Loading...
PC Minutes 8-18-09 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2009 Acting Chair Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: HISLOP VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED ON LOT 9, BLOCK 1, ND PINEHURST 2 ADDITION (6604 ALDER WAY). APPLICANT: BRENT HISLOP, SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE #09-10. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Let’s start with you Mark. Do you have any questions? Undestad: No. Laufenburger: Kevin, how about you? Dillon: I have no questions. I thought it was laid out pretty clearly. I get it. I’m going to probably vote in favor of this one. Laufenburger: Any questions Tom? Doll: I just had a, regarding the erosion control plan. Does that bear any more burden to the homeowner? I mean there’s certain, when they develop property there is silt fences established and I drove by the property and their silt fence is still up. I’m just kind of curious does that, does the City, do you guys take that into account when you come up with something? Aanenson: Well typically when it’s sometimes a grade, custom graded lot, we would normally walk it. In this circumstance we actually did walk this one too to kind of see how it fit. So there will be typically silt fence put up during the construction. There is some silt fence out there that was done with the grading. This was kind of pre-graded and that kind of led to where we are today because it was graded in a different spot, so that is our responsibility through inspections and engineering to make sure they’re maintained and then that they’re removed after the construction and seed’s taken hold. But I don’t think that will be a burden. That was one of the issues, if you look at this lot is how this house sits. If you were to put it where the setback, it’d Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 actually be back, be back further. Kind of over that silt fence into the back so this kind of keeps it in with what’s already been rough graded. Does that answer your question? Doll: Yeah, I guess the, it was the kind of the wording of that. They needed a plan or. Generous: With the building permit, yes. They would submit additional, well it’s, we require it on all building permits that they have a survey and the topography plan. And we want to make sure that they’re not encroaching any farther into the green area, if you will on this site. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: So the silt fence again would show, like so the dirt doesn’t run into the neighbor’s property. Kind of just shows the areas where people think it’s going to flow and that’s why it’d be established. So the inspector goes out he’s got a plan too where… Doll: Okay. I was just kind of reading it as that you would have an erosion control expert that would need to come out. Aanenson: No. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: They would just show on the building and we just make sure that it’s out there regard. It’s, and the contractor would put it on there. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: The building contractor. Doll: That’s all I have. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks Tom. Kathleen, any questions? Thomas: I don’t have any questions. Laufenburger: Alright. Dan, any questions or comments? Keefe: I’ve got to back you up just a little bit Bob. I’m a little confused on my directions here more than anything. This says due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, which is what? The one that borders the school? Generous: Exactly. Keefe: Okay. The western side of the property would place the house at the 15 foot setback. Aanenson: I think this grading plan’s a little easier to see. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah their sketch plan should. Aanenson: This right here is kind of that unbuildable, through this right here so it pinches it. So if you move it down it pinches the lot width. Keefe: I see. Aanenson: And there’s nobody on that side. The middle school’s right here. Keefe: Right. So the variance that we’re, that we’d be looking to grant is along which line? Can you run your. Aanenson: It’s pushing the house forward. Keefe: I see. Generous: It would be on the northerly 15 foot easement line. Keefe: Okay. Generous: But then we were saying that. Keefe: But the front yard is the northern? Generous: Yes. Is the northern side. Aanenson: And that’s a little quirk we have with the private street. Keefe: Yeah. And so there, and then you said there was a mistake made between the sort of normal setback, which is the 30 foot setback which is with this zoning classification, right? And then. Generous: And the 20. Keefe: And then the private street, okay. Generous: Which was a condition of the subdivision since the ordinance is silent on setbacks from a private street. Keefe: Okay. So the governing rule here is the zoning setback. The 30 foot setback. Generous: Right. Keefe: The 20 really has no. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah. It’s a little bit on the eastern side of this property. It wouldn’t impact the real location of the house because they want it sitting in line with those other buildings. Aanenson: Right, and that’s one of the criteria that we look at with variances. That it will, aligns up and when we went out there field checking, you’re pushing that house significantly behind the house immediately next door. Keefe: Okay. So by approving the variance we’re saving the trees because they’ve already, well but they’ve already taken the trees out. Generous: In the grading area. Keefe: Was that done prior to this application? Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: It was. It was done as a part of the development. Generous: The subdivision. Keefe: The subdivision development, okay. And if we were to not grant it they would be forced, based upon the allowed building site or pad site or? Say we were to push them back. Generous: You would push them back at least 15 feet, if not more into the treed area. Keefe: Would they then be limited in terms of their building pad size or? Aanenson: Well that’s that pinch point we were talking about. This is the area of the setback from along here so it would pinch, it’d force the house to be narrower and it drops off significantly so it makes it a little bit more challenging. Keefe: Yeah, right. Generous: Yeah, it’s a walkout so. Aanenson: The topography, yeah. Keefe: Okay so, hardship on this is? Because we’re going to grant a variance, would be what? Because of the building paid size or because of? Generous: Well the grading. The configuration of the property. That northern property line. Normally the way all the other lots were configured the continuation of that would have been into the school site, but because the line didn’t turn to the south, well went more westerly than northwesterly. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Keefe: So where do we fall in terms of hardship and what do we, you know I mean, it’s kind of to grant a variance sort of technically you know. Aanenson: The topographic features. There’d be additional tree loss. Keefe: Yes. Aanenson: And then also it wouldn’t line up with the rest of the neighborhood, which is one of the criteria that we look at for orientation. Keefe: Right. Aanenson: To be consistent with what’s, or the pattern that’s set in there. That was one of the things that we physically went out and checked too. Keefe: Right. Do you guys typically write that up in terms of a hardship? And I’m not sure whether you addressed that or not in here. I mean you know, I’m in agreement. Aanenson: Sure. Keefe: I just. Aanenson: We can. Generous: Yeah, it’s on page 1 of the Findings of Fact. The literal enforcement of the setback requirement would cause an undue hardship. The house location would be forced further south into the wooded area that the City is trying to preserve. The house would also be pushed out of the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along the private street. Keefe: Yes. Okay. Aanenson: So that’s in your Findings of Fact. Generous: And you would adopt that. Keefe: That’s all I have. Laufenburger: Alright. Thank you Dan. Do we have an applicant or builder present this evening? State your name and address please for the record. Brent Hislop: Good evening members of the commission. My name is Brent Hislop with Synergy Land Company. P.O. Box here in Chanhassen. 470 so. I live technically in Victoria. No specific comments. I think you all got my write up in your packet. I believe I stated everything probably 2 or 3 times in there as far as our interpretation. Just one note (a), I think it truly is very obvious that the original intent of this lot was similar to the abutting lots. I’m not 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 entirely convinced that this process was necessary in terms of a variance separate from the original private street but nonetheless we worked successfully with the City on many projects and certainly staff and appreciate their help in working this out so. We’re supportive of staff’s recommendations, our request, and certainly stand for questions if you have any. Thank you. Laufenburger: Okay. So you’re comfortable with the outcome of the, the way the. Brent Hislop: With the city line? Essentially that’s the change, yes. We’ll move forward under that condition. Laufenburger: Any questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak on this item? You can something else if you want. Brent Hislop: One follow. I discussed this with staff briefly. Given the configuration and I think staff agrees, or at least understands, it’s a yet to be determined thing. Very common but potentially we’d have a driveway easement across, well for sure across the triangle area but potentially within the 15 feet and we or the ultimate buyer would be responsible, just like any other driveway easement so I just wanted to note that as a side bar. Laufenburger: Okay. I think we heard that and staff say that that section would be reserved for driveway but no building. Aanenson: That’s correct. Laufenburger: No structure. Brent Hislop: Okay, thank you. Laufenburger: Any other public comment? Then we’ll close the public hearing and bring this back to commission. Comments. Let’s start with you Tom. You have any comments or questions you’d like to address to any other member of the commission? Doll: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: I’m in support of the variance. I think it’s a good idea and it will help keep them out of the wetlands. Get the house in line with the rest of the houses that will be developed there and seems acceptable. Laufenburger: Good point. Dan. Keefe: I’m good with it. Laufenburger: Alrighty. Kevin. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 Dillon: I support it. Laufenburger: Alright. As am I. I’ll entertain a motion. Dillon: I’ll make a motion. Laufenburger: Kevin. Dillon: That the Chanhassen Planning, that’s the wrong one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback nd variance to permit a 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. Aanenson: That’s it. Just need a second. Laufenburger: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Laufenburger: Thank you Mark. Any further discussion? Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15 nd foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. 2. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be “soft” connected to the 4 inch drain tile located at the back-of-curb for the private cul-de-sac. 3. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. 4. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, 6 inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plant/shrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. 5. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2009 6. Structures shall not encroach into any easement except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ZELLNER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED ON ND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WESTERN HILLS 2 ADDITION (7461 LONGVIEW CIRCLE). APPLICANT: RICHARD & CHANIN ZELLNER, PLANNING CASE 09-13. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks staff. Start with you Tom. Any questions for staff? Doll: This is just kind of a learning thing for me. Corner lots, are there typically, are they equal setbacks? You know usually there’s a side and a front. Aanenson: Yeah, we consider the front, the true front is where your front door is, but when you’re on a corner lot you have a 30 and a 30 so you have two fronts and then you have, so this would be, this side would require 30. This side would require also that, and then 10 and then. Generous: It’s 10 on the other. Aanenson: 10 on the other. Generous: You have two sides and two fronts. Aanenson: Right. Doll: I have no further questions. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: Um, no I don’t have any questions. Good with it. Laufenburger: Dan, any questions? Keefe: Yeah, you know just so I’m clear on this. If I’m looking at the color coded, yeah this one right here. The blue box has, is in the encroachment. If you go down to that corner. Aanenson: This little triangle piece is what’s in the encroachment. Keefe: Yeah, is there an eave on the existing building that is causing that? Aanenson: No, that’s the existing garage. 8