Loading...
PC Minutes 06-15-21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 15, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A TWO-FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 HUMMINGBIRD ROAD Senior Planner Generous presented the staff report on this item. He noted the applicant is Armenak Petrosian and said this is the public hearing and if the item is appealed or does not meet the 75% standard it goes forward to the City Council and is scheduled for June 28, 2021. The specific request is a 2-foot height variance for an accessory structure. City Code permits a 20- foot accessory structure height and this garage/accessory building is 24 feet with a 22-foot height based on City dynamics. 6300 Hummingbird Road is zoned single-family residential and is a .82-acre lot; setbacks are 30-foot front and rear with 10 feet on the side. In 2019 the applicant applied to build a 768-square foot one story (approximately 15-foot tall) accessory structure to replace an existing structure on site. After beginning construction, the applicant modified his plans to a two -story design and completed the building. When the City’s Building Official went out, they discovered that the building was too tall and the applicant was advised to come in and go through the variance process. The applicant would like to keep this building as it is constructed. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the variance request and require the applicant to revise the plan and reconstruct the structure to meet ordinance requirements. However, if the Planning Commission would like to grant the variance, an alternate motion is also provided. Commissioner Reeder asked if this garage was built as part of an existing house, would it be too tall? Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 2 Mr. Generous replied no, it would not. If it was part of the principal structure, then the height goes up to 35 feet. He noted he has had several phone calls regarding this item and were all in support of approving the variance request. Armenak Petrosian has lived in Chanhassen for 40 years and owns 6300 Hummingbird Road, which is where his in-laws live. He said it is just as Mr. Generous stated and he never imagined going over and beyond what is required within the City. He made a mistake and is here to answer any questions. Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian did the construction himself or had a contractor working with him. Mr. Petrosian replied he constructed the first floor himself; he poured the concrete himself, and the second floor he did not as he was sick and hired someone to do it for him. It is a typical 10- foot garage with an 8-foot floor and 5:12 pitch which corresponds to the roofline and they were trying to match and blend. Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian is allowed to keep the structure, can he explain future construction plans of tying it into the house. Mr. Petrosian replied the reason he changed the original plans is because he and his wife spoke and eventually, they may wa nt to construct a property there. Whatever they build now, whatever the original roofline was will not fit into the future property because there is not going to be a second floor. Commissioner Reeder asked the timeframe for building on the property. Mr. Petrosian does not know as his father-in-law is 88 years old and he wishes him a long life. Commissioner Reeder would be willing to allow the variance if the Applicant will actually do what he says he would do and perhaps even delay the requirement that he remove it by a couple of years to allow the time to do that and take out a building permit. However, if it is totally indefinite, then he has a problem. Mr. Petrosian said, unfortunately, it depends on when his in-laws both pass away. At that time, the front will be demolished and they will rebuild. Commissioner von Oven asked if the Planning Commission denied the variance, what of the available options has he explored and what will he do? Mr. Petrosian said he does not have many options. He tried to build something that will suit his family and there was no intent to harm anyone, the neighbors, or not comply with the City requirements. The alternative would be to demolish the house and he clarified the second floor in Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 3 order to comply with the requirements. In order to comply he would need to make the roof almost flat. Commissioner von Oven asked if Mr. Petrosian referred to the outbuilding as the house because his in-laws are living in the outbuilding? Mr. Petrosian replied no, his in-laws are living in the house. Commissioner Noyes asked if the original plan had 8-foot walls and the applicant changed them to 10-foot walls. Mr. Petrosian said no, they were 10 feet on the bottom. Commissioner Noyes said Mr. Petrosian changed the pitch of the roof. Mr. Petrosian noted he added the second floor and custom trusses but it was just a very high- pitched roof. Commissioner Noyes asked when he added the roof, he did not make the outside walls taller? Mr. Petrosian said no. Commissioner Noyes clarified Mr. Petrosian put in a different truss. Instead of having a triangle truss there is more of a 5-sided truss that allows a room above. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Mark Sass, a former contractor, noted Mr. Petrosian is a great neighbor and built it right. All of the neighbors around, as far as he knows, have no complaint whatsoever and Mr. Petrosian did a lot of work with the neighbor to the north to grade and get things so that it feels good. His question is, what is the solution? Butcher the building – it is a really nice, solid structure – whether he built a new house in the back and all these future dreams, who knows where they are? He knows this is a precedent but noted they are all okay with it. If there is anything Mr. Sass can do, he is happy to help, he has worked with the City for 40 years and knows all the inspections, etc. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reeder asked staff if they looked at what the options would be if the application is denied. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 4 Mr. Generous replied as Mr. Petrosian pointed out, he could lower the roof or raise the grade around it so it is not as high. He noted mostly it is in the building construction and they would have t o change the height of the roof peak. Commissioner Reeder asked if the idea of making the ground level higher is feasible or not. Mr. Generous went out to the property and on the west side of the structure it is actually much higher. Mr. Petrosian could alter the grade and it would fit in with his future house plan if he were to do that. Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Petrosian if he could do that. Mr. Petrosian replied he is not an engineer and cannot speak to the construction business. To his understanding, raising the ground around the garage is not really going to give him anything as then he has to raise the floor of the garage, as well. Otherwise, he will be unable to get into the garage. Associate Planner Young-Walters said technically the way the ordinance reads, grade is measured from highest adjoining grade to mid-point of the highest of the highest gable. Hypothetically that means if on several sides of the structure the grade was two feet higher than it was on, say, the front of the structure where the entrance was, they would measure from the highest grade not the lowest grade. The only exemption to that is if there is more than a 10-foot change in elevation in which case they use lowest grade plus ten. It is arguably using the letter of the Code to defeat the spirit, but in theory it would meet Code. Engineering would have to decide if the drainage would work. Commissioner Alto clarified that would not affect the aesthetics of the building at all so why would they make them add more dirt to one side. She would rather just approve the variance. Mr. Petrosian said actually he already has two feet on one side of the garage because his neighbor has always had a problem with drainage. Mr. Petrosian added two feet between them so the wat er comes to him and he has drainage all the way to the street. He can add more to it if that will satisfy the requirements. Mr. Young -Walters noted it is theoretically possible. Commissioner Noyes noted that precedence is the whole issue here, and Mr. Petrosian does not have good alternatives. In plenty of other municipalities it has migrated towards - rather than asking permission up front - people asking for forgiveness after the fact. He thinks they are trying to avoid that in Chanhassen. Now if someone reads the minutes or sees the video of this, they may think they know how to get around this for the next time and that person will say the City approved it before. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 5 The Planning Commission discussed adjusting the grade of the property and the City Code. Mr. Generous clarified the Planning Commission could tell Mr. Petrosian to go back and make changes to the site to bring it into compliance then a variance is not necessary. That way it avoids all the issues of precedent because they are bringing it into compliance with ordinance. Vice Chair von Oven is a proponent of not setting these types of precedents. He noted the mistake was made during the pandemic, not one of the neighbors has complained given the chance – Mr. von Oven clarified if something else were to come before this Commission similar to this, all it would take for him is one neighbor to complain. He noted the combination of neighbors speaking on Mr. Petrosian’s behalf and seeing pictures, it is definitely not out of place, although it is out of place in the Code and staff did exactly the right thing recommending denial. He is trying to talk himself into the fact that this will not necessarily be a precedent and seeing if they can approve. Commissioner Skistad seconded Vice Chair von Oven as those are fair points. After the year that everyone has gone through, making exceptions like this and then determining future cases is case-by-case and facts are different every time. Vice Chair von Oven added Mr. Petrosian’s first statement that in Chanhassen they have a shortage of senior living and this house is being occupied by seniors who have a fantastic place to live on behalf of their son-in-law and daughter. Although they cannot ride on that alone, the combination of all these factors gives him something to say to the next applicant who would truly come in and say they found a way around the system. Commissioner Reeder asked if they should table this and allow the applicant to look at the option of moving the dirt around to see if it is feasible rather than denying it. Commissioner Noyes thought about that same option and the other thing the Commission must keep in mind is that if they deny, Mr. Petrosian has the chance to go before the Council and make the same case and they may have a decision to grant the variance. The applicant is not dead in the water if they table it or vote to deny the variance as written. He still looks at moving dirt around as a band-aid. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner von Oven seconded, that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the requested two-foot height variance for an accessory structure subject to the following conditions: 1. the Applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory structure and 2. the Applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Reeder, Noyes). Mr. Generous clarified the motion passes but the 75% rule does not, so this acts as a recommendation to City Council. On June 28, 2021 it will go before the City Council.