Loading...
02-02-21 Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2021, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD ELECTRONIC MEETING Due to the COVID­19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of the Planning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting place in the Chanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide comments on those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for the public to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options: EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.All comments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the Planning Commission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method of public participation. WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom Cable Channel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 952­227­1630 when the Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in the order received. For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record. A.CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot, Detached Accessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to an Existing Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19, 2021 D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.2020 Year­End Review and 2021 Work Program 2.City Council Action Update AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2021, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDELECTRONIC MEETINGDue to the COVID­19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of thePlanning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant to MinnesotaStatutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting place in theChanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota.The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide commentson those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for thepublic to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options:EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.Allcomments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the PlanningCommission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method of public participation.WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom CableChannel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 952­227­1630 whenthe Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in theorderreceived.For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record.A.CALL TO ORDERB.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Consider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot,Detached Accessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Adda Bathroom to an Existing Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 GreatPlains BoulevardC.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19, 2021D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS1.2020 Year­End Review and 2021 Work Program 2.City Council Action Update 3.Planning Commission Interview Process 4.March Attendance E.ADJOURNMENT 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, February 2, 2021 Subject Consider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot, Detached Accessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to an Existing Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­08 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing a 76 square­foot addition to add a bathroom onto an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’s old summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 square­foot main floor and approximately 864 square feet of upper level storage. As the property already has a 456 square­foot summer kitchen, a 200 square­foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728 square­foot main level and 390 square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five­acre site. The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with the character of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to store vehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing than continuing to store them on the driveway. They observe that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that the owners of 11 of the 18 properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposed detached garage as part of a home occupation. The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm that used to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, the property is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single­ family residence.The city extended the 1,000 square­foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted in these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 2, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot, DetachedAccessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­08PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square­foot accessory structuresize variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing a 76 square­foot addition to add a bathroom onto an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’sold summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 square­foot main floor andapproximately 864 square feet of upper level storage. As the property already has a 456 square­foot summer kitchen, a200 square­foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728 square­foot main level and 390 square feet of upper levelstorage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that theintent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, andto facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five­acre site.The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with thecharacter of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to storevehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing than continuing to store them on the driveway. Theyobserve that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that theowners of 11 of the 18 properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance.Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposeddetached garage as part of a home occupation.The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm thatused to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, theproperty is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single­family residence.The city extended the 1,000 square­foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned AgriculturalEstate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted in these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as part of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the sale or transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future owners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown that granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues. Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvements within the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to the existing house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of the summer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provide the property with a significant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code.  Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barn once it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit. Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringing nonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long­term plan for this area to develop as low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the variance requests. APPLICANT Ed Myslivecek, 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, MN 55318 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  "A2"­ Agricultural Estate District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  4.37  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 1, Section 1­2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. Generally Section 20­904, Accessory Structures Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection BACKGROUND General History County records indicate that the home was built in 1872. In September of 2005, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 1,118 square­foot detached garage, 728 square­foot main level and 390 square feet of second­level storage. In May of 2006, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 270 square­foot addition to the existing summer kitchen. Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 2, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot, DetachedAccessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­08PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square­foot accessory structuresize variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing a 76 square­foot addition to add a bathroom onto an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’sold summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 square­foot main floor andapproximately 864 square feet of upper level storage. As the property already has a 456 square­foot summer kitchen, a200 square­foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728 square­foot main level and 390 square feet of upper levelstorage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that theintent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, andto facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five­acre site.The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with thecharacter of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to storevehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing than continuing to store them on the driveway. Theyobserve that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that theowners of 11 of the 18 properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance.Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposeddetached garage as part of a home occupation.The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm thatused to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, theproperty is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single­family residence.The city extended the 1,000 square­foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned AgriculturalEstate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large nolonger being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted inthese areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding aspart of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the saleor transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future ownersuse or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown that grantingthe variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues.Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvementswithin the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to theexisting house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of thesummer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provide the property with asignificant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code. Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barnonce it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit.Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringingnonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long­term plan forthis area to develop as low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of thevariance requests.APPLICANTEd Myslivecek, 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, MN 55318SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  "A2"­ Agricultural Estate DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  4.37 DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 1­2, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. GenerallySection 20­904, Accessory StructuresChapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDGeneral HistoryCounty records indicate that the home was built in 1872.In September of 2005, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 1,118 square­foot detached garage, 728square­foot main level and 390 square feet of second­level storage.In May of 2006, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 270 square­foot addition to the existing summerkitchen. Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. Note: Two large barns had been present on the property from when it was an agricultural use. The last of these barns, an approximate 1,728 square­foot structure, was removed between 2005 and 2008. Ordinance History In April of 1991, Ordinance Number 145 was passed establishing a 1,000 square­foot size limit for accessory structures within the RSF and R­4 zoning districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages being constructed and subsequently used to house home occupations. In May of 2007, Ordinance Number 451 was passed extending the 1,000 square­foot size limit to the A2, RR, and RLM districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages being constructed on formerly agricultural properties and subsequently being used to house home occupations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. If the Planning Commission determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motion and conditions of approval be adopted: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property.Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years.     2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation. 5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen. 6. The summer kitchen may not be rented. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 2, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square­Foot, DetachedAccessary Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­08PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square­foot accessory structuresize variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing a 76 square­foot addition to add a bathroom onto an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’sold summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 square­foot main floor andapproximately 864 square feet of upper level storage. As the property already has a 456 square­foot summer kitchen, a200 square­foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728 square­foot main level and 390 square feet of upper levelstorage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that theintent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, andto facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five­acre site.The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with thecharacter of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to storevehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing than continuing to store them on the driveway. Theyobserve that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that theowners of 11 of the 18 properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance.Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposeddetached garage as part of a home occupation.The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm thatused to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, theproperty is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single­family residence.The city extended the 1,000 square­foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned AgriculturalEstate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large nolonger being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted inthese areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding aspart of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the saleor transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future ownersuse or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown that grantingthe variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues.Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvementswithin the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to theexisting house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of thesummer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provide the property with asignificant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code. Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barnonce it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit.Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringingnonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long­term plan forthis area to develop as low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of thevariance requests.APPLICANTEd Myslivecek, 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, MN 55318SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  "A2"­ Agricultural Estate DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  4.37 DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 1­2, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. GenerallySection 20­904, Accessory StructuresChapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDGeneral HistoryCounty records indicate that the home was built in 1872.In September of 2005, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 1,118 square­foot detached garage, 728square­foot main level and 390 square feet of second­level storage.In May of 2006, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 270 square­foot addition to the existing summerkitchen.Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.Note: Two large barns had been present on the property from when it was an agricultural use. The last of these barns, anapproximate 1,728 square­foot structure, was removed between 2005 and 2008.Ordinance HistoryIn April of 1991, Ordinance Number 145 was passed establishing a 1,000 square­foot size limit for accessory structureswithin the RSF and R­4 zoning districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages beingconstructed and subsequently used to house home occupations.In May of 2007, Ordinance Number 451 was passed extending the 1,000 square­foot size limit to the A2, RR, and RLMdistricts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages being constructed on formerly agriculturalproperties and subsequently being used to house home occupations.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.If the Planning Commission determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motionand conditions of approval be adopted:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842 square­foot accessory structure size variance,subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for thisproperty.Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet ofa river or stream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does nothave a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years.    2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of theMinnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation.5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Denial) Findings of Fact (Approval) Variance Document Development Review Application Description of Variance Request Justification of Request Key Photos and Elevations Plan Sheets Square Footages Letters to Neighbors and Response WRC Memo Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: February 2, 2021 CC DATE: February 22, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 1, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-08 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,246-square foot detached garage, 1,382-square foot main floor, and an approximate 864-square foot second floor, and 76-square foot addition to facilitate adding a bathroom to an existing outbuilding. As the City Code limits all property’s to a cumulative maximum of 1,000 square feet of accessory structures and the property has 1,384 square feet of existing accessory structures, a variance is necessary to add another garage and expand the existing outbuilding. LOCATION: 10151 Great Plains Boulevard APPLICANT: Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: “A2” – Agricultural Estate District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 4.37 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 proposing a 76-square foot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’s old summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382-square foot main floor and approximate 864-square feet of upper level storage. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square foot accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 2 As the property already has a 456-square foot summer kitchen, a 200-square foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728-square foot main level and 390-square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five acre site. The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with the character of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to store vehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. They observe that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that the owners of eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposed detached garage as part of a home occupation. The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm that used to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, the property is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single-family residence. The city extended the 1,000-square foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted in these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as part of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the sale or transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future owners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown that granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues. Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvements within the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledge that an attached garage could be added to the existing house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of the summer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provide the property with a significant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code. Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barn once it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit. Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringing nonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long-term plan for this area to develop as low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the variance requests. 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. Generally Section 20-904, Accessory Structures Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection BACKGROUND General History County records indicate that the home was built in 1872. In September of 2005, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 1,118-square foot detached garage, 728-square foot main level and 390 square feet of second level storage. In May of 2006, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 270-square foot addition to the existing summer kitchen. Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city. Note: Two large barns had been present on the property from when it was an agricultural use, the last of these barns, an approximate 1,728-square foot structure, was removed between 2005 and 2008. Ordinance History In April of 1991, Ordinance Number 145 was passed establishing a 1,000-square foot size limit for accessory structures within the RSF and R-4 zoning districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages being constructed and subsequently used to house home occupations. In May of 2007, Ordinance Number 451 was passed extending the 1,000-square foot size limit to the A2, RR, and RLM districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages being constructed on formerly agricultural properties and subsequently being used to house home occupations. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 4 The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District and bluffs are present on the eastern and northern sections of the property. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of two and one-half acres, have front and rear yard setbacks of 50 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Principal and accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of 35 feet. The total square footage for all accessory structures on a property is limited to a cumulative 1,000-square foot maximum. Structures must be setback 30 feet from the top, side, and toe of the bluff, and alteration of the land and vegetation within the bluff impact zone is heavily restricted. The lot is 4.37 acres with approximately 10,000 square feet (5.25 percent) of lot cover. The existing house has a nonconforming 3-foot front yard setback. The property has a summer kitchen, shed, and detached garage which combine for 1,384 square feet of accessory structures, exceeding the city’s 1,000-square foot maximum by 384 square feet. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. Bluff Creek Corridor This property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are bluffs on the property. The city’s Bluff Protection Ordinance requires structures to be setback 30 feet from the top, toe, and side of the bluff and prohibits the alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff impact zone, the area of the bluff and within 20 feet of the top of the bluff. Stairways, lifts, and landings are permitted in areas where they will not redirect water flow or increase drainage velocity so long as they do not exceed four feet in width and meet other design criteria. Limited topographic alterations, grading, and filling within the bluff impact zone is permitted through an earthwork permit, subject to standards designed to protect the integrity of the bluff. No portion of the requested variance is expected to impact the bluff, and all proposed structures and addition will need to meet the requirements of the Bluff Protection Ordinance. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a Shoreland Protection District. Wetland Protection There is a basin which appears to show wetland characteristics; however, the city’s Water Resources Coordinator has determined, based on aerial photos and soil characteristics, that this 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 5 area is a created wetland in an upland area. Given this determination, the wetland would be considered incidental and would not be governed by the Wetland Conservation Act. No other areas exhibiting wetland characteristics are present on the property. NEIGHBORHOOD Great Plains Boulevard This area of the city does not have access to municipal services and properties are zoned A2. The area features several uses with commercial or recreational characteristics, i.e. the garden center and golf courses; however, most of the properties have single-family homes on relatively large lots. Several large outbuildings are present within this neighborhood, and the city has historically had issues with individuals running businesses out of these buildings. With the exception of the Halla Great Plains Addition to the northwest, which is guided for residential large lot and features one to three acre lots, all of the properties in this area are guided for residential low density. The city anticipates that once municipal services become available, the rest of this area will be developed into single-family neighborhoods with densities between 1.2 and 4 units per acre. These densities correspond with average lot sizes of between approximately 11,000 and 36,000 square feet, though the area’s environmental features could lead to the use of cluster zoning resulting in neighborhoods with dedicated open space and smaller lot sizes. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the property. ANALYSIS Detached Garage/Workshop The applicant is proposing constructing a detached accessory structure with a 1,382 square foot main floor and an approximate 864-square foot second floor storage area. The applicant describes the structure as a detached garage in the narrative and states that the intention of this 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 6 structure is to provide a covered location to store tractors and collector vehicles currently parked on the driveway. They have also stated that they do not intend to use the building as part of a construction business. Examining the plans, staff is very concerned that this structure will be used either by the applicant or a future owner to conduct a home occupation. The structure is described as a workshop on the submitted elevation drawings and in staff’s experience, structures oriented towards vehicle storage typically feature more than a single, centrally-oriented garage door. Since the applicant owns a home repair business that is registered to a residential property in another city, staff must note that if any portion of the business was conducted out of the requested detached accessory structure, even just office operations or storing materials before taking them out to a job site, the applicant would be in violation of the city’s home occupation ordinance which prohibits the use of any garage or accessory buildings for any home occupation. It has also been staff’s experience that in cases were an applicant understands and intends to abide by the city’s home occupation ordinance, they have little control over how the property is used by future landowners. Many times staff sees large lot properties with large detached accessory structures listed by realtors as prefect sites for landscaping or other businesses. Other times, staff finds out about the sale of these properties when neighbor’s call to complain about a new business. Due to the difficulties in proving how the interior of a building is being utilized, it is extremely time and labor intensive to follow up on these complaints and enforce the ordinance. For these reasons, a city-wide limit on accessory structure size was enacted in 2007. In examining the applicant’s property, staff notes that a detached garage with a 728-square foot footprint is already present on the property, as well as a 200-square foot garden shed. Staff believes that these two structures provide a reasonable amount of enclosed storage space for a single-family residence. While it is true that other properties in the area have larger detached garages, these were built before the current ordinance was passed, and the presence of nonconforming structures should not be used to justify granting a variance when a resident has reasonable use of their property. Additionally, as the applicant notes, they have the ability to add an attached garage to the house. While staff shares applicant’s concerns about the impact that a garage addition could have upon the historic character of the property, the city does not have a historic preservation ordinance or similar statute that would limit their ability to modify the 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 7 home. Staff believes that a thoughtfully designed attached garage could be compatible with the existing architecture. Variances should only be granted to provide relief from a practical difficulty caused by the property in question, and not to facilitate a preferred configuration. Finally, the property already exceeds the accessory structure size limit, which means that it falls under the city’s nonconforming use ordinance. Section 20-72(2) of this ordinance explicitly states that its intent is to “prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any nonconforming use, building or structure.” Granting a variance to permit the property to increase its existing nonconformity with a new structure that in and of itself exceeds what is permitted by ordinance would not be in keeping with the intent of the City Code. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance for the detached garage/workshop. Summer Kitchen Bathroom The applicant is proposing a 76-square foot addition to allow for the installation of a bathroom in the property’s summer cottage. The applicant has stated that they need to construct the addition to allow for the creation of a basement under the bathroom to prevent pipes from freezing. They have indicated that their intent is just to have a more conveniently located restroom on the property and that they have no intention of converting the summer kitchen into a second dwelling unit. The City Code allows for bathrooms to be placed in outbuildings; however, since this property is already over the 1,000- square foot accessory structure size limit, a variance is required to expand the footprint of the summer kitchen. Since the property’s current amount of accessory structure square footage is nonconforming, the intent of the city’s nonconforming use ordinance is relevant to this request. It is the goal of the city’s nonconforming use ordinance to recognize existing uses and allow for their repair and maintenance, but also to prevent their expansion and encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses. Granting a variance to expand an existing nonconformity runs counter to the intent of the city’s ordinances. 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 8 Staff also notes that most single-family residences do not have bathrooms located in outbuildings and that the inability to add a bathroom to a detached accessory structure would not be considered an inability to enjoy reasonable use of a property. Similarly, the applicant could likely install a similar amenity within the footprint of the existing structure without requesting a variance. While additional cost may be necessary to ensure that the pipes did not freeze, variances should be granted to provide relief from an inability to comply with the zoning code rather than to accommodate a preferred or less costly design. Finally, while staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that they have no intention of using the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, staff is concerned that future property owners would use the summer kitchen as either a short- or long-term rental. With two rooms and a bathroom, the summer kitchen would lend itself to use as a tiny house for vacation rentals or, with additional updates, as a full-on second dwelling unit. Staff believes that granting this variance would create the potential for future violations of City Code. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance. Impact on Neighborhood The southern portion of the Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels host businesses such as a garden center or golf courses. Historically, the applicant’s property was a farm with multiple large outbuildings; however, the last barn was removed from the site between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, staff observed that several nearby parcels have large outbuildings, though staff only identified one parcel with two large outbuildings. The applicant’s proposal to have three outbuildings over 500 square feet in size is atypical for a residential property, and approving the variance would result in five buildings being located on the parcel; the home, two garages, the summer kitchen, and garden shed. This number of buildings is not typical for a single-family residence or for the surrounding area. Staff agrees that the proposed addition to the summer cottage would likely not be visible from the road, though the detached garage would be, and also agrees that the location of the neighboring homes relative to the applicant’s property means that they would not be impacted by the proposed detached garage or addition. It should also be noted that the applicant wrote to their neighbor’s about the proposed project and that most expressed support for it. 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 9 While granting the requested variance to the present owner within the existing neighborhood context may not have a negative impact, these variances will create a property that lends itself to use for a home occupation and to the creation of a second dwelling unit. As the surrounding area develops into smaller lot single-family neighborhoods, the presence of a large detached garage/workshop will become increasingly undesirable and out of keeping with the area’s character. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” If the Planning Commission determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motion and Conditions of Approval be adopted: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years. 2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation. 5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen. 6. The summer kitchen may not be rented. 10151 Great Plains Boulevard February 2, 2021 Page 10 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 3. Variance Document (Approval) 4. Development Review Application 5. Description of Variance Request 6. Justification of Variance Request 7. Key 8. Photos and Elevations 9. Plan Sheets 10. Square Footages 11. Letters to Neighbors and Response 12. WRC Memo 13. Affidavit of Mailing g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\staff report_10151 great plains blvd_var.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Ed Myslivecek for a variance exceeding the accessory structure size limit by adding a bathroom onto a summer kitchen and constructing a detached garage on a property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) - Planning Case 2021-08. On February 2, 2021, 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 Agriculture Estate District (A2) 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds West along the South line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North 1 degree 01 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 11 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 289.79 fee; thence North 18 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76 degrees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 591.83 feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 101; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a distance of 705.73 feet to the point of beginning. 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: The city extended its maximum accessory structure size limit to properties zoned A2 in 2007 due to the tendency for these buildings to be used to house contractors yards and landscaping business. The city determined that 1,000 square feet of accessory’s structures provided sufficient storage space for single-family residences in all single-family residential districts. The applicant is proposing adding a garage/workshop significantly in excess of the 1,000 square foot limit on a property that already has over 1,000 square feet of detached accessory structures. The proposed structure is exactly the type of structure in exactly the 2 zoning district that Ordinance 451 was passed to prohibit. Granting the requested variance would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. Similarly, the city’s nonconforming use ordinance states that its express purpose is to prevent the expansion of nonconforming buildings or structures and to encourage the elimination of nonconforming buildings and structures. Granting a variance to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming summer cottage and creation of a new, larger, detached garage runs contrary to the intent of this ordinance. Finally, the city’s Comprehensive Plan guides this area for residential low density development with densities of between 1.2-4 units per acre. The proposed outbuildings are not in keeping with and would not be compatible with the smaller lot residential neighborhoods envisioned for this area. 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 existing outbuildings on the property provide the applicant with a reasonable storage area for a single-family residence, and the applicant has options under the City Code for constructing additional garage space without a variance. Similarly, the City Code does not prohibit the applicant from installing a bathroom within the existing footprint of the summer kitchen, it merely prevents the expansion of the nonconforming structure to accommodate the improvement. Since substantially similar results could be accomplished without a variance, the applicant does not have a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance. 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 has been created by their design choices and not by any circumstance unique to the property. Additional storage and vehicle parking space could be created without a variance via an attached garage and a bathroom could be added to the outbuilding via an interior remodel rather than an addition, again without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The southern portion of the Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels host businesses such as a garden center or golf courses. Historically, the applicant’s property was a farm with multiple large outbuildings; however, the last barn was removed from the site between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, staff observed that several 3 nearby parcels have large outbuildings, though staff only identified one parcel with two large outbuildings. The applicant’s proposal to have three outbuildings over 500 square feet in size is atypical for a residential property, and approving the variance would result in five buildings being located on the parcel; the home, two garages, the summer kitchen, and a garden shed. This number of buildings is not typical for a single-family residence or for the surrounding area. That being said, granting the requested variances in and of themselves would not alter the essential character of the locality; however, these variances will create a property that lends itself to use for a home occupation and to the creation of a second dwelling unit. Use of the property in this manner would have a negative impact on the character of the locality. 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 #2021-08, dated February 2, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of February, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\findings of fact and decision 10151 great plains blvd var (denial).docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Ed Myslivecek for a variance exceeding the accessory structure size limit by adding a bathroom onto a summer kitchen and constructing a detached garage on a property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) - Planning Case 2021-08. On February 2, 2021, 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 Agriculture Estate District (A2) 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds West along the South line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North 1 degree 01 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 11 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 289.79 fee; thence North 18 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76 degrees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 591.83 feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 101; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a distance of 705.73 feet to the point of beginning. 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: Though the city does not have a historic preservation ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan states, “The city will continue to encourage the preservation, interpretation and active reuse of privately-owned historic buildings and structures, and will work to protect such buildings and structures to the extent feasible during the development process.” The applicant’s property is a historic farmstead with the original farmhouse and summer kitchen preserving the unique architecture and character of the period. While the applicant could add an attached garage to the existing home, doing so would represent a departure from the site’s character. Similarly, the applicant could construct a larger garage by demolishing the existing outbuildings; however, doing so would result in the loss of the 2 historically valuable summer kitchen. Granting a variance to enable a property owner to update their property in a manner that preserves its historic elements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the city’s nonconforming use ordinance does seek to prevent the expansion of nonconforming structures, it is not intended to deny nonconforming properties the opportunity to conduct necessary and reasonable improvements. In this case, the nonconforming elements of the property cannot be eliminated without also damaging the historic value of the site. For this reason, it is appropriate to grant a variance allowing the applicant to expand the nonconforming elements of the property in the interest of historic preservation. 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 parcel’s size requires multiple pieces of equipment to maintain and the applicant cannot store all of the required items along with their personal vehicles in the garage present on the property. Multiple similarly sized properties in the area have larger garages in order to address this need. The pre-existing structures and historic nature of the property make it impossible for the applicant to create the necessary detached storage space without a variance. The City Code does not prohibit the installation of restrooms in outbuildings and other detached structures within the city have this amenity. In order to ensure that the bathroom’s plumbing does not freeze in the winter, a basement is required. The existing configuration of the summer kitchen means that an addition is the most viable way to add this amenity, and the pre-existing structures on the property mean that a variance is required to allow for the addition. 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 historic nature of the parcel. The age and unique architectural elements of the home render the addition of an attached garage undesirable. Additionally, the property was already over its maximum accessory structure size limit when the applicant bought the parcel. Options ordinarily available under the Code, such as demolishing existing structures, would require the destruction of valuable historic elements of the property such as the original summer kitchen. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The southern portion of the Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels 3 host businesses such as a garden center or golf courses. Historically, the applicant’s property was a farm with multiple large outbuildings and the last barn was removed from the site between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, several nearby parcels also have large outbuildings. Granting the applicant a variance to construct a detached garage in the approximate location of the old barn would not alter the essential character of the locality. Similarly, the proposed addition to the summer kitchen is relatively modest and it would not be readily visible from the road. Neither would the addition be visible from neighboring residences. Given the small scale and location of the proposed addition, it would not negatively impact the surrounding properties. 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 #2021-08, dated February 2, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream, requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years. 2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or as part of a home occupation. 5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen. 6. The summer kitchen may not be rented. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of February, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\findings of fact and decision 10151 great plains blvd var (approval).docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-08 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 a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds West along the South line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North 1 degree 01 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 11 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 289.79 fee; thence North 18 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76 degrees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 591.83 feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 101; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a distance of 705.73 feet to the point of beginning. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream, requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years. 2 2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation. 5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen. 6. The summer kitchen may not be rented. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 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. Dated: February 2, 2021 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 , 2021 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\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\variance document 21-08.docx Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 To: Chanhassen Building Commission Board Ref: Bath addition and garage construction 10151 Great Plains Blvd The variance to permit construction on the above property is necessary prefaced that the external out buildings exceed the 1000 square foot maximum on the property. Construction of an 80 square foot addition to an existing building (summer kitchen) would be as such to blend in with similar siding, roofing and windows. This addition will compliment the structures on the property as a whole. This addition is for use by the owner's for bodily function convenlence when using said structure. No intent is considered for the use of this structure to be one of a separate living structure. A current description of buildings such as this may be called an accessory building, used for anything from listening and making music (houses musical instruments) and church youth group meetings. The addition would not be visible from any neighbor from all cardinal directions. This property is one of three that are on the newly renovated Highway 101 that goes from Pioneer Trail to Hwy 61 Flying Cloud Drive. The rebuilding of the old barn is for vehicle storage to keep them out of sight and the weather. best out of sight enclosed bringing the overall view less congested. ClTy 0F CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC $ 1 2020 CHANHASSEN PI.A]{NIiIG DEPT The property is almost 5 acres in measured acreage and said additions are not affecting any property distance restrictions. The additions would enhance the visual aspect of the current property and buildings. Multiple structures were once on this property as accessory bin structures a few years back. The age of the existing structures (mid 19th century) and the assoftment of out buildings used to house livestock and implements necessitated the use of buildings to work the land as a local farm. No longer such a property, the addition of my request will enhance the grounds to please one with a nostalgic and pleasing view if time was taken to absorb this parcel. Some vehicles are on the drive and would be There are no economic considerations with the request to build the addition. Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 l.There are currently 172 National Register properties in Carver County, 10151 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska 55318 is not on the list. 2. Request for building permit for addition of room in summer kitchen (80 sq. ft.) and the construction of a separate structure for motor vehicles and tractor used for lawn mowing and snow removal. ( approximately 1500 sq. ft.) Both the building and addition to conform with the character of the current structure built mid 1gth century. 3. List of neighbors from Carver County Property lnformation that fall within 500' of the property obtained and letter making aware the intentions of these additional structures on the property, lncluded elevation and location of the projects on the property included. 1 8 neighbors may fall within and 11 have responded to the attached request in a positive response regarding. 4. Discussion with staff at Chanhassen mentioned the possibility of not permitting the construction as requested due to possible use of the property as a construction site. This is not the intention of its use. This is a private residence where storage of vehicles and tractors and equipment for such tractors are for personal use, as well as collector vehicle. Options are to leave said vehicles on the driveway in the weather or store in the requested new building. 5. This home is a residential property used for residential purposes. No intent is for use as a commercial property to store outside construction items (machines, vehicles, building materials, etc. This would fall in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Chanhassen. 6. As you approach this old structure with it's old indigenous stone front and Chaska brick construction you are taken back a bit, As the other small structures on the property you see that there is a consistency to preserve this look, The intent is to not build a steel pole barn of innocuous design, but one which as well will compliment the existing structures, at a considerable cost more that the common steel buildings so common throughout the city. There is nothing wrong with the steel pole barn, but for this property it would not be a pleasant view for those passing by, nor to fit with a possible consistency hopefully desired by those CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 31 2020 CHANHASSEN PI-AI'INING DEPT who accept and approve building structures, and keep with the Comprehensive PIan. Again, the addition and new structure are of l gth century design. 7. This property has historical significance and any additional structures are built to compliment the dates and architectural design of the time of the original construction. 8. Should the design not be approved by said committee and review board, a secondary option could be to add onto the house and connect to the existing garage. (This would provide with less than the 1000 square foot rule for needing a variance.) This would provide, as well the space needed for the vehicle and implements, although not in keeping with the historical aspect of the separate buildings so common in l9th century farmsteads. A poor choice in trying to keep the 1 gth century architectural appearance. 9. One option is to add onto the house and connect the existing garage with a connecting garage. This can be done, and be architecturally pleasing, but more accurate construction would be to have as the property had when occupied in the past as a farm with outer buildings. 10. The 80 square foot addition to the existing summer kitchen would be used as a bathroom for those using the summer kitchen, as well as when outdoor activities mostly gardening and yard maintenance are in season. The need for an addition is for the construction of a frost level to bring water into the building. A heated environment is obviously necessary to prevent the freezing of water in the winter months. To have a basement under the bath, for water protection and a root cellar is foremost to us in this case. 11 . The purchase of this property was for the enjoyment of gardening, and maintaining a classic structure. As many can see there is much to preserve, maintain and update to keep it in it's (close) original form. This is a pleasing property that the City of Chanhassen can be proud to have within its boundaries. Our fortune to have found and taken up the chore of doing this proves our stewardship is well meaning, family oriented and hopefully a prize for anyone who follows us in its f uture purchase. Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 We have intended to install a bath in the summer kitchen for convenience of those using the building and for those working the gardens and the yard. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan appears to be one which allows citizens to build within the limitations of safety and cohesion to the look which the City desires. Building a structure that is regarded within the Chanhassen Comprehensive is the intent with our request. I would like to promote the property which has been in this city for almost '160 years. One of the oldest residences in Carver County. The aspect of maintaining the 18th Century appearance is important to this owner. The subject property was a farm started by the Vogel family from Silesia arriving in the mid 19th Century and obtaining the property via "squatting" as was popular to newcomers in the midwest when the U.S. Government was promoting and populating of this area. So with a Military Bound Lands Patent issued by Abraham Lincoln on July 1 , 1861 it became property of August Vogel, who built and lived in this stone and Chaska brick structure. Brothers Franz (Frank) and Joseph as well purchased adjoining lands. The land was worked as a farm by the Vogels and after the early 1900's by the Teich family. Prior to the purchase by the Arndt's in the early 1990's the structures fell into disrepair and after purchased by Walt and Chris Ann Arndt malor refurbishing was accomplished. They brought it back to its original (or close to) stature. Many of the farm outbuildings fell from disrepair or by them demolished before falling on their own. One foundation is being preserved by us to the barn that fell in the ought years, called "the ruins". With the "blood , sweat and tears" spilled by the Arndt's, as they said, to make this place exhibited the looks of its origin it is only my contention to continue this preservation and add from the outside appearance whattTy OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 31 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPI After speaking with employees of the city I learned that the fear of a "construction building" come to mind of those who permit a new building/ garage on existing property. This I assure is not the intention and would be a scar on the site as it currently sits. As mentioned above, preserving the 19th century look and a clean site to board vehicles and implements used on the property is foremost in mind. (Pictures of neighbors. A, A and B attached) This may be the type of site that the City is hoping will not occur and is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. (Picture of current status of parking and vehicle storage C, C an D attached) Constructing a barn to house existing vehicles, etc. is to conceal and clean up the congestion of outdoor stored vehicles and save on the cost of inside storage to others. (Picture of original site E, F, G, and H attached) This is the site prior to the Arndt's arrival and reconditioning of the site, Barns were throughout, and accessory outbuildings. The construction of requested building and addition would not bring back this cacophony of farm structures, and would house the vehicles stored outside currently. Note: "H" is approximate location of new garage structure request where barn from "G" is shown-north side of property. Topographical lines are noted on site drawing from county source. Note: A required survey will be provided once approval of construction for permit is granted. would be seen by a passer by in the mid 19th century. The outbuilding / barn/ garage that could possibly have been constructed and used in that time is our request at this time. Thus submitted to you is the plan of such a structure that would add to the conformity I assume the City of Chanhassen comprehensive Plan would find pleasant in appearance and add to the historic value of this site. (Sec. 20-58 General conditions for granting # 1 and # 5) Current structure (Picture of existing house and summer kitchen I and J attached) When submitting for a permit I found a variance may be needed which constitutes extra costs. As well the need for storing vehicles, tractor equipment and collector vehicles a new barn/garage will be needed. Because of the square footage limitations on outbuildings to the primary living structure a variance would be needed for this structure as well. The decision to request both at the same time makes better use of time. building costs and resources. After drawings were made for the addition on the summer kitchen and the new barn/garage structure a letter of note was mailed to each neighbor within the 500' required distance for their perusal. I requested their signature identifying a position of response indicating approval from their point of view as a neighbor to proceed with the projects. (Signed letters attached) Relative to section 20-58 "General conditions for granting.... 1) As noted above this request is for an addition and structure that is in harmony with the existing structure and promoting the historical content that Chanhassen has to offer the community. 2) Practical needs for vehicle and tractor storage belay reason for personal storage needs. And to mediate outside vehicle congestion on the property. containing said vehicles in the current garage is physically impossible. Renting space for vehicles in outside locations is not as secure as wished. (Ihis is believed to be consistent with the future Comprehensive Plans desired by the city.) Alternative plans are to build a structure connecting the house to the existing garage, albeit, this would be unusual for a site with the mid 19th century style as is currently being reflected. Adding onto existing garage would be difficult considering the grades to the nodh and east. Solar installation is not within the request and is thus not applicable for this variance request 3) Applicant is focused on building not with the cheapest product or practice but just the antithesis to build for longevity and structural harmony for the site. 4) There is no plight which requires the structures construction, only compliment to the site as mentioned. Strong consideration by the occupant to keep the site within the natural aspect of the 19th century "look" and architecture is paramount. Because of these considerations the city requires a variance for neighbor feedback. (see returned letters from neighbors, above) 5) As stated, correctly, this construction will not alter the essential character, but add to the value within the city. Subjective decisions are the right and reserye of those making decisions and trust must be implied with the intentions of the owner to fit into the comprehensive plan. 6) Not applicable to this case Attachment "K" and "L" are elevations of summer kitchen with addition as viewed from the north and west respectively. "M" is the elevation approximately of the new garage structure. (attached) "N" property location to new Hwy 101 (attached) (Norte: see "H" for more accurate locations. This illustrates where the new driveway will be going because fo the new Hwy 101 construction. "O" and "P" attached, is location of proposed addition and building on site Q are floor plans of requested construction. R shows parcel as it sits in northeast corner of 101 and Creekwood Drive Letters "S" through "2" are photos of Chanhassen properties that look to fit the request of outbuilding/garages that are complimentary to the main home/structures on their property. This is the intent of our request. A plan "8" if needed will be one to build the necessary garage structure as an attachment from the house to the existing garage, which would be more difficult to blend with authentic design, but possible. Thus the hope for approval for the external structure and bath addition is foremost. a F CHANHASSE N ECEIVED c3t2020 PI.AiINIIJG DETT . .1')9.'I \ 4- ,6--*- i,:1, i i&*rr hEsE- A,laiq ;rlr 7 q n{i I -;{ A From Subiect Date To Ed lrysllv€cgl edSlhandyfi]asieri.rc.ccn, Contractor barn December 15, 2020 at 6:47 PM Ed Myslivecek edm,lslrvecek'Jgrnaii.c.rl @ { !I 1,,t' ' ,, t :i'a'f: ':-a'n'{, -ftssw2 'b,..'il , t I *.d' m.."",,J. " At L- t -aF EPre,. t ,- ..1 n r:eh=- I _ El i ta ,,+ i ''l'a F.omr Ed t ysllv€cat edclhandymasteflnc coin !, Subiect Yard 2 Date: October 27, 2020 al*22 PM To: Ed Myslivecek edmyslrvecek3rgmail.conl CITY OF CHAIIHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 3l 2020 CIIAI'Jf IISSEN PI.AI{NING DEPI t,\c T I t' I ri \l.-l I -r.n: rt @ L I I I From: Ed lrysllvecek edehandymastennc conr a, Subiect Van outside Date: fttober 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM To: Ed M)€livecek edmysliveaek.ilgfi al.ccnl GD /I r;_--l E. ' -'<.'' -4 - E- ,- r-1t-=--- - hilrr -! -r,r Fom Subiecl Date To Ed lryollv€cGk ed3handymaslernc com, Trucks in drive D€cembe|I4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Ed M)€lNec€k eomyshveceqa omarl.ccnr c @ IR7-V E E--:r!i f \D- /- \ / r# -'.-<---G t: t B *..-..-*-', Faom Subiect Date To Ed lrysllvgcgk edohandymasiei.c ccm , Cars outside October 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Ed Ml6livec€k eomysl.\ ecet 3grrari .cr"' P a .-a. ''.. ..1 , 'Qf t * G. i&". ii.' {rt t *,..t .{ .r-. ,ll ,. !i\-_ "d' I _# @ w I t{ t. rl'l r't-4l*f,-:ir!r!\6 \ :. A Y6,t _-. III \ , a j I ,I*i t]$,,1 \J ty' )r I ZI # \t d im,.,hu: . tal t :::- I :,4 a : I 7 il # : ?I -t 4{ I I IFrom: Eat tlirallyrcek ed,Ohandymaslerinc.com, Subi€ctr 10151 Oate: Dember 14, 2020 al 8:21 PM To: Ed Mysliv€cek edmyslivecek@gmail.com @ .i li I I .; I t-. n tl )t nd! Faom Subject Date To Ed iryallvecek +d .slhandy,.nasl Cottage December 14, 2020 at 8:20 PM Ed Myslivecek ecmyslivecekag o J * Ig IfilJ t4 5 F.om: Ed ilyslivecek edohandlmasiennc com , Subject G2 Datei No\€mber 15. 2020 at 1:58 PM Toi Ed Myslivecek edmysli,,ecekeg.najl.com m f, i'!! ,..1 ,11, t{/ $ fi t a !,"tl {t *---'--* a, a - @ t) \t a\ $ {. I \ 5t s 0 B ,i*l._rrn ."{rt t.,,%: ,,: Ii- L. 4 a \ B t.z From Subiect Date To rdymaste :58 PM ?cek@grI Ed W8livecek ed( Not/ember '15, 2020 Ed Myslivecek edm tna at1 0 hn il.) $\ A\ R \a \ T *t,fl - -E h---*- E F- @ ,L/ From Subiect Date To Ed Wslivecek ede handy,nasternc co:I l, G4 Nolember 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM Ed Myslivecek edmyshvecekGrgmart.com @ I \^s + $ , .J \, t-J \ * I I E I -&-a- Faom Subject Date To Ed t y3llvac€k edohandymastennc.cont , G5 November 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM Ed Myslivecek edmys,ivecekrslgmail.conl @ '}{!d \} T c { ,!nIt I )I 4I.,,,tlP. .., .': f;l I 3 , n tI<t-.',, #v.^. -. # a { -r.) ,,1 +, |tu ) --*. ., -at *tr q*-* -a-v a ^L ttr ,.. rl * V/ F.om Subject Oate To Ed Wdlv€cek ederhandymasiennc.co.r, November 15. 2020 at 2:00 PM Ed Myslivecek edmyslrvecek<rcrnail.conl I t i.,t tr !. II r t, J \ J it s nv $ \tt .i 1r I,7 7 I , I ,i &I^ , ,,t1 J \* I I:f r &i ' ti';' ' l' ,t ,l - .tt ; -' #r* 77 {. @ \^ N e N \\ @ \) $\i I J s\ I ,) IFrom: Ed irysllvecol edChandymaslerinc.cc.n, Sutiect: GB Date: November 15,2020 at2:01 PM To: Ed Myslivecek .dmyslrvecek: gr,ar .r!-r: J,I fIt-.-, I V tt * I t -i -)F.,1 rl r'l tl I t F-t-- l i 1 E i E YFrom Subiect Date To Ed iryslivecek ed@handymaslerinc.com C, November 15, 2020 at 2:02 PM Ed Myslivecek ednystivecek'Sgnart.ccm @ "i, I *l, It t, lr _ ,,. a , 8'r; ' 'r.', r lI;r' r ' ^. .q+':l =.',F 't", i f2 4 I -/ I .t ; -. ,.. -J l'rtlal&:+ ; I Z From: Ed ilysllvacek ed3handymaster;nc com , Subiect: G10 Date: November 15.2020 at2:03 PM Tor Ed Myslivecek edmyslivecekelgmarl.com @ n,)i. I.,:'1. l$g$,: $4' i. si r: ?_ II) --* ffii t f 5- -J I -a a +NOIV ]tl H]-UoNNOt-U00v y100uH-IVS \t>iol2.; -Ee Er3E:E6< Pdau n;!E EEEE!e'eE! E EEE E;.EE(T EE I5;I EEE:IEeliei,. EEEE:E FE tr;FE alt!tHzl =la)l EI ulJI -t<l uiol t I rI Ez E} .). Ea (t(\!t \n _! dS"2 / 89 s! s:I ts6 e 6 =o-I r99 Nfi 'NfSSVHtWtu0A'18 SNMId IVftfJ r9t0rY\UVJ HCU]d ]NO]S:801 0lsodoud o0-]Ll5 fE .t-J .s-,t , e a? E ,0-,1 O oo NOtlVAftS lsli^NOI.LIOOV l^lOO8H1V8 !il8TE99 N}I 'ITSSYHNYH'o '18 sNMld .tvjlp r9r0rt,luv_l HSuld :Nol_s:uol (modoud_I:7pi eEEE:Esl E;t E :.iE; EEE EEer221i4=ETEFtEtrlrJfe Ea EiE: IE;ii5 Ee s 6aEIIEE6d EE I;EE w.FC2 zC F =d. z (-: E. ai! trl-4 I I :--l : __l-- t:llo+i,l zc tr I ( ILt.I i T ! I \ 9 NOtlV^J'tlNOTI|OOV dOHS)t80,r=isi rEEE:ErE 3zzd i9l\ irI r EEE BE snE: EEE E !; ! EEI Ei *t;3 qE;;EE iE;E: E EE E;ES r-lOIzl =lol FI<i il -l<lel(JJI 2., (Jl 9 a 22 !* JE EE 5 7 I =CL grcss Nfi 'NSVHNYHS0 18 SNftnd lV3tC r9r0rY\UVI H3U]d ]NOIS:lol o:so&8d o EILLT o-8!C99 Nt{ 'I€SSVHNVH3o 18 SNrV'ld IVIUC tqlorr!UV! HCU]d :NO].S:rnl olsodoud o t)+Nor-tv l'tl:N0r1t00v doHs)tuo,t\ a : 2=e IEEE :p=\ i;iz EEE E Esp E! EEIE*oEPXq EE;!gE ErurlJP E!EE;E EE;; EE aoz. zo e z(,p 6 9G ie ?6 8E eF Yti 92E= v6 2_ i I ;,Ii ]LII : =: = == = == = = : = =7: =: =: =--.J a-t_ J /- 7 =: =: =: = : =: = = =:: = = ==: =: _ ==: =: =a: =: ; = =: = = : =: = = = o t 10151 Great Plains Blvd Chaska, M 55318 Square footage of buildings on site: Main House: 7450 (2 floors) Summer Kitchen: 456 Shed: 200 Garage: 728 Total sq. ft: 2834 Addition: bath 76 sq ft Garage: 1382 crr{ o{EcJlt$$ASSEN DEC 3 1 2020 fitAllHASSBl PLlNtllts sPf Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 September 30,2020 Heidi and I are considering an additional garage to build on our property to house our vehicles. The City of Chanhassen requires that we notify - neighbors that are within 500 feet of our property to alert and get approval of a project like this. A variance is required where we will have to buy signage form the city to post for the public to see as well. The garage that we are proposing is approximately 4g x 32 feet in floor dimension and to be placed north of the existing garage. lt wiil be praced properly as required from the bluff and property lines. We intend to construct it of wood framing with a siding to match existing buildings on the property. As well we intend to add an 8 x 10' addition to the "summer kitchen,, thatyou see on the driveway. Both of these will be presented to the city and with said variance posted on the property. My intent is to let you, our neighbor, know what we intend to do and as foryour approval to present to the city in recourse. As you can see in the attached 1): location on the property, 2): addition location of the garage and addition to the summer kitchen. Would you please mark the attached note of approval if you find no negative issue in obstruction or other issue to your propefty from this construction. We are grateful for your participation and help to us in getting appro$fiY OFECHANHASSEII from the city for this project. DEC 3l 2020 CH,rt'{HASSEt't pWlUrc DET And with best regards, Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner ad.joining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at '101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55919, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said prolect. Signatu re date Sig nature date Address: Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Mysrivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 10151 Great plains Blvd, ChLska, MN 5531g, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us andfind the city to approve of said project. sig nature dale -v,; -/-'r1a,)O Sig nature date Address: Tom and Kathy Gertz 10001 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 9466 r(I /1 L IlJ I 'l/ .+t}" 1 ,,)\J IJ 4 /.a\t a :t, /it't Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 1015'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55919, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. sig natu re 'our. !129, ii^a *r) date 1. ..iSignature Address: Daniel and Catherine Schaitberger 10241 Mandan Circle Chaska, MN 55318 Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 5531g, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. 3 z\)Lv date iCtS r' jo Sig nature Sig natu re Address: Chris and Crystal Knutson 575 flakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 9455 .4 ,,7L,,UL/',.1, Please return in the stamped envelope. Signatu re As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and HeidiAbramovich at 1015't Great prains Brvd, chiaska, Mr\i s5318, we find noreason that the encrosed project would have a negative affect to us andfind the city to approve of said project. date '7''=,'-7crZ6 date IZLSignat Address: Jim and Bonnie Swansen 615 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 z,/ 5 (=r-er^ L/ Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 10151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no reason that the enclosed prolect would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Signature G t-| [ ,1'/Z) a 66i,s /a'/ -1 o sig nature date lo- l-zo Address: Gary and Debra Anderson 725 Creekwood Chaska, MN 55318-9261 Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at .l 0'151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Signatu re date / ( -7-ac Signature Address: Jeff and Kathy Dypwick 10300 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318 9467 .*.lI..date 1-{.,- Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and propefi owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 553.18, we find no reason that the enclosed proiect would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Sig nature date n/_X1 sig nature Paluucia \ N"^0\"".q-adate 4 *Joa 4'c Address: Richard and Patricia Halver '10271 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 10-151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55319, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Sig nature date tD -+-)oso Sig nature date Address: Helen C. Link ParcellD #25849002A Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 101 5'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Signatu Signature Address: John and Cathy Schwanke 595 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 553.1 8 date date .-Q Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 1015'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and find the city to approve of said project. Sig nature sig nature date l:L Address: Blake and Alyssa Walz 100813 Great Plains BIvd Chaska, MN 55318 i Please return in the stamped envelope. As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi Abramovich at 10151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no reason that the enciosed project wouid have a negative afiect to us and find the city to approve of said pro sig nature date aZc Signatu date Address: Heather and Francisco Silva 565 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN.55318 Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Date: January 21, 2021 Re: 10151 Great Plains Boulevard Variance - City Planning Case No. 2021-08 The Water Resources Department has reviewed variance request located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of any water resources issues or stormwater infrastructure fo r this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends be formally imposed on the applicant in the final order. General Comments/Findings 1. The applicant is requesting variances, including exceeding the 1,000-square foot, detached accessory structure size limit, construction of a detached garage and adding a bathroom to an existing detached structure on a property located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant has submitted application material to the City. 2. The primary issue identified by Water Resources staff as part of this variance review is the presence of a basin, which appears to show wetland characteristics. The applicant is proposing to place an accessory structure very close to this basin. 3. This basin has some characteristics indicating that it could potentially being man-made. As such, Water Resources staff reviewed the property for the presence of historic wetlands. This review is important to complete in order to understand the historical context of wetlands on a site and how they should be managed. 4. A review for historical wetlands helps identify if an area with wetland characteristics has historically been a wetland area and thus should be governed by the Wetland Conservation Act or if it should be considered incidental, that is, it was a created wetland in an upland area. Three factors are typically used to determine if a wetland is incidental: aerial imagery, soil data, and antecedent precipitation. 5. City staff has reviewed these three factors. Aerial photos were reviewed from years 1937, 1951, 1957, 1963, 1969, 1979, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2020. These photos show that a structure, similar to the one being proposed by the applicant, was present in the area in question going all the way back to 1937. This structure was removed sometime between 2005 and 2008. After 2008, a circular basin can been seen which appears to hold water. It appears this basin likely exists due to the demolition of the previous structure. As a result, given the factors listed above, it is unlikely that this area was historically a wetland. T he City’s full aerial photo review and antecedent precipitation analysis are available upon request. 6. The National Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey shows that the area in question consists of Lester-Kilkenny complex soils, with have a 0% hydric rating. This means this area does not contain hydric soils, and thus is further evidence that this wetland area was created from an upland area. 7. As for other water resources issues: there are no other wetlands or streams on this property. In addition, this project does not involves any City owned stormwater infrastructure. As such, there are no concerns or conditions to place on the project based on these conditions. 8. Based on City staff’s review of aerial imagery, soil data, and antecedent precipitation, it is the opinion of the Water Resources Department that this variance request can be granted in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Water Resources requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, if applicable, and can be approved. Proposed Conditions 1. There are no proposed conditions associated with a review by the Water Resources department. Given the proximity to steep slopes and bluff areas which ultimately lead to Bluff Creek, extra care and review will be undertaken during the building permit process to ensure that proper erosion and sediment control measures are undertaken during construction. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss cor.JNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on Jantary 21,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe 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, including exceeding the 1,O00-square foot, detached accessarT structure size limit, to construct a detached garage and adding a bathroom to an existing detached structure on a property located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural Estate (A2), Planning Case No. 2021-08 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 ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesot4 and by other appropriate records. Kim T eu n, Deputy Cl (Seal) JEAI{ M SIECKLTT{G i Subscribed and tti*Q [6laa, o S m to before me ,2021. Notary Public nGyPttfoemloom r|rtrSIlA,rco. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE Subject Parcel DllcLlm.r This map is neilher a legally reco.ded map nor a suNey and as not inlended to be used a3 one. Th6 map is a @tnprlaton ot recods, informalion and data located in vatio!3 city, county. staie and federal offces and other sources r€gardin! the a.ea 3ho m, and is to be used for lebrence purp€es only. The CiV doe3 not t€rrant that the Geoglaphic ln ormaton System (GlS) Oata used to prepaE this map are enor free. and the City does nol represont tl:tt tlE Gls Data can be used to. navEatonal, tracking oa any o$er purpoce equinng exacting fireasurement of distance or diectoo or p.ecision in the dedciion of geogaphic bafules. The preceding disdaimet i9 provialed puBuant to Minnesota Statl,Ites y66.03, Subd. 21 (20m), and the user of this map acknowtedoes tEt lhe City rhall not be liable for any damag€., and e)9ressly waives all claims, and agEes to debnd, indemnify, and hold hatmless the Ci9 fro.n any ard all claim3 b.ooght by User. it5 ernployees or aleots, or lhird panjes wttici alise out of lhe usefs access or use of data plovided. Dbchtnar Thb mep is neither a legally Ecorded map nor e sudey and is nol inlended to be lrsed as one. Thi6 map is a comF,ilalion ot reco.ds. inlo.matoo and data located in vadqjs oty, county, state and federal ofice3 and other sources reoarding the area 3hoen, aM is lo be used for reblence purposes onv. The Cily does rlot warant that the Geo06phic lnformaton SFlem (GlS) Oata used to pEpare this map ale eror tree, aM the City does nol represent thal the GIS Oata can be used lor navi€atonal, tracling oa any olher purposo requidno o€ctno mea3uemenl of distance or direclion or precision in the depitlion of g€o€raphic ,eatrEs. The preceding dirdainler is provirod pu6uant to Minn6ota StraMes Y66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of thi3 map acknowledges fBt f|e City shall not be liaue ior any damages. and expressly waives all daims, and a€re€a to debnd, indemnify. and hold harml€ss the Cily frorn any and all daims brought by U3er, its employees or agents, o. third pani€J wttach atu6 out of the uscfs access or u9e of data povided tTAX_NAMEI <TAX_ADD_LI l (TAX ADD L2) sNext RccordrrTAX_NAMET <TAX_ADD_LI r rTAX_ADD_L2r I L_ s r, F l!0 t 4 i Subiect Parcel tT I I \:, l,o {)EOEP ;<o- 0,'C^EEgE Ao cr, = ga =:6I 9-:i :i;E -.5 sEln o x (,€sEaBeEE:EHES EE EEEEiE;IgE;g:g_sEgq65 9cE Y.9q< = (, > o, ^ ; 9E=;38 E FogXE=ah'E SEgTfiEEFE E $€'a. " ". i e 3l Bx-g =5 EI=EE€E iiaiBlsiiiE 6EEEc.r3FpEOc!5H3F- .9(uENgo-,Noj-.9NC oo _o-o)-t!bj6(5= E- Of.fs ol(l)tolEIolol()lclelol6tflE E c(, (E coi: ;a; ol= o<Fe9or 5.= N O>E 3* E9 -o+iDiio(l)cE CBE :' t, U)f CE_EM$E,i8tsfiB I9,,Ho !u i'= o 6ij(E-! O)-iExH€85xC'.iOE,^ iSeEbEes€59E9eE EflEEE';o ! xro 5:;HP ID o =!t! oogoopE(!o>2lgoBid)oaE OOd"q!Cl(EO EEoE 'i, 3 5-ef< iEiEiiiislisiiii iiiiiiilliiliEia 3 E I ii) ar ,= =d,fi-(,!! ,c =r .5 ..o9CEoo o>OE:oo(J U;ot,co)CDog)oEO(D .nEgEE:gLo.Ea6oo0)i- -c -.'Evr}Qol;RAg;(, Looo o- E;'Eo o,b'6 (56 clt corXq 9E; tl., - Eo=;E6b zsfr )cc 6E*a u; .= 3Y= H [3 o i: oo a, oo Eo o(,oJ ::i!oo(l.oo t!o c!.L >EEO!,Eo- i! E! E.troo=EDOc,.=a2E.e tro F llJ- E IIJ.e 6= =oo= ED7a.= 6E =go r! i.Erqi B,ooEEos(.) CDc c,o = P.E 9 G I'Fo = llJ- E IIJo EE = o..€olzdP5 o cF * EU'iE5: E'oo GE G o 'Ee .e3 -BEorcig ts3 F- .g oE c.r go--Nor-.EalE>9 E3 A. o, '= TLEj-so=E- c)< .:t g olCI rDtolcl ololol clot rDl (t)l i Ei o) o c {nrI6 I o= o<F! Pg E- E S* E9 -.o+oooll)qr 3 or Er.=6.=.=E - o(rl E f,EEa8Efi E I9,,ko !o i = o 66Oar Or5i*tr:EE Xo--!!i,i BttEg.E99E EflEEE E8 h 6E83i e& ooo E UJ o -goc!E o p*(!o e; 6PElooEc-(gg E.e -A6.lgE oE b3 5.e eEi fr -E !? a 0619 1-o-c- ti ogEE *- E :EE .I$ Et-o o: o€ E q,r 8;9 E:E! *&5€ E HEEggEE; aiseHgEfl EgBF=+EE-is;!HEEF so o-o-o-c d-o =F O (! OF N (t { = t^t oJitQ L rl q X- e =E El=EE€E EgiEgIEi;EEg gE*lcBsgEiEE 9Bt|iiIEEiBE o oo d,'d -o rl) B oo =o-gl_c EBooo!-o lD,t EEo6ac 8E -t->: !, r:ccoo, uft cc'=(EE-c_u 6q-Y>o<8l ,/i(! E'c C' CD([ CDc (, o) Ec o) 3 c .o ooE oE o o Ego o E o)o ()o E o o-lc .s,a =uJz 5 E 3I E E ! E E E 8 c _!9 iit F c6 a, t!o .9 o(, oJ G6otto o- G(, >Et.9 o-Geto-J 26 Gt .: +'E r!E =; c6 ..o9caoo o=q,Efoo() ooor'{ooOOooOOOOO6 - c\.l.{ oO (O O 6l Cr t'r N .{ O O O)-oocrloooool 000!A.roc.r66.r,60mO(nOOOfnOOrn Fr ..r lrl o o rn or !n o (o \o \o !a oN rn.n.! N (\ N <l N <l o o an o.,lO r{ ..r O F{ d O cO O 6 16.n O.n.iZ r,) rn !n ral u) Ltl L^ rn .n ral r/) rn !n !n rnE a! a! ^r N N a! N a{ N N r\l a\r a\l a\l N F.(o(o (., ch dt F@ m or;rIl rO (!' (.c' (ON rn^<tN+<r <r sr <l .J.^<.xi .{(oq9 q9 ? 9ijf ?ca 6 6 ao co 6 ao (n m @ rr 6 @ @ @- - -i .i .i .r - u) La Fi.l r{ .i !.. dm m an ar.| rn an m !n l,l (n :{ m (n (n mrn rn u) rr) !n (^ I^ -, ra = rn Ln.n ut!n r^ rn rn !/l !,1 tn = = ln .li L/) r^ !^ rrl.rzzzzzzzz2ztrlzzzz 3;;;';';-aaEEa>dddd = \2 t !z :Z V Y }z O O !a,'!z !z sz :zt1 tt\ t^ th !z Y (^ = t\ t^ u\ v1 AIIIIII-IIIO--II; (J o U (J (J (J (J IA o (J T! (J U (J (J ooo6000 co6dldlao@dt_? eth vl qt r^ tt\ tt1 tt1 =^ d. o^zzzzzzz*e E do oE dd.dd-d3Ez=PP9ii k k k k k E k 3=ie::9 p ."E E H.'H H U Y H 5 X; f > EE::H:::3f=x=HH=r-rij i- U i iri i- 6 o) + J H o u a oX 6 6 6 r{ N a{ rrl m N O O O rn O O< 6 0 c, o o o o N co <l @ N N rn l'\ F: F{ Fr F{ F{ r'l .{ Fl F.r .i l'rl(O\OF (pOr 6000004d, al! dl d! ao d, altul .Jl \rl .h tt\ t l tl)zzzzzzzo-o-o-do-o-o-FFFFFFFr! r! uJ r! ur ru [!d,td,d,G,d,c,Q(,(,(,(,(,(,(,9.<.rmr{r{..roaOF.6!r)r/)F-OPOOOHNa{mEOOOOOOO(^ .r -r .{ Ft F{ r.l f{ ; Ez. 3o6=a> -d,E:z=<ffo !2 6 -zt e- 3 a 6zi 6q z 9,,2H= a zd. H EEIE .=i=Eg=t=E5:=$EEE;Y=i?'adi;:=2aaq >,= E _i I E E E Z4;1;!aE -{E3J6EgEE5=t=338 oao55 26ooE=E3E:<B=3<OuJr!r!Et rrJ uJ r! (9 i(Ju(JBooo1/r0<fNl'\a{Orrl F. (O F .r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19, 2021 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval the verbatim minutes from its January 19, 2021 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 19, 2021 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2021 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner; Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; Alison Vance, Admin. Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael & (Maria) Juliana Sylvia 9607 Sky Lane, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Brian, Elise, Seagland (sp???) Bruner 6609 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Weick: Good evening, everybody, calling to order this evening’s Planning Commission meeting. Tonight is Tuesday, January 19, 2021 and we have two items on tonight’s agenda. I’ll begin the meeting with a quick roll call to make sure we have a quorum. Commissioner von Oven? von Oven: Here. Weick: Gotcha. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Here. Weick: Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Here. Weick: Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Here. Weick: Great. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Here. Weick: Good evening. Commissioner Randall? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 2 Randall: [No answer]. Weick: Not sure we have Mark tonight. OK. And I am here so we have six and that is a quorum. Weick: Quickly review the guidelines for the meeting this evening. It is a Zoom meeting as it has been for several months so please be patient with us as we work through our process. I also ask that Commission members not hold chats or side discussions or text messages that are not public. All of our discussions this evening need to be in the public record. As I mentioned, tonight we have two public hearings on the agenda. First, staff will present the item. When staff is finished, we have a time for open questions from the Planning Commission for staff. When that’s complete, the applicant can make a presentation or answer any questions that have come up during the staff report and also be open for questions from Planning Commission members. At the conclusion of the applicant’s address, we will have a public hearing in which we will summarize any emails we’ve received for the record, we will open up the telephone line for telephone calls as appropriate and anyone present can come forward and offer a comment on any of the item. We’ll then close the public hearing once we’ve have a change to hear from everybody in every format. Commission member can then discuss the item amongst themselves, consider a motion, and as appropriate, have a vote. So with that, I will introduce the first item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 10029 TRAILS END ROAD Young-Walters: Thank you. This is Planning Case 2021-06. Just a reminder, if this is not approved or denied by a ¾ vote, it will automatically go to the City Council on February 8, 2021. In addition, any citizen or resident aggrieved of this decision can appeal it. There are four business days to do that and if appealed it will also go to the City Council. That being said, this is a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. The location is 10029 Trails End Road. This lot is zone Residential Single Family. This zoning district has a minimum 15,000 square foot lot area, requires 30-foot front and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks. This district is limited to a maximum of 30% total lot cover of which at most, 25% can be impervious. Buildings are limited to 35 feet in height. It is a single-family district so under the Code, it is only allowed single-family residences. Duplexes would not normally be permitted. There is a large drainage and utility easement running across the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a new home of this site. The proposal would leave them with 23¼ percent lot cover but the home’s footprint that has been proposed meets all aspects of City Code. So they are not requesting any variance from any setbacks or lot cover ordinance. I put up the elevations here just so you can see. So what the applicant is proposing is they are proposing adding an apartment above the three-car garage. It will be attached to the home. The apartment will have a kitchen, bedroom, laundry area and bathroom. This would constitute separate dwelling unit because it is separated from the rest of the upper level by walls here so there is no free flow between. They have stated that they need this apartment to facilitate the in-home care of aging Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 3 parents. The father has a Parkinson’s diagnoses which necessitates this arrangement. They have stated that the house will have the external appearance of a single-family home and that they are not proposing separate utility service. So, we did get some calls from the neighbors. We had one phone call just asking what was going on with the lot. Once we clarified that the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be an attached unit and not a separate building, they indicated they had no concerns with it. We did also get one email in support of the proposal which was forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is a bit of a unique variance. Typically the City Code does not allow for variances for uses. So, for instance, we couldn’t give a variance for allow and industrial use to go in a residential neighborhood. There is one exemption in the Code which is allowing a single-family house to be used for a two-family dwelling if four conditions are met. They has to be a demonstrated need based on disability, age or financial hardship; the dwelling has to maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling; it cannot have separate utility services; and the variance cannot be deemed to negatively impact the surrounding properties or neighborhood. In looking over the applicant’s proposal, staff believes this meets all four of these criteria. The city has issued three similar variances in the last 20 years. We have yet to receive any complaints engendered by having this type of above-garage arrangement for caring for elderly parents. So for that reason, staff believes that this….is recommending approval on this variance. Staff is recommending conditions to prevent it from being rented out in the future and those will be recorded against the property. With that, if there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Weick: Thank you, MacKenzie. I will open it up for any Commissioner questions. Hearing… von Oven: You said there’s only been three or four of these in the last 20 years, but did you mean specific to this type of variance? Are there other variances where folks have built a separate dwelling on the same property and been issued a variance? Young-Walters: Nope. We have issued since 2020, the city has received variance requests to use a lot zoned for single-family as a two-family dwelling and in all three cases, it’s been an apartment above the garage. Pretty much with some size differences, identical to this. von Oven: Got it. And then in the “may not be rented” clause, what would actually stop a family from down the road doing an Airbnb. Young-Walters: Ya, so it would be one of those where were staff to receive a complaint, we would then have leverage because the document recorded. But as you indicated, it’s not like we would be able to do a regular inspection or monitor the site to guarantee to it was never listed. There is something of an honor system. von Oven: Got it. OK, thank you. Weick: Thanks, Mark. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 4 Noyes: Chairman, it’s Commissioner Noyes. I have a question about the future. If this property is sold, I know staff has mentioned that there are ways to tie this variance into the property going forward. Can you explain that a little bit to, in case there are new owners in the future how they would be held to the same standards as the current owners? Young-Walters: Yep, so the main things is variances are recorded with the county against a property so when you do a title search, that variance and what’s recorded again it is going to pop up. It would also need to be done as part of a seller’s disclosure so anyone buying this would know that that restriction is in place. There would also be copies of the variance in the property file for public inspection and then, again, it would just, again, being kind of on that expecting people to follow the rules but then the city would have a clear enforcement mechanism were it violated because we could very easily go to a judge and say, this is explicitly recorded against a property and is not being followed. Noyes: Thank you. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. When I look at this for a Parkinson’s, a person who has that disease, is there any way that they’re anticipating being able to augment the stairway for some person that has a physical problem? Young-Walters: I would defer that question to the applicant. Weick: And we’ll hold that for the applicant’s presentation. Did you have any other questions, Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: No, that’s fine. Just seems like there should be some provision there. Weick: OK. Other comments or questions of MacKenzie? Cool. Hearing none, I will invite the applicant to join us and either answer the specific question about the stairwell and please talk to use about this project. Michael Sylvia: Hi, hopefully everybody can hear me OK. My name is Mike Sylvia. This is my wife Juliana Sylvia. Juliana Sylvia: My first name is Maria as you probably saw on the documents but I go by my middle name, Juliana. Michael Sylvia: And these are my parents. This is my dad and this my mom on the left. I’ll at least, I’ll answer the questions specifically, initially, and then we can discuss other stuff. The staircase that goes to the apartment above the garage is wide enough to accommodate a chair lift, the once you see on TV. That was something that was planned. We also, the bathroom that they have there, the shower is handicap accessible and it’s curb less, kind of forward planning for that purpose. But as far as the, our builder is on, Steve, but our plan is if the rendering of the home, with or without the in-law is the same so it’s not going to, it wouldn’t change, it’s going to look Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 5 the same as a single-family, it’s just that additional space would be…My parents currently live in…we’re currently renting a home and they live in the basement and they’ve been living there for the last 16 months and my father’s condition is deteriorating and it’s just not…we had never envisioned him living in the basement of the rest of his life so this is something that would be an opportunity for him to live in the same home with us. They have three grandchildren and they are ours and their lives revolve around them. So that’s kind of the, it was always kind of their dream and our to kind of have something where we had separate spaces, not living in a basement, something with light, their own bathroom, their own kitchen. So, this was an opportunity…we love the street, we love the neighborhood, we were hoping to hopefully be there for the 20 years. Weick: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate the perspective and the information about your project. Commissioner Reeder, I would open it back up to you if it answers your question or you had any follow up question. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, that answers my question. I assume they anticipated that, I just wanted to make sure we’re all aware of how they’re going to handle that. Weick: OK, great. Any other questions for the applicant from Commission members, at this time? OK. Not hearing any, thank you very much for making yourselves available this evening and sharing with us about your project. I appreciate that. Michael Sylvia: Thank you, you guys. Weick: Ya, you bet. Absolutely. Thank you. At this time, we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. As MacKenzie mentioned, we did receive… Young-Walters: Yep, we did receive one phone call where they’d asked what was being proposed and then once they were informed that it was an attached accessory dwelling, they expressed they were comfortable with it. And then we received an email that they very much liked the appearance of the house, that they wanted to welcome the new family to the neighborhood and they thought it was wonderful they were looking to take care of their aging relatives. Weick: Great. Thank you. And we have opened the phone line. It is 952-227-1630. I will pause awkwardly while we wait for anyone to call in at this time. There is no one in Chambers for in- person comment at that time. Seeing no calls come in, I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for Planning Commission comments, motions and vote and I would just open up by saying that looking at the plans for the project, it’s a beautiful and I think the intent also beautiful and you know, I think it’s a wonderful addition to that neighborhood in my opinion. Certainly open it up for other Planning Commission comments or motions. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McGonagill. I just wanted to compliment the applicant for following the process of the city and doing, you know, they went through and did everything they could to meet the Code and variance request. I agree with everything you said, Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 6 Mr. Chairman, and….You know, they could have made it…Well you know, we’ve seen some of these where they’ve made it difficult and the applicant’s make it difficult but clearly the Sylvia’s have not. I appreciate them working with staff on this for us. That’s all I have to say. Weick: Thank you. von Oven: I also want to commend Mr. & Mrs. Sylvia. We should all be as fortunate and good to take care of our parents the way that you all are proposing to. It’s also odd for me, I guess, I’m somewhat of a, I guess I’m not new anymore. As these things come to the Planning Commission, I actually do question, there’s probably a day coming where this isn’t necessarily a variance. I think more and more people are going to need to be doing this and we should be doing this. It’ll be interesting to see how that works. I’m very surprised that there’ve only been three or four in the last 20 years. So I’m not nervous about setting a precedence, I’m more nervous about that more and more of us are going to need to do exactly what you are doing and the less loophole, or hoops that people have to jump through to do it I think will be good. So, I commend what you’re doing. I’m fully in support. Weick: Thank you, Commissioner von Oven. Randall: I have a few comments on it. Weick: Shoot. Randall: A couple things. One, just full disclosure. My house is somewhat set up like this. I enjoy having my parents stay with me. A couple of caveats that were in that presentation that I thought are interesting to note. It’s to have a separate entrance. Typically, I would assume if you had a rental unit you’d want to have a separate entrance where they wouldn’t have to walk through the house and that type of thing. I thought was important. It’s a good, I’m glad that they, I’ll echo that they went through the city to do that. I think it’s going to be very commonplace coming into the future. Weick: Thanks. Good perspective. Randall: With that, I can make a motion if you’d like. Weick: Sure thing. Young-Walters: Alison, can we get the motion up, please? Randall: The Chanhassen Board of Appeal and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a single-family swelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Discussion. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have second? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 7 von Oven: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner von Oven. von Oven: Correct. Weick: Any final comment before we vote. I think we’ve all expressed our favorable opinions of this project. With that I will commence a roll call vote. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner von Oven? von Oven: Aye. Weick: Thank you, in favor. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Aye. Weick: Commissioner Randall? Randall: Aye. Weick: In favor and I also vote in favor. The item passes 7 in favor, 0 against which meets the ¾ approval requirement as well. Thank you again, MacKenzie, for your report as well as the applicant for being available this evening and we wish you luck with your project. Thank you very much. Sylvia’s: Thank you. Thank you very much. Randall moved, von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a Variance to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit within a proposed single-family residence located at 10029 Trails End Road and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 7-0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 8 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE/REBUILD RETAINING WALLS, ADD WALKOUT TERRACE, ADD STAIRWAY TO LAKE, AND RECONFIGURE LAKESIDE DECK/PATIO LOCATED AT 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE Young-Walters: This is Planning…. von Oven: Actually Commissioner Weick, sorry before you jump in there, I just need to let everyone know that I need to recuse myself from this one. It’s just a few houses away from me and I know these fine, upstanding citizen. Weick: Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. So for the record, we have six Commissioners which is still a quorum. Young-Walters: So this is Planning Case 2021-07. The applicant is…Again, I’ll just reiterate that if passed by a ¾ majority vote of denied by a ¾ majority vote, the decision is final. If not, it will advance to the City Council on February 8. In addition, any resident aggrieved of the decision has four business days to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at which point it would go to the Council as well. That being said, this is a variance request to place an at- grade deck and retaining walls within the bluff setback and bluff impact zone. So the location of the property is 6609 Horseshow Curve. This property is zoned Residential Single-Family. It is a riparian lot and there is a bluff present. This zoning district requires a minimum 20,000 square foot lot area. Has 30-foot front and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, a 30-foot bluff setback, a 20-foot bluff impact zone setback, a 75-foot shoreland setback, and a 25 percent lot cover limit. The property is also allowed one water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) within 10 feet, I’m sorry, that 75-foot shoreland setback although it needs to be 10 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level and is limited to 250 square feet in size. So this house has quite a few existing nonconformities. The lot is 27,878 square feet with around 23 percent lot cover. The house has a nonconforming 5-foot bluff setback. The porch actually encroaches over into the bluff. The southern retaining wall has a nonconforming encroachment into the bluff as well. This red line here is the top of the bluff and the west retaining wall is a 0-foot bluff setback, essentially running right along the top of the bluff. The WOAS has a nonconforming 3-foot bluff setback, 5-foot side yard setback, 7-foot shoreland setback, and a nonconforming 304-square foot size and it also located over a city sanitary sewer easement. One thing I will mention, is this property is a little unique as nonconformings go. In that, when the house was built in 1999, there was not a bluff present on the property. The construction of this retaining wall here, flattened out the grade and pushed the grade change down enough that it actually flipped the property over the edge of the bluff ordinance and created the bluff that then created all of the nonconformities that are the result of the, that are not resulting in a variance being needed. So, while we did consult with the city attorney and a bluff is a bluff whether it was preexisting or created, it is something that staff kept in mind as we evaluated this variance request. So, the applicant is proposing to install an at-grade deck and drainage system within the bluff impact zone so that’s the first 20 feet from the bluff. They are proposing to place he south retaining wall with a living wall system located within the bluff, and the west retaining wall with a concrete wall within the bluff impact Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 9 zone. They are proposing to reconfigure the existing nonconforming WOAS. Because they are reconfiguring it in a way that reduces its size and the existing of the nonconforming setbacks, it does not actually require a variance but we are including it in request just to formalize the nonconforming dimensions. And then they are also proposing to install stairs down to the lake. This is permitted by Code and does not need a variance. It’s just mentioned here for the sake of completeness. So the justification is, in 2018, they conducted an extensive remodel on the property and they actually removed several pretty significant encroachments from the bluff. An impervious patio, an 8-foot bump out, and an above-grade deck that was located across the top of the bluff. The result of removing those elements has left the area behind the house as weed and dirt and the feel a wood deck is a reasonable amenity to having to give some cleaner access to that area. The retaining walls are failing. They noted that during a rain event last year, property damage occurred as boulders came loose and rolled down the property as well as some erosion associated with that failure. They believe that the living walls is an environmentally sensitive way to stabilize the slope. As a note, they could replace the existing retaining walls in their existing configuration placement without a variance and what they’re proposing appears to be less environmentally impactful than what they could do without a variance. Again, the WOAS is being redesigned to work with the stairway and is resulting in a smaller structure and removal of impervious surface near the lake. And again, this could have been replaced with the existing size and composition without a variance. As staff looked this over, one thing we wanted to mention is just, this applicant worked extensively with staff. They’ve met with us about a half dozen times over the last half year and have been very receptive to our feedback and concerns so I do just want to mention that. They are utilizing a pretty robust drainage system, living wall technology, pervious decking and fescues to try to manage stormwater and minimize any impacts to the bluff and the lake. I did mention the unique situation in how this bluff came to be. With that, staff does recommend approval. Looking at the balance of the project, it leave the property in a better situation than what they could do if they just replaced stuff without requesting a variance. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. I will open up with a couple questions to get things started as I find my notes. Does the, does the, does the new deck add anything to the hardcover? Young-Walters: Nope. So because decks are not considered to be lot cover and they’re doing a wood deck with gaps and then if you look at their plans, they’re actually running I believe aggregate and draintile base to manage the stormwater as well which is, to be honest, more engineering than they would need to do to meet the pervious definition for decking. So they went above and beyond in that respect. Weick: Cool. Thanks for the clarification. And then, looking at the shape of the deck that they’re adding, I’m assuming that the city didn’t have any, you know, the corners right up to the edge of the bluff line. I’m assuming you didn’t have any issues with that. Young-Walters: Ya, you know, what we looked at a lot was the depth of the deck. It’s a 12-foot deep deck. The placement and configuration make design sense in terms of providing access from the patio door to the connected step system. Especially when we look at the fact that it’s not Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 10 lot cover that they’re replacing that failing retaining wall, that they have the drainage system, that they pulled out 350 square feet of impervious surface. Again, on the balance, we didn’t feel this was a threat to the bluff. Weick: OK. I appreciate that. Those were my two questions for MacKenzie. Any other, any questions from Commission members? And by the way, I can see you all now, this time. Just for the, I see you Commissioner von Oven. Well hearing and seeing no imminent questions here, I will go ahead and invite the applicant to make a presentation or respond to any of the questions they’ve heard already this evening. Welcome. Elise Bruner: Thank you. Hi, this is Elise Bruner. I’m here with my husband, Brian, our daughter, Seagland (sp???), and thank you for taking the time to review our variance request. We’ve been working with Travis Van Liere and his landscape architects to try to present an environmentally-friendly as well as aesthetically pleasing design for our property to provide more access for our family and to try to just utilize the full enjoyment of the property that, that we live on. I think that MacKenzie’s done a great job in terms of summarizing the main points of concern, and this has been kind of an on-going dialogue and we appreciate all the excess and….activity that we’ve received from the Planning division in terms of making this property as livable and enjoyable as possible. It is a unique property in that it’s located on a slope and so there are two basic areas where we can convene and be outside, either down by the lake or right outside the front of our house off of the slider downstairs. And so, we’re just trying to make sure that we have the opportunity to create those spaces for our family. I’m willing to answer any other questions. Just by way of background, I grew up at 6611 Horseshoe Curve and then my parents built the original house in 1999 and the in 2016, my husband and I purchased the property from them and remodeled it. So I actually grew up in this neighborhood so it’s pretty exciting to be able to see this through to its completion. So we thank you for your consideration. Weick: Thanks, that’s fantastic to hear about the history behind that, and also a pretty cool project and thank you for including all of the pictures. It’s really helpful especially, this time of year, even if we were able to get out and look at property, which this would be a difficult one to look at. Um, Elise Bruner: Well, you’d have to, you’d have to bring your sled. Weick: That’s right. It’d be difficult to get around. So, thank you for the thoroughness of the report, that was really, it was helpful. It was nice to see how this will all fit together and it looks like a good project for you. Any questions for our applicant from Commission members? McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. McGonagill. Weick: Yes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 11 McGonagill: Could you? I’m fascinated with the living wall, I think that’s pretty cool. I’ve done a lot of geotechnical work in a previous life and so I’m curious how you came with this and how this will work on the slope and, you know, I’m just, more curiosity than…..just interested in it. Elise Bruner: Thank you. You know, I don’t like to consider myself an expert in anything but when I started looking at options and I consulted with Travis and Danielle, our landscape architects, about this option of kind of getting rid of the tradition boulder, and my husband wanted concrete and that wasn’t going to happen and so I was like looking for something that had a low impact but that kind of, just kind of blended into the environment and didn’t, I don’t know, stick out as much and reviewed some of the really unique engineering where by, you basically put in kind of a webbing that goes into the property and then you kind of, you do the plantings and basically it all kind of gels together with the fescue and so we’re hoping that that kind of just creates a more natural looking environment and, I guess Travis and Danielle could speak to that engineering component if, I think they’re on the phone as well. McGonagill: I’m just curious about…on the slope, the degree of slope that this things going on. I’m trying to imaging the slope it’s on. Maybe MacKenzie can answer it but where it’s supposed to go, what kind of slope is on that. Weick: If the applicant’s architect is on, I would defer to them for a design discussion on it. Travis Van Liere: Ya, I’m on. Travis Van Liere. Can you guys here me OK? Others: Yes. Travis Van Liere: So to answer your question, it’s a product that we’ve used previously and it comes from kind of a company that we work with that’s out of Colorado. They use if for kind of mountain homes or hillside homes. The product that we are referencing, it’s called Slopeteam (sp??), actually, and it’s a geosynthetic that kind of gets laid over the surface and so it allows you to do engineered slopes up to, almost up to a 60% slope. We’re going to do that here but you can do a 1:1 slope pretty easily which is a 45 degree angle and that’s kind of what we’re proposing to do here in lieu of the retaining wall system, which was already kind of, it was battered but the wall was installed 20 plus years ago when the original house was built and some of the boulders that were installed weren’t properly sized accordingly so as you know construction happened over the remodel process and everything else and just time, they’ve just slowly degraded and kind of washed out and fallen down the hillside. So this is a product that we’ve used steep slopes. We’ve used it on various, different conditions, but ya, it’s a nice product. It’s fairly new and not too many people use it for retainage per se, but for managing kind of steep slopes and this is kind of the perfect application with what we’re using it for. Our main purpose we to, as Elise said, minimize the impact from the lake so that you didn’t see this large retaining wall system kind of up again the house and make it a more natural aesthetic. McGonagill: Are you going to have to do much regrading, a grade plan, in order to install this? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 12 Travis Van Liere: Yep, so there was a grading plan was included in our packet and you’ll notice there’s kind of a hatched area that indicates the extents and it kind of looks like a trapezoid. So, where the old retaining was, you’ll see kind of a 1:1 slope and it goes around primarily around the corner where the old retaining wall would be on the southeast corner of that new deck that we’re proposing. McGonagill: So, ya, you will have some re… but that’s part of the application that you’re working with staff on. Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep. McGonagill: OK, well thank you very much. It’s helpful. I’ve used this stuff in applications in mountains so I’m familiar with something similar and it, once it, I’ve never done it in cold climates like this but once it gets in, it will hold. So, Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep it’s really nice. McGonagill: That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. Weick: Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Well I thank the applicant and architect for sharing information about your project. It’s very helpful for us to get your perspective and answers as well. With that, I will open the public hearing portion of this item. I believe we received an email. Young-Walters: We did not an email on this one. Weick: We did not. Young-Walters: I had one call from a neighbor just kind of wanted to know what was going. Didn’t express any concern with the project. Weick: OK. I was mistaken, I apologize. The number is on the screen, 952-227-1630. There is no one in Chamber for in-person public comment and give it a moment if anyone is dialing. Nothing coming in? I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open for Planning Commission member comments and/or a motion. I think when I first read this one, I thought, oh my goodness, there’s so much, there’s so much going on here, but when you really peel back the onion a little bit, everything makes sense, to me anyway, on the property and certain doesn’t seem to, it’s used to help the property across the board as opposed to anything that would limit, or be an imposition on the property. Noyes: Chairman, it’s Commission Noyes. I would propose a motion. Weick: Wonderful. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 13 Noyes: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19-foot bluff impact zone and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Noyes. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I’ll second it. Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: A second from Commissioner McGonagill. Before we vote, any final comments on the project? Hearing none, we will commence with a roll call vote. Commissioner Randall? Randall: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Aye. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Aye. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Aye. Weick: Thank you. In favor. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Aye. Weick: In favor, and I also vote in favor. The item passes 6 in favor, 0 against which is also over the ¾ requirement so the item passes unanimously. Thank you to MacKenzie. Wonderful report. Thank you, I’m sure, for the very long hours from the applicant trying to put this together. It’s much appreciated and it looks like a beautiful project and certainly good luck in implementing it and, enjoy, when the summer comes around, for sure. Elise Bruner: Thank you, guys, all very much. Other: Thank you. Noyes moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment approves a Variance to replace/rebuild retaining walls, add walkout terrace, Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 14 add stairway to lake, and reconfigure lakeside deck/patio located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner von Oven recusing himself. Weick: With that, that is the final item on tonight’s agenda. Would someone please note our minutes from our last meeting which was dated January 5, 2021. Skistad: So noted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Skistad so noted the Verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 2021. Weick: Oh, thank you, Commissioner Skistad. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: With that, I will turn it over to Kate a City Council update. Aanenson: So on January 11, 2021, McGonagill: Can’t hear, Kate. Can’t hear, Kate. Aanenson: Yep, I just realized that. On the January 11th City Council meeting, they reviewed the Deer Haven subdivision which you saw. That one had some variances for the private street and also the variance for the width of the public portion of that street. So there was good discussion of that at the City Council and that was approved. That was the only action we had. At the next Council meeting, next Monday night, we do, we’ll be following up on the apartment project, the wetland, and then we have the Golf Zone on Consent. The other two were variances that there was no appeal on. Young-Walters: I believe Golf Zone got pulled off Consent, right? Aanenson: Ya but it’s on the agenda. Young-Walters: Oh, ya, sorry. Aanenson: So that’s it. You do have meeting in two weeks. We have a variance and MacKenzie’s got that one and then, we’re anticipating having our annual report done. So as of right now, we do not have applications that came for the second meeting in February so right now, pencil that as a potential free night. I’ll keep you informed on that and it something comes up but right now we don’t anticipate anything on for that meeting. That’s all I had, Chair. Weick: All right. I’ll certainly miss everybody the 3rd Tuesday in February. Wonderful. Any questions for Kate? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 15 Aanenson: We’ll see everybody in two weeks. von Oven: Just one quick one. I know that we had a, as a Planning Commission, had approved the, I forget exactly the name of it, but had to do with boat parking in the driveway, and then City Council tabled that. Is there a schedule for that to come back to City Council? Aanenson: Correct. No there’s not. I think, because we’ve got new Council people on board, I think there’s some time that they want to kind of, some other pressing items. MacKenzie gave you an update, but for every positive “let’s do a boat storage” there’s a negative “let’s not do boat storage”. So I think there’s just some heavy lifting here right now. We’re looking for appointing a new City Manager, looking for a new Finance Director, and we have two new City Council members so I think everybody’s just trying to get their feet underneath them and then they’ll probably reconsider putting that back on the agenda but we’ll keep you posted on that. von Oven: Great, thank you. Weick: Any other questions for Kate? Weick: All right. I would entertain a motion to adjourn then. From anybody. von Oven: So moved. Weick: All those in favor please signify with Aye? All: Aye. Weick: All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. Von Oven: Good night. Skistad: Thanks, Steve. Von Oven 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 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jean Steckling PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Subject 2020 Year­End Review and 2021 Work Program Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.1. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Planning Commission may present additional items which they may review/research in 2021. Any other suggestions that the Commission would like to see staff address will be added to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report to the City Council. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Staff will review 2020 projects and present possible 2021 development activity. BACKGROUND As required by the City Code Section 2­46.03 (e)Reports: The Commission shall make an annual written report to the Council containing the Commission recommendation for the ensuing year. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the 2020 Year in Review and 2021 Recommended Work Plan, the Planning Commission may present additional items which they may review/research in 2021.  ATTACHMENTS: Annual Report TO CITY OT CIIANHASSTI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE:February2,2020 2020 Year in Review and 2021 Recommended Work PlanSUBJ: As required by the City Code section 2-16.03 (e) Reports: The Commission shall make an annual written repo( to the Council containing the Commission recommendation for the ensuing year. Staff estimates an April 1,2021 populationof 27)27. The Decennial U.S. Census undertaken in 2020 has not released their results. Below is a summary of items the Planning Commission reviewed in 2020 as well as possible work projects for 2021. If there are additional items. projects, or research the Planning Commission would like to undertake for 2021, please provide direction to staff. 2O2O REVIEW Planning staff reviewed three more development review applications in 2020 than in 2019, 19 versus 16. Included as part of these applications were one conditional use permit, four planned unit developments (PUD), one interim use permit, two site plan reviews, one subdivision, and ten variances, which resulted in 19 cases being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, the Commission reviewed six Code amendments. kt2020, the city issued building permits for 68 dwelling units, which was approximately 34 percent of our projected housing growh for 2020. We are projecting a two percent (27o) increase (approximately 200 units) in total housing stock for 2021 . As can be seen in the average residential building permit data (128 single-family and 67 attached units), there is currently sufficient approved single-family residential lots available for development with a lot inventory of 178 platted single-family lots, but a deficiency of attached single-family lots with 14 lots available. With the approval of the Lake Place at Powers fudge project, 110 apartment units are PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 I/OO I'IARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55517 FROM: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Community Development Annual Repo( FebruNy 2,2021 Page 2 proposed for development. Given this inventory and current housing demand, the city should be able to achieve its housing projection. Development Review o Staff anticipates the development of The Park property located west of Lake Ann in 2021, which received final plat approval in 2019 for its first phase, will contribute to single-family residential building permit activity in 2021. o An extension of the Fox Wood development may come in for review in 2021. r With City Council approval of a development stage (final plat) review for the Avienda Lifestyle center PUD at Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard in 2018, grading should be completed in 2021 and some development (site plans) will move forward. A major residential project for 2021 will likely be a housing component ofthe proposed Avienda Lifestyle Center. o We continue to have discussions about undeveloped multi-family properties that may come in for review in 2021 . o New commercial and residential projects will continue on an in-fill, lot-by-lot basis including potentially in the Crossroads development as well as the redevelopment of existing commercial areas in the downtown that have reached their effective desigrr utility. City Code with the adoption of the Local water Management Plan on December 10, 2018, staff will assist the Water Resources Coordinator in the drafting ofrevisions to the wetland ordinance and the surface water management requirements of City Code. The city will need to make additional amendments to the City Code to implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there are numerous minor code corrections and revisions that staff has been compiling over 2020, which will be brought forward as time permits in 2021. Comprehensive Plan The city is required by the Metropolitan Land Plan Act (MN$473) to update our Comprehensive Plan every ten years. The City of Chanhassen is designated by the Metropolitan Council as an Emerging Suburban Edge community. The city began its 2040 comprehensive Plan update in 2017. T\e Metropolitan Council completed their review and found the plan conformed to the Thrive MSP 2040 Plan (the metropolitan system plans), was consistent with adopted policy plans, and was compatible with plans of affected and adjacent jurisdictions. The city adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on February 10,2020. a a 2021 WORK PROGRAMS Planning Commission Community Development Annual Report Febnwy2,202l Page 3 Staff will bring some chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission for discussion and review in conjunction with our long-range planning. Additionally, we will be reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the street classifications to make them consistent with the Carver County Plan. Miscellaneous Staffwill provide periodic items for long-range planning as the hearing schedule and time permits. Some items in addition to the Comprehensive Plan include housing demands and trends, demographic statistics, mixed-use development, sustainable development, development trends, redevelopment issues, transportation projects, senior-friendly cities, etc. Another joint Environmental, Parks, Senior and Planning Commission tour will be scheduled for late summer 2021. ACTION The Planning Commission may present additional items which they may reviedresearch in 2021. Any other suggestions that the Commission would like to see staff ad&ess will be added to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staffwill forward this report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS l. Permits and Inspections 2. Development Review 3. Community Development Mission Statement g:Vlan\pl.tlring commission\rnnual ,eports\2020 y€r in review 202 I uo* plal.docx a PERMITS and INSPECTIONS BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Building Division contains two support staff, one building official and four inspectors. Eric Tessman is the building offrcial for the city. The inspectors review building plans for compliance with building codes, inspect buildings under construction, and enforce property maintenance issues. Support staff issue the building permits, schedule inspections, receive all permit applications and distribute building plans for city review' 1 ln 2019, the city issued four permits for projects with building permit valuation in excess ofone million dollars. Commercial and Institutional Construction There were no sigrrificant commercial or institutional projects in 2020. The total valuation for all new commercial and institutional projects in 2020 was $ I,875,500. Tennant finish and remodeling activity had 65 permits with a valuation of $8,946,800. New Single-Family Home Construction Inspections 2020 Building Permit ActivitY Year Permits Average Valuation Total Valuation Average New Single-Family Home Values Excludes Land Cost 2020 68 $41 r,s29 $27,984,000 2019 $637,390 $2s,49s,s91 2018 49 $406,275 $19,86s,000 2017 55 $420,19s $22,798,000 2016 46 $401,63I $ 18,834,000 2015 80 $373,128 $30,397,000 Year Building lnspections Mechanical Inspections Plumbing lnspections Total lnspections 2020 3,413 l,l7l 1,323 5,907 2019 3,467 1,708 1,667 6,842 2018 2 8 63 1,425 r,551 5,839 20t7 2,5 83 I,490 1,405 5,478 2016 ) 7))1,459 1,770 5,951 3,83s 1 ,681 1,770 7,286 68l08Residential Single-Family 000Residential Townhomes 00000Apartments/Senior Facilities 6810Z)27 8Total Residential 2 40 2015 Residential Building Permits l3t Ouarter 2d Ouarter 3.d Quarter 4rb Ouarter Total 27 l5 0 0 0000New 00000Redeveloped 7024l39Remodeled l3 70249Total Commercial A significant amount of the building permit activity, totaling 2,134 permits, which occurred in 2020, was due to household remodeling and addition construction, and building re-roofs which resulted from summer thunderstorms. 140 t78t5t156Single-Family Lots t4242424Residential Townhome Lots 192175164180Total Available Lots 40 68554948Single-Family 056280Townhomes 0 0026876Apartments/Senior Facilities 76 707372109Commercial 138445144233140Total Number of All Permits J Commercial Building Permits l!t Ouarter 2nd Ouarter 3rd 4th Ouarter Quarter Total 0 24 Avrilable Lot Inventory @nd of Ouarter)l3t Quarter 2nd Quarter 3'd Quarter 46 Quarter 20r8 2019 2020 t2 Residential Building Permits Issued 404l1980 24222l98l 212l91982 t04836601983 16624341984108 26520l8381985189 262881986246 )z))-L21987289 4123426352 383l4621989307 1971990t97 191l99lI9I 228Attached Single-Family*1992 267l6199325t 379il0269 47865t972t61995 2073t1701996 274971771997 4251622631998 277881871999 320162341242000 2291004485200r 300246542002 39624394592003 92l6762004 84024602005 4842892006 t8 169200765 6638200828 851420097t t0l3020107t 16862201 I 106 1857820t2t07 0 1758620,13 89 153096572014 1040201 5 80 1247620t648 0 6755t22017 3732685649201 8 580l8402019 6800202068 6267Averaget28 4 Year Sinele-Famity I Dupler Townhouses Apartments Dwelline l8 99 1988 228 1994 179 86 24 0 207 HOUSING PERMITS 5ii{rlt e0 oaz cr0z 8!02 Ltoz tr0z 9toz tLoz el0z zloz I toz 0toz aEz 8(I)2 L@Z 902 soz t(IJz eq)z z@z l(Dz o@a a6t 8d)l /G! ecr 96t tGl 888888 rrqunN Tr- tr- t- rr- I ! I ) I_- T T- _----.]- I -T------l DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Planning Division consists of the Community Development Director, three planners and a natural resource specialist. The Planning staff enforces the zoning ordinance, reviews building plans, prepares current and long-range plans for the community, discusses development potential for individual properties, reviews development proposals and coordinates this review with other departrnents and agencies, prepares reports for the Planning Commission and City Council, provides information about the community to businesses, property owners and the general public, performs research projects and writes ordinances and resolutions. HI 0 ? c1 =\ \ St \ \ € \Y 4 DEPARTMENT I Planning Cases TYPE 20r6 2017 2018 2020 5 Yr. Avg. SIGN PERMITS 75 .5 I 62 45 l2 9 10 l0 ll CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS J I I 2 INTERIM USE PERMITS I I I R-EZONINGS 1 0 I )2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS J 1 I 3 SUBDIVISIONS J 4 4 -) VACATIONS J 6 I WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS 1 I I I 0 CODE AMENDMENTS I l3 24 5 0 0 I 0 0 TOTAL 95 86 Residential Subdivisions CASE #PROJECT NAME GROSS ACRES NET ACRES TOTAL UNITS NET DENSITY 2019- 13 Berrospid Addition 2.297 2.142 )2.18 2.33 201 9-01 38.42 57 1.48 4.36 2019-01 8.075 2.59 3.22 2019-01 The Bluffs @ Lake Lucy (The Park 4th Addition) 32.41 13.76 3l 2.2s 1.9 )l.ll 1.58 TOTALS 85.86 38.95 122 1.42 3. l3 2 There were 43 applications submitted to the Planning Division resulting in 19 cases reviewed by the Planning Commission. 13 2019 J VARIANCES l0 I J 0 I 0 4 I 2 6 82 0 SITE PLAN REVIEWS LAND USE PLAII AMENDMENTS tE-f 83--rE l l,lfrt 2 3 I 3-T-tl E-rt-l 36 l16 | 4-T-o 1 3 2019-t'7 The Park 2nd Addition The Park 3'd Addition 10.02 2.71 13.07 26 GROSS DENSITY 0.96 Boylan Shores Site Plan Review Planning Commission Attendance s/rra) - cty ]i.r (h.d / ilo rBiE ihl.h .nd d rari - ca,*19 3 Project Location Developer Building Square Feet Acres Type of Use Moments W.786 St. and Audubon Rd. TMSC of Chanhassen LLC 65,000 3.5 Continuing care facility 48 units Christian Brothers 8941 Crossroads Blvd. Kraus Anderson, Inc. 5 I 00 0.79 Automotive repair shop TOTAL 70,100 4.29 I !E I 5II.taI 5 a T o o tl,ld.aE t al' - 4L7 o tr E E B E 'l tr n I tr E E E t 1 trl,.it alt3. alts 1 1 If.iz .trs - alt7 I 1 Irzd f/t6 - 413 tr o 1IoI1II}Hl,Edrd 4t o I E E 11!0 oDo.d8* Ut9 I o E I I111ostid ut9 1o111t!IEkrw Am 111I0trtrt/dE!o,.|rub 7675 tudar o, ir.rrEr lo aL:!l E EEE EEEEE EE EEEEEE!EE!EEEE E E E E E E3 EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE EEEEEE EEI EEEE aat!T E I T E I l rG!r-! d &.ndrat 7* rolt :tl+ 93% rt( is* -* 7tL 71* a j !(I (a RESIDENTLTL DE\TLOPIIE\T STATISTICS o t!l 1.r:II.-r :4.16 :l-i5 ct l9::1Il+::!r9:l.l t__:.13l:3tl l.r:LS:t!::l:l:5 :s+I t :: !.:]: EJ :l It!c!5:':.1 :!l-1 ::cl.:t::t:l,.t :tl ts3.16 c::l.?l | ::0191lrt :9 l.!? I r.r0t:I t::3 0.tt l.:::! 9J {6 l{3 .1 Ll9+IC5!! 9_o :,I:L9 ,]'i1 :6;.1 'l l.:i tc_l a-6'i +6l:.9 l.l l t_9+:::!:+6191 :l I 'iS:r I C:l:4ItltLt! ll_l ,.:.3_ ::t o.9r I 1..l.:\t: i s.lt,:+t 19 {6 I:::.r:t:'15 :- l::'lx I :.07:.r l .l E]' 1.7{ I ::7!:+1EI t-rI5.: -3 1.:i :..1c_!t9r n 13 s: t.19 l.;tF6'.lJ.l tc s-t -:s :tr . ai,:s :c.:i1 :+3 n 9+::CJ tsc:6 36 : c!ii5 fti l.t+13tglrl:c56 ).1 ::lt6 t_i:lltl C: 9-:3 I': I :JJ:: s .ar :({Jl t _-;lt+tr:l.t:i ll: i 3.1_c{l ts: ltt I,E:: s: I 3li ll[l:t a 0 a::I 0t:0.t:s.l ,l l': l: l1 tf_{!r 13 t!t:l t ]J:1 i9 s tsta s_r l:!t ).1:0.36ll 3.1 :19 li9 139)l tr+lri t:itr.!! It:t:!:10091ntL{i t.t6 tJat'1 ICa::t l..l:ts9:l -j t.4,r i.t: !IE:lsl:N n 1 -1:: c.l t1:c s't(::{:l(: l.{r ITl., 1:-ll:f l::.t _t :::i :l l.$l r.?5l 1.1 t I _.'t_1: t1 t I ]: 9::ls-c:i'_:-r :'i6 lttl::c1_):l i|: _!:c ts:r3!:::!t: li::tr l.::::t(t _6 5(9 :.!-r 3.:9 arl l.Al! 19 l:6 ila:04 )0 l :!9 la,:.lr:93 i c:+Jl l.t{:.6Jtlltr: : .14 l:!t6s,r ]o c:tl ia:!:+:6 +S lts{-+ 1'{lr tc:'t::lJ!t9{:16 c:.r t _::s]:La t l9:ts:l :5: I C::lL!:: PBC,ICr :\'-r.rtf .AF.-ta .l(ltS -rcllg tlll.lrr,.rcrls tl!.D aclls f:lrls D!!rs T torD aclls II\'GIIJAIO.T DETSCIID trttlrtt ..lrl, Sr ,.. T!a{Bi LydO-lttlh LrE l,bS.{:(}b Jltu-nlr T.r.r !.tL.:r--..rri+r CLri I!.Jlrornr-45- 61r :99 J.IO SLB !:s :;P :ql SLT t1: -T SLB 3tl , SLI t8 Ll.alr:1 SLE (I't..t !r!rr ri4.rrtirE r,:irii&+ 5B 1l n-T ::, _ 5'!Z x..tik.E.Sg lir Lb Ll..Y E r-! rtas..a !.[ lLta.rr n L-!t@Err..F ni+.wa &i!! ItS.. -rld&i..ei Ctr* EltttE *!n*ILl,Lrt ltt t'! (sli ti.! C.N)fra EiI (Xtti'kt ..L.b tE Euto aLn6 -{l&i- lLt dr El l r0l S--E :t sLt .r 13 :r9t ] SLT :t 9 : F,T t3!u SLE l:r 99 S SlJ t *nr.. Er.!rrLi-Lrc :-!A.- i- 4L'Ena5-L!-t4 S-rit .ll- ktItAa.L Iri. D'r.r- XtIr&{ L--i.t !-lBalil &r-HDnra-.r I Sl_B t: C SLJ s'-! C SLI 103 slB ltEn CL. r..c$ lr.l-fii- 9--*{r !.I:L-i- rE O,.lLii. tlIE U.ra.r.4r...r.i6 Ei!r!!.b L-r lial. X.a Eli Eaa- CrilltrE B.tt l.b rri!-crlt rr/l. lriLr ri&t J"a -r-i.rC-E ia. Drl'..4r&rG€rt:l Ld-SEiEq-E l...Er*tA-i-kri.Hllb :: l3 :"8 s'-3 -l t:r :9 -tc :13 c{:r 9:6 :18 61r _t: 613 4 RESIDENTLTL DE\TLOP\IE}-T ST.TTISTICS o l. 19:ii :1.:!l: ?,::++:! :-6 I .r!l.llc5: :.6 lt:l:19 :s:6 131{.t:: a:i:_I !,r,l I c--j-- :.I+i+l itt t::ItI t9:i: +l_ 61 r9cl0: t9::Ii :.3:3.:!lt:l 5i : !'i:l l.l:r3sI C:ci:i 3: l t_!:.I6r!! l.s3:19 ,i::)I .i:ls(i :.)i.6 It I,]:::{.:]iir ::: 0.Jt C,J't66 :6 :9 I43 3 :.{lc:::-:t 3::a. 5.i l.3l 3it{s!ls 9,r:..1:S d sf IS S: J1--t-93'lr:r.s3:i9::9 c: ls{;]S:r9 3311t't +:6 I,:I. d:t! :: l3:-{:E :.Jl{6:1: ti:I t.rs :.}ct-l:li _l_ 1.:ll.t3_i :6 :6::i:: _<I :.3:!$S::lt! lt : !.J :-!1 9'::l_c:.c{:tc :tll'sJ'S:1't'+l:a l-t :.r:3.91:E3r t_:cI,:SJrlcr+ Lll t.tat. s-ti!6 rJd :.J:161,1 JJ 1(:t[ t5 l0:l.r:rta:16 d::I 5.rl. tl {+:l: 6.lr{t:tr!!l t.t(i !!,r 1.9'c !.t 1 :.15 :.31::91 c.l:: :1 3.1:srl 9l-t!::I'l:1 ,s+t.s :,3(:t.i :_1 : _.:: .:-r !:CJ :6 :59 3.1:l9r !l 3ld ::Ji n6.l il -aJ::i i s: IJ3:%l:c::t )LII::1 :.Ha:ct I :rJi!l:083ct lrl L.+3:t:l ,l :-1s 'tc:3_:9':1: li ll5 rss t.t::l !,r .+J:911 {:9 t 6.9::t-r :+l :8::.r 19 :t!ls +6 1.1:J::):+6 {3 :s:t t t 9: r66 i.t(!1:9::9 t :9 r:It. r:t 61!I 1.!::( J!l4 :.r _6:: l s56 J6+3:6 fs_-:3 +: r9 :s:1-c s:c: rrOJlCI.\--r}lIPL.l-i I-.nr tE- Glt n 0 J.b E .rr,ED- L.t E{r!x fLrlEtr -r[il,r,..l l{ lmJ Gloss .tallr :r 6: loT -{clts{:t $lrl.l\'D NBa- !l8ll.81'r -{t8lt r.LRf LL\-D n. T actls :-r: TO!.{I. Gtoss L':litrs DrsiITl' c {l I it6 t7: :9 il: Ir-ir*aA-i- tGE ra,I.Ctt.tEsLrd.Gll--HCn*Ttikt.*igcLSiE sa.ts_aaEl6&.ral-i L*r C.r. TLt tr: lcEA Gry t.G S..a.!tL Trtr llrtn S.- [..r ] !.d!It-...!s!r.brir (ra..dE ..I*r rr!I| TElqk&t a rrti- UCn*f,..4j ftt. .rr i fit !..b \'aD + + l: +9 I::s:::i ::t 3:6 :l: l:sl: ll Cua.. II!. lrb t( ri': crrtEr-4'H E ilrE ?..d.- Ua -Laiti E .l&r €.n Extgt!.t-{.t.t :rd t'irr rl B-n ltn :m S. ati gnr.r ltrrr I lira: :aUlrt:iAt. lt .: I B-rd E *trx t&. lno. Gtl :r-i{ 59 l+lt .: s:.:,: ,-t6 ,-lt S:: :i: _-t:( t.fi Efl Tl.$r:tall- ,m lrac.acPnt GL.dL Dris E-. TL. PstlL Prt:ra ILPrtLtrLrAG aL& LrI GLrrt{'U 8..rqraa &,ir.. $ftt nt c..Er 8.rr Grtdrl) D.,.. Etr6 : t6 :,:: ic I]I tf :.: : l: l:::. I:5:: I: 5E8rOT-lr 9tncL\r t aar.a t'l.'5 ttati ltalt latir ct,tl J.lh lBr. L:rr t.!al.lt SLrr :.rta.aa .{tic lt: !.n TGIJIJ'}EXUni.rlllu.Ehltlr-.lia!. O.tD-IOAEIi PEni. Crt tr..rlG L!, !&E Et T.trlGc-tld.lBil: lf-tL BrrT.rrlri.rct. H. rsP !r-D PLD T ) o l!:6:tl :!l6l:.a i: :i i 3:.l1:tsl 6{::r :,:63i fe :6 3l :: !! {-: ll it Ia'::: .i_..' 1J li-_ ta !l::t:.' I 9: ..r:11::.t ". 3el:91 :9 !6l9'itc;_r i{:6:9 l:!a I rLI39:s 6:!tt ;_l ::-l!r! !! t!1:: :9 t9 :9t9la!€:1 |€nc rD:\ t .a!, c .tctlt a(Rlt ! 6-' rqr.tL5 1. {r :.{:art P!n(!l_T UL\'D .ICTIS :.ta !..l td ?ROJ!C"r -\_-{}lr sPt R&:t il .r! 3P r+ CE .g Oli'l. Ilt S.-i.) gE{.{F DrE.: stBror.tt Plsc!:\'T Lbr....rt t: Iiat i rs alrJ;-!rr :[.4? l-!ri l?uta,tr ItJraJr 5a^ t2ta tl'G I5,rr ATO t5.rl !a.arr Ia?ll. l!ar. tJ5 Irl' l'l!r BiL.& daiCet rb Prr..n .t lJ C.i* S-aEcr ttlr rx.r!l.ir I!r.ll!l.li 3.41ICENSUSt 960 1.468 43o/oCENSUS4,879 1.480 30%CENSUS 6,359 5,373 84%11,7321990CENSUS 3,8s6 33%15,5881995ESTIMATE 1,433 9%l7,0211996ESTIMATE 550 3%17,571ESTIMATE1997 760 4%l 8,331ESTIMATE1998 1,026 6%ESTIMATE1999 20,3215o/o20,321 964CENSUS2000 21,10020,982 661ESTIMATE2001 21,34521,561 5792002 6.5o/o 2l ,6001,394ESTIMATE22,3762003 22,0424.7%21,431 1,055ESTIMATE2004 22,5182210.9%23,6522005ESTIMATE 0.9%22,01721,864 212ESTIMATE2006 22,395-1.5%23,506 (3s8)ESTIMATE2007 22,590(3s3)-1.5%23,1532008ESTIMATE 21,629(347)-1.5o/oESTIMATE22,8062009 6 RESIDENTL{L DE\TLOP]TE)T ST.{TISTIC'S Increase o/o lncrease Met Council 1970 1980 t9,357 3.3% ESTIMATE 2.8% 2010 CENSUS )) o\)146 0.6%)) o\) 2011 ESTIMATE 1.0%23,247 2012 ESTIMATE 23,484 305 1.3%23,779 2013 ESTIMATE 23,954 470 2.0%24,155 2014 24.388 434 1.8% 2015 ESTIMATE 24,655 1.1%25,194 2016 ESTIMATE 24,951 296 1.2% 2017 ESTIMATE )<'r11 1.3Yo 2018 ESTIMATE 26.088 815 3.2% 2019 ESTIMATE 26,355 267 1 .1o/o 2020 ESTIMATE 27,170 3%26,700 2021 ESTIMATE 27,337 167 0.86% 2025 PROJECTION 29,022 1685 6% 2030 PROJECTION 30,834 1,812 6%31,700 2035 PROJECTION 31,995 I,161 4% 2040 PROJECTION 33,384 4.3%37,100 Developments The Park 2nd,3'd and the Bluffs at Lake Lucy (#2019-01) The Park, located at 7141 Galpin Boulevard, is a single-family residential subdivision on 191 acres. on March 11,2019, City Council approved the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 169 lots, three outlots and dedication ofpublic right-of-way. The frrst phase was approved August 12,2019. The second addition was approved on J anuary 27,2020, the 3'd Addition on December 14,2020 and the Bluffs at Lake Lucy (4th Addition) on September 14,2020.1n conjunction with the project, the city is planning on development ofthe parkland between and to the west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy, which will be an extension of Lake Ann Community Park. 7 23,179 227 ESTIMATE 267 322 815 I,389 THE PARK 2ND ADDITION I :2 !3 5 ! !: I 8 2 p THE PARK 3RD ADD I ON ! t,t 'T'$t. i li a 1l..: li," * THE BLTIFFS AT LAKE LUCY INSET A lPtrr FILE !tO, lR-T. poc. ro.- F -]F a-- sgl -31!1 t-i-6 *'^ 9 \ . aI 2 -1 ;1 tt - .1,. -\ INSET B 1 INSI]T (] ..r:.* OUTLOT A >in.i'r{.I.. iI-{r-,1,; ^:,--.---:._ . ii - 1!{:r:' OUTLOT B 'lr 1;'' l0 : I i 'l L--- ri I I \# T / a-- -Y;llratd.F'''alt,l&tO**z tb'./h** ,lt-l! I l ) , + Berrospid Addition (#2019-13) A three-lot subdivision with a variance for the use ofa flag lot and private street on 2.02 acres. Boylan Shores (#2019-17) Final plat approval to rcplat2.71acres into three lots and three outlots. a LB F II I I I I F. Y\( J "\.o ../- 4 "t(') i\,,"' r!'j ,l'.it- ).., " otltlot C Boyl!n Shorcs Lake il o$' Ordot A .gL- Lot 3, Block 1 =' Outlot B tot ,, Blod( I tot 2, Bloc* I Moments of Chanhassen (#2020-02) Site plan review with variances for the construction ofa 48-unit, continuing care retirement facility. 1 II I I I' r ( _- .._-.-.....--_.4 t a I a a a Iz9'!-i' '\I t '.-'-*;--,..'t ..-.t-.!a--..t---- -!--E---r tq J ..CE- ..lrrl1!E-GEll.lrllrt It EGG:tralarl lralaalEl!!a !iS+ WEST ELEVANOflEASI ELEVATDN - -ff:++ l2 trP+-e roRTH Etfvanot{ I tt. t'riti I IlltrTI tl II ilr I aa !l la ttatttla SOUTH ELEYANOT IuaX TEIGHT -\ -rd -I-<, III aa- --\aIEAGEqrS€ Christian Brothers (2020-21) Site plan approval for a 5,100-square foot automotive facility in crossroads of chanhassen. ---- t::::::::::::-*. A\.t/ ..-\ 99 c,t:' ri i' : Dr:;! E Fz: Id HA gI d I !t o l3 .f { I iI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.2. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2021 Approve a Request for an Interim Use Permit to Operate a Golf Driving Range on Property Located at 825 Flying Cloud Drive (Golf Zone) – Approved Approve a Request for an Interim Use Permit for Excavation of Existing Wetland Along with Excavated Borrow Being Placed on a Location within the Parcel – Approved Approve a Request for a Site Plan Review and Variance for a 110-Unit Apartment Building for Senior Living Located at 1361 Lake Drive W. (Lake Place/Powers Ridge Apartments) – Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Subject Planning Commission Interview Process Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.3. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director File No:  SUMMARY OF REQUEST The City Council would like to try something a bit different this year with regards to the Commissioner appointment process. Specifically, staff would like to have one set of interviews for the candidates, rather than interviewing with the Commissions, then the Council. The Planning Commission had previously discussed characteristics of an effective Planning Commissioner. Staff is requesting the Commission select one member and an alternate to sit in on the Planning Commission interviews with the City Council. Interviews will start on February 8, 2021 at the City Council Work Session. The interviews will likely take a couple of City Council meetings to complete. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Subject March Attendance Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.4. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director File No:  SUMMARY OF REQUEST Doug Reeder has indicated that he will be absent from the March, 2021 Planning Commission meetings. Please let Kate know of any upcoming meetings that you will be absent from so we are certain a quorum will be met.