Loading...
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: