During the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny the variance request. As the motion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation to deny the variance request. 

A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.

On February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4-3 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approved with a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.

No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11 neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.

During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:

1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the property was already over its 1,000 square-foot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require a variance.
   
   
2. Commissioner Randall asked if the historic significance of the property limited what the applicant could do. Staff noted that the city did not have a historic preservation ordinance which would constrain the applicant’s ability to modify the existing structures.
   
   
3. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about a home occupation if the proposed garage was attached rather than detached. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could construct an attached garage of similar size and that it could also be used to house a home occupation, but noted that in their experience, detached garages where much more likely than attached garages to be used for home occupations.
   
   
4. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff's main concern was potential use of the property to conduct a home occupation. Staff confirmed that the intent of limiting the size of detached accessory structures was to prevent their use for home occupations.
   
   
5. Commissioner Noyes noted that not all of the neighbors had responded to the survey, and asked if those that did not respond opposed the project. He noted that the wording of the survey seemed to ask for approval, not concerns. The applicant stated that they attempted to word the survey in a neutral manner and that he did not know why two of his neighbors did not reply.
   
   
6. Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars were kept in the garage and if the applicant had investigated other storage options. The applicant responded that two classic cars would be kept there, and that even though it would be cheaper to store them off site, he preferred to keep them on site. He noted that he felt an additional outbuilding would complement the property’s historic farm aesthetic.
   
   
7. Commissioner McGonagill expressed concern that the summer kitchen was referred to as a “cottage” and felt that it implied a dwelling unit. The applicant said that the structure was originally a summer kitchen, though it no longer had a kitchen, and that they had no intention of using it as a dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledged it could be converted into a dwelling unit, although he reiterated that he had no intention of doing so.
   
   
8. Commissioner von Oven asked the applicant to clarify granting this variance would not establish a precedent. The applicant stated he understood the concern but felt his situation was unique.
   
   
9. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would add an attached garage if the request was denied. The applicant said that would be a last resort as it would not go with the property’s historic character.
   
   
10. Chairman Weick asked if the single garage door would provide adequate access for the vehicles. The applicant stated that most of the vehicles stored there would not be moved and that the door would allow the van and tractor to easily enter and exit.
    
    
11. Commissioner Reeder stated that the property is unique and not in the middle of residential neighborhood; therefore, he believed the request to be reasonable.
    
    
12. Commissioner McGonagill asked if they could rebuild the garage in the old barn's location and if the proposed garage looked like the old barn. Staff stated that a variance would still be required and that the garage did not resemble the old barn.
    
    
13. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he opposed the requested variance due to the almost 1,400 square feet of detached accessory structures already present and the fact that the request would double this.
    
    
14. Commissioner Randall stated that the property was large and of historical significance, and hoped that a compromise would be possible.
    
    
15. Commissioner Noyes stated that he was concerned with the precedence that granting the variance would establish.
    
    
16. Commissioner Reeder stated that not a lot of other properties would have similar historical significance, and that variances existed to deal with unique properties.
    
    
17. Commissioner von Oven stated that he was not sure it made sense to limit every property in the city to 1,000 square feet of detached accessory structures and wondered if a better system would be using a sliding scale based on lot size. He also expressed concern about establishing a precedent.
    
    
18. Chairman Weick asked if the entire property was buildable and stated that a reduction in buildable lot size may affect consideration of the plans. Staff stated that a portion of the property was encumbered by bluffs.
    
    
19. Commissioner Reeder asked if a walkway was constructed between the home and garage if it would be considered part of the main structure. Staff stated that they would need to see plans to make a determination, but that the Code considered structures with a common wall to be attached and that such a connection might meet City Code.
    
    
20. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt that the city was being excessively strict by saying a garage was allowed in one place but not another due to the definition of detached accessory structure.
    
    
21. Chairman Weick asked how much of the property was buildable. Staff stated that they could not speculate as the survey did not delineate a bluff line.
    
    
22. Commissioner McGonagill stated that the variance was too large, but that reviewing the City Code’s detached accessory structure size limit made sense.
    
    
23. Commissioner von Oven expressed support for altering the City Code to accommodate larger detached accessory structures.

After the public hearing, staff received a phone call from a neighbor wondering if the item had passed and, if so, if its passage would establish a precedent allowing them to also add another attached garage to the property. Staff informed them that the item had been forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny and that each variance is evaluated based on the unique characteristics of the subject property.

The applicant is proposing a 76 square-foot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’s old summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 square-foot main floor and approximately 864 square feet of upper level storage.

As the property already has a 456 square-foot summer kitchen, a 200 square-foot garden shed, and a detached garage with a 728 square-foot main level and 390 square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842 square-foot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoor storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five-acre site.

The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with the character of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to store vehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. They observe that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that the owners of eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested variance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposed detached garage as part of a home occupation.

The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm that used to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, the property is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single-family residence. The city extended the 1,000 square-foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted in these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as part of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the sale or transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future owners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown that granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues.

Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvements within the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to the existing house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of the summer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provides the property with a significant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code. 

Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barn once it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit. Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringing nonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long-term plan for this area to develop as low-density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending denial of the variance requests.

Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested 1,842 square-foot accessory structure size variance and adopt the Planning Commission's Findings of Facts and Decision.”

If the City Council determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motion and conditions of approval be adopted:

The Chanhassen City Council approves a 1,842 square-foot accessory structure size variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.

1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on file in the past three years.
       
2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
   
   
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
   
   
4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation.
   
   
5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.
   
   
6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
   
   
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.