Loading...
Agenda and packetAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2020, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.WORK SESSION B.CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within the Shoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa Trail 2.Discuss Code Amendment to Require Zoning Permits For All Structures That Do Not Require Building Permits 3.Discuss Code Amendment to Permit the Construction of Certain Structures on Outlots D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 1, 2020 E.ADJOURNMENT F.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 15, 2020 Subject Consider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within the Shoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa Trail Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck, which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­foot shoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable living space by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling area and access to the rear yard. The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructed partially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rear portion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porch and, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally, they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, they have explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it and creating a dining room with a view of the lake. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosing decks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommend denial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval of the variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east while maintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within theShoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa TrailSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permitenclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shorelandsetback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into adining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck,which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­footshoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable livingspace by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling areaand access to the rear yard.The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructedpartially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rearportion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porchand, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally,they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, theyhave explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it andcreating a dining room with a view of the lake.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosingdecks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommenddenial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval ofthe variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east whilemaintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Adam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single­Family Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .69 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1970. In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway. In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck. In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room, expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75­foot shoreland setback (dining room, deck, and patio). Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend a Cantilever within theShoreland Setback on Property Located at 9391 Kiowa TrailSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­18PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2­foot shoreland setback variance to permitenclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2­foot shorelandsetback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into adining area by adding a 2­foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are also proposing to expand the existing deck,which would require a 5­foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8­footshoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable livingspace by converting the area above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling areaand access to the rear yard.The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities were constructedpartially within the 75­foot shoreland setback and that this pre­existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rearportion of their property. They have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porchand, with the exception of the 2­foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally,they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, theyhave explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it andcreating a dining room with a view of the lake.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosingdecks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommenddenial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval ofthe variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east whilemaintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but to recommend denial of the setback variances requiredto install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback.A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTAdam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single­Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .69 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.BACKGROUNDCounty records indicate that the house was built in 1970.In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway.In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck.In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room,expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would berequired for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75­foot shoreland setback (dining room, deck, andpatio).Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2­footshoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approvallisted below, and denies the 5.2­foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8­foot shoreland setback variancefor a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota StateBuilding Code.2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3,2020. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision ­ Approval Recommended Findings of Fact and Decision ­ Approval_Alternative Variance Document ­ Recommended Variance Document ­ Alternative Development Review Application Variance Request Description Variance Request Letter Proposed Plan Home Renderings Affidavit of Mailing WRC Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 15, 2020 CC DATE: October 12, 2020 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 13, 2020 CASE #: PC 2020-17 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert their existing deck above a screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. The applicant is also proposing expanding the existing deck which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance and expanding an existing patio that would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. LOCATION: 9391 Kiowa Trail APPLICANT: Adam Bender, ISPIRI LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 OWNER: Stacy and Edward Goff 9391 Kiowa Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .69 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert the area above their screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. They are PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 2 also proposing to expand the existing deck, which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance, and expanding the patio which would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to increase the property’s usable living space by converting the areas above the screen porch into a dining room and expanding the deck to create a grilling area and access to the rear yard. The applicant has noted that the screen porch, deck, rear patio, and other rear yard amenities where constructed partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback and that this pre-existing situation restricts their ability to improve the rear portion of their property. The have also noted that the primary area they wish to enclose is over top of a screen porch and, with the exception of the 2-foot cantilever, would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. Additionally, they have stated that the proposed expansion would in no way impact their neighbor’s view of the lake. Finally, they have explained that their goal is to maintain as much of the home’s original character as possible while updating it and creating a dining room with a view of the lake. In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests to intensify an existing nonconformity by enclosing decks over existing impervious surface, as is proposed here; however, it has also been staff’s practice to recommend denial of variance requests to further encroach into the shoreland setback. In this case, staff recommends approval of the variance request to enclose the deck area above the existing screen porch and to expand the deck to the east while maintaining the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, but recommends denial of the setback variances required to install the cantilever and further expand the deck and patio into the required shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1970. In June of 1981, the City issued a building permit to add an attached garage and remodel the front entryway. In June of 2008, the City issued a building permit to replace the front deck. In July of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit to add a master suite behind the garage, expand the dining room, expand the front porch, expand the deck, and expand the rear patio. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required for the portions of the project that would encroach into the 75’ shoreland setback (dining room, deck, and patio). 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 3 Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires riparian lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, and properties are allowed one water oriented accessory structure up to 250 square feet in size within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The lot is 29,969 square feet with 6,688 square feet (22.5 percent) lot cover. The existing house has a nonconforming screen porch with a 71.8-foot shoreland setback. The existing rear deck’s stairs appear to have a nonconforming 70-foot shoreland setback. The existing rear paver patio appears to have a nonconforming 68-foot shoreland setback. The property appears to have nonconforming water-oriented accessory structures: a 52-square foot shed setback approximately four feet from the ordinary high water level and less than one foot from the side lot line; and, a 162-square foot paver patio setback about four feet from the ordinary high water level. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. Bluff Creek Corridor This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This district requires a 75’ structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high water level and limits the property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD Bandimere’s Heights The plat for this area was recorded in April of 1958, and it predates the establishment of the City of Chanhassen. Despite this, the lots are fairly large with most meeting or exceeding the City’s current minimum lot area and dimension standards. Most of the original homes in the area where built between 1960 and 1970, with some of the original homes being replaced between 1990 and the present. Overall, the neighborhood appears to conform to the zoning code although some homes may have nonconforming shoreland setbacks and some structures located within the shoreland setback likely do not comply with the City’s water-oriented accessory structure standards, likely due to the fact that these setbacks and standards were created after the homes’ initial construction. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS Shoreland Setback The City’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, create separation between structures and the lakeshore, and provide for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian properties. Due to the important role that this setback plays in protecting the quality of the City’s lakes and the potential for these variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of the City’s lakes, the City has historically been very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. The applicant’s home has three existing encroachments into the 75-foot shoreland setback. The screen porch encroaches approximately 3.2 feet, the deck encroaches about 5 feet, and the patio encroaches around 7 feet. Staff believes that all of these encroachments, with the exception of the paver portion of the patio added without a permit between 2008 and 2011, predate the relevant ordinances and are legal nonconformities. Since the paver patio was added after the 2007 code amendment requiring zoning permits for patios and no permit is on file for the patio, 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 5 staff cannot consider it a legal nonconformity; however, the concrete portion of the patio, where the expansion is proposed, was in place prior to the 2007 amendment and would be considered a legal nonconformity. Section 20-71 of the City Code explains the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance as: The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any nonconforming use, building or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Subsequent sections of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance permit the continuation, replacement, maintenance, and improvement, but not expansion of nonconforming uses, Sec. 20- 72(a), and require that additions to nonconforming single-family dwellings meet setback requirements, Sec. 20-72(d). When evaluating variance requests for nonconforming homes, staff examines the extent to which the requested variance deviates from the stated intent and provisions of the nonconforming use ordinance and attempts to balance this with the variance finding’s practical difficulties and reasonable use standards. Staff believes the proposed remodel and conversion of the area directly above the existing screen porch is the result of a practical difficulty in remodeling and updating an older home. Since the screen porch already encroaches into the shoreland setback and constitutes impervious surface within that area, enclosing the top of it, while technically intensifying the nonconformity, does not increase the extent of the existing encroachment. The City has historically supported these types of variance request, so long as they maintain the existing setbacks. In this case, the applicant is also proposing to extend the dining area an additional 2 feet towards the lake via cantilever. Since expanding the area of above the screen porch up to the existing nonconforming setback would allow for a 10-foot by 16-foot dedicated dining room, staff does not believe the inability to achieve an additional 2 feet of depth would create a practical difficulty and prevent reasonable use of the property. For this reason, staff believes the intent of 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 6 the nonconforming use ordinance in preventing the expansion of nonconforming uses requires that the addition maintain the existing nonconforming setback. The requested deck and patio variances should also be considered in terms of practical difficulties and reasonable use. With regards to the deck, expanding it east beyond its existing encroachment appears to be an aesthetic choice to maintain an even line with the proposed cantilever. The applicant could extend the deck six or seven feet further to the east outside of the required shoreland setback without a variance if addition deck space is desired. The fact that a possibility for expanding the deck is provided within the City Code means that the requested deck expansion variance is not the result of a practical difficultly and that reasonable use is present without the need for a variance. Similarly, the applicant’s property has a large amount of rear yard patio space, approximately 850 square feet. As was noted earlier, some of this patio area, approximately 70 square feet, was installed within the shoreland setback after the current restrictions were enacted. The requested increased encroachment into the shoreland setback appears to be the result of converting a rectangular patio into one with a half-oval bump out. This type of aesthetic design change is not the result of a practical difficulty and the exiting patio area provides reasonable use of the property. Since variances should only be granted to address practical difficulties and to provide reasonable use of a property and must be in line with the intent of the City’s non-conforming use ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not grant the requested variances to increase the encroachments into the 75-foot lake setback. Staff believes that granting variances to construct a dining room addition over the existing screen porch and to maintain the existing deck line remedy the practical difficulties resulting from the age and siting of the home and provide for reasonable use of the property. 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 7 Impact on Neighborhood Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. That being said, another four of the nine homes within Bandimere’s Heights were constructed before 1970, and these homeowners may also be interested in updating their homes or in demolishing and replacing these homes. Some of these homes and their amenities also appear to abut or be within the shoreland setback. Establishing the precedent that remodels, updates, and rebuilds within this neighborhood can encroach closer to the lake than existing nonconforming setbacks has the potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance as requested, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Full Approval) 3. Variance Document (Partial Approval) 9391 Kiowa Trail Variance Request September 15, 2020 Page 8 4. Variance Document (Full Approval) 5. Development Review Application 6. Variance Request Description 7. Variance Request Letter 8. Proposed Plan 9. Home Renderings 10. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 11. WRC Memo g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\staff report_9391 kiowa trail_var.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Bender on behalf of Stacy and Edward Goff for a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to enclose and expand a deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to expand a patio on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-18. On September 15, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: It is the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance to allow for the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming structures, but not their expansion. The nonconforming use ordinance specifically requires that additions to nonconforming structures meet City setbacks. At its core, the nonconforming use ordinance exists to prevent the expansion of existing nonconformities and encourage their eventual removal. The portions of the requested variance that do not increase the extent of the existing nonconforming shoreland setback, are in harmony with the intent of this ordinance; however, the request to increase the existing encroachment into the shoreland setback are not. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property 2 owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant’s proposed remodel and creation of a dedicated dining area in an older home is a reasonable use, as is expanding the deck. The home’s existing placement partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback prevents any alteration that is considered an intensification of use over the existing deck and screen porch. The requested increased encroachment into the shoreland setback for the dining room, deck, and patio do not meet this test as the screen porch’s existing encroachment provides for a reasonable dining room area and the existing patio and deck already provide for reasonable use of the rear property area. If large patio and deck surfaces are needed, there are areas outside of the required shoreland setback where these features could be added. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the home being constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s current zoning standards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. That being said, another four of the nine homes within Bandimere’s Heights were constructed before 1970, and these homeowners may also be interested in updating their homes or in demolishing and replacing these homes. Some of these homes and their amenities also appear to abut or be within the shoreland setback. Establishing the precedent that remodels, updates, and rebuilds within this neighborhood can encroach closer to the lake than existing nonconforming setbacks has the potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2020-18, dated September 15, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below, and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\findings of fact and decision 9391 kiowa trail (approval_recommended).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Bender on behalf of Stacy and Edward Goff for a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to enclose and expand a deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to expand a patio on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-18. On September 15, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: It is the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance to allow for the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming structures, but not their expansion. The nonconforming use ordinance specifically requires that additions to nonconforming structures meet City setbacks. At its core, the nonconforming use ordinance exists to prevent the expansion of existing nonconformities and encourage their eventual removal. In this case, the proposed remodel and update do not meaningfully expand the existing nonconformity. The largest proposed increase is a 2-foot cantilever, which would still be over 69 feet from the lake. Other requests are similarly modest with a 1-foot increase in the patio’s non-conforming setback resulting in 7 square feet of additional impervious surface. Since the proposal does not involve adding new foundations closer to the lake or 2 increasing the principle structure’s foot print, granting a variance to allow for the home to be updated and its accessory uses to modestly expanded does not violate the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance. Similarly, the intent of the shoreland ordinance to limit impervious coverage is maintained, as the property will remain under its 25 percent impervious surface coverage with the new lot cover being added 67 feet from the lake. Finally, the location of the house relative to adjacent properties means that none of these alterations would impact the neighbor’s view of the lake, nor would they be intrusive or highly visible to individuals utilizing the lake. For these reasons the proposed variance is in harmony with the intent of the shoreland ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant’s proposed remodel and creation of a dedicated dining area in an older home is a reasonable use, as is expanding the deck and patio. The home’s existing placement partially within the 75-foot shoreland setback prevents any alteration that is considered an intensification of use over the existing deck and screen porch, and prevents any alterations to the existing nonconforming deck and patio. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the home being constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s current zoning standards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Bandimere’s Heights is an older subdivision where most properties broadly conform to the City Code. The area has no known variances and a handful of nonconforming uses, mostly within the shoreland setback. Given the location of the applicant’s home and the relatively minor variances that are being requested, granting the variances for this property would not be expected to impact the neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 3 5. The planning report #2020-18, dated September 15, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\findings of fact and decision 9391 kiowa trail (approval_alternative).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2020-18 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: September 15, 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2020 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\variance document 20-18_recommended.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2020-18 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8-foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Bandimere’s Heights. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 3, 2020. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: September 15, 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2020 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-18 9391 kiowa trail var\variance document 20-18_alternative.doc Pc J4f,r)-|1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1 100 / Fax: (952\ 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW t-t 54 pcDare:Qlr=/ao cc oate, ldl t>l)o CruOTCIIAI'IIIASSII'I 60-Day Review Dare: lD I 13 lac> Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refet to the app.opiate Applicdtion Checklist tot requied submiltal intomation that must accornpany lhis application) I Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 E lt otners...... ....................... $425 E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E In conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 E subdivision (suB) ! Create 3 lots or less $300 Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..... Minor Amendment to existing PUD.... All Others............. ! Sign Plan Review.. E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative.............. Create over 3 |ots.......................9600 + 915 per lot( lots) Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300 Consolidate Lots..............................................$150 Lot Line Adiustment.........................................$150 Final P1a1............. ................. $700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)' 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the developmeni contract. E Vacation of Easemenis/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional reco.ding fees may apply) ff variance ryaR)................................. E Wetland Alteralion Permit (WAP) E Single-Family Residence...........$150 $27sE lt otners.................. E zoning Appeal I Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) tr nntrn E ett others............... n Rezoning (REz) ........ $425 .. $7s0 .. $1oo $s00 $150 $100 $500 $200 E Commercial/lndustrial Districts' Plus $10 per 1,000 square feel of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of elslEg employees 'lnclude number of 49q employees: .. $100 .. $500 E ( d E Residential Districts...........s500 !gIE: When multiple applicatlons are processed concuFently, lhe appropriate fee shall be charged for each applicatlon. Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) Notification Sign lcity to instatt and remove)$200 Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate afrer pre€pplication meeting) . - . . . . . . . . . . r: . . . . . .'. $3 per address(Zu addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents (check all thal apply)................................................ $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit E Deeds TOTAL FEE: n Conditional Use Permit E VacationE Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)E Easements (- easements)"il lnterim Use Permit Variance Section 2: Required lnformation Parcel #Z(, oqootoo q I Kiowr. Tnn Total Acreage 0.bq Wetlands Present? Present Zoning:Rel t (^rlT Present Land Use Designation:Requested Land Use Designation: - Legal Oescription:lo 0t l,trf I b 0T E ffives E No Requested Zoning I AUG 1.4 2020 CHANHASSEN PI.AIIIJIiIG DEPI / ffiCnect box if separate nanative is attached SubminalDate: Description of Proposal: Property Address or Location: CW OF CHANHASSEN Existing Use of Property: Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLIGANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent lo have obtained aulhorization from the property owner 10 file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the properly owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacrty to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am lhe party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines fo, submission oF material and the progress of this applicalion. I funher undersland that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:)erz' l(fi Pt LLJ_conracr: ftO.4r- 0all0re nooress: 7l? q AFT>N ft.tO Phone l.tl-.iLtz-fl4'7 Cily/Stale/Zip:Wo 0dn-Y hN Z5 Email U- Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax'. b I ,i'r . t4 Signaturei 2z PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing lhis application, l, as property owner, have full legalcapacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. lunderstand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those condilions, subjecl only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of lhe deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimale prior to any authorization lo proceed with the study. I cerlify that lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. N" ", Sfxo? n+o eaqlp Corc conaa. Eb Gatrt Addrcss qslt 0w* Tetc ,non", (6sl aS9^azs sgeN AP 5€317cily/stare/zip: Email: d .f{Q ,{tA;l"CaYt sig nalure: .Zo Z, This application must be compleled in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and coffer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of compleleness of lhe application shall be made within '15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PRoJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Address: Conlact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Sectlon 4: Notlfl catlon lnformatlon Who should receive copies of staff reports? ffitr ffi Email Email Email Property Owner ViaApplicant ViaEngineer ViaOthef Via fi vaileo Paper Copy Q uaiteo Paper Copy Ll tuailed Paper Copy fl uaileo Paper Gopy City/State/Zip: Email: Address I email INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your SUBMTT FORM to send a digitaldevice. PRIHT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment copy to the city for processing.T PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM *Other Contact lntormation: Name: SAVE FORM DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REqUEST: Ed & Stacy Goff, hereinafter referred to as the Clients, wish to add a functional dining space on the rear of the home, occupying the space that is currently a deck. The space is directly above an existing screened in room. Our Clients wish to cantilever the dining room 2' beyond the screened room below, however the Clients would also be willing to compromise and eliminate the cantilever, which would put the dining room wall and screened room wall in the same vertical plane, with no further encroachment into the setback than the structure currently ls. The Clients also wish to construct a new, smaller deck whlch provides an area for a BBQ grill and access to grade. We feelthat this variance request is in harmony with the code and enhances the comprehensive plan. The practicat difficulty here is the fact that the existing structure already lies within the OHWL setback of 75 feet. Thus, strict enforcement ofthe code would prohibit any practical expansion of living space. The variance request is to simply add a functional dining space. lt is not driven by financial or economic reasons. The circumstances surrounding the variance were not created by the Owner / Client. The home already lies within the setback. The Client is merely asking to change the use of the structure from a deck to enclosed living space. lf granted, the variance will positively impact the character of the property and neighborhood as a whole. August 13, 2020 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission, Thank you for considering our request for a variance, and for taking the time to understand our situation- My husband and I ctrrently own a home in St. Paul and plan to move to Chanhassen once our renovation is complete. The move to Lake Riley is very special to me because I was born and grew up in this very house. My parents bought this house in 1968, just a couple years before I was born. I grew up in this house, spending a significant amount of time in and on Lake Riley during all seasons. When I left for college, my mom stayed in the house and has maintained it on her own since that time. She now winters in Florida, and at age 82, Jo King (my mom) decided that keeping up the house, yard, and lakeshore was getting to be too much for her and this past December my husband and I took ownership of the house. The house is in need of significant repairs with the last update having been completed in 1980. We have been working with lspiri to design what we consider to be our dream home on the lake. While many houses in the area from my early days have been torn down and/or rebuilt into big, beautiful homes, it is important to us to maintain the architecture and style of the home and stay close to the original design. Our intent is not to increase the footprint of the house or add an additional level as we do not need any more space. Our planned improvements include a full remodel of both interior levels, making much needed repairs, updates and bringing everything up to code in addition to removing the second- floor overhangs, replacing the deck structure, porch. and patio that faces the lake. All of these improvements will enhance the appeal of the home, as well as add value to the neighborhood and other lake properties. The proposed change we bring before you with a variance request is for our upper level dining room. Without this variance, our dining room and kitchen area would be reduced by 7' due to the required 75' setback from the high-water mark. We based our initial design on the latest survey we had available. The proposed construction creates a dining space that cantilevers over the existing foundation by 2' to give an enhanced view of Lake Riley. Regarding the 75' flooding setback, our house is elevated on a hill, and the dining room is on the second level, 23 vertical feet above the high-water mark. This proposed space will in no way affect the lake view of our neighbors to either the north or the south. Our overall request is no change to the foundation or overall view of our house, but rather to allow us to have our dining room overlooking Lake Riley for a total variance of 7'. We are happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. Sincerely, -4"/l 4-1 *d Stacy (Ki ng ) Goff and Edward Goff CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE Subscribed and to before me Kim T.Dep Clerk thi&) day of 2020. (Seal) JA[M ilotary N otary Public rtha't ljrb tr, &a STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 3,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to Consider a Request for Variances to Enclose an Existing Deck and Extend s Cantilever with the Shoreland Setback at 9391 Kiowa Trail, Zoned SingleFamily Residential (RSF), Planning Case No.2020-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records. t Subject Area Dircl.imet This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilaton of recods, anfo.malion and data located in vadous city, county, stale and tederal ofices and olher sources r€ading the area shown, and is to be used for refeence purposes only. The City does not eranant that the Geooaphic lnformabon System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map ale eror free. and the City does not epresent that the GIS Data can be used for navigatronal, facking o. any olher purpcse requiring exacting measurement of distance or dircction or precjsjon in the depiction of Oeographic ieatures. The preceding disdaimer is provided puBuant to Minnesota StaMes y86.03. SuM. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges tiat the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all daims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harml€ss the City fro,n any and all claims brouoht by Use.. its employees or agents, or third padies whiai arise oul of the use/s access or use of alata Povided Subiect Area Dbclainor This map is neithe. a legally recoEbd map nor a su.vey and rs not inEnded lo be used as onc. Thas map is a comprbton ol rec.rds, info.matioo aM data located in \rarl,lls cjly, county. state and federal offces and other sources regBnling the area shoxn, and 6 to be us€d br leielence pueoses only. The City doqs not raflant that the Geographic lnbmation SFtem (GlS) Oata used b prepae this map a.e enor tree, and the City does not epresent that the GIS Data can be used for navoatioml. tradfig o. any other plrpose Gquinng exacting m€asuremeot of distance or diEdioar or p{ecSion in the deBaion of geographic leatuEs. The peceding disdairner is provided pursuant to Minnesota StaMe6 5466.03, SuM. 2r (2000), and the user of this map acknoudedges thal the Crty shall not be liable for any dafiages, aM exfesCy weives all daims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hokl harmless the Crty fro.n any and all daims trought by User, its employees o( agents, or thid padies f,tlk$ arise out ol the use/s access or (lse ot data provided. { ,/ ..' +i J ji -----"'' (! a <TAX_NAMET rTAX_ADD_L'l r <TAX ADD L2r (Next RecordE(TAX_NAMEtr <TAX-ADD_LI r tTAX ADD L2r 1 qI is I / -J st €, fi i,EE' Ec E EEce I re E i.P E'e E!: E gEEE gEgE IIBE Effii g*Er ;iH3 ggEEiEE; cL.g-8.: oU)F()(!oE.9q +.c o-O {: lgF(!C(Jl,rN(Y)t o n).6' o- o)E ttt 0) .: EI HHSI .o, El- : .9 I 6 * El5lsEE :El;EeEs sB€ aAiE - flEIffEEi; EgIifiEEE EET EC$EE EBiEEEEE3; b;bF55 =aitc,NoN o iq g(,oocl (! .3.l.I; 2 ..2 0) o{, o- c;c, oo E oE EoEt(,0)ct(E([ -o o- E€r= Ol,o, !iTE ;E(!(,3-> do>q) o :o o E .,2 =fo Ed 'i 6) qt! q.c FO cotpOooqo=F56poE(\lE RS 8IFo69o- o6;r!o=E' OE p ! o) o =oot-f.- ui o -o E(5 -co cao oI l-O b d,-=o(:e(! Ef,= 3EH(l) o, rL;60 bp P E hi, 8E Ee6€ or.4 i(E6E(E-! .P6E., Be€ o 6f b Hepfre5i+EPElo-d)OE-EP gE=# o)J 'o- a j o)Ec 0)d) Eop E(!;E IJJ oa (.) (o a =oc o !; p o o cg;Fa([q =Eocv-9 drt or< o oo c)'6 -o{) =bo q)E- -O-o:, EBooo!a0):,EpEo6 att c 8EE- Er:CE(50) fifrAEcc'F(EE-E-o 6q Bi oEc()o, cD ,E o o) Eco 3 c .9 o,9,oc 0) o !co (! E C' c) oog o o"fc 6 =UIz EEgEEEiiEi'[gEg EEiEiEiEEiiiiEie EEIE:EiFEEEEgiiE ltilgiiEisiEiiii EEEE$EEiiiEEIii3E q t 6 3 E 3 t E >EEOO'Eo. t!etGJ 9i;o.= =d, T*E -!,r! .tte =H c6..o9EEoo o=OE3Ooo ru Ei: 06 o t!o o l!(,oJ :,:oooILo o- Itlo lt)E .,(, =g 9.9.= .a h.eoFJ-E .9oEofE,o- .soE ci, .E.9d OEz3 ol! co .Co ED Eo €, =P6'='6l!ra(, '=IEoE=o9odg, OE REEE26 o6i!E G.Co PEI Eq .9? ci5g5 !t(!Eot S€ '-groE .:E; F'- o-oo6aD= i.E(!: BEoo E a d) (n =oot--F- u; o-o Eo-co () c,foo (!- --o b I 6Ceo o o= Ct c tt!!u ol'L oXtirai-p E h6c ta :-: eE E .e ;^q atA*cxY'-oX(E -!P6g.. Be b H gp PYa6FEEE = o! (DrEE;f 9E& JJ .=o.I j o)Ecit)dl E(!E oo ! G =o IIJ 06 o(u o o o 0 o = eo oc E3 ([q;Eoa?€ brt or< o) =--d)3E gt pE E aB 66 E'r : Et EE e F",p.= Y ^E O-< ! E^$ ='o) o! =::3=-EE e"aE! EeaH EEEEt O Y O O;iE-o ^ O< ; ; O i5Eo.,.e b9=RAEfE i=.HI =E*e u:HE,SUee yg€sHE-e€i EEP:F +E:-E -EE5FE.- d6+ at-OC(JOrNott al (D .: =l HBEe EEIEtEEE gB3;u;IE g;*gga!E H?,AEHI iF h9:EtEee =ci oNoNo ?tr Ec C'oot!Eco .3q =t: =.t2 o (0 o) o. C;c o)o E o.c, o o dr .ii6(! l,oCE,,(!(5 -d cLcf =BE9?EI6' =E-osl =->do>os-C o E o c ; fo E G o. a)c 'o too.o (L >EtooEo.oeto-J 9i; o.= rLxi= -O!!.E =r .6 ..q9 o0, o=OEfog(J 4; GEcoo)oqro ';, oEoE9 EEEgLo.0a6oo0)i- -c -.E!rIqor E R.A.gi (/, -(50s36E]E(o o.e (u\voc.oc,o69 9E;rD* Eo=:EEb esfr rcc 6E*U, ui .= -:io=;t! [B E did .EF c6 a, (l6 o (gooJ Goo o o- ooooooooooooooooooQoo6 - 6 F. 6 + r-r rn Ln (g r- oo N rn ctr sl o st ao (o Fr =.1 6 d - 6 o o o o o o o o o o + Fr ra Fr oo 6 J o Fr 6 6 o 6 6 O O o o o o t-r o o o c)6 = rh N |Jl 6 - N O c| O cl I{) (o c) ro !n @ @ @ (o5 d!.\r 6r Ar ah ah ctr or (,1 cD o ro(ocn(D Noo o (o - 5 m o 6 o o.o o o o o o a.,r.! o N o sl <t $ Nz ri 6ri !n ro ra 'tl Ln !n ul l,,)ri !n Ln u) u) lJl Lo lnr/)ro E a.t a\l N N N N N N (\ N a\J a! r! N a! a! N N N N N o J co v,z 600 = -I J J.) J -) J J J J J J d, G, IX, J ===>] r F r rErrrrrrE Pe e E -EEaIEeaEaaEe=Aaear;*a { .r <o -r Ct .r -r O O F.r rn !-t !-{ (O O Ft O Ft O O O Oq dr ro.-{ o < dr (O Lo Ln ln ro F t\ @ co ot o m rn F FE ii - t 6 !i c.r.o o.n (o .n d) d) (rt .n.n sl ql q) l'l.nAoiaror.6 ol or or ql ol ot (n ot ot cn or ('r qt or cD (,1 ctr FrO !n FFr\F. (OF rO .'l .lN+- .i,-r-{-.{..r r-rF{..r @@NnE (o (Do(o(D (o (o ro (o(or\$+ + o9oP0909 09?09 ??9ri I. F..\ F. F. I1 FFFFFFNFFl..N (l, i; ryl m {ir rn - dl (n(r1 (nd)m(nm(rd1 (l,) (nmrni = ur 6 L,,r r^ 9r Ln ra ln l,) tl ro ro u) l/1 rn ra lJ) u) r.,1 * ii .rt ,rt rn rnS trr Ln rrt u1 rrr rrr !a ra !n !1 Lt1 u) rn rn-,;.1 z z z. z q z z z z z z z z z z z z z zzii22= >'/1 > = = > = > = > > > = = = >< - - - - -z-, z. t^ z z- z z = z z z z z z z z z z z z z z '; t s ur tlJ r! uJ lrl uJ uJ uJ uJ l! uJ uJ u.l trJ uJ -, = (j) ., ur La 6 ,.i t1t,1 th tt vl tl th tn ta v\ v1 v1 th the'd 3 ? ? ? ? F ? ? ? ? 2222222222!J o- f i - - r t - - :E - - - - ! - - - r - -q,F > z 2 z 2 u Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z f,*=6555=58558d55565555 to -r{u^r-,^!lN =1-o f, 1=- c -g - r-! r J.JJ rJ-ePP H = 3 = E E : r rr r r r r f"rr epe ;E q r r =Aq AaE eaa eAs A;atI-r m X { 6 ..i -r { o Fr r.r.) r.r r< ro O ri O -r o o O Hx di di J o Gr ol ra l.,) l,r !n (D F F oo 6 ot o (r) 4t F. ^< ^i r\ o 6 an (\t tn (n ln o an (n ('| an ln m <r l,l r,) ul (JF ij .{ < (o (o ol o ( cD ot (lt (r'! ctr or ot (,t (n ot or (ti o- hlE>F 'J.l ; !,t I i:.':JllJ(AH t -4 =e EEq Hs* = _iA =;EEHgIE=EEIE=lE*=EElE Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young Walters, Associate Planner From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Date: 09/02/2020 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance at 9391 Kiowa Trail – Planning Case 2020-18 BACKGROUND The Water Resources Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 9391 Kiowa Trail. The applicant is requesting a 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance to convert their existing deck above a screen porch into a dining area by adding a 2-foot cantilever and enclosing the space. The applicant is also proposing expanding the existing deck which would require a 5-foot shoreland setback variance and expanding an existing patio that would require an 8-foot shoreland setback variance. The City’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, create separation between structures and the lakeshore, and provide for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian properties. Due to the important role that this setback plays in protecting the quality of the City’s lakes and the potential for these variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of the City’s lakes, the City has historically been very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. The applicant’s home has three existing encroachments into the 75-foot shoreland setback. The screen porch encroaches approximately 3.2 feet, the deck encroaches about 5 feet, and the patio encroaches around 7 feet. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Due to the existing nonconformities on the property, Water Resources staff recommends approving the 3.2-foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and denies the 5.2-foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8-foot shoreland setback variance for a patio. In this way, the property owner is allowed for an additional reasonable use of an existing nonconformity without further encroachment into the shoreland setback than currently exists on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 15, 2020 Subject Discuss Code Amendment to Require Zoning Permits For All Structures That Do Not Require Building Permits Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to require zoning permits for all structures not requiring a building permit. SUMMARY OF REQUEST There are structures that are exempted from the state’s building permit requirements that have the potential to violate the city’s zoning code. Since the city’s zoning code regulates things like setbacks, height, and impervious surfaces, violations of the zoning code can disturb adjacent property owners, interfere with drainage and utility easements, and lead to drainage and stormwater issues. Historically, it has been much easier for the city to prevent these issues by identifying potentially problematic structures before they are constructed through the review of zoning permits than to try to address these issues after a structure has been installed. Currently, the section of the City Code lists structures that require zoning permits; however, the list is not exhaustive and there are structures for which no permit is required. Staff proposes amending this section of the Code to clarify that all structures require a zoning permit. A full discussion of this issue can be found in the attached issue paper. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Sec. 20­91.­ Zoning permit: States a list of structures not requiring building permits that require zoning permits and states that any zoning permit application that fails to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to require zoning permits for all structures that do not require building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectDiscuss Code Amendment to Require Zoning Permits For All Structures That Do Not RequireBuilding PermitsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment torequire zoning permits for all structures not requiring a building permit.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThere are structures that are exempted from the state’s building permit requirements that have the potential to violatethe city’s zoning code. Since the city’s zoning code regulates things like setbacks, height, and impervious surfaces,violations of the zoning code can disturb adjacent property owners, interfere with drainage and utility easements, andlead to drainage and stormwater issues. Historically, it has been much easier for the city to prevent these issues byidentifying potentially problematic structures before they are constructed through the review of zoning permits than totry to address these issues after a structure has been installed.Currently, the section of the City Code lists structures that require zoning permits; however, the list is not exhaustive andthere are structures for which no permit is required. Staff proposes amending this section of the Code to clarify that allstructures require a zoning permit.A full discussion of this issue can be found in the attached issue paper.APPLICATION REGULATIONSSec. 20­91.­ Zoning permit: States a list of structures not requiring building permits that require zoning permits andstates that any zoning permit application that fails to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be denied.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the City Code be amended to require zoning permits for all structures that do not requirebuilding permits. ATTACHMENTS: Issue Paper DATE: CITY OT CHAI'IHASSIN MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner September 15,2020 Require Zoning Permits for all Stnrctures That Do Not Require Building Permits FROM: SUBJ: There are structures that residents are interested in constructing that do not require building permits and are not included in the list of structures requiring zoning permits. These slructures have the potential to violate the city's zoning code and these structures should be evaluated for compliance with the zoning code before they are constructed. There are structues that are exempted from the state's building permit requirements that have the potential to violate the city's zoning code. Since the city's zoning code regulates things like setbacks, height, and impervious surfaces, violations of the zoning code can disturb adjacent prop€rty owners, interfere with drainage and utility easements, and lead to drainage and stormwater issues. Historically, it has been much easier for the city to prevent these issues by identifiing potentially problematic structures before they are constructed through the review of zoning permits than to try to address these issues after a structure has been installed. Cunentiy, the section of the City Code lists structures that require zoning permits; however, the list is not exhaustive and there are structures for which no permit is required. Staff proposes amending this section ofthe Code to clarify that all structures require a zoning permit. Sec. 20-91.- Zoning permit: States a list of structures not requiring building permits that require zoning permits and states that any zoning permit application that fails to meet the requirements ofthe zoning ordinance shall be denied. Amendment History Ordinance 377 passed in 2004 created section 20-91. Zoning Compliance Review and required Agricultural Buildings, Detached Decks less than 30" in height, Detached Accessory Structures less than 120 square feet, and Sport Courts be reviewed for compliance with the zoning code. PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.1110 77OO I'4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX ]47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOIA 55517 Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow ISSUE SUMMARY RELEVANT CITY CODE Zoning Permits for All Structures That Do Not Require Building Permits September 15,2020 Page2 Ordinance 452 passed in 2007 added Driveway Expansions and Patios to the list of items requiring zoning permits. Ordinance 612 passed in 2015 amended the Detached Accessory Structure requirement to include stnrctures less than 200 square feet and added Retaining Walls less than 4' in height to the list. The City Code lists eight structures that require a zoning permit. They are all structures that are subject to zoning code provisions that limit structures' heights, placement, and lot coverage. For example, staff requires zoning permits for sport courts to ensure that a 2,808 square foot doubles tennis court is not constmcted in the front yard ofa quarter acre property directly on the side lot line. Such a structure would alter the visual aesthetic ofthe neighborhood, pose a risk to motorists as missed balls flew into the road, disturb neighbors as tennis matches occurred l0 feet from their bedroom, and divert stormwater runoffdirectly onto the neighbor's property. While this is an extreme example, much smaller and less obviously out ofplace structures can have negative impacts as well. For example, a small loo-square foot patio fire pit located on the property line may violate the fire code by failing to maintain enough separation from a neighboring shed or home. The neighbor may feel that evening fires occurring so close to their home disturb the peace and quiet and the grading associated with installing the patio many have leveled a drainage swale to the detriment of other properties. Altematively, a homeowner may be unaware ofconservation and tree preservation easements that restrict the placement ofthese types of features and sensitive natural resources are damaged when these structures and their associated activities occur within these areas. Finally, there are situations where homeowners are unaware ofthe location oftheir property lines and build structures within city-owned preserves. All of the examples show why it is important that the city review the placement of small structures; however, the language ofthe zoning permit statute only requires permits for specific structues. Other items such as large above-ground pools or 190 square foot tree houses also have the same ability to impact adjacent properties. Since the adoption ofthe zoning permit requirement in 2004 staff has amended the list three times to include additional stnrctures that were generating complaints and zoning violations. Rather than continue to expand the list as problems are discovered, staffbelieves it would be more efficient to include language making it clear that any structure regulated by the zoning code that does not require a building permit requires a zoning permit. This language would also aid staffin responding to resident complaints as staffcould require a retroactive zoning permit for any structure constructed without a permit after the adoption ofthe revised language to veriry and document compliance with the ordinance. Additionally, that fact Ordinance 409 passed in 2006 renamed section 20-91 as "Zoning Permit" and added fences less than six feet in height to the list of structures. ANALYSIS Zoning Permits for All Structures That Do Not Require Building Permits September 15,2020 Page 3 that the appropriate permit was not initially obtained would make it easier for staff to require the resident to remove or relocate the structue to comply with the zoning code. l) Do nothing. Most structures either require a building permit or fall under one of the categories listed under zoning permits. In the cases where structues not falling into one ofthese categories are built in a way that violates City Code, staff can conduct after-the- fact enforcement actions. 2) Amend Sec. 20-91 to require a zoning permit for all structures not requiring a building permit. Staffrecommends Altemative two. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 20-91. - Zoning permit. (a) A zoning permit shall be required for the construction ofeny structure which does not require a building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. Examples of structures requiring zoning permits include, but are not limited to: (l) Agricultural buildings. (2) Decks less than 30 inches above the ground and not attached to the principal structure. (3) Driveway expansions. (4) One-story detached accessory structures, used as tool or storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, 200 square feet or less in building area. (5) Patios. (6) Permanent fences less than six feet in height. (7) Retaining walls four feet and less in height. (8) Sport courts. (b) Any zoning permit application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. g:\plarvnw\issue papers aid rcpons (&afu)\zoning permit\zoning permit issue paper.docx ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 15, 2020 Subject Discuss Code Amendment to Permit the Construction of Certain Structures on Outlots Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to permit the construction of certain structures on outlots. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The city predominately uses outlots to preserve natural areas, create permanent open space, and reserve areas for future development; however, there are cases where the city has designated outlots to serve as parks, both city and Homeowner Association (HOA) owned, provide riparian access, for both HOA and single homes, and to serve as neighborhood gateways. In these instances where outlots are intended to serve a function outside of the preservation and reservation of space, the city’s prohibition on issuing building permits for outlots can interfere with neighborhoods and homeowners using these lots for their intended use. While the city’s general prohibition on building on outlots is an important tool for preserving and reserving open space, staff believes that performance standards allowing the issuance of permits consistent with the stated intent of an outlot should be adopted. This change would remove potential conflicts between the city’s intended use of an outlot and existing restrictions on issuing building permits for those lots. A full discussion of this issue can be found in the attached issue paper. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Sec. 1­2.­Rules of construction and definitions: defines an outlot as: “a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting before development.” RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the the city amend the City Code to permit the construction of certain structures consistent with the intended function of an outlot on outlots. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 15, 2020SubjectDiscuss Code Amendment to Permit the Construction of Certain Structures on OutlotsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment topermit the construction of certain structures on outlots.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe city predominately uses outlots to preserve natural areas, create permanent open space, and reserve areas forfuture development; however, there are cases where the city has designated outlots to serve as parks, both city andHomeowner Association (HOA) owned, provide riparian access, for both HOA and single homes, and to serve asneighborhood gateways. In these instances where outlots are intended to serve a function outside of the preservationand reservation of space, the city’s prohibition on issuing building permits for outlots can interfere with neighborhoodsand homeowners using these lots for their intended use.While the city’s general prohibition on building on outlots is an important tool for preserving and reserving open space,staff believes that performance standards allowing the issuance of permits consistent with the stated intent of an outlotshould be adopted. This change would remove potential conflicts between the city’s intended use of an outlot andexisting restrictions on issuing building permits for those lots.A full discussion of this issue can be found in the attached issue paper.APPLICATION REGULATIONSSec. 1­2.­Rules of construction and definitions: defines an outlot as: “a platted lot to be developed for a use which willnot involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting before development.”RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the the city amend the City Code to permit the construction of certain structures consistent withthe intended function of an outlot on outlots. ATTACHMENTS: Issue Paper DATE: CITY OT CIIANHASSIN MEMORANDUM TO:Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner September 15,2020 Permit the Construction of Certain Stnrctures on Outlots FROM: SUBJ: Outlots are by definition unbuildable, i.e. no building may be placed on an outlot; however, subdivision approvals often specify that parks, recreational beach lots, and other designated uses that entail buildings are to be located on outlots. SUMMARY The city predominately uses outlots to preserve natural areas, create permanent open space, and reserve areas for future development; however, there are cases where the city has designated outlots to serve as parks, both city and Homeowners Association (HOA) owned, provide riparian access, for both HOA and single homes, and to serve as neighborhood gateways. In these instances where outlots are intended to serve a function outside ofthe preservation and reservation ofspace, the city's prohibition on issuing building permits for outlots can interfere with neighborhoods and homeowners using these lots for their intended use. While the city's general prohibition on building on outlots is an important tool for preserving and reserving open space, staffbelieves that performance standards allowing the issuance of permits consistent with the stated intent ofan outlot should be adopted. This change would remove potential conflicts between the city's intended use ofan outlot and existing restrictions on issuing building permits for those lots. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 1-2.-Rules of construction and definitions: defines an outlot as: "a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting before development." PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fx 952.227.1110 I/OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow ISSUE Permit the Construction of Certain Structures on Outlots September 15, 2020 Page 2 The city's intent in defining outlots as unbuildable is to prevent individuals from buying these lots with the expectation that they can use the property as otherwise permitted by the prope(y's zoning. Ifoutlots were broadly eligible to receive building permits, anyone owning an outlot could make the case that they had bought the property with the understanding that they could build a house or other permitted use on it, and the city would likely be compelled to issue the permit under the reasonable use doctrine. The development of outlots in this manner would result in the loss of environmentally sensitive op€n spaces that have been set aside for preservation. By defining outlots as unbuildable, the city ensues that these areas cannot be arbitrarily and haphazardly developed. This relatively straightforward premise is complicated by the fact that areas not intended to serve as preserved open space are also platted as outlots. For example, a lot in the center ofa subdivision may be platted as on outlot with the intent that the HOA will own, maintain, and build a neighborhood playground or swimming pool. In this situation, the city would ask that the lot be platted zrs an outlot in order to prevent the developer fiom changing their mind about the park and selling the lot as an additional home or to prevent a cash-strapped HOA from subsequently selling the lot to a builder. While this designation protects the lot from being repurposed, it also could prevent the city from issuing the permits needed for the lot to serve its intended function. For example, as the construction of a gazebo as an amenity for the park or changing room/shower facility for the pool. A similar situation is created for recreational beach lots, many of which are located on outlots. The City Code simultaneously allows for these lots to have gazebos, a building, by listing them as a permitted use within the conditional use permit, and disallows the city lrom issuing a permit for their construction by stating that buildings may not be constructed on outlots. In the same vein, several subdivisions have been created where riparian parcels too small for a home are separated from the subdivision's other lots by a road. In these cases, the city has required the riparian parcels to be platted as outlots and linked to a buildable parcel within the subdivision in order to aflord that properry owner riparian rights while preventing the potential construction ofa home on a substandard lot. When the property owner with riparian rights contacts the city to inquire about the possibility ofbuilding a water-oriented accessory structure on their riparian lot as allowed under the city's shoreland management overlay district, they are invariably shocked to discover that they cannot construct a building on their lot. In all ofthe above cases, the outlot was explicitly created by the city to serve a purpose other than preserving open space or reserving an area for future development, yet the City Code's blanket prohibition on issuing building permits for outlots prevents the outlots from serving their intended purpose. Staff recommends resolving this conflict by amending the definition of outlot to encompass designated uses beyond preservation and reservation and by adopting specific performance standards explicitly detailing what permits can be issued and under what circumstances. In all cases, no permit should be issued for an outlot that is inconsistent with its ANALYSIS Permit the Constnrction of Certain Structures on Outlots September 15, 2020 Page 3 intended use. By adopting this definition and associated standards, the city can ensure that outlots are not subject to general development pressures while still allowing HOAs and residents to enjoy the intended benefits of these amenities. ALTERNATI I ) Do nothing. The city's non-conforming use ordinance allows for the reconstruction of existing buildings and zoning and sign permits can be issued for other 6pes of structues to allow reasonable use of outlots. 2) Amend the city's definition ofoutlot to allow for the constnrction of designated uses and adopt performance standards to govem the issuance of permits for outlots. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative 2. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Outlot means a platted lot @Iae+invel+e-a$uildi*g which is intended as open space or other designated use or which is reserved for future replatting before development. (20) Sec. 20-970.- Outlots Outlots are intend to be preserved either as open space' used for a designated use, or reserved for future development through replatting. To this end' no building permit' zoning permit, or sign permit may be issued to allow the construction of a structure on an outlot unless one of the following criteria is met: 1) The outlot is a recreational beach lot operating under a non-conforming use permit or a conditional use permit. Ifthe recreational beach lot is operating under a non- conforming use permit, no zoning or building permit may be issued unless the structure is expressly permitted by the non-conforming use permit. Ifthe recreational beach lot is operating under a conditional use permit, no zoning or building permit may be issued unless the structure is permitted by the conditional use permit and allowed under section 20-266 of the City Code. 2) The outlot is a park If the subdivision approval included a site plan or description of the part<" no zoning or building permit may be issued unless the structure is consistent with the subdivision's plan for the park If no plan was approved for the outlot as part of the subdivision, no zoning or building permit may be issued unless the structure is consistent with the park's existing nature and intensity of use. 3) The outlot was created with the intent of providing a specific single-family residence with riparian rights. If the outlot and lot specified in the subdivision approval are under common ownership a building or zoning permit may be issued for the construction of a J Permit the Construction of Certarn Structures on Outlots September I 5, 2020 Page 4 water-oriented accessory structure, stairvay, lift and/or landing meeting the criteria of section 20-481 of the City Code. 4) The outlot is owned by a developer, homeowners association, or the city and the outlot was intended to provide a location for the development's monument sign. If the outlot was identified and approved for sign placement as part of subdivision or site plan approval, a permit may be issued for a sign meeting the criteria of the approval. Secs. 20-971 - 20-975.- Reserved. g:\planvnw\issue papers atrd repons (dnfu)\outlols\oullol issue paper.docx 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 15, 2020 Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 1, 2020 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its September 1, 2020 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated September 1, 2020 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated September 1, 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR LOT COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY WITH TURNAROUND ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7727 FRONTIER TRAIL. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Dean Urevig, the architect on the project, explained that the shed will be removed once the garage is built. Chairman Weick asked about the reason for wanting a garage. Commissioner McGonagill asked about the design of the garage being similar to the house and the neighborhood. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated July 31, 2020. 3. The detached garage must be architecturally compatible with the existing home. 4. The driveway turnaround shall be relocated at least one-half foot north so as not to be on the property line; the maximum driveway width at the right-of-way line shall not exceed 24 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – September 1, 2020 2 PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE 1”=200’ SCALE MYLAR REQUIREMENT. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Noyes moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code to remove the one inch equals 200 feet scale mylar requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO CORRECT IOP DISTRICT PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES NUMBERING. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Skistad moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning permitted accessory uses in the IOP district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad moved to note the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson reviewed action taken by the City Council at their August 24, 2020 meeting and discussed upcoming Planning Commission agenda items. Commissioner Reeder moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Weick: Reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting, as we have done over the past several months this is a Zoom meeting and anyone new to that I please ask for your patience. It does take a little longer in the process to hear everyone and to discuss the matters. It’s not quite as easy as being in person but we are making due. The one thing I do ask is that commission members don’t hold chats, text, or side bar discussions through the Zoom application. All of our discussions do need to be public and on the record. We have, as I mentioned, 3 public hearings on tonight’s agenda. The items are presented as follows. Staff will present the item. When they’re finished it’s open for the Planning Commission members to ask comments or clarifying questions. We will then ask the applicant to make any presentation or comments that they wish and they will then also be able to field the questions from the Planning Commission. At the conclusion of the applicant’s presentation I will open the public hearing and we’ll try and take our time there. We’ll summarize any emails that we received for the record. Anyone in person in the chambers will be able to come forward to the podium and be heard on the item and we also will put a telephone number up on the screen and you may phone in and leave your comment that way as well. Once we’ve had a chance to hear from everybody on the item we’ll close the public hearing. Again the Planning Commission will have a chance to discuss among themselves and then we will entertain a motion, a second and we will take a vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR LOT COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY WITH TURNAROUND ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7727 FRONTIER TRAIL. Weick: I will turn it over MacKenzie. Walters: Yep. So as mentioned this is Planning Case 2020-17. Applicant is Paul Pope and they are requesting a variance to construct a detached garage with a driveway turnaround. So the location is 7727 Frontier Trail, shown here. The property is zoned residential single family. That zoning district requires a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Because it is a corner lot the project has 30 foot front setbacks along both street frontages with the remaining two lot lines subject to 10 foot side yard setbacks. It is limited to 25 percent impervious surface coverage. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 2 The lot is substandard and non-conforming with a total lot area of 8,819 square feet. The existing house gives it a lot coverage of 19.9 percent. The house is non-conforming with 7 foot west and south front side setbacks and it has an existing shed which has a non-conforming 4.7 foot northern side yard setback. All of the other requirements of the zoning code appear to be met. I should mention this is one of the older houses in the city built in 1906. The applicant would like to add a 22 foot by 24 foot detached garage to the property and then install a driveway with a turn around to serve that garage. The justification is that the property does not have a 2 car garage. This is a requirement for single family dwellings under the city code. The lot is substandard in it’s lot area, it’s width and it’s lot depth and many other homes in the area have garages and very few homes in this neighborhood meet the required setbacks. The applicant would like to note that they have altered the design of the project and driveway at staff’s request and we’ll go over those changes in a little bit but one of the big impacts of those changes was staff required that a turnaround be added because the city code requires driveway turnarounds whenever a driveway accesses a collector street and 78th is designated as a collector street by the city code so the driveway changes staff required added a little over 2 percent to their required lot cover variance. So staff’s assessment in summary, very few properties located in this area meet the required front yard setbacks. Historically the City has given 11 setback variances to properties within 500 feet of this. Five of those setback variances were to allow garages to be installed. The proposed garage is set back further than the existing house. Any increase to the garage setback would also increase the needed lot cover variances and pushing the garage further back would eliminate any available real yard space. At 22 by 24 the size of the garage is about average for a 2 car garage and the total lot cover in absolute terms is not excessive at about 2,800 square feet. As was noted earlier some of the lot coverage is actually a result of staff request to ensure safe access to the site and water resources has stated that the area does not have any history of drainage issues. Given all these staff believes the proposed garage is reasonable and recommends the variance be approved subject to the conditions of approval one of which would actually be that the driveway turnaround be pushed back a half foot. That’s because the city code doesn’t allow driveways to exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line and so pushing that turnaround back a half foot would let it meet that design criteria. That is why staff is recommending a slightly higher lot cover variances than the applicant requested. It’s to accommodate about an extra 57 square feet of lot cover to allow for that design change in the driveway configuration. At that time I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. I will open it up for commission comments or questions for MacKenzie at this time. You can go ahead and just speak up and ask your questions if you have them. Give folks a few minutes to maybe collect their thoughts and read over notes. I see Commissioner Reeder you are in the house. That is good to see so we do have a full quorum. We’re hearing, MacKenzie hearing no questions. Great presentation. Seems pretty straight forward and at this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation. Perhaps via phone. Walters: I will run out and check and see if they’re on the Zoom call. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 3 Weick: Okay, we’re just going to take a quick break. Not a break. The applicant is not in the chambers right now so we’re just going to make sure that they’re not trying to call in to the Zoom or anything else. Walters: He has joined and will be with us in just a micro second. Weick: I love it. If you didn’t hear that the applicant will be joining here. Hello and welcome. Dean Urevig: Thank you. Weick: Can you tell us a little bit about your project that’s before us tonight? Dean Urevig: Alright. Well I’m Dean Urevig and I’ve been hired by Paul Pope to do the drafting and design work on this project. I’ve done quite a few different projects for Paul. Yeah it’s pretty basic garage. There is actually a plan to remove that shed that’s in the back once the garage is constructed because you know storing stuff in there, so the plan is for that to disappear. I don’t know what, there isn’t too much else to talk about the project. It’s a simple garage. Weick: Yeah great. And thank you for joining us tonight. Did the homeowner share with you their need for the garage? Did they express any justification or needs? Dean Urevig: Just the desire to park vehicles inside, especially in the winter time and yeah so that was the primary concern. And the work vehicle you know person is out and about working and they’ll be keeping their work supplies in the vehicle and want to be able to park it in the garage. Weick: Perfect. That’s good to know. Planning Commission any questions at this time for the architect? McGonagill: I guess Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: Yep. McGonagill: You know it’s a beautiful house. It’s been there since 1906. How are you going to build a garage, the garage is designed in such a fashion to fit in with the character of the house and the neighborhood? What’s he doing to do that? That’s a beautiful part of town. Want to be sure it kind of fits, you know what I’m saying sir? Dean Urevig: Yes. The code requires that there’s a substantial conformance with the design of the existing building and in my discussions with MacKenzie about that he said we want to make sure that the garage does meet that but we want to make sure that somebody isn’t putting up a steel building. You know we’re not doing an approval and then all of a sudden you end up with you know some steel post building there. So the existing building does have corner boards on it Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 4 and it has 4 inch lap siding so those are the types of things that are matching. You know and I’ve done these projects too where we need to put board and batten vertical siding on whatever it might be but we are meeting the requirement as far as that goes. McGonagill: Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman that answers my question. Weick: Great thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, thank you again for joining the Zoom call and I appreciate you having the opportunity to answer a few questions from us as well. We really do appreciate that. At this time I will open the public hearing portion of this item and invite anyone wishing to come forward and speak on this item. To do so there is no one in chambers and I’ll just give it a few minutes to see if anyone wants to call in. The number is on the screen. 952-227-1103. Did we have, I don’t believe, did we have any correspondence from. Walters: No member of the public contacted staff regarding this variance. Weick: Okay so there’s no emails or anything to add? Okay. I don’t see the, the lines are not lighting up over there are they? Okay. With that I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for commissioner discussion. I think one, before commissioners jump in I did want to make a couple comments on this item. One is, and I know this is, for those of us that have been on the commission for a few years you know you do see certain patterns and there are certain areas in the city that are older and don’t currently conform with current city code just based on when they were built. The one thing I would say there though is that applying city code should go both ways and by that I mean, if we’re going to say that you know that the home shouldn’t have to abide by the setback variances and things like that because the city code wasn’t in place, it doesn’t feel right to then go ahead and say the city code says you know we require 2 car garages. To me there’s a disconnect there and there is, you know there is significant, although it was noted that the lot cover is a modest increase. It’s fairly significant of a lot coverage increase in my mind as well. I’m still in favor of this and I’m in favor of it because I do believe that homeowners need, a garage is a need and I definitely see that. Like over a deck or a pool or something else that isn’t in my mind a needed item to increase lot coverage but I do wanted to, I did want to point out that there is a little bit of a disconnect between the usage of city code sometimes and I think we should be aware of that moving forward. Those are my only comments on the item but again as I mentioned I’m definitely in favor of adding the garage even with the lot coverage variances because again I, based on our winters and also just the safety of being able to put cars in the garage and conceal them from both the weather and maybe criminals or whoever might be out there is very important. And then the other item that I thought was really important was removing the shed. And even though it’s a relatively small amount of the lot coverage, every little bit in my mind helps and so that’s a huge, in my opinion I think that’s a really huge effort by the homeowner to do the best they can to work with the current situation so long winded way of saying I think this is a great project but I will open it up for other commissioner comments and/or motions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 5 Von Oven: I also think it’s a great project and I’ll make a motion. Weick: Wonderful. Von Oven: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a second? Noyes: I will second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Noyes. Any comment? Any final comment on the item before we vote? Hearing none we will conduct a roll call vote. Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated July 31, 2020. 3. The detached garage must be architecturally compatible with the existing home. 4. The driveway turnaround shall be relocated at least one-half foot north so as not to be on the property line; the maximum driveway width at the right-of-way line shall not exceed 24 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: The item passes 7 to 0 unanimously. Thank you again MacKenzie and everyone for their presentations this evening. Walters: Thank you. Dean Urevig: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 6 Aanenson: Yep and do you just want to do the script that we normally give at the end of a variance that anybody could appeal this. Walters: Yep, yeah so this item is subject to appeal. There’s a 4 day window. With the holiday if we don’t receive an appeal by close of business on Tuesday the decision of the Planning Commission will be final. If we do receive an appeal it would then go to the City Council on the September 28th agenda for final determination. Weick: Thanks MacKenzie. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE 1”=200’ SCALE MYLAR REQUIREMENT. Weick: Do you want to move onto item number 2, the code amendment? Walters: Yep absolutely. So we have two small code amendments to discuss today. Both of these are probably rightly considered technical corrections. The first one is the city’s 1 inch to 200 foot Mylar requirement. So the city code requires that one of the documents developers submit when, for the recording of a final plat for a subdivision is that they submit a 1 inch to 200 foot Mylar reduction. This was previously a County requirement in 2004 and so we had adopted it into our code to align with county standards. As digital technology has become more ubiquitous the County decided they no longer needed this. The City has absolutely no use for a 1 inch to 200 foot scale Mylar reductions. Mylar’s are relatively expensive to produce so the City thinks it would make sense to remove this requirement from our code and just basically removing an unnecessary burden that’s currently being imposed. So that’s the gist of this amendment. I’d be happy to take any questions you may have on it. Weick: Great, thanks MacKenzie and open it up for commissioner comments or questions for MacKenzie. It does seem fairly straight forward MacKenzie but I will pause in case there are questions. I guess hearing none and seeing none I will open the public hearing portion of this item at this time. Anyone wishing to comment on this amendment may call in. 952-227-1103 is our call in number. Again there is no one in chambers to come forward and I don’t believe we received any email comments. Walters: We did not receive any comment from the public on this item. Weick: While we’re, I’m not going to say that. We’ll give it a few minutes for the phone in case someone’s dialing. Von Oven: I’m assuming we have no Chanhassen businesses that are solely based on producing Mylar reductions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 7 Walters: Not that I’ve ever heard. Von Oven: Great. Weick: I tell you what, you think of everything Commissioner Von Oven. That’s a great question though. And I have noticed that you have a different background on us this evening. You are not on a three season porch or something. Von Oven: There is a Von Oven house renovation going on so I’m enjoying one of our fine Chanhassen hotels. Weick: How nice. Awesome. Von Oven: Yes. Weick: With that I don’t think, did the phone light up over there at all? Walters: No they have not. Weick: They have not so I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open for commissioner discussion and/or a motion. I don’t know was there a motion in the? Walters: There is. If you could switch to the power point. Weick: There it is. Walters: Apologies I don’t think I put a, well the cover sheet has a motion on the staff reports as well I believe. Weick: It’s up here in case. Walters: Yeah it is. Noyes: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning final plat requirements. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Skistad: I will second it. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Skistad. Thank you. Any comment before we vote? And we will have a roll call vote. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 8 Noyes moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code to remove the one inch equals 200 feet scale mylar requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: The item passes unanimously 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO CORRECT IOP DISTRICT PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES NUMBERING. Walters: Alright our last code amendment for the day, Section 20-813. This is the section of the code that lists permitted accessory uses within the city’s industrial office park district. We were reviewing it and we discovered that there are 7 listed permitted accessory uses. However only 6 of them have numbers. The numbering goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, un-numbered item, 6 so in order to clarify that the un-numbered item is not a clarification of accessory use number 5 but is an accessory use in it’s own right and also to make it easier to refer people to the proper section of the code and make it easier to amend the code in the future if we need to, we would like to correct that numbering and number those accessory uses 1 through 7. That does require a public hearing as it is Chapter 20 so that’s, that’s that. Weick: And that’s that. I guess that is that. Are there any questions for MacKenzie on this item? I will say has there been any confusion on this item in the past. Walters: Not once we’ve explained it to, you know we’ve had some people like I’m not, and then you just talk them through and be like nope this is a separate item. It is, I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds. It is an interesting one. It is the accessory use that limits retail sales in commercial district to a maximum of 20 percent so in terms of accessory uses it is one that comes up a decent amount and can potentially cause some heartburn for people who are maybe planning to have their business do a higher threshold of retail. So the clearer we can make it the less chance we have of running into somebody who you know goes into a use expecting to be able to do something and then is shocked when it turns out to have this limitation. Weick: And the only thing you’re adding is a number. You haven’t added any verbiage or. Walters: Literally just adding number 7 to it. Yep. Weick: Got it. Okay. Any questions from the Commission for MacKenzie? I thought I might have heard some rustling out there but maybe not. You will have another chance to get any clarification if you need it. I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Again the phone number is on the screen. 952-227-1103. Those lines are open and accepting phone calls as we Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 9 speak. Again there is no one in chambers so no one will be coming forward in person I don’t think we had any correspondence. Public correspondence. Walters: Nobody reached out to staff about this item. Weick: Okay. Any blinking or lights or? Walters: No. Nope it is quiet over here as well on the phone. Weick: With that I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner discussion or a motion. Commissioner Randall you got me interested there for a second. I saw your, you popped up on the screen. I thought maybe. Randall: I realized my microphone was not on mute. Weick: Well we couldn’t hear you. Randall: I have no questions or concerns with this at all. Weick: The motion is in the packet and we could probably pop it back up on the screen here if we have it. Yeah there we go. Looks familiar. Skistad: Okay I’ll make a motion. Weick: Alright. Skistad: I propose that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning permitted accessory uses in the IOP district. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven seconds. Weick: Alright. I was about to speak up myself. Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. Any final comment before we vote from the commission? Hearing none we will roll call vote. Skistad moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning permitted accessory uses in the IOP district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 10 Weick: The item passes unanimously 7 to 0. Thank you MacKenzie and thank you commission members. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad moved to note the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Are there any council updates? Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission I just have a couple of things. So you saw the potential code amendments at the last City Council meeting. MacKenzie went through and put together all the potential code amendments. There are some that are in your purview which would be Chapter 18 and 20. Otherwise they would go directly to the City Council so we’ve been trying to put those on agendas where we don’t have quite as many items for you to review to keep those. We’re kind of taking the I would say the code amendment light ones first. These are just really like Scribner’s errors so you’ll be seeing a little bit more complex ones as we move forwards. Or more policy issues that might be a better way to say it so, so that was on the agenda for their 24th. Also on the 24th the City Council was discussing, there’s one last building out at Powers Ridge and we have a developer that would like to do senior housing in that building. Wants to go over the capacity of units to add up to 110. To get the additional 25 percent we have to do an affordability component so it will be senior affordability at the 60 percent of median income so right now that’s over with our financial consultant to review whether that TIF district works for the City so that’s. Our next meeting with the City Council is the week, the same week as our next meeting so they’ll meet on the 14th and those two items that you discussed at length at your last meeting will be at that meeting so, because that meeting’s on Monday. We’ll be able to verbally report to you what happened at your next meeting so that’s the grading issue and then the interpretation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: Did have a couple of other things. First of all we need to congratulate MacKenzie who passed AICP test. Weick: Congratulations MacKenzie. Walters: I think we might have mentioned that but still. Aanenson: Did we, well we’ll mention it again. There you go. Walters: Yes thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 11 Aanenson: So alright then I have got for the next meeting I’ve got a couple Planning Commissioners gone. Just want to reconfirm that. Mr. Reeder will be gone and so will Mr. McGonagill. That’s on the 15th. McGonagill: That’s correct. Reeder: That’s correct. Aanenson: Okay thank you and that’s just incumbent upon everybody else to be there to have a quorum so we have another variance and we’ll have two more code amendments. So I do want to mention on October 6th we had potentially moved that to Night to Unite but that’s going to be scaled down. We’re kind of revisiting that as a city how we’re going to do that but the Planning Commission will be meeting because we only have 3 meetings after that. And actually we have a couple of bigger projects on that meeting. A couple of them are concept PUD’s. Some of them are actually going to go forward trying to get approval so businesses and the housing, smaller housing project so I’m glad we’ll have, hopefully have a quorum. I mean all 7 of us there because those will be again, it’s an art not a science how they all come together unfortunately. They all seem to all the complex ones seem to group together so we’ll find out. The deadline for that is this Friday so we’ll know if they’re all on and we’ll keep you posted on that too. So that’s it for kind of the housekeeping. I did also wanted to mention, I did throw an article in there in your packet and it was in Star Tribune and that was regarding an on site visit by a city council member and one of the things we talk about with the Planning Commission, what we call ex parte communications. That we all have the same information. Now obviously this went pretty far when you actually went on someone’s property and brought your own consultant in, that’s pretty extreme so the City Council censored this person but I just, also just wanted to remind that it’s, I know people are really good here about if they have information that we all share it and we always ask too if someone’s got information that they would like to share with everybody else that it come through staff and then we all get the same information. Just kind of reminder of that. Again this is kind of to the extreme but just wanted to share that with you too so that’s all I had Chair unless you have anything else for staff. Weick: I do not. Any members of the commission have any questions for Kate or MacKenzie? Aanenson: I do want to mention too, I kind of skipped over that. With the Powers Ridge if the council did choose to go forward with that for the TIF that would come back for a public hearing here at this body because it would require an amendment to the PUD agreement. It would also require site plan approval so you would see that if it was to go forward. Weick: Okay. Well hearing no commission members, thank you Kate. Thank you MacKenzie and I would certainly honor a motion to adjourn. Reeder: So moved. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 12 Commissioner Reeder moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim