Loading...
04.15.2025 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 15, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Soller STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; and Eric Maass, Community Development Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: Andy Ganzmo Xpand Inc. Christine Bloom 7030 Lucy Ridge Lane Bryan Anderson 4149 Avondale Street, Minnetonka Heather Wudtke 840 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. (Cancelled – No Variance Required) Consider Setback Variance for Pioneer Ridge (Planning Case 25-01) 2. Consider Rear Yard Setback Variance for 7030 Lucy Ridge Lane (Planning Case #25- 05) Rachel Jeske, Planner, stated that this was Planning Case #25-05 for 7030 Lucy Ridge Lane. She said they were requesting a variance for PUD Ordinance Number 640. She reviewed the pyramid of discretion for variances and explained that the city had a high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant was seeking a deviation from established standards. She said it was a quasi-judicial decision. She displayed a map and explained that Lucy Ridge Lane was zoned Residential Planned Unit Development and was 0.37 acres. She reviewed the plat site plan to show how the setbacks were established. She stated there was a front corner setback and a front yard setback. She clarified that the front lot line was established by the City Code Section 1-2, which stated that, for a corner lot, the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street is considered the front lot line. She provided four images as examples to show where the corner setbacks would be determined for corner lots. She stated that they were requesting a variance for a sport court that was 22.1 feet from the rear setback. She said that the applicant wanted an indoor activity space for the children, and the west side was said be the best location. She reviewed the staff summary and assessment and explained that the variance had to be in harmony with the comprehensive plan, that there needed to be a practical difficulty, could not be based on Planning Commission Minutes – April 15, 2025 2 economic considerations, the plight must be due to circumstances unique to the property, and not be created by the landowner, and would not alter the essential character locality. She reviewed the staff recommendation and said that the requested variance did not adhere to the criteria required by the ordinance. She stated that it did not adhere to the PUD, lacked practical difficulty in adhering to the ordinance based on unique natural aspect to the property not caused by the owner, the variance would have economic impacts, the plight of the landowner is a result of decisions made by the owner to revise the orientation of their home on the property, and the proposed addition would not adhere to the required rear yard setback and would be inconsistent with other corner lots in the development. She reviewed the alternative recommendation and recognized that it would only be a 3-foot encroachment and did not seem unreasonable. She offered to answer any questions. Chairman Noyes requested to see the slide with the plat with the building addition. He asked if the 2.9-foot shortage was across the entire west side and would be parallel to the property line. Ms. Jeske answered that it was pretty consistent all the way across but was a little bit closer on the north side. Commissioner Jobe asked why the house was shifted. Ms. Jeske responded that it was the preference of the property owner. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the location of the addition was proposed on the side due to the beautiful windows facing the pedestrian paths. Ms. Jeske answered it was partially because of the windows and the grade of the property. There were a few reasons. Commissioner Rosengren asked if what was designated as the front and rear of the property did not change at all based on the house orientation. Ms. Jeske answered that it was correct and said the front lot line was designated as the shorter side facing the road, not based on where the front door was located. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the front was always defined this way. Ms. Jeske confirmed this information, but said in other zoning districts, in terms of setbacks, there are front yard setbacks on both sides coming off the road and two side yard setbacks on the internal lot lines. Commissioner Trevena said that the applicant stated that the original survey should have a 22- foot setback, but it was 25 feet. Ms. Jeske responded that the applicant was working off that survey and setback. She said that the original survey they received did not have the proposed sport court. They would typically consider a sport court as a pad on the ground which could encroach into the rear setback, but an indoor sport court could not. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was any difference since it was a sport court rather than a bedroom or living room addition, and if that impacted staff’s recommendations. Ms. Jeske answered that a home addition is reviewed as a home addition regardless of purpose. She said a bedroom for another child, based on necessity, might be a more reasonable request, but that is up to the Planning Commission’s discretion. Planning Commission Minutes – April 15, 2025 3 Commissioner Rosengren asked if it was an emotional response, whether they deem it as necessary as a functional part of the home. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, answered that at the end of the day, an addition to a principal structure, regardless of its intended use, is still a part of the principal structure. It is appropriate to review it for the setback requirements. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that it did not matter what the purpose of the structure was going to be. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Grover asked if it was unusual for the house to be turned and if it would meet setback requirements. Ms. Jeske answered that she had not seen a house oriented a different way from the address, but the property owner can design the house as they choose. If the side yard setback were on the other side, it was only required to be a ten-foot setback. Commissioner Grover asked if the rear area of the house met the rear yard setback, since it was at an angle. Mr. Maass answered that it would be close to the 25-foot setback. Commissioner Olmstead said it looked like half of the property drains where they are proposing to build at. He asked what would happen there. Ms. Jeske responded that the applicant proposed berming to improve the existing drainage. Andy Ganzmo, Xpand Incorporated, explained that the house was oriented, and the side yard was coded as the rear yard setback. He said they were still building within the as-built survey that was submitted. They found that the survey was not correct. He said it was acting as a side- yard setback rather than a rear-yard setback. Commissioner Rosengren asked if it was feasible for the addition to be 2.9 feet shorter so they would not need a variance. Mr. Ganzmo responded that it was a multi-use space, so they are trying to maximize the layout. They would prefer the additional space. Commissioner Olmstead asked how the people at the 1830 property think about this project. Christine Bloom, 7030 Lucy Ridge Lane, said that the builder was going to build a model home that was going to face a different direction. They loved the look of a side-loading garage, so they ultimately shifted the direction of the home. They did not realize that it impacted the survey. They said they have spoken with all the neighbors and others have small kids and some others have sport courts, so they expressed excitement to have another sport court in the neighborhood. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes asked if they were setting a precedent that would cause problems for the city, Planning Commission, or residents moving forward. He said there were extenuating circumstances. He could understand that they would approve the variance because of the extenuating circumstances, particularly the orientation of the home on the lot. He said that based Planning Commission Minutes – April 15, 2025 4 on what he heard, the orientation of the home created an issue and the requirement for the variance. He understood what the applicant was doing and did not think it was an egregious ask. Commissioner Rosengren said that just because you change the orientation of the house, the variance was necessary. He said he was less inclined to approve it, but it was only two-and-a-half feet. He said he was leaning towards approval. Commissioner Trevena asked about the precedent-setting and how to take into account the variance. She said each variance was different. Mr. Maass confirmed that each variance was looked at alone. City staff might look at past actions, but technically, one variance should not be acted on based on past action on a different variance. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the sport court was always intended to be a part of the design of the house. Mr. Maass responded that the home had been occupied for over a year. Ms. Bloom answered that they initially considered building a sport court, but did not have the funds to do so originally. They had some deaths in the family, which allowed them to have the funds for the sport court. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was something that should have been enacted as part of the process to help better explain the setbacks, so they did not have a problem down the road. Mr. Maass said when the building permit came in for the home, the staff reviews the setbacks and property lines. He said that the home meets all the requirements, but the surveyor made a mistake on the property setback line. He said that the city did not draw the survey and the city does not certify these surveys. The Applicant used their survey to draw the proposed plans. Commissioner Jobe asked if other properties were impacted by the error. Mr. Maass answered that they have not seen other properties impacted by the error. Commissioner Olmstead asked if there were any other concerns about down-the-road problems with the variance. Ms. Jeske answered that the variance would only apply to the subject property and not serve as a precedent for any other corner lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Maass clarified he was not asking about other corner lots. Commissioner Jobe asked about the other options that staff mentioned. Ms. Jeske said that they could do an alternative location or an outdoor sport court, but the homeowner has requested an indoor sport court on the west side of the home. Commissioner Trevena asked if the request was denied, the applicant would have to do a redesign, but there would still be a path forward. The path forward might not be the preferred path. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the alternative motion language was correct. Mr. Maass responded that it should read the conditions of approval as opposed to conditions of denial. Planning Commission Minutes – April 15, 2025 5 Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested rear setback variance for the construction of a sport court at 7030 Lucy Ridge Lane, subject to the conditions of denial and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. The motion carried with a vote of 5-1. Commissioner Jobe voted Nay. 3. Consider Front Yard Setback Variance for 840 Carver Beach Rd (Planning Case 2025- 06) Rachel Jeske, Planner, explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from Section 20- 615, which was setbacks in the RSF zoning district. She reviewed the pyramid of discretion for variances. She explained the location at 840 Carver Beach Road, which was zoned residential single-family and was on the corner of Carver Beach Road and a platted right-of-way with no road on it. She said that the land use was low-density residential. She said the applicant was requesting a twelve by twenty-four approximate addition to their home. The setback was in line with the existing legal non-conforming setback. She said that the subject property was established with a plat in 1927, and the existing front yard setback has a lawful non-conforming status. The applicant is requesting an addition located at an existing nonconforming setback and is not requesting to further encroach into the front yard setback. She stated it would not exceed the property’s maximum impervious percentage allowed. She said that the proposal met the following criteria listed in the staff report. Chairman Noyes said that the new structure would be the same size and distance to the lot line, and given the age of the property, it seemed like an open-and-shut case. He thought they were dealing with a lot that was platted a long time ago, and they are doing their best to conform. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the need for the variance. Ms. Jeske answered that a variance is triggered when you are increasing an existing non-conformity. She said that the non- conformity was increasing in width. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the only thing that was out of line was the front yard setback. Ms. Jeske answered that since more of the property would not be adhering to the front yard setback, that was the reason for the variance request. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested front yard setback variance for the expansion of a home at 840 Carver Beach Road, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. Planning Commission Minutes – April 15, 2025 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, said that on May 6 meeting the commission would talk about attached and internal accessory dwelling units. They would have a proposed ordinance and a public hearing. They had conversations with the City Council. The City Council is also working on detached accessory dwelling units. He said they would discuss this topic at a future Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Noyes asked if the conversation was related to the detached townhomes discussion. Mr. Maass answered that the city allows accessory dwelling units through a variance process. The previous variance requests for accessory dwelling units had all been approved by the Planning Commission. He said that there was likely an opportunity to remove it from a variance process to an administrative process. Commissioner Rosengren asked about their previous workshop on detached accessory dwelling units. Mr. Maass responded that the City Council reviewed their conversations and had two additional workshops, and they were now being brought forward with an ordinance. He said that the detached accessory units were still in conversation at the City Council. He said residents were expressing more interest in detached and attached accessory dwelling units. Commissioner Rosengren asked if they had a similar conclusion to the Planning Commission after their workshop. Mr. Maass answered that it was somewhat similar, but there were some concerns about renting with detached accessory dwelling units. Mr. Maass said that the city received a land-use application for the Santa Vera apartments, which were anticipated to be discussed at the first meeting in May. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director