Loading...
06-16-20-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Richard Rice, IT Manager; Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; and Jean Steckling, St. Admin Support Weick: Tonight we have one item on our agenda for public review. Just going over, I think we’re getting good at this Zoom meeting but we’ll go over the guidelines just real quickly. Again we are in a Zoom meeting. I’m assuming we have a quorum with the commissioners. I thought I heard at least 4 voices. Four unique voices on there but please be patient with us as we work through any possible technical difficulties. And a reminder to our commission members who are on the Zoom call please do not hold side chats, text messages or discussions that are not open and public. All of our discussions need to be public and for the record. Tonight as I mentioned we have one item. Staff will present the item and then we’ll do an open forum for comments from the Planning Commission. I don’t think we don’t need to have roll call in that instance. We’ll just open it up and people can ask questions as they need to. Then we’ll have the applicant make a presentation or comments if they would like and then we’ll follow the same format. We’ll open up for questions or comments from the commission. We will have a public hearing. We did not receive any emails I do not believe but if we do they will be summarized on the record. We will open up for telephone calls if anyone wants to call in and we will open the chamber for public comment as well. During the public hearing we will again have an opportunity for the commissioners to make comments or ask questions at that time we can entertain a motion and take a roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING ON AN OUTLOT AND FROM THE STANDARDS GOVERNING WATER- ORIENTED STRUCTURES AT 3920 WHITE OAK LANE. Weick: This evening as I mentioned we have one item on the agenda. It is a request for several variances to permit the construction of a building on an outlot. It is a water oriented structure at 3920 White Oak Lane. Walters: Apologies we did receive one email. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 2 Weick: Okay. Walters: It may not have made it into the packet and if so I apologize but it was from the neighbor just saying that she supported the variance request. Weick: Supported the variance request. Walters: Yes. Weick: Got it. So we’ll be sure that that will be part of the record. Walters: Yep. Weick: Thank you. Walters: So again this is our Planning Case 2020-08. 3920 White Oak Lane variance. They’re requesting a variance to permit a building to be constructed on an outlot. A variance for a second water oriented accessory structure and a variance to exceed the 250 square foot maximum water oriented accessory structure size limit. So a little bit about the location. It’s a bit of an odd lot as there’s one parcel here and then a second parcel separated by Minnewashta Parkway. The area is zoned Residential Single Family. It’s within the shoreland management overlay district. This district requires a 15,000 square foot lot area, 20,000 square feet if the lot is riparian. Has 30 foot front and rear setbacks., 75 foot lake setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, 25 percent lot cover. Per city ordinance outlots are not allowed to have buildings and per the City’s water oriented structure limit riparian properties are allowed one structure within the 75 foot lake setback. The structure cannot exceed 250 square feet. Has a maximum 10 foot height. Must be setback 10 feet from the ordinary high water level and 10 feet from the side lot lines and it should be designed to reduce visibility from the lake. So this site, the main lot is 23,958 square feet. Staff estimated at around 24.65 percent lot cover. It appears to meet all applicable sections of the City’s zoning code. The outlot is 5,662 square feet. Has an estimated 4.6 percent lot cover. It currently has a 260 square foot patio and fire pit which would exceed the maximum water oriented structure limit by 10 feet. As was noted in the report staff believes this was probably built before we required permits for patios. So the applicant is proposing to add an 8 by 10 shed for their water oriented structure on the outlot. The applicant’s justification is when the subdivision was platted it was the stated intent for the outlots to provide lake access for the attached main lot so Lot 1 was attached to Outlot A and Lot 2 had Outlot B attached. So they view their request as asking for the same rights that other riparian property owners would enjoy namely the water oriented accessory structure ordinance. They’ve noted that they have 3 children and it’s somewhat dangerous to haul equipment over a busy road. They’ve noted that the proposed shed location is screened from view by the lake by vegetation and that the proposed location would meet the 10 foot front and 10 foot ordinary high water level setback. They’ve mentioned that the patio was constructed by the previous homeowners so they are requesting to Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 3 be allowed to have a 80 square foot shed to store belongings and other water oriented equipment down by the lake. So staff reviewed the proposal. I made a little chart of the 3 variances being allowed and staff’s recommendation on what the city code allows. Staff believes that permitting the shed to be constructed on the outlot is in line with the subdivision’s intent in creating the outlot. The subdivision establishes as an outlot for the goal of preventing it from being sold off separate from the main lot and someone coming in later trying to build a single family home on it. Allowing a variance for a water oriented shed to be constructed would not in any way undermine those protections. Staff believes that allowing the applicant to place the structure near the property line instead of on or attached to the patio is consistent with the intent of the water oriented accessory structure because it would serve to screen it’s view from the lake more. Staff however feels that allowing the applicant to exceed the 250 square foot accessory structure maximum size would allow the applicant rights in excess of what other property owners enjoyed. We don’t believe that there’s anything unique about the property that necessitates a larger water oriented structure and we recommend that they be required to work within the 250 maximum square footage that is established by ordinance. So staff’s recommendation would be to grant the requested variances to build on an outlot and to have a second water oriented structure. However staff would recommend denying the requested variance to exceed the 250 square foot accessory structure size limit. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie and we will open it for commissioner questions at this time. McGonagill: So MacKenzie so when you say when you, pretty clear. Thanks for the report. It lays it out like the maps and the chart but if I could cut to the chase what you’re really saying is that they could put the shed up but they would have to demolish part of the patio in order to get under the 250? Walters: That is staff’s recommendation yes. McGonagill: Okay. And what if that patio, the patio currently is an impermeable patio? It’s impermeable surface? Walters: Yeah within the shoreland overlay district the city code treats paver and non-paver patios the same. We consider them all to be lot cover but yeah it’s current construction would be impervious surface. McGonagill: Okay so if they were to replace it with a permeable surface that doesn’t get rid of the issue? Walters: No it would still be considered to be a structure and the cumulative size would still be over the 250 square foot limit. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 4 McGonagill: Okay and like you said in your write up, you know you couldn’t find from your aerial photography and everything that this was built prior to 2007 you said before permits were required for this? Walters: I can determine that it was not present before 2005 and was present after 2008. The requirement for patios to receive permits went in 2007. Staff’s practice has generally been to give benefit of the doubt in these situations. McGonagill: Okay. Alright thank you MacKenzie. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes please. Hello Mr. Reeder. Reeder: My question is how often have we allowed the second, where you call structure in their shoreline 75 feet? Walters: Senior Planner Generous can you remember an instance? Generous: I don’t remember. We have had people that have built like a patio adjacent to their shed at the 250 square foot but we considered it one structure. Walters: Typically what we see is folks as Mr. Generous mentioned will add the patio as like an off shoot for the building. In this case because the patio was constructed you know by the previous occupants of the home in a position that doesn’t necessarily make as much sense for a storage structure, that’s what kind of engendered this variance request. Reeder: Okay my concern is that we’re setting a huge precedent by allowing people to have two structures on the lakeshore. The whole purpose of the ordinance which I think is very liberal to start with compared to most other cities is that we don’t want a lot of stuff on the waterfront. We’re trying to preserve it to look like a natural lake the way they were created so I have a problem with the second structure. I also agree with staff on not allowing more lot coverage than what is permitted by ordinance. Both of those seem like slippery slopes to me and I’m not sure I can support them. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Other comments? Noyes: Yeah Commissioner Noyes here. If there wasn’t the current patio and the applicant was coming forward with an 8 by10 shed and a 160 square foot patio that was adjacent to that shed would that meet the requirements? And would we allow that? Walters: They would still need a variance to build on the outlot but assuming my quick math is right that shed and patio would be under 250 square feet and it would meet ordinance. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 5 Noyes: Even though they’re two different types of structures, meaning a patio and a shed we would consider it one location. One building or whatever and it would be okay from that perspective. It wouldn’t be considered two distinct buildings. Walters: Yes that’s been staff’s position on those type of requests historically. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. Other comments from you or other commissioners at this point for staff. Hearing none, at this time I would invite the applicants to come forward and make a presentation or make comments. You can certainly answer some of the questions that have already come up and I’m sure people will have some more as well but welcome and thank you and I would ask as you noticed there’s plastic over that. Just speak up really loud. Like louder than you might because it’s hard to hear. It’s hard to pick up. Chad Lundeen: Well first of all thank you for your time. Weick: Welcome. Chad Lundeen: And consideration in this matter. Chad and Lindsey Lundeen and I think MacKenzie probably. Reeder: Mr. Chairman I can’t hear. Weick: Yeah just lean in closer if you can yeah. Chad Lundeen: Okay touch this. So just saying thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Chad and Lindsey Lundeen and I was just going to say that I think MacKenzie gave a pretty good summary of our request and the reasons for those requests so I’ll just briefly summarize that. I think the biggest reason that we want to ask for this is just to have a safety of crossing the parkway and we’ve got little kids and carrying paddleboards and. Lindsey Lundeen: Kayaks. Chad Lundeen: Kayaks and that sort of thing. Lindsey Lundeen: Water skis. Chad Lundeen: With the vehicles zooming by is not safe. Secondly we want to make sure we can secure those items. Right now if we leave those down by the water overnight. We’re in close proximity to the public beach and there’s people there within eye sight of that and can see us, leave that there could be a safety or a security concern. And then really just kind of a shed would help us hide and keep some of that look of junk and things laying there out of sight and may look a little cleaner. And then really just the convenience too of not carrying those items Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 6 you know from the garage down to the water every time you use them. So for those reasons we think that would be justified. Secondly to speak to the square footage piece. We covered that pretty well too. There’s we estimated like 260 previously. It was there when we purchased it a little over a year ago. A year and 2 days we closed on the place and we just think it would be a shame to demo or tear up you know a nice looking paver stones around a fire pit and patio stone. What I think we’ve established there’s probably a legitimate need for some type of storage shed on that piece and my question was going to be if paver stones actually count towards the square footage. I think that was the first question that was asked and sounds like they do. Weick: They do. Chad Lundeen: I had a neighbor that was telling me I don’t think those actually count. You should make sure you ask so. Weick: Great. Chad Lundeen: With that I guess any questions for us? Weick: I had one and it just, I blanked on it so. I know I will. I guess I’ll open it up then for our commissioners in the call to ask questions of our applicants. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. Do you now have, don’t you now have all that stuff stored on your property? I happened…your property the other day and noticed that it was there now and my second part of the question is, have you had any problems with that? Lindsey Lundeen: Yes and no. It depends how lazy we’re feeling. A lot of times we will just leave it kind of off to the side. If you saw like a kayak and a paddleboard that would be kind of right where we would want the shed. Sometimes we’ll keep it in our boat. About half the time we’ll bring it back up to our garage. It just kind of depends on honestly sheer laziness and how much we want to bring it all up or how much we’re like well let’s just risk it. We have not had any theft issues. However I will say we are two docks down from the public beach and within the last week I’ve seen two people on our neighbor’s dock just sitting on their bench. Our neighbors are not in town. We know their family. It’s not their family and just today we had kids, about 5 or 6 I would say late middle school aged boys jumping off the raft right in front of our dock and it was like that’s clearly our property so we definitely I think just due to location have people who are, and there’s a sidewalk right there and a lot of people. I run that route. You know we have put a sign up from the Minnewashta Parkway just saying like the Lundeen’s just so people, like a nicer way of saying like this is private property. Please don’t walk down our steps but we don’t really have anything there so there are certainly people who just kind of take liberties on their walk to come take a rest. I’ve never seen it on our dock but like we’re just on our beach watching people sit there with their dog going that’s a private dock. So no theft yet but you know to Chad’s point, if they’re at our neighbor’s dock or they’re at our jumping off raft right in front of our dock they’re certainly seeing that there’s a $1,000 paddleboard, $600 kayak, Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 7 water skis, life jackets, all those things that would be very easy to take and we’re you know across the street from that property so it’s not like we could just hear them in our back yard like some other people on the property. You know if you’re close. We’re quite a ways away. There is a flood light that would go on but the chances of us seeing that from our bedroom across the street is slim to none. Chad Lundeen: And in the winter months when there’s no leaf cover you know we can see down towards there. As soon as the greenery blooms then we can’t see the dock or any of that so the other thing is there’s construction going on in the parkway right now which is going to be a while so as those crews are starting to work and move there’s just people standing and kind of looking down in. You know if there’s valuable items there, not saying that that’s what they would take but you’d hate to see that happen. Lindsey Lundeen: Yeah we’d like to think everyone’s good but. Weick: Okay thank you. Commissioner Reeder, other questions or follow up? Reeder: I do not at this time. Weick: Okay. Any other questions for our applicants? Von Oven: Ah yeah Commissioner Von Oven here. If we were to vote along with staff’s recommendations. So allowing the shed. Allowing two buildings as well as, whatever it’s called but you did have to remove some or all of the patio, have you thought through what you would want to do? Is there a primary sort of, if this is the way that this goes this is what we would do? Chad Lundeen: Yeah good question. We were thinking the fire pit looks to be able 80 square feet, maybe a little larger but that would probably be the easiest to remove those paver stones versus the patio blocks that are neatly put together. So that was going to be a question that I would have for you all and then another question that I would have would be if we decided you know playing the math game of figuring out if we could remove this section but it wasn’t quite 90 square feet could we go with an 8 by 6 instead for the shed or is it, you know we’ve requested 8 by 10. It has to be 8 or 10, yes or no? I don’t know how that works. Von Oven: So actually that means we have the same question because I would like to know who manages that process and tells you what is and is not allowed based on those I’ll call it negotiations or measurement changes. Weick: I guess MacKenzie. Walters: Yeah to jump in. So the way staff structured the variance is that it would allow them to build a second structure and it would allow them to build on the outlot. It would also require them to meet the 250 square foot. Just like what would happen if there was no variance they Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 8 would apply for a permit and I would look it over and if the total met the setbacks and the 250 square foot I could issue the permit. Be that through using a 6 by 10 shed or if they decided oh you know we’d actually rather get rid of the patio entirely and have a 250 square foot shed, that would in theory you know meet code and meet the variance provisions you gave them so they would have flexibility in how to arrange that 250 square feet on their property. And that’d be done administratively during the permitting process. Chad Lundeen: Okay that’s helpful, thanks. Von Oven: No further questions from me. Weick: Great thank you. Skistad: I do have a question. Weick: Wonderful. Hello Commissioner Skistad. Skistad: I’m wondering if you thought about, you know how they have the metal, I don’t know what they’re called so I guess they’re sort of metal docks at Lake Ann. Is that something that could be allowed for them to secure their kayak and their paddleboard for instance? Could they put that, something like that out? Weick: Instead of a shed? Skistad: Just as another option. As another idea. I mean is that, I don’t know if that, I know that, I understand it doesn’t meet their need but I just was curious as to whether or not that that sort of structure was allowed being it’s pretty minimal. Walters: I guess I’m not 100 percent certain, I don’t have a good visual of what you’re referring to. If it was like a locker system that was integral to the dock, then it wouldn’t be considered a building. The issue is anything that would be considered a building is going to trigger the no building on an outlot provision. And anything anchored to the ground technically under our ordinance is a structure so I think unless it was something like a storage locker on the dock I think it’s likely to run into the same problem. Skistad: So that’s interesting. So they could have a storage locker attached to the dock? That was like a free floating dock. Weick: Like a bin, is that what you’re saying? There’d be like a bin on the dock? Walters: Assuming like you know there was like a, I don’t know say 2 foot by 4 foot wide chest for life jackets that was bolted to the dock. But I don’t see how that would meet the need they’re suggesting just in terms of the dimensions of like a paddleboard or what not. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 9 McGonagill: Mr. Chairman could I ask questions to that? Weick: Please do. McGonagill: Is there any, this thought occurred to me. I’m just wondering about storage on these I think buildings. Are there any restrictions on what can go in them? For example can an applicant, someone has one, can they store gasoline in there? Oil and stuff or is it just limited to water toys and things like that or is the language silent on that? I’m coming from this of water quality. Walters: Language is silent to my knowledge. We don’t specify what use the accessory structure can be put to. They say that it can’t have running water or sanitary facilities ran down to it. McGonagill: Okay but there’s no other restrictions to it other than like for example you don’t have to have a drip pan or anything like that under your gas cans or you know to protect the water quality. I’m familiar with those things. I’ve done it myself but not in these cases. Walters: There is nothing like that present in the city code. McGonagill: Okay so it’s a moot issue here thank you. Weick: Thanks Commissioner McGonagill. Any other questions for our applicants? Reeder: Mr. Chairman one more question. If they put a storage box of some kind on their patio would that be considered a building? Walters: So again because if it’s anchored to the ground it’s going to trigger the structure requirement. Anything substantive enough to meet the requested need would be considered a structure. However we’re you know a shed or a large storage box anchored to the patio, it would negate the need for a second water oriented accessory structure variance and it would negate the need for the 250 square foot variance because it’d be on the patio which is existing lot area. Weick: But then you’d lose the patio. Walters: You would lose the patio area yes. Lindsey Lundeen: Well and I would also just add on that because we did talk about that but that would be a bit more of an eye sore if I’m being frank because our patio, it’s very beautifully done. It wasn’t done by us but it’s just kind of right in the center. And so now you’d have a giant, you know our thought is you’d, our thought is you’d barely see the shed where we kind of want to put it. If you put it on that patio it’s like oh there’s a shed. Hidden by those Adirondack Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 10 chairs so I mean we talked about that but if you’re talking about like the look of the property that’s, we both grew up on lakes. That’s super important to us too in kind of preserving, you know you want it to look nice as people are driving by on a lake or driving, like again you can see it from the beach so I do think it would kind of negate the look. I mean you’d just see the shed as you drove past our property whereas I really don’t think unless you’re looking you’d see it how we would want it tucked back. Weick: Did that answer your question Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: It does. Weick: Okay. Anyone else? It’s a good conversation. I wait a little longer than normal MacKenzie to get people a chance to hit their mute button and video button and everything else but I think we’re good. I appreciate if you had any last comments that’s fine but we appreciate you coming forward and giving your perspective. Chad Lundeen: Sure, thank you very much. Weick: Great. With that I will open the public hearing portion of tonight’s matter. The number has been up on the screen. 952-227-1100 and I don’t believe. Generous: We don’t have any. Weick: The line is not lighting up over there by Mr. Generous. No calls, okay. No calls. We did mention we had an email. That will be in the record. It was in favor of the variances from a neighbor and there is no one in chambers coming forward so with that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s matter and ask for discussion from the Planning Commission. I will, I’ll open with just a couple thoughts. Just some things that might have, that stand out for me. You know I’m sensitive to the folks in Chanhassen that have those split properties. You know it’s intentionally split like that. I really think, I am sensitive to you know just pulling everything. You know a lawnmower. Kayak. Whatever it might be. If there’s any of those type of things that can be safely stored in a hidden manner on someone’s property I think that’s a great idea and then I believe there’s also children involved and probably friends of children as well and you just, I can only imagine it’s pretty stressful to have people running back and forth so I think anything we can do to help alleviate that stress would be really beneficial. It’s a beautiful property. They were kind enough to, I don’t know if everybody looked but there were several pictures provided of the area. They good a good sense of the space that we’re talking about. I thought those were really good pictures so I’m especially interested in our commissioners comments and thoughts on the third variance which is the need to fit within the 250 square feet. And I’m just interested to hear what your thoughts are on that and how you’d like to move forward so I’ll open it up for other commissioner comments as well. McGonagill: Well Mr. Chairman I’ll go ahead if you’d like. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 11 Weick: Thank you. McGonagill: I can tell you how I would, I just want to say how…pretty well looked at it and I’ll tell you, take you through my logic of why. When I look at the proposed motion I agree that the variance to permit an out building to be constructed should be approved. The reason being is solely like yourself. It’s a safety issue and also, and I have a boat on Minnetonka. I’ve seen this stuff all the time so it’s, I get that but I appreciate the fact they want to do that. Same thing I appreciate the fact of where they’re trying to site the building. They’re trying to hide it and if they were going to put it in the middle of the lot I’d have a lot more heartburn but I don’t. It’s over on the side behind trees. It won’t be seen so I would also, so I’m in favor of the building. I’m in favor of the variance for a second water oriented structure but I would also approve the variance request for 250 square feet. I’m against denying this. I would leave and I’ll tell you why and how I got there. When I look at page 5 of the staff report and you know when I, okay this is where I’m going. A lot of it may be flawed and I appreciate MacKenzie laying all this out. They always do a great job of saying this is the way the rules are and I’m a real one for stickler for the rules always. But in this case what I see is the variance, the rule for 250 square feet is, and Bob, Commissioner Reeder said it well. We’re trying to keep the beauty of the lake pure. We’re trying to keep it where it looks like, it looks natural. I agree with that. So I look at the lot and I say okay I’m on the dock. I see where they’re going to put the building. Okay it’s hidden. That’s great. I look over here where the patio is, really all I see is the chairs. I don’t see the patio. All I see is the rock wall behind it and oh by the way I can see their house up the hill so I understand why they want it because I wouldn’t want to carry all that stuff down there myself. But it’s not like you know and there’s only 4.9 percent of lot cover on the lot so I don’t think it’s a water quality issue and to me it’s not an optical issue. You know I’m looking, I can see the rock wall. I can’t see the patio. I can’t see, now if they were in here and want to put a gazebo or something on that patio I’d have an issue but I don’t. It’s like I realize it’s a deviation from the variance. I realize that deal but to me it was built before the permits were required. They’ve been good about working with the City to kind of go through it. It’s not impacting the beauty of the lake or the view. So I look at that and go yeah, it’d be nice if they had permitted up front…but they didn’t. It’s not their fault and I’m inclined to approve all 3. So that’s my thoughts Mr. Chairman. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Von Oven: Commissioner McGonagill this is Commissioner Von Oven. I think for the most part you and I are sharing the same brain tonight because you basically noted a ton of the things that, I entered this conversation. I entered this meeting feeling as thought this was not a variance to approve because I absolutely do not want to set a precedent and have a flood of people trying to get two buildings and you know massive square feet on the shoreline. I’m absolutely with you on all of the things that you noted that I feel in the future if someone were to come with another variance, unless it met all of those things I would feel confident holding the same standards to approve this one and not to approve a future one. What I would stress I guess is, I also keyed in Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 12 on the picture as if you’re standing on the dock and totally and completely agree right. You’re looking at that and you’re like alright I get the intent. I get the rules but I can’t see that patio. Now the reality is if I’m applying for a permit or a variance in the future I just squat down a little bit and now I can’t see the patio so I want to make it noted that this patio absolutely existed before these owners moved in. That the time in question is, you know could have been without permits so that we don’t have future homeowners coming and requesting a list of the same things but hoping to build two things under the umbrella of however many feet that this third variance ends up being so I absolutely would be in support of what you’re saying Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: If I may Mr. Chairman, give some feedback to Commissioner Von Oven. I agree with him and I would also support that that if someone was coming, if the building was there and they wanted to build a patio like this I would say well no. It’s got to be adjacent to the building and we have to limit it. So you know I agree with him. I don’t want people coming through the door either but this is a different sort of a…so I do appreciate that. Thank you and I’ll try to hush now. Weick: I think the contrarian in me would say the concern is not so much about how this property looks or the use of the 340 square feet on this property because I do agree that it, you know everything lines up really well. Everything’s hidden. It’s beautiful. It probably works here. What I think the concern is after you know we’re long gone from the commission and someone looks back on this property and says there was an approved 340 square foot coverage variance. All of a sudden then someone else is going to build a 340 square foot structure whether it’s a beautiful patio or whether it’s a gigantic you know shed. I’m just throwing it out there as sort of the contrarian view to say that’s, I think that’s the City’s concern is to say are we setting a precedent for someone to build a 340 square foot structure in the future. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I totally agree with you. I mean that’s why MacKenzie did the right thing of bringing it forward the way he did. I mean he’s right in doing that and, but against that I would say we’ve approved a lot of different variances from cul-de-sacs to long roads to things cut through you know they don’t meet the plan so each of those are trying to, needs consideration not only of the site they’re in and the quality of what we’re trying to maintain in Chanhassen but also the, you know for our residents themselves and so that’s kind of where I, as you know I’m usually on the other side of these and tonight I’m over here and this is how I ended up here is look I say okay I get it so. Weick: Great. I jumped in again and I apologize if there’s other commissioners who would like to comment. Noyes: Chairman it’s Commissioner Noyes. I’ve got a little bit more of a contrarian view on this than others and I say that also acknowledging that I agree with just about every comment that was made, not only from the commission but also from the applicants. I think the plan of what they’re doing, they’re doing it absolutely the right way. Where I struggle is on precedence Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 13 being set. You know the first one which is adding a second structure. That’s a precedent that would be set here. Then having the total square feet of structure or structures exceeding the ordinance is another precedent we’re setting so I’m a bit concerned about that. It’s interesting and I may contradict myself a little bit here, if I vote for this I would probably vote for all 3 variances and that sounds funny but the reason I say that is, tying into everybody else’s comments, if you’re going to do it let’s have them do it the right way and I don’t think that’s making their current patio smaller or anything like that. I just need to personally get over the, are we going to start allowing two structures and are we going to start allowing structures to take up more than 240 square feet. Or 250 square feet, excuse me. Weick: Thank you. A very good perspective. As they all have been this evening. Yes Commissioner Skistad. Skistad: Yeah I guess my, I have to wonder about the underlining ordinance and whether or not that ordinance maybe makes sense most of the time. I’m sorry my family’s coming in the door. Hopefully they’ll be quiet. But anyway the underlining ordinance you know having to have the structure all together probably doesn’t make sense for a lot of properties where you might want to have a separate patio and you want to hide your shed so I think what they say makes sense and maybe we should be looking at the underlining ordinance in the future and saying does this ordinance really meet the need of the community. Weick: Another good point. Thank you Commissioner Skistad. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: And I first want to say I’ve gone up and down Minnewashta Parkway many times and I never knew that this beach was down there because you can’t see it from the road so making anything down there is certainly not going to be anything that many people in the city will ever know changed. Only from the water can you really see this but I also don’t feel that because of that that there’s much of a public exposure to things that are stored down there and if you need to store something down there you could put a locked structure either on the dock or on the back part of the patio area so, and I still have a problem with allowing two structures on a lot. Having lived on lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka forever and currently on one of the lakes here in Chanhassen, it is I think important to regulate what happens on the lakeshore. After saying that I do think that what they’re proposing is the best possible way to do, to meet their need. They’re putting it off to the side. They’re doing it I think in a manner that is probably the best it could be for everybody’s visual, being only the people from out in the water that would see it. But I will not be able to vote for it because of the two variances that they’re requesting. One to have a second building. Well I think the second building is my main problem. Well exceeding the total number of square footage. They could enjoy that lakeshore front there I think as many of the people do without having a concrete patio there. You could as a lot of us do have things on Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 14 the tables and things on the water front area without that so if they really wanted the building I think they could modify the terrace area or the fire pit and still accomplish what they want to do so I will not vote in favor of the ordinance as proposed by staff with giving the two variances. Weick: Can you clarify Commissioner Reeder just for me. You’re opposed to the square footage and the second building? Reeder: Correct. Actually staff is not recommending the square footage. I understand that so I agree with staff on that and then I think that we shouldn’t have two structures on this because that’s a slippery slope. Weick: Okay thank you. I just wanted to be sure I understood your opinion on that. I don’t think we have Commissioner Randall out there do we? If so he’s been awful quiet but I think we’ve heard from everybody. Any other, have any of the comments that have been made sparked any other discussion and if not I would certainly consider any type of motion that someone wants to put forward. Whether that be the motion as it reads in the staff report or a modified motion. McGonagill: Mr. Chair I do have…tell me how we should do this because what I’m hearing is three motions that people have talked about. One as it’s written. The one that Commissioner Reeder talked about that would approve the first part, first variance and not approve the second or the third and then, of that motion and then the one that I had discussed about approving the variance. Approving the variance for the building of a second structure, approving the variance for the water oriented structure and also approving the variance to exceed 250 so that’s kind of, there’s a three way deal here so how do you want to go at that Mr. Chairman? Weick: Well I only see it as a two way deal because Commissioner Reeder being opposed to the second water oriented structure basically he’s opposed to anything on this and you know if they were to build something they would have to build it on the existing structure in order to qualify as one structure. So basically that’s a, to me that’s a no on everything so we’re really considering two options here. One is the motion as it’s written by staff which would allow the second building. Or the second structure but limit it to 250 total square feet across both structures. That’s the way it’s written now. Or we could certainly entertain a motion that allows the square footage to be increased to 340. Up to 340. Or whatever number you, I don’t want to put words in your mouth but yeah. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman that’s good. You did clarify that and you are correct. Thank you. Walters: Chairman I will note if there’s an interest in making either of the two motions you mentioned on the power point I did take the liberty of drafting appropriate motions for both of those scenarios. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 15 McGonagill: Thank you MacKenzie. Well Mr. Chairman I will make a motion. MacKenzie it’s the one to approve all three so do you want to show it? Walters: Hopefully it should be if we can get the power point up. McGonagill: I’m just saying Mr. Reeder I really appreciate, Commissioner Reeder really appreciate your position on it, I really do. I do so. There I can’t see it MacKenzie. Walters: Oh nuts I am so sorry. I thought you all were able to see my power point presentation. I can redo the motion that was written and you can, ah there we are. Can you see it now? McGonagill: Yes I can. Walters: Okay that is the one that would approve all three variances and direct staff to adopt, write Findings of Fact supporting that action. McGonagill: Okay thank you MacKenzie. Mr. Chairman I would move the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water oriented accessory structure, known as the WOAS, and approves the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure limit by 90 square feet, subject to the conditions of approval and directs staff to write Findings of Fact and Decision supporting this action. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Von Oven: I’ll second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Von Oven, yep. Commissioner Von Oven. I’m just writing feverishly here, bear with me. While I’m writing are there any, before we vote any further comments any commissioners would like to make prior to our vote? Von Oven: There is just a quick clarification question. Weick: Yes. Von Oven: Water oriented accessory structure size limit by 90 square feet. This doesn’t, I think I’m getting too restrictive but this doesn’t mean they have to build exactly a 90 foot, a 90 square foot shed right? Do we have to say not to exceed 90 square feet? Walters: Yeah they can always go under it if they want. Von Oven: They can always go under, okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 16 Walters: They would just not be able to go over the 340 square feet. Von Oven: Got it. Says the guy who would be approving the size so that makes me confident. Weick: And the 90…to really detailed about it. The 90 takes into account an 80 square foot shed, which they had proposed and then there’s actually 260 square feet on the existing patio. So that gets us to the 340. Walters: Yeah staff felt it was appropriate to legitimize the existing non-conformity were that to be approved. Weick: Correct. Von Oven: Thank you. Weick: Awesome. We do have a second, yep. We have a valid motion from Commissioner McGonagill. We have a second from Commissioner Von Oven and we will roll call vote. McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water oriented accessory structure, known as the WOAS, and approves the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure limit by 90 square feet, subject to the conditions of approval and directs staff to write Findings of Fact and Decision supporting this action. 1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or construction of the building. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. 3. The installation of a shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility easement associated with the outlot. 4. The combined area of both water oriented accessory structures may exceed the 250 square feet by 90 square feet. Commissioners McGonagill, Von Oven and Skistad voted in favor; Commissioners Reeder, Noyes and Weick opposed. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. Weick: So we have 6 commissioners voting. We have 3 in favor. We have 3 opposed so the item will go to City Council. So City Council will break our tie, is that? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 17 Generous: Basically. Walters: Literally speaking because the motion failed, if somebody else wanted to make a second motion and take a vote on that and were that motion to carry, that would also be a legal maneuver. Just Robert’s Rules of Order. Weick: So this doesn’t automatically go to City Council? Walters: It would go to council if no other action is taken. Hypothetically a commissioner could propose an alternative motion. This motion having failed. In which case, because my understanding it was a 3-3 vote correct? Weick: Yes. Walters: Which means the motion was not passed so if a different motion were made and that motion received two-thirds of the vote then it would be approved at the commission level. If that motion were approved with let’s say a 4 to 2 majority it would go to the council as Planning Commission’s recommendation. As it stands right now if no further action was taken it would go to council with a note that the Planning Commission made this motion and the motion failed to carry with a 3-3 vote. McGonagill: That’s the way I understand it as well. Weick: Okay. I will, and sorry I’m just taking a minute to process there. So I will open if anyone would like to make a motion you are certainly free to do that at this time. And it can be any motion for that matter. I supposed conceivably we could read, could someone, they couldn’t make the same motion. It would have to be unique? Walters: In absolute theory you could I believe make the same motion but typically because anyone could change their vote. Weick: Right. Walters: Anyone, well no because it failed. Never mind, sorry. Generous: There’s no say. Walters: Yeah just in advance. Weick: Okay. Well I will certainly give the commission opportunity to make another proposal. Another motion, excuse me. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 18 Von Oven: If you could put the original motion proposed by staff up on the screen. I’m now going to make a motion. There we go. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water oriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure size limit subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Hearing none the motion will not be voted on so we will move forward with the original motion as voted on 3-3. That will be, I just want to be really clear for the applicants that they don’t have to do anything. This will go to City Council on July 13th and City Council will make a decision. Either in favor of our motion as we’ve presented it, or no. Generous: They can do. Weick: They can do anything they want. Walters: The council may approve, amend, deny. They have complete freedom of action. Weick: Because it’s a tie. Walters: Well because the council has complete authority always to do whatever so even if, you know it’s like when something’s approved by the Planning Commission and it’s appealed to the council, the council can at that point change it in any way, shape or form regardless of what was approved at the commission level. Weick: I just want to be really clear the applicants do not need to appeal? Walters: No. It will automatically go to council. Generous: Because they don’t have a decision at the Board of Appeals. Weick: Okay. Because we did not make a decision. Okay. And this doesn’t happen often so I apologize. I just want, I don’t want to send you off and have you not do something that you needed to do. But it sounds like this will be heard by the City Council on July 13th and we can expect a decision then. Walters: Correct. Weick: Thank you so much everybody. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 19 McGonagill: Mr. Chair I think the applicant did a great job of presenting things and going through it. This is Commissioner McGonagill. I really appreciate what they did so thank them for us for coming and doing what they did. Weick: Yeah sorry about that Commissioner McGonagill. We were kind of talking over you a little bit but he was thanking you for coming in and being prepared and offering so much information. And the applicants also wanted to be clear that, as to everything that was going to be in the record, including the email in favor of all three variances from their neighbor. And we had mentioned that that will be on the record and that will be included in the packet. The other thing I’ll say as we go forward MacKenzie, this you will provide a summary of what we’ve discussed tonight for the City Council as well? Walters: Yep. My practice is I do shorthand notes hitting on the key questions each commissioner asks when I present to council and then they will also have access to the verbatim Minutes of this meeting which are included so both my summary of the discussion and verbatim will be present and forwarded to the council. Weick: So the council, for the applicant’s purpose they’ll have a pretty clear picture of what we got hung up on so they can really focus in on that and then make the appropriate decision for you. Okay thank you very much again everybody. I think we all learned a little bit this evening so that’s not a bad thing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McGonagill noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 2, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Weick: And do we have any City Council action updates? Generous: I have one that you didn’t deal with but the City Council released a development contract for the McGlynn Park development which is for the McGlynn Road across from Paisley Park. So that’s it. The other thing is we will be having a meeting, public hearings on July 7th. The Planning Commission will hold 3 public hearings. One for a variance, a setback variance on Frontier Trail. One is the old Gedney property is coming in for re-use as a food processing facility and outdoor storage. It’s called Hemp Bakers. And the third one is we’re doing a chapel PUD amendment, to the Chaparral development. There was an error in the ordinance when it was adopted in 2012 and so we’re correcting that so. But we are, because it was an adopted ordinance we have to go through a public hearing process to correct that so. McGonagill: So Bob we’re doing that ordinance. We’re doing the, what are the other two you said? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 16, 2020 20 Generous: The 21000 Stoughton Avenue is a conditional use permit for a food processing and outdoor storage. McGonagill: Oh correct, yeah okay. And the other one? Generous: Was a variance on Frontier Trail. It’s a setback variance. McGonagill: Okay, thank you. Generous: That’s it. Weick: That’s all we have from the City update. Are there any commissioner presentations? Always welcome to bring something up at this time if you’d like. Maybe next time. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Skistad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim