CC Minutes 3-13-06
City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006
forward to seeing the report come back. We're pleased to see the highlights and the number of
areas where we made progress this year. I'm sure to Councilman Lundquist's standpoint, we're
not going to see any motors being rebuilt in the CIF, or at least hope that we're not as a way to
reduce our oil discharge. And I'm sure that's not the case, but to the city staff we thank you for
all your efforts on this and we look forward to seeing that report come back in June. Thank you.
Any other, to my knowledge there is no action required for the council this evening, other than
what we've completed.
Lori Haak: No, that's all.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much.
Lori Haak: Thank you.
DA VE & MARY.JO BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A
22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE (DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT) AND A 2.39% HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE-STALL GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCT A MODIFIED THREE STALL GARAGE ON A NONCONFORMING
CORNER LOT OF RECORD.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again you did look at this at your
last meeting on February 27th and you asked the staff to work with the applicant to see what we
could do to reduce the hard surface coverage. Just a reminder, the two lots on Minnewashta will,
one of the conditions we're doing is combining those so they have one lot of record, which we
believe is prudent. So that's one mitigation strategy would be to combine the two lots. And then
in working with the applicant, the issue was the garage across the street. The original proposal
had the garage coming out Red Cedar Point Road, and a three car garage. In working with the
applicant, we reduced the hard surface coverage and the garage size itself so it's a modified three
car garage. There will be two door and the actual access will be off of, so we reduce the hard
surface coverage on the driveway itself. So if you look in the staff report, we went from the 31.5
down to the 27, so ultimately again looking at the other side where the house sits with the grades
and the retaining walls and the driveway that they used to get to the house, it seemed at this point
ultimately there's changes we would look at trying to reduce that. They do do some shared
parking with the neighbor next door that we believe this is the best way to get those numbers
down and did recommend approval of that. And those conditions of approval are found in, on
page 10 of your staff report. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, you feel like as you've worked through this in the last couple or
three weeks that this is a good compromise? It looks like we've made some significant
improvements here and the applicant's supportive of it and gets them at least closer to what
they're looking for?
28
City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think the goal was to get a garage that they can put you know
more than a single garage, which is there in place, which was their goal, and because of the
topography next to the house, so I think in good faith the goal's always to try, as we stated before
with the variances that we try to get those movement towards compliance and we believe this
was what they.. .
Councilman Lundquist: And this leaves the driveway and the stairs.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Next to the house so that they can get to the house without having to
build some stairs and all that?
Kate Aanenson: Right. That became too complex and ultimately they made the other
modifications we looked at making some changes at that time.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So everything around the house stays the same. The only
changes are around the garage.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bangasser, Mrs.
Bangasser, are you in agreement with the proposal here or is there anything you'd like to address
council with?
Dave Bangasser: I'll be real brief. We are, we do find the compromise acceptable. Of the 7 I
just might point out one fact. Of the 7 properties in the immediate area, this reduced plan would
be the second smallest garage and we have the second largest amount of land there, so we do
think that that fact, along with the facts that we presented 2 weeks ago make it very clear that we
aren't deviating from the established standards for the neighborhood. We do think there are a
couple of positives as far as from the city standpoint, as Kate mentioned. We're combining two
non-conforming lots into one lot that does conform to the minimum lot size. In addition
currently don't have a garage that meets the minimum standards and we will have one that meets
that standard so with that we just ask your approval of this revised plat and we thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions of Mr. Bangasser? Very good. Thank you for taking the
time over the last week, or couple weeks to work with staff on this. We appreciate it. Any other
items? Questions on this. I'm sorry.
Councilman Lundquist: Did you want to ask for more comment on the.
Mayor Furlong: Public comment?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
29
City Council Meeting -March 13,2006
Mayor Furlong: Certainly, if there's a desire for public comment. If anybody in the public
would like to provide comment on this. Mrs. Paulsen, did you want to, have a question. Raise a
comment.
Janet Paulsen: I'm Janet Paulsen again. I certainly support Mr. Bangasser's request for a larger
garage. That's not my question. My question is combining the lots and their impervious
surfaces, and I'm wondering what are the parameters of doing something like that.
Mayor Furlong: For combining two lots into one?
Janet Paulsen: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Is that a legal question?
Kate Aanenson: I believe we addressed that last time too. It's a zoning lot so even though it is
allowed by ordinances to combine the two, and we believe that it's prudent therefore, obviously
Mr. Bangasser bought this lot. Somebody else could buy it and not attach to it. It is a lot of
record which would have some rights to it so by combining it, we've eliminated the possibility of
a separate structure on one.
Janet Paulsen: So would this be applicable to any lot in Chanhassen that wanted to enlarge their
impervious surface? They could buy a lot. I mean what are the parameters? The geographic
parameters. Across the street or kitty comer or down the street? Ijust don't know.
Kate Aanenson: Well we have those existing conditions. Lake Minnewashta, if you go on
Minnewashta Parkway where the lots have been segmented by the road. It happens. Again it
would be a lot of record. By doing, by combining it, making a zoning lot it gives you, affords
the city actually greater protection so.
Janet Paulsen: So this would only apply to a lot of record?
Kate Aanenson: Well you can always buy a part of the property next door to you or attach it to
your lot administratively. We've had that. Somebody wants to buy some of their neighbor's
property and attach it to their lot administratively, that doesn't require a subdivision. That's
another way to get more impervious surface too.
Janet Paulsen: But those are adjacent lots. I'mjust wondering what are the parameters.
Kate Aanenson: Well it's defined in the city code and that'd be the definition of a zoning lot. I
believe what you asked me last time was combining a lot, and there's a separate definition for lot
and a zoning lot as defined in the city ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. These are separate parcels I think, and I don't want to get into
nomenclature because I'm going to screw that up but this issue, when you raised it I know Mrs.
Paulsen at the Planning Commission and I think we talked about it last time too, having a street
divide a parcel, which is what this will become is a single parcel, Ms. Aanenson mentioned
30
City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006
some, to my knowledge, just looking at the County GIS system, that situation occurs directly to
the north of this parcel. I think is that Hickory that angles up to the north? There are 3 or 4
properties that have the same type of situation where the single parcel is divided by the public
street.
Janet Paulsen: So does that mean they're right across the street from each other or down the
street? Ijust don't know.
Mayor Furlong: In those that I've mentioned, I believe they are straight across the street from
each other.
Kate Aanenson: So the intent would be not to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to
combine it. There has to be some nexus there and proximity. We wouldn't allow someone to
buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it under zoning law.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that within our jurisdiction to determine?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: If they have to be.
Kate Aanenson: Adjacency, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean reasonable people would say you have to, you know
they'd have to be adjacent for it to make sense. We have jurisdiction to.
Kate Aanenson: I believe so. I'll double check with the City Attorney, yes.
Roger Knutson: Yes, what we're saying is, but for the street they're abutting and when you use
the definition of abutting, it's very common to say even if you're divided by a street you're still
abutting. If it's down the street and around the comer, then certainly it wouldn't meet our
criteria.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure. It's an interesting question, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or is there anybody else who wanted
to make public comment? I'll bring it back to council for our discussion then. Seems that we've
made some progress over the last 2 weeks since we first heard this. Is there any other
discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff with the findings of facts
presented.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
31
City Council Meeting -March 13,2006
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard
setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a
modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the
following conditions:
1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and
extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done
prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if
completed.
2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a
depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area.
3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or
tearing the roots.
4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the
opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the
slope necessary to create a level floor.
5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area.
6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods.
7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any
possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks.
8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage.
9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to
demonstrate how the site will drain.
10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same
Parcel Identification Number.
11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
ROSSA VIK ADDITION. 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT ARILD
ROSSA VIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR
32