Loading...
PC Minutes 11-20-07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Angie Auseth, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: HART VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) LOCATED AT 951 HOMESTEAD LANE. APPLICANT: JDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS. OWNERS. JOHN & CINDY HART. PLANNING CASE 07-28. Public Present: Name Address John & Cindy Hart John Meyering 951 Homestead Lane 1050 Homestead Lane Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, Mark. Do you have any questions? Undestad: Just a, they built the home, it says that they built the detached garage with the intent to add on in the future. Did their initial, original plans show a larger structure at that time? Auseth: Not that I am aware. Undestad: Okay. And when did they bring in the permit? Auseth: The permit was brought in on the last deadline date. Or the variance was brought in at the last date. Undestad: The variance was. Auseth: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 Undestad: Did they bring in a plat or permit earlier for the structure itself? Auseth: No. Undestad: Okay. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: I know I read it and I know you just said it. When did the rule change? Auseth: In May of 2007. Larson: Okay. And were, was there any way that people would have known this? I mean was it in the newspaper or how did they know? Auseth: We advertise that there are zoning, or code amendments being done. They're not specific to the changes. We do publish them however in the newspaper. Larson: In the newspaper. In the Chan Villager? Okay. Dillon: So when the ultimate plans that you suggested here were proposed to the homeowner, what was the response? Auseth: Their response was, they would like to have their addition that they are requesting. Dillon: Okay. And was there any, was there seem to be a willingness to negotiate at all or is it this way or no way? Auseth: Prom what I can tell that this is what they requested and this is what they would like to do. Dillon: Okay. That's the only question I had. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: No questions. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: No. Thank you. McDonald: I have no questions of staff either at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward and present their side to this case? John Hart: Yes. Thank you. I'm John Hart. The homeowner and thank you for having us in this evening. We have in fact been planning this for a long time. The original drawings done in 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 1987 do not show anything other than what you have just seen here. With, let's see I guess, oh there we are. With the existing garage as it is. The addition is intended as a wood working shop for me as I approach retirement. That's the purpose of this. I understood that part of the reason for the May, 2007 restriction or change in restrictions was to preclude what had become apparently habitual and people using such large structures on their property for business purposes. There's no such intention in this case. It's strictly a hobby for my retirement. The reason that we changed down to, from 20 feet down 8 feet to 12 is not very attractive to us, is that what I'd like to do there is build boats and one needs a shop at least as large as the boat one wishes to build to make it practical. Ifwe could only do 12 feet long, frankly I wouldn't bother with it. I don't know what we'd do, but we wouldn't do it. The idea of connecting the existing garage to the house thereby rendering it attached and freeing us from all restrictions, we could make it any size after that, is certainly to say the least impractical. Can I have one of those pictures to stick up here? I'm not sure how this all works so please excuse me for my inexperience. This is a shot between the, from the driveway between the house on the left and the garage on the right. To extend the garage south to meet the house in any way would make the project outlandishly expensive. The roof of the garage would have to be completely trussed because there's no way to make it match the roofline of the house in any practical way. The beginning of the steep slope to the south would require extensive grading and as you can see there's a deck down there which would be rendered inaccessible by having a garage right up against it. So although in theory that sounds like a reasonable idea, in fact it wouldn't work in any practical sense at all for us. Further, all of the utilities hit the house at that corner, although you can't see them. They're right around the corner to the left. That would all have to be moved. You can see the wellhead there. That would have to get moved as well, requiring a new well to be dug. Again the project would be unreasonable and could not even be approached from a financial aspect. It was mentioned that there are a great many residences near us that have large, in some cases very large external structures. Had we 20 years ago, almost 21 years ago now decided to in fact have an attached garage, this of course would be moot because we could expand it to any reasonable size or any unreasonable size for that matter. As far as we can make out. We chose to have a detached garage those many years ago for, well a variety of reasons, not least of which was certain health concerns about the presence of automobile exhaust, chemicals, gasoline and so forth starting the garage. It was vapors we didn't want transferred into the house. We thought it was a health issue. It is of course unfortunate that we're the first ones apparently applying for a variance in this respect. The hardship issue is dwelt on considerably in the report from city staff and it's difficult to quantify except in the sense that any other approach to producing this size, very modest shop I might add compared to other wood shops, wood working shops or boat building shops, any other approach would be wildly more expensive using the existing structure and extending it in a direction that is almost invisible to neighbor's drive by and anybody else. Is the only realistic way that we can think of to approach the issue. Extending it to the south as I mentioned would be completely prohibitive and cost, really is quite impractical. It will be noticed, I think you distributed responses that we got from all the, all but one of the neighbors within 500 feet. They all apparently need to be polled to get their feelings about this. All were positive about it. The only one that wasn't, and I think it's a matter of corporate bureaucracy is Bluff Creek Golf Course across Pioneer Trail who were unwilling to respond in any way. Positive or negative. Everybody else was positive, as you can see. The photographs that I believe we distributed as well, or renderings from our architect show that the visual impact of this structure is negligible. It's underneath a berm. It matches the current 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 structure. The only person who can even see it is our next door neighbor and all they see is the same appearance that they see now, except 20 feet closer to them. And it's still a considerable distance from their residence. The east side of which has no windows. So they have to go out of their way to even see it, much less care about it. I've gone over the hardship issue with respect to the alternative approach to building a structure and as I say. . . not even consider. Of course had we attached the garage, none of this would have come up. But as I say, we did. There's nothing we can do about that now. There is no intent to do business, as I said there. I have no interest in that, but as I get near my retirement the one thing I don't want to do is more business. I've done that for 40 years now. That's quite enough. I guess, I think that's the end of my statement. Unless there's something you wanted to add? Cindy Hart: Yes... John Hart: Oh, yeah. The other interesting issue is of course that the City's, as the analysis indicates, nobody else has a detached garage. Nobody makes detached garages any longer. There are none in any reasonable distance from us. Nobody else could in any practical way ask for a similar variance because they all have attached garages. They can do whatever they want with them. We are the only ones, as far as we know, certainly within a very large radius around our house that has a detached garage and therefore falls into this crack. And the intentions of the restrictions. Any questions I can answer from anyone? McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? I have a question, you say what you want to do is build boats. Is this going to be your new hobby is boat building? John Hart: I hope so, yeah. Assuming I turn out to be good at it. McDonald: Would the intent be to give these away as gifts or would you sell them? John Hart: To my children and I hope to grandchildren as they begin to arrive. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. I guess at this point. John Hart: Thanks again for your time. McDonald: At this time we will take comments from anyone that wishes to come up and address the commissioners. Come on up. John Meyering: Hello. I'm John Meyering. One of the neighbors of Hart's. 500 feet close to them and I just want to say that in all appearance for his sake, you can't hardly see where he wants to put it. It's behind a berm and whatever, and but I can't... see because I live close and I'll be in that situation too because a year ago I added on to my existing garage. Just put a lean to on the one end. Added on, because I'm getting a retirement motorhome in about a year, year and a half, and I didn't know what size in this so I just put a smaller one because I have a motorhome now I want to put inside. So when the rules changed, just last May, I don't think anybody in Chanhassen even seen it in the paper, because I read the paper every week. I'd like to put my thing in because all, all the people that moved out there 14 years ago or later or sooner, we took 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 the chance that when we bought that land, that the zoning was, we could put up any outside buildings up to so much square footage on the land that we, we have all 2 1/2 acre lots. We're not sitting in town with a half acre or quarter acre lots. So if you saw the landscape, we're all really nice out there. We have all nice properties. We all landscape our yards really nice so, and in Hart's case, they did a very, very good job of putting it down. Trying to landscape it right in there and I can see their point why they'd just like to put it on the one end and that would be about the only spot that you could. So that was about the only comment I had is, they did a very good job of doing that and I think it's, it should be where we should all get notices on when the land, the rules change because that hurts everybody that's out there that as of 10, 14 years ago or when I went out there 14 years ago, I wanted to retire and I'm kind of retired now, and it looks like I'm not going to get my retirement home, motorhome unless I want to leave it outside and that's kind of how. . . where I'm not staying in town and, but our kids same thing about his, wants to make boats. That's kind of denying his retirement. What he wants to do and that's all the comments I have. I don't want to take too much of your time but I agree he did a very good job of doing his part and I think he should get it. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Well seeing no one else wanting to come forward, close the public meeting and we'll bring the issue back before the commissioners for discussion and Kathleen, we'll start down with you. Thomas: Okay. It's, I find it a little hard as you can tell just because I understand where he's coming from and the aspect of you've got a large property. You've got ample amount of square footage. It's the only detached garage in the neighborhood. If it was attached to the house he would be able to punch in another, you could have it as any size you want to. I struggle with the fact that we have the, our rules that are changes for the rules to say how big a size a lot, garage or things of that can be on a lot so I'm still trying to mull this over. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Yeah you know, I guess where I'm struggling is you know, you know to get a variance you've got to prove a hardship and the question is whether you know hardship is here you know. The only thing that kind of enters into my mind is just the possibility that because it's the only detached garage in the area, everything else is attached. Whether that may elevate itself in that area of hardship. I don't know the answer to that but that's kind of what I'm thinking. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I know every time we get faced with one of these we always get like the consistency question and then we challenge ourselves, now are we being, applying all these things consistently or not, and it's hard because everything, there's always the subtle differences to each situation. In this case, I mean I saw the pictures that came around in the packaging. The guy that made them was a master of photo shopping things or, but it just doesn't look like there's going to be any real detriment to, I mean like an eyesore of any sort. It's you know, the rules, the zoning things changed recently. I'm inclined to you know approve the variance because I just think that we, just kind of the timing and the confluence of factors here, this one you know should be one that we would be okay with. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Well I was kind of with Kevin on that one too. I'm looking at the neighbors and they've all got their auxiliary structures and you know they've al said it's not a problem. I don't see where it's going to look any different. I think it's odd that we have 1,000 foot ordinance on properties of this size. I'm inclined to go with the variance approving as well. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I guess I'm with Kevin and Deb here that you know again, I mean I kind of understand when they bought these lots years ago they bought these size of lots with the understanding that we can put our sheds, our shops or equipment you know. I mean they can do that with these size lots. I know at times as these come out in the newspaper and people don't always see what they are but to find out the hard way, you know again I think that the motorhome parking in there. I mean he's going to come up here and want a place to park his motorhome and I think when he bought the land back there, it was probably his intention that some day I'm going to have my stuff on here and keep it tucked in and sheltered. You know if they were smaller lots and we were pushing the envelope on hard surfaces and all that, I might look at it a little different but I think I understand why they bought the lots they bought out there and looking at the utilities and the water, the well and you know there's really just no other way to put that on for them so, I guess I'd be inclined to approve it also. McDonald: Okay. I guess the first thing, just because of my legal background, any time you start talking about something where you know the city didn't do something, I feel as though I should correct you. The city followed law in the fact that all that they're required to do is put a notice in the paper to tell everyone that the law is changed. It's your responsibility to keep up with the law. Having said that though, there's a part in here on the thing about hardship that I'm really struggling with because of past variances I know that we've passed. It says the intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in the neighborhood. That gets us back to, as I go back to this chart and I begin to look at the detached structures that are there and I'm hoping to find that there is a parallelity of structures over 1,000 feet, and of course it's 4-4. But as I said I do recall having gone through this in some older neighborhoods where things have changed and we have tried to accommodate kind of neighborhood standards. So that's what I'm kind of wrestling with because at this point, and again with the petitions that have been put in here, and everybody signing it and looking at the drawings as to what it is, I have a hard time saying no also but I guess that's kind of where I'm at on all this is that I think maybe they've got a case under the hardship to say that there are pre-existing standards and again to go back with the history of all this and what everybody's been doing. And again, not saying anything about when the ordinance changed, you know that was an opportunity for people to come in and speak against it but I understand how things are and again this is what this paragraph does. It allows you an opportunity, kind of a second chance I think. So having said that, I'll throw it open to any commissioners that want to put forth a motion. Larson: A question. . . or do I have to read it this way? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 McDonald: Well you should read it the way it is and then if you want to look at making changes, or you can propose a different motion. Larson: I can? Aanenson: Yes, you can modify the motion and I would certainly recommend that you modify your findings to match your motion. Larson: Modify findings? Right, okay. First of all I will make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Planning Case 07-28 for a 177 square foot variance from the maximum 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure for an addition to the detached garage on Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report. And then also amend the finding in Part A where it says literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship of the useable, of their reasonable use of the property in that he would incur a very large amount of expenses in order to do it the way the city wants. Is that okay? McDonald: I think if you're going to do that, go back up to the paragraph that I read and said that based upon where we're at with the, right here. What it is, that there are pre-existing conditions in the neighborhood. Larson: This one? McDonald: Yeah, if you're going to amend the findings, what we need to say is that there are pre-existing conditions within the. Dillon: Findings are findings. Let's just deal with the... Aanenson: You are approving, recommending Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact should support your motion. Whether you want to go back and say the fact that this is the only detached garage, which is a reasonable finding because you can have other applications that you want to tie it back to. So that would be one. And then certainly in their recommendation that Commissioner McDonald had would be another appropriate finding because you need to match your motion. McDonald: Right, you need to match the motions up and she's changed the recommendation and the next thing I'll do is ask if anybody wants to do the recommendation that staff did and we'll vote on it from there. Larson: Okay. So do I have to do any more? McDonald: Okay, have we read in the record what we want as far as the finding would be that because that there are pre-existing standards within the neighborhood, this home would be. Larson: Okay, we want it amended to show that the findings, amend the findings to show that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2007 McDonald: Of the detached structure which exceeds 1,000 square feet. Larson: Which exceed 1,000 square feet. Okay. With that a second, okay. McDonald: Now, does anyone else wish to make a recommendation? Does anyone wish to push forward the city's recommendation? Staffs recommendation. Okay, then we will vote on Debbie's recommendation. Larson moved, U ndestad seconded that the Planning Commission approve Planning Case 07-28 for a 177 square foot variance from the maximum 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure for an addition to a detached garage on Lot 2, Block 3, Pioneer Hills Addition, based on the amended findings of fact stating there are pre-existing standards in the neighborhood of detached structures which exceed 1,000 square feet. All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. McDonald: Okay, so it passes 5-1. Okay, and I take it that this will probably go up before City Council. Aanenson: No it won't unless somebody appeals it. Generous: Unless it's appealed within 4 days. McDonald: Okay. If you guys want to appeal. So the motion is approved. The variance is granted. John Hart: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: ROSEMOUNT: REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY ANTENNA ON TOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 8200 MARKET BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: ROSEMOUNT. INC.. PLANNING CASE 07-25. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kathleen? Thomas: I don't have any questions, thanks. Keefe: What happens at the end of 6 months... Do they apply for another... Auseth: They can formally request to expand. Keefe: Expand it, or require them to take it down or how does that. 8