Loading...
PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 12 Chair von Oven asked if that would be part of the motion or separately. Ms. Aanenson replied it would be after they make the motion, they would add that the Planning Commission would also like the City Council to consider the following. Commissioner Schwartz wants to be sure the language is accurate and appropriate and asked if the City Attorney or staff needs to look at this further to get the exact language down. Chair von Oven noted this is a recommendation and ratification of whatever language happens at the City Council level. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans, received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The Planning Commission would like to note that they recommend City Council evaluate the requirement to build the stub/right-of-way at this time versus waiting until there is an actual need. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. 3609 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK AND OTHER VARIANCES Associate Planner Young-Walters gave the staff report on the item, noting the Applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance to accommodate the construction of a single family home. If decided by less than a 3/4 majority of the Planning Commission the item will go before the City Council on October 10; if decided by 3/4 majority or higher and not appealed it will be decided in four days at the close of the appeal window. Mr. Young-Walters noted it is a riparian property, located on a peninsula with lakeshore on two sides, these properties have a 20,000 minimum lot area, 10-foot sideyard setbacks, 75-foot shoreland setback, 25% maximum lot cover, structures are limited to a 35-foot maximum height and are permitted one water- oriented accessory structure (WOAS) which can be set as close as 10 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). This parcel is 16,501 square feet with 13.4% lot cover, a non-conforming 4.5-foot west sideyard setback, a non-conforming 65-foot south shoreland setback, a non- conforming 79-foot lot width, a private street bisects the property, and a portion of the northern lot is located within the floodplain. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and build a new single-family home on the parcel, they will bring the non-conforming 4-foot sideyard setback into compliance, they feel the variance is similar to what has been previously granted in the area, and the building area is constrained by the two shoreland setbacks. Mr. Seidl noted findings that there is adequate room on the property to build a home that would meet all setback requirements. As such, Water Resources and Engineering cannot support the requested variance. He noted it would reduce the size of the home being proposed. He stated stormwater treatment in the area is deficient and there is a proposed project in the Capital Improvement Program that will invest public dollars into constructing public stormwater Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 13 infrastructure in this area to provide more treatment. If the variance were approved Mr. Seidl would ask that the Planning Commission look into creating the natural shoreline buffer areas which have many benefits including filtering pollutants from stormwater, creating wildlife habitat, and improving the aesthetics and value of the land and adjoining properties. The Applicant could dedicate a small portion of the property as drainage and utility easement where funding from the Capital Improvement Program could construct a proposed rain garden in the one area that would solve some of the issues brought up from the Applicant. Mr. Young-Walters noted staff agrees and appreciates removing the non-conforming sideyard setback, however he showed on screen there is a reasonable building pad clear of the shoreland setback. The Applicant is requesting a house that is about 80 feet from the furthest point of the screen porch to the furthest point of the deck. The City feels the private drive bisecting the property does force a southern shift which is unique and grants some variance from the shoreland setback but not to the 22.3 foot requested. Past practice has been to limit shoreland setbacks to extent of existing non-conformity, in this case a 10-foot setback variance. Staff concluded the extent of the variance request is primarily the result of the Applicant’s design choice. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the 22.3-foot variance and approve a 10-foot variance in keeping with the existing non-conformity. Commissioner Schwartz noted in the staff report it is indicated that this would set precedence so subsequent Applicants would also want the same amount. Mr. Young-Walters stated that is definitely one of staff’s concerns. In the staff report he went through all 21 variances that have been granted in the area and there are two where the City has allowed someone to go closer than the non-conforming setback. One was in the mid-1980’s and the house was not actually built that close to the lake, and the second was due to the very unique circumstances of a lot and the City Council decided to give them an additional 3 feet to have adequate off-street parking. In this case, while staff felt the private drive justified some variance, it did not justify the extent of the variance being requested. Brad Kerber has been working with the Applicant on this plan and they have redesigned multiple times to have courtesy toward the neighbors. He hopes the letter from the Sanders paints the picture of what they are hoping to do on the property and fit in with the neighborhood and respect their neighbors’ views. Commissioner Alto asked about the square footage of the home. Mr. Kerber replied the main level is 2,270 square feet with an upper level. Mr. Young-Walters calculated just under 5,000 square feet of living area. Mr. Kerber noted it would be a slab on grade with one level above. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 14 Gary Renneke, 3607 Red Cedar Point Road, lives next door and has enjoyed getting to know the Sanders. He asked to understand where things stand now and noted he does not think he has an objection to the current staff recommendation. He asked if they can show the property lines and proposed setback lines and asked if that would make everything line up or if someone will be sticking out in front of someone else. Chair von Oven clarified the recommendation from staff is that wherever the end of the Applicant’s deck ends right now is where the end of anything in the future would end regarding future development. The setback is the setback whether it is the house or deck, it would be exactly what it is today. Mr. Renneke stated that is a little more relief than he needs, he understands the City’s constraints on that, but if it went farther out than that the Rennekes would not scream bloody murder on it. Mr. Kerber showed an overhead view of the property on screen for Mr. Renneke and demonstrated the proposed home and covered deck. Mr. Renneke noted it looks like it extends further south than his house. Mr. Young-Walters noted if they want a covered deck he thinks that will need a lot cover variance and then they are talking about something quite different than staff is understanding. The survey does not include that deck area in the lot cover, in which case Mr. Young-Walters would recommend to table the item because it will change how staff looks at it. Chair von Oven asked Mr. Renneke about his thoughts about a covered deck versus an uncovered deck. Mr. Renneke replied if the deck is not covered he has no objection to it at all. If it is covered he wants to understand if he is looking to the southwest, is it now interfering with the view he has. He does not know whether he would object or approve until he knows what it actually is and where it would actually be. Chair von Oven noted the original application was 12 feet further than it is today. Jada Sanders, Applicant, showed a photo on screen with a line drawn from the decks of the two homes. She noted they are asking to build their deck to the same distance as the neighbors’ decks. They would still not come in front of the green line on screen and she noted the decks and Gary’s patio (which was inherited) are non-conforming setbacks. Commissioner Alto asked if the intention is to enclose it into a porch or have a deck. Ms. Sanders replied the intention is to have it open, to have a pergola over a dining table in the middle, and possibly have a roof over a future hot tub. Commissioner Alto asked Mr. Young-Walters if this needs to be tabled. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 15 Mr. Young-Walters stated the Applicant has roughly 250 square feet to work with in lot cover. In theory doing quick math, could a roof go over the hot tub? Yes, and that would then cut off any future shed or anything else on the property. Ultimately, the Applicant can choose how to re- appropriate lot cover within the parcel. He has double-checked the math on the survey and is fairly confident roofs are not included in the deck portion. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether they should table until staff has an opportunity to review the plans. Commissioner Noyes thinks the Commission should discuss the variance before sending the Applicant off so if they have to alter plans they understand where the Commissioners sit. Mr. Renneke is not sure drawing the line from his deck is the right spot because he has corner windows on the house so sightlines there could be affected. Again, a basic deck he does not care about but if it has roof, walls, screens, it is all sight/view things he is concerned about. He commented about drainage issues in the area and would like to make sure whatever construction does not adversely affect the current stormwater runoff for his property which is not problematic right now. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the two neighboring properties are non- conforming today with the lakeside setbacks. Mr. Young-Walters noted the one to the east definitely is, he thinks the primary structure to the west meets the lakeshore setback but the deck and patio encroach into it. Commissioner Noyes asked if drawing those lines is a valid part of the construction. As it relates to the setbacks themselves the City is measuring it on the merits of the project rather than where non-conforming structures sit next to it. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative and said staff’s perspective is the strictest interpretation of the Ordinance. To grant a variance they need to find a unique circumstance of the property in question that justifies the requested variance. That is where staff’s conclusion was that while neighbors got to go closer because they built before current rules were in place, when he looks at the Applicant’s parcel he believes it can be achieved with a smaller variance. Commissioner Noyes follows two tenets as a Commissioner: first, people have a right to develop their land in Chanhassen but there are rules around it. The second is that he is not a big fan of creating precedent, especially on lakeshore. He is very concerned and noted the most egregious variance in the area was three feet. This would basically change the Ordinance going forward; if they grant 22 feet that is then the standard. He understands this is a unique property which requires unique solutions but that solution may be a design change to make this better fit into the space. Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 16 Mr. Young-Walters said historically the City has given some large shoreland setback variances in this area. In his memory there are three times the City has granted a shoreland setback variance in excess of 20 feet. However, staff’s policy has always been that they will never recommend going closer to the lake than the existing non-conformity. What Commissioner Noyes was referencing was one where the City Council allowed it to go three feet closer than the existing non-conformity and he believes it was a 49-foot setback which is probably the largest granted because the road was built partially on their property which was the unique circumstance. Commissioner Soller asked if they grant a 10-foot variance the setback would be 65 feet and if they build the existing structure today what does that go out to. Mr. Young-Walters stated it would need a 10-foot variance. He clarified as a non-conforming use the Applicant has the right to bulldoze the house and build a new house in exactly that footprint without any variances. Commissioner Goff noted Commissioner Noyes’ comments were straight on and the City also grandfathers in if there is an existing structure, they give preference to that line and will hold that as a setback. Commissioner Schwartz stated setbacks and buffers are there for a reason unless there was a unique circumstance and there does not appear to be one in this case that cannot be solved by a redesign of the home. A member of the public asked if the houses on each side would redevelop, they would be grandfathered in and could build back to the patio area. Chair von Oven clarified the City, in recommending the granting of a variance, would regularly recommend holding the line where it exists today. If the homes went through a redevelopment they would still have to come before the Commission to request a variance, but staff would draw the line at the existing non-conformity but not go past it. Mr. Young-Walters clarified noting he does not believe it likely that staff would recommend the principal structure to cover the deck and patio area. Staff would say the principal structure can go to the edge of the existing principal structure, a new deck could go to the edge of the existing deck, and a new patio could go to the edge of the existing patio because under non-conforming law that is what they are allowed to do. They would not allow an intensification of that non- conformity within the shoreland, for instance converting the deck to living area. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance, and approves a 10-foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck, 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.