Loading...
PC Minutes 1-5-21Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021 38 environmental resources, there’s point number three and there’s point number seven and both of those very specifically lay out recommendations from our environmental resources group about a restoration plan around the haul route as well as the buffer area that have potentially already been disturbed. I just wanted to make a note of that that is a stipulation in the recommendation that we are approving. Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to recommend that the City Council approve the interim use permit to allow site grading subject to the conditions of approval, and adoptions of the findings of fact and recommendation. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0 and one recusal by Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: Thank you, again everyone for your presentations as well as Mr. Erhart and Mr. Blake for really insightful comments and perspective. Good luck with this project which I assume hopefully is going to start pretty soon for you as we are in the deep of winter. With that, we will move to our final item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO MODIFY A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY ADDING A SECOND STORY TO AN EXISTING HOME LOCATED AT 9243 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD Young-Walters: This is Planning Case 2021-05, Request to intensify an existing, nonconforming structure at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. The is a variance so if it’s not approved by a ¾ majority vote for denied by a ¾ majority vote, it will go to the City Council. Similarly, any resident aggrieved with the decision can appeal to staff in writing within four days and it will then move to the Council for consideration. That being said, I will jump into it. The property is located at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. This is zoned Residential Single-Family. It is a shoreland property and it is riparian. This district requires a 20,000-square foot lot area, 30-foot front and 30-foot rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks and a 75-foot shoreland setback. Properties are limited to 25% lot cover, are permitted to have a water-oriented accessory structure 10 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). That structure would be limited to 250 square feet in size. The site’s existing conditions: The lot is 12,569 square feet. It’s currently at 24.4% lot cover so very close to its maximum. It has a nonconforming 64-foot shore setback for the house and that is 66.9 feet shoreland setback for the deck. It has a front setback of 19.1 feet. The east side is a nonconforming 9.6-foot setback and there is also a 2½-foot encroachment into a sanitary sewer easement along the west side. I would note that variances were issued for the front and shore setbacks in 1977 and 1993, respectively. The house was built a little off those, likely due to errors in construction or improvements in surveying technology so there are minor differences from the location of the actual house building pad from the variances given at those time. However, they applied for all the permits, they went through the process and that’s why we treat this as a legal nonconforming. So the applicant is proposing to a story on to the existing rambler. They have stated that they will maintain the existing footprint and that they will not be increasing any of the nonconforming setbacks, and that they will not be adding any lot cover to the Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021 39 property. In the pictures, this is a shot I took from Google Maps of the house and then this is the rendering they provided of what the façade will look like once the renovations are complete. They’ve stated the existing home doesn’t provide adequate space for their family and needs to be modernized and expanded. The existing home is two bed, two bath with approximately 1,700 square feet of living area. They’ve observed that the lot size and the existing home placement, I mean there’s no expansion possible without a variance and that expanding vertically is the least impactful option. They believe that their proposed home renovation is consistent with the neighborhood character and will represent an improvement to the existing home and property values. Staff looked it over and one of the first things we did is we looked at what the yard setbacks essentially left in terms of areas that could be improved without a variance. This green line is the approximate 10-foot side yard setback, 30-foot front yard setback and 10-foot side yard setback and then the blue line is the shoreland setback. Again to the best of staff’s ability to sketch it out in Paint. This doesn’t really any option for improving the house without a variance. Any other variance the applicant requested would involve increasing lot cover which would put the property over its 25% lot cover limit and that would obviously have a greater impact on the lake and environmental resources. It would also an additional setback, either moving closer to the front yard or the side yard or the lake, again, which would have a bigger impact on the surrounding homes. Going up is the most logical and least impactful way to improve the property. Staff did investigate the possibility of doing a second story without variances. Given the constraints, they would be limited to a 16-foot wide second story. Staff felt that was pretty constrained in terms of providing reasonable living area. The applicant’s proposed maximum height is well under the 35-foot maximum. It would be 22.8 feet, measured at the midpoint of the highest gable. So, again, they’re not pushing the envelope. They’re not doing incredibly steep roofs that would have the chance to obstruct site lines across the street. They’re not proposing increases to the setbacks. Staff does not believe this will negatively impact any of the surrounding properties. One thing that staff looks at with the nonconforming use ordinance is its intent to essentially remove nonconforming structures and uses. In this case, staff doesn’t believe there’s any possible scenario where a house could be built on this property meeting all setbacks and requirements and the existing use of a single-family home is the desired us for the zoning area. We don’t believe that allowing the nonconformity be intensified, it runs counter to the intent of the ordinance in this case. For these reasons, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission grant the variance to permit the addition of a second story to the nonconforming structure. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. With that I will opening to commissioner questions. Must have been one heck of a report, MacKenzie. Hearing none, I would invite the applicant, if you are still on the line and you’d like to mention anything about your project to the commissioners, you may do so at this time. Ethan Kindseth: Good evening, Ethan here with Alma Homes. We are working with the Galleger’s on this project. Thank you, MacKenzie. I think that did a great job of summing up the constraints we’ve been dealing with and coming with a solution on this. I don’t have a great deal Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021 40 to add. I think we’ve looked at any possible scenarios that we could to make this work within the confines of what the lot came to us with. If anyone has questions, I’m happy to answer anything. Weick: Thank you for sticking with us here. Based on the renderings, it’s going to be a beautiful home and I do appreciate that is stays within the existing nonconformities in that area and areas like that. That’s a really big deal and so in my opinion, it’s nice to see that someone can upgrade and improve their home and still store of maintain what was there before from at least a footprint standpoint. Any questions for the applicant or builder from any of the other commissioners? Hearing none, thank you again for joining us and sticking with us this evening. With that I will open the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. The phone lines are open and I don’t believe we received any comment. There was nothing in the packet. Young-Walters: No, staff did not receive any questions or emails on this subject and we are not receiving any phone calls. Weick: I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner comments and the motion’s coming up there on the screen so certainly would entertain a motion or comments on this item. McGonagill: Chairman, this is Commissioner McGonagill. The only comment I have is my complements to the applicant. They’re trying to build a beautiful home for themselves but they are taking with the lot gave them and they’re working with it and not trying to force it. You know what I’m saying? Weick: Oh ya. McGonagill: I agree with you. The hardcover is staying the same, staying within the variances and not trying to ask for a ton of things so I appreciate the applicants’ going that. That’s what we like to see in the city and you are to be complemented for that. Weick: I agree. Thank you for that. McGonagill: So if there are no other comments, I will give you a motion. Weick: That would be great. McGonagill: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to intensify a nonconforming structure by adding a second story meeting the existing nonconforming front, side and shoreland setback, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner McGonagill. Do we have second? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021 41 Noyes: I’ll second, Commissioner Noyes. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Noyes, I believe. Thank you. Any other comment before we vote? Hearing none, we will have a roll call vote. I will start with Commissioner Randall. Randall: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Aye. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Aye. Weick: Thank you. And Commissioner Von Oven? Von Oven: Aye. Weick: And I also vote in favor. The motion passes unanimously, 6 votes to 0 and another one hurdles over the ¾ barrier in fine fashion, I must say. A great way to end the evening. Thank you, MacKenzie. Thank you, again, to the applicant/builder for sticking with us to this last item and good luck with your project. With that, if someone would please note the Planning Commission minutes dated December 1, 2020. McGonagill moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to intensify a nonconforming structure by adding a second story meeting the existing nonconforming front, side and shoreland setback, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: So noted the verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 1, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Kate do you have an update for us?