Loading...
4 Variance Appeal Saatzerq/ CITYOF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanl'~n, MN 55317 Admlnlsh'atlon Ph~: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1188 Fax: 952~7.1195 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Ph~: 952_227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Rnsourcns Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone:. 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phm'm: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site w~.ci.chanl~.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer ~[ March 3, 2003 Reconsideration of Saatzer Variance Appeal Variance File No. 2003-1 This item is being brought back before thc City Council because thc applicant was unable to attend the previous discussion of this item on Feb. 10, 2003. The attached staff report remains unchhnged from the previous Council meeting. Staff is recommending denial of the variance based on the findings outlined in the enclosed staff report dated Feb. 4, 2003. Attachment: 1. Staff report dated 2/4/03. 2. City Council Minutes dated 2/10/03. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/21/03. C: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Ron Saatzer, 9450 Foxford Road The City of Chanhascen, A growing community with clean lakr, s, quality schools, a cimrming downtowo, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beauUlul pa~'ks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. CH OF 7700 Mar'ke~ Boulevard PO Box 147 Cl'mhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Far 952.227.1110 TO: FROM: DATE: Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer ~ February 4, 2003 SUBJ: Saatzer Variance Appeal - Variance File No. 2003-1 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 REQUEST Englneedng Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 The applicant, Ron Saatzer, is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a variance for a second driveway access on his lot at 9450 Foxford Road. Finance Phone:. 952.227.1140 Fax: 9,52.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Fl,:a'eation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: ~5Z227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 BACKGROUND The home and original driveway off of Foxford Road were constructed in 1989. The second driveway, for which the variance is requeste~ was constructed in the fall of 2002. On January 21, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission denied the variance request (see attached meeting minutes). DISCUSSION The applicant has stated that the second driveway'was constructed as a matter of convenience. The original driveway, in the applicant's opinion, is long and difficult to back out of at night. Staff believes there are other options to the second driveway variance. The applicant could construct a loop driveway to tie back ia with the original Senl0rCentar driveway in the front yard area of the lot. This would require some regarding of Phone: 95,?..227.1125 the area around the retaining wall, but no more grading than what was done for [ar 952.221.1110 the construction of the second driveway. · .-. ~...1. Web $11~ - ' ..... ~n~v. cirlmhassm.mn.uaBy simply paving a larger turnaround area in front of the garage, the problem with backing down the long driveway could be averted. In addition, the applicant could add some landscaping or decorative lighting along the drive'iggg~.t~l~-.lC-:~iRiNG illuminate it at night. Ro~:~fi - .. RECOMMENDATION ~e'~zion ~'~-~ ....... ApT~:ov~ bi Staff recommends that the City Coumi adopt the following motion: ll~a CI~/0! Chanhauan · A gr~in0 e0mmunit~ v~t~ cl0an lak~, qtmfity s~001s, a draining d0~mtmm, thrlvln0 btmlrm.~s, ~ndi~ Italia, and Nmtfful ~. A~IIR~ Teresa Burgess February 4, 2003 Page 2 '~I'he City Council denies variance #2(g)3-1 to allow a second driveway on property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the findings of fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway and to revegetate the area by June 30, 2003." If the variance is approved, staff would recommend that the second driveway comply with the current City Code (20-1122c) hard surface requirement. Also, a revised as-built survey should be submitted which shows accurate elevation data. This survey would be reviewed by staff to determine the need for a storm culvert or other drainage measures. jln8 Attachment: 1. Staff report. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/21/03. C~ Bob Generous, Senior Planner Ron Saatzer, 9450 Foxford Road ~DATE: 1/21/03 CCDATE: 2/10103 REVIEW DEADLINE: 60 Days from Submma~ (~13/0~) CASE #: 2003-1 VAR B~. Smam PROPOSAL: Request for a variance to atlow a second driveway. LOCATION: 9450 Foxford Road APPLICANT: Ron S.atT~r 9450 Foxford Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Rexid~tial ACREAGE: 2.74 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N.' S: E: W: RR, Rural Residential; Single-Family Home RR; Single-Family Home RR; Single-Family Home RR; Single-Family Home WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site; outside the MUSA PHYSICAL CHARACTER: A single-family home with an existing three-s~ garage and two existing driveways are on the site. 2002 LAND USE PLAN: Reaidential - Large Lot Saatzer Variance #2003-1 January 14, 2003 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1122(c) of the zoning ordinance requires areas outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) to have driveways that are saxrfaeed with bituminous, concrete, or other hard surface material from the edge of the existing paved roadway to the property line. Section 20-1122Cn) states that one driveway is allowed per residential lot. BACKGROUND The property is a single family lot located in the Lake Riley Woods development in southeast Chanhassen on the south side of Lake Riley. 9450 F oxford Road The home and original driveway off of Foxford Road ~vere constructed in 1989. The second driveway, for which the variance is requested, was constructed in the fall of 2002. The original bituminous driveway comes out from the front of the house and is clearly visible from Foxf'ord Road. The sex, nd driveway has a gravel sm-face and comes off the north side of the garage/driveway. Thc second driveway was constructed through an area of trees and brusl~ It is approximately 10 to 12 feet wide. Saatzer Variance//2003-1 January 14, 2003 Page 3 The applicant has stated that the second driveway was constructed as a matter of convenience. The original driveway, in the applicant's opinion, is long and difficult to back out of at night. The second driveway, when combined with the original, provides a horseshoe-type configuration for the applicant. The applicant has indicated that, if the variance is granted, he will comply with the hard surface requirement for the portion of the driveway within the fight-of-way. ANALYSIS Site Characteristics While not shown on the submitted survey, there is a small 3- to 4-foot high retaining wall along the north side of the original driveway. This wall is 50-80 feet away from the house. The site has very minor grade changes without any significant slopes. As previously mentioned, there is a group of trees and brush in the area where the second driveway connects with Eastwood Court. Due to the large mount of trees and brush, cars entering the street in this area can be hard to see. This is especially true in the summer and fall months when tree~ are fully foliate& Options There are other options to the second driveway variance. The applicant could construct a loop driveway to tie back in with the original driveway in the front yard area of the lot. This would require some regrading of the area around the retaining wall, but no more grading than what was done for the construction of the second driveway. Due to the large lot size, the amount of impervious or hard surface coverage on the lot is not a problem. By simply paving a larger turnaround area in front of the garage, the problem with backing down the long driveway could be averted. In addition, the applicant could add some landscaping or decorative lighting along the driveway to help illuminate it at night. Reasonable Use The reasonable use of the property is not constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The property owner's ori~nal driveway meets the currant design requirements of the City ordinance. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A %se" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RR zoning district, a reasonable use is a single family home with a two-stall garage. The owner has a reasonable use of the property. Saatzer Variance #2003-1 January 14, 2003 Page 4 A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner has other options available which do not require a variance. If the variance is approved, staff would recommend that the second driveway comply with the current City Code (20-1122c) hard surface requirement. Also, a revised as-built survey should be submitted which shows accurate elevation data. This survey would be reviewed by stalt'to determine the need for a storm culvert or other drainage measta'es. The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to reco~,tmi?~ that there are pre-existing stan~ in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship. In other words, being limited to one driveway access per lot is not a hardship. Staff looked at properties within 500 feet of the applicant's lot and found that there was one property out of 18 that had a second driveway. Clearly, there is not a majority of properties within 500 feet that have the pm-existing condition of a second driveway. bi The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other proper~ within the same zoning classifi~on- Finding: The conditions upon which this ~ is based are applicable to most properties in the RR zoning district. Many of the other properties in the area have long driveways such as the applicant's. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The variance would allow the second driveway to remain in place. The variance would not be expected to increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship. Saatzer Variance g2003-1 January 14, 2003 Page 5 hardship. Additionally, there are other options available which would resolve the perceived hardship without a variance. el The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance will allow the second driveway to remain in place. If this variance is approved, a revised survey with drainage information and elevation contours should be submitted and the applicant required to mitigate any drainage issues caused by the driveway construction. The only public detriment would be an increased chance of vehicle accidents on Eastwood Court due to the additional access point and the mduc~ visibility of the driveway among the trees. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially ~sh or impair property values within the neighborhood Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an _~_deqoste supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. As noted earlier, there are some visibility issues associated with the second driveway. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies the variance g200'3-1 to allow a second driveway on the property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the findings of fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway and to revegetate the area by ~ June 30, 2003. ATTACKS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-1122(c & h), Access and Driveways 3. Public hearing notice and property owners list 4. 11" x 17" Survey CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 33=; ;PHONE (Day time) ~.~- c/o ~.--o -) q "/ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION ~--Z)~ ~7~ OWNER: · TELEPHONE: i, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Ptanned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign . X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ '~.~.~ )'' A list of all prope .rtY owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. l]ulldlng material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of L=~... ' - each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NDTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME ].DCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WE33..AN~S PRESENT PRESENTZONING YES NO REQtJESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Depar~ent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. Thi~ is to certj3y that I am making application for the described action by the City and th. at I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this i~ppllcatlon. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement.), or I am the authorized person to make ~his app~ and the fee owner has also signed this application. ! will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc..with an estimate prior' to any .. authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of rny knowledge. . The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed wtthin 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automat~ 60 day extension for develoPme~-~t review. Development review shall be completed wtthin 120 days unless additional review ~,. Signature of Applicant'"'.-.....__~ Date Sight,re of Fee Owner -Date App~cation Reoe'n/ed on Fee Paid Receipt No. 'i'he appTicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. FROFI · I~on Saa~zer .Tan. 10 ~ 07:45,c~ P1 I- lo-*eS Attachment 2 Sec. 20-1122. Access and driveways. The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria: a. Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines, beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city. b. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one-half of one (0.5) percent and a maximum grade of ten (10) percent at any point in the driveway. c. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas outside the MUSA, driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the fight-of-way portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. d. On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway fight-of-way line shall be at least thirty (30) feet to the edge of the driveway. e. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exce.~ thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than ten (10) feet. f. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed th/try-six (36) feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. g. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to the following criteria: 1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and 2. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the engineering department; and Attachment 2 3. The location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer to ensure that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties. h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street. i. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where this is deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this requirement will be stated on the building permit. j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. (Ord. No. 117, § 1, 1-8-90; Ord. No. 330, § 1, 11-13431) N~ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance for a Second Driveway APPLICANT: Ron Saatzer LOCATION: 9450 Foxford Road NOTICE: You am invitad to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Pon Saatzer, is requesting a variance for a second driveway on property zoned PR, Rural Rasidenflai and located at 9450 Foxford Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public headng through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments am received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commiaslon dlscussas the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hail during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Matthew at 227-1164. If you choose to submit writtan comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide coplas to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published In the Chanhassan Villager on January 9, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DONALD B & CYNTHIA N DEAL 9390 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SI'EVEN P & CARMEN R M~ 9391 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN ~ 55317 ROBERT M & TAMMY J O'ROURKE 9410 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & LORI A RYNDA 9411 FOXFORD KD CHAN'HASSEN MN 55317 JOEL N & KATHY R MEYER 9085 165TH ST CHIPPEWA FA! J SWI 54729 KENNETH N PO'I'rS & KAREN KING-POTTS 9431 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT G & SUSAN I MCCARGER 9450 FOXFORD RD CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE A&BONNIEJKINION 9451FOXFORDRD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN R & J'n J. L SHIPLEY 261 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES S & DARCY D LOFFI.I~ 9471 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WIIJ.IAM L & LYNN H STOKKE 241 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN J ZUMBUSCH & CHARLOTTE M ZUMBUSCH 9700 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WIIJ.IAM L & LINDA C JANSEN 240 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATrH~wJ&CHARI.gTqEMTI--IIIJ. 9610MEADOWLARKI.31 CI-IAIqHASSEN MN 55317 Wll.l .lAM S HENAK & KRISTIN Al J.RRS 280 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVENF &KATI-II.gg:~IMB~ 9591MEADOWLARK~ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN E & TRACY S BELLOWS 9470 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETE P & JOYCE L PETER 9490 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® _....i · I' /1~ I '"".-.- :l' ;, ~ ~..'L~": -;' ~-.--.-.-i.(.i~-i. I , :, '-'1'::..' ! . -'1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEC 1 9 200Z ENGINEERING DEPT, ,uv~,.~.,- ~u~v~-.~lN~ & ENGINEERING CO. ''.~;t '-',' -, ; . · ~-' ~ · t · rh~,4 :#1~1:4: · i~v;Y, foR, VICTORIA' BUILDERS P~J~TIcO! r,t, ruary ~. reap. ~[vI~:'A~I ~: 5, HI~-'~' 1, I~K~ RII~Y ~PS, C~r':or. County, M[nnmmo~m. " "., ~op of Fo'Jndntl~ 113.00 ~'l ~s~ Floo~ 114.00 Ga~aq~ FI~ 112.60 ~lt Floor 105. Bi~hmac~ Eleva=Lofl lO0.O0 De~h=ark ~o~crLp~ion: To; of Iron Honu~n~ aa aho~n. Ota~~.~ i ~nvent~.L '' ct~zFxc~g~t - . -- ~ ~ t~ L~i el t~ State ~ P,~J 4~ ~ . . ~', ~, OflE ZHCH EQUALS ;0 FEET City Council Meeting -February 10, 2003 APPEAL PLANNING COMM[q$ION DENIAL FOR A VARIAN~E TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY~ 9450 FOXFORD ROAD~ RON SAATZF~R. Matt Saarm Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. As you said, this is an appeal of a variance denial by the Planning Commission to allow a second driveway on a lot at 9450 Foxford Road in Chanhassen. I have a survey of the lot here. I want to just show you some site characteristics and then talk briefly on what staff feels are othe~ options instead of the variance. This is the original house at 9450 with the original driveway which accessed onto Foxford Road. They were both built in approximately 1989. Last fall the applicant constructed a second driveway off the north side of the existing driveway onto Eastwood Court. The applicant's reason for wanting a second driveway and the variance is the existing driveway he says is long and difficult to back of at night. Them aren't street lights out there so it gets to be mlher dark. The new driveway configuration provides them with a horse shoe loop type where he can pull in and then leave that way. It's really a matter of convenience. As I said staff believes the~e are other options to this driveway variance. A couple of those, the applicant could construct a loop driveway completely within his lot utilizing the existing access, both in and out onto Foxford Road. Another option would be to increase the pavement in this area. Maybe use the existing driveway here. Just increase that turnaround area so the applicant could come into the garage and back out, turn around and go out that way or back out this way. As you can see either way, even with this driveway, the applicant still; if he pulls into the garage he has to back out so you're really not losing anything that you'd have with this second driveway. Another thing he could do is to provide some landscape lighting along the existing driveway if it's difficult to see out of at night. Illuminate it. That's, staff feels those 3 options are significant enough to disallow the variance. With that we are recommending denial of the variance based on findings in the staff report. I'd be happy to take any questions that council may have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Councilman Peterson: Do you know if the applicant intends to blacktop? Any idea? Matt Saam: We have not discussed that. I did mention in the staff report, there's another city code that if you would allow this, city code rextuims that the pm'tion of the driveway within the right-of-way be of a hard surface type material. So I don't know if he intends to. I would say that he'd have to. Councilman Peterson: Okay. And last question. Do we know, what your knowledge is, do we know, recall if the applicant did contact us and why we, I guess his undemanding or recollection was that we gave him kind of a tertiary approval to go ahead with something, but. Matt Saam: Yes. He, as is outlined in the Planning Commission minutes, he moved in this last summer. He says he called city staff at that time. Don't know who he talked to. lie doesn't remember and he believed it was okay to commm a second driveway. At the time he moved in the new code was on the books that only one driveway access is allowed per residential lot. Councilman Peterson: Would we normally pull a permit on a driveway like that? Is that? Matt Saan~ Yes, for work in the right-of-way. But in this case, beca~ it's a second driveway, I mean we wouldn't have allowed it anyways. If he would have called me and wanted a permit to do it, I wouldn't have allowed it. But yeah, for work in right-of-way, yep. You're required to get a permit. City Council Meeting - February 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: And most contractors would know that. Matt Saam: Correct, I would hope they would if they worked in Chanha~en before. Councilman Pe/erson: Okay, thanks. Councilman Lundquist: Matt, the issue is, is it really that the driveway connects out to Eastwood Court or is it that the work is in the right-of-way or what's the real issue with the? Matt Saam: Well I guess our issue as staff is that it's against city code and we have to go by the city codes. Now if you're asking what the reasoning is for having that on the books? Councilman Lundquist: That's really my question. Matt Saam: Okay. When this went through, as I remember a couple years ago there were really 2 reasons. One from engineering's point of view. To limit the amount of direct accesses omo streets. It's just a good rule of thumb. Cvood engineering. You always try to limit your points of direct access. In turn you limit the possibility of accidents. Planning's, what I believe the reason is that planning wanted this code on the books was, they were be~nning to see a proliferation of out buildings being used for possible businesses, so they, and with these out buildings maybe people would put in a second driveway off of those. So they wanted to try to limit that so we went with the one driveway access per lot. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When I drove around out on this site there's no curbs on any of these areas, right? You have the road to the edge and then there's no curbs. Matt Saarm Correct. I believe it's the rural type.with ditches. There may be some spot blacktop curb but nothing like concrete curb or anything. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And you just said that, you know one of the reasons you'd have is for safety and I think that's one of the things that Mr. Saatzer is citing when he talks about not wanting to back down that entire driveway. And as far as out buildings. Matt Saam: Yeah, I'm not saying he's proposing an out building. Councilman Lundquist: Right, right, but. Matt Saam: I was just using that as an example. Councilman Lundquist: What I'm looldng at when I see your staff suggestions that he's going to have to tear up as much, if not more of his yard to make an existing turn around, or to turn around rather than replace that driveway that he's put in without that variance. Matt Saanz Are you referring to the loop that he'd have to do some more grading in the front yard? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. I mean he's, this isn't a real long stretch, this driveway and I guess I'm looking for an engineering or some reason why in this particular case, other than obviously it doesn't meet the ordinance that's in place right now, that is there any reason other than it doesn't meet the ordinance? City Council Meeting - February 10, 2003 Matt Saam: Well the safety is our issue. You know limiting the ac, ce, ss, another access coming onto Eastwood Court. It's close to the comer. People would be turning. Not expecting this driveway to be there. If you go out there and it's mentioned in the staff report, it is in a rather thick area of brush. Right now with the leaves off you can see it pretty good but in the summer it could be hidden, so that's our real reason Brian. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte, any questions? Councilman Ayotte: If, in order to mitigate risk, because of the blind sides that are, I'm sony thank you. In order to mitigate risk does the blind sides that are them in the road that he put in, could we impose some requirements to ~h that risk if we were to go ahead and allow a variance7 And what would be your recommendation for mitigating that risk? Matt Saam: Lighting would be one obvious one. It's rather dark out there. If you wanted to require that lighting go in. You can attach, as you said, conditions to a variance so you could require that he put in some sort of lighting to illuminate, at least maybe down toward the strew. Councilman Ayotte: One other question with the, what is the, getting back to Councilman Lundquist's point. What would he have to do in terms of eliminating trees, eliminating vegetation, moving rocks and so forth to get a mm to go back out the same drive7 Matt Saam: To do the loop. Councilman Ayotte: To do the loop. Matt Saam: There are a couple of trees, if you've been out to the site. A couple of si~ificant trees in this area. It was my estimation you could work' around them, maybe you couldn't. There is also a retaining wall which is mentioned in the staff report which would have to be, there'd have to be a hole put in that but as I said, no more real grading than what was already done. I mean he's already cleared a path to put a driveway out them so, and there is another option. You could just pave a wider turnaround too, which wouldn't cause near the destruction of another loop coming back through. Councilman Peterson: To your point Bob, I think you're talking about taking out 5 foot of trees so that the, it mitigates to some degree the issue of driving out from the driveway into the road without the exact. Councilman Ayotte: I'm right now leaning towards a nod for a go but with conditions. And the point you were working towards too is a bit of a, why would someone in the business not be upfront and pull a permit. But I suspect we'll hear some more before we go forward. Mayor Furlong: Is drainage along that, I think it's Eastwood, any issue or could that be cmxex:ted with a culvert or something? Matt Saarm That's a good point. I did put a condition at the end, if you all choose to approve it, that he supply us with a tittle better survey with some elevation data so we can determine the drainage impacts. We may need a culvert along Eastwood Court, that sort of thing so, but at this time Tom I'm not sure how the drainage impacts of that driveway. City Council Meeting - February 10, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay. You said it's not well lit. Is there a street light at that ~on of Eastwood and Foxford, do we know? Matt Saam: Well that's a good question. I've been out thgm and I don't rememb~ one but I should have noted it. I don't believe there is. If the applicant's here, and I don't see him maybe, of course he could let us know but I don't believe there is. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Matt Saam: I wasn't out there at night so it's just. Mayor Furlong: That's okay. Alright, any other questions for staff?. Okay, thanks. This is not a public hearing. As I understand that hearing took place at the Planning Commission. Is the applicant here? Matt Samm I don't see him. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So with that I'll bring it back to council then for discussion. Councilman Peterson: I guess I'm somewhat reticent to approve it without hearing from the applicant. I'd be very curious as to know why they didn't make a bigger mm or a platform area, and they didn't do a loop. The loop seems the most logical to me, both from a cost perspective and from a, just from an aesthetic perspective. You know I think Brian you mentioned that it's probably a little bit longer to go where they did versus a loop and I don't know whethe~ it's purely a cost issue or their personal aesthetic issue but I'm not ready to vote on it until I get some of those question~ asked. Right now them wasn't enough compelling reason to approve a variance in what the applicant submitted in his hand written note. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Councilman Ayotte: I want to say it's because of the weather that he's not hem. But maybe something happened or maybe he couldn't get out of his driveway. I don't know but since we spent this much time on the discussion, Fd like to table it to ask the applicant to come visit to have a chat with us. If we're taking the ~ to talk about it, I think he should take the time to pump paws with us a bit too. Councilman Peterson: Do what with us? Councilman Ayotte: Pump paws. It's just like a pony in the pile. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: We should get a court reporter to write these things down. Todd Gerhardt: We have one. Mayor Furlong: We have one. Todd Gerhardt: They're in the minutes. R's very entettain~g. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist, do you have discussion? 10 City Council Meeting - February 10, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: I guess I would second Bob's comments. I've driven by the site and with the trees and the retaining wall, I can see where that would be an issue and it looks like he took the easiest path but without talking to the applicant hirmelf, I guess we'd be making assumptions and I don't really want to make an assumption as to what Mr. Saat~r was thinking without talking to him and so, although I thought that he was going to be here. I wish he would have been here tonight, I don't, I lean towards tabling it until we can talk to Mr. Saatzer or give him, at least give him a notice of one more meeting if he doesn't show up at the next meeting that we' 11 go ahead and vote on it without his input. Mayor Furlong: If I could go back to questions. Was he notified of the appeal this evening? Matt Saarn: Yes. Yeah, he's required to submit in writing a formal appeal to the Planning Commission's denial. When he did so I told him I'd put you on for the February 10~ council meeting. I never gave him a reminder call or anything but I tell him the date so. Plus he did get a copy of this staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And he didn't contact us at all? Matt Saam: He never contacted me since that denial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well I have a few comments but I guess his absence just went to the top of the list as far as I'm concerned from a use of time standpoint so I will withhold my other comments at this point, sensing what was indicated earlier. So is there, if there's no further discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: I move to table. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the appeal Variance Request ~,003-1 to allow a second driveway at 9450 Foxford Road. Councilman Ayotte and Councilman Lundquist voted in favor. Mayor Furlong and Councilman Peterson voted in opposition- The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Furlong: With a 2-2 tie. Tom Scott: It doesn't pass. Mayor Furlong: The motion to table does not pass. Okay, therefore we'll go back tO either further discussion or another motion. Councilman Peterson: Motion to deny. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? I'll second that Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to deny Variance Request g2003-1 to allow a second driveway at 9450 Foxford Road. AH voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. "11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Uli Sac~het, Alison Blackowiak, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: Lu_Ann Sidney, Bruce Feik and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam: Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 I_axedo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER TI-W, REQUF,,.qT FQR A VARIAN~'E FOR A SE(~QND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR~ R~RAL RF~IDENTIAL AND LQCATED At 9450 FOXFQRD RQAD, RQN SAATZER. Matt Sa~m presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staffright now? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: I have one quick question Matt In the recommendation where you recommend that thi.q request would be denied, you state that the applicant will also be ordered to m-vegetate the area. Saam: Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't mention that. ff the variance is denied, since it's for the second driveway, we would additionally ask that the second driveway, since it's already been constructed, be removed and that the area be re-vegetated. Sacchet: And you're asking that that would be done by April 30~1 Saam: Yeah, we wanted to give them a timeframe because right now with snow and frozen ground, obviously vegetation can't be coming up until the spring thaw. Sacchet: Is April 30e~ a reasonable time? Saam: We could extend that if you wanted. Sacchet: I just wonder what the rationale was. Saam: That was all the date was set for was to wait til spring til seed could start germinating, taking hold. That sort of thing. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Planning Commission M~ag - January 21, 2003 Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: I just had a quick question Matt. If the variance is not approved by City Council, what enforcement do you have, the tools to, and again I'm not, I don't want anybody to think that that's where I'm going right now with this but I'm asking the question of what tools do we have and how is it enforced only because I drove by a house, and I don't mean to mention which house it was that we just had a series of meetings, 2-3 months ago where we denied a variance for a fence and the fence is up, and it in fact in my opinion looks like it's been added to. What is the enforcement? Saam: Yeah, that's a good question. I've asked that question myself too. I believe our only enforcement measures to mm it over to the city attorney's office for legal prosecution by whatever means they use. You know we don't employ anybody to go out and remove like say this driveway if the applicant doesn't comply. All we can do is go through legal means. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Saam: Is that your understanding Bob, what would be done? Generous: Yes. Technically violation of the city code is a misdemeanor, and so you could cite them. Slagle: Just wondering. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: Yes I do. We, enclosed in oar packet we have a letter from the applicant and my question with that letter would be to the, he indicated that there was contact made with the city and that someone at the city said they were allowed two entrances. To your knowledge, or to your's Bob, have you guys logged anything as far as this call? Saam: I haven't, and I asked, and Ron will probably get up after this. I asked him about that. He couldn't remember the name of the person he spoke with. Now it's possible, this has only been on the city code books for about a year and a half now. Prior to this we didn't allow second driveways but it wasn't part of the city code, so if somebody would have called say 3 years ago, then maybe somebody would have said no, it's not on the books but he constructed it last fall and that was a code then. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for public hearing. Before we do that, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the ~ Ron Saat~er: Hi. My name is Ron Saatzer and my wife Denise. Good evening you guys that roughed the cold weather here. I do have some picun'es that I wanted, first I wanted to let you guys know that had I known there would have been any requirements for thi.q added addition to this driveway, I would have come in and did this the ~ way. So we apologize. We just moved into the neighborhood in May, and we were busy doing our remodeling and doing landscaping and what have you and when I did make a phone call to the city, I had been doing some stuff with Sharmeen and some other business development in the city of Chart, and I don't recall who I spoke to at the city but I think it was a miwa3mmunication that timber knowledge that you can have two aca:esses on Foxford Road, because there's, I've got probably almost 10 Planning Commission M~ - January 21, 2003 people that have two entrances on Foxford so I think them was a mi~communication that yeah, you can have two but this one in this circumstances, one on Foxford and one on East Court so. I did drive around the neighborhood and saw that theme's, like I said, many that have circle driveways. Tumarounds. Two entrances onto Foxford, and when we did the landscaping, we have 4 little girls and backing things out and being at the comer of Fox:ford right here, this is kind of a downhill road coming this way and we have a tendency to be backing out here and people don't really see us so for security measures and what have you, we found that this would be an easier way for us to kind of pull in and pull right out. There's only what, 3 neighbors down here and a dead end cul-de-sac that we're not really causing much problems to. And aesthetically I did do it so it blended in with the neighborhood and was very cautious with the guy that helped me do it is a landscape architect and designer and made sum that things were going to flow properly with the water drainage and what have you. And I guess you guys probably have a copy of the letter that I wrote. I know that there's possibilities that you can do lighting and what have you. I think it's a lot easier for us to be able to do that and we were trying to make something of kind of the ragged brush, pretty nasty area that was there that all the neighbors in the area have applalld_l~d us and have come over and said that we've done a really good job with it so I just wanted you guys to know that and we do, I do apologize for not doing it the proper way so. If my wife has anything to add, she can add something. Denise Saatzer: Not really except that just looking at it, I think it was for me kind of a safety issue for the kids, and ff you see where the road goes, it just makes it simpler and safer for us to come out on Eastwood Court which is not as, it's not a thoroughfare way. It doesn't you know, it's just a cul-de-sac. We did not take down any mature, big trees. It was all kind 'of prickly brash and looked like nobody had done anything with you know this whole area that we've kind of brought up to good landscaping as much as we could before the fall came, and we did have some intentions of you know we're doing some more plantings and what not. And again I just would like to say that Ronnie did make a phone call and I think it was a misunderstanding of how, what we could have and being that we had just purchased the home, not understanding maybe the covenants in the neighborhood. But I think if you look at the photos and if you were to go and look and see what we have done, you'd see that it's not really a detriment to anyone, and it actually looks very nice and we kept it, we're very nature people and we have kept it looking very natural. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. If you'd like to send around the photos so we could just take a quick look at them, that would be appreciated. Before you step down, commissioners any questions? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions for you. FLrst, the alteaxmfives that staff is looking at like either a loop around or a mm around. Wouldn't that accommodate the safety issue as well? Denise Saatzer: Well I'd like to say, yeah it would have. One of the things we were trying not to do was take out bigger trees, and if you were to go out onto the property and I don't know if the pictures show, but what I can remember is there are a couple bigger trees in them, and I really didn't want to take those out. Where we went through, it was just brush and you know, some of the thorny. Ron Saatzer: Buckthorn... Denise Saatzer: Stuff and it just made more sense to do it this way and not knowing that we maybe weren't supposed to do this, we made the choice based on the trees. Planning Commission M~ang - January 21, 2003 Sacchet: So you're saying it could potentially hurt some of the mature trees to'do like a loop around or, even enlarging the. Ron Saatzer: We would have to take some bigger, mature trees. Denise Saatzer: By what he was showing, the way that it, 'if you can see that there is a cluster of trees and what not there. If we were to do the loop the way h~ was saying to do it, we'd have to. Sacchet: How about a turnaround like, actually that was a pretty strong point Matt made that, you have to back out and then go out so if you back out the other way and go out, you could almost use the initial stretch of the new driveway that's in question as the tm-nazound and head out. Would that accommodate the safety concern? Denise Saatzer: I ~ink it, I guess it, it's hard to tell. Do you thinlc it would be? Ron Saatzer: I don't know if we'd have to. Denise Saatzer: You almost have to look and see. Sacchet: Yeah, it's hard. Ron Saatzer: ...look and see if it's something. Sacchet: Without knowing exactly where the trees are, it's probably an unfair question. Ron Saatzer: . ..before we just did it but any more...reasonable thing just to k-~nd of exit it out that way where it wouldn't be so busy. Sacchet: Now I have one more question now. By the way these pictures really belp. You said you moved in about a year, year and a haft ago. Ron Saatzer: No, we just moved in thi~ spring. Denise Saatzer: May. Sacchet: May. Ron Saatzer: May. Sacchet: So the call to city would definitely not have been more than a year and a half ago. Ron Saatzer: No, we just moved in there in May so...in the fall. Sacchet: In the fall sometime. Ron Saatzer: Yeah, fight before we did it. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Planning Commission ,g - 1anuary 21, 2003 Lillehaug: I do have a question, and it would be on the two driveways on Foxford. And maybe if I can direct this question to Bob. Is that allowed, two driveways on Foxford? I don't think that's correct, is it? Or Matt. Saam: No. No. One driveway access per lot. Well per residential lot is allowed in town. Whether it's Foxford or Eastwood or 101. It's one driveway ~s onto a public street. Lillehaug: Okay. Ron Saatzer: But those were granted in before the rest of us? Saam: Yeah, I'm assuming if they're them, they were grandfathered in... Ron Saatzer: But there's 10 people on Foxford that have either their entrance or a circular coming onto Foxford or another road going down to a storage shed or, so there's, you know. Blackowiak: I have a question for you, to follow up on that. So you mean that they have two actual physical cuts onto Foxford? I didn't see those. Ron Saatzer: Correct. Blackowiak: I saw maybe a loop but still back to the single entrance. Ron Saatzer: Yeah, I've got the addresses of. Blackowiak: Oh, that would be helpful because I. Ron Saatzer: Actually Eastwood Court, address 240 has a driveway plus they have an entrance going back to the lake per se maybe. So they have a ~d cut. 9471 Fox:ford has a circle driveway, so they actually have two cuts going down to Foxford. 9550 has a turnarotmd driveway, so somehow they did a turnaround within their lot. Blackowiak: Right, so single access on that one? Ron Saatzer: Single access, yep. 9511, I'm just kind of giving you a nm down of what. Blackowialc Right, because I went through and I really didn't see any that I thought had two driveways per se. Denise Saatzer: I think it's a lot of them, they're there and this time of year maybe, some of the brush, they haven't maintained them. Ron Saatzer: Kind of like our's. Blackowiak: So, but existing, is that what? Ron Saatzer: Yeah. 9511 has a turnaround. 9570 has two entrances. 9610 has two entrances. 9630 has two entrances. So there, I don't know ff you guys didn't see them but they're there. I Planning Commission M~ng - ~anum-y 21, 2003 Denise Saatzer: A lot of them are to separate llke another garage or a shed back you know by the house or just a little past the house. Blackowiak: Okay. Ron Saatzer: And that was my other concern too was, in talking to Matt about iL If this wasn't granted, if these people have that you know, I do like to store some stuff too. It's my understanding that I could maybe even have another entrance. I have 3 acres out there that I would just put an entrance somewhere else and put a shed back like everybody else seems to have so I was just concerned about that and that would maybe be another option of having that right there so. You know aesthetically we have to look at all options. I don't want to disrupt anything with the neighbors. Blackowiak: So Matt, do you know timing on any of these others? Were they pre-existing before? Saarm Yeah, I'm assuming all of those were pre-existing. If I could just clarify what we looked at when I mentioned 1 of 18. Of course we only looked at properties within 500 feet of Ron's property. A lot of the addresses he mentioned I don't have on my list of being within 500 feet. The other thing is with the snowfall, if it's not a paved driveway, maybe it's a field entrance where it's going over grass and we couldn't see it then. I guess there's possible there could be a couple more but we really looked for them out there so. Ron Saatzen And you looked, I think you pulled up addresses in Meadow~k which is really not part of our neighborhood. Meadowlark's like on the other side. Blackowiak: Right, but if it's still within the 500 feet, that's what you have to, I mean legally we have to look at specific areas that are prescribed. Ron Saatzer: Right. Blackowialc Okay. Rich, any questions7 Slagle: No. B lackowialc No? Okay. Thank you. Ron Saatzer: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. No? I'll close the public heating. Commissioners, any comments please. Slagle: I can start. Matt, I have a question, and I don't know if I'm going to get an answer tonight but, you know how we have these 500 feet, which this is a good example where sometimes it doesn't encompass in it's entirety the neighborhood. It goes to other areas that might not be quite as much of an interest in determining what to do here tonight. My question is this, the ones that are on Foxford, if in the case of what Ron is saying are true. That them are two, you know all of those, and those were prior to this restriction or this piece of information being put on the code books, but nonetheless the city had a policy against it, and yet they're on Planning Commission M~ang - January 21, 2003 there, would it be in your opinion that some of those were just put on and we just didn't know as a city? Saam: Exactly. People not coming in to get a permit maybe for a shed ~, you know who knows what you were doing the~ but a lot of that stuff unfortunately goes on so Fm assuming that's how they got put in. Slagle: Okay. And I apologize if I know this already but, how did we find out that Ron and his wife were putting a driveway in? Saam: I thought you'd ask that. Ron Saatzer: We'd like to know that too. Saarm Actually one of the building inspect, and I don't know how he found out about it, alerted me to it. He was out there for another reason. I think Ron's applying for a building permit or something but he noticed the second driveway and notified our department of it and then we, I think we sent Ron a letter and gave him a call and it went fi'om there. Slagle: Sure. Well I'll close my comments with just this thought. You know to the applicants, obviously it's not just this house, it's all homes that we have to try and adhere to our codes because what you've done tastefully, someone might not do so tastefully and be in a situation where wow, what do you do? So, but I will say this. I think right now that I'm leaning towards granting the variance only because one, I think there was innocence in what happened. I think two, with the neighborhood having multiple, let's just say, houses that have done this and maybe didn't do it quite as up front as these folks are here doing. And I only can go back to all the decks in that one development off to the east of Powers. Remember those discussions and people were there to apply for variances and neighbors had them all over the place and I just think we either have to go back to those people who have those and never asked for a permit and do something with it. Whether it be charge them or something, because I don't know how much credibility we have with these folks if we say no and yet we'll allow and see people with double driveways who based upon our records show no indication that they came in and asked for it. A variance. So I'm going to have to say that I'm going to grant the variance. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. Well, it's tricky. I mean basically what we're looking at here is, is it applicable in that neighborhood or not? And if we grant this variance, we're pretty much making a statement that it's okay in that neighborhood. Now if you make a statement that it's okay in that neighborhood, are we making a statement it's alright in another place besides the neighborhood and that's where it gets sticky from our side. So I'm going to vote against granting this variance and I would think it has to go to City Council to deal with it in that scope. I mean it's, we have a set of criteria that we have to look at. One, is it a hardship? Well there is pretty high likeliness, it's actually pretty clear that there are alternatives that would acco~h the same thing. The hardship would be to undo what you've already done. That is a hardship in itself, but that's not the hardship you're considering. The hardship you have to consider here is what's the justification for this driveway. And in that context, what we have to look at is how is it applicable to our properties? Now, I think that would be a City Council decision to decide it's okay in that neighborhood, and I don't know exactly what the framework would be to anchor something like that in, but in terms of the framework that I understand that we have as a planning commission, by looking at the criteria we have, I do believe I need to vote for denying the Planning Commission M~g - January 21, 2003 variance at this point and would say you can certainly bring it to council and see what they do with it. However, I do think we need, I would not want to have that April 30 date in there. That seems awfully harsh in order to ask for re-vegetating and all that~ That would have to be a reasonable amount of time. A good chunk of summer, half surmner or something like that. Several months. I mean April we would have barely a month to really work on it. I don't think that's reasonable. It's, I mean the pre-existing type of element is, it seems like there was a miscommunication and certainly no fault of your's that, where this ended up. But obviously this ordinance has been on the books for a year and a half so there was definitely migcommunication. It's not like you would have started this when it was still okay. So that's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: One mom question before my comments. The applicant indicated that since he has a larger lot, can he have another driveway because it's a 3 acre lot? When I read the cedes that's still not how I understood it. Saam: No. Not if it's a residential lot. If it's, and I'd have to look up the code but I think if it's not classified as like rural residential. If it's like agricultural district, then they're allowed. That was one of the discussion points when the code was being adopted. When this part of the code was being adopted. The driveway, so no. Because it's a residential lot, one access. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Well comrrmnts. Seeing that the code was just completexL this specific code to limit access control points directly to city streets to a single driveway. And I think this code is reasonable and I do agree with it. I think that the intent of the city code is pretty clear in this case by limiting this access control. And if this case were allowed, I think there would be a proliferation of a continued variances in this case. Specifically I have a corner lot. I would like to do this too, but I don't think I would get a variance granted in my neighborhood, and I think I can safely say that. And actually I would deny my own variance in this case also. So really based on that, I think there are other reasonable options in lieu of this second driveway. They might not be ideal, but there are other options. I don't see any extenuating circumstances why this should be allowed so I do agree with staff and I do support their findings. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I agree with both Uli and Steve that it's pretty clear when we have a variance request that we have certain requirements that have to be met, and I do believe that there are other options available, and there's not an undue hardship. Similar to the item that we saw at our last meeting regarding the city requesting a variance for a lot that they own. City Council if they choose to go ahead and grant a variance, that's within their maim of granting it. They have different issues that they have to take a look at. We as a Planning Commission have to look at specifically city code and whether or not a request meets the requirements, and in this case I don't think it does. I would saying that however, just recom~d that you go ahead to City Council. You have 4 business days to appeal so I would certainly, if that's something you choose to do, go ahead and appeal this and talk to City Council because they may, they have a little more leeway in saying yes or no than we as a commission do. And Ul_i, I agree with you on your date. April 30a seems unreasonable and I would suggest June 30~h, just based on the uncertainty of the weather. With that, I'd like to have a motion. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion, that the Planning Commission denies the variance g2003-1 to allow a second driveway on the property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the l~mdings of Fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway, to m-vegetate the area by June 30, 2003. Planning Commission M~g - January 21, 2003 Blackowiak: A motion. Is them a second? Sacchet: I second. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commi~ion denies the variance ~f2(B3-1 to allow a second driveway on the property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway, to re-vegetate the area by June 30, 2003. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Blackowiak: And again, talk to Bob specifically about how to appeal if you choose to do so. Okay? Thank you. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES: None. Blackowialc The ones that we were submitted were not contemporaneous. We had akeady approved those so we're just going to sort of go right past that item. And I'm going to skip down to the open discussion, City Code update. Because we only have 4 of 7 commissioners thi~ evening, we have decided to postpone the City Code update discussion until our work session on February 4"'. That work session begins at 6:00. It's going to be in the Senior Center. And because we only have 4 of 7 commissioners we felt it was important to have more input for such a very important discussion. So that City Code Ulxtate will be postponed until the February 4"' meeting. That being said we'll go back to the administrative approval section. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL: MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMIr. NT LOC,~~ ON LOT 8~ BLOCeK Iv (2HANItA,SSEN LAKi*$ BUSINE~ PARK 7TM ADDITION~ _EDEN TRA(~2E CQRPQRATION. G-enemus: Thank you. There's not really a staff report. Unforttmately the heading for this gave a misconception of what we were trying to do. The code allows staff to work with developers and do administrative approvals on changes to site plans. What we wanted to do was provide you with the information to let you know what was happening out in the community so that you're aware if someone would talk to you, well I know what that building is and so you're not sort of surprised when it finally goes forward. This sim plan was actually approved quite a while ago. It's more an update for you rather than requesting any approval. There's no motions involved. We think it will be a nice building. It's nice to see office industrial development starting to come hack in the community. We've had discussions with several developers. Could get a little busy this year. Blackowiak: That's good. Before I ask any commissioners if they have questions, Bob. This item then is kind of a more or less a courtesy to the Planning Commi.~sion just to kind of give us a heads up of what's going to happen or what has happened administratively so that if them are minor changes that have taken place, that we'll kind of know ahead of tin~. Generous: Right. We want to keep you in the communication. Blackowiak: So it's not really an approval. I mean we don't have to give any approval. We're just sort of, it' s sort of an update more or less. Generous: Yes.