Loading...
PC Minutes 01-19-10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2010 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PENTEADO VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO USE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 6739 BRENDEN COURT. APPLICANT: CANDYCE & FRED PENTEADO, PLANNING CASE 10-01. Public Present: Name Address Candyce & Fred Penteado 6739 Brenden Court Jameson & Sarah Ritter 1809 Freedom Lane David Gestach 200 Chestnut Street, Chaska Troy Bader & Gina Sauer 2244 Lake Lucy Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Larson: We’ll start with Kathleen. Anything? Thomas: Um, I just trying to think if I do. Did this get flagged when they pulled the permit for the house? Is that what happened? Aanenson: I’m sorry, what? Thomas: Did this get like, did they get, or that you need the permit, did it get flagged like when they pulled the permit to build? Aanenson: That’s correct. Thomas: …would happen. Aanenson: Well yeah and also they saw that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Thomas: They had the extra refrigerator and all that? Aanenson: Yep. Thomas: Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Larson: Okay. How about you Denny. Laufenburger: Thank you. I appreciate you getting the information on those other homes and I do have one question. Regarding, you said that this will be a combination of Lot 4 and Lot 5. The utility easement will be vacated between there. So does that mean that this single family home will be the only home that will get built on the combined lots 4 and 5? Aanenson: That’s correct. Once they’re combined, if they were to separate them again, they’d have to come back through a subdivision process. Laufenburger: Okay. Aanenson: It could be done administratively but it’d have to meet the underlying zoning district so however that house sits on the lot, the lot line on that back lot may have to be adjusted. If for some reason that lot in the back wanted to, they’d still have to meet the underlying 15,000 square feet and have to be a straight, so it’d have to meet that criteria. Larson: Tennis courts. Aanenson: Right, but once they’re combined then there would be another process to go back through it. Yeah. Laufenburger: Okay. That was my questions. Larson: Okay. And to you Tom. Doll: No questions. Undestad: No. Larson: Dan. Keefe: Just a quick one. Just on the orientation of the house. It’s a Brenden Court address, right? Actually the Lake Lucy elevation looks like it wants to come off the Lake Lucy. Just out of curiosity. Aanenson: I think the way the garage is represented in the artist rendering isn’t really true. If you look at the garage in this picture, it is more of a flat garage so I think the architectural rendering was a little deceptive. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Keefe: And then, so there could be another house built on that adjacent lot, is that or not? Aanenson: No. What we’re doing is combining the two. Keefe: Yeah, so it will be one lot. Aanenson: That’s correct. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: And that is a condition of approval too. That the two lots. Larson: The only question I have is kind of regarding the lot two doors over to the right, if you’re looking at the map. That aerial map. Is that an outlot or is that a lot that will be built on at some point? That real long stretch. Generous: The City owns. Larson: It’s City owned. Okay. Alright. Well that’s all I have. Have we got an applicant? Would you please step up to the podium. State your name and address. Candyce Penteado: I’m Candyce Penteado. We are the property owners of 6739 Brenden Court and this is my husband Fred Penteado and our daughter Olivia. Would you like us to just sort of walk through our thoughts about the variance process? Larson: Sure. Candyce Penteado: Or answer questions. Larson: Yeah, why don’t, if you want to just give us a brief summary, that’d be fine. Candyce Penteado: Okay. When we went to pull permits for this lot we were informed that we had a variance request from the City that we are qualifying as a multi-family home. Well certainly we see ourself as a single family with my mom. This is a process that we wanted to comply with and do the right thing and so we are applying for this variance and we had asked the City about not just the letter of the law, which we had, or the policy which we walked through in the letter that I wrote hopefully saying how our home does not have separate utilities. Maintains one private entrance. One driveway. Car, a garage stall for every vehicle and is not endangering the health and welfare of our neighbors or our community. We also asked about the spirit or the intention. What’s the concern of having our mother-in-law have her own accommodations above the garage and what is the City trying to, why is this policy in place basically. And what they had explained was just the fact that, Sharmeen had used the example of in a college community or something like that where you have sort of this transient feel to a home where it’s able to be used by multiple people without accountability for the real estate or the property and certainly that’s not the intention of how we’re using that land. It’s really just to provide my mother with 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 independent living within our home and that was sort of the spirit of our usage and we have a condition included in here with this variance that no part of this property could ever be rented and that would be regardless of if we live there or anybody else lives there, which I think would be a concern if I lived in this neighborhood. Is that you know are they trying to build a rental property in this space and that is certainly not our purpose so we really hope that we’ve established criteria that would make you feel comfortable with both the spirit and the letter of this variance request. Larson: Okay. You guys got any questions? No? Okay, thank you very much. Okay with that I will open the public hearing. If there’s anybody in the audience that would like to come up and say something. Troy Bader: Troy Bader. My wife and I, her name is Gina Sauer. We have at 2244 Lake Lucy Road so we would actually be just adjacent to Lot 5. Really what we have is, we love the idea of what they’re doing in terms of combining the lots. We like the idea and absolutely respect what the applicants want to do in terms of caring for their mother and mother-in-law. I think that’s great. We just actually have questions and actually they hit on a primary concern and that is, what they’re doing is great but the question becomes the future. Once a variance is changed, the zoning is changed, it’s permanent. The applicants may not own the home. Their situation could change at some point in the future and our primary concern is, what happens in the future? What protections are there? What legitimate protections can be provided to us and for the community really to make sure that this doesn’t become a rental property. That’s our primary concern because the character of this neighborhood can change significantly and very quickly if in fact the situations that the applicants have becomes one that there is somebody else living there. Then it does become rental and what was a single family neighborhood with some homes that are at a level that people made some fairly significant investments. Chose the community for reasons that it was a single family residential neighborhood has now changed. That’s our primary concern and I don’t know what protections. There was a comment about putting a restriction on that would prohibit rentals. I don’t know if that’s appropriate. If I can get some assurance from the City then in fact that that type of restriction is legitimate, would be enforceable such that it would protect the neighborhood into the future, fantastic. We’d feel good about it. I just don’t have the answers for that and I guess I’m hoping the city or somebody else could help us with that. Larson: Okay. Would you like to address that? Aanenson: Sure, I’d be happy to answer the question. There are conditions of approval. One is, first of all let me, the staff’s point, that also they are making a significant investment in their property too. Whoever buys this one, it’s not typically one that you would find would be like a duplex or somebody renting in the fact that we require that they come through the primary entrance. It gives them, whoever it is, ownership to make sure who’s living there also is more than likely family related. In the past 20 years we’ve had, this would be our fourth one so we don’t have a preponderance of these. Not to say that there may be somebody renting that doesn’t have a license or, but they’re going through the right steps. The conditions that are in the staff report is that they apply for a building permit. That they combine the lots. That the exterior of the home remain as a single family, and that’s also one of the criteria too so there’s the one main 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 entrance so again there’s that control point for rental so if you have somebody just going in through your basement, there’s not the same maybe control. They have to use the same one. Then there’s no separate utilities so they’re all on one meter and then we do have that they comply with all building codes and that there is a condition in here too that we’ve already put in there that with a variance these are recorded with the County so it’s also being recorded that neither can it may be rented. Troy Bader: And that’s, so that will be a condition. Neither unit can be rented so this would have to be more of a family situation? Aanenson: Correct. And again, there’s a lot of different ways. If you look at the city code, just to be clear you know, you can have a group home in a residential district. That is also allowed by the State law. Six people living in a group home so there is a lot of different things. The experience that we’ve had, with having these, we don’t see them as a problem for the most part, again the way they’re set up because people are making a substantial investment in the home in the way that it’s laid out typically. It could be whether it’s a special needs child, as I stated earlier. An elderly parent or something like that. We haven’t had a problem with those but these will all get recorded at the County Recorders Office so anybody doing a title search on this would find this under the variance. What are my rights with this unit? If someone else, if they were to sell and someone else was to buy this, what rights do I have? Those would appear. Troy Bader: Okay because that’s the most important thing to your point, having had problems but you also had indicated earlier, we don’t have much experience in the city of Chanhassen with this so we really don’t know what happens when it’s the second, third owner or maybe another generation and that’s the you know, a lot of this covers the front end and that’s my concern is I like the fact that there can be a restriction put in. My concern is the enforceability of that down the road because once people are in, there can be a lot of different situations. The fact that utilities aren’t separated, all of these type of things. If I actually wanted to rent the property, I could work through most of those things depending on the circumstances. So I guess the key to me is the enforceability of that restriction on future rental of the property. That would give us the comfort that we’d be looking for. That it would more than likely be a family and fairly close family situation, such as that that the applicants have or it could be a child or something but we are very concerned if that’s not enforceable, that it is an expensive property. People can get in. It’s very easy to supplement that when you have a rental and obviously we have a very different situation in the neighborhood. So I don’t know what assurance we can get from anybody or if there’s, the attorney for the City, I would just like to know and I guess if you guys say yes it is, you guys have more experience than I do but that’s my primary concern. You see how these things go in. It’s great at the beginning and then 10 years later, whatever it is, that seems to disappear pretty quickly or is deemed unenforceable and we’re right back and the concern that we have now becomes a reality. Larson: Well honestly, just I want to address what you just said. We’re not a decision making. Troy Bader: I understand. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Larson: We’re just, you know we read the material and we advise based on you know what we see. And so the decision making is at the City Council and the law. Keefe: And the condition that’s required as a part of the variance is an enforceable condition… The question is who finds out and then you know ultimately if you were to find out that they were running, you would come back to the city or whoever… Aanenson: And I just want to preface this that whether, I understand your concern and again we’ve had four of these in 20 years. We haven’t had problems with the other ones because people, the people that do this are sincere in their motivation and the people buying them are looking for the same type of, to meet their needs. They’re making a substantial investment in the home. To me a larger problem would be somebody just renting their home, which is a problem. That they can’t sell it and they rent the home and we don’t know who’s in there. This, we have a contact person. We have a primary owner so we feel comfortable in managing that part of it. Troy Bader: And I don’t think, we don’t question the motives of the applicants at all, in any way. We’re just saying the applicants may not always be there. That’s where my, circumstances change and although we can just look at it today, and I understand we said, I definitely understand. This group isn’t going to render a legal opinion. I guess what I would ask and hope is that this committee itself though cares enough about that piece that the question would be asked such that of those that are appropriate, that this is an enforceable restriction on that property. If that’s the case then we become, then we’re comfortable with the situation. If it’s not, then I’m… Aanenson: Let me clarify. Because it is a variance, it gets a majority vote on this, the variance is deemed approved. Only if there’s not a majority vote would this go to City Council. And again I have to reiterate, you know we have stated in here and it will be recorded that it can’t be rented. Then our only enforcement is if we find out it’s rented, then we pursue action, which we would any other one that doesn’t meet city code. We’d pursue action on those. Laufenburger: Madam Chair? Troy Bader: I think really that was my concern. Thank you for your time. I very much appreciate it. Laufenburger: Just a moment. Larson: No, well actually questions for Kate. And I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. If they needed to say move to Utah and they can’t sell their house and they need to rent the entire house, is this stipulation saying that they would not be able to lease out their house to somebody? I mean is that an enforceable thing? Aanenson: What it says is neither dwelling may be rented. Yep. Larson: I see that but is that, is that a legal, is that legal? I don’t know if that’s legal. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Aanenson: Yep. Laufenburger: It would seem to me Madam Chair that if we stipulate that in the recording of the variance, then that would be the case. Aanenson: Right. Laufenburger: Mr. Bader, is that right? Troy Bader: Yes. Laufenburger: You play an important in this in that, not only you as a citizen but you have heard Kate say that if we hear about something, then we can enforce it. I think it’s important to recognize that Chanhassen is a community that looks out for one another and that also means that we look out to see if something’s not correct, and my experience, not only as a citizen of Chanhassen but on the Planning Commission is that when citizens are made aware of, or citizens pay attention to what’s going on in the neighborhood and they feel like something’s not right, it’s brought to the City’s attention and action is taken. So you’ve got the role of the enforcement in the variance but it’s only when we have knowledge or when the City has knowledge that something is not being handled properly, then we can take action. Troy Bader: Yep, absolutely but I hope the council also understands that’s not always the easiest position to take as a neighbor when we’re trying to develop relationships and those type of things. Just like it’s not fun for us to be here. I think the reality is, this is fine because we’re trying to achieve the same goal and I think we all want to put the same protections in. To your point, absolutely we would keep an eye on it and I doubt that there would be any question here. It’s just that circumstances change down the road that we’re concerned about. But obviously if that does happen and it’s not enforceable, that has a significant impact on the value of our home and many of the other homes that are adjacent to it. Thank you. Larson: Thank you. Fred Penteado: If okay just one question. Just a clarification. Larson: Can you state your name? Fred Penteado: Yes, sorry. Fred Penteado, the other owner of 6739 and to Mr. Bader’s question, just want to make sure we address. As we met with Angie last week on the planning commission there, in addition to the protections, the current association does restrict rental properties as well so you do have a second layer of protection there. And my understanding, if I understand Angie correctly is to rent in the city of Chanhassen one proactively needs a permit so there would be a prospective view. I’m not sure if that’s the City’s. Aanenson: That’s correct. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Fred Penteado: Planning Commission or council issue but I feel like there are several layers of protection there. Larson: Thank you. Alright, is there anybody else? Okay I’ll bring it back. Close the public hearing. And what do you think? Keefe: You know I think it’s fine. You know happy to see a house go up there. Happy to see people are thoughtful about you know, about the layout of the house and I don’t see an issue here. And from what I see of the protection, I think the variance and the statement in the variance is you know without a legal ruling on it, it seems to be pretty strong. Larson: Okay? No? Undestad: No, I’m good. Larson: Tom? Doll: Nice to see a house go in there. Larson: Yeah. Laufenburger: Same here. Love development. Thomas: Just fine. Larson: Well I have nothing either. I think it’s a beautiful home and I know exactly where it is because I drive by it every Sunday on my way to church. So very nice neighborhood. Okay, well with that I’ll request a motion. Anybody want to? Laufenburger: Madam Chair? I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves Planning Case #10-01 for a variance to use a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling on property zoned Single Family Residential, located on Lots rd 4 and 5, Block 1, Brenden Pond 3 Addition based on the staff report 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, as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves Planning Case #10-01 for a variance to use a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling on property zoned Single Family rd Residential (RSF) located on Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Brenden Pond 3 Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2010 Aanenson: I just want to state for the record then Madam Chair, if anybody appeals this decisions they have 4 days to appeal so that could be applicant or any of the neighbors. Otherwise the decision rests here unless there’s an appeal. Larson: Okay. Alright. PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN REZONINGS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (BG) TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) ON TH PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78 STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULEVARD (WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS NDRD 2 AND 3 ADDITIONS); REZONING FROM GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (BG) TO AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND MARKET BOULEVARD (OUTLOT A, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION); AND REZONING FROM HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) TO AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND MARKET BOULEVARD (OUTLOT B, CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK). APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 10-02. Public Present: Name Address Dick Klonbeck Investors Real Estate Trust (Owners of West Village Heights Center) Bob Generous and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Can I speak to this, what you’re showing us right now? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. Laufenburger: To me it feels like you’re opening up the possibility of space which is now covered for parking could potentially become, I even hate to use this word but almost a kiosk type establishment. I think they’re not even present anymore but maybe a small drive thru coffee. Generous: Potentially. Aanenson: Potentially. Or it could be, if you look at the size of, for example Jimmy John's is 1,500 square feet. So that’s what we, intensify some of that, maximizing that space and value that we’ve created in that downtown core and looking at the uses. Meeting with the property 9