PC Minutes 6-7-16Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Undestad: That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot
shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard cover variance as shown on the survey
prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20, 2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two
story house and patio subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and
Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Thank you. Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard
cover variance as shown on the survey prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20,
2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two story house and patio subject to the
following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Such
landscaping may be at the edge of the patio or on the landward side of the rip rap. A
landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application.
2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with tree fencing located at the dripline or the
furthest feasible distance from the trunk. Fencing shall be installed prior to any grading
or construction and maintained until construction is finished.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman I’d just like to remind anybody that might be tracking this item,
because this was a super majority unless somebody appeals this decision within 4 days, at the
end of 4 days then it would be deemed approved.
Aller: Correct. Thank you for bringing that out. And so we’ll move onto item 2 on the agenda
tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3801 LESLEE CURVE – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3801 LESLEE CURVE, LOT 19,
BLOCK 1, PLEASANT ACRES. APPLICANT/OWNER: KRIS KNOX.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Again we have a variance application
before the commission. The applicant is Kris Knox and it’s a variance for accessory structures in
excess of 1,000 square feet. This property is located on the west side of Lake Minnewashta just
off of Minnewashta Parkway and it’s the northwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and
Glendale which is, and then on the front it’s Leslee Curve so that’s where it’s addressed off of.
It’s an entire lot and a portion of another lot so that’s why it’s a little bigger than some in the
neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a variance. Right now he has an existing accessory
structure that’s 987 square feet. He came in to the City to request a zoning permit for a shed
that’s 120 square feet and also to install some fencing to enclose part of his backyard. We
approved the fence permit because that complied with ordinance but then we advised the
applicant that he needed a variance to build the accessory structure because he exceeded the
1,000 square foot limitations in city ordinance. We have had several people have contacted the
City opposed to us granting the variance application. We reviewed it based on what the 1,000
square foot ordinance application, or limitation was put in for in the past. Again it’s a variance
for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. In 2014 we determined that the accessory
structure was built in 2005 and they did come in for a permit for the process. The City, in May,
2007 the City adopted the ordinance limiting accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. At that
time we were running into problems with accessory structures in agricultural districts being
converted to business uses. Additionally we had without any limitations people would build
accessory structures and they would often times turn it into some type of business operation
which was prohibited under city code. Again the existing shed is 987 square feet. This is the
survey application that came in as part of their permit application and we picked up the fencing
and we said we can allow that. However it’s the shed that he was proposing in the corner. We
said that would violate city ordinance and the only way to do that would be to come through a
variance process so here we are tonight. We surveyed the neighborhood to see if there are any
other large sheds within this immediate area and this is the property right here and this is
basically their neighborhood and we couldn’t find any other large sheds within that whole area
nor along the lake. We have some that probably don’t meet their hard cover requirements but
again we run in, this is an older neighborhood within the city of Chanhassen so, but we cannot.
What people who were calling us said that this really didn’t fit in the character of the
neighborhood to continue to allow accessory, large accessory structures or large number of
accessory structures and we concurred with that discussion that yes, it really large accessory
structures are not fitting in this area. The applicant as part of his justification did point out that
he could build something attached to his house but it’d be more expensive. However under the
review procedures for variances economic considerations aren’t supposed to be a determination
whether or not something should be approved or not so. Again we did not feel that granting of
the variance would be consistent with the neighborhood standards or in compliance with city
ordinance. Therefore staff is recommending that we deny the variance application. With that I’d
be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Any questions at this point in time? Commissioner Weick.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Weick: I do have a couple just points for clarification. You mentioned the concern as we go
over 1,000 square feet that there could be non-conforming uses on the property. Is there any
concern right now that there are non-conforming uses on that property? That we know of.
Generous: Not specifically. There is some, the site is non-conforming in itself since the house
doesn’t meet setbacks but he was proposing in a location that would have complied with the
setback requirements.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: As far as we know it’s, because of the.
Weick: But no commercial or anything that we know of?
Generous: Not that I’ve heard of and that I was aware of.
Weick: And then this is a good picture because I think it shows it here as well. There is a, so
there’s the house, which kind of runs the long way and then there’s a, I’m assuming that’s a
garage in the back.
Generous: That’s the existing.
Weick: The existing 990 square foot. And then just I’m assuming it’s timing of the picture. I’m
assuming that’s the actual mobile home next to it?
Generous: Yes.
Weick: That’s not a structure correct?
Generous: No that’s a mobile home.
Weick: Okay so if we were looking at this picture I mean technically that is not a permanent
structure on the property?
Generous: No.
Weick: Just visually. I want to visually make sure I’m looking at the property correctly here. I
mean that’s not a building?
Generous:. No.
Aanenson: No. Yeah we can show you the building.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Weick: It’s there as well. Pretend that’s not there correct?
Generous: Right.
Weick: Okay. I just wanted to be sure I got everything square in my head here. Okay. That’s
all.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come
forward and give a presentation that would be great. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Kris Knox: Good evening commissioners and welcome new person. My name is Kris Knox. I
live at 3801 Leslee Curve. You know I’ve got a lot of problems with this. One is that the
comments, and there’s only one that was attached that I know of in writing from a neighbor
that’s outside the 500 boundary that saw the gigantic proposed development sign that was put out
without letting me know the night before we went on a week long vacation to Mexico so I had
frantic neighbors. I already know because I called the front desk also and they had gotten so
many calls because rightfully so the neighborhood freaked out when they see neighborhood
development. Proposed development. It wasn’t. They finally, sometime later, a week later
changed it to a smaller sign that said proposed variance but by then the neighborhood was
frantic. As many comments that he, Mr. Generous has said that has called against it for whatever
reason, I’m guessing is his comments clearly multiple times said that nobody wants a large
structure. The large structure’s already there. I built it with permission. Spent $70,000. Made it
conform to the neighborhood. I’ve been there for 22 years. We have a, we spent $20,000 on
landscaping and my wife gets comments about every time she’s out there about people. We take
pride in our house. We take pride in our property and what isn’t mentioned anywhere in here is
the fact that we have an acre of land here. The context of this 1,000 square foot structure, I
understand the meaning behind it and I’m a real estate broker. A commercial real estate broker.
I understand all the reasons behind something and so I put on my logical Vulcan hat and say
what was the intent for this thing because there’s usually a good one behind it. I can understand
the intent of being aware of over 1,000 square feet, this, that and the other but the context of the
size, what else is there. How much variance we’re getting. What really is in the neighborhood.
Bob in his report, by the way never came out and asked me to visit my property and then walk
through it. I do have photographs of where under this beautiful pine tree right about in the
middle is where this little 120 square foot shed folks, purchased for $3,000 at Home Depot.
Professionally made. Dropped on the spot. Beautiful. Shingled. It’s a nice structure. Fit nicely
under there to hold my brand new garden tractor which helps me keep my yard up nicely, though
my wife does 99 percent of the yard work so I can’t say me but us. And there’s a mention of an
existing shed. First of I do want to clarify because you did mention, a 987 square feet a couple
times and I think the thing said 997 square feet so I’m either 7 square feet over or I’m 17 square
feet over by asking to put a 120 square foot shed in. The additional shed that he comments
several times in here with this commentary which I think is, and this is my opinion and my
opinion is about what he’s putting in his section which is called factuals and to me a fact is a fact
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
and so when he starts the factual stuff and mentions, just taking the first thing at a time. That I
have this additional shed. It’s not an additional shed. It’s a 4 foot by 4 foot by 4 foot high cedar
playhouse that I built for my daughter 28 years ago in Burnsville and when we moved here 22
years ago I disassembled it and I rebuilt it in that spot and there it is. It’s not a shed by any
means but the way that it’s implied in here just like someone calling up and saying hey what’s
going on with that giant proposal and it says right here a variance request to build accessory
structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. Bob’s not the only one who got barraged by people in
the neighborhood. I did as well and they found out it was a shed. I wish I had a dollar for every
time I saw the rolling of the eyes. It was crazy. Then when I told them that I had to pay $500
okay. $500 for the permission to go 100 square feet over the max on my one acre lot, that if you
saw the other pictures that I can show you in addition I’ll point to where the shed would be, it’s
just, it doesn’t make any sense and so when he talks about factual stuff and he mentions a 4 foot
by 4, a 16 square foot play house as a shed that’s not true. He also mentions that it’s not
reasonable. Again commentary. I mean he thinks it’s not reasonable. Well I think it’s
reasonable. I can explain how I think it’s reasonable. If you saw my property and took a few
minutes to come by and walk through it with me where I can show you. I can show all of you
how it looks reasonable. The one letter that was put in, included in the packet that I saw was
from somebody whose again outside the 500 who I know darn well by the looks of it drove by,
because their commentary says about how they didn’t want this giant structure in the
neighborhood because they didn’t want to see it as they drove by Minnewashta Parkway. Well
that’s pretty nice that they have that expectation as neighbors driving by someone else’s property
but quite honestly without a shed I have a brand new John Deere tractor that gets to sit out
without a shed or I could put up one of those temporary structures. I’m talking to Bob about
whether it’s temporary or not and this, that and the other thing. There’s all sorts of things that
seem to me would look much worst than a wonderful, beautiful shed that I’m adding onto the
rest of my nice property and I don’t understand the fact that between the, in my opinion. Excuse
me I’ve got cotton mouth here. Misrepresentation, not disrespectfully with the fact of this giant
proposed development sign, the barrage of people who called up and said oh it’s 1,000 square
foot structure and not even realizing that my garage is already there. It’s all just fuzziness. In
summary I think it’s sort of strange and I’m a commercial real estate broker so I deal with this all
the time and I have horror stories that have gone on but the idea that they presumably well paid
and gentleman with and the City thinks that $500 is still something that someone should pay to
get permission to build something that quite honestly I was trying to follow the rules. I could
have put the shed there and I’ll bet you nobody would have said anything. My neighbors don’t
care. It would look good. Somebody here might care but I don’t know because either way we
do follow the rules. We have followed the rules when I built that beautiful garage and I wish
somebody would have come out and said hey, let’s look at this and see how it really fits in the
neighborhood. I just think that when there’s comments that again I’ve used a few times of the
over shed that he mentioned several times that are not normally structures to this neighborhood
and I mean almost like I should be ashamed that I have this big monstrosity. It’s not a
monstrosity. Bob Generous is the inspector ironically that was involved when I did it with
permission and a permit 10 years ago. 11 years ago. I don’t understand the problem so I’m here
asking to you to switch your opinion and approve essentially 100 square feet over the 1,000 foot
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
maximum on a very reasonable situation on my 1 acre lot. My lot is the second largest in our
entire neighborhood and is at least a third or 50 percent larger than most of the other lots in the
neighborhood so the 1,000 square foot and how it looks in comparison, how it sits on my
property and how things are really spread out and look nice, that should be considered. I do have
photographs that were included in the packet. Didn’t end up in this that show the placement of
the shed under my beautiful pine tree. That one that’s right next to, well actually it’s right there.
That little red spot is where I was going to put it. Little closer tucked under the tree but that’s
about it. So I guess respectfully my wife and I would ask that you, what I think put some
common reasonable sense into the situation. The context being what it is and to allow me to put
up my shed that I’ve paid for and is sitting on the lot of Home Depot wanting me to put it
somewhere and I’d like to put it in my yard to protect my equipment. Thank you very much.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Kris Knox: If anybody has any questions.
Aller: Is it possible for, what’s in the 997 square foot structure now?
Kris Knox: Well 997 is my garage that I built for my RV.
Aller: Okay but what’s in there now? Just the RV goes in?
Kris Knox: RV and my boats and toys. Jet skis. Water, snowmobiles. I mean I, all licensed.
Aller: Sure.
Kris Knox: You know I’m a consumer. I have lots of nice things. Like to protect them. I
bought a very, very expensive RV. I built a very expensive garage to put it in. I’m very serious
about protecting my stuff. I don’t think the shed is misrepresenting the neighborhood at all. I
don’t think the shed is offending anybody and it’s protecting my investment in the equipment
that I buy to take care of my yard ironically enough so.
Aller: Any other questions based on that?
Weick: Just following up though.
Aller: Mr. Weick.
Weick: Does that, could that equipment fit in the garage?
Kris Knox: No it can’t.
Weick: Okay.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Kris Knox: And again, again my reading of this and a couple times that somehow that I,
according to Bob that I should have enough space he’s decided and I don’t know that that’s in
the realm of seriously the variance considerations of one paid city guy can do a one sided thing
that says in his opinion he thinks it’s inappropriate and I don’t know that that’s a factual issue
first of all and I would like to play it upon 1, 2, 3, 6 realistic people to say whether that is
reasonable or not reasonable to have a smaller additional 100 square feet over the variance
amount so I can park my nice equipment.
Aller: Anything else? Thank you. Oh.
Randall: Mr. Knox I totally understand your frustration at this you know. I totally understand
your frustration with this. However you know I mean it’s the amount of structures that’s what
the issue, and I know in your letter you mentioned if it was attached it would be a different story.
Is that a possibility for you?
Kris Knox: You know here’s the irony about the attachment and here’s the irony quite honestly
in the, and I’m just saying this because it’s been brought up by the reality of it. The answer to
your question is it’s very expensive to do that. Here’s the irony though. I get a 25 percent hard
cover. I’ve got such a large lot that even with this new shed I’m only at 15 percent. According
to the structure and math is math, according I could use the rest of my 5 or 4 percent or whatever
and add 2,900 square feet to my house and then I could go 2 stories which the neighbors really
love. I could also paint it pink with purple polka dots in tribute to Prince and the Vikings
together. I mean all sorts of goofy things but when people think about what the neighborhood
looks like they’re not going to complain about our house, unless someone brings up something I
haven’t noticed and the neighbors haven’t been complimenting about for the last 10 years so it’s
very expensive to add on and the irony is what I could do I’m thinking would be much worst
than what I’m asking for.
Randall: No and I understand. I understand that. I was just looking for a solution to the
problem so everyone could be happy.
Kris Knox: Well attachment would require you know that I have a concrete floor. That it’s frost
footed. That it’s attached to the, I mean it’s 5 times as much money. I’ve already, $500 has
already added 17 percent of the cost of my lowly shed.
Randall: Understand, okay. Thank you.
Kris Knox: Thank you for the opportunity to speak my piece.
Aller: Okay at this point in time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so any
individual in the room would like to forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at
this time. Come forward and state your name and address for the record please.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Court MacFarlane: Okay my name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve which is
directly across the street to the west. I’m actually here to speak in opposition to the variance
request. Frankly I don’t see any particular compelling reason to grant it. I’ve lived in that house
for 40 years. I was actually there before this house was even built and although I’m not, I don’t
know Mr. Knox very well. Pardon?
Aanenson: Can we have your house…
Court MacFarlane: It’s across the street that way. Keep going. Yeah right there. You’re on top
of it. That’s it. That’s my home there.
Aller: Please continue.
Court MacFarlane: Okay. My issue with this whole thing is that Mr. Knox does have that
accessory shed and the camper that is supposed to be in there is not very often in there. I know
he has a lot of other items that are parked, or stored in there. The house has a 2 car tuck under
garage on the south end. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a car in there. I know it’s being used
for storage. In the back of his house on the east side is another garage door and I believe that
also is a storage area. He has at least 3 or 4 fenced areas in his yard where he does store other
items outside and I just think this would be something that would add to the clutter on the
property. I don’t know what else I can say. I just think it’s an over use of a particular property.
By the way my business also happens to be commercial real estate. I was doing that for 35
years. I’m semi-retired. I’m still in the property management business. I manage, currently
manage 7 different properties, or homeowners associations that have over, well the total’s
probably about 600-700 units all together. Now each of those associations is a lot newer than
our’s. Pleasant Acres is a very old association and when it was designed or when it was put
together they didn’t write binding by-laws and declarations. Each of the 7 associations that I
manage not only of them even permits accessory structures so I think we have to rely on the City
for ordinances to keep that kind of thing under control. I’m surprised that, you know I’m not
surprised that it’s permitted but there has to be a limit on what is permitted and I’m open to
questions too if anybody would like to ask anything.
Aller: Anyone? Thank you for your comments.
Court MacFarlane: You’re welcome.
Aller: Any other individual wishing to come forward can do so at this time. Speak either for or
against. Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Open up for commissioners
discussion. Variances like this are always difficult. We’ve had a number of them in the past and
have to go through and balance the zoning, the ordinances and the ability to use the property for
a reasonable purpose.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Madsen: Although I have sympathy with wanting to protect property and keep it out of the
weather, when you look at the Findings of Fact in approving a variance I have difficulty in the
practical difficulties area and that the variance is not based on economic conditions alone so I
would not be in favor of the variance.
Aller: Any additional comments at this point in time? Commissioner Weick comments?
Weick: I don’t know I’d love some help.
Aller: I know it’s tough.
Weick: I really don’t know to be honest.
Aller: What kind of information can we get you or assistance can we get you to make a decision
because you have to vote on this.
Weick: I know we do right? I mean I’m just trying to buy a little bit of time maybe for all of us
but I mean in and of itself you know, I don’t consider it to be, I mean the shed itself is not a large
structure right. Going in reverse if there had been a shed and then we were building out the back
we would just say build the garage to 900 and whatever. 900 square feet and I think we’d be fine
so. Honestly what I’m wrestling with, I do, you know I’ve seen in the pictures and the pictures
that were provided in the packet but a homeowner as well as these pictures and obviously there’s
a lot of things on the property. I’m honestly trying to struggle with, you know does adding a
shed potentially improve that or does it just add to it. I don’t know. I mean I think if we
honestly believed it would help store things out of sight then maybe in a better way. I don’t
know that it doesn’t help the property. I could sure use some guidance if there’s other opinions.
Aller: Well when in doubt I always look to the ordinances and to me that’s our guidance and
we’re looking to find exceptions under the outlines of the ordinances that say that we have to
find practical difficulties. We have to find that it’s not economic in nature. That it’s something
that’s unique to the property and so I have difficulty in meeting those requirements that it’s
unique to the property when you’ve got several structures already there so I will be voting
against it. Anyone else? Comments. Questions. Concerns. Any information we can get from
staff? Hearing none I’ll entertain any motions. Mr. Undestad.
Undestad: Well yeah. Just before I do though I think I just want to make one more comment on
again looking at everything that’s on the site and spread out around the site and the fact that the
homeowner can add on things to his house on there. He can attach a structure on there that might
take care of more things on the site. He has the space. He has the room for it. That might be
something to look at so I guess that, I mean just for the small shed for the lawn tractor and the
variance I don’t see that so, so I’ll make a motion here. That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals
and Adjustments denies the variance request to build accessory structures in excess of 1,000
square feet and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016
Aller: Having a motion do I have a second?
Tietz: Second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
denies the variance request #2016-06 to build accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square
feet and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Because the item was denied an appeal should be filed on this matter within 4 days and it
should be done in writing if you desire to do so. If the appeal is filed appropriately then the
matter would go to the City Council on June 27, 2016 and again anyone that wishes at home to
see these items and the packages that are before us when we’re making our decisions, they are on
the website and available to you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FOXWOOD, WILSON NURSERY SITE, 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT (BCOD),
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM), AND A 52 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH
VARIANCES ON 43.55 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9150 AND 9250 GREAT
PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: PROVIDENCE 55, LLC. OWNER: JIM
WILSON & PAUL PAULSON.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The application before us, this is the
th
public hearing and it goes to council on June 27. Providence 55 Limited Liability Company is
the applicant. Jim Wilson and Paul Paulson are current property owners of the two properties.
The request includes a rezoning, a conditional use permit, a subdivision review with variances
and a wetland alteration permit. The property’s located at 9150 and 9250 Great Plains
Boulevard. This is south of Lyman Boulevard on the west side of 101 or Great Plains
Boulevard. Currently the Wilson property, the northerly piece is accessed from a driveway
directly across from the access to Bandimere Park. The two single family homes are accessed
via a shared driveway just south on, but it’s on 101. Wilson’s property has historically been used
as a wholesale nursery and if you go out there you see the rows of trees that are being held on
site. That’s the open part of the property. The site has significant topographic challenges within
it. It goes from a high of 932 feet approximately to a low of 888 feet. To the west the City has
acquired the Fox property which is to be preserved as permanent open space. As part of this
development they would be providing some pedestrian access into it and then the City within the
park it’s more a nature preserve rather than an active park facility that they’re looking at. Across
13