Loading...
PC Minutes 10-7-08 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Keefe: It’s at their request. Laufenburger: It’s at the applicant’s desire or not. Keefe: To appeal it. If it’s unanimous then that’s not the case. Al-Jaff: You need three-fourths vote for a motion to pass and in this case it was three-fourths. Laufenburger: Three-fifths. Al-Jaff: Three-fifths to deny and that’s the motion on the record right now. Laufenburger: Okay. Al-Jaff: Should the applicant choose to appeal your decision, then they appeal it to the City Council and. Larson: Okay. Onto the next. PUBLIC HEARING: WALL VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 800 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DOUGLAS AND MARTHA WALL, PLANNING CASE 08-20. Public Present: Name Address Stan Ross, AE Architecture 13860 Fawn Ridge Way, Apple Valley Douglas Wall 800 Carver Beach Road Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Keefe: So here’s a question. On reasonable use, the definition of reasonable use here. This addition is required or fits within the definition of reasonable use. Is that the thinking? You know as sort of opposed to the one that we just visited where we’re saying well, he’s already got reasonable use of his property. Now we’re saying, and we denied that because we say they already had reasonable use. Well, in this case they made a request or saying well there is a hardship here because yeah, the lot isn’t deep enough but you know do they already have reasonable use of the, I guess that’s the question. Do they already have reasonable use of it? Auseth: They do have a single family home and a two car garage. Keefe: Right. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Auseth: Uniquely to this situation is that this property does not meet the minimum depth requirement. Keefe: Okay. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: And that’s because, it doesn’t meet the depth requirement because when it was built in 1995 that that was, no? No? Auseth: Because of the way that it was platted in 1927 where this public right-of-way, that determines where the front yard is so let’s, if the property fronted on Carver Beach, the south where it says side yard, that would be the front. Opposite of that would be the rear yard so that’s where the 30 feet would come in, and then the two other sides would be 10 foot setbacks. But that’s not the case in this situation. That public right-of-way makes it a 30 foot front yard and a 30 foot rear yard on the west and east property lines. Larson: Kevin. Dillon: You know I don’t have any questions right now. Larson: And you Denny. Laufenburger: None at this time. Larson: I’ve got one. So with this, where the red slash marks are on your page 4. Once this is built, how much distance is there from the lot line. Auseth: 15 feet. Larson: 15. And in looking at this with the applicant, do you happen to know if they talked to their neighbors about it? If they had any issues with that or do you know? Auseth: I don’t know if they had spoken with their neighbors or not. Staff did not receive any phone calls from anyone regarding this application. Larson: Because 15 feet seems awfully close. I would think there might be an issue with that but. Al-Jaff: Every individual homeowners within 500 feet of the subject property was notified. Larson: I see, okay. Al-Jaff: And that’s why Angie was saying we have not heard from them. There was also a sign that goes up that says proposed development so there are a couple of ways to let the neighbors know that something is happening here. Contact city staff if you have any objections. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Larson: I see. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for staff? Keefe: Yeah, I just got to, I have to revisit this for a minute because I’m struggling a little bit because we denied the previous one because they already had, because we said that they already had reasonable use of the property. What we’re saying here is that we will, we will grant these guys a variance because there is a hardship and the reason there’s hardship is because there’s not reasonable use of the property. Is that a fair way of stating it? I’m struggling with it a little bit. Larson: I struggled with that one too. Keefe: I do understand the lot depth issue and when it was platted and you know, they knew that when the house was built in ’95. They built it within the setback requirements. I presume the setback requirements were probably the same in ’95. Auseth: Yes. Keefe: And now we’re going to grant them a variance because we say there isn’t reasonable use but having said that, they do have reasonable use. The house was built in ’95. It’s one thing if it was built in 1930. I’m just, if you can elaborate a little bit or give me some. Al-Jaff: There are multiple things that we look at in addition to reasonable use. The topography. The shape of the parcel. When we say this is 100 foot deep parcel and this is something that we have struggled with for many years. We’ve always had in-house discussions. We’ve come in front of the Planning Commission to discuss this issue. You have a subdivision that pre-dates the ordinance. Yet we are trying to have current setbacks, current ordinances. The 30 foot setback on this parcel has to be proportionate to the lot depth is what we’re trying to get at. In the past we’ve come before you and we’ve reduced front yard setbacks in general in the Carver Beach area if anybody wants to add a front porch for instance. And the Planning Commission and City Council have seen the wisdom in that and they’ve said we agree with you. Do that. This somewhat falls into that category and when we talk about there is a hardship with the depth again, our intention is to keep the setback proportionate to the depth of this parcel. Laufenburger: Sharmeen is it true that, I think Angie said by definition the front yard is measured from the public right-of-way to the back lot. The 100 feet. Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. And what is the, what is the, what is the permittable, or what is the acceptable setback for a front yard setback and a rear yard setback? Auseth: 30 feet. Laufenburger: Okay. And what is the acceptable setback for a side yard? Auseth: 10 feet. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Laufenburger: So if per chance we could just shuffle the words here and call the, what is currently labeled side yard. If we call that front yard. Say that again? Keefe: I said don’t go there. But no, go ahead. Sorry. Laufenburger: But if that were the case, if in fact that fronted onto Carver Beach Road and that was by definition the front yard, then this applicant would not be here. Auseth: Right. Keefe: You’re right. Laufenburger: Thank you. Larson: Okay. Anybody else want to ask anything? Okay. Have we got an applicant here that would like to present? Please state your name and address for the record. Douglas Wall: My name is Douglas Wall and I live at 800 Carver Beach Road and we basically bought the house a year ago and we’ve only lived there a year and we’ve talked to the neighbors who, if you look at the rear yard, what you consider the rear yard. Their house is probably less than 10 feet from the boundary. They’ve got a variance on record already and they said they fought with the city to get it. And they got it and they fully support our building a new addition so. And we’ve also argued with the city about since our address is technically Carver Beach Road, that side yard should be our front yard so we shouldn’t really have to be here for this. But we are so, any questions? I mean I’ll try to answer anything. Keefe: Well yeah, just a quick question. It doesn’t make sense to add it, make an addition on the side yard, or to the, what direct would that be? Douglas Wall: Well if you go to the, where all the trees are. Keefe: Where all the room is. Douglas Wall: We thought about that except the two, that end of it is where the bedrooms are and this is a dining room so if we added up there it wouldn’t make a lot of sense. Where we’re putting it is right off of the kitchen and where the old dining room was which basically it’s a dining room, kitchen and living room all one. I’m just trying to make that a little bit bigger. That’s the idea so. Larson: And I agree. I think you know, I’m in agreeance with this whole aspect and everything. I just wish that, I mean it has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with the, you know the person who built the house. That it was known that this was how big the lot was and here’s your setback so why plan a house the way you do kind of just boggles my mind. Larson: Okay. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Laufenburger: I have a couple. So you answered the one question. You bought it a year ago. Douglas Wall: Yep. Year and one month. Laufenburger: Who, what are the names of the people that live in the house just behind you? Douglas Wall: Oh geez, I should have brought that. Mike and, I can’t remember. I should look at my list. Laufenburger: These are the people that you spoke with and they said. Douglas Wall: Mike and I think it’s Randy or something like that. Yeah, they. Laufenburger: That’s on Hopi Road? Douglas Wall: Hopi Road. Yeah they basically, when they bought that house it was just like a fishing shack and they’ve spent like, they said about 10 to 15 years adding on. They took a garage and built it bigger and. Laufenburger: Okay. The other question I have relates to the public right-of-way. That public right-of-way is kind of your front yard. Douglas Wall: That’s what you consider, yes. Laufenburger: Do you care for that? I mean do you tend to that or is that, does somebody else care for that? Douglas Wall: That public right-of-way is actually just a bunch of trees. Laufenburger: Oh. Douglas Wall: There’s no road. There’s no. Laufenburger: So you don’t have any use of that even. Douglas Wall: It’s trees. I mean there’s nothing that we, no. We can’t drive on it. We can’t do anything on it. Laufenburger: Alright. Douglas Wall: Actually we’ve even thought about having the city abandon it to the homeowners. So that might be the next project I go through. Laufenburger: Welcome to Chanhassen. We glad you live here. I hope you’re glad that you live here too. That was my only question. Thanks Chair. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Larson: Alright. I don’t have any questions at this time. Thank you very much. Douglas Wall: Thank you. Larson: At this time I will open up the hearing to the public. Does anybody have any comments? Questions. Alright. Don’t all rush up. Okay, seeing nobody I will close the public hearing. Then discuss. Keefe: I’m having a little bit of issue with the, comparing the two and they’re not really directly comparable but they’re, the issue of reasonable use comes to mind here. So I’m struggling with that a little bit. I think you know one of the factors which comes into play here is the location and adjacency and how that, how it sits on this particular lot. And the orientation of this particular lot to the public right-of-way. So you know that could be maybe the issue which you know, I don’t know if again that meets the definition of, you know if I can find where that sort of comes into hardship. I mean I do think that they have reasonable use of this house. You know I mean it’s a relatively new house so I don’t know I’m sure I’m buying that that’s a hardship you know or if that’s a reason for a hardship. But having said that, because of the orientation of this house and because of the, where this house kind of sits next to the public right-of-way, that maybe it’s really more of a Carver Beach Road and if you change the front and side that he was referencing, then we would get over it. They wouldn’t even be here so yeah. Food for thought. Larson: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: I’m in support of this variance…and so I do see as a hardship and I feel like it’s tough when homeowners are put in a position from other homeowners… Larson: Kevin. Dillon: I think it just goes to show that each one of these things is unique and you know we get all spun up about setting precedence for this and precedence for that but there’s no two situations are alike. And you know I mean, I know our houses on our neighborhood are like a lot closer together than this one so I don’t have, no issues supporting the staff recommendation. Larson: Okay. How about you Denny? Laufenburger: I support it. Larson: Okay. Well my thoughts are, you know I guess it is a hardship because of the person who planted this house in the first place on this spot. I’m a little bit leery about the fact that it is very close to the lot line. 15 feet is very close but as Denny pointed out, if the. Dillon: If the tables were turned. Larson: If the house was turned, the directional however it’s been characterized was turned, then it wouldn’t be an issue so I think I will support of it as well so. Can I have a recommendation? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2008 Thomas: …suppose to close it again? Close it just to make sure. Larson: Alright, we’re close. We’re really closed. May I have a recommendation? Laufenburger: Madam Chairman. Chanhassen Planning Commission, I recommend, make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves Planning Case 08-20 granting a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of a 15 by 15 foot dining room addition and deck on Lots 1080 through 1089 Carver Beach, subject to condition 1 which is application for a building permit and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and action. Larson: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves Planning Case 08-20 granting a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of a 15 x 15 foot dining room addition and deck, as shown on plans dated Received September 5, 2008, on Lots 1080 through 1089, Carver Beach, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant must apply for a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 2, 2008 as presented, and summary minutes of the Planning Commission work session dated September 16, 2008 as presented. Chair Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25