Loading...
01-04-2022CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael Corrigan 3711 South Cedar Drive Chairman Weick reviewed guidelines for conducting the Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Aanenson noted the current Chairman (Weick) has submitted a letter of resignation as Chairman, though not from the Planning Commission itself. Staff suggests following Robert’s Rules of Order which states the Planning Commission would make a nomination for Chair and Vice Chair which is normally conducted during the first meeting in April. Staff recommended opening recommendations for Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Reeder moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission accepts the resignation from Chairman Weick. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to nominate Commissioner von Oven to the position of Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to nominate Commissioner Noyes to the position of Vice Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND LOT COVER VARIANCES TO ADD AN ADDITION ON TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3711 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE Associate Planner, MacKenzie Young-Walters presented the staff report on this item, noting the lot is zoned residential single family, has a 20,000-square foot minimum lot area, is required to Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022 2 meet 30-foot front and year setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, 75-foot shore setback, and is limited to 25% lot cover under the ordinance with one water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) which can be as close as 10 feet to the ordinary high water level with a 250-square foot maximum size. Existing conditions are as follows: 7,647-square foot lot (significantly below the area’s minimum) with a lot width of approximately 40 feet, 41% lot cover, the principal structure has approximately 2-foot east and west side setbacks, approximately a 71-foot shore setback on the patio, the existing garage has a 9.8-foot and 7.6-foot east and west side yard setbacks and is set back 21.8 feet from the front lot line with a non-conforming 31-foot wide driveway at the right-of-way line. The Applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot by 20-foot addition off of the west side of the garage; they have noted that due to the substandard lot width it is not possible to widen the approximately 22-foot garage without a side setback variance to create additional storage area. The Applicant wanted the proposal to match the existing home’s side yard setback (non-conforming by 2 feet) and slightly reducing the lot cover by taking 32 square feet off. The Applicant has also stated that other alternatives for increasing the property’s lot cover storage area does not work as well for them and has noted that many surrounding properties have received variances to improve non-conforming structures and do not believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Young-Walters stated Staff first looked at several alternatives that would require no variance or a significantly less-extensive variance more in keeping with past practice. He walked the Commissioners through the other options including removing impervious surface and adding an addition directly off the rear of the structure, removing lot cover including a bit of the patio which would allow a WOAS by the lake for storage. The Applicant has indicated they are not interested in that option as they want to keep the lakeside unencumbered. Another alternative would be to remove the lot cover on the west side and do an approximately 5-foot addition along the east side. Mr. Young-Walters spoke about a cedar tree on the property including the homeowners’ concerns, the past history of the tree and property, and options available to the Applicant. Staff believes there are numerous alternatives besides allowing an unprecedented 2-foot side yard setback variance. Staff recommends approval of an alternative 5-foot east side yard setback and the requested front yard setback and lot cover variances needed to allow for the project. The Commissioners asked questions about the homes on each side of the property, retaining walls, access for the fire department, and previous variance requests for the property. Michael Corrigan, Applicant, noted the family is very sensitive to the variance request and they are trying to do the best they can with the very limited lot size they are dealing with. He appreciates all the proposals Mr. Young-Walters put together and stated it is less of a design preference but instead is trying to find a way that is practical for the application and protective of the property. He noted the family is very sensitive to the tree on the property and the options presented would cause pruning or taking down entire trunks of the tree. He mentioned a 6-foot easement that he is responsible for on the property. Commissioner Noyes asked to hear more about the easement. Mr. Corrigan replied it is an easement from 2014 or so because of the proximity of the homes and the 2-foot setback on his property. The easement there is somewhat of a private right-of-way and is on the neighbor’s property. Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022 3 Mr. Young-Walters believes it gives any current or future owner of the property access to the lake through a pedestrian access easement. Ms. Aanenson clarified the City has no jurisdiction over a private easement like this. Commissioner Reeder asked about putting a shed on either side of the garage. Mr. Young-Walters said a shed on the west side of the garage would still require a setback variance. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes feels the Applicant’s proposal is the least intrusive. They are adding square footage to the building, whether on the east or the west; adding it to the one side would require removing the sidewalk access to the house. Aesthetically, the house and garage would line up and he stated it is a tough situation with no great proposals. Commissioner Reeder thinks the location proposed is logical; what happened with the property in 1923 is what causes the problem. He agrees the proposed location is as good as putting it on the other side, noting it seems there would be potential for drainage issues on the other side. Chair von Oven would have been an absolute no if the City had received a different letter from the neighbor. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of appeals and adjustments approves the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 (ZONING), ARTICLE XX RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN USES WITHIN THE FRINGE BUSINESS (BF) DISTRICT AS INTERIM USES Mr. Young-Walters explained the issue is that the uses allowed in the Fringe Business District conflict with the land-use guiding of the properties. Once uses are established, either as permitted or conditional uses, they can continue in perpetuity. If uses have the right to continue in perpetuity are established and they do not align with the City’s long-term vision for the area, it can prevent the redevelopment of the area. In this case, it is problematic because in order for the area to redevelop, the City would need to extend sewer and water. Without a critical density of development the math does not work and the area is trapped at an underutilized level. Staff proposes to reclassify commercial uses within the Fringe Business District as interim uses which Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022 4 come with a sunset date or specified period of time (usually 5-10 years) or an event such as sanitary sewer system comes about. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weick moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code reclassifying commercial uses within the Fringe Business (BF) District as interim uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, AND 20 CONCERNING FEES Mr. Young-Walters noted this is an extremely large ordinance amendment. He clarified the City is not changing the amounts of the fees. Rather than fees being established by amending Chapter 4 of the City Code every year, the City Council can simply pass an ordinance establishing fees. In order to do this, the City must go through and scrub the Code wherever it says something like “one would have to pay a minimum of $50 for the City to return a horse if it escapes.” Staff believes this is a strong clean-up of many obscure and unnecessary sections of Code. The Commissioners asked clarifying questions of Staff regarding how this would work and why the change would simplify things within the City Code. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the City Code concerning the establishment of fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 7, 2021 Commissioner Alto noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 2021, as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson noted that there were no action items to update. She reminded the Commissioners that three of the Commissioners’ terms (Skistad, Weick, and Reeder) will end this year and they are welcome to reapply by January 28, 2022. ADJOURNMENT: Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022 5 Commissioner 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 8:06 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jean Steckling Sr. Admin. Support Specialist