Loading...
PC Minutes 9-4-07Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Can I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage nd in Pinehurst 2 Addition with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. McDonald: And again, you do have the right of appeal to take this up to City Council and present the issue there. City Council does have the ability to waive our city ordinances as they see fit. So okay. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHROEDER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-20. Public Present: Name Address th Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Schroeder 2081 Pinehurst Drive Scott Boeddeker 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No questions. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Well in this case anything hasn't been built yet, is that correct? Auseth: Correct, it's not installed. Keefe: Yeah. McDonald: Kevin. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Dillon: And so then the only thing is just the house and the driveway. Auseth: And the sidewalk. The sidewalk that was proposed with the building plan which was 120 square feet as opposed to 316 square feet. Dillon: That's it. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: No questions. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: I was just wondering if the city has talked to the homeowner about possibly using different materials. Auseth: We have not. We've only been working with the landscape architect. Larson: Okay. Auseth: But there again we don't give credit at this time for other materials as far as hardscape. Larson: No, no. I mean if they were to do something that was permeable. Auseth: Right, we don't give credit for permeable. Larson: Explain credit. Auseth: If somebody does a permeable paver, giving them a percentage of their overall square footage. They wouldn’t get a 100% credit for 100 square foot surface. You'd give 25% credit. Larson: Okay. So 25% is something. That's a fourth. Auseth: Right, but at this time it's also the exception hasn't been determined by council. Larson: So say they did 3 different porches and they got 25% credit on each one of those, if they used a different material, it might offset, what are we 4%? Auseth: Right, but council hasn't determined a percentage at this point. Larson: I see, okay. McDonald: 25% and that's it. Larson: Okay. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Papke: Has the driveway already been poured? Is the driveway in place? Because, the reason I ask is, in this particular case, unlike the previous case, the driveway looks to be 3 car wide all the way to the streets so if the driveway hadn't been poured yet, they would have the option of maybe saving a little bit by pulling in the driveway. Auseth: Correct, and I'm not positive if it has or has not. McDonald: Really I've asked all my questions and said all my comments so I have no more for you, thank you. You want to come back up and address this again? We're really a friendly bunch. Tim Johnson: Alright. The driveway is in as the plan. The front walkway, the current development walkway we'll call it is in but does not look like the current plan. That, in speaking with my client, obviously we're trying to be, you know this is something that we're hoping, we're leaning for but after following the previous presentation, we're trying to be hopeful here. We've already got, any time you do a wall over 4 feet, particularly after…so phase 1 we're looking to really do is put the wall in to level off the back yard so you've got more green space, like we did at the other property. Put the staircase in. The patio, the fire pit patio is not going to happen so we're taking. Excuse me? Larson: Is there a fire pit? Tim Johnson: The fire pit's right here. Larson: Okay, we don't have one on our's. Tim Johnson: The fire pit is, well 242 square feet so we're willing to take that out of the picture. The walkway, the front walkway, we're going to keep the current development walkway. The driveway's in place. The deck plan that you see here are outlined in this area right here. And then this area right here is a proposed screen porch that they are looking to add in this space here. In my conversations with Angie, we were looking to start the retaining wall, the deck construction, the screened porch construction and we would still stay under compliance under the 25% just so we could you know kind of begin some construction here so my clients that moved from California can maybe get a yard sooner than later. After last week the wall….I understand the building department. The deck cannot pass through. They cannot supply the deck permit because we were instructed last week of the other code that assumed 100 square foot patio had to be assumed for any door that wasn't connecting to any walkway, which if I'm correct puts us 20 square feet over the 25%. Auseth: Right, and that's for the screen porch, not the deck. Tim Johnson: Correct. There's the decking here, I'm learning from the previous project, we are going to use a different decking system. That was communicated and instructed immediately to anyone that we're going to be working with the client, that the decking would have spaces between the deck so they weren't permeable. Just another way of us trying to do it right and finding out where we were on the previous job but our goal is to do the wall of the deck, the 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 screen porch and we'd love to be able to do the back patio that's on this drawing here. There's a permeable concern given the pavers underneath the screen porch if the screen porch was ever being considered a permeable structure. It would just be the square footage under the deck and then the deck, or excuse me, the patio from the steps back to the lower patio door. So Angie correct me if I'm wrong, the only area that we would be requesting is the patio application on this lower area. That is above the 25% mark. Other than the extra 20 square feet that the city has to enforce, assuming that there's a patio installed of 100 square feet, which again we just found that out last week. Angie explained that, because there's no patio in place so I had to make that assumption and add that 100 square feet toward what we're representing. McDonald: So is this changing from what we have from city staff which says your proposed square footage was at 29.8 and you're now talking about scaling a lot of this back. Tim Johnson: Well we're trying to be realistic here with what we have in front of us. My client's very eager to get some green space in this year and…now that we have easy access of equipment and we're trying to be sensible you know from the city wants so that we can begin some type of construction. The wall and the decking could begin any time. Other than that extra 20 square feet that we're over. The wall has nothing to do with that. It's just the screen porch. McDonald: Okay. City, or staff. At that point are we over the 25% of what he's talking about? Is that within what you would be allowed to do or are we still looking at a variance situation? Auseth: If the patio door is not underneath the 3 season screened in porch, then we have to assume the 100 square foot unless they propose something else. If it's underneath the screened porch, we don't double count. McDonald: Okay, so at that point is he under the 25% with what he's now saying he wants to do? Auseth: 26.8. McDonald: 1.8 percent. Tim Johnson: For my reference so you just want to say what the, where you came up with that just so we're all on the same page. Auseth: Sure. I added the house, garage, driveway, front porch. Oh, I didn't add in the front sidewalk. Tim Johnson: What did you have for that front sidewalk again? Auseth: 120. Tim Johnson: Yep. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: I added the retaining walls. The screen porch, the patio. Retaining walls and then the steps. McDonald: Okay, and that puts them over by 1.8% then? Auseth: That's 27.4 including that front sidewalk. McDonald: Okay. Any suggestions for, I really, I'm not sure it's worth everybody's effort to go through here and argue through this without going back to staff. There's got to be a way to take care of this 2.4% and not be asking for a variance because I'm not going to vote for a variance, and I think there's a majority here, I'm speaking out of turn but we don't want to set a precedence in this neighborhood. There's too many houses and there's too much trouble here. Tim Johnson: For the material considerations as far as you know, yeah the retaining wall basically you know the water, obviously the top boulder, it hits the top boulder. I've got you know a drainage system behind that. I mean we're considering 216 square feet of boulder retaining wall. McDonald: Well again that's a discussion you need to have with staff and if they agree with all that. Tim Johnson: That's you know, and we're using all mulch materials here. We're not going to put rock and poly down. Some cities require rock and poly to be impervious. McDonald: Okay, well let me ask you this. Are you willing to withdraw this? Go back to city staff and get it to 25%. Work on the other issues because I know you want to do all of this other stuff at this point too but at least you'd be able to move forward on this project if you could get it down to 25% and then we don't need to look at doing a variance. Tim Johnson: Well I believe we'd be willing to, we would like to just do the wall, the deck and screened porch. We're 20 square feet over, correct? Papke: Mr. Chair, I don't think we can modify what we're voting for on the fly here. McDonald: Well I'm not trying. I'm just trying to get them to withdraw it and then there's nothing for us to vote on. Papke: I agree. McDonald: Yeah, but that's what I'm asking is if we're that close to 25% and you're object is you want to get started on something, what are you willing to give to stay at the 25%? The other issues need to be worked out as you already heard and then at that point you would have to either reapply for a variance based upon what staff tells us, or maybe they come up with some way that you know you make it through this. But at this point if the object on your side is to get to work, then you need to stay at 25%. We don't need to vote on anything and as long as staff agrees that you're within the limits, then there shouldn't be a problem. Am I correct? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: Correct. McDonald: I mean there's got to be some give and take here. 2.4% is not that much. Tim Johnson: Well I guess we, I mean we could sit here and say I gave this up. I mean I'm not going to get in that game. McDonald: Well I'm not asking you to. Tim Johnson: I don't think you want that either so. McDonald: I guess in fairness then fine, we'll go ahead and we'll vote on this. Tim Johnson: I guess one of the considerations that we would request so that we could at least begin with the lengthy part of this project is build the retaining walls and steps and the deck and the upper porch because of the assumptions you know, I had a conversation with Angie and she said as long as we're under 25%, and then we find out last week that we could begin the deck and the porch and the retaining wall until this meeting, but then we couldn't get the permit now which was something that was just thrown in front of us that we had to assume that there had to be 100 square foot patio as soon as the packet came out. You know for 20 square feet. We're talking about 20 square feet and we're trying to work with the city and I'm trying to you know do my job, that's keep my clients happy and try to do our due diligence to keep this going so, because every day that that sits out there, the concern of there's no erosion control. Concern of water running off there. I mean it's everybody's concern. McDonald: Well I agree with you and that's why I'm offering you is an opportunity to start work. Otherwise this gets voted down. Potential's there. Now you're waiting to go up to City Council. You've got to go through a process there. You're going to be you know a couple weeks trying to make the argument there. Nothing's going to happen. If you're willing to stay within the 25% and give, as far as what city engineering says, you've got enough here you can start work. The rest of these issues are bigger than this anyway. You're going to need to work with staff on that. Keefe: Well you know it's only 20 feet. I mean put a foot off the porch… Is it 20 square feet or is it, what is it? Undestad: It's just in the portion that they want to start now. Keefe: That's what I'm saying. If they just came for a variance for 20 feet, right? Undestad: 4 point, almost 5%. Keefe: I thought he said, I thought what he was saying you're 20 feet over the 25%. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: When you count in our wall, our deck, or excuse me, doesn't include here. But our screen porch, we're under the 25%. But because we have to make that assumption of the 100 square feet of a patio, that is. We wouldn't install anyways because our goal with the client is to come up with a patio application that's installed here so we wouldn't start that construction until we would get something in place with either the engineering department, or were able to get something in front of City Council or you to have a drainage system that would be accommodating to everybody's concerns and questions here. So we're not going to put a 100 square foot patio in because it's not, 100 square feet does nobody any good. Larson: Where is this supposedly assumed that it would be? Tim Johnson: It's supposed to be off the back patio door. Larson: And it's obviously not there so why is it an issue? It's out of the plan… Tim Johnson: We have to allow for it because the door is not adjoining to any walkway, but there is you know, there's no reason for us to develop something like that. McDonald: Okay, then in that case what it sounds like everybody's hands are tied and we will have to take this application as it is and we'll take it from there and then you would be able to go back to city staff and work out whatever you can but at this point the magic number is 25%. Undestad: I still have a question for you. Did you design this plan? Tim Johnson: Yeah. Undestad: But not the other one? Tim Johnson: I redesigned. It actually had a lot more hard cover. Undestad: When you submit these, when you picked your boulder wall guys, did they submit their plans for just a picture of that boulder wall on there? Or when your client chooses a deck contractor that you recommend. Tim Johnson: We're doing everything but the actual deck and screened porch construction. It's all in-house. Undestad: So when you submit your plans or whatever portion of these projects you're doing, you're submitting this entire plan? Tim Johnson: Correct. Undestad: Unlike the last project, your decking contractor just submitted his picture of his deck he was putting onto that. Tim Johnson: Correct. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Anyone else have any questions then? Tim Johnson: You know we tried to design, we designed it once to be you know in compliance with the 25% until last week on the assumption of the 100 square feet which put us over so. Keefe: Would you consider tabling it and coming back in 2 weeks or whatever to revisit it? Undestad: Or working it out. Keefe: Yeah, working it out… Tim Johnson: Well I guess on both applications, I mean help me out with this. McDonald: Well on the first one you've got a bigger problem. On this one you're closer to the 25% and if you're saying you want to start work, I think there's enough compromise here, you can start work. If we vote this down, then what you're faced with is again going through the appeal process. No work will start until this works through the City Council and at that point again they're very sensitive to the 25% right now also and they're very sensitive to the flooding in this area. I don't think you have a very good chance of getting this through. Then where are you at? I mean you're 4 or 5 weeks out. I'm offering you a chance to compromise the 25%. You can start some work. You can continue to lobby because you're got 40 something lots in this area. They all have the same problem. This has got to be solved. It's solved by people such as you coming forward and presenting the city with new information and asking that ordinances be changed. Undestad: Can I ask one thing of Angie? If they table it tonight and meet with you guys, try to work it out but say in a couple days it doesn't look like it's going to happen, can he get back on here in 2 weeks so it's like a 2 week delay for the entire process or how does that work? If we table it would he come right back. Generous: We'd table it to the next meeting to review it and come back with any updates. Tim Johnson: Could we begin the, obviously the deck has nothing to do with this. Could we begin the deck construction and not construct the screened porch maybe at this time so at least the decking can begin and the whole structure… McDonald: That's a discussion you can have with them and that's what I'm saying is that if you're willing to table this, go talk to them. You get within the 25%, if they say that's okay, then this is done. This project is done. It doesn't have to come back here unless you want to add all the rest of this. And in the meantime as you saw the first project, you've got some issues as far as these offsets. You need to spend some time talking to city staff and city engineering and making them aware of what's going on and getting some information up to City Council and see about getting these ordinances changed. We can't help you there. We go by what's written on the ordinance. We make recommendations and we've made this before that, yeah there probably needs to be some offset but you know how do we go about that? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: To save everybody time, if I came with for instance a Westwood plan… McDonald: You can talk to city staff. It's not going to do any good to come here. Keefe: …but we'll table it so you don't have to go through a whole…be a lot faster for you. McDonald: Yeah, and at least on this one what you're trying to do is start something for your clients, I think you can do it. Keefe: And if you still need a variance, it will be back on in a couple of weeks… McDonald: My suggestion would be you don't want a variance. Tim Johnson: I already know that much. Keefe: Does that take a motion? McDonald: I don't think it takes a motion to table. I think, it does take a motion to table? Okay. Well at this point we're. Okay, if we table it, is there a need for a public hearing? Generous: You would just open the public hearing. McDonald: They would open it up if he brings it back. Keefe: Motion to table. Larson: Second. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #07-20 for a 4.8% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in nd Pinehurst 2 Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING. Generous: Very briefly. There's 5 amendments being proposed. The first two deal with the subdivision ordinance. There are 3 trees that the city wants to restrict the use of. While we don't want to prohibit it outright, we would like to put a note that if you're going to use these trees, they have to get specific approval. They're ash, Amur maple and the Colorado spruce, and so we're proposing a change to Section 18-61, subsection (a)(1) to incorporate those changes. The second one is in the calculation of tree coverage and that on a lot or a property as part of the subdivision process. We also, while we currently exclude wetlands from trees, from the area that they calculate the tree total with, they also want to add the bluff area which are also areas that are 38