PC Minutes 8-17-21Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2021
2
the variance be approved, subject to conditions preventing the future use as a rental property; it
may not be rented, must be occupied by a relative, must have unobstructed access between
levels, and no separate utilities.
Reeder asked, when the next family moves in, how does the City become aware that the utilities
are not separate?
Mr. Young-Walters noted separate utilities are easy because they must go to the City for a
separate water meter. How does the City guarantee that it does not become a rental property?
Much of it is honor system; if the City were to receive complaints from neighbors or see a listing
for a rental property (because it is recorded against the deed), the City has more leverage to come
in and clean it up. He clarified that the Applicant could still rent the entire house out as they have
property rights, however, they cannot rent it as two units.
Merle Steinkraus, Applicant, built the home 32 years ago and recently sold it to his son and
daughter-in-law who have two small children. He noted it is a wonderful opportunity for the
Steinkraus family to stay in the house and grow old. He clarified the intent is to keep it as a
single-family home.
Chair Pro-Tempore Noyes opened the public hearing.
Chair Pro-Tempore Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend the variance request for the use of a single-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling be approved, subject to the conditions of approval and
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES
TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6287 CHASKA
ROAD
Community Development Intern Josh Storms presented a summary packet of information. The
lot is zoned Single-Family Residential and the property has a lot size of 21,205 feet with a lot
cover percentage of 26.8%. The house has a non-conforming rear-yard setback of 17.4 feet and a
non-conforming west side yard setback of 9.7 feet. The patio behind the garage is non-
conforming at six feet and the patio at the southeast corner has a non-conforming setback of
seven feet. The existing deck has a non-conforming rear yard setback of 20 feet and the property
has a non-conforming retaining wall and stone path that crosses the west property line. The
Applicant is proposing to replace the existing deck with a 3-season porch and replace the
attached patio with a new deck, and are also proposing to remove the southeast attached patio,
two sections of driveway, and the stone pathway. The Applicant has stated that they do not have
the ability to construct a 3-season porch and deck meeting the 30-foot setback and have stated
the porch will not extend any closer to the rear lot line than the existing deck and the existing
attached patio will be replaced with a new deck with a setback of 17 feet. With the removal of
both patios, two sections of driveway, existing deck, and stone pathway, the property will be just
under 25% lot coverage. The City received four phone calls from neighbors of which three had
Planning Commission Minutes – August 16, 2021
3
no concerns and were just curious; one neighbor asked if these changes would have any major
effects on the rear yard’s visibility. The existing yard is already screened by vegetation and
fencing, and the Applicant is proposing additional landscaping for a visual barrier. Staff believes
these changes to the property will not have a visual impact on neighbors and the variance is a
result of practical difficulties caused by the home’s location. The decrease and removal of
existing non-conformities will bring the property closer to conforming with the City Code.
Commissioner Reeder asked why it was built at the back of the lot; was it low up front?
Mr. Storms said staff is not entirely sure but they know the home was constructed in 1987 and
the original plans intended for the house to be much closer to the street.
Commissioner Alto asked if the Applicant needs the neighbor’s permission to remove the
walkway since it crosses the property line.
Mr. Young-Walters replied, yes, technically they would, although he assumes the neighbors are
not objecting to things being removed from their property but the Applicant can speak to that.
Tim Johnson, LIVIT Site + Structure, is representing the client and has a family that is excited
about the space and recently purchased the home unaware of some of these challenges. The
clients are excited for the improvements and said it is a tough lot, and they do not know why the
house was pushed back that far. The site is non-conforming and the Applicant has done
everything they can to push or keep the porch in the existing deck location that is there today.
They need to pull out the retaining walls as they are taking on water in the basement of the
home; part of the project is to rebuild the retaining walls, increase the privacy, and landscape to
get the hardscape to conform.
Chair Pro-Tempore Noyes asked if the diverted water will stay on the property, will it absorb, or
move off of the property.
Mr. Johnson thinks it will slow the water down so it can stay in the planting beds and garden
beds by elevating the retaining walls higher than they are today. Right now it is a negative grade
right to the house so by building the walls high enough in the middle, it allows the water to go to
the lot lines and drainage utility easements and run north.
Chair Pro-Tempore Noyes opened the public hearing.
Chair Pro-Tempore Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Reeder clarified the Applicant would have to submit a drainage plan that would
need to be approved.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the 8.3 foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-
season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck be approved,
subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts of Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: