PC Minutes 10-7-08
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2008
Acting Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe
and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kurt Papke and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner and Angie Auseth, Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
PETERS VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SHORELAND SETBACK
TO EXPAND AN EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING DECK INTO A PORCH
AND ADDING ANOTHER DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 7301 LAREDO DRIVE. APPLICANT: RICHARD
AND EUNICE PETERS, PLANNING CASE 08-19.
Public Present:
Name Address
Richard & Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive
Jerry Fox 7300 Laredo Drive
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Laufenburger: I have one. You stated that you didn’t know when the patio was constructed, is
that correct?
Auseth: Yes.
Laufenburger: I’ll ask that question of the applicant when they get it, but tell me this. Would the
patio be subject to any restrictions or variance or anything?
Auseth: The 75 foot setback is for any structure so we just started back in 2006 I believe to
require a zoning permit for patios and other structures that don’t require a building permit so that
we can catch these things before they happen.
Laufenburger: Sure. So what you’re saying is if the patio was constructed prior to 2006, then it
would not be subject to any variance?
Auseth: We didn’t have a permitting process for it. It would still have to meet the setback.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: Okay. Would it have to meet the setback after the fact even though it’s been in
place for a period of 2 or 3 years? What would staff’s view on that be?
Al-Jaff: They would, if it pre-dates the ordinance, if a structure existed prior to adoption of the
ordinance, then it’s grandfathered in. It becomes legal non-conforming.
Laufenburger: So non-conforming but they can continue to use it?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. And you, do I understand this correctly too staff, that you said that the
structure that they’re asking to build above that would not change the, what’s the term you used?
The impervious coverage, is that correct?
Auseth: Correct. Because the deck was constructed over a patio, so.
Laufenburger: Actually has it been constructed already?
Auseth: No. The existing deck, the 15 by 20 foot, there was a patio there prior to that deck
being built.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Auseth: So those hard cover calculations are already included.
Laufenburger: Okay. So whether there’s a deck over that portion or whether there’s an enclosed
structure over the top of that, it wouldn’t change that.
Auseth: Right.
Laufenburger: I was referring to the patio which is the lower level patio.
Auseth: Sure.
Laufenburger: Could you go back to the property for a moment. This, I’m talking about the one
around which the table and the deck chairs, it looks like outside the walkout.
Auseth: Yes.
Laufenburger: Okay. That’s the patio I’m referring to. Is that subject to ordinance at this time?
Auseth: That’s the patio that we were saying we don’t know when that was installed.
Laufenburger: And ordinances to cover that were in, were enacted in 2006?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Auseth: There was a zoning permit enacted in 2006 which we use to catch these things before
they happen without, if this was constructed prior to 2006, there was not a permitting process for
it.
Laufenburger: So it’s, they would be legal non-conforming.
Al-Jaff: May I add one thing?
Laufenburger: Please do.
Al-Jaff: One of the things that we adopted, knowing that individuals want to overlook the lake.
They want to construct a water oriented structure. And that was a request that we saw quite
often. That’s when the ordinance was adopted and it was to limit the size of those structures to
250 square feet.
Laufenburger: Say that number again.
Al-Jaff: 250 square feet.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Al-Jaff: But that structure had to be detached. That was key. So you can say a boat house for
instance along the lake, or.
Laufenburger: A gazebo.
Al-Jaff: A detached deck or a gazebo, and there is a height limitation and there are a few things
that were required as well.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Al-Jaff: But the key was water oriented structure, detached from the rest of the house, not to
exceed 250 square feet.
Laufenburger: Okay. I’m going to ask you one last question. This is hypothetical but let’s
assume that this patio did not exist today. Would the applicant have to file a permit to construct
that patio?
Al-Jaff: They would apply for a zoning permit.
Laufenburger: Zoning permit. And would the zoning permit be granted based on the guidance
that’s in place today?
Auseth: The patio would have to meet the 75 foot shoreland setback.
Laufenburger: Good.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Dillon: So you’d be getting a variance for that one too.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Dillon: Right.
Laufenburger: Okay. Alrighty. That answers my question. Thank you very much. Thank you
Chair.
Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: So these other variances that were requested, I guess there’s the 95-9. That’s an 8 foot
shoreline so that’s kind of like in a similar boat. Pardon the expression.
Auseth: Right.
Dillon: The other ones were front and, oh the first one was a shoreline.
Auseth: The first one was a shoreline.
Dillon: Alright. So was 85 the year that it was granted?
Auseth: Yes.
Dillon: So these are old. Alright. You know I don’t have any more questions.
Larson: Kathleen.
Thomas: Yeah, I do have a question. So back in 1996 when they came in and they originally
had gotten this variance for the deck that they have there now, if they had decided at that point
and just made it instead of a deck, could they have made it into a 3 season porch at that point or
is it, how, I was asking if it was just like a bad timing issue. You know like as if had they asked
for it then, you know would it have been any different of any answer than it is today? Sorry, I
just you know, I just wonder if it, if it was just a bad you know, because I feel like you know
sometimes I know that happens you know when we put in place things to protect different things.
You know bluffs or that kind of stuff that I understand so I was just trying to see if maybe.
Al-Jaff: I can’t speak for staff as to what they were thinking at that time.
Thomas: Sure.
Al-Jaff: Or what the Planning Commission was thinking or City Council when they made their
recommendation. However, we always, whenever we look at a request we always evaluate do
they have reasonable use of their property? And what constitutes reasonable use? When you are
next to a lake, you need to enjoy a deck and be able to overlook the lake. That can be
accomplished from the deck and from this side of the house. Do you need, so the question now
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
becomes do you need to enlarge the home to truly enjoy the home? Staff’s recommendation is
that currently they have reasonable use of the property. They have an existing deck. There’s an
existing patio.
Dillon: So just to go back. So these other variances that were granted you know, was there a
hardship or something like that involved with them? It’s probably way before anyone’s time
here so I don’t know if we can answer that question but you know, was it the first deck they were
putting on these houses to use the lake or does anyone know the details on that? Because
precedent is kind of like been set in a few of these cases. I’m just kind of wondering to you
know, not be inconsistent.
Al-Jaff: We go back to the applicant has reasonable use of the property. They’ve already been
granted a variance to put on the deck and.
Dillon: Yeah. I get that.
Thomas: I do have, I have one more question. Sorry. Okay. I just know in the, it said also we
could, they could put on an, like an addition in the front or the side, is that correct?
Auseth: Yes.
Thomas: And then I guess my question is where?
Auseth: Well, within the required setbacks and there would have to be, as part of the layout of
the home but there’s room, if you look at the survey, there’s room to.
Thomas: Like to the right? I just, just so I know.
Auseth: Sure. As long as they stay within that 10 foot side yard setback. So if you look to the
north side of the property.
Thomas: Like where that little half circle, that what you mean?
Auseth: On that half circle portion. As long as they stay within that, outside of the 75 foot
setback and outside of the 10 foot side yard setback, that could be a possibility if the intent is to
expand the living space. Staff was saying that there were other options as far as.
Thomas: Yeah I just wanted to, yeah. See where staff was thinking in that, just so I knew too.
Okay, thanks.
Keefe: Just a follow-up on that. I mean did you get it through any evaluation or did the
applicant do any evaluation of a possible addition on that side of the house? It looks like, what is
that, the south side? What is the orientation?
Auseth: This is north. So the.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Keefe: The page is facing north/south, okay. Where that half circle is towards the bottom side
of the house as we’re looking at the page.
Auseth: Right. Or there can be additional, there’s space within the 30 foot front yard setback as
well so there’s room within the buildable area for expansion.
Keefe: Well I’m thinking of you know is there a spot that they could get enjoyment of the lake.
I mean I don’t know how this house lays out and maybe that is a garage over there and it makes
absolutely no sense to put there but you know I’m just curious if there is room without any, and
was that ever discussed with the applicant or did the applicant consider that?
Auseth: I’m not sure if the applicant considered that or not but there is space within that half
circle area.
Keefe: Okay. Potentially. Describe for me just a little, it’s more of a definitional question. Just
the enhancing of the non-conformance is really means what in this case? I mean when you say
enhancing a non-conformance.
Al-Jaff: It’s intensifying the non-conformity. We’re turning.
Keefe: The non-conformity here is that you have a deck that’s.
Al-Jaff: That encroaches into the 75 foot setback.
Keefe: Yes. Yeah.
Al-Jaff: So now you’re taking the structure that is an accessory structure at that time, and by
enclosing it and we often see porches that are 3 season porches. They are used year round pretty
much. That becomes a living space. That’s an intense, you’re intensifying a use from accessory
to part of the primary structure.
Keefe: Well and you’re leading to me, to my question which is, is there something greater in
terms of, that they can do with this? I wouldn’t quite go all the way to you know say a four
season. You know is there something inbetween that they can do, or is anything that they do
beyond what it currently is an intensification? Interpreted as an intensification.
Al-Jaff: Once you enclose the space it becomes an intensification.
Keefe: Three season, even 3 season, okay. Alright.
Larson: Anybody else?
Laufenburger: I had one last question.
Larson: Okay, go ahead.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: So they’re asking for a variance of two things. Number one, intensifying the
usage of the existing deck. And they’re also asking for approval to build a deck above the floor
level patio.
Auseth: Right.
Al-Jaff: Well in reality the intensification of the existing deck becomes a moot issue because
you’re taking that space and converting it completely into another structure.
Laufenburger: What I’m trying to figure out is, if the intensification of the existing deck alone
was the request, or if simply adding a deck, I’m going to call it kind of a runway because it looks
like it goes in front of the bay window. Would either of those elements alone meet the standard
of acceptance, or would the, again I’m asking hypothetical question. Would staff recommend
denial of either of those individually?
Al-Jaff: Based upon the findings that we had in the staff report, when we compare it to what the
guidelines of.
Laufenburger: Yep.
Al-Jaff: The ordinance.
Laufenburger: That’s what I’m asking you to do.
Al-Jaff: Requirements are. It is staff’s opinion that they currently do have reasonable use of the
property. There is no demonstrated hardship and as such we would recommend denial of the
request.
Laufenburger: Okay. But to be clear, they are asking for approval of both an intensification of
the existing deck, enclosing it, and adding that runway deck across the lake facing portion.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Chair.
Dillon: If it was only enclosing the one deck, would they even have to be here?
Auseth: They would. As it’s intensifying what was approved in the original variance.
Dillon: I see.
Larson: So the new, bigger deck without the walls, that’s a problem too?
Auseth: Yes, because it doesn’t meet the 75 foot setback.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: And do we know, you may have already covered this. The potential, the site has a
potential for additional site coverage on the lot. Is that where, that’s on your page 3 just below
the picture. You’ve got that written. Is that where you’re saying it should be either in the front
of the house or the side of the house or anywhere but within what they want to do?
Auseth: If the intent is to provide, or expand the livable area, there are other places in which that
can be achieved on the site.
Larson: But do we know what the floorplan of the house is? I mean the places that you’re
thinking that would be a better spot, does it even make sense to do so? I mean say if it’s on the
front of the house and the room where you say it should, could be is a bedroom or a bathroom or
something that really potentially you would not be able to add onto. You know I suspect that
they’re looking at this as being able to expand the enjoyment of the house, which I don’t know.
Okay. I guess that’s all I have anyway. Anybody else?
Dillon: So I’m just kind of looking at the application here and it says requesting variance to
transform present deck. Okay, we get that. And then relocate the deck. What’s getting moved?
Auseth: I think that’s interpreted as that additional deck so now that the one deck will be gone,
the new deck will take it’s place.
Laufenburger: I think by definition they’re saying our existing deck will become a sun room.
Therefore the deck is no longer there and this, that runway that I call it will be the deck.
Dillon: Oh.
Laufenburger: So the terminology the applicant is using it just to describe how they, I don’t, we
can ask the applicant but my guess is they’re not going to pick up the deck that exists and re-
frame it in front of the house. I think they’re going to take new wood. You know new footings.
New wood and then build a sun room on top of the frame. That would be my guess. That’s how
I would do it.
Dillon: Choice of words is confusing because nothing’s getting relocated. Something new is
getting built.
Larson: Okay. Have we got an applicant? Come on up. State your name and address for the
record please.
Rich Peters: Okay. My name’s Rich Peters and I live at 7301 Laredo Drive. I think you’ve got
a pretty good idea. No, we’re not relocating the deck. We’re just putting a different deck,
putting a deck in a different place. This house is a 1960’s Bob Schoeller walkout rambler.
They’re all over the older part of Chanhassen and it has limited space. We put the deck on. We
moved there in ’94. We put the deck on. Built it over the top of a, what do you call it? It was a
patio. Built up patio. You can see in the picture.
Laufenburger: Something that existed before?
8
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Rich Peters: Oh yeah. It was I assume part of the original house, wasn’t it? In 1960, yeah. But
it was 2 feet below the floor. The top floor so we built a deck on that. Now after being empty
nesters for quite a while we have grandchildren. Not living with us, but grandchildren around a
lot, and the house gets a little cramped you know with all the kids around and stuff so we’d like
to just be able to use the deck more than 3 months out of the year. Have a little more time to use
it. As far as putting additional, could we build it somewhere else? The top part of that picture,
the north side would not give any room at all because I think we have probably less than 10 feet
there already. Plus there’s two, there’s a 100 year oak tree there and a 100 year old ash tree. If
you go out the other side there’s probably room but there’s two 100 year oak trees setting there
that we’re still trying to keep alive, and I have no intentions of taking any trees down of 100
years old. If you go out the front side of the house, which would be the only option you would
have, and there’s another 100 year old tree sitting out in that front part too, but you wouldn’t get
any view of the lake. Plus the end where they have that curved pathway there, that’s bedrooms
down there. It’s a typical Schoeller house. You’ve got the kitchen on one end and the bedrooms
on the other and so we wouldn’t you know be adding bedrooms on. That’s all it would be down
there. Basically we’re just, we’re not trying to go any closer to the lake than we are now. I think
we’re 67 feet away or something like that, and that’s where it’s going to stay. The new deck will
be closer to the house. Farther from the lake than it was before. So we’re really not changing
any footprint or anything like that. But question about the lower patio. I think Denny you were
asking about that. That was put in, excuse me. It was there when we got there in ’94 and it was
the patio blocks. The rectangle cement patio blocks and all we did was in 2001 changed it to be
a circular brick one rather than a square.
Laufenburger: Like pavers or something like that?
Rich Peters: Pavers, yeah. So it was there before and I assume that was there at the very
beginning too but you know in 1960.
Laufenburger: So you, when did you acquire the home?
Rich Peters: ’94.
Laufenburger: And that was there.
Rich Peters: Yeah.
Laufenburger: So when did you make your improvements to the patio?
Rich Peters: 2001.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Rich Peters: Spring 2001. I don’t think there’s anything else. Eunice? Oh, I’m suppose to
mention. We took all the grass out of the back yard going down to the lake and planted wild
9
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
flowers. Indigenous wild flowers and grasses so. You don’t see, you see it in the picture a little
bit but the picture was probably too close. But it’s growing. There’s 1,200 plants in there.
Larson: I just see grass in this picture.
Rich Peters: Yeah. Yeah, it’s below that. Below that wall you know.
Larson: Use your imagination right.
Rich Peters: We planted 1,200 wild flowers and indigenous grasses, etc. Come back in 2 or 3
years. It takes a while to grow. But that’s all we’re asking for basically is to use our deck a little
bit more than 3 months out of the year.
Larson: Okay. You guys have any questions for the applicant? No?
Rich Peters: Similar to what Jerry Fox who’s sitting here, got back in 1985. He got the same
variance of a, of a porch.
Larson: Okay.
Laufenburger: I do have one question.
Larson: Oh, go ahead Denny.
Laufenburger: Why’d you put the wild flowers in?
Rich Peters: Why?
Laufenburger: Why did you put the wild flowers in?
Rich Peters: Just for the lake.
Laufenburger: Did the lake want the wild flowers?
Rich Peters: No. Get the grass, it was solid grass. Then you’ve got all the fertilizer and all that
stuff flowing into the lake, and the Clean Water, Lotus Lake Clean Water Association.
Something like that. Can’t remember the whole name of it. You know I’ve been to a couple of
those meetings. They’re trying to clean up the lake and so, and they had a list of contractors on
the web site that did this type of thing so we went through the list and did that. There’s a second
reason too. Do you want to hear the other reason or not? A little bit selfish.
Laufenburger: That’s satisfactory.
Rich Peters: I had to mow that so, but it’s better for the lake.
Laufenburger: How many grandchildren do you have?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Rich Peters: Four.
Laufenburger: Congratulations.
Rich Peters: Thank you.
Laufenburger: Alright, that’s it.
Larson: Okay.
Rich Peters: Anything else for me?
Larson: No, I think that’s it. Thank you. At this time I will open the hearing to the public. If
anybody else wants to speak about this. Please state your name and address. Pardon?
Jerry Fox: I’d like to speak to the issue.
Larson: Okay. Please state your name and address.
Jerry Fox: I’m Jerry Fox. 7300 Laredo Drive. We’re the property immediately north and it was
my good fortune to appear before this body 13-14 years ago with a very similar request to add a
deck and porch within the 75 foot setback. You very graciously granted me the variance and I
cannot tell you how much we’ve enjoyed that ever since. We live on that porch all summer long
and I think I can honestly say if it had not been granted, we probably would have moved. We
wouldn’t be there today. But it’s so good to have that. It’s a wonderful addition to the house.
It’s a wonderful addition to the community and it certainly adds to the value and what can I say.
It’s just a plus, plus, plus all the way around for the community and for me as a neighbor and for
them as occupants. So I wholeheartedly support it. I certainly hope you grant the variance.
Thank you. Any questions?
Laufenburger: I do. How long have you lived on your property?
Jerry Fox: 19, 38 years.
Laufenburger: Oh, not 1938.
Jerry Fox: No. No, no, no, no. The house wasn’t built in 1938.
Laufenburger: So 1970.
Jerry Fox: That would be 39 years.
Laufenburger: 1969?
Jerry Fox: Yep. And enjoyed every minute of it. Thanks to your help too. Thank you.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody else, I’ll bring it back for discussion.
How about you Dan? You want to start?
Keefe: Well just a couple things. I mean you know, we’re suppose to enforce the rules and
despite what I might like…I mean the question is, is there a hardship here? So I’m struggling to
see if I can come up with a definition of a hardship, and the only thing that kind of comes to
mind is, are the trees and do the trees sort of force our hand in the event that there’s nowhere else
to do anything like this. It sort of forces, the question is, is that a hardship and do they have to
do this? No, they probably have reasonable use of the property. And I think the rules state that
you know, we’re here to interpret the rules and that’s my thought on that.
Larson: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: Yeah, I understand what you’re saying. That we have to interpret the rules and like I
say, I struggle with just the aspect that I worry that it’s a matter of because they didn’t do it then,
now they can’t do it now.
Dillon: Do what?
Thomas: Make it into a porch then, in ’96.
Larson: Before the new rules.
Thomas: Before everything occurred. I mean if you came in here and you asked for a variance
then, and you just didn’t make it into a porch then, you know I struggle with that because it just,
it doesn’t seem, I don’t know it just doesn’t seem completely right but. If we need a hardship I
would say the trees are a hardship because I don’t really see it’s important to be cutting down
200 year old trees, or 100 year old trees on a property just to make space and I don’t know, I
mean we live in Minnesota. I have a deck too and it stinks not having it enclosed because you
can’t be out there with mosquitoes hanging around and that just, you know I don’t know it’s a
hardship for me so sorry. I’ll have to think about it.
Larson: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: I would tend to agree with Dan. I mean it seems like it’s a nice to have, you know for
the applicant. It’s not like a you know, the grandkids are living with them and they need the
extra living space, or anything like that. I mean I don’t see the hardship. There are you know
the rules. There’s, so we’re asked to you know interpret them so I would, I mean it’s maybe, I
mean there’s reasonable use of the property. Seems to be a good view of the lake. I mean I
don’t know. I think I’m inclined to support the staff’s recommendation on this one.
Larson: Okay. Denny.
Laufenburger: I think it’s important that we acknowledge that the staff is doing their job in
interpreting the rules and the guidelines that are in effect that govern this thing. These sorts of
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
things in Chanhassen so staff’s to be acknowledged and commended for that so thank you. I’m
in favor of doing, allowing them to do with the existing deck what they want to do, but I think
I’m not in favor of accepting the proposed deck. They have the patio which does give them use
of that space. They want additional living space. I think I tend to say, make your choice. Do
you want a deck or do you want to enclose the deck that you already have? So that’s kind of
what I’m leaning towards but if I was forced to choose between either approving it as requested
or denying it as the staff recommends, I think my inclination is to go along with the staff and
deny it the way it exists.
Larson: Okay.
Laufenburger: That doesn’t mean that the applicant couldn’t come back with a modification but
given the facts that we have right now, I’d be inclined to deny it the way it is.
Larson: Okay. Well my thoughts on it are, the fact of the matter is that Kathleen brought up, if
they had worked on this or done it 2 years ago before this new ordinance came in, they wouldn’t
have been able to do it, correct?
Dillon: No.
Larson: No. They still would have had to get, gotten a variance.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Larson: However, looking at the neighboring property, Mr.
Laufenburger: Fox.
Larson: Fox’s property, you know he’s 50 feet as opposed to the 60 feet that they’re going for. I
honestly don’t have a problem with what they want to do. I would be inclined to go against what
the staff’s recommendation, but that’s just my thoughts because I think the fact that Dan had
mentioned that the hardship with the trees, you don’t want to go and cut down trees. They would
like to be able to enjoy the property more, and I think the ordinance is wrong. They’re not
asking for anything large. They’re not going beyond the impervious. I honestly don’t have a
problem with this so that’s just my thoughts so.
Dillon: But the trees and the hardship have nothing to do with this. I mean there’s an express
intent to have a view of the lake and the trees aren’t anywhere near that so it’s no hardship.
Larson: Well the hardship Kevin is with, they can’t, the other spots where they could potentially
expand the house, if they wanted to.
Dillon: But the point made was, and they very clearly stated, and I would, if I’m living there I’d
want the same thing, to have a good view of the lake and the trees are on the side and the front of
the house, it doesn’t afford a good view of the lake.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: They want to expand the house so they have more use.
Dillon: That’s not what I heard but.
Larson: Well.
Laufenburger: What I heard was expanded living space because of 4 grandchildren are invading
them and they want to make good space for them.
Larson: Right.
Laufenburger: I think his words were, you know we’re running out of space.
Larson: Yeah, I mean right.
Dillon: Okay, well.
Larson: Is that not?
Dillon: That and have a good view of the lake too so I mean.
Larson: I guess.
Keefe: There are limited locations they could put this to have a view of the lake. But the
question comes back is, do they have reasonable use and that’s really what the ordinance, what
we have to interpret. Determine reasonable use and is there a hardship…
Larson: But where my disagreement is, is their definition of, the City’s definition of reasonable
use is different than their definition of reasonable use and I tend to agree with them so. But
that’s just my opinion. Right or wrong. Okay. Have I got a recommendation? I can’t do it. Oh,
I’m sorry.
Dillon: I’ll make a motion.
Larson: Hold on. I didn’t close the public hearing. Sorry. Now I will take a recommendation.
Laufenburger: Can we talk about this just a little bit more?
Larson: Sure.
Laufenburger: I’d like to hear just a recap of the commissioners view of approval, approving the
staff’s recommendation for denial or over ruling the staff’s recommendation and recommend
approval of the permit.
Dillon: That’s what we’re going to vote on.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: Yeah. I’d like to hear just a little bit more dialogue about that. Hear the
arguments why you feel one way or another. Dan, could I just ask you for clarification?
Keefe: Well I mean just to kind of re-state what I said.
Laufenburger: Yeah.
Keefe: You know I think we’re here to interpret the rules. Is there a hardship? I’m struggling to
come up with one. I really can’t find a hardship and so, you know it’s my, you know in the
absence of a hardship we have to follow through all this now. Despite what I might like to do. I
mean we’re here to interpret the rules. That’s our job so.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Keefe: That’s kind of where I come down.
Laufenburger: Kathleen. Can I hear you again?
Thomas: Sure. Mine is, I really think that the deck to be enclosed is, not that, I’m trying to
make it so it’s concise. I’m in favor of enclosing the deck into a porch. If not because I think
reasonable use of the property is having a good view of the lake and having it to it’s full potential
and knowing where we live, the climate and everything, I understand that aspect of the porch.
Wanting it for more than 3, you know 3 months out of the year, if that in Minnesota and I guess
my parents had a 3 season porch, not in the city by any means but we used it 3 seasons. I mean
she used it as a giant refrigerator in the wintertime. That’s where all the leftovers went so, it’s
not like it’s something that the grandkids can be playing outside in in 3 season in January you
know. It’s something that’s livable space.
Larson: Kevin, you have anything?
Dillon: Yeah, I too cannot find the hardship in this application and you know that has been
pretty you know clear. One of the guidelines for granting a variance is that there needs to be
some sort of expressed hardship or lack of use of the property or something of this sort and I
can’t find any of that. Plus, and you know it’s, the letter from the DNR, you know they have an
opinion here that they oppose structural variances unless there’s a demonstrated hardship as
defined and you know they can’t find one either. And not that they’re always the all and end all
in these issues but I think it’s an opinion that it matters and you know so that’s just another bit of
rationale.
Laufenburger: In re-stating why I think from my perspective the, if our job is to interpret or to
act on the permit the way it’s been applied, I would tend to decline, to deny it in support of the
staff. However, I do share Kathleen’s view that turning the deck into a 3 season porch, that
seems like a reasonable use of that, so that’s where I would go. Thank you.
Dillon: We’ve got kind of an all or nothing deal here.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: Yeah. Unless we choose to go forward with some other recommendation.
Dillon: Well that would be up to, then the applicant I think would want, I mean you know we
can…
Laufenburger: Yeah, it would be inappropriate for us to say you can’t do that but if you want to
do something else, we’ll allow you to do that. Well we don’t know that they want to do that.
Dillon: Well we can’t say that until we know what it is so.
Laufenburger: Right.
Dillon: I mean I think we’ve got to vote on this as it stands.
Laufenburger: I would agree.
Keefe: Agree.
Laufenburger: Thank you for indulging me Chair.
Larson: Okay. No problem. Now, can I get a recommendation.
Dillon: So, yes.
Al-Jaff: If you choose to vote on enclosing the deck and not approving the building of the brand
new deck, then you can make a motion to that effect. So right now you have two requests in
front of you. The first one is enclosing the existing deck. The second, and turning it into a
porch. And the second one is building a new deck.
Thomas: So we turn it into two things. Right?
Al-Jaff: So you can vote to deny both of them. Approve both of them. Approve one. Deny the
other.
Dillon: So we closed the public part of this but in your discussions with the applicant, is that
something that they’d be okay with? I mean, or else are we just wasting our time doing that?
Al-Jaff: The applicant is here should you choose to.
Dillon: Can we open that?
Larson: Would you like to, yeah. Let’s open it back up. Could we get the applicant up here
again? Get your opinion, if you don’t mind.
Rich Peters: So what you’re saying is, no on the deck and yes on the. Excuse me, no on the
additional deck. Yes on the porch or sunroom.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: It’s just a thought. What do you think?
Rich Peters: I don’t know if I’d want to do that, yeah. I really don’t.
Larson: So you want all or nothing, correct?
Rich Peters: Yeah, I think so. I just don’t think the rest of it would fit at all. But the part about
the trees, I want to get back to that again as long as I’ve got the floor here. You can’t build at
each end of the house. They’re big oak trees. Ash trees. Some maples. You know we’re not
going to take down trees to add onto our house that way. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Dillon: But even if they were little oak trees and you know they were very small little saplings
and they could, would that even be something you’d consider? See because I don’t, what I
thought is you want the lake, right?
Rich Peters: Yeah, yeah, but you yeah, you’d have to, but the end that has the room, okay.
Assuming they’re small trees, is bedrooms. You know there’s 2 or 3 bedrooms at that end and
bathrooms. There’s.
Eunice Peters: And it’s drainage.
Rich Peters: Yeah, it’s a drainage also. Yeah, that’s another thing. All the water from the street
and the lake you know drains down to the lake through that, through the property lines there you
know. It’s a, they call it a dry creek bed. So you wouldn’t, you couldn’t really do it there either
because of the water drainage.
Dillon: But okay, say no trees. No water problems. Would you still want to do something
there?
Rich Peters: At the end of the bedrooms? No. No, because it wouldn’t make any sense to put a
family room at the end of the bedrooms. Without remodeling the whole house.
Larson: Anyone else have questions for him while he’s up here? Thank you. Okay. We’re now
closed.
Keefe: Can we discuss just a little more?
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: I want to hear a little bit more just on why you like one over the other. Looking at sort
of…
Laufenburger: I think from my perspective I’m trying to satisfy what they’re requirement. You
know their state of requirements. They want more living space so the grandchildren can be
there. I guess it’s Kathleen who thought I, articulated it quite well and that is turning the deck
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
into a 3 season sunroom would give them that living space. You know the space in front of the
walkout doorway, which is a patio, seems to be functioning as a very, very good view and livable
area outside of the house which gives them access to the lake. So I think what I, my
interpretation is I think it’s, I believe it’s acceptable although it’s a term that the staff uses is
correct. It intensifies the usage. I would view that that would be an acceptable way of giving
them the livable space that they’re looking for and not setting a precedent of additional variance
for that deck which would be within, that would fall within the 75 foot setback. So that’s, I
guess I was thinking, that feels like a compromise that might be satisfactory. We now know
from the property owner, the applicant, that that’s not acceptable so I think that Dan by itself
makes it a moot point.
Keefe: Okay. That’s all I have.
Dillon: So I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case
08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and
construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition based on adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and action.
Larson: Do you want to second?
Laufenburger: Second.
Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies
Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck
into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition based on
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor, except Larson
and Thomas who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Larson: Next on the agenda.
Laufenburger: Just point of order Chair.
Larson: Pardon?
Laufenburger: Is our recommendation for denial of the request, does that go to the City Council?
Larson: Yes.
Laufenburger: Okay. So it’s quite possible the City Council can overrule our recommendation?
Larson: Correct. Very possible.
Keefe: That is if they choose.
Al-Jaff: If your decision was appealed, then yes the City Council can overrule.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Keefe: It’s at their request.
Laufenburger: It’s at the applicant’s desire or not.
Keefe: To appeal it. If it’s unanimous then that’s not the case.
Al-Jaff: You need three-fourths vote for a motion to pass and in this case it was three-fourths.
Laufenburger: Three-fifths.
Al-Jaff: Three-fifths to deny and that’s the motion on the record right now.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Al-Jaff: Should the applicant choose to appeal your decision, then they appeal it to the City
Council and.
Larson: Okay. Onto the next.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WALL VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 800 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT:
DOUGLAS AND MARTHA WALL, PLANNING CASE 08-20.
Public Present:
Name Address
Stan Ross, AE Architecture 13860 Fawn Ridge Way, Apple Valley
Douglas Wall 800 Carver Beach Road
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Keefe: So here’s a question. On reasonable use, the definition of reasonable use here. This
addition is required or fits within the definition of reasonable use. Is that the thinking? You
know as sort of opposed to the one that we just visited where we’re saying well, he’s already got
reasonable use of his property. Now we’re saying, and we denied that because we say they
already had reasonable use. Well, in this case they made a request or saying well there is a
hardship here because yeah, the lot isn’t deep enough but you know do they already have
reasonable use of the, I guess that’s the question. Do they already have reasonable use of it?
Auseth: They do have a single family home and a two car garage.
Keefe: Right.
19