PC Minutes 04-07-2015
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 7, 2015
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and
John Tietz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Maryam Yusuf and Lisa Hokkanen
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Stephanie Bartels, Project Engineer
OATHS OF OFFICE:
Chairman Aller administered the oaths of office to Nancy Madsen and
John Tietz.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3701 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-07: REQUEST FOR
VARIANCES TO PERMIT ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING DECK ON PROPERTY
ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3701 SOUTH
CEDAR DRIVE (LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE
MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: DAN & SUSAN FAGAN.
Generous: You caught me off guard but, Chairman Aller, fellow commissioners. As you stated
Planning Case 2015-07 is a request for a variance from the City’s code requirements. The
Planning Commission sits as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to determine whether a
variance should be approved, denied or forwarded to City Council for ultimate action. In this
case the Fagan’s, Daniel and Susan who’s house is located at 3701 South Cedar Drive. It’s on
the peninsula on Lake Minnewashta. South facing property. Existing single family home on the
lot. It was built in 1986. That’s part of the, probably the issue that they have on their property.
The house was built in ’86. The City didn’t adopt the shoreland protection ordinance to
sometime in ’86 so they were, came in before the ordinances were in place. The shoreland
protection ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the lake. The existing house or portions of
the house and the deck on the lake side of the house are closer to the lake than 75 feet and it’s
closest approach to the lake is 60 feet. The applicant’s proposed request is to expand a part of
their deck, or to enclose a part, a 12 by 13 section of deck and make it part of the interior of the
house. Additionally they will be expanding this area of the house to add a second floor. That
level will cantilever slightly over the deck area but it will be way behind the face of this
expansion area that they’re looking for the interior of the house. However by definition, even
though there’s a structure here, enclosing this area is an expansion of a non-conformity and to do
that they need to receive a variance. This case has been problematic for staff. We can actually
go, see both for, pro and con on this development but for consistency sake staff has been going
forward and recommending denial of any variance request unless there is truly something very
unique about the property or some other alternative that cannot be done. What the applicant is
requesting is convert a portion of their deck into living space. This living space would be a 12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015
by 13 enclosure of that portion of the deck that’s there so where the face of this new wall would
be is the edge of the existing deck. They wouldn’t, they’re not proposing to get any closer to the
lake but the volume of area that’s non-conforming would be increased because we’re enclosing
that area. However as the property is also non-conforming because they exceed the hard cover
on their property there at approximately 27.7 percent. As measured to mitigate any proposed
variance approval they are saying as part of this project they’d be willing to remove hard surface
from the site and bring it into compliance with the ordinance so there is a benefit for the City to
reduce the hard surface on this property. The encroachment into the required shoreland setback
would not be any greater than it is now so, and additionally there’s, the existing garage
encroaches 5 feet towards the road right-of-way. However their expansion they’re proposing on
that side of the house would comply with ordinance so. And this is just a schematic to show the
red areas are proposed expansion of the indoor space. The green areas are hard surface areas that
would be, they’re proposing to remove as part of their development project on the site and
what’s hard to see but this is approximately the cantilever area of the second floor expansion.
This red area would be over the existing deck so again it doesn’t get any closer to the lake but
because it is an expansion of interior area it is, requires a variance to go forward. Here’s just a
schematic showing where the hard surface coverages would come off of the property. And then
we did look at whether there are any other non-conformities or variances in the neighborhood to
see if this variance application would be consistent with what’s going on out there. There are
five variances in the neighborhood all relating to setback requirements from the lake. Two of
them are, have actually greater setback than the applicant’s proposing. One of them is the same
setback that the applicant is proposing and two of them are less than the applicant is proposing in
this so really granting of the variance would tend to be in harmony with the characteristics of this
immediate neighborhood. However as part of the shoreland management it’s not only
stormwater that we look at but aesthetic considerations and so when people are on the lake
looking towards the houses we don’t want those to encroach too far into that aesthetic situation
and so that’s one of the concerns. However again we’re looking at their expansion would be
only to the point of the existing railing of the deck that they have in place so while it’s a bigger
wall it’s not going to be any closer to the lake. Again staff is recommending denial of the
variance application. However we did provide an opportunity should the Planning Commission
as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments believe that approval of the variance is appropriate,
that there are conditions that would be provided for that and there’s additional Findings of Fact.
With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Anyone have questions at this time?
Weick: I would have one point of clarification.
Aller: Mr. Weick.
Weick: There’s expansion in the front and the back. Are they both requiring the variance or is it
only the back?
Generous: It’s only the lake side that requires a variance because this porch, this expansion over
the existing porch by the road would meet the setback requirements. It’s just this small area of
the enclosing of the deck that needs a variance.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015
Weick: But the garage.
Generous: Is a non-conforming.
Weick: It is non-conforming.
Generous: They’re not changing anything on that so they can maintain what’s there.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: And as a non-conforming use should they, should it be struck by lightning they can
replace that in the existing condition.
Generous: That’s correct. It’s just non-conformities, any expansion would have to comply with
the ordinance so it would have to be set back 5 feet. So if they wanted to put a second story on
that side it would have to be 30 feet back or receive a variance.
Aller: Are measurements for purposes of the hard cover surfaces also including the eaves?
Generous: No they don’t because they’re less than 2 ½ feet so they’re exempted from our
calculation. We usually go to the foundation or the wall.
Aller: Any additional questions of staff at this time?
Madsen: If they expanded another part of the home would there be, would that cause other non-
conformities? Too close to other, to the property line. Is there any other way they could expand
it another way?
Generous: Commissioner Madsen, theoretically they could go to either the west or the east. The
side yard setbacks are 10 feet but from internal configuration on the property or on the structure
I’m not sure that works for them. This would be the most logical place to expand if they go over
to the, but here again you already have an existing projection out here. Their expansion is to
continue that line for another 13 feet and then bring it back to the existing house.
Aller: And then the package includes the correspondence of one neighbor. Was there any other
response?
Generous: We had people call but once they heard what was going on, since we weren’t putting
in apartments or anything they didn’t have any issues.
Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none, happy to hear from the
applicant at this time. If they’d like to step forward and give a presentation. If you could state
your name and address for the record please.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015
Dan Fagan: Hi, my name is Dan Fagan. We have two homes right now so we live in
Chanhassen. 7184 Fawn Hill Road but we also purchased this home, 3701 South Cedar Road in
Chanhassen. It says Excelsior. It’s one of those goofy mailing things so that’s our address yeah.
Aller: So tell us about your project.
Dan Fagan: You know the project is, my wife and I, you know we love this community. We’ve
been here since 1997. Started out in the Lake Susan Hills area. Love the city. Our boys all born
here so our dream was a lake home but we love the community so much we didn’t want to get
out of Chanhassen so we have been working for a number of years to try and find a property.
We did, had another property that we were trying to do but based on different items it didn’t
come through and so this property became available and our goal is not to build a huge house.
It’s really to just get on the lake. However having 3 teenage boys and things we are limited. It’s
about a 2,000 square foot house as it is. We’re coming from a 4,300 square foot house, which is
more than we need so the idea is to try to build something that maintains the integrity of what
was originally intended there. Not to put a larger home but to work within, with what we had
and obviously maintain or try to work within what the City had. We’ve been working with a
remodeler to try to design a home because we’ve obviously looked at a complete tear down
which we would really desire not to do. We’d like to just try to make it fit into the community
and into where it is. We know many of the neighbors that are there existing, especially and Tom
and Jackie Johnson live right next door and then the other neighbor which I did get an email. I
apologize, I would forward it but he was in favor of it. The neighbor to the north just about the
process and any variance and guidance on things that thought would be helpful. We met with
Bob several times and he made it clear that it was a variance and that he would deny it but just
said you know if it’s a reasonable request that the City would consider it and so we wanted to do
everything possible, including taking away part of the driveway to meet hardscape requirements
and obviously I’m of the opinion that it appears reasonable because the deck was already there.
We weren’t aware, we’re not actually building the foundation underneath it out. All it is is
literally just kind of enclosing and if you look at the other house, a smaller cabin there in front so
their vision of it won’t be impacted. Their lake views and the Johnson’s again because the three
season porch is already there, this is going to be inside of that so we try to do everything we
could and we’re here tonight to request or ask if you would bless this opportunity.
Aller: Great, thanks. Questions from anyone?
Undestad: I would say thanks for not leaving town.
Dan Fagan: Well you know it’s interesting. The schools was a big thing. So we, it’s
Minnetonka schools but we’re in this.
Undestad: But also it looks like you’re giving it a complete makeover on it too.
Dan Fagan: Yeah. No, complete makeover on it too.
Undestad: So on the house so.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015
Dan Fagan: Yeah. We want to be here a long time so that’s the plan.
Aller: Thank you very much.
Dan Fagan: Thank you.
Aller: At this point in time we’ll open up the public hearing portion for this matter. Anyone
wishing to come forward and speak for or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one
come forward I will close the public hearing portion of the item and open it for discussion
amongst commissioners. Comment. Discussion.
Undestad: Yeah just looking at staff’s comment about it was a, could go either way on that.
You know I think looking at it, with the reduction of hard surface and things. The aesthetics.
They’re redoing the entire outside so I think from people on the lake it’s going to look nicer.
And net effect is really we’re coming up with less hard surface so I’d be for it.
Aller: Any additional comments?
Weick: I concur.
Tietz: I would too. I think the renovation looks to be in keeping with the scale of the
neighborhood, which is nice to see and also I think the treatment that you used in the elevations
and the way you’re remodeling the interior looks to be a much more functional home and for
your 3 boys. We have 3 boys too. They’re a lot older than your’s but I know those years when
they were active but I think it looks like a, it’s compatible with the neighborhood which is really
important and I think recognizing the setbacks and doing what you could within the confines is
to be you know it’s good.
Aller: Great. Well I’m inclined to adopt the Findings of Fact for approval. I think it’s great that
our citizens continue to come forward and ask for the blessing so to speak and following the
code and requesting variances so that we can do the building and we can grow as a community in
the proper fashion. Looking at the property I love the fact that we’re actually reducing the hard
cover surfaces back to something which would be appropriate and it looks as though they were
stuck with a piece of property that was non-conforming originally. It doesn’t expand the, other
than the technical legal expansion but in a real world sense for our purposes I think it doesn’t
expand it so that it’s an unreasonable use of the property or an unreasonable request. For that
purpose, for those stated reasons I would support it as well. Any further discussion? If not I’ll
entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a 15 foot setback variance from the 75 foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 foot by 12
foot section of the existing deck subject to the following conditions. Number 1, the applicant
shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent. Number 2, the
building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 foot shoreline setback.
And number 3, the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Weick, I
would offer any further discussion.
Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission acting as the Chanhassen
Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 foot setback variance from the 75 foot
shoreline setback to expand a 13 foot by 12 foot section of the existing deck subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25
percent.
2. The building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 foot shoreline
setback.
3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REDSTONE RIDGE, PLANNING CASE 2015-08: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION
WITH VARIANCES OF 2.74 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6341 AND 6400 TETON
LANE-REDSTONE RIDGE. APPLICANT/OWNER: CHRIS MAY/CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is an application
from Chris May. Again this is scheduled to go to the City Council. The application is for a
subdivision. This is located on lots 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane. Approximately 2.74 acres are
included in this 4 lot. The property is zoned Residential Single Family and the site contains 2
existing single family homes which will remain. Access is gained to the site via Bretton Way
and Teton Lane and again there’s 2 existing homes. Ultimately 2 other homes will be created.
So this looks a little catty whompis here but there’s a couple of different things going on.
There’s an excess right-of-way that’s on this northern piece right here that needs to be attached.
It’s actually part of a street right-of-way and that will be public hearing for vacation of right-of-
way will be held at the City Council meeting and that will be attached. That’s what this red
arrow is to show you that it will be attached to this lot and then there’s another portion of this lot
here that is owned by this property so the assemblence of those two, with these existing homes is
what makes up the requirement for the subdivision. So as I just mentioned this is the right-of-
way vacation. Again this item will go to the City Council but we wanted to show you that it is
included in the actual application for the subdivision. So as we always do when we do a
subdivision, before we look at any variances because this application does have a variance for a
flag lot, is to look at what would the implications of doing a public street and looking at how that
6