PC 2012 10 02
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 2012
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, and Kathleen Thomas
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Patrick Furlong 1405 Knob Hill Lane
PUBLIC HEARING:
7250 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR SHORELAND SETBACK
VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT
7250 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. APPLICANT/OWNER: MARK & DONNA
MALINOWSKI, PLANNING CASE 2012-14.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request. It’s
Planning Case #2012-14. Mark and Donna Malinowski at 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. This property is
located on the east shore of Lake St. Joe. Lake St. Joe is a natural environmental lake and it has more
stringent setbacks than either recreational development or other lakes in our community so the building
setbacks are 150 feet instead of 75 feet. The site drops down from Minnewashta Parkway approximately
35 feet to the building location so there is a significant drop down onto the site. The applicant is
requesting a variance so that they can build an addition on the back side of their existing home as well as
a garage addition on the end of the house site. However because of the location of the existing home it
does not meet the 150 foot setback and so any expansion they’re looking for a variance to approve it. The
buildable area as presented by Mr. Malinowski is the area that’s actually on the upside of the hill. There is
a significant retaining wall on the east side of the house and as part of their request we’ve requested that
they push the garage expansion as close to that as they can do that, and here’s an example. The 68 feet
that is shown from this is from the shoreland that was presented at the time of the survey. The ordinary
high water elevation for Lake St. Joe is 945.7, and I should point out that on page 4 of 5 there’s, in the
third paragraph it says 947.5. It should be 945.7 for the second time it’s listed in that paragraph. But
anyways the applicant is proposing that both of these additions be on the lee side of the house, so farther
back from the lake than the existing home is proposed and while we don’t have the exact location of the
ordinary high water elevation so we can’t give an exact distance in it, we’re proposing that this variance
request be approved based on the plans that they submitted and that are being reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The proposed additions to the house are reasonable accommodation. Again on the north
side of these, or the east side of this property there is a retaining wall and he’s pushing his garage right up
next to that so he couldn’t go any further back on that and this addition is on the east side of the house so
it is away from the shoreland so it shouldn’t create any additional impacts to the water. With that staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the
variance from the 150 shoreland setback requirement based on the plans that are submitted with this
report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision with the two conditions that they preserve the
existing slope with a retaining wall, and that they remove the existing carport which is located to the
south of the house at the end of the driveway. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Do we know what the square footage and the hardscape is? Is that within, does it meet our
requirements?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2012
Generous: It’s way under what is permissible in the district.
Aller: And I think I read somewhere where part of the retaining wall was going to be removed, is that
still the case?
Generous: And replaced.
Aller: Replaced, okay.
Colopoulos: Along with the carport.
Generous: And the carport’s going to be removed. It can’t be kept on the site.
Aller: Okay. I think the report is complete. I think it’s self explanatory. I think it’s great that the
structures are actually farther away so it’s a non-conforming use now but the additional requested use is
actually farther away than the present use so with that I don’t have any further questions or comments.
Anyone?
Nelson: No.
Colopoulos: No.
Aller: Okay we’re going to open, the applicant present?
Mark Malinowski: I’m here.
Aller: Sir, would you like to make any presentation or stand on the presentation?
Mark Malinowski: No…pretty much says…have no problem with the two requirements. Removing the
carport and replacing the retaining wall with a better wall.
Aller: Okay, great. Thank you. Alright I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone present wishing to speak
for or against may step forward. Seeing no one step forward, I’m going to close the public hearing. Any
further discussion? Do I have a motion?
Tennyson: I’ll move the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approves Planning Case #2012-14 for a variance to the 150 shoreland setback requirement as
shown in plans dated Received August 22, 2012 and subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report
and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Colopoulos: I’ll second.
Aller: Does it also include the two conditions?
Colopoulos: The two conditions.
Nelson: The conditions outlined in the staff report.
Tennyson: Yes. Subject to conditions. Yes.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2012
Aller: So I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Tennyson moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-14 for a variance to the 150
shoreland setback requirement as shown in plans dated Received August 22, 2012 and subject to
the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. Preserve the existing slope with a retaining wall.
2. Remove the existing carport from the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY CODE AMENDMENT: REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING TO ALLOW A
SENIOR CARE FACILITY IN MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICTS.
AND
BEE HIVE HOMES: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(R-8); PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2.16 ACRES INTO ONE LOT; AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CARE FACILITY
ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 41 AT 6330 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: TYLER & KATHRYN STEVENS. OWNER: ROR, INC, PLANNING CASE 2012-
15.
Generous: This item and the following item are both linked together and we’re requesting that these
items be tabled to the next Planning Commission agenda.
Aller: Any discussion? Anyone here on that item that wishes to be heard. Would you like to be heard at
th
this time or would you like to follow the matter to the 16.
Audience: Ben, did you want to say something?
Ben Gowen: Well if it’s going to be tabled…
th
Aller: I would make it be the end of it if you can’t be here on the 16 sir. I mean if you want to.
Ben Gowen: I’ll be here.
Aller: Okay.
Tennyson: I’d like to make a motion to continue the public hearing related to the City Code amendment
and also item number 3 Bee Hive Homes.
Aller: Okay, so items 2 and 3. I have a motion. Similar motion on both to continue to October 16, 2012.
Tennyson: Due to issues that have arisen regarding utility services.
Nelson: I’ll second that.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2012
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Tennyson moved, Nelson seconded to table the City Code Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning
regarding senior care facility in medium and high density districts and the Bee Hive Homes request
due to issues that have arisen regarding utility services. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Colopoulos noted the verbatim and summary minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2012 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
th
Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. The Lakeside 7 Addition, which was a plat for the,
preliminary plat for the last parcel in the project as well as site plan approval for 17 townhouses and a
code amendment to change the setbacks was approved by City Council and the request for the metes and
bounds subdivision on Lyman Boulevard, on the Dorsey property was approved with a modification to
the condition. They took out the requirement that the access easement be recorded against the property
so.
Aller: Great. Wonderful. What else do we have? Looks like Goodwill put up it’s sign.
Generous: It applied for it. I don’t know if it’s up yet or not. I haven’t been out that way.
th
Aller: And that’s at 80 West 78 Street so be looking for that sign.
Generous: It was in the paper last week, in the Villager about their opening I believe the beginning of
November so.
Aller: Great. Anything further from any of the commissioners? Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Nelson moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
7:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
4