Loading...
PC 2008 03 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 4, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Dan Keefe, Mark Undestad, and Debbie Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Angie Auseth, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeff, Mark & Kari Nettesheim 9151 Great Plains Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: DAVE BANGASSER, REQUEST FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, PLANNING CASE 08-04. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Undestad, we’ll start with you. Undestad: Just one on that 30 foot setback from the road. Can that road ever be enlarged or are there other houses up and down there that would. Auseth: There are several other houses that are closer than what the applicant is proposing and I’ll let Alyson speak to it. Undestad: That’s kind of why you’re going to the language of at the time the permit? Auseth: (Yes). Fauske: Just to temporarily clarify Commissioner Undestad, the 30 foot wide roadway is certainly substandard by today’s ordinance so staff wanted to ensure that we would indeed have rights to that 30 foot wide right-of-way. And as Angie had mentioned in her presentation, the monumentation out in this area appears to be set incorrectly. To give us that 25.8 feet of right- of-way and so it was the city attorney’s opinion that, to resolve that discrepancy at this point is too onerous for a variance application. And when we took a look at that, taking that into consideration with our recommendation, staff feels that even if that 4.2 foot discrepancy laid Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 entirely on this property, there would still be sufficient space in the driveway for example to park a vehicle so that’s how we came up with our recommendations. Undestad: Okay. Thank you. Papke: Commissioner Larson? Larson: I don’t have any. Keefe: Yeah, you know these variances come up quite a bit in this neighborhood and then there’s you know a couple other neighborhoods that are similar. Have we ever considered you know adopting a zoning ordinance for these areas? Just because I mean it seems to be kind of you know, the zoning ordinance reflects sort of the, today’s building standards and those particular locations. Just curious. Aanenson: Yeah, that’s a great question. We have looked at that you know as far as, when you’ve got non-conforming lots, but what the ordinance says right now, if you have a lot of record, you’re entitled to reasonable use of the property. So I’m looking at that. What the intent of what the staff tried to do, what’s the size of the homes around that seems reasonable as far as square footage. This has some other anomalies as far as the house next door has a parking space that shares, and we talked about it in the staff report, but you can create an overlay district over that. I think that’s something that we may want to investigate. We have a similar situation in Carver Beach where the lots are undersized to 75%. The 75% rule. Again to take away the burden of trying to appeal for the variance. The question is, what is that maximum amount? What’s that neighborhood threshold and trying to get some concurrence on that, because there’s different tolerances of different neighborhoods. Keefe: Well and that’s what it appears. You know I mean, you have to do it on an individual case. It just makes me think we should maybe do a neighborhood study to kind of set it. Aanenson: Sure. And I think that’s a good point and I think what the test that we’ve always done is try to go within 500 feet and that was the intent of the map that’s, that we’re showing right now is just kind of say, what’s kind of around in that area. What seems reasonable and that’s why we were supporting this one. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: But that’s something certainly we can look at. Maybe it’s something we can talk about in our work session. Papke: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: I don’t have any questions. Papke: I’ve got a couple. We don’t routinely approve you know these kind of major variances without good cause. They set precedence and this particular case we’re in a lakeshore situation. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 If I understand the crux of the matter here, we’re, the city is giving a little bit on the variances and in exchange, the goal would be to improve water quality by decreasing the hard surface coverage. We get rid of that variance. You stated that the current driveway is gravel and is that truly considered permeable or impermeable at this point? Auseth: Gravel is considered hard cover. Papke: It is considered hard cover. So we, do we really feel from a surface runoff perspective that we’re going to gain that much by doing this and what do you feel is in the staff report that will guarantee that this will become grass or mulch or something that is truly you know going to stay permeable for the duration? Auseth: Well as a condition of approval we can hold them to that and make sure that that gets done prior to issuing any kind of Certificate of Occupancy or something like that. Aanenson: Then further typically when we issue a building permit, we do take escrow for landscaping and the like so it would be part of that too. The planting. We look at that as part of the building permit so, to ensure that that’s put back in the correct, before they would get occupancy we would go out and inspect it to make sure that it has been removed, or hold that escrow. Papke: Alright. Anything else for staff? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, do we have an applicant here tonight that would like to add something to what the staff report has stated? If you could state your name and address please. For the record. Dave Bangasser: Hi, I’m Dave Bangasser, the applicant. Our property is 3633 South Cedar Drive. I have with me here my wife, Mary Jo and our son Peter. This property has been in Mary Jo’s family since the 1940’s so Peter’s the fourth generation of our family to be able to enjoy this property and it’s one that has been a cabin for quite some time and we’d like to now make it our permanent residence. Staff has covered things pretty well so I’ll be brief and save you from being here too long. I would want to just maybe make a couple of points. You know the point was brought up, is it a reasonable proposal? That’s kind of the standard for determining this variance. We certainly feel that this is a reasonable proposal. As has been mentioned, our front yard setback is greater than the setbacks for our neighbors, the neighbors on either side and I think that the diagram that is on the screen right now shows that. That we are further back than either of our neighbors from the road. In addition, relative to the side yard setback variance, there’s a number of properties that have similar conditions and there’s two 40 foot wide lake lots, and I call 40 foot wide by the lake. We actually have 50 along the road but most people consider the front the lake since that’s where most the activity is. There are two 40 foot lake lots that have been developed since the current zoning ordinance was adopted that have greater setback variances than what we are proposing here, and if I may use this diagram. This property here is 3629 Red Cedar Point Road. That has two side yard setback variances, each of 3 foot variances. However that variance was approved prior to the new rules where you now count the eaves, so if you applied the new rules to that, that would be two 5 yard setback variances totaling 10 feet. We proposed one 8 foot side yard variance. In addition on the other side of us, the property at 3705 South Cedar, which is this property right here. That property has two side yard setback 3 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 variances, each of 7 feet totaling 14 feet of variance, and again we proposed one 8 foot variance. So we think that what we proposed is reasonable. As has been pointed out, the structure is smaller than most in that area. That’s certainly something that we are comfortable with. Relative to placement within the lot, because I can imagine that you might think well why not center it in the property. First off, the proposed location of the home is the east wall is in the same location as the current east wall so it’s basically an existing condition. In addition to that, the grades on the east side are quite steep. There’s a series of retaining walls and our neighbors, the Plucinak’s have some stairs on that side, but there’s no way to get mowers or docks or you know smaller boats or anything along the east side. However on the west side the grades are such that we do have access on the west side and not only do we use it but the neighbors on both sides use that for access down to the lake, and that’s why we located the house as we have proposed. In addition, the separation between our house and the house to the east where the setback variance is being requested, is greater than the separation distance on the other side. Not only that but the two separation distances that are on either side of our proposed home are greater than just about all of the properties that are out there. There’s one other separation distance between the two biggest lots that’s greater but other than that, our separation distances between houses are greater than all the rest of those. We have worked hard to come up with a plan that made sense for the site. Made sense for the neighborhood. We have spent a fair amount of time talking to our neighbors about that and I think that’s reflected in this report that staff has received. With that I’ll close and ask if you have any questions or concerns that I might address. Thomas: I think, I don’t think I have any questions. I think you addressed them so thank you. Keefe: I’m fine, thanks. Larson: No. Undestad: No. Papke: Just, not really a question but a comment. When it comes to justifying these through precedent, just want to point out that it is a bit of a slippery slope for us. Every time we grant one of these, that creates a new precedent for the next person that comes along and these things snowball so we certainly understand what you’re saying but I think if you would also consider where we’re coming from, that your presence and the arguments you’re making today will affect future such applications and you have to take that into account as well. So thanks. Okay, thank you very much. Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I just clarify the eave issue, because this is different than some of the other houses that were treated in the area. We kind of called it our double dip rule. We had granted some variances for setback structures, and our ordinance does allow for an eave to hang over 2 ½ feet. Well we had some variances that were applied for maybe a 3 to 4 foot, and then they did a 2 ½ foot eave so they’re casting shadows onto the neighbors properties and so we actually now, our rule says if you do a variance on a side yard setback, you don’t get to double dip and take the extra 2 ½ foot encroachment, and that’s at the point then. I’m not sure that it was understood. That’s the point Mr. Bangasser was making. That he’s being held to that new standard because we had people take advantage of that double dip, and we want to clarify that 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 because I think some of the neighbors when we’ve done these they said well wait a minute. I didn’t understand the eaves were still going to come over so we’re trying to be clear about exactly where the setback is. So that was the point. Papke: That’s good. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay, thank you very much Mr. Bangasser. At this point, this becomes a public hearing and we invite anyone who has any opinions or comments that they’d like to make on this application, to step forward to the podium and state your name and address and let us know what you think. Please step up. It’s quite a crowd here tonight. I’d be hoping that somebody would have something to say. That you’re not all just passive spectators tonight. Apparently that’s the case. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for deliberation. Opinions and positions. Undestad: I really don’t have anything more to add to it. I think it’s, we’ve seen them in the neighborhoods before and I think they’re not really, in my opinion, not trying to stretch the limits on anything there. Just get a decent house to live in on the lake. I’m okay with it. Papke: Commissioner Larson. Larson: Well I like that they’re going to be improving their property and I have no problem with what they’re asking. It’s very reasonable. Keefe: Yeah, I’m not crazy about the variances and approving the variances and I do think it is, as you said, a slippery slope and maybe we need to look at it certainly on a broader basis than this neighborhood but I think they’ve done a, you know I like the way the garage looks. It looks like a nice design. Looks like a nice design for the house and so I’m in support of it. Thomas: I’m in support of it as well. I think to have reasonable use of the property, they want to do something extremely reasonable for the location of the property that they have so I’m okay with it. Papke: Okay, very good. Thank you. Alright at this point I’ll be willing to entertain a motion. Keefe: I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission approves Variance #08-04 for a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance and a 8 foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a single family home on a lot zoned RSF based upon the attached Findings of Fact, subject to conditions 1 through 5. Papke: Do I have a second? Larson: I’ll second that. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #08- 04 for a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance and an 8-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a single-family home on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the attached findings of fact subject to the following conditions: 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 1.Building Official Conditions: a.The applicant must apply for a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structure. b.The applicant must apply for a building permit prior to construction. c.Any portion of the structure less than five (5) feet from the property line must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. d.Building permits are required for retaining walls. e.Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2.City Engineer Conditions: a.The Certificate of Survey must be revised as follows when applying for a building permit: 1.The survey must be to scale. 2.The note stating “It is not possible to hold public platted right of way due to long standing evidence of monumentation” must be deleted. 3.Clarify the bearing of the northern property line for Lot 16. 4.Correct the Block numbers shown on the survey (Block 4 is shown as Block 5, and vice versa). 5.Show the correct distance and bearing of the property lines for Lot 1, Block 5. 6.The flow arrows on the sanitary sewer manhole are in the wrong direction. 7.Show existing and proposed contours. 8.Show proposed retaining wall location and top and bottom of wall elevation. 9.Show a 30 foot right-of-way, all lot measurements, structure setbacks, and impervious coverage shall be submitted to the city at the time of building permit application. b.The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 3.City Forester Conditions: a.Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. b.The roots of neighboring trees must be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 c.To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch should be applied to a depth of 4 – 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. d.No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area. e.The trees will need to be watered during dry periods. f.Any pruning cuts necessary for oaks must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus. g.One tree is required within the front yard setback area. 4.Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a.The plans shall be revised to indicate the placement of silt fence or other approved perimeter BMP as well as incorporate any applicable Chanhassen standard details for erosion and sediment control. This should include, at a minimum, 393-5301 and 393- 5302B. All erosion and sediment control features shall be installed prior to any earth disturbing activities and shall remain in place until at least 75% of the property is covered by vegetation. b.The applicant shall provide specifications for the soils to be used to backfill the retaining walls to show that infiltration rates within these areas are maximized. c.The applicant shall provide a generalized list of plants which are to be used to landscape the retaining wall areas. d.The applicant shall maintain the depression adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. e.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies where applicable and comply with their conditions of approval. 5.General Condition: a.The site shall not exceed the maximum 25% site coverage allowed in the Residential Single Family district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aanenson: Again Mr. Chair, just for point of record. Because there was a 75% voted in favor, this would not go to the City Council, unless somebody aggrieved to the decision chose to appeal it. Otherwise the decision ends here. Papke: Okay, thank you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2008 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 19, 2008 as presented. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 8