PC Minutes 9-3-19Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
24
Michael Baier: Thanks for your time.
Weick: You bet.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVER
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE.
Aanenson: Thank you. This is a request for a variance for a front yard setback. Applicant
Susan and Larry Nowlin. Again located at 3713 South Cedar Drive. I think we did another one
recently in this neighborhood. This property is zoned residential single family. 20,000 square
foot lot area. These are the standards. 30 foot front. 30 in the rear. 75 feet from the lake. 10
foot on the side and 25 percent lot coverage. So the conditions on this is the 9,500 square foot
lot. As you can see it’s deficient. Currently it has a 90, excuse me. 29.43 lot cover. It’s non-
conforming on the side yard setback. 9.5 on the east side. There’s a variance. The request for
the variance is for a detached garage with a 15 foot front setback. Actually the garage is 8.2 feet
from the setback and as you know as we talked about last time enough parking in the front so the
house in the rear deck completely comply with the setbacks. So the applicant’s proposal then is
to remove the existing detached garage and move it closer to the house. In reviewing this the
staff’s justification of based on city code for single family homes is the proposal increases the
front yard setback from 8.2 to 25 feet giving what staff believes is great guest parking. The
proposal also decreases the lot cover by 2.6. Again there’s currently hard cover on that area
where it’s as a driveway but now becomes part of the garage so it does decrease the hard cover.
The lot is substandard. Requires a variance to accommodate the two car garage. The position of
the house and the narrowness of the lot make it impossible to adequately attached the two car
garage meeting the 30 foot front yard setback. So MacKenzie worked on this one. MacKenzie
Waters. Staff member and worked hard with the applicants through a number of different
designs to minimize the amount of variances that were needed and so the plan before you
accommodates that. So there was two letters from residents and you did receive another one in
your packet and that was from Ms. Reamer and so that was regarding how her subdivision or her
variance request and this variance request differed so again there was a request about the pavers.
Why doesn’t this one require new pavers or vegetated buffer on this site and so again it’s
significantly smaller lot cover variance. The 1.83 versus the 10 percent that was required on the,
on Mrs. Reamer’s recent variance and then the location of the impervious surface is outside of
the 75 foot lakeshore setback so that’s again we look at each project and apply the mitigation
standards based on the, what we as staff see as the implications so because the amount of lot
cover that was reduced from 29 to 26 versus the 35 to the 34 so significantly higher amount of
hard cover on the first request as opposed to this one so again that was the reason for not
requiring the landscape buffer. I believe that she stated that she had met with MacKenzie and
she tried to get this hard cover. I’m not aware of those discussions and I apologize for that but
the scope on the work of the addition reducing the non-conformity versus the demo rebuild and
expanding variances where we applied the additional standards so no this one isn’t required to do
the pervious pavers because they originally…nor are they required for the buffer. They do have
a greater setback adjacent to the lake so that was our basis for that. So again the staff’s
assessment summary, the proposed lot is substandard and given the current house placement
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
25
cannot accommodate a two car garage without a variance and the applicant’s proposed lot cover
is not excessive and therefore there are not areas that would be, would be reasonable to further
reduce it. The proposed garage is reasonably sized to accommodate two vehicles and provide
some additional storage. Based on lot coverage you know try to put that inside the garage itself
and the proposal significantly improves the non-conforming front yard setback in the current, in
the proposed configuration. And the applicant has worked with staff again trying to find the best
solution. There was a number of different iterations before this one was settled upon so with that
staff is recommending that you approve, acting as the Board of the Adjustments and Appeals that
yo u approve the 5 foot front setback and 1.83 lot cover variance for the construction of an
attached garage to the, subject to the conditions of the staff report and the attached Findings of
Fact and Decision. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Weick: Thanks Kate. I have one. There is a picture on, I think it’s page 5 of 8 and I think it’s
just an optical illusion but the current garage is not connected right? That’s not a roof there?
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: That’s actually the pavement inbetween.
Aanenson: Right, correct. Correct.
Weick: Okay. I just wanted to clarify.
Aanenson: That’s an optical illusion.
Weick: I was like wait, that doesn’t look right. It looks like there’s a building there. Okay
that’s all I had. Any other questions?
Tietz: I just.
Weick: Yeah.
Tietz: Steve to your counter point. I drove by. That link, the current link between the garage
and the house looks lower than the garage elevation. Is that accurate? And yet the section here,
the house it looks like the new garage is lower than the first floor of the house. Are you going to
have a, am I, he’s nodding. Did I misread something?
Aanenson: I’ll let you ask the applicant that. I’m going to bring up one other point if I may
Chairman.
Weick: Yeah.
Aanenson: I know this was asked of, if there’s something missing on the survey so this is the
variance request and there are conditions of approval that are enumerated in the staff report and
those are that they have to provide a survey with additional information. If I may just for the
record so if you do approve it they have to apply for a building permit. They also have to apply
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
26
for necessary permits from the watershed district. They also have to submit a plan for removal
of the driveway abutting South Cedar right-of-way. And then they also have to show the erosion
control plans we talked about within them and they also have to show any additional trees. The
City Forester did go out there today and didn’t believe there was anything over the 6 inch width
but also all trees have to be preserved during construction and those are things that we didn’t
know on the building permit itself when that comes forward and then if there’s not one tree in the
front yard then we would request that one tree so those are the conditions of approval so I just
want to make sure that those are part of the record as well.
Weick: Yep and those are on page 8 of 8 in the report. And we’ll save that question for the
applicant when they, okay. Any other questions for Kate? Hearing none I would invite the
applicants to come forward and share their project with us. Thank you for coming tonight.
Susan Nowlin: I’m Susan. This is Larry.
Weick: Hello. Hi there.
Susan Nowlin: And we moved in on June 26th and are going to remodel the home and we’ve
been learning a lot along the way and our initial plans were for a little bit larger remodel and a
side variance and in working with MacKenzie realized that that was not a favorable way to go
and we scaled down our remodel. We scaled down the width of the garage so we’re at 21 foot
garage now which is about as small as we feel, that’s an outside measure so we’re getting it as
far back as we can. Still allowing the cars to fit in and allowing there to be stairs to go up to the
house so we can get into the home. And you asked the question about what it looked like, you
know the slope is down. We are going to have, the current garage demolished. There is
currently a large 4 square patio that covers the full distance between the current garage and the
home. That’s coming out. That’s where part of the new garage will be and it will be part of,
they’re putting in a foundation so that it will be level with the first floor of the home is what the
plan is.
Tietz: Okay. Yeah it looks, I think it was when you look from the road, I didn’t wander around
your property.
Susan Nowlin: We were wondering who that guy was.
Tietz: But it looked so that patio must be actually lower than you go up to the first floor, is that
about right? Because it looks.
Larry Nowlin: That’s right.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah.
Tietz: Sheet 2 of 6 on your architectural elevations it looks like the driveway or the garage slab
will be just a little bit lower than your current first floor elevation.
Larry Nowlin: It could be.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
27
Tietz: And that’s fine. I just wanted.
Susan Nowlin: Yes and so then we will have the stairs that go up.
Tietz: On the west side that goes up to the house. Yep, that’s fine.
Susan Nowlin: Right, correct.
Tietz: I just needed to clarify.
Susan Nowlin: Yep.
Tietz: Because I think that gap between, I think this is a great solution to get rid of that old
garage.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah.
Tietz: Too bad you can’t get a little bit wider but it looks like you’ve got some depth.
Susan Nowlin: We’ve got the depth. At least it will get the cars in and we’ve got at least enough
space I think that we’ll be able to walk between them and then get up to the, but just the lot is so
narrow we couldn’t get a wider garage without, unless you want to give us a side variance. You
know what.
Weick: It’s a lot harder. I think MacKenzie was right.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah, yeah.
Weick: Good, any other comments about the project or?
Larry Nowlin: We’re anxious to get going we need your help.
Weick: Okay.
Susan Nowlin: Yes, yes.
Weick: Other questions from the commission.
McGonagill: …help you row the boat.
Larry Nowlin: Thank you. You noticed.
Weick: Well thank you for coming tonight.
Susan Nowlin: Okay, thank you so much.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
28
Larry Nowlin: Appreciate it.
Weick: At this time I would open the public hearing portion and invite anyone to come forward
who would like to speak an opinion on this project. And seeing nobody come forward I will
close the public hearing portion of this item. I’m having trouble. And open it up for
commissioner discussion and/or appropriate motion. Commissioner Tietz I think you said it. It
seems like a good use of what’s there.
Tietz: It’s a great solution. Nice push back and get the garage gone and.
Weick: I mean it’s a heck of an area.
Tietz: Have a new garage and your neighborhood is great.
Weick: Yeah. Beautiful.
Susan Nowlin: Thank you.
Tietz: We’ve had a couple projects further out on the point over the last few years and I had an
opportunity to drive through again and boy every time you turn around there’s something new
happening and it looks, it’s really a great neighborhood.
Weick: It’s very unique right in the way it’s laid out. Any thoughts or?
Tietz: Well I’ll make a motion if everyone’s ready.
Weick: That’d be great.
Tietz: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5 foot front yard setback
variance and a 1.83 percent lot cover variance for the construction of an attached garage subject
to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Tietz. Do we have a second?
Randall: Second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Randall. Any final comments for the record?
Tietz moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approve the 5-foot front yard setback variance and 1.83 percent lot cover variance, subject
to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.
2. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed
District.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
29
3. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar
Drive right-of-way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also
provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building
permits (adhere to city detail #5302B).
4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits
on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed. All preserved trees
must be protected during construction.
5. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end
of construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: This item passes 5 to 0.
Larry Nowlin: Thank you.
Susan Nowlin: Thank you very much.
Weick: You bet. Thank you for coming tonight. And we have one more item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE AND EXPAND AN
EXISTING GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6641 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY.
Weick: Kate is this you as well?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: This is on Minnewashta Parkway as you stated and the applicant is James and Jean
Way. This is for a 6 foot side yard setback with a 3 percent lot cover variance to expand an
attached garage. Again this is in the shoreland district. Same standards as the previous
application. 20,000 square foot minimum where you have a riparian lot. 30 feet in the front. 30
in the rear. 75 foot lake setback. 10 on the side and 25 percent lot coverage. So the subject site
here is 15,950 square feet so it’s deficient in the square footage required under the 20,000. It has
almost 30 percent lot coverage. It’s non-conforming on the one side when it’s only 9.8 feet on
the south side setback and it’s non-conforming on the lakeshore setback by, at only 52.3 feet.
The 6 foot lake variance for additional setback of the deck and then the house and rear deck
comply with all other setbacks. So the proposed project is to expand the existing driveway.
Excuse me, the existing garage by approximately 5 feet. I’m just going to hit my laser pointer
here. And 5 feet in width and 5 feet in depth. Have you noticed in some of the older areas we’ve
seen a lot of the garage where we have bigger cars, taller cars and we had one recently up in this
area where they couldn’t get the pickup truck in where it’s a lower profile so meeting today’s
standards so at 18 feet wide the existing garage is too narrow. Pretty similar to the other case