PC 2015 07 21
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 2015
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve
Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Pat Mackey 5200 Washburn Avenue So., Minneapolis
Dave Bishop and Nelleke Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Road
PUBLIC HEARING:
3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY
ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED
CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE
MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG
& KELLIE GEIGER.
Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman Aller and good evening to the rest of the Planning Commission.
I do not have a name still but I assure you I am working here. My name is Drew Ingvalson so if
you have any questions for me feel free to ask. So as you said the variance request we have in
front of us today is an expansion of an existing non-conformity. The location, like you already
said is 3603 Red Cedar Point. If you look on the image on your screen it is, has Lake
Minnewashta sort of on the north side and then also on the south side too and then as properties
to the east and to the west. Here is an image of the existing structure at Red Cedar Point Road as
constructed in 1918 so we’re looking at much older neighborhood within the city and the request
that is being made today is the property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story,
621 square foot garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non-
conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. Here’s a
survey that we have of the property. There are legal non-conformities, as I already stated. The
principle structure encroaches on the shoreland setback by 44 feet. If you look over here it
shows its 31 feet from the shoreland to the south. It also meets the shoreland setback to the north
is 75 feet from that shoreland setback, and then it encroaches on the front yard setback which is
this west property line. This was changed per city code in the early 1990’s. This was previously
considered a side yard. This side of a lot but with our current city code it is considered a front
yard so it encroaches into that 20.4 feet. It is set back 9.6 feet from that property line. Existing
infrastructure. There is a road currently providing access to people on the street. It is a private
drive. Not a public street. A private drive. There’s also sewer and water mains that go through
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
this property. Originally the applicant was, wished to have their detached garage structure
located on the north side of the road. This came to a halt when staff noticed that there were
sewer and water lines going through that area and any placed structured on the far side of the
property was very, very close to the shoreland so further conversations moved where that
structure would be placed which I will talk to you about later today. Here is an image. The drive
is approximately 10 feet wide along here. This is looking at the drive facing west. Here is an
image of the drive east. The proposed project, there are multiple locations that are being
proposed for this structure but all of them are a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Option A, which
you’ll see over here is the preferred option. It loads off of the street from this way. It is
preferred by the applicant, sorry to not infer any confusion. The applicant then prefers Options B
and then option C next respectively. And the least preferred option by the applicant is the
location of D which would be the only attached structure. Also for the location of the garage for
options A and options B they would be required to remove some hard cover to meet the 25
percent hard cover maximum. That will be done by removing this location of the turn around.
Speaking with our fire department that is not a preferred option to remove that turn around as it
serves for safety vehicles. Options C and options D would not require to remove this area.
However it has been proposed by the applicant to remove this area but it will not be needed for
option C or for options D. First we have option A. Option A is the applicant’s preferred option.
This option will require a variance from the shoreland setback of 48.5 feet. It would locate the
structure 26.5 feet from the shoreland and would access off of the private drive this way and then
would access into the garage from the west. The hard cover for this one would be increased to
24.77. That would include removing that hard cover area from that turn around we talked about
earlier and then also there will be 3 mature trees that would need to be removed for this option.
Here is a view of where option A and option C would be located. We’ll talk about option C a
little bit later. It will be located in this area on a concrete pad where these cars are and this tarp
and here is the shoreland facing to the south. Next option we have is option B which is the
applicant’s next preferred option. Looking at here on the image it is 24.6 feet from the shoreline.
The variance required for that would be a 50.5 foot shoreland setback variance. The hard cover
for this option would be increased to 24.33. Also removing that turn around area that we talked
about before. This one option would require the removal of 3 mature trees and you would access
off of the road and then load into the garage from the west. Next option is option C. It’s located
in a similar place as option A. This would be loading actually from the north, different from the
previous two options. This one would require the largest variance. 53.9 foot shoreland setback
variance. It would be located 21.1 feet from the shoreline. Hard cover would be increased to
23.28 percent. This is if the turn about was, turn around was removed. And then would be 24.95
meeting the ordinance of 25 percent hard cover if it was left there. This would also require the
removal of one mature tree. Option D, which is the applicant’s least preferred option. This will
require the most variances. First it’s going to require a 17 foot shoreland variance setback to the
south. You set back 58 feet from the shoreline. As you can see the structure, the existing
structure would actually be between the proposed garage and the shoreline. Then also it would
require a 2 foot shoreland setback from the north. You can’t see on the map. The shoreland
would be up here. It’s going to be 73 feet in that location. Also there would be a side yard
setback, or a front yard setback required, excuse me for 25.9 feet. That would locate the
structure 4.2 feet from the front yard, which is the far west property line only allowing a 9 foot 9
and a quarter inch separation between the homes. Speaking with building that would require a
fire rated wall for that which would be an additional requirement for the building permit. Hard
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
cover for this location would be increased to 22.3 percent. That is if the turn out was removed,
as you can see in red. If it was left there it would leave it at 23.78 percent with it still left. No
mature trees would be removed in this area. The only hard cover expansion since location for D
is actually on existing hard cover. The only expansion for hard cover would be the driveway that
would need to be expanded to complete access. A large issue with this option is loading. It
would be loading from the west which would make it fairly difficult to get around the existing
property to the west and loading into that garage. The alternative plan that was created by staff
would require a variance still for the shoreland setback to the south. Maintain, keeping that 58
foot variance and then would have a smaller variance required for the front yard. 20.4 foot front
yard setback keeping it at 9.6 feet from the property line to the west, and maintaining what is
currently existing on the house at this corner of the home is currently 9.6 feet away. With this
option you’d be loading from the north. I’m sorry excuse me, the option to the south, or the
option, this alternative option would maintain a 15 foot building separation which would not
require an additional requirement from the building department for the fire rating. Hard cover
would not exceed 25 percent for this option. The applicant’s option which would remove the
part of the turn out would put it at 23 percent. If it was left there it’d be a 24 percent. Looking at
this dark area right here that would be maintaining the 10 foot driveway through here which, or
drive that goes through the property. The applicant has proposed a larger area with the dotted
area. That would keep it still underneath the 25 percent hard cover. And for this area just like
option D there won’t be any mature trees removed. Here is a view of option D and the
alternative plan location. Here is the house looking from the north from the private drive.
Here’s a view of the neighboring house to the west. They have a garage on this side. There
aren’t any windows on this side for this side of the property. And as I said before earlier this
property was built in, this structure was built in 1918 so looking at this image I’ll walk you
through a little bit of it. The yellow line shows all the properties that are within 500 feet of the
subject property. And in red are all properties that do not meet the shoreland setback
requirement. Some of these are because they were built before the shoreland setback was put in
place. Also the yellow is the subject property which also doesn’t meet the shoreland setback
requirement. And there was a couple errors in the staff report that I’d bring up. First of all the
staff report read that variances within 500 feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive on Attachment
number 8 should actually read 500 feet within 3603 Red Cedar Point, the subject property. All
of the variances that were given in there were correct. Just that error with the top address. And
in looking at this, properties that have an X on them are properties that were given a shoreline
setback variance. If you look on here there are 6 properties within 500 feet that were granted
those. Properties that have a square around them are properties with a front yard or side yard
setback variance. The largest shoreline setback variance granted in this area was 45 feet with the
farthest property to the east. There’s also been multiple variances for front yards. Looking at the
largest one was back in 1979 with a 23 foot front yard variance but later was constructed with a
12 foot front yard. There’s also been side yard setback variances granted and this was due to the
properties currently. The properties we view, these north and south property lines are on the far
east and west. Those are considered front yard and rear yards but per our city code prior to early
90’s that was considered a side yard so there were side yard variances granted back in 1992 and
1988 cases. And it should also be mentioned that there was another, just something to clear up
what the staff report that in 1986 it stated that was when the city started managing shorelands per
our chapter of the city code and that was true in 1986 because there was an ordinance that was
for statewide and that was when we adopted. That was 1986 but the city was enforcing shoreline
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
management back in 1977 which was a different statute by the State which was just for
municipalities so that’s why we have variances that were from 1979 for shoreline setbacks and
other variances within the shoreland management. The recommended motion from the staff is
the planning, as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the variance request to
construct a two story garage that encroaches into the shoreland setback and front yard setback
and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. However if the Chanhassen Board of
Appeals and Adjustments finds a reasonable request and wishes to grant a variance staff
recommends that they approve a 17 foot shoreline setback variance and a 20.4 foot front yard
setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions.
The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to
exceed 24 feet wide. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed
10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the
applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Here are the architectural
plans that were provided by the applicant. These were for the 23 foot by 27 foot garage options
that they gave. Options A through D. However staff would strongly recommend and encourage
any, to have this also be a similar style that would match the house for an option or alternative
option or any option that they go forward with. At that point I’d like to open for any questions
that you may have.
Aller: Questions at this point.
Weick: I do.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Did you calculate for options, I think it was A and B that had some, it was bumping up
against the hard surface requirement. Did you calculate what that hard surface would be if they
left the turn around?
Ingvalson: I actually don’t have that with me, no.
Weick: Okay.
Ingvalson: But it would be over the 25 percent.
Weick: It would be over but.
Ingvalson: Correct.
Weick: Within a couple percent.
Ingvalson: Correct. It’s about a 1 percent difference.
Weick: So for clarification if we were to approve one of those options we could ask for a
variance there as well to keep that turn around.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Ingvalson: Correct. It’d be about a 26 percent.
Weick: Okay. That’s all I had.
Aller: Anything else at this point? That was a great report Drew and I appreciate you going
through each one of the options.
Ingvalson: Absolutely.
Aller: So we’ll probably be revisiting them in a minute.
Ingvalson: Thank you.
Aller: At this point in time we’ll ask the applicant to come forward. If they’d like to come
forward and tell us about their request.
Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger and I reside at 3603 Red Cedar Point
Drive.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger.
Gregg Geiger: I’m joined today with my wife Kellie and my daughter Kelsey. I would like to
give to you a little bit of a homeowner’s view of the situation so maybe you can understand a
little bit better. I appreciate Drew’s report because now I can get through mine a little bit faster.
The first couple side slides were already covered so next slide please. So in general at the
essence here the request is for, we’re seeking a variance for a new detached garage on a property
that has no garage so that’s the essence of it. So we’ve essentially survived a winter. We moved
in in September of last year and we had, we experienced one winter so far and it was a fairly
mild winter but certainly we recognize now the need for or the utility of a garage in Minnesota
which we’ve lived in Minnesota for some time now but this is the first time without one. Next
one please Drew. So Drew’s already covered a lot of this stuff as far as the peninsula is
concerned. There’s a map. I’m sure you’re all familiar with what Lake Minnewashta, this is the
peninsula then that sticks out. The finger that sticks out running from west to east into the lake
and our property is there shown in overhead in yellow. This is a view from the north part of the
lake looking south at the north shoreline. Just to give you a flavor for what the peninsula looks
like in terms of tree cover and in terms of what you can see in terms of building density. Next
slide please. So the lot itself, again Drew’s covered much of this. The blue outlines the house
and the red is honestly where we park our cars so we, we use what is termed here the turn around
as a place where we park our cars so this represents about 5 places that we can park. I indicated
in the green circles here some of the major trees and some of those trees so for instance the
cluster of trees on the north is, those are, that’s a fairly large cluster of trees. They’re pretty tall
and they’re very significant. The other, some of the other features then as we go through here
and we, Drew covered up a little bit about this is that hard cover that exists on the mid-plane,
midway between the two side yards is existing hard cover that would be affected by several of
the options. So on the next slide then I’ve just listed out some of the features that have already
been discussed that make this lot somewhat unique. One is that it’s bordered on two sides by
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
lakeshore. It is divided also, so we have the two side issues but we also have running down the
middle then is the shared driveway as well as the sewer lines so. Sewer and water mains so we
have a bit of a challenge of placement of any sort of structure because of that. I think we
determined that approximately 390 square feet of buildable area exists if we apply all the
setbacks and all the requirements to it so it’s, it’s a tough lot to build and we recognize that.
There was once a fuel oil tank on the property. We understand it’s been removed. We contacted
the authority, authorizing agencies and such and have assurance that it has been taken care of but
that fuel tank sat right underneath that, right near that hard cover that exists in the middle of the
lot. Drew showed it as a picnic table type area there. It’s right adjacent to that so it’s a
consideration. It’s not something that we’re necessarily concerned about but it’s something that
we have thought about. Next slide please. The garage option locations are shown. We’ve gone
through them. They’ve already been discussed. I would answer any questions you might have
about them. Again we note that these, the outlines shown here are all that original 23 by 27
application so they are not showing the proposed, the staff proposed 21 by 21 borders. Okay,
that’s fine. The next slide is good. So then this, this is again the, one of the shoreline views
looking from the north looking south at the north shoreline showing you where those, where
those various options would be. So option D in this picture is to the right. Options A and C are
in the middle there and option B is to the left. You can see that big, that large clump of trees
then that kind of in this view kind of obscure the house and those are significant, and the house
itself has many trees around it that are large. Next slide please. So as far as the considerations
are concerned, this is not based on economics alone. There is no garage for this single family
residence at this time. The circumstances were not created by us or by many of the previous
owners. It’s a unique lot on a narrow peninsula. It was built in 1918. We believe and we intend
to retain the essential character of the place. The architect’s view that was provided earlier
matches actually as far as stone work and as siding is concerned. What the existing house would
look like so you, it will look like the existing home. And also the building density and scale will
remain consistent. This is not a super tall structure. This isn’t a super wide structure. It’s a
garage that will be consistent with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. As far as
mitigations are concerned, option A certainly has its challenges but we believe some of those
challenges can be overcome. In terms of hard cover we note that all options are below the 25
percent and this option replaces approximately 225 square feet of existing hard cover. As far as
runoff is concerned we believe that there are ways to reduce and mitigate the problems
associated with runoff with good gutter design and rain gardens for instance could help in that
regard and we would certainly work to make that sort of thing happen. The nearest property line
setback in this particular one again for option A is approximately 60 feet. It’s a decent way away
from the neighboring lot. As far as shade tree removal is concerned, shade trees are important to
us as homeowners and we would replace those with appropriate fast growing trees. Option D
clearly has its challenges. It bumps up to an existing house so I’m kind of giving you the, we
rated the options in terms you know A, B, C and D in kind of our priority order and some of that
priority order was the setback. A was the furthest from the lakeshore. B was the next closest
and C was the next closest there and then D just represents more of a challenge for us as
homeowners and some of those challenges include the existing house that we would really have
to get into that existing house and get into that structure and part of the existing house is the
stone work of course around the house and that would be, it’s not just taking down siding and
putting in some joists and moving forward. There’s a little bit more to it. There would be a little
bit of a trap space between the house and the garage as indicated on staff drawings. That would
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
be a very unusable gap as it currently stands. This particular option reduces the overall parking
availability by about one stall and so if we have a two car garage and then we use those other
two, two areas in the turn around that gets us to 4 stalls and now we’ve gone from a 5 to a 4 kind
of capacity so it’s a consideration. And of course the hard cover associated with increasing,
giving a little bit of a bump to the driveway so that we can actually get in and out of the
driveway would be a little bit of an addition to hard cover. Next slide please. And I mention that
because the turning radius is very tight there. There’s some marks on the driveway there that
were placed there and the mark that is indicated is the one that is, is the staff recommended 21 by
21 square foot corner so that’s the northwest corner of where the garage would be so we, and you
can get a sense of scale there for, there’s an…that’s parked in that particular spot where the
garage would be so you get, kind of understand how big the space would be, and how
challenging it could be to get in and out of that area. Next is again kind of adding to the
driveway tortuosity here is, this is a view looking from the west to the east and you can see the
house kind of jutting out there into the driveway so what the driveway does right now is it kind
of comes to the house and goes around the house and comes out the other, comes out the other
side there so there’s a bit of a turn around there for our neighbors to get around. The point where
the arrow is pointing is the point where the 21 foot by 21 foot garage would be. Would come to,
to give you a nice idea of that. So at least from this particular view I don’t know that it looks
substantially different and again we would be keeping the character of the house there so it
would look very similar to what it looks like now for approaching cars. So in short and then
again back to the original request this is a request for a variance for a garage on a lot that has no
garage currently. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. How many cars do you have now?
Gregg Geiger: We have 5 cars.
Aller: Five cars. And so you use the turn around. If there was a fire, the fire department
wouldn’t be too happy about that or?
Gregg Geiger: Yeah they probably wouldn’t quite frankly. It’s a challenge. Now you know in
the summer time everything’s good. You just drive onto a large lot there. There’s a wide open
field. Certainly in the winter time it would be, anything in the winter regardless of whether
there’s a pad there or not it’s going to be a challenge.
Aller: You’ve got to push that snow. And then when we’re talking about driving by the house to
get out to the point, is there sufficient room to be safe for a car to go by there especially in the
winter when we have to push that snow back or?
Gregg Geiger: You know our neighbors are good about driving slowly and cautiously.
Sometimes when you get visitors they may not be as familiar with the area and that’s, I have a
little bit of concern. I mean it really is a turn. It’s not, you’re not going straight. You’re making
a bend there so it’s a challenge.
Aller: How much hard cover is left to go around after the garage is there? As far as the
driveway or the drive width.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Ingvalson: For which option?
Aller: To go by. If the property has the D.
Ingvalson: If they have, so if you’re looking at option D there’s an added hard cover to that area.
However it would not exceed the hard cover maximum. What was calculated by the applicant
did not actually included that hard cover for option D in as another additional for hard cover.
However for the, when you’re adding that you’re double adding because that area’s already
paved so when you’re adding, you could actually leave that turn around area without having to
go over the 25 percent or anything add on there.
Aller: And if cars are parked in the turn around and there’s a structure there, how much space is
there for a vehicle to get around?
Ingvalson: So there would only be 7 feet if nothing was added so that was why a part of that
application would be requiring the applicant to expand that area with some more pavement to
make sure that that was safe. I believe what was proposed by the applicant to turn it to a 13 foot
wide area. While the majority of the road is 10 feet wide so we would be making it wider and
that was a part of what staff would recommend for the alternative option was to maintain at least
a 10 foot wide drive. What they have and then no wider than 24 feet.
Aller: And if it went wider than 24 feet you’re increasing the hard cover past the 25 percent.
Ingvalson: Absolutely, it would be over the 25 percent so it would be also part of that. Would
maintain the 25 percent hard cover.
Gregg Geiger: If I might remind folks though if that were the case though then we’d be taking
out some of the hard cover, that 225 square feet of hard cover over, or running the option of C as
mitigating for hard cover.
Aller: When you purchased the property there wasn’t a garage there and what were your
intentions? Did you buy the property intending to put this here or did you talk to people?
Gregg Geiger: Yeah sure. We visited with staff before. I met Bob last summer so we were, we
went in not assuming or not expecting a guarantee but saying is there a process that allows us to
discuss this in a reasonable type fashion and we were assured that there was and indeed seems to
be so. You know we recognize this as something that we were buying on hoping that we could
get something but no guarantees…
Aller: Great. Any additional questions or comments?
Madsen: I have a question on option D.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Madsen: As I understand it encroaches on the neighbor’s property a bit if you need to get in
your garage that loads from the west, is that correct?
Gregg Geiger: We’re going to have to see exactly how that, I think that, how we could play that
out. Again it’s, there’s two things that go on here. One is to get enough driveway space for cars
to pass by and second is to get a turning radius to get something, some sort of car in there.
Something beyond a Smart car perhaps. I don’t have, I don’t know Pat if you can discuss this.
Pat Mackey: The intent with option D was that it would load, enter from the north because to
enter from the west would require encroaching on the neighbor’s property.
Gregg Geiger: Yep so maybe that’s the confusion.
Madsen: Oh so it would load from the north.
Pat Mackey: Loading from the north.
Aller: And for the record sir if you could state your name and address.
Pat Mackey: I’m sorry. My name is Pat Mackey. I’m with Mackey Malin Architects. I’m the
designer for the applicant.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Pat Mackey: Thank you.
Gregg Geiger: I’m sorry for not making that clear.
Madsen: No, thank you very much for that clarification.
Aanenson: I would just say the garage…the other way so that was some confusion on our part
because that’s not how the drawing showed it.
Ingvalson: I apologize. If you look at the architectural plans it shows the 23 foot wide area
being entering from that way so when you’re looking at option D, this would be the 23 foot wide
section. That is why that arrow is assumed to be entering from this way.
Gregg Geiger: For D correct. Those are the original 23 by 27. Now we’re kind of talking now
about a 21 by 21 which makes the loading now from the north.
Madsen: Okay the alternative rather than the D.
Gregg Geiger: Yeah. I was referring A through D as locations correct.
Madsen: Okay.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Gregg Geiger: And specific designs.
Pat Mackey: And if I may the elevations are, the options for any of the three detached options,
we haven’t dealt into the attached option. The aesthetic of it. Obviously the skin, the materials
of it would be consistent with the existing house but the form shown there isn’t something you
can just push up to the existing house. There would be some finessing and reworking of the roof
line. Consideration there.
Aller: And if we were to take staff option would that be a shared wall then. Would it be
connected to the house or would it be separate?
Gregg Geiger: Correct.
Pat Mackey: Correct. Yeah you could pretty much disregard the form that’s shown on this sheet
A-1 and we would kind of be starting with the form of the existing house and working with that.
There’s a solution there. We just haven’t pursued it.
Tietz: If it were detached, what’s the intended use of the studio space and are there city
regulations for how that space would be used? I’m not sure about that.
Gregg Geiger: So if I could speak as the homeowner the intent for the studio space is, for
instance my wife is a quilter and that would be a nice, would make for a nice area where she
could have a permanent quilt area so it’s not intended as.
Tietz: But there’d be no utilities or.
Gregg Geiger: Well as far as electricity is concerned.
Tietz: Well yeah but I mean as far as plumbing or.
Gregg Geiger: Aside from what is necessary in a garage.
Tietz: Okay.
Gregg Geiger: If we talk about a heated garage for instance I don’t know, we haven’t kind of
gotten down to those. That would be a gas line.
Tietz: I guess I’d just be concerned that in the future if it became habitable and became a.
Gregg Geiger: So hopefully a studio space would be habitable in the winter if we wanted.
Pat Mackey: I think if I may we’re talking about two different kinds of habitable.
Tietz: Yeah. I’m talking about living space.
Pat Mackey: There’s no intent for this to function as a dwelling at all.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Tietz: Okay.
Pat Mackey: And it’s essentially utility space. Weather storage. Craft. You name it.
Aller: Wouldn’t preclude you from running a gas or electric line in there for purposes of a gas
driver, things of that nature.
Pat Mackey: Correct.
Aller: Any additional questions?
Weick: There are.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: I noticed in one of your pictures there were other people kind of parked off the private
drive. Are there other homes on the peninsula without garages? Or is that just overflow
parking?
Ingvalson: The majority of the homes on that drive have a garage of some sort and many of the
variances that were granted were for, some of them were for a detached garage.
Weick: Okay. And how much, and you’re going to have to, if you attached the garage there
were windows. I mean how, yeah thank you. How much does that impact, I’m not sure what the
living spaces are behind there. You know what those rooms are.
Gregg Geiger: So if we can just look at this particular drawing here, or photo here.
Weick: Yeah.
Gregg Geiger: The window on the right for instance is our bedroom. Master bedroom. On the
left there, so there’s the part jutting out that is sort of a family room. Sort of a large family room
where we have TV and couch and chairs and such. And you can see the basement windows
down in front.
Weick: Okay.
Madsen: With the family room are there windows on the other?
Gregg Geiger: Yeah so it goes all the way around.
Madsen: All the way around, okay. And on the bedroom are there windows on any other walls?
Gregg Geiger: There’s some windows over on, in this case the corner…which would be the
southwest. Southwest corner of the house. There’s two windows right now.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Gregg Geiger: One facing each of the primary directions. One window facing to the west. One
window facing south. There’s the other side of this jutting out family room.
Aller: Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you sir. At this point in time we’ll open up the
public hearing portion of this item. Anyone in the audience wishing to come forward speak
either for or against the item can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and
address for the record.
Nelleke Knight: I’m Nelleke Knight and I live on Red Cedar Point 3605.
Dave Bishop: I’m Dave Bishop. I live at the same place. Nelleke’s from the Netherlands and
English is not her first language so we’re going to kind of present together. If you don’t
understand either one of us please let us know. It might be me.
Aller: That’s fine. I just ask that we don’t talk over each other and we’ll try to do the same.
Dave Bishop: That sounds fine and thank you. We kind of go by north, south, east and west and
the subject property is east of Nelleke’s property and so they are, we are on the west side of them
okay. My first question that I wanted to ask is I’ve gone through the record that is available to us
on the internet and there was a letter from the landholder that was on the east of the subject
property, the Papp’s. I know I have a copy of it. I know it’s not in the internet record and my
question is have you guys all got a copy of it? And the answer is yes you do. Okay. My
summary of their situation is that they object to all of these proposals as do we. I have to say at
the outset it’s a little frustrating that since this was first applied for there’s been either 6 or 7
proposals and it’s kind of wackamol for the neighbors as to you know what it is that we are
responding to. First they were going to put it in the turn around area. Then they were going to
put it on the north side. Then another place on the north side. Then they were going to put it on
the south side right next to the Papp’s. Setbacks, side setback. Then they have two that are kind
of in the middle of the property and then they have one that’s going to be in our side yard and
now the city staff has even volunteered to do the legwork to propose yet another parcel which
I’m going to call E because I don’t know what to call the staff’s suggestion for this but you know
I have difficulties with the fact that all of these are a, we have an elevation for a detached 23 by
27 foot garage but there’s no elevations at all for this so called D.
Nelleke Knight. D.
Dave Bishop: D and there’s no elevations at all for the staff’s so called E which is on our side of
the property so we don’t know what it’s going to look like and we therefore don’t have our right
to give you input as to what we think the conditions ought to be should you make a decision to
impose either D or E on us. I think that if they had originally come with an application and they
had not even given you an elevation for D or E the City probably would have just turned it back
and said the elevation, the elevations are critical to the application and we can’t proceed until we
get it so D and E are a black box. I’m going to assume that it is what we have been told and I’m
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
going to speak to what we know so far. There are two fundamental issues here. I’m going to
break them down each as sub-parts okay but the one thing that I think is concerning to Nelleke
and I is the concept that there’s some kind of hardship by not having a two car garage here on the
point. Now in fact of the 10 houses starting from the water and working your way up the point, 4
of them do not have garages. Six of them do have garages so there’s a long history of not having
garages on the point and in fact I would dare say 50,000 to 100,000 people in the metropolitan
area do not have two car garages. It is not requirement and we have heard from the staff that you
know if this was a new construction, well you would require that it have a two story garage.
This is not new construction. If it were new construction there’d be 300 and some square feet to
build on which means you’d build a shed, and even that you wouldn’t build because that area
happens to be in a 15 foot easement to the benefit of us and to the benefit of the Papp’s which
runs for ingress and egress through that area. And there haven’t been any mention of this. The
staff feels that it’s a private easement so if you give the okay to put something in the middle of
our easement then we have to go a court and undo that and our feeling is you should think about
that when you decide whether it is appropriate to grant an easement that in fact intrudes on our
15 foot wide space in order to get into the property which is, it’s actually a public easement so
it’s your, it’s your opportunity to access that as well. Okay so as to the issue of you know is, is it
necessary that you have a two car garage. The applicants had, and I’m not a power point guy so
I don’t help this. Do you have the ability to show video? Okay. I’m going to do this. Can you
see that? There you go. I’ve been informed that this is the house that they sold in order to buy
the house that they got. They gave up their indoor swimming pool and they gave up their 3 car
garage because they felt living on the point with its beautiful views and its access to the water
was worth an extra $100,000. It’s not that anybody had any kind of a surprise that there isn’t a
garage there. There was a knowing decision that we’re trading X in order to get Y and Y doesn’t
have a 3 car garage and I think that that is important because they aren’t the first people to own
this property. It’s been owned by many people. Let’s see do you have your affidavit Nelleke?
Nelleke Knight: Yeah I actually gave it to you. This is.
Dave Bishop: We’ve talked with the city staff a month ago, 2 weeks ago, last Friday as to what
was there on 3503 in prior years and we hear things like well your photographs could be photo
shopped. They may not be accurate. We don’t know what to believe. We can only go by the
paperwork that is in our office and we don’t, we can’t actually do an investigation like call the
applicant up and ask him what was there or actually go inside their house and take a look at what
was there so with your permission I’d like to give you, this is an Affidavit…so that there isn’t
any question as to whether or not we feel that we’re telling the truth.
Aller: Does planning have a copy of this already or is this the first time?
Dave Bishop: It’s the only copy that exists. You have the original.
Aller: So what I’m going to ask before I even read this is that why don’t we take a little bit of a
break here and we’ll take a recess for a minute and let’s make a copy of this.
Aanenson: Yeah, well we can adjust that quickly. The practical difficulty that we’re dealing
with here is a front and side yard setback. We didn’t get into the issues of taking it to where they
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
wanted to go. We also did speak to the City Attorney regarding the right-of-way issue which
there’s a lot of ambiguity in that so we stepped away from that so we stuck to the issues.
Aller: Right.
Aanenson: I think we’re putting a lot of other things now moving towards trying to, we were
just trying to keep it clear on what we believe was the issue in front of you. If you want to take a
minute to read that, be more than happy to take a quick recess.
Aller: I do because I want to make sure that we’re all on the same page here. Whether it gets
advanced and of course will become part of the package but I don’t know what’s in it or whether
it’s going to be relevant to what we’re talking about right now so we’re going to make a copy
and then we’ll take a look at it.
Dave Bishop: That’s fine. I just want to respond to what I just heard.
Aller: Sure.
Dave Bishop: If I understand you correctly, in order to grant this you have to meet 4 criteria.
One of those criteria, at a minimum. You can deny it for any reasonable reason but you have to
meet the 4 criteria and one of the criteria I think is that the hardship or the inconvenience or the
difficulty should not be caused by the people who owned the property and what this affidavit is
going to tell you is this property had a 2 car garage and the owners made the decision that they
would rather have a larger basement and not have a garage and so when they say well we’re only
going to look at the narrow issues I take a little umbrage with that because.
Aller: Let me just interrupt you. When you say owners are we talking about the applicant?
Dave Bishop: No the people in the chain of title. And they take the property as they find it I
believe. I’m not acting as a lawyer. I’m just saying as the next door neighbors it’s our view that
they take the property as they find it and the way they find it is that it has a 2 car garage already.
They just decided, the previous owners just decided to board it up and that that creates a conflict
with the requirement that it not be, the people in the title’s actions that caused this to occur in my
opinion.
Aller: Okay, I understand your position.
Dave Bishop: Okay. No not yet. They’re going to take a break if I understand it.
Aller: We’ll take a two-minute break, or recess until we get a copy and then we’ll take a look at
it. We’re in recess.
The Planning Commission took a recess at this point in the meeting to make copies of an
Affidavit submitted by Nelleke Knight and Dave Bishop.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: Okay we’re going to call this meeting back to order. For the record we received an
Affidavit of Maria Knight and the original has been provided to staff to go with the file and
we’ve received true and accurate copies of a two-page affidavit along with some pictures and
I’m going to summarize that as a statement that you live to the west at 3605. That you bought
the property and had been there for more than.
Nelleke Knight. Well I live to the west of 3603.
Aller: Oh at 3603. Thank you.
Dave Bishop: No she lives at 3605 which is at the west of 3603.
Aller: Right.
Nelleke Knight. Yeah.
Aller: So you are at 3605?
Nelleke Knight: Yes.
Dave Bishop: Yes.
Aller: Okay. That you live there. That you know that the property at 3603 had a 2 car garage at
some point in time. That garage was torn down by prior owners.
Dave Bishop: It was not torn down.
Aller: Just closed off.
Nelleke Knight: Closed off, yes.
Aller: Okay so, in the remodeling and that you believe that the variance should be denied
because there was a choice made by the prior owner to forego the garage. And it’s your position
then that the new owners should be held to that standard to rely on what the other property owner
did and that we are also bound by that.
Nelleke Knight: Yeah.
Aller: Okay. So that’s a fair statement of what’s in here and that will be attached, thank you.
Dave Bishop: So the affidavit is to address the concerns that we heard from the staff that we
weren’t telling the truth and I think there will be another resident of the point that will reiterate
the veracity of what that says that’s coming later so you’ll hear that again. This is, let’s see. I
don’t want to get this out of order.
Aller: So what other items are there?
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Dave Bishop: Well I believe this is on cable TV isn’t it?
Aller: It is.
Dave Bishop: Okay so they haven’t seen these photos so what I want to do is just real quickly
show them so there’s a clear record. This is the house as it exists today.
Aller: Okay I’m going to stop you there. It’s part of the record now. We’ve read it and I don’t
want to take a lot of time looking at photographs of the condition of the property way back when.
We’re taking your affidavit at face value and we’re going to move forward.
Dave Bishop: Can I point out some things on the photo?
Aller: Sure, if it has to do with the applicant’s application.
Dave Bishop: Yes. There are some things that the affidavit doesn’t state. This is an 1985
picture that is part of the affidavit but it does not show, state that the reason the photo was in
there is because this is, this is Nelleke’s mother and this is the window that you can see going
into the garage that we have shown you with the light on.
Aller: Okay thank you.
Dave Bishop: This was taken yet this week and the purpose of this is to show that the outside
stanchion for the garage is here and you can see that there is a difference in the color for, and
yeah it’s hard to see from this but it sticks out in this area which constitutes the left side of the
filled in area and this, you can see the line right here constitutes the filled in area over here and
the original for the right side.
Aller: Okay.
Dave Bishop: Now one of the things that, Drew maybe you can go back to it but one of the
comments that I heard was that our residence doesn’t any windows on the east side.
Aller: Sir I’m not really concerned with your residence not having windows unless it’s an
impact.
Dave Bishop: Oh it does. All I want to do is make it clear.
Aller: Okay.
Dave Bishop: Because I think it was a misstatement and I want the record to be clear on it.
Okay this is our residence and you can see that there is a garage and there’s the east side of the
garage but if you look beyond the garage you’ll see that there’s a window that it constitutes our
front window and there it goes. Okay. So there is a window there okay and this is, this is what
you would see. If you can turn this on. This is what you would see if you were looking out that
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
window. It’s a little low but it kind of shows you the 3 points that I wanted to make clear. There
was a proposal D and proposal D as it was originally stated was that they would build a garage
that would come out this far and out this far. Now this is the road here. This is east going up
this way and this is north going this way. So the original proposal was that the garage would be
up to here. Yes, he’s right. Up to here. This is proposal D.
Aller: Okay.
Dave Bishop: Okay. That’s the part that’s on our side of this. Now as you can see proposal D is
more than, I mean there’s only like 4 feet or so to the far side of the road. It’s right in the middle
of the easement. Can you see that? Now if you look at what was originally proposed you’ll see
that there’s an arrow indicating how they were going to get into this and the way they were going
to get into this was not from the north like they said today. The arrow shows and what we’re
responding to is that they were going to drive in this way and the only way they were going to do
that was to go right by our property. Right through our property. Right through the middle of
our property.
Aller: And there’s an easement there.
Dave Bishop: Yes there is and we own it.
Aller: Okay and it’s a shared easement so they have a right to drive on it.
Dave Bishop: No, well this is a garage that is going to go from here to here and then from here
and over to about here, okay. Now maybe they can squeeze through the easement to get into this
car but they’ll never get it into this car without going through our property. It can’t be, I don’t
believe it can be done.
Aller: Okay.
Dave Bishop: Okay. Now that’s their proposal. It made so little sense that we thought what
they must have meant was that they would take their 27 by 23 two story garage and they would
turn it this way. Okay so this is the line if they would do that and it suffers the same defect. Its
right in the middle of the easement and it would block us and the Papp’s from getting in and out
of this area. Now the City said well we’ll cut this down to 21 by 21. Well that puts the line right
there. Okay. So this is what it looks like if you look out our window, okay. And this is my
interpretation of what it looks like if they build what they said they were going to build. Now
this is photo shopped. I admit that just to be illustrative, okay. You know this is what we’re
looking at now and this is what we would be looking at if they built it turned around so that the
short side of this thing would be in the short direction rather than sticking out the long way. It
still absolutely destroys the view. And this is what we have today and this is what we would
have on the City’s 21 by 21. This is just my guesstimate because I have no idea what the
elevations are, as does anyone else because this is just pulled out of the air. It’s just, there’s no
information on this one but that’s what we lose. Okay now the other statement essentially was
that, there’s a 30 foot setback according to Chanhassen’s law between our property and the
adjoining property and if the City wants to change that I suppose they can but the fact that it is a
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
front yard under the City’s statute does not turn it into a side yard because it looks like it. It is
what it is. It’s a front yard. It’s a 30 foot setback. It’s not a 10 foot setback. And this is the
view we have now from the middle of our property on essentially very close to the lot line. And
you can see back here the line for the garage. And this is harder to understand but we would see
the tree and we would miss everything else if they built this on the property so it is a visual, a
huge visual encroachment on us by accepting this 20 foot variance that’s being requested in our
opinion. We have been given I guess several times a survey purported to be on this property.
The survey that we received on its face indicates that it located no boundary markers and we and
the Papp’s vehemently disagree on the accuracy of the survey. The permeable, impermeable
service, impermeable surface statistics that the staff has been quoting you is based on what the
surveyor told them but neither the City nor us have any way to replicate those and you know
using my protractor and graph paper I didn’t come anywhere near the percentages that they have.
Some of which are numbers like 24.96 percent which makes we wonder if somebody fudged a
square foot here and there. I don’t know but I do know that Nelleke claims all of this area here,
okay. Am I correct Nelleke that the Papp’s told you that they claim the area here?
Nelleke Knight: Yeah.
Dave Bishop: Okay. I don’t know what those percentages are but I do believe that is a disputed
boundary and that although the survey might be made by a surveyor and whatever is on the line
if he signed it, it doesn’t make it any more accurate and so our position is those are disputed
boundaries and that if you took into account those boundaries, D and E are even less feasible.
Drew do you have something that shows A, B and C on it? It’s hard to see here which is A and
B. I guess I’ll talk about B first because I think, actually the letters have changed. Yeah they’ve
changed on this one from what they used to be. So B is now the one closest to the Papp’s and I
will refer you to the Papp’s letter and I will simply reiterate that we agree and believe everything
that is said in that letter as respects to it destroying the natural tenure of the point. The reason
that there is a unique situation is that there’s water on both sides. That makes it unique and
therefore the State and the City have come to the conclusion that you need to protect these
unique things by putting 75 foot setbacks on them. If you, you know junk this up with more
structures it doesn’t look like a point anymore. It looks like a peninsula and we, we believe that
you know and the City apparently agrees with us that it’s just totally inappropriate. Now this is a
good time for me to talk about what it is they have actually proposed here okay.
Aller: Let me ask you, do you have anything further on C or B?
Dave Bishop: Yes I’m talking just about B now but my comments refer to A and C and B. All
three of them.
Aller: Okay.
Dave Bishop: The concept of a two story, 27 by 23 foot, two car garage and studio is just horrid,
horrid over reach. We suggested to them that they could build a two-car shed roof. Single story
and blend it in so that it was almost unviewable and that was apparently rejected. We did have a
meeting with the applicant and one of the things that applicant told us was that you know they
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
want this second story as additional living space because we hear today that they want you know
to do crocheting but what we heard at the meeting was.
Nelleke Knight: Quilting.
Dave Bishop: Quilting, I’m sorry. My mistake but what we heard at the meeting was that they
have a son who is a fashion designer and that it is part of their family tradition for him to come
back from New York City and spend 4 days building out his line and so in my view, in our view
this is just a commercial enterprise and they want more space because the 2,800 square feet that
they already have isn’t sufficient to build this haute couture. Fine idea to do but that’s why we
have rental space. We don’t see anything in the proposal that says no sewer. No electricity. No
gas. No water. In fact the City has told us that if you allow this that there’s nothing to prevent
them from doing all of that and making this simply more living accommodations. They can say
today they don’t want to do it but you know at this meeting they said this is their tenth house I
believe that they’ve bought. They’ve had 9 before this so although they say they want to be here
forever, when it gets sold what the next guy does once you do the zoning is out of your control.
You’ve lost your shot at it and now we have you know instead, basically instead of 2 houses to
the water we have 3 houses to the water and that’s not appropriate given the existing zoning and
that applies to all 3 of those locations. Now applying to A and C, okay. This is a, this property
had a somewhat interesting checkered history. It had a $1.1 million dollar mortgage on it. It was
foreclosed on.
Aller: Sir I need to stop you now because we’re going way over, I’m trying to be lenient on
what’s coming in here but we can’t be talking about what you think someone else is going to do.
We can’t be talking about what’s been done in the past. What the mortgage on the property is.
That’s not before us. That’s a personal business decision by the homeowners. If you have a lot
line survey that you want to present, I’ll look at the survey. If you have information that was
directly told to you, great but speculation we can’t have at this point.
Dave Bishop: Okay I won’t speculate. I actually observed that after this was foreclosed upon
and went to the bank, the bank hired people to come out and remove the oil tank from this
property. I observed them do that and I looked at the punctured hole in the oil tank and I
observed the oil that was in the ground below the tank and I talked with them about their
remediation. I talked with the guy who was doing the remediation and they said they weren’t
taking soil. They were just taking the tank. That’s what I know of of my own personal. Okay
second to that issue, after that occurred the bank hired somebody to monitor this and those
people contacted us and they asked us if there was any contamination and so we looked because
it wasn’t purchased at the time. This was 2014 in December. The point I’m getting to is, they
told us. They told us that we should look at our, what do you call it? Takes the water out.
Nelleke Knight: Sump pump.
Dave Bishop: Sump pump. They should look at our sump pumps to see if the sump pumps are
picking up oil. Well it turns out that we couldn’t discern it in our’s because our’s is pitch black
so we went over to this property and we found oil coming out of their sump pump and we took
photographs of it and we sent it to them but we heard nothing back. Now if you look on the
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
papers that were submitted to you they will tell you they have, they know they have a tank and
that they know that there’s an issue with building on that site. In my opinion I haven’t seen
anything that actually says it’s remediated other than hearsay from people saying well we don’t
know whether there’s a problem or not but one of the conditions if you should allow A or C is
that that property underlying it be completely remediated. Okay that’s my point.
Aller: Thank you.
Dave Bishop: Now what else, we’ve got a few others.
Aller: Anything that you haven’t spoken on before?
Dave Bishop: Yeah. If you decide to make some kind of a positive on this we object to it being
a two car garage. We object to it being a two story garage. We object to it being used as a
sewing room or commercial area or whatever. We believe that you can make as a condition that
it be one story with a shed roof. We think that as a condition you can require that it not have
sewer, water or heat other than electricity. In other words that it be a garage for two cars and not
back door way of expanding a property for professional use or making it a habitable space.
Habitable space. Anything else?
Nelleke Knight: Sounds good.
Dave Bishop: Okay.
Aller: Great, thank you sir.
Dave Bishop: The only thing I would say is I understand you’re going to close the public part of
this hearing. I don’t know whether it is your normal procedure, because I don’t appear in front
of you, to then like negotiate with the applicant on well would you do this. Would you do that
but if you do decide to do that I would simply ask that you re-open the public part so we can
respond to anything you decide to negotiate. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional members of the public wishing to come forward and speak
either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the
public hearing at this time on this item and I’ll open it to discussion. I do have some questions
for staff on the easement if we could discuss that a bit.
Aanenson: Sure. Drew and Bob spoke with the City Attorney regarding the easement. It’s
written awkwardly and it appeared there was no public interest in that easement so clearly the
property easement runs with the property owners. This is similar to the one that, if you recall the
one just north off of Mrs. Carlson’s property. The Frethem subdivision where we had the
easement back in those, there were 3 homes on that private driveway. Written awkwardly and so
there’s some ambiguity there but there’s no public interest in that and certainly it’d be the intent
to keep the driveway the similar width that it is today but it would be.
Aller: That’s the reason for the additional pavement was to keep the width.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Ingvalson: Correct. Correct.
Aller: And there are conditions on all these items which would require that proper building code
standards were adhered to.
Ingvalson: Correct.
Aller: Anybody have additional questions based on the comments at this point? The two
properties that are next door, did they each receive variances?
Ingvalson: Yes. They both received variances. Looking back on our variance map. The
property to the east was granted a 45 foot shoreline setback variance. That’s the largest one
variance that’s been granted in this area from the shoreline. And then the property to the west
was granted a 4 foot side yard to the east and then also a 2 foot side yard to the west setbacks and
then also a 26 foot shoreline setback variance.
Aller: Was there an indication on what those were for?
Ingvalson: If I remember correctly I believe it says in the packet. It was for a, for the
construction of a detached two stall garage and a second floor bedroom expansion. Or that
would be for the property to the west.
Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Okay discussion. We have a lot of options. Talk
about A. Talk about B. Talk about C. Talk about D. Talk about E. We can start with throwing
out the reasons why I prefer E if we’re going to do it as a starting point and probably a finishing
point because it’s got the less impact. Safely wise.
Audience: Would it be okay if you got closer to the microphone?
Aller: Oh sure, I’m sorry. Can you hear me now?
Audience: Yeah.
Aller: Great, thank you. I apologize.
Hokkanen: I said what about E. I didn’t expand on it yet. I was just thinking about it. Let me
think.
Aller: E as opposed to none. I look at the.
Audience: We still can’t hear you.
Aller: I look at the property and I look at the reason that I asked them about when they
purchased the property was I wanted to see what their intent was coming in and there doesn’t
appear to be to me an indication that they didn’t feel as though the property was going to be, or
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
this variance was going to be granted but they would be coming in to ask for the variance and in
looking at the variances that have already been granted on a property that was developed in 1918
and we’ve done this before in other properties, I think it is a unique property. I don’t think
there’s any question about it. I think it’s an undue hardship on them, or I should say a practical
difficulty upon them and I do think that it’s a reasonable use of the property to have a garage.
And I think what they’re giving up here potentially is the ability to have 5 cars because they
won’t be able to park them all there. They’re going to lose some parking spots so they are giving
up things in order to gain the garage in this instance and I think it comports with the
neighborhood as it exists. So I don’t think it’s an unreasonable use that they’re asking for. I do
think it’s unique and I do not believe that they are held in any form or fashion, nor am I or we as
a commission held based upon the decisions to follow what a prior owner has done in a new
owner’s application so that’s my first blush response.
Yusuf: I partially agree with that. If we are to proceed with an option I would be leaning more
towards option E. Option E seems to encroach the least on everything and allows you to have
the two car garage without really encroaching too much in the variances and all the setbacks that
are required so option E would be the one I would be leaning towards if we proceed with this.
Madsen: I also am leaning towards option E but I would like to see the plan of what would be
built so that people could comment on it.
Yusuf: To that point I just want to agree also, what was brought up by the most recent speaker
here about utilities going to this, the two story garage we’d like to see that too. That would
definitely be of interest so whenever, it would be maybe beneficial to have yet another review of
the plans as we proceed.
Tietz: If there were to be an option E, that’s a very difficult corner of the home to work on. I
think there is significant architectural re-work of a major portion of the home to make that fit.
To make it work. You know I’m not here to suggest taking down trees but I am looking at that
image right now and I don’t know if that’s a big cottonwood just to the east of the home but
maybe there’s another way of massing this structure tighter to the home and not getting a
separation between the home and the B, C and A options and looking at the east side of the
home. It’s going to be a major, I think it’s going to be a major architectural challenge regardless
of where it goes and I think going to the east and possibly eliminating a tree or two might create
a mass that’s more acceptable to the neighborhood.
Weick: I had similar, similar questions when I first looked at it. I think for you know I’m
sensitive to you know both neighbors opposing building and for those reasons I think D and B
are enough of an encroachment on, you know whether it be views or actual setback
encroachments. If those really don’t seem like great options and as we look in the middle I
wondered why we couldn’t push you know A and/or C closer to the home. Maybe there’s trees
there or something. It wouldn’t affect the setbacks. In fact.
Tietz: It might be better.
Undestad: It would help.
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Weick: It would be better right because you’d be further. You get to take advantage of that
point if you put it over far enough right so that was also a question that I had. I still am
concerned whether it’s D or E on that side of the building. I know you would re-work the road
and everything but it is, it’s a pretty big structure either way to go on that side of the house. You
know I lean more towards that A and C area if we were to consider a variance.
Undestad: Drew have you looked at, have you looked at the gap between the house and A and
C? Is it just the trees?
Ingvalson: For the gap between A and C, this gap between here?
Undestad: Yeah to move it closer to the house.
Ingvalson: We have not. We took what was submitted. We reviewed this, what was submitted
by the applicant.
Undestad: Can we ask the applicant at this time?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Aller: If we could have the probably the engineer come forward, or architect come forward.
Would it work? Is this something that was considered?
Pat Mackey: It was considered.
Aller: And if it was considered why was it deleted as an option?
Pat Mackey: There’s the large cottonwood. There’s a fire hydrant and there’s the easement
which I don’t know if you can see roughly in the area where Drew’s cursor is pointing. There’s
an additional easement. There is the road. There is the fire hydrant and there is the large
cottonwood or the large tree which we’re, everybody’s interested in maintaining.
Undestad: That’s the one that you were just circling then?
Ingvalson: Correct. This would be the large tree.
Undestad: So again if we look at just moving the garage location, you’re staying south of the
hydrant. You’re moving west towards the house. You’re still staying away from the easement.
Yeah, or even come back and attach it off that corner of it. I don’t think you really need to go
that close but it looks to me like you could slide it over. Stay away from the hydrant. Save the
big cottonwood and stay out of the roadway. I don’t see where the additional setback you’re
talking about interferes with that.
Pat Mackey: As far as setbacks are concerned it’s probably yeah, neither. Not significantly
different than what A, B or C are. Are proposing. In terms of where to attach it to the house, the
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
least amount of disruption to the existing house in terms of the way the internal circulation of the
house works out. You know again some of the confusion around D and it’s offspring E relate
from initially as a design strategy we were trying not to require that the garage and, you know
that the opening up of the house be part of the garage condition. We were just trying to see what
variables are in play here. What can we work with? What are our options in order of obstacles
you know with setbacks and lot coverage and drainage, etc? That being said an option to the
east, directly to the east of the house would be, I mean that’s currently the front door of the house
as it exists. It’s got the primary views. The primary view windows. It just, so as you see you
kind of enter around that house. It just kind of rejiggers the entire working of the entire main
floor of the house, including the kitchen, the primary living area and the front door. So just in
terms of is it possible? Yes. Anything is possible. That’s why we’re here talking about what
options are. But in terms of additional requirements and just kind of what the entry cost of
getting a garage is, it just seemed to be a greater entry cost than the other options.
Undestad: Is it, again I’m still trying to focus on you’re A and C on there just to slide it closer to
the house but Alyson if they slide it over the fire hydrants lines up in front of the access point,
would the applicant have the opportunity to pay for the relocating of the fire hydrant?
Fauske: We could certainly work with the applicant on any relocation of the fire hydrant. The
challenge being that it is a tight location. We’d have to work with the fire department as well to
make sure that that hydrant’s placed in an appropriate location.
Undestad: Or potentially add one.
Fauske: Correct. And you know there’s a clear zone around it, a hydrant that the fire department
requires in order to maintain accessibility to the hydrant so we would have to work around those
parameters.
Aller: And would that impact the turn around for a vehicle?
Fauske: The existing turn around or a proposed turn around?
Aller: The proposed turn around. In other words would it have to be increased or moved based
on the hydrant being moved so they could get a truck to it?
Fauske: Without doing a lot of analysis it would appear that in order to meet shifting options A
or C to the west in order to gain access to either of those options at that hydrant perhaps would
have to shift further east but I can’t say for certain without you know taking pencil to paper.
Pat Mackey: I would agree. I think C which enters perpendicular to the private drive to
accommodate C and car turn around space and you know just able to get into the garage and fire
hydrant, clear space I think C would, that hydrant would have to move pretty significantly. A
may be more workable but once the easement and the easement around the hydrant, we knew the
hydrant was there but when the easement was brought, you know was discovered we just stopped
pursuing options in that area. It’s an easement so.
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: Comments, questions from the other side.
Hokkanen: I don’t feel I have enough information or options to make a recommendation without
more research possibly. Can we do that?
Undestad: I would agree. I think what we’re all talking about is you know what the
commissioners have stated is D’s not really a viable option just from the impact to the house and
what’s going on.
Hokkanen: No, correct.
Aller: Right.
Undestad: B is pushing it all to the other neighbor who doesn’t want it down there so I think that
area east of the structure, you know where A and C, there’s something that I think somebody can
go back to the drawing board and try to get what you want within that area east of the house and.
Weick: Further to that, you know we looked at reducing D from a 3 to a 2. I would assume you
could look at reducing A and C the same way, right? If they’re currently structured as a 3 car
garage you could reduce the footprint to make it less.
Undestad: I think they’re 2 car.
Weick: Are they?
Aanenson: They’re different sizes.
Weick: Just different sizes, okay.
Ingvalson: Different sizes. The options they’ve proposed is deeper. Its 27 feet deep with a 23
foot wide entrance so the deepness is what makes it larger. Significantly.
Weick: Ah, because A certainly looks the same size as D to me but I’m not, maybe that’s not.
Undestad: Yeah, the proposal they had that shrunk it down was, was the E that doesn’t show on
there.
Ingvalson: Correct the E is not shown on this.
Aller: But I think what Commissioner Weick’s asking is whether or not we can use the footprint
of E.
Weick: Right. Just trying to be sensitive to, I mean I get it. They’re right. I mean the views.
That property. Its gorgeous right and, man.
Undestad: But I think agree though. We just probably need a little more.
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Hokkanen: Research.
Undestad: Little more research on this one, yeah.
Tietz: And I’d like to really see A pulled as close to the house as possible with possibly not
infringing upon the entry but I think from the plan that we have it looks like it could be done and
if the hydrant has to be moved, the hydrant has to be moved.
Hokkanen: If that’s possible.
Tietz: If that’s possible and it’s probably a distance to the end of the point or one way or the
other I can’t imagine a 10 foot, well we’ll let the Fire Marshal decide on that.
Aller: So how do we feel about, let me just poll. How do we feel about option B? Is that out for
everyone?
Hokkanen: Yes.
Aller: So option B is out of the consideration at this time. Option D.
Hokkanen: Out.
Aller: Is out yeah, as far as what I’m hearing. Okay great. So we’re looking at A, C, E and
potentially now F.
Hokkanen: Correct.
Weick: It sounds like we’re.
Aller: And I think what we’re really going towards is E or F.
Weick: But as it pertains to this request, we’re denying it. I mean is that?
Aanenson: Mr. Chair you can also table the request…
Aller: …I wanted to see whether or not the applicant would be interested in signing an
extension.
Aanenson: They would need to because we’re at the end of the extension. They’d have to sign
that tonight but I also think it’s clear, good that you give as much specificity of what your
expectations are if they come back.
Aller: Right.
Hokkanen: Right.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aanenson: Which is what I’m understanding you’re doing, you’re sticking onto A and C, then
talk about the sizes of the garage and then I heard some other things. Architectural detail. Those
are things you’re looking for as they table and bring it forward so if that’s your motion now as a
part of tabling the motion that before you’d vote on that that the applicant would have to give us
something in writing requesting an additional 60 days.
Aller: Extension. So if somebody wanted to make that motion that would be posed as a motion
to table.
Dave Bishop: Are you going to open the public hearing for this new set?
Aller: No sir, this is a motion to table so there’s no need for public input.
Hokkanen: I move to table this application.
Aller: And do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aanenson: Okay before you vote can we get something in writing and if the applicant would
otherwise you would have to make a motion one way or the other. If you want to give an extra
60 days in writing. Otherwise they’re going to vote in a different way. They’re recommending
tabling. That’d give you 60 days…
Aller: Basically what it would be doing sir is coming back. Working with staff on the items
after you’ve heard the, and had an opportunity that you can actually get the Minutes and take a
look at what’s here. What we’ve discussed. We can continue on with a little bit of discussion
but I think it’s pretty clear what we’re looking at for something to the east to allow for that to
occur but it has to have some, the movement of the hydrant has to meet the requirements of the
25 percent. The architectural value has to be the same, similar as the property.
Gregg Geiger: With F, what we’re now calling F, closer that would be, yes. Easier to achieve in
terms of…E.
Aller: E is not yet off the table. I mean that’s what I’m hearing. We’re just trying to exclude
things so we can get you to a point where we can actually focus on two really good viable
options and come to a decision with all the information and at the new hearing we wouldn’t be
hearing any information we’ve already heard but we do want to see what you come up with.
Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman just to be clear, all the other would be, and I’m not saying I
know how you’re going to vote but the other is you could vote in a different way and then you
would still go up to the City Council because you could appeal it. Either party’s going to appeal
it and the City Council would have kind of this ambiguity of the conditions so you have a choice
of that.
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: What would the timing on the appeal be? They would have to put in writing.
th
Aanenson: Right now we have it set for August 10, yeah.
th
Aller: So it would go on August 10.
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: So that would be a consideration for your planning if you needed more time then you
probably want to sign an extension and table it. Otherwise it would be heard by the City Council
th
on August 10 if we decided to deny and you appeal that decision.
Gregg Geiger: That was what I was not certain about is what exactly is the 60 days?
Aller: So if you do the extension it will come back here.
Gregg Geiger: Right.
Aller: And as soon as you’re ready you can meet with staff and we can get it back on and it will
be heard. If it’s with proper notice to the 500 foot individuals. So after that you can come back
here. We’ll continue our discussion and then there’ll be findings and a vote. If we continue
today then most likely what we had before us would be denied. You can appeal that and present
th
whatever you wish to to the City Council on August 10.
Gregg Geiger: So the extension…
Aanenson: Yeah I would prefer that you’d get that handed to me in writing right now before
they vote.
Aller: Right so if you could just put something in writing that you’re granting an extension.
Undestad: But just to clarify something between us here, the option E. The original option E
was where D is?
Aller: But smaller.
Undestad: But and that’s something we’re still looking at.
Aller: I didn’t want to take it off the table. I wanted to make sure they had an alternative option
in case this doesn’t work out. They may look at it and say this is absolutely, we want to come
back with E.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, we’re waiting for him to sign it. He’s trying to listen to your
conversation. If we could, then we can all get clarity on, if that’s alright.
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Pat Mackey: is it my understanding that E does not have enough information to move forward
or.
Undestad: No I think even on E we need, we need drawings. We need to know what’s there.
Tietz: Drew I know you’re back there trying to get this put together but if a revised A or if A
moved closer and the D area that’s currently a parking area and the turn out on the north side of
the road, are we still okay with hard cover?
Ingvalson: Yes. Looking at it without putting any numbers right down right now there would be
a slight increase in hard cover if there was an option to attach to the east side of the house and
there would also be a need to bump out the drive farther to the north to make sure you’re
maintaining that 10 foot wide drive.
Tietz: Right.
Ingvalson: Looking at it, it would put it probably close to 25 percent. I couldn’t say right now
but that’s hopefully something that we could get if we did get an option F as we labeled it.
Aller: And I think we all have to remember we could exceed that if we choose to with a
variance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Tietz: No I just wanted clarification.
Aller: It decreases the opportunity…
Hokkanen: Stop talking.
Aanenson: Alright, we have an extension and we have a motion on the floor with a second. And
just to be clear, yeah.
Aller: Okay we have a.
Aanenson: If you maybe want to go through those points of we’re looking for architecture.
We’re looking for relocation as close to the, the existing structure as we can.
Aller: Correct.
Aanenson: And all the other calculations would come back and we’ll look at the hydrant and
those issues.
Aller: Hydrant and easement.
Aanenson: Correct.
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: Make sure that we’re on site with easements and.
Aanenson: Total hard cover, yeah.
Aller: And that the hard cover is not exceeding 25 percent is the goal. Any additional items to
look at?
Madsen: And just for clarification that would include what we’re calling option E which would
be on the west side and then option F which would be on the east side. Are we still looking at
those two options?
Aller: What we’re calling them. You can come back with a clean, with a clean application that
says option A and option B. Option C. Whatever you want to come back with but you do know
how we feel about the other options already so.
Gregg Geiger: Yeah, those are.
Aller: So we want to focus on what potentially will work. So having a motion by Commissioner
Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Yusuf, any further discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for
variances to construct a detached garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAMETTRY’S COLLISION, PLANNING CASE 2015-19: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE
LOT AND TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD AT MOTORPLEX COURT –
LAMETTRY’S. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK LAMETTRY.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and planning commissioners. Planning Case 2015-19.
It’s our public hearing tonight. The applicant is Rick LaMettry. It’s for a conditional use
permits and site plan review. The property is located at 1650 and 1651 Motorplex Court. It’s on
the west side of Audubon at Motorplex Court which is doing the research on this I found the
addresses finally so it’s just north of the railroad bridge that is on Audubon. The property is
segmented into two parts. There’s a small connection of land between the front and the back part
so that’s why it shows up there’s two parcels but it’s actually one. When Audubon Motorplex
originally came in there were two properties except for their configuration was slightly different
and as they’ve expanded the Motorplex over time we’ve adjusted the lot lines to take in part of
the one parcel and put into the other. That’s significant because of one of the conditional use
permits that they’re requesting. The Motorplex was approved in 2006. The site plan review at
the time showed 12 buildings that they were including as part of their complex. One of the
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
conditional use permits would have allowed them to have up to 14 buildings on one site.
However that was assuming that these two front parcels would be brought into the rest of the
association. Now a separate owner has taken over that second property and Mr. LaMettry is
coming in with this site plan review for his auto body shops and development. However as part
of that original development access was through this little private driveway that goes into that
and is part of conditions of approval we would want to make sure that an easement for
maintenance and access purposes was recorded against the property benefitting the Motorplex.
Again the conditional use permit is to allow multiple structures, in this case two principle
buildings on a single lot and to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Additionally we’re doing site plan review to construct two commercial buildings on the property.
Again back to the conditional use permits. We’re grouping two buildings on one property. City
code allows that through the conditional use permit process. The findings for it are general
standards under the conditional use permit standards. Also under the City’s Bluff Creek
protection ordinance we require that any development within the Bluff Creek corridor receive a
conditional use permit. In this case we want to make sure that we’re protecting the natural
features in this corridor. The area in blue represents the Bluff Creek primary corridor and the red
area is the buffer area that we maintain around the outside of that. As you can see this is a
connection of two branches of the Bluff Creek corridor. One goes to, towards the, what is it? We
call it the Chanhassen Preserve which is on the corner of Galpin and Highway 5 and the rest of it
follows the main Bluff Creek corridor coming down from the north that goes under Highway 5.
The one condition or two conditions that we have under the conditional use permit is to again
maintain the access to the existing Motorplex property and to dedicate the Bluff Creek primary
corridor, the back part of this property to the City so that we can protect that area in perpetuity.
So with that we are recommending approval of the conditional use permits for this development.
The site plan review consists of two buildings. The northerly building is 18,290 square feet and
it contains 3 garage storage units. The south building is 22,115 square feet and it would contain
9 garage storage units. On the north building the garage storage units are oriented towards
Audubon. It’s in an excess corner of the building from them and on the south building it would
be on the west and the south sides. This is the primary review process has taken us through
significant architectural changes. This was the initial submittal to the City requirements. Part of
our problem we had with this is our code prohibits the use of metal materials except as an accent
and in this instance it was exceeding the 15 percent for that. We requested the applicant work on
addressing some of our architectural concerns. We also noted that they needed to provide a pitch
roof element which is required under our ordinance and we requested that they provided greater
articulation on the building so this actually affected both of them but I’ll go through the north
one first. They provided a first revision to this north building and they, in this instance they’ve
added the architect, the roof treatment that would tie it into the rest of the Motorplex
development. They’ve added some architectural detailing on the outside that those white lines
and then they also provided transition to this building to get it. We did specify that the
commercial component of this we wanted to have more a commercial feel to it and look to it and
so we were trying to work with them. Again they provided this canopy element over their
entryway and the window area in going into that unit. That’s one of the elements I really like
and in the staff report we said that we wanted to make sure that this canopy was both
architecturally appealing and functional because that’s a south elevation and I’ve learned from
the past that those rooms can get very hot during the summer months and even into the winter so
I wanted something that would work with them. The back side of these buildings will be hidden
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
and so they’re really not visible from the, to the public so there will be landscaping but I also
wanted to make sure that they provided some articulation on that and in this case they added
columns. However we were running into problems between how do you transition from the
garage unit into the commercial unit and so when this last one came in last night I think and what
they’ve done is taken the brick and aggregate materials and turned them into gray which more
closely represents the existing cement board panels that are used on the garage storage units.
The one element that he changes to change the canopy into this fascia board front and I believe
that really we should go back to the canopy element up there. I know our discussion was to try
to create some type of presence for the entry into the building. I’m not sure this is the one that
we’d like. Again I believe we should use the canopy in there and let them put the lettering above
that. But architecturally the building blends, flows better and it has a lot more architectural
interest in this one. Then we go down to the south buildings. Again their initial presentation
was, had the metal fascia which greatly exceeded the City’s code requirement and then they had
brick and aggregate. We requested that they look at and try to blend it in more with the rest of
the Audubon. The Motorplex development and that they’ve added these pitched roof elements
and then they also did some architectural changes. However again we were having difficulties
with the transition from the garage units into the commercial buildings and so finally they
submitted this one which brought in again the same building colors, materials as the north
building. They continued this fascia element above the entry. Again we believe it should go
back to a more canopy entrance covering there and then they added, we wanted them to address
Audubon as their primary public fascia and so we wanted them to provide more articulation and
so we believe this elevation or this plan set will work to do that. The rest of it, the site grading.
They’re going to mass grade the site as part of this development. There are 3 retaining walls that
are incorporated in this. This north retaining wall on the north end of the parking lot goes up to 8
feet. If you look at the back elevation of the building there’s quite a drop in that too so the
building itself acts as a retaining wall. On the south building there’s two retaining walls. One’s
along Audubon. This northerly one is 4 feet tall and then along the south side of the building this
is a 5 foot tall retaining wall. In conjunction with, well I guess that’s in my grading plan. Thank
you. As part of this whole thing they will need a national NPDES permit and a SWPPP plan.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System or something like that and it’s a permit to
make sure that stormwater complies with State and Federal requirements as well as surface water
management plan. As part of the utilities, City sewer and water are available. It was extended
down Motorplex Court and so they will tie into those services. As part of their stormwater plan
they are providing underground treatment systems and water will be treated in this and then
discharge into the existing stormwater system and eventually into Bluff Creek. Part of our
requirements is to verify that that will meet City and State requirements. The landscaping plan
they’re going to provide landscaping around the entire building. They comply with our
minimum requirements for trees. They’re a deficit in shrubs and a condition of approval would
be that they meet those requirements. Again this will help to transition the building. Soften
some of those elevations. And here on the north side, this is where the most deficit. We’re
requiring that they provide additional shrubbery or shrubs along this north elevation. There are
some other ones on the east side of the building. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan
and conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: Questions at this time. None at this time.
Yusuf: Can I just make a comment?
Aller: Absolutely.
Yusuf: Just a comment Bob. I think it’s really good that the way you worked with the applicant
to try to revise the plans to make it blend in better and also advising them about what would be
better for cooling the office area too.
Aller: What is the difference between the canopy and the fascia that has been presented? What
would be the benefits as you understand them?
Generous: Well architecturally I believe the canopy will be both more functional and fitting with
the rest of the building. They’re using canopies on the south buildings and on the east side of the
north building and so I want to continue that architectural harmony. And also just the big red,
blue boxes subjectively is something that I didn’t prefer so.
Aller: Questions. Alright we’ll have the applicant come forward, if you want to come forward
and make a presentation at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address and
representation.
Richard LaMettry: Good evening. My name’s Richard LaMettry. I’m the chief managing
member of G & R Chanhassen LLC that owns the property. I have my engineer and architect
here if you have any questions of them and I’m willing to answer any questions you have but the
engineer was going to present the project.
Aller: Okay, well thank you very much. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at the
report?
Richard LaMettry: Yeah the only comment I wanted to make is on the canopy. You’ll see on
the south building there’s two protrusions each side of the canopy face and typically we extend
those out 4 feet so it gives the screening for the sun and on the northerly building it doesn’t show
that and it should match. They should both be the same so we didn’t get the protrusions on each
side of that canopy and that blue is a little intense. Our’s is a grayish blue so it’s not that intense.
Aller: Great, thank you very much. We have architect coming forward. Any of your team can
come forward and just speak in turn.
Jeff Schneider: I’m Jeff Schneider with RDS Architects and we’ve been working with Rick and
Bob on the design of this building.
Aller: Welcome.
Jeff Schneider: Thank you.
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Aller: So tell us about the building. How did you come up with the design and how is it
perceived?
Jeff Schneider: Well that first rendition you saw with the blue all the way around it kind of
resembled some of his other buildings that he had and we kind of just were king of working with
that and then realized with talking with Bob and with the other buildings on you know the
Motorplex site that we you know should blend it more to those and kind of make it all, you know
all look like the same construction basically so the rental garages have the same look as the
Motorplex buildings somewhat and then the shop areas are a little bit different. Not industrial
but more commercial we felt but we still wanted to have it kind of in my opinion it’s got the old
world look to the buildings so we’re kind of trying to go with that.
Aller: With the difference in the signs, the canopy versus the presentation that’s presently been
provided, architecturally and structurally what are the differences? If any.
Jeff Schneider: We have the same projection on it so like the shading is going to be the same
with either one. I think Rick brought up the point where those piers, the brick piers on either
side were supposed to project out to the face or beyond the canopy on this version so it wouldn’t
look like a big box sitting on the side of a building.
Aller: So there’d be more articulation on the surface there.
Jeff Schneider: Yeah.
Aller: But structurally either one is acceptable.
Jeff Schneider: Oh yeah.
Aller: So it’s really aesthetics.
Jeff Schneider: Yep.
Aller: Price point, is there a big difference to the?
Jeff Schneider: Yeah I would image more that you’d have to add onto the building it’s going to
cost more but it’s you know all with metal framing and it’s, they’re panels. They’re aluminum
panels. Pre-colored panels and definitely not that blue of a color but similar to that.
Aller: And would the intent be if there was a canopy that the signage would be just above the
canopy?
Jeff Schneider: Right, yeah in one of the versions it would be, it had the blue. Yeah, this one
here.
Aller: Except it’s a more mute blue.
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Jeff Schneider: Yes. Yes definitely.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions from anyone?
Tietz: I have a question. I need to understand and maybe learn more about Cultec Recharger
system. I assume that it’s been used in the metro area before but it looks, going on their website
it looks like there’s either a retention type system with a slow release. Otherwise there’s a media
bed beneath these cones and I don’t know what happens so help me understand it.
Jeff Schneider: I’m not the engineer.
Tietz: Well he’s right behind you.
Jeff Schneider: I’m sorry.
Aller: Your team. If you could just state your name and representational capacity please.
Nate Herman: Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Nate Herman. I work
with Sathre-Berquist. I’m the engineer of the project and to touch on Mr. John, what’s your last
name?
Tietz: Tietz.
Nate Herman: Tietz, okay. And it’s a good question. Not many people understand the Cultec or
the underground stormwater systems. Essentially when you don’t have a whole lot of open land,
what we’re doing is we’re putting ponds underneath parking lots or anywhere you really can so
instead of filling, instead of digging a big hole and filling it with rock which will get you maybe
you know 40 percent air voids, you end up needing a lot of rock for what would typically be all
open space in a pond so these Cultec chambers, what they do is instead of being a pipe they’re
essentially like half a lips that allow you to create many more air voids to simulate kind of an
open space pond underneath your.
Tietz: You still have a media or rock base underneath that’s part of the filter system?
Nate Herman: Correct, yep. Yep there’d be pre-treatment through a sump manhole and then the
Cultec system has a sediment, a sediment trap row that’s designed to catch any sediment that can
be easily vac’d out and then surrounding these chambers is, it’s an igneous rock that’s angular in
style shape to provide structure component to it but also designs for extra voids and also the city
and the watershed require a stormwater volume requirement. And so depending you can
obviously design these in any way, form or fashion to which would ever meets the need but a lot
of times the area underneath your chambers in the rock is your volume voids for your volume
retention.
Tietz: You mentioned, I have a question about operation and maintenance. That’s a privately
held system and you talked about a vacuum. If you have to remove debris and siltation that gets
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
in it that’s, is there a maintenance agreement or how is that handled with the City so that you
know that the system is going to work 15 years from now?
Nate Herman: Yeah this is, it’s different in every case but typically there’s a maintenance
agreement between the owner, the property owner and the city.
Tietz: Okay.
Fauske: Mr. Chair.
Aller: Ms. Fauske.
Fauske: If I may provide clarification to Commissioner Tietz’s question. On page 18 of the staff
report under the Water Resources conditions of approval there is condition number 3 is the
ownership operations, pardon me. Operations and maintenance manual for that.
Tietz: Yeah I saw that Alyson. I just wanted to hear more about it.
Fauske: Okay, certainly okay.
Tietz: Concerned when I saw the big vacuum truck down on Lyman and right by the high school
this morning when I was out biking. Obviously there was some overflow with the storm last
weekend and there was a huge truck down there cleaning up something so I’m just curious if it
has, if this system is in place in the metro area. Is there any, it looks like it’s a California
company so obviously these systems are used throughout the US.
Nate Herman: Yes. There’s various manufacturers. Cultec right now is the one we’ve been
working with this one and we’ve also used Trident and ADS makes them. They’re very similar.
You know they all have their special strengths or so but they’re all very similar in fashion and
there’s hundreds if not you know a thousand or more in the state of Minnesota.
Tietz: Okay, thanks.
Nate Herman: Yeah they’re becoming quite popular.
Tietz: It’s a good solution.
Nate Herman: Yeah I mean just in our firm alone right now we probably have 6 systems going
in you know in different projects. Yeah.
Tietz: Thanks.
Nate Herman: Yeah. And I’m happy to address any other engineering comments so.
Tietz: Does the rain water from the buildings, does that get into the system then too? I couldn’t,
the drawings are, my eyes are getting really hard to read the drawings.
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Nate Herman: Yeah, the idea would be.
Tietz: So the full, the full system all the hard surfaces are brought down and rain leaders are
brought into that system then too?
Nate Herman: Yep and you know we can work with the architect just to make sure that all the
inlets are going to best catch the roof water but the systems are designed to capture all the hard
surface from the roof.
Aller: Additional questions? Thank you sir.
Nate Herman: Yes, thank you.
Aller: Alright well we’ll open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come
forward to speak either for or against. Mr. LaMettry.
Richard LaMettry: On the blue, it’s similar to your chairs.
Aller: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this item can come
forward and do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I’m going to close the public
hearing and open for discussion with the commissioners.
Tietz: Looks like a great solution.
Yusuf: I’m excited. I like it.
Madsen: The revised picture that they have shown, is that the final picture that we’re voting on
or could there be more revisions? And I’m just being sensitive to the letter that had been
submitted about the concern to just have it fit in with the other buildings.
Aller: And that was my concern too coming in but with the new design and the new structures
that have been presented, the articulation is different. The colors are different so I think it meets
those needs and I don’t know if there’s anyone here.
Aanenson: We can make sure that the motion includes the date that those plans were received.
With plans dated, architectural plans dated. I think the comment was regarding the first ones that
got put out online. The first architectural comments which we concurred with so we have the
date that those are on we can add that to your motion of approval. Architectural plans dated.
Aller: So the newest version and then we do need to discuss the request for the signage.
Whether or not it would be canopy or not. I personally, I look at the, you know we hear the bad
words around here, big box and that’s what you think. You know they’ve got the big blue box
up there and I really like the softening of the canopy and I think it, it just goes well with the rest
of the building and so that would be my inclination. And structurally, architecturally it seems
like it doesn’t matter.
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Weick: Canopies are fabric is that?
Jeff Schneider: It can be metal.
Weick: So it doesn’t have to be right? It’s not like an awning that’s made out of cloth or
something.
Aller: It could be.
Weick: Could be.
Aller: Right.
Hokkanen: But it won’t be.
Aanenson: Applebee’s are. Perkins are.
Hokkanen: Oh that’s true.
Aanenson: Yes we do have some fabric and that’s one of the ways that actually we got the
pitched roof element working with Perkins. Not with Perkins but certainly with Applebee’s by
using the effect of canopies to try to give some architectural to that building.
Hokkanen: That’s true.
Weick: I like the sign but I’m not…
Aller: So if there’s no further discussion on it I think it looks like it will be a great project. The
letter did talk about sound and different things that were going on on Fridays and Saturdays and
I’m going to leave that.
Aanenson: We are managing that on a separate process and we’re aware of it. We’re working
on it.
Aller: …the City so it’s not before us.
Madsen: An additional question. Will the sign, which ever way it, they decide to go, will there
be lighting on that sign and I’m just assuming if so it would be in compliance with the lighting.
Aller: It would have to meet our, is there any lighting anticipated?
Generous: I’m sure they would be internally lit.
Aller: Internally lit which would meet our signage requirements.
38
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Generous: They also have to come in with a separate sign permit review and provide us with all
the detailed information for that. Compliance with city code as well as making sure it sticks to
the building.
Madsen: Thank you.
th
Generous: And excuse me, the plan, July 20 was the elevation date that, when we received
that…
Aanenson: If we could put that in under planning conditions. We have number 4, the
applicant’s architect work with plans so you may want to modify that one. I’m on page 18 of 19
in your staff report.
Aller: So the staff report will be amended.
Aanenson: Yeah so we’d say to work with the, you know they’ve worked with us and we have
th
plans dated July 20, is that correct Mr. Generous?
Generous: Yes.
th
Aanenson: So there’s just some final tweaking to those plans dated July 20. Then everybody’s
making sure I think a good point that we’re operating off the same architectural plans.
Aller: And we adopt all other Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: So with that I’ll entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion here.
Aller: Mr. Undestad.
Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
site plan and conditional use permit subject to the conditions in the staff report and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad. Second by Commissioner Madsen. Do I
have any further discussion?
39
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow multiple
structures on a single lot and to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, and Site Plan Review to construct two commercial buildings on property zoned
Industrial Office Park (IOP) and located on the west side of Audubon Road at Motorplex
Court subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1.Access must be maintained for the property to the rear (Autobahn Motorplex). If not
currently in place, an access and maintenance agreement must be recorded.
2.That portion of the parcel located westerly and containing the Bluff Creek Overlay District
shall be dedicated to the city.
SITE PLAN
Building:
1.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.The buildings are required to have individual water and sewer connections.
3.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
4.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
5.Detailed occupancy and accessibility-related requirements will be addressed when complete
building plans are submitted.
6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal:
1.A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around all fire hydrants.
2.Additional fire hydrants will be required (one for each building). Contact the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact locations.
Engineering:
1.Minor modifications to the grading plan are needed to clarify the proposed grades,
specifically:
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
a.The proposed 952 foot contour northwest of the entrance to Audubon Road closes in on
itself, and
b.The proposed 944 foot contour at the south site’s middle entrance.
2.The eastern retaining wall on the south site must not encroach into the adjacent drainage and
utility easement.
3.LaMettry’s and Auto Motorplex must enter into a cross-access agreement for the existing
private street. Staff recommends that this agreement address maintenance responsibilities
and costs.
4.On the south site, the drive aisle between the east of the building and the parallel parking
must be at least 22 feet wide.
5.On the south site, ensure that there is adequate space for vehicles backing out of Unit #1.
6.A building permit is required to extend the sewer and water services to each of the buildings;
a plumbing inspector shall inspect the connections.
Environmental Resources:
1.All transplanted trees shall be warranted for one year from the time the overall landscaping is
complete. Any trees that do not show 75% canopy at the end of warranty shall be replaced
with new trees.
2.Minimum bufferyard requirements must be met.
Planning:
1.The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection from Motorplex Court to Park Road.
2.The applicant shall prepare a lighting plan with photometrics prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3.The applicant shall provide staff with a description of the sign locations for both buildings
and monument sign.
4.The applicant’s architect shall work with staff to develop transitions between the different
materials and the architectural detailing of the buildings as shown on plans dated Received
July 20, 2015 to make them compatible with the entire development.
Water Resources:
1.A standalone Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan with all elements required in Parts III
and IV of the NPDES Construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the city for
review and approval prior to any earth disturbing activities.
2.The city-developed maintenance agreement shall be revised accordingly, executed and
recorded against the property.
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
3.The applicant shall develop, or cause to be developed, an operations and maintenance manual
which shall specify anticipated inspection and maintenance, as well as schedule, necessary in
order to ensure there is not significant decreases in the practices’ efficacies. This operations
and maintenance manual shall be referenced in the maintenance agreement.
4.The applicant must demonstrate that the required 90% reduction in TSS will result from the
proposed storm water best management practices using P8, the MIDS calculator or another
approved methodology.
5.The applicant shall provide documentation that adequate pretreatment is provided for the
Cultec Recharger™ systems or that pretreatment is not required per the manufacturer’s
specifications.
6.Surface Water connection fees in the amount of $118,134.00 will be due with final approval
and prior to being issued a certificate of occupancy. In lieu of these fees, that portion of the
parcel located westerly and containing the Bluff Creek Overlay District may be given a
unique PID and dedicated to the city.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aanenson: And again just for the record “as amended.” The conditions “as amended.”
Aller: Correct. Motion carries. The conditions had been amended prior to the motion so that’s
the way I was treating it but to be clear it’s as amended.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 2015 as presented.
COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: City Council action update.
th
Aanenson: There were none. Council did not meet on August 13 so your last items that you
looked at, the specialty retail and the Glaccum subdivision will be on next Monday night, the
th
27. Going further along for their agenda, upcoming items. We did receive a couple of
th
applications but first going to August 4. We hope that you are participating with your
th
neighborhood for National Night Out and we will have a get together on August 6 with two of
the other commissions. The environmental and the park commission so we’ve got a couple
things lined up. I’ll share with you what those are. We are going to visit, go down 101 from
Pioneer down to the bottom of the wye. The roundabout’s been paved. I’m not sure we can get
on there but we’ll head down that way. On our way down there we’ll talk about the design that
they’re working on for the environmental assessment. You’ll see some of the improvements.
How that will tie into the existing 101. The park commission and environmental commission are
kind of interested in the Lotus Lake and we look at the AIS inspections and some of the
42
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 21, 2015
improvements that we have down there where you have a public infrastructure also on parkland
so we’ll look at that. And then engineering had a great idea, looking at some infill development.
We’ve got a couple things on our radar that we want to go look at. Those are some of those
tougher subdivisions that we’ve done where we try to, there’s some, maybe 3 to 4 lot
subdivisions where there may be a little bit more grading to make it fit in. How do you manage
the stormwater? How do you blend it to existing homes so we’ll go back and revisit those. Kind
of lessons learned and some take away’s from that but I’m also interested if there’s anything else
that you would like to look at. We can go by the proposed lifestyle center. Just talk about some
framework issues there or if there’s anything else that anybody’s interested go back and visit or
something that’s coming forward so I’d be happy to hear any comments on that.
Aller: I think going down to the 61/101 is going to be a lot to talk about.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Aller: A lot going on.
Hokkanen: Lifestyle center.
Aanenson: Yeah okay. I was thinking about that too. Might just stop by there and talk about
kind of what’s going on there, that’d be great. Okay again we start at 6:00. Of course light
th
refreshments and good time for all so look forward to that. So the 18, as I mentioned, we did
get a couple applications in last week so we’re going to keep our new Planner I busy so we’ve
got two other variances. One is for a septic system and it goes to a drain field site and the other
one is for a setback from a lake. Same lake, different area. Then we’ll see when we can get this
other one back on as quickly as they can turn things around so we do have some other things
coming up. You can see those on your agenda. We’re also in the works with a couple other
projects. We’ll see when they land. We’ve got some things that I want to get through
entitlement yet this fall so we suspect we’ll see some things in September-October so they can
kind of work through all their plan details over the winter and turn some dirt in the spring. So
with that, that’s all I had Chairman.
Aller: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Undestad: Motion to adjourn.
Aller: Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Undestad moved, Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
43