CC Minutes 6-27-05
City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005
Drive. The existing drainage and utility easements were granted to the city as part of the Boyer
Lake Minnewashta Addition. It was platted in 2005. With the lots consolidation, from 4 lots to
3 lots a new drainage and utility easement had been dedicated to the city for new drainage and
utility and relocation and storm sewer lines. In order to remove the old easements, encumbrance
with the new Boyer Minnewashta Lake lots, the developer has requested that the city vacate the
old easement. Staff has no objection with the easements to be dedicated and the easements to be
vacated, and again this drawing, or I'm showing the, in blue here the easements to be vacated
and the new drainage and utility easements that are dedicated. And again it's to consolidate from
3 lots, or from 4 lots down to 3 lots as the developer has requested so. With that I stand for
questions and again I request a public hearing be opened.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? Okay. At this time I will open the
public hearing as well and invite all interested parties to come forward and speak on this matter.
Seeing nobody, without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for
discussion. Any discussion on this matter? If not is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution#2005-62: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that
the City Council approves a resolution vacating drainage and utility easements (light
shaded) and dedicating the new public drainage and utility easements (dark shaded) as
defined on the attached vacation and parcels A, Band C legal descriptions, with the
following conditions:
1. Due to the relocation of property lines, existing easements need to be vacated and new
easements dedicated. The request before the City Council is to vacate some of the
existing easements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO BUILD A STORAGE SHED. 7450 CHANHASSEN ROAD. TIMOTHY
AND DIANE MCHUGH. PLANNING CASE 05-17.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on May 17th.
It was recommended for denial by a 3-2 vote. Therefore, because it did not receive the 75% as
required by the city code, this item is here before the City Council for final action. The subject
site is located on Chanhassen Road or 101. Has access onto Lotus Lake. The subdivision was
created in 1954, although the house wasn't built until the mid 80's. Again with the same
11
City Council Meeting - June 27,2005
direction of the lot, this would be 101. It does have lake access. It's a very deep lot. It's non-
conforming as far as the narrowness of the lot and the square footage because it's a riparian lot.
It would require 20,000 square feet. It has the appropriate depth but not enough width. The staff
in the background reviewed their existing non-conforming and variances given in the immediate
area which were attached in your staff report. The topography on the lot is sloped in various
locations, thus limiting options for the placement of the shed. So the city did receive notice of
the addition to the house. Somebody thought it was an addition and actually it was a shed. So
this is a view looking again towards the lake. On there you can see that the lot is pretty steep, so
the applicant in front of their letter, you may have noticed, to take you back. First part is
visibility. To put the shed somewhere on the site would also impede somebody else's visibility
of the lake, so ultimately they had decided to attach to the house. In order to maintain the 10 foot
setback they encroach 5 foot so that's what the request is, for a 5 foot variance. Again you know
the staff in reviewing this, if you were to put it towards the lake, it probably would increase
somebody else's obstruction of the lake, so if you were to grant a variance and does it seem
reasonable to attach it, the staff struggled with this and actually recommended either way for the
Planning Commission. They felt that the literal interpretation and was somewhat split with the
3-2 vote. So in the recommendation of the staff report, one of the concerns that we had is if the
City Council were, to be consistent with the house and as they kind of laid it out, it is, it's got the
shed roof and architecturally compatible with the siding so it looks like, again in the regular city
ordinance we do allow some bay windows and those sort of architectural features to encroach.
So with that if you turn to page 8 on the recommendation, the Planning Commission stated that
denial, because they have reasonable use of the property, or the request if you do choose to grant
the variance, the construction of the shed be, match the principal structure using the vertical
siding on the shed and painting the same color as the principal structure. With that I'd be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. There may be some in a minute but are the
McHugh's here this evening? Any comments you'd like to make this evening?
Tim McHugh: Yes. Tim and Diane McHugh. We're the property owners at 7450 Chanhassen
Road and as I stated we're here basically, 3-4 weeks ago we were at the Planning Commission
and a lot of the members felt they didn't have a good feel for the area. How it really looked in
there so we did supply more pictures and you know just to take about 10 seconds here to give
you a review how we really ended up here is when we originally designed the shed, it was under
120 square feet so I really didn't believe I needed a permit. It turns out you don't. What you
need the permit for is the setback which I'll be honest I didn't realize that, and that's how we got
there. They originally thought it was an addition to the house because we kind of designed it that
way so it would blend in and the siding and everything, we designed and purchased was
basically we took that into account and the whole purpose was so it wasn't intrusive to any of the
neighbors. And also I believe in the documentation you have, after the Planning Commission
they went in and searched the records and there's a list of all the ones in the neighborhood that
do not comply for the variances. This is, this one here is the house. The little, the property to the
south of us has two rental properties. The main house, which they rent out 5 bedrooms I believe
and then the little house, 2 bedrooms. As you can see, that one is on the property line on their
south side. This is looking at their property. But the main one I wanted you to see is, yeah on
this one. This is looking again down at the lake and the, this black line is actually the property
12
City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005
line and you can see part of the shed down there. It's basically 6 feet from the property line but
then there's 10 inches for the, what's that called up there? Yeah, the overhang so you have to
get, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It's part of the...
Tim McHugh: And because of the slope of the land, there's really no place else we could really
figure out what, to look at this one quick. This is towards 101. It's a 4 foot berm and to get there
you really have to go out onto the path, into the neighbors driveway to get up into the berm. This
retaining wall, when you stand down here, it's probably over 8 feet up to the top. The retaining
wall actually is 1 foot closer to the property line, and that's totally legal I'm told. The retaining
wall can be within an inch like a fence so. If I can answer any questions, I'd be more than happy
to. From the lake, on this one here, one can really barely see it in there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the McHugh's? Comments? Okay, no?
Okay, thank you.
Tim McHugh: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any additional questions or follow-up questions? I guess, Kate as I thought
that I have one. Ms. Aanenson, excuse me. In the staff report it speaks of non-conforming lot
and the non-conformity here is on the width of the lot, is that correct? And the size of the lot.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the width is 55 feet, if I'm remembering the report correctly, versus
what's the current standard, 90?
Kate Aanenson: 90.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So this was, this lot was platted prior to those standards coming into
place.
Kate Aanenson: Different standards, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the location of the shed is on the side so it's coming, it's widening
the structure a little bit over the existing structure.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Current structure's outside the setbacks?
Kate Aanenson: No, the current structure does meet the 10 foot side yard, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Right. And when were the, those standards, the 10 foot side put in place, do
you recall?
13
City Council Meeting - June 27,2005
Kate Aanenson: It would have probably had to been in the late 70's, mid 70's. Before this lot
was, this lot again was created, well the house wasn't built. The lot was created much narrower
than we would allow today.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Follow-up questions? Is
there discussion on the matter?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, just in general I think it's a reasonable request. I guess I
would rather have, I would rather have the structure where it is versus in the middle of the lot
towards the lake. Stand alone, which was the other option that would be conforming. They're
going to make it look like part of the house and to that end I think it's a reasonable variance to
grant.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I would.. . and it does blend in and you know what are the options?
We discussed structures.. . and so I also agree that it's reasonable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I echo those sentiments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: I don't disagree with it at all. The one neighbor at 7440 I believe.. .he's to
the south, right? He's be the one that's directly impacted.
Mayor Furlong: And to your point, he didn't have any problem with it.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Didn't have any problem with it, and the other thing I looked at is, where else
could you see it from and the answer is no.
Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear too. In the shoreland district you can put a storage unit in
your front yard for those purposes. Because of the lot configuration, that's not an option either.
So it was limited.
Mayor Furlong: Well I agree with the council on the reasonableness and I also, when you have a
non-conforming lot, I think we look for options and look for reasonable solutions rather than the
strict adherence to the code so. Sounds like we're in agreement. Is there any further discussion?
Then if not, is there amotion?
14
City Council Meeting - June 27, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve Variance 05-17 for a 5 foot
variance for a minimum 10 foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned
Single Family RSF with conditions 1 as published in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? If there is none, I will
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Variance #05-17 for a 5 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard
setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF),
with the following condition:
1. Construction of the shed shall match the principal structure by using vertical siding on the
exterior of the shed and painting the shed the same color as the principal structure.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
SAND COMPANIES. INC.: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD AND REALIGNED 101: PLANNING CASE 05-10:
A. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MIXED USE.
B. CONSIDER LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TAX CREDIT APPLICATION.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Sorry, I've got a big board here. This item appeared before the
Planning Commission on June 7th. Part of that, you had reviewed this under a conceptual PUD,
as did the Planning Commission. Again they wanted to get a read from the Planning
Commission and the City Council regarding acquisition of the property. The Sand Companies
now has acquired the property. Again the location of the property is, this is the widened,
proposed widened Lyman Boulevard and then the new 101. Current location right here and the
new 101 moving to the west. So obviously development of these two parcels is predicated on the
relocation of the infrastructure and improvements to the property. Again 212 divides this
property. The northern piece which would have access via Lake Susan Drive, and the south
portion access via 101 and tied through to Lyman Boulevard. The purpose of the meeting
tonight is just to review the PUD development standards. They will have to come back for
specific site plan review on each project, so again that's kind of tied into a little bit more of the
212. So with that, I'm going to really kind of focus on the PUD design standards themselves.
The PUD that we put in place is pretty similar to the one that we actually put over on the Park
and Ride facility. Just kind of want to go through that. In the comprehensive plan this is guided
for mixed use development so it does allow for neighborhood commercial as stated in the
comprehensive plan, and for residential up to 16 units an acre. The plan contemplates, if you go
15