I highlighted there. I mean it drastically increases the
intensification and I absolutely don’t support that, especially on a lake lot like that. I think we
need to be very sensitive to that. Intensifying the hard surface. It’s not a drastic intensification
but again it’s intensifying it. Just simply put there is absolutely no mitigating factors and I think
that the commission and the city and staff should be very stringent on these standards. Like I
said, in the earlier, in the past there’s always been a mitigating factor that I’ve been involved
with. Significant mitigation factors and this way it goes totally the opposite direction, so me. I
would not support any intensification on the lake side. That’s where I stand.
Sacchet: Let me clarify Steve. When you, and I think that’s important for the applicant to
understand. When their idea was that it they stay 37.3 feet away from the lakeshore, the whole
front, that that’s not intensification, but that really is not what we’re saying here. It’s because the
building was not the whole building was at 37.3 feet. Only the first corner was, and the other
corner on the other side was more something around, probably 60 feet or so from the lake. So
it’s not the straight line that we’re looking at, but as you were able to see on the drawing, what he
highlighted, I mean that gives you an idea of what we look at, okay. Is that understood because
that’s important. Thanks Steve. Anything else?
Lillehaug: That’s it, thanks.
Sacchet: Anybody else? Dan?
Keefe: Just some brief comments. I don’t support this particular proposal just to really the
comments by staff that it’s an intensification and it’s of both the hard surface coverage and
particularly the lake side. Intensification. One question I’ve got in my mind is, if there are a lot
of variances on this particular lake, which obviously there are, particularly in regards to the lake
side intensification, I might be willing to consider some level of variance, as long as it’s
63
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
consistent with the neighboring properties, and I can’t get, I mean I’ve seen a couple different
maps. I just can’t even get a feel for whether, at least the one that I’ve got in front of me looks
like it’s significantly in front of the other properties, but I don’t know the answer to that so I
really can’t even rule in regards to that at all. I would like to see no intensification of it but I
think in regards to whether we would consider granting a variance, I would like to at least have
that trued up to a certain degree so that we’ve got a better feel for that. And the hard surface
coverage, you know I’d really like to just see that, no intensification there as well. So those are
my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie.
Larson: Okay. First of all I want you to know I think the idea of upgrading the property’s a
great idea. There’s many of the homes in the area have been upgraded and you know, your’s
does stick out as being one that needs it. It’s a nice home but certainly the ones around it
definitely have gone further extent of that. I’m very also worried about the intensification. The
encroachment towards the lake. Seems a bit excessive but if you’re willing to move it back,
maybe my main concern would be maybe this garage area because that’s what’s, I know what
you’re saying as you come down Lyman you can see the house and then I drove it today and it’s
definitely going to look odd to me. Whether it’s placed closer to the street or not. It’s still going
to look weird to me, and I don’t know if there’s something that can be designed differently to
that to where it can be more part of the main structure or something because the two houses on
either side, as you saw by the new photographs, don’t really have that. They’re more flat fronted
th
and so you know, since we’re in the process of having to do a 16 version, I hate to have you do
that but at this point I’m not comfortable with passing this either so that’s all I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comment. Jerry.
McDonald: Well first of all, I understand the problem you got with this lot. It is not the same
size as the others and I understand how that will limit you and everything. And again because of
the lay of the land, it is different than the other lots so you’ve got a challenge and I mean you’ve
done a great job with what you’ve come up with but at this point, to me you’re changing the
character of what’s there. You’re asking us to create too many variances and I have a problem
with that, as I’ve said. I’m not against creating variances, and again I looked at the other
properties and we’re talking decks. We’re talking footers. Your property is plat with the lake.
All these others again going to the south, there are different reasons why they got that. It is not
that you can just draw a line. That is not your answer. I would suggest again you need to work
with staff as far as coming up, there are going to be design constraints. I’m sorry. You may not
get to do exactly what you want to do with the land. I do agree that an individual should have
rights on their property, but however that’s why there are city zoning laws and variances and
those things. You have rights within certain limitations so it’s not a blank check. And then
based upon all that, unfortunately I’ve got to say you’ve got to come back. I mean that’s why we
would prefer to table it but it’s the same thing. You’re not there yet. I’m not sure that when you
come back the design’s going to be the same as what it is. Maybe it is. Maybe you can work
something out but you can’t bring us something where you intensify things. I mean to me when
I look at this and I look at the property, it’s trying to put 10 pounds of sand into a 5 pound sock.
I can’t support that, I’m sorry. All I can say is based upon maybe the comments and what staff
64
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
has said, that’s your variances. That’s your design constraints. I’m sorry. That’s the way it is.
That’s what you’ll have to go around. That’s it.
Sacchet: Still nothing Rich?
Lillehaug: Mr. Chair can I ask?
Sacchet: Yes.
Lillehaug: I also wanted to make a point that in reviewing a variance we have findings of facts
that we need to…
Sacchet: I was just getting to that. Go for it.
Lillehaug: It’s not iterated enough that there’s.
Sacchet: 5 or 6 points.
Lillehaug: …6 points and a majority of them, they’re just not met so that’s something that at the
board level, at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals level, we need to consider. That it doesn’t
meet those standards.
Sacchet: Actually Steve I’d like to go through these points for the benefit of the newer members
on the Planning Commission. And also for your benefit. I mean basically for us as a Planning
Commission to approve a variance we have to look at 5 things. That’s anchored in by city code.
The first item is that the literal enforcement of the code creates undue hardship. Now undue
hardship is defined that it would prevent somebody from making use of the property as it’s
commonly used within 500 feet and surrounding. Now if you take that literally you could say in
500 feet surrounding are single family homes. With 2 car garages. You have a single family
home. You have a 2 car garage so therefore it’s not causing undue hardship, if you look at it in a
nasty way you might say. From your angle. If you look at it in a very factual way let’s say.
Objectively. The second point we have to look at is, does the condition of this variance create a
precedent for similar properties, for similar places in the same zoning district. Because here
we’re trying to treat everybody the same way. And that’s partially what your reasoning was too.
You said well the guy next door and the guy there, so we have to make sure that we make
something that is not creating a precedent for everybody else in a similar situation. The third
thing we have to look at is, is the aim for this to increase the value of the property? Which is not
the sole. I wouldn’t hold that against you. I mean you’re building your house. It’s going to be
worth more, but that’s not your main aim here. The fourth thing we need to look at is the
hardship self created? Well the hardship is self created because you want this type of house.
You want it the way you want it. The way you put it. You put it there. And then we also need
to look at does the variance detrimental in any way to the public welfare, and there could be a
case made that encroaching further into the lakeshore setback is damaging to the other welfare.
That’s the position that I’ve seen the city take repeatedly. And then the last point is, does it
impair adequate supply of land and air and all that to surrounding. Light. Light, and that’s not,
that doesn’t come into play so much with this one, but that’s the 5 criteria that we go by. And I
65
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
think it’s very obvious that in terms of hardship, in terms of making a precedent, in terms of self
created, we’re falling way short. On top of that, and I don’t know, did you want to add anything
else at this point Steve? On top of that, the encroachment is very big. I mean you may have
thought that well you’re only increasing from 37 to 33 feet. However if you look at it with the
way Steve colored it for you, there’s a big chunk there. Now are we holding you to just be able
to build in the little sliver of land that is actually buildable? No we don’t. I mean that’s not
reasonable. There’s the aspect where the hardship, where the reasonableness of the request
comes into play, so we try to balance that in a way that is workable for everybody. So we try to
work together. However, the intensification on the lakeshore setback is very significant. The
lakeshore setback is the most sensitive constraint you have on that lot. The second sensitive is
the hard cover. Because that also impacts the water quality of the lake. That has an impact on
that too. So your second variance is also the second in sensitivity. While the encroachment on
the front yard setback would be the least sensitive so that I think I feel confident to give you that
as a framework of how we look at it. That doesn’t mean that everybody’s going to agree with
me and that, I mean we can’t give you any guarantees what we decide anytime in the future but
to give you a little bit of an insight into the thinking that we have. Now in terms of the size, and
Jerry put that, I mean you can’t put 10 pounds of rice into a 5 pound bag. I mean when I looked
at this first I thought well, either the lot is too small or the house is too big. Now you can’t make
the lot bigger so you might have to make the house smaller. I don’t know. I mean but that’s, and
that’s where I draw the line but I don’t think government should dictate to you how big your
house can be, but that’s for you to balance. But then when you come to us with a request for
variance, we have to look. How does it fit with those 5 criteria? The hardship. The self created.
The impact it has. Is it detrimental to public welfare? In this case the quality of the lake. And
one important thing that’s always been a gaining factor is, you have to lessen the non-
conformance. If you come in here with, and I can tell you that from me personally. I can’t speak
for everybody. If you come in here with a proposal that’s well, now we’re not encroaching any
further than 37.3 feet, which is where the corner of the deck was before, I was like well that’s not
a lessening of the non-conformance. We’re looking at a balance, and that’s why I wonder
whether the lot is simply not big enough for the size of house you want. There needs to be a
significant lessening of the non-conformance to justify all the other variances. And it’s not
necessarily the number of variances, if you have a front yard, a side yard and an impervious
surface and a lakeshore, all these things. It’s the amount of variance. I mean if you have a big
variance, that’s much more weighted than if you have a small variance. But I hope that gives
you a little bit of feedback. Now I have to pounce on staff a little bit too, in all fairness since I’m
kind of in a pouncing mode.
Laura Cooper: …on your feedback?
Sacchet: Yes.
Laura Cooper: One of the challenges, why it’s so big isn’t because we need a 30 by 10 garage
below. That’s…but we do want to have the master suite and living suite on the same place as the
kitchen and the laundry. That’s why…
Sacchet: And you see that’s why I’m saying, I don’t want to get involved with that. That’s your
business.
66
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Laura Cooper: But if we come back with that same kind of goal, are we really defeating our
purpose? That’s what I’m asking. …accessibility is why the hard cover is so big is you have to
have a 60 foot driveway.
Sacchet: The hard cover is not a significant increase but it’s not a tremendously, what is it? It
goes from 26 to 33 or something like that.
Metzer: 26.8 I believe to 32.4.
Sacchet: So we’re looking at about 7-8%. I mean it’s not a trivial increase but it’s not really a
insane increase either, but I can’t tell you where we’re going to be because you don’t know what
you’re going to bring to us. Okay.
Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can throw this out again, just as a word of, as a word of thought. We have
seen others come back in a revision form and really in some respects it’s a different house. I
mean not that I want you to pay your builder or designer more money but I mean really people
have gone from really a certain type of format of a house and decided you know what, this is not
going to work. I’m not suggesting that but I mean, be open at least to that possibility.
Sacchet: Now I do want to address staff on this. I’m not thrilled with this coming in front of us
in this shape, I have to be very honest about it. Because there’s no mitigation. This is all
intensification. And I wonder if they have to make another variance, do they have to apply for a
new variance? Is there a fee involved with that? Could we ask staff to waive that fee for them to
come back?
Al-Jaff: We don’t have the authority to do that. That’s something that the City Council can do.
McDonald: I have a question then to that, that’s part of why I wanted to table this, to keep all
this within the same record. If they need to make the changes at that point, we’re talking about
the same thing. That solves that problem. If they’re willing to do that and to re-look at things,
then we don’t have to get council involved or anyone else. It is the same file.
Sacchet: The reason why I disagree on that Jerry is because this is so far away from something
that I consider acceptable.
McDonald: I agree with you 100% but you know, they can change it and come back. I don’t
know that there’s any requirement that says they’ve got to just tweak it here and there. They
could come back with something totally new. I mean we’re asking them to table this and at that
point they need to bring back something based upon what we have said that we would probably
consider, and if that’s totally different than it’s totally different.
Sacchet: How much is the fee for a variance?
Metzer: 250.
67
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: 250.
McDonald: And at that point I think it begins to solve the problem but they have to agree to the
waiver and to give them more time.
Sacchet: What’s the time clock on this? Because you see we have time restrictions.
McDonald: I understand.
Al-Jaff: Application was submitted April 15. Deadline.
Slagle: Not April 15.
th
Metzer: The review deadline is April 12.
Al-Jaff: Sorry. So that’s the 60 days.
th
Sacchet: 60 days is April 12.
Al-Jaff: Correct. We can take an additional 60 days.
Sacchet: If they agree.
Al-Jaff: If they agree.
McDonald: Otherwise what I would propose is that they have to pay the fee again. I mean that’s
one of the risks that you run when you submit something to council is they, is going to be turned
down and at that point if you have to start all over again, you need to pay the fee again.
Mike Sharratt: May I ask a question?
Sacchet: Yes.
Mike Sharratt: As far as coming back a second time around here, would we have any leniency
on the amount of time required for review since you’ve already familiarized yourself with
somewhat with our situation tonight, would require the full 30-60 days or could we come back
next Planning Commission meeting say with submitting the plans?
Sacchet: I don’t know how full our schedule is, do you know?
Al-Jaff: It is full.
Sacchet: It is pretty full isn’t it?
Al-Jaff: We have some heavy items.
68
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Sacchet: I know we have a pretty heavy schedule these days.
Lillehaug: If I can also add. Like I said before, I mean I have to believe that staff has done their
due diligence in working with the applicant. Literally I mean staff denied, recommended denial
of the variance based on all those findings.
Sacchet: So it shouldn’t be a total surprise.
Lillehaug: I’m not saying let’s send a message here, but I mean the fact of the matter is, I mean
staff relayed this information to them. I mean it’s pretty straight forward.
Sacchet: Okay, I can accept that.
McDonald: What I would only offer is that you know, ask us to waive this and at that point fine.
The fee’s taken care of. If not, I’m afraid I’d have to support, you’re going to have to repay the
fee because again I think staff did do their job. I mean they pointed out this isn’t going to pass.
It is your choice to bring it to us or to halt it. It is totally within your control. So that’s what I
would offer as a compromise is that if they want to ask for a delay in our decision, I’m fine with
doing that.
Sacchet: Personally I still think it’s the wrong signal. I mean this is so far away in terms of
intensification and no mitigation that tabling is, I’m not really considering that personally
myself. I don’t know, maybe you all are. …we can make a motion and see what happens, yeah.
Keefe: I was just going to say. When would be the soonest we could probably get it back on?
Do you have any idea Sharmeen?
Slagle: Point of clarification too though. I mean just making sure we’re on top of this is, if they
grant the, agree to the waiver of the timeframe, it’s really up to them then. Forget our schedule.
I mean they have to put together something. Work with you, so I guess I would just ask if
they’re open to it and if they are, we might make a decision. If they’re not, then we make
another decision.
McDonald: And I would suggest at that point that if staff says it’s not ready, do not try to bring
it up.
Sacchet: Well you see that’s one of the things I’m concerned about. Once we put the timeframe
on it, if we don’t act within the timeframe, it becomes automatically approved. Now if they
don’t come in with another applicant though it would never get to that point so yeah, that would
work.
rdrd
Keefe: It’s May 3. It looks like May 3.
Sacchet: I think it’d be better to be crisp personally. Do we want to take a motion? Or do we
want to know whether the applicant’s willing to extend, since some of us asked.
69
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then I’d like clarification.
Sacchet: Please.
Mike Sharratt: Do you want to waive the 60 day rule?
Sacchet: Basically extend it to 120 from 60.
Mike Sharratt: Set it for 120 on the same application.
Lillehaug: You can also appeal our decision directly to the City Council.
Laura Cooper: If we extend…
Mike Sharratt: Well it’s more absolute that way with staff, but here’s the clarification I’d like.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Mike Sharratt: What I’d like is clarification tonight so that we know our constraints. Is our
constraint.
Sacchet: Can you zoom in on it Nann? Thanks.
Mike Sharratt: What I’ve been, is our constraint location of the rear facade of the existing house
or is our constraint the precedence if you want to call it that, of the actual setback of the two
neighboring structures or the average thereof? Or the straight line between the most projected
parcel of those structures. What is our, can we have a scientific direction from you as to what.
Sacchet: It’s a combination of all those. And I tried to give you a little bit of, at least from my
personal prioritizing and idea of how I stack them. I would stack the neighboring context further
down the line. I didn’t touch on that one. I think I touched on the other ones to some extent. I
don’t know whether any of you wants to add something to that.
McDonald: I would defer to staff. I mean.
Sacchet: And it’s really a thing you have to work with staff.
McDonald: You really need to work with them and you know, they’re much better at I think
doing some of this balancing and bring it to us and at that point what we can do is apply our
perspective.
Mike Sharratt: …communication.
Sacchet: There is no scientifically fixed formula.
70
Planning Commission Meeting – March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: That’s, but what we’re saying is…that we are further encroaching toward the
lake setback.
Sacchet: I would interpret it that way, correct. But then there are mitigating factors. I mean
nothing is absolute because you have a little corner of a deck stick out a little bit. And it’s on the
side where the house was further back. I mean that’s why I’m saying, it’s a combination of all
those.
Al-Jaff: I can work with the applicant and Josh and I can both.
Sacchet: Yeah, I really I think we told you that several times. It’s something you need to work
with staff. Because they, I mean that’s their job. Alright. Did we want to get a clarification
whether to extend the timeframe or do you want to make a motion?
McDonald: Did they want to ask for one? I mean we can’t just ask for a motion. It’s their.
Mike Sharratt: They said yes.
McDonald: Then in that case, I make a motion that we table this application until the applicant
re-submits.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Larson: I second.
McDonald moved, Larson seconded to table Variance Request #05-10 until the applicant
re-submits. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Sacchet: Now for a table that’s enough, right?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, it wouldn’t be enough to approve the variance but it’s enough to table. Alright.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely.
Sacchet: Alright, we got that in place. Thanks for bearing with us. It’s a beautiful property you
have there so.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
71