PC Minutes 10-7-08
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
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Auseth: Uniquely to this situation is that this property does not meet the minimum depth
requirement.
Keefe: Okay.
Larson: Kathleen.
Thomas: And that’s because, it doesn’t meet the depth requirement because when it was built in
1995 that that was, no? No?
Auseth: Because of the way that it was platted in 1927 where this public right-of-way, that
determines where the front yard is so let’s, if the property fronted on Carver Beach, the south
where it says side yard, that would be the front. Opposite of that would be the rear yard so that’s
where the 30 feet would come in, and then the two other sides would be 10 foot setbacks. But
that’s not the case in this situation. That public right-of-way makes it a 30 foot front yard and a
30 foot rear yard on the west and east property lines.
Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: You know I don’t have any questions right now.
Larson: And you Denny.
Laufenburger: None at this time.
Larson: I’ve got one. So with this, where the red slash marks are on your page 4. Once this is
built, how much distance is there from the lot line.
Auseth: 15 feet.
Larson: 15. And in looking at this with the applicant, do you happen to know if they talked to
their neighbors about it? If they had any issues with that or do you know?
Auseth: I don’t know if they had spoken with their neighbors or not. Staff did not receive any
phone calls from anyone regarding this application.
Larson: Because 15 feet seems awfully close. I would think there might be an issue with that
but.
Al-Jaff: Every individual homeowners within 500 feet of the subject property was notified.
Larson: I see, okay.
Al-Jaff: And that’s why Angie was saying we have not heard from them. There was also a sign
that goes up that says proposed development so there are a couple of ways to let the neighbors
know that something is happening here. Contact city staff if you have any objections.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: I see. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for staff?
Keefe: Yeah, I just got to, I have to revisit this for a minute because I’m struggling a little bit
because we denied the previous one because they already had, because we said that they already
had reasonable use of the property. What we’re saying here is that we will, we will grant these
guys a variance because there is a hardship and the reason there’s hardship is because there’s not
reasonable use of the property. Is that a fair way of stating it? I’m struggling with it a little bit.
Larson: I struggled with that one too.
Keefe: I do understand the lot depth issue and when it was platted and you know, they knew that
when the house was built in ’95. They built it within the setback requirements. I presume the
setback requirements were probably the same in ’95.
Auseth: Yes.
Keefe: And now we’re going to grant them a variance because we say there isn’t reasonable use
but having said that, they do have reasonable use. The house was built in ’95. It’s one thing if it
was built in 1930. I’m just, if you can elaborate a little bit or give me some.
Al-Jaff: There are multiple things that we look at in addition to reasonable use. The topography.
The shape of the parcel. When we say this is 100 foot deep parcel and this is something that we
have struggled with for many years. We’ve always had in-house discussions. We’ve come in
front of the Planning Commission to discuss this issue. You have a subdivision that pre-dates
the ordinance. Yet we are trying to have current setbacks, current ordinances. The 30 foot
setback on this parcel has to be proportionate to the lot depth is what we’re trying to get at. In
the past we’ve come before you and we’ve reduced front yard setbacks in general in the Carver
Beach area if anybody wants to add a front porch for instance. And the Planning Commission
and City Council have seen the wisdom in that and they’ve said we agree with you. Do that.
This somewhat falls into that category and when we talk about there is a hardship with the depth
again, our intention is to keep the setback proportionate to the depth of this parcel.
Laufenburger: Sharmeen is it true that, I think Angie said by definition the front yard is
measured from the public right-of-way to the back lot. The 100 feet.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. And what is the, what is the, what is the permittable, or what is the
acceptable setback for a front yard setback and a rear yard setback?
Auseth: 30 feet.
Laufenburger: Okay. And what is the acceptable setback for a side yard?
Auseth: 10 feet.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: So if per chance we could just shuffle the words here and call the, what is
currently labeled side yard. If we call that front yard. Say that again?
Keefe: I said don’t go there. But no, go ahead. Sorry.
Laufenburger: But if that were the case, if in fact that fronted onto Carver Beach Road and that
was by definition the front yard, then this applicant would not be here.
Auseth: Right.
Keefe: You’re right.
Laufenburger: Thank you.
Larson: Okay. Anybody else want to ask anything? Okay. Have we got an applicant here that
would like to present? Please state your name and address for the record.
Douglas Wall: My name is Douglas Wall and I live at 800 Carver Beach Road and we basically
bought the house a year ago and we’ve only lived there a year and we’ve talked to the neighbors
who, if you look at the rear yard, what you consider the rear yard. Their house is probably less
than 10 feet from the boundary. They’ve got a variance on record already and they said they
fought with the city to get it. And they got it and they fully support our building a new addition
so. And we’ve also argued with the city about since our address is technically Carver Beach
Road, that side yard should be our front yard so we shouldn’t really have to be here for this. But
we are so, any questions? I mean I’ll try to answer anything.
Keefe: Well yeah, just a quick question. It doesn’t make sense to add it, make an addition on
the side yard, or to the, what direct would that be?
Douglas Wall: Well if you go to the, where all the trees are.
Keefe: Where all the room is.
Douglas Wall: We thought about that except the two, that end of it is where the bedrooms are
and this is a dining room so if we added up there it wouldn’t make a lot of sense. Where we’re
putting it is right off of the kitchen and where the old dining room was which basically it’s a
dining room, kitchen and living room all one. I’m just trying to make that a little bit bigger.
That’s the idea so.
Larson: And I agree. I think you know, I’m in agreeance with this whole aspect and everything.
I just wish that, I mean it has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with the, you know
the person who built the house. That it was known that this was how big the lot was and here’s
your setback so why plan a house the way you do kind of just boggles my mind.
Larson: Okay. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Laufenburger: I have a couple. So you answered the one question. You bought it a year ago.
Douglas Wall: Yep. Year and one month.
Laufenburger: Who, what are the names of the people that live in the house just behind you?
Douglas Wall: Oh geez, I should have brought that. Mike and, I can’t remember. I should look
at my list.
Laufenburger: These are the people that you spoke with and they said.
Douglas Wall: Mike and I think it’s Randy or something like that. Yeah, they.
Laufenburger: That’s on Hopi Road?
Douglas Wall: Hopi Road. Yeah they basically, when they bought that house it was just like a
fishing shack and they’ve spent like, they said about 10 to 15 years adding on. They took a
garage and built it bigger and.
Laufenburger: Okay. The other question I have relates to the public right-of-way. That public
right-of-way is kind of your front yard.
Douglas Wall: That’s what you consider, yes.
Laufenburger: Do you care for that? I mean do you tend to that or is that, does somebody else
care for that?
Douglas Wall: That public right-of-way is actually just a bunch of trees.
Laufenburger: Oh.
Douglas Wall: There’s no road. There’s no.
Laufenburger: So you don’t have any use of that even.
Douglas Wall: It’s trees. I mean there’s nothing that we, no. We can’t drive on it. We can’t do
anything on it.
Laufenburger: Alright.
Douglas Wall: Actually we’ve even thought about having the city abandon it to the
homeowners. So that might be the next project I go through.
Laufenburger: Welcome to Chanhassen. We glad you live here. I hope you’re glad that you
live here too. That was my only question. Thanks Chair.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Larson: Alright. I don’t have any questions at this time. Thank you very much.
Douglas Wall: Thank you.
Larson: At this time I will open up the hearing to the public. Does anybody have any
comments? Questions. Alright. Don’t all rush up. Okay, seeing nobody I will close the public
hearing. Then discuss.
Keefe: I’m having a little bit of issue with the, comparing the two and they’re not really directly
comparable but they’re, the issue of reasonable use comes to mind here. So I’m struggling with
that a little bit. I think you know one of the factors which comes into play here is the location
and adjacency and how that, how it sits on this particular lot. And the orientation of this
particular lot to the public right-of-way. So you know that could be maybe the issue which you
know, I don’t know if again that meets the definition of, you know if I can find where that sort of
comes into hardship. I mean I do think that they have reasonable use of this house. You know I
mean it’s a relatively new house so I don’t know I’m sure I’m buying that that’s a hardship you
know or if that’s a reason for a hardship. But having said that, because of the orientation of this
house and because of the, where this house kind of sits next to the public right-of-way, that
maybe it’s really more of a Carver Beach Road and if you change the front and side that he was
referencing, then we would get over it. They wouldn’t even be here so yeah. Food for thought.
Larson: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I’m in support of this variance…and so I do see as a hardship and I feel like it’s tough
when homeowners are put in a position from other homeowners…
Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: I think it just goes to show that each one of these things is unique and you know we get
all spun up about setting precedence for this and precedence for that but there’s no two situations
are alike. And you know I mean, I know our houses on our neighborhood are like a lot closer
together than this one so I don’t have, no issues supporting the staff recommendation.
Larson: Okay. How about you Denny?
Laufenburger: I support it.
Larson: Okay. Well my thoughts are, you know I guess it is a hardship because of the person
who planted this house in the first place on this spot. I’m a little bit leery about the fact that it is
very close to the lot line. 15 feet is very close but as Denny pointed out, if the.
Dillon: If the tables were turned.
Larson: If the house was turned, the directional however it’s been characterized was turned, then
it wouldn’t be an issue so I think I will support of it as well so. Can I have a recommendation?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008
Thomas: …suppose to close it again? Close it just to make sure.
Larson: Alright, we’re close. We’re really closed. May I have a recommendation?
Laufenburger: Madam Chairman. Chanhassen Planning Commission, I recommend, make a
motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves Planning Case 08-20 granting a 15
foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of a 15 by 15
foot dining room addition and deck on Lots 1080 through 1089 Carver Beach, subject to
condition 1 which is application for a building permit and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and action.
Larson: Do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
approves Planning Case 08-20 granting a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard
setback requirement for the construction of a 15 x 15 foot dining room addition and deck,
as shown on plans dated Received September 5, 2008, on Lots 1080 through 1089, Carver
Beach, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action and subject to the
following condition:
1. The applicant must apply for a building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated September 2, 2008 as presented, and summary minutes of the
Planning Commission work session dated September 16, 2008 as presented.
Chair Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25