PC Minutes 12-1-20Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
25
questions and concerns. Thank you to everyone who prepared for this item. We have one more
item on tonight’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LAKE LUCY ROAD FROM
RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (LOW
DENSITY).
Weick: With that I will turn it over to Sharmeen. Thank you, Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the application before you is a
request to rezone from rural residential to planned unit development. Briefly, the site is located
south of Lake Lucy Road. It is surrounded by Lake Lucy in its entirety. The site has an area of
approximately 9.03 acres. It is currently zoned rural residential. Access to the site is gained via
Lake Lucy Road. The 2040 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for low density residential.
Within a low density you can have 1.2 units per acre but no more than 4 units per acres. This
category can be either zoned into single-family residential, R-4 which is a mix of low density,
residential low and medium density, or planned unit development-residential. Rezoning this
property into any of those categories would allow the site to be consistent with the 2040 Land
Use Plan. Brief background. Back in 1993 the owners of the island at the time came in for a
wetland alteration permit for the purpose of constructing a bridge and a driveway to access the
driveway. There were multiple extensions granted to this. The work was completed on the bridge
as well as the driveway in 1999. Some of the things that have taken place that we also need to
point out is that since 2018 staff has been working with the applicant very closely. This site is
truly unique. It is the only island that has building rights within the City of Chanhassen. The
applicant’s goal is to build a single-family home for their family and an accessory dwelling unit
for his mother. The site contains bluffs and wetlands. It is located within the shoreland overlay
district of Lake Lucy and it has 100% tree canopy cover. The access driveway off of Lake Lucy
Road connects the island to Lake Lucy Road via a bridge. The length of this driveway is
approximately 1,600 feet and this is just the distance between Lake Lucy Road and the bridge
right here. Looking at the different options, we know that this is a lot of record, it is entitled to
the building of a single-family home. The applicant’s request was to have a principle structure
with an accessory dwelling unit. This can either be achieved via subdivision or rezoning the site
to planned unit development. We looked at the impact of subdividing the site versus rezoning it
to planned unit development. With a subdivision, you will be able to accomplish the additional
home; however, you will have to widen the driveway to 20 feet. There is additional grading, tree
removal, hard surface, potential for two additional home sites rather than the two that the
applicant is requesting. Also, there is more potential for grading with the extension of public
utilities. Through a planned unit development, the applicant would be able to use the existing
driveway. There is a septic system that is proposed on the site as well as a well. We are able
through the planned unit development regulations to cap the size of the accessory dwelling unit.
We can require the use of a single internal driveway and the planned unit development governing
the site would establish additional limitations on the site. The applicant selected to move forward
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
26
with a planned unit development approach. With that, staff directed the applicant to put together
a concept, bring it before the city to allow us to evaluate the request, and bring it before you. It is
important that we point out this is a concept. It was intended to give us an idea of what it is the
owner of the property’s intentions were and how to write proper ordinances that address
concerns, improve potential development of the site, add regulations and improve the quality of
development. Some of the things that we’re able to accomplish is that the total permitted site
coverage is 20%. What the applicant is proposing is going to be below 15%, 14.5% with this
concept. We sent this concept to multiple agencies including the watershed, the DNR, and staff
at the city, and there was one reoccurring theme that was pointed out by the different agencies
and different staff members and that had to do with the amount of grading and what can be done
to reduce the grading. So we had a discussion with the property owner and the initial proposal
basically looked at serving the main home via one driveway. At the southern portion of the
island the driveway would split to serve the accessory dwelling unit. We recommended that the
applicant unify those driveways and share access, basically eliminating everything that you see
in the hatched red and the applicant can talk about that further but he did agree to this request
and understood that this was a concern to many different departments and different staff
members. What some of the other elements that this planned unit development will regulate is
the fact that you can have one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit. The
ownership of those two homes; they cannot be sold separately. These will remain under single
ownership. There is no short-term lease and with short term we are defining it as less than three
months. We are limiting the size of the accessory dwelling unit. There are measures in place to
ensure fire prevention. We are requesting that the driveways be combined. The applicant was
directed to continue working with staff to promote preservation of natural features of the site. We
are limiting the size of the accessory structures which also include water-oriented structures for
the island. We are also regulating dock rights within this development. Staff is recommending
approval of this application of this request because I had mentioned earlier, yes it can be
subdivided but this is a mechanism for the city to regulate the future development of this site.
This is the type of development when basically a one-size-fits-all ordinance was difficult to
implement on a parcel such as this one. We are recommending approval with comments in the
staff report and as an adoption of the attached ordinance. One thing I do need to point out is that
staff received three emails in addition to the emails included in your staff report. They were from
Gregory Fast, Kathryn Randall (also goes by Betsy), and Kim and Tom McReavy. The emails
basically included comments requesting minimizing grading, concerns with potential light
pollution on the island, impact to surrounding habitat. Other comments involved support of the
project, commending the applicant for removing buckthorn from the island. With that, we will
make sure that these are incorporated as part of the public record when this items appears before
the city council. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Great. Thank you. I will open it up for commissioners to ask questions.
McGonagill: I have the same questions I had before on the previous item and it’s about fire.
They’re going to have a well and other fire suppression sprinklers inside the structures?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
27
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McGonagill: So there’s not a hydrant or anything down there? There’s no sewage down there?
They have their own septic system?
Al-Jaff: Correct. And there was a rather lengthy meeting that took place between the fire chief
and the applicant. They walked the site and they agreed upon a consultant that specializes in fire
suppression. The applicant would be able to speak to this matter further.
McGonagill: In the conversations with the fire chief is it his intention, as I just sit here looking at
the bridge, will the bridge take a fire truck?
Al-Jaff: Yes, actually it would.
McGonagill: So they could get equipment down there.
Al-Jaff: Correct. So what we are waiting for is official certification that the bridge will be able to
handle the truck. Preliminary investigations tell us that yes, it will be able to handle it.
McGonagill: Under the conditions of the PUD can you put in a requirement that the bridge
always be able to handle a truck? Bridges age. To meet that. I don’t know if there is a code for
that but I just want the ability to get an ambulance down there. At least to get one small piece of
equipment in there. If there was an emergency, that’s whose going to respond and I don’t want to
see the fire truck go blasting down through there no knowing if the bridge won’t take it and it
ends up in the lake.
Aanenson: I’m not sure you mentioned this Sharmeen but the house will be fire sprinkled.
McGonagill: Yes, she said that. But they respond. Like a 9-1-1 call, somebody calls and has a
heart attack or something and the fire guys, they respond. What I’m looking for is can in the
PUD you put requirements similar to commercial bridges. That it’s maintained at a certain
standard to allow fire equipment access.
Al-Jaff: Specifically from a safety standpoint and emergency management, that will be the
intent. Staff will check with the city attorney to ensure that…It is staff’s intent to ensure that this
requirement is part of the planned unit development. We will check with legal counsel.
McGonagill: The second question is similar to that. Is access for other commercial vehicles,
garbage trucks, etc., they will have the same?
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that, too? I think oftentimes in situations like that you have to bring
your garbage up to the street. That’s actually a private driveway so typically you take your trash
up to the end of the driveway, but we can clarify that.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
28
McGonagill: Okay. Very good. Because it’s, I just think about natural activities, landscaping,
and construction. People are going to always be doing something down there. There’s going to
be a weight requirement on that bridge?
Aanenson: Yes, when they are constructing the house for sure.
McGonagill: For sure and then as you go down the road it will be there too. I just want to ensure
that it’s maintained safely. I realize it’s a private drive. It’s not our responsibility. But with a
PUD it is. I mean we could put that in the PUD if that’s the way we want it to be done and just
ensure that it’s safe. Okay. That’s all the questions I have.
Weick: Great. Thank you. Other questions?
Noyes: I have a little bit of a follow up question to kind of the previous one and it’s related to
that private road and the maintenance of it. I would imagine the property owner is responsible for
the plowing of that road in the winter? The plowing of the snow? Are there any restrictions
related to use of road chemicals on that road given that this is a bridge over a lake.
Al-Jaff: So back in 1993 when the wetland alteration permit was approved for the construction of
the driveway one of the conditions was limiting chemicals used on the driveway.
Noyes: Thank you.
Skistad: I’m going to assume that flooding is not really an issue. It is an issue?
Al-Jaff: It is…the island sits over 30 feet above the ordinary high water mark of Lake Lucy so
it’s fine. It will be okay.
Skistad: Okay. The other question I had was the accessory dwelling unit. It says it has a
maximum of two bedrooms and it may not exceed 1600 square feet. I’m just wondering why we
are limiting it to two bedrooms because like a typical apartment would be 1200 to 1300 square
feet for a three-bedroom and this would be 1600 so it seems like…I was just curious about that.
Why we would be limiting it specifically to two bedrooms with 1600 feet?
Al-Jaff: So the 1600 feet was requested by the applicant. Number of bedrooms within the
structure, a couple of things came into play. The first one was the capacity of the septic system
that is proposed out there. This site will take in the sewage from the main house as well as the
accessory dwelling unit. The intent is to provide a place for mom to live as well as a potential
caregiver. So these are the two reasons why we limited the number of bedrooms, directly relating
to the septic system that’s going to serve this site. Also, we needed to ensure that this was not a
full-fledged detached single-family home but rather truly an accessory dwelling unit and it was
reasonable to limit the size.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
29
Skistad: Thank you.
McGonagill: Follow up on Commissioner Skistad’s septic system question, has any sort of
percolating test been done on the island to know if the septic system will work out there?
Aanenson: Just a second. Can you make sure you are speaking into your microphone?
McGonagill: Sure. I’m sorry. I’ll just repeat the question. Follow up on Commissioner Skistad’s
question on the septic system. Has any sort of percolating test been done on the island to give a
high degree of certainty that a septic system will work and not effluent go into the lake?
Aanenson: The Building Official looked at that, just cursory soil types, and they believe there is
a couple different types of systems but they are confident that one of those would work.
McGonagill: Okay. Thank you.
Von Oven: We’ve been very specific about this accessory dwelling unit so as not to make it a
sellable total home. I guess, given my unfamiliarity with those things, is there anything about an
accessory dwelling unit that makes it less safe than the requirements on a normal single-family
home?
Aanenson: No. It would still have to go through the building permit process. Be inspected like a
regular one. Again, the goal was, there’s no limit to the square footage of a home so you can
have one large home. In this circumstance they have identified a home and want to have an
ancillary one instead of saying you are going to get two lots. We want to cap those so it doesn’t
become two separate lots as Ms. Al-Jaff indicated. But it has to go through the same rigorous. It
would have to meet as Sharmeen indicated there would have to be sewer and water which would
be through the well and septic and in addition, all of the building codes.
Von Oven: I understand that it was the request of the applicant to make that accessory dwelling
unit a maximum of 1600 feet. I’m still confused on the max of two bedrooms. Sharmeen, I know
you said part of the reason for this was to ensure that it doesn’t turn into a single-family home.
Given that that’s covered in other areas, I’m going to make the assumption that the actual single-
family home to be built can has as many bedrooms as it wants, right?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct. As long as the number of bedrooms can be served via public or private
utilities.
Von Oven: Okay. I guess then my question ends up being this: Between these two structures, is
there a maximum number of bedrooms that the proposed sewage system will be able to handle,
and is that governed through some sort of inspection process?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
30
Aanenson: Correct. It is. They have to demonstrate that and it’s actually based on bedroom space
to your septic and well. Let’s just go back to the two separate dwellings again. If you have
enough to make it two complete homes then you have different traffic patterns, different use of
the property. So when it’s intended to be ancillary and regulated by the homeowner, it’s a
different feel than two separate homes with cars coming and going, two sets of trash being
hauled up to the end of the driveway, that sort of thing. We are looking, it says one structure with
something ancillary that is related to that principal structure.
Von Oven: Thank you.
Skistad: I guess I’m just going to ask a future question then. So if, let’s say that someone in the
future, a new person has purchased the property. Perhaps they will probably have to install a new
septic system so they won’t be able to increase the bedroom. The land won’t be able to have a
three-bedroom instead of a two-bedroom unit unless they come back to us and ask for a
variance?
Aanenson: Yes. Or amend the PUD. Typically, if you add additional bedrooms, you have to
demonstrate that you have sewer capacity. Could they oversize it to begin with? That’s potential.
I’m not sure. That is something that would have to be looked at at the time when they are putting
together the system. Any changes to the plan as laid out would have to come back. Any
modifications, which would have to come back as a PUD amendment. That’s why the PUD was
put together. To regulate all that’s being used.
Skistad: I understand what you are doing. I understand what you are saying, but let’s say that
they have an office and it just naturally becomes a bedroom at some point. I don’t know if there
is a better way to write that. Because the goal is to just make sure obviously that we don’t
overcome the sewage capacity because we don’t obviously want to spill anything into Lake
Lucy.
Weick: There is a septic field sizing attachment which is really long actually. They specify, and
there’s two different options. They specify seven bedrooms and then they sort of explain how
they can. It really comes down to the bedrooms. They explain how they can appropriately fit one
or two mounds or septic systems to support the seven bedrooms where they can build one for the
main house and one for the accessory structure. But there’s only so much space to be able to
have the runout fields and all that kind of stuff. I think what they are saying is it sounds like they
want that primary structure to be five bedrooms and honestly, I think all that’s left is just size.
Aanenson: Capacity.
Weick: Thank you. That’s a better word. Capacity. Is two bedroom. I think they are fully limited
by septic and nothing else.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
31
Aanenson: So if one of the bedrooms in the accessory building was being used as an office,
that’s fine. It wouldn’t affect.
Weick: Right.
Skistad: Okay.
Weick: Great. These are great questions. It’s awesome. It’s really important.
Reeder: Under normal regulations, is it possible for this accessory dwelling unit to be rented out
or would that be illegal? How would be control that?
Al-Jaff: They can rent it out but it cannot be a short-term lease. It has to be three months or more.
Reeder: So we essentially have two residences on one lot?
Al-Jaff: Correct. Which is permitted under a planned unit development.
Aanenson: It was proposed, it was originally intended to be an accessory structure for a
grandparent. Could it be used for something else? We always as planners try to anticipate
something in the future. So if you’re doing a weekly rental, you have a different capacity
whether there is two bedrooms. How it’s being used is different that someone who might rent it
for the summer or something like that. That’s how we looked at that it. Looking at having a
three-month as opposed to renting it out by the week.
Reeder: So there’s no requirement that the accessory building, the person that lives in that
building, be related to the main building? It can be anybody? It seems like we had one of these
accessory buildings I think about two years ago that we approved and I can’t remember what the
requirements were.
Aanenson: Right now we have a variance requirement that you can finish your basement off and
have someone living with you but that has to be related to you. It’s a different requirement. It is
certainly a requirement that you could put on this property. That’s certainly under the PUD. You
could say that the person living there has to be related. That’s an option. We gave a different
option.
Reeder: What is the intent of the proposed property owner?
Aanenson: I would have to ask the applicant to speak to that.
Skistad: I’m just going to look at this from a lease perspective again. I’m just going to assume
that, let’s just say it sold and they want to lease this secondary area. I’m going to assume that you
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
32
could do a typical lease which runs 12 months and then possibly it turns into a month-to-month
lease but that wouldn’t cause any problems here because they would have met the minimum.
Aanenson: Yes.
Skistad: Okay.
Weick: Great. More thoughts or questions on this one for Sharmeen? Just holler if I’m rushing
you as commission members. If you need some more time to read or think, just holler at me. I
don’t want to push anybody.
Von Oven: Hey, Commissioner Weick!
Weick: Yes.
Von Oven: I’m hollering at you. I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out how to ask this
question so it’s not going to come out right. At the very beginning, Commissioner McGonagill
talked about the bridge and it was very clear to me that an existing bullet, there is not an existing
bullet in the PUD that says, “Hey, this bridge has to be safe.” So I think my question is more
procedural. For us as a Planning Commission tonight, moving forward with this. If there are
those of us who would like to see a bullet point in that PUD, is that be an amendment possibly?
Is that a motion? Is that something that can be done after the fact? How does that work?
Aanenson: I would recommend that you make it, if someone wanted that in the conditions, that
you make that an amendment to the motion, that that be added.
Von Oven: Okay.
McGonagill: Following up to his question procedurally, does that happen after the first motion or
can you make an amendment before then?
Aanenson: You can make it as part of your original motion.
Weick: As part of the motion.
Aanenson: So what we’re checking on is the legality. It is a lot of record so they could build on
that lot without going through this process and you would have the same jurisdiction. But we’ll
follow up on that and have that answer if you want to amend that motion and get that clarified
when it goes up to city council.
McGonagill: Very good.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
33
Von Oven: Got it. Okay, sorry. I’m going to repeat what you just said to make sure I understood
it. If the applicant was just going to build a single-family home, they could just do that in its
current state?
Aanenson: Yes.
Von Oven: The reason why our concerns about the bridge holding an ambulance could be met is
because they are asking for this variance. I’m sorry, this rezoning, in which case we have the
ability to amend what is being proposed right now as the PUD?
Aanenson: That is correct.
Von Oven: I think I’m getting this thing down. Thank you.
Weick: You’re killing it. But a motion is premature at this point because we have not heard from
the applicant or the public hearing. So unless there are other… I will move at this point to, and
we certainly have an opportunity to follow up with staff as questions come up. I would invite the
applicant if they are on the Zoom call to make any comments or a presentation.
Wicka: I am and thank you very much.
Weick: Welcome!
Wicka: Thank you. And thank you to all the members of the Planning Commission for
considering this rezoning request. My name is John Wicka. I live at 2547 Bridle Creek Trail in
Chanhassen with my wife and five daughters. We’ve been, I don’t know if this qualifies, in
Chanhassen as long-time residents but we’ve been here is this house for 17 years. At least we’re
not newcomers. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all and offer you a little
additional information and commentary for your consideration as you consider this rezoning
request. The first time my wife and I experienced the island was in June of 2018, just over two
years ago and it was just recently put up for sale by Al and Mary Weingart who live on the
adjacent property and still do. It was their dream to build a home out on the island. They’re the
ones that oversaw the building of the bridge so I’ll come back around and talk more about that
and I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to the bridge. I understand there is a lot of
concern in and around that. When we first experienced the island in June of 2018 I think our first
reaction was I guess we couldn’t believe it was available. It’s sizeable. It has some acreage to it.
It’s unique. It’s an island but it’s even better than an island. It’s an island with a pre-existing,
very capable bridge that is intended to support fire trucks and construction trucks and so forth. It
was really an ideal find for us. If you’ve had a chance to consider the topography map there, the
top graphic map, it’s very interesting topography. It’s flat around many of the edges but it has
this elevation in the center of the island and there are bluffs there. There are bluff setbacks there.
There are wetland setbacks so there is a lot of dynamic things happening on the island but it is
indisputably breathtakingly beautiful. We were excited about the opportunity because of the size
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
34
of the property and it had been our desire for several years to build a home for my mother who is
now 86 years old near us. My dad died 21 years ago so this has been kind of something that
we’ve been thinking of considering and planning for some time now. My mother is fiercely
independent but she is 86 years old. She now really relishes or welcomes or is excited about the
opportunity to maintain her independence but still have us just a moment’s notice away. So this
was one of the big motivations for us to purchase the island because we thought it gave us the
elbow room, if you will, to build a separate structure for her. Just two months later we purchased
the island and at that time the first order of business was to eradicate the buckthorn. I think about
it as kind of freeing the island because the buckthorn had a choke hold on the island. I think it
was a neighbor’s comment that Sharmeen referenced a few moments ago that they were glad that
we took out the buckthorn. I worked with Jill Sinclair. Walked the island with her over two years
ago. She made some recommendations on some experts that could remove the buckthorn and
treat it. It transformed the island back to its natural state. So it was very important for us to get
the balance back to the island, and it doesn’t surprise me that the neighbors were in favor or
positively affected by that because they all look at the island. It makes the view of the island so
much more interesting because you get depth. It looked like an overgrown bush. You couldn’t
see into it. You couldn’t penetrate it. Frankly, when you were on the island you couldn’t see the
water from the interior of the island. So that was important to us. I don’t know what your
experience is with buckthorn but I didn’t realize they grew into trees. Sizeable, 14-inch diameter
type size trees. So it was not a small undertaking. At the same time in August of 2018 when we
undertook the eradication of the buckthorn, we ran off full speed with an architect to build our
dream home and with an attached, if you will, living structure for my mother. We intended to do
that via connecting it by a skyway or a tunnel so that we met all of the city requirements. But, the
things that make the island beautiful and unique and magical also make it a very challenging
piece of property to build on. Again, there are bluffs. There are bluff setbacks. There are wetland
setbacks. There was only one sensible place to put the septic system. There is a lot of elevation in
the interior of the island so getting the grading right to get up that high is tricky business. Sadly,
about five months later after spending a fair amount of money in architectural fees, we bagged it.
We were demoralized. We couldn’t get it right. It was like putting together a puzzle and we
couldn’t seem to kind of crack the code to make it work, so we stopped. We let several months
go by. I did reach out to city staff and I had all sorts’ questions about variances and every time
we turned around we hit another complication and we just couldn’t get it to work. But after kind
of a cooling off period we took a second attempt at it but we stopped again because it just was
overwhelming. It was an emotionally overwhelming, and I know you may be thinking how can it
be so hard when there is that much space to work with? But again, all of the complexities layered
on top of each other make it a very challenging task. So I circled back with city staff another
time looking for more out-of-the-box solutions, if you will, and that’s when I discovered that
single-family residential was an option. So, we started looking at that and we realized that that
was a really big undertaking. As Sharmeen, the road coming down that services the island from
Lake Lucy Road would have to be widened considerably. There were, I think, nine or more
agencies that were involved in the original construction of the road and bridge in 1998-1999 and
so to bring sewer and water down, the only way we could get our head around that would be to
involve a developer and go through the whole subdividing of the island and that’s not what we
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
35
had in mind for the island. We were enamored with natural beauty of it and this felt like we
would have to get very creative and create lots and the size of the roads and the cul-de-sacs and
the infrastructure just made this a very undesirable option. That led us to the option to consider
the PUD which, the way I understand it, is it provides some flexibility in creating exceptions that
we are talking about here today but also requires, if you will, something in return, meeting the
higher standards, sprinklers, or the turnarounds for the fire trucks, the higher building standards.
We intend to build a green, being environmentally green with solar and geothermal and high
building standards, and high-quality windows, and recapturing rainwater for reuse, that type of
thing. So we intend to meet the higher standards in the conditions put upon the PUD request.
This seemed to be a much more sensible solution, not only for what we were trying to
accomplish, but really for all parties involved. The impact on the island is much lower than going
for single-family residential. It’s better for the community, for the neighborhood, for the island,
and so it seemed to be much more sensible and while I suppose the single-family residential is an
option, it’s not a very good option. We would like to preserve the integrity of the island, not only
now but into the future and we think this is a way to do that. I only have a few more comments if
you can bear with me for just a few more moments. I did have a chance to meet with the city and
county experts on some of the challenges that the island offers. I was able to walk the island with
Fire Chief Don Johnson… (coughing). I just got over COVID so pardon the cough here.
Weick: Thanks.
Wicka: I’m in the clear now but I can tell it is still affecting my throat. I was able to walk the
island with Fire Chief Don Johnson and he understandably had some concerns, some of them
that you stated. That’s why we had gone through, I went back to the bridge builder and designers
and it is and always was designed to carry not only construction trucks, but emergency vehicles
and fire trucks. I’ll come back and be happy to answer questions about that. We also
incorporated turnarounds for the fire trucks. I heard some of that commentary and concerns in
the previous PUD that you were discussing. So we have accounted for that. I also was able to
have a Zoom meeting with Terry Jeffery, Watershed Planning Manager with Bluff Creek. I also
learned quite a lot in my conversation with Terry and was very pleased because I know this is
high on everybody’s list, keeping the integrity of the water and the cleanliness of the lake. That’s
certainly a concern of ours. I was very pleased in that conversation with Terry. He was very
matter of fact. He knew exactly which five concerns he had that we needed to meet and we went
through them together. I won’t put words in his mouth because I’m sure he’s commented on his
own, but by the end of the conversation I think we, I think I can say both agreed that the island
actually handled all of these requirements very well, actually. We didn’t have any concerns
there. I’ll trust that he gave his own report and that it’s consistent with what I’m saying. The
driveway, the purpose for that driveway that runs further to the south that forks off was to service
the accessory dwelling unit. The reason for that, and I have a little bit of heartburn giving that up
I’ll be honest with you, but I’m willing to make that a condition is because it’s flat. If you can
see those topographic lines there it doesn’t climb the elevated area of the island. It runs along the
south side and is largely flat. That was intended to make it easier for my aging mother to be able
to go out and walk and get outside, frankly, and enjoy the island. But, as I said, we have agreed
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
36
to make it a condition. There were multiple comments on that assuming that’s still desirable we
have agreed to have the one driveway service both dwelling units. My final comment is I did
initiate some outreach to the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and that consisted of all lot
owners on Lake Lucy and they are the ones most impacted by any development that we do on the
island, whatsoever. So I did initiate some outreach there. Because of COVID we weren’t able to
organize any in-person meeting, but I did encourage them all to bring any questions or concerns
with me. I did hear from three of the parties. I was able to answer their questions. Most of them
were curiosities and clarification. I believe I have all of their support, at least I’m not aware of
anyone that doesn’t support it. I was able to provide them with clearer maps than were available
on the city website so they could get a better understand of what we were after. So, I feel pretty
good about engaging the neighborhood and as I said I heard from some of them but I think it was
all positive interaction and I hope and I believe that I have their support. Again, I would like to
thank you all for your consideration here and I’m happy to take any questions you might have.
Weick: Wow. Thank you so much. That offers a lot of color and clarity on what you’re trying to
do and thank you for hanging in there with your cough and giving us that. That’s really helpful. I
will open it up though. I know there were several questions that commission members had raised
that I know would have been properly answered by you. I don’t know if those have already been
answered but we’ll open it up to the commission members to either ask follow ups on those
questions or ask new questions.
McGonagill: Thank you for a very good presentation and walking us through this. You walked
with the Fire Chief so I would assume, talk to us about the bridge that there is a certain design
standard the bridge has been designed to and it was for construction equipment and for fire
equipment and it is your intention to maintain that standard in the bridge going forward?
Wicka: Yes it is Commissioner and thank you for the opportunity to come back around and
address the concerns around the bridge. Fire Chief Johnson was, we had quite a lot of back and
forth via email after our meeting and he was able to provide me with the specifications on the
two, I believe they are the two largest trucks, but they are also the two primary trucks that would
service the island in case of a fire. I did share that with the company that built the bridge. They
went to their engineers and shared with me that the bridge was designed and built to support
trucks of that size. That answers I think the question in terms of when it was originally built. I
think your question is a fair one in terms of ongoing upkeep and maintenance and as long as it’s
a reasonable interval so that, because I am sure there are cost implications that come with this,
but as long as there is a reasonable interval to recertify it with an engineering firm that it is still
capable or operating as designed, still capable of supporting those trucks, I would be happy to
incorporate that.
McGonagill: Thank you. I appreciate that because just like you I’ve got some elderly parents and
when I call emergency services I want them to be able to get to them, and it’s very true to you,
too. On the design, one of the questions I have for you is, I didn’t see it. I may have missed it
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
37
because I just probably missed it. There’s a two-story guest house and there is also an accessory
structure at the end of the first driveway. Is that a garage?
Wicka: I think it’s ultimately going to be a multi-purpose structure. It’s put there because as
someone was pointing out earlier we’re going to be responsible for a lot of private driveway
here. So I’m envisioning a plow in there and probably other utility-type tools and needs for the
island. We put it there so it was kind of closer to the access point of the island and also a little bit
out of the way although we intend to design it such that it’s equally attractive to the rest of the
structures on the island.
McGonagill: Thank you. That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Great. Thank you. Any other questions for our applicant?
Skistad: I don’t have a question I just have a, I guess a statement. My goal, my questions about
the limitations of the bedrooms was just to make sure we weren’t putting a limitation over the
property unnecessarily. That was the only goal with that. I think it sounds like a great project so
I’m for it so that was the reason for reason for those questions.
Weick: Great. Thank you.
Wicka: And thank you Commissioner for that thought. I appreciate it. When it was suggested
that it be limited we were agreeable to it because as previously stated the concept is just a space
for my mother and perhaps a caregiver. So thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if you want to open the public hearing.
Weick: I will. I was just giving people a second in case they wanted to speak. I always feel like
I’m talking over somebody. Thank you Commission members and thank you for, again, a really
thorough and honest appraisal of how you are going to use that beautiful piece of property so
thank you very much for joining us. At this time I will open the public hearing portion. If anyone
would like to come forward and speak and opinion on this matter may do so now. Sharmeen, you
already. I might be mixing my cases but I think you already summarized the emails for us, right?
Al-Jaff: I did.
Weick: Yes. Thank you. And those will be in the record and the telephone number has been up
on the screen for a little bit. Would you like to? Yeah, absolutely. So we have someone joining
us here in chambers. Again, as you’ve heard, just please speak very loudly into the microphone.
Frerichs: Thank you very much. I’m Roger Frerichs and we are neighbors on Lakeway Drive, the
street right over next to it. I didn’t come here with any particular speech in mind but I came with
less knowledge and so after hearing the discussion of the owner, it sounds like he’s trying to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
38
maintain the beauty that that island has and that’s why I think it should be something that we
should favor.
Weick: Thank you so much. I’m happy to agree. I do think it’sa , considering the alternatives, I
think it’s certainly a good use. Any phone calls?
Al-Jaff: I haven’t heard so far. None.
Weick: None. With that and with no one else here in chambers I will close the public hearing
portion of tonight’s matter and open to commissioner comment, discussion, and motion. And I
pre-empted a little bit there. It is getting late, I have to admit and I’m maybe getting a little
dreary. I offered my opinion there a little bit too soon but I am certainly in favor of this PUD. I
imagine that if there is concern from neighbors or public like myself, I was envisioning a typical
development that we look at where they come in and they grade it down, they clear out the trees,
they build four houses and four docks. You know what I mean? That option I think would be
disappointing at least to me and I imagine for some of the local residents as well. I would
imagine once seeing and hearing these plans it puts to rest those concerns of dramatically
changing the view of that island which I just don’t think will happen. I am certainly strongly in
favor of the PUD in this instance, and if things want to be added to it, we can certainly do that as
part of the motion.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you to stick with the other, just to the small amendment
we talked about on the bridge just for emergency access. I’m also there with you because, let’s
face it. This is privately owned. It’s property that someone has owned and purposed. They have
the constitutional right to develop it and they worked through the process and I think it’s about as
nice as one could imagine if he carries out the plans that he’s talking about it would be great. So,
yes I think it’s a good use of the property for a very unusual one.
Weick: Yeah. Sure.
McGonagill: It will add a lot to look of the lake in many ways. But I will be proposing the, some
amendment on the, just so the bridge remains within a certain level of usability by fire, by
emergency equipment. I’ll say it that way. And I’ll let staff sort out what it needs to look like.
Weick: Fair enough. How do the rest of you feel?
Von Oven: And therein lies the experience of Commissioner McGonagill because I’m sitting
here racking my brain trying to figure out how we amend this thing on the fly and get that all in
and he knows he can just rely on staff to do that. I’m in the same boat. It’s funny. One, what a
fantastic project both from the standpoint of I’m super jealous of what you are doing. This is
beautiful and what a great project. Two, it’s probably the first project that’s come through where
as a commissioner I have zero fear of us setting some sort of a precedent here because we’re
never going to see another property like this so, variance away here. It’s great. The third part is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
39
that I’m not at all worried about the applicant and his any lack of letting that bridge deteriorate.
He will have every reason in the world to ensure that emergency personnel can access that
property. The reason that I will support, however Commissioner McGonagill gets this done, is
for the next owner. For that owner down the road who might be renting the property out, which I
am also in favor of for long term and I’m glad that provision was put it there, to just ensure that
we don’t end up with a situation many, many years from now where someone is renting out the
property to someone else and they’re letting the bridge deteriorate. I do not want to put any
undue burden on Mr. Wicka for yearly engineering reviews of the bridge. I just don’t know how
that works. But finding a way where we ensure that for the long term that very unique structure
maintains safety standards without putting the undue burden on Mr. Wicka is what I would be in
favor of.
McGonagill: I support you in that regard. Five daughters, he’ll have 15 grandchildren pretty soon
and he will want emergency personnel in there.
Weick: Great. Those are great thoughts and great viewpoints. Go ahead.
McGonagill: Are you ready for a recommendation?
Weick: Sure.
McGonagill moved, Skistad seconded for the Planning Commission to recommend
approval of rezoning of the property located at 1601 Lake Lucy Road with an approximate
area of 9.03 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development-Residential
incorporating the attached standards and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision
recommendation, including an amendment that staff will work with the property owner to
develop appropriate safety standards for the continued maintenance of the bridge. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner McGonagill. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Skistad: I’ll second that.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We have a motion and a second. Any last minute
comment? Hearing none we will have a roll call vote and I will start with Commissioner Randall,
if he returned.
Weick: Again, thank you to everyone who prepared and good luck with the property and I think
this item does go to City Council.
Aanenson: Correct. Actually it goes on the 14th.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
40
Weick: December 14th. If you are following this item at home, December 14th in front of City
Council. Again, thank you to everybody and that is our final public hearing for this evening.
Would someone please note the Commission minutes from November 17th. Our last meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 17, 2020 as presented.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. Kate, are there any administrative presentations?
Aanenson: No. We did not have any City Council updates but I just wanted to apprise you of
something. I did receive an email from someone on 63rd Street, Mr. Meyer, who said he wasn’t
able to, he didn’t see the number flash across the screen. That was on the second item. So he
gave me his phone number and I will contact him tomorrow and get his concerns because that
item goes on the January City Council meeting. We’ll make sure that those concerns are
addressed and he may have an opportunity to speak so I’ll follow up on that. I appreciate the fact
that he emailed me right away and could catch it. I just wanted to let you know that this is our
last meeting of the year so we will be gathering January 4th and actually, we have four items that
will be in for sure. We have some other ones contemplating be we try to hold back once we get
to four just because it ends up being a long meeting. These were very different items, all of them,
and had a lot of complex issues. I appreciate your due diligence on that. So yes we will have a
meeting on January 4th. With that, that’s all I had Mr. Chair.
Weick: All right. I don’t have anything other than to say I thoroughly enjoy, I was going to say
love, but maybe that’s too strong. But I thoroughly enjoy working with this Planning
Commission. You guys are a lot of fun and make a very difficult Zoom-meeting effort very
pleasurable so thank you all of the Commission members. You guys are prepared and funny and
it’s awesome, so thank you. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn,
Skistad moved 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
10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Kim Meuwissen