Loading...
PC Minutes 01-19-21Chanhassen 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.