Loading...
5 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Craig Claybaugh, and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Cominunity Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager; and Jason Angell, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE LAKESHORE WETLAND SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8591 TIGUA, GORDON SCHAEFFER. Public Present: Name Address Tom Whitcomb Gordon Schaeffer Brenda Schaeffer 6741 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley 8591 Tigua Lane 27306 County Road A, Spooner, WI 54801 Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time? Claybaugh: I've got a question Sharmin. You indicated that one of the properties, adjacent properties was 120 foot setback from the water. Are we doing apples to apples? Or is that in relation to the OHW? A1-Jaff: I only have the OHW on one lot, and that is where the applicant actually staked it for us. When we measured, we measured to the water where we thought it made sense. Claybaugh: What is the distance to the water of the subject property? A1-Jaff: 139. No, it's more than that. Claybaugh: ...like 186 1 think I read somewhere so...about 50 feet. Al-Jaff: There is an additional probably 30 or 40 feet. There is one other thing that, if I may. It's the DNR that sets the OHW on lakes and one of the things that we looked at was could we have the DNR go out them again and re-survey the OHW for this lake. It takes 3 years for them to process such an application and the applicant didn't want to wait that long. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Claybaugh: There was some mention in the report about Highway 212/312. I didn't hear any comment on that at all. Don't see that as a factor in this application? A1-Jaff: Well it will. Claybaugh: I'm asking from the staff's standpoint. Is that a consideration? A1-Jaff: Well it is, however the alignment for the highway has been in place for a number of years. So when the house was situated, it should have been taken into consideration. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. A1-Jaff: It is a hardship though. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Uli. Sacchet; Yeah Madam Chair. Sharmin. Why 1507 What are we trying to accomplish? A1-Jaff: DNR says. Sacchet: It's a DNR said, I mean I just want to have a clear understanding. A1-Jaff: Yes, it is a DNR. Sacchet: Where it comes from. What we're trying to do with the 150. A1-Jaff: It's a DNR request. Sacchet: Based on that it's considered a natural environment. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then you said one of these neighboring houses is about 120 feet from the water. So that would make it even less from the high water lines. And here we're looking at 125 from the high water. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Do we know how many of those neighbors actually encroach, and about how much? Is that an exception that 120 or is that pretty much the rule of those neighbors? I mean looking at this area, it seems a little hard. It's really hard to tell. But yet they all seem pretty, if you look at the canopy border, they all seem to be pretty much closer. A1-Jaff: I have another aerial. Now this one is off of city's aerial and we don't have the 877, unfortunately. We have the 878. And again, it will show you that all of these homes pretty much encroach into the 150 foot setback, with the exception of 2 homes that were built within the last 4 years. Sacchet: And are they all about the same amount encroaching in there? I mean what I'm trying to establish is that, a pretty clear pattern. Planning Commission Meeting -July 16, 2002 A1-Jaff: There is a patter of homes encroaching into the 150 foot setback. Now. Sacchet: But not necessarily to how much. I mean we don't, we can't really establish that. A1-Jaff: I can't. Sacchet: That easily at this point, okay. Do we have the timing when 212 comes in? Feik: Good question right? Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say. Sacchet: Alright, question withdrawn. Not a fair question. Blackowiak: Okay, anyone else have questions? Rich. Slagle: I just have one I think Sharmin. Again, following along Uli's idea. I'm trying to understand exactly what's happened in this neighborhood. If I look at what is here and 1980 is when this was divided, some homes were built. You just mentioned that 2 newer homes have been built. Were those homes built outside the 1507 AI-Jaff: Yes they were. Slagle: Okay, so properly. A1-Jaff: Situated, yes. Slagle: And my guess is those are the 2 homes sort of. A1-Jaff: Close to the road, yes. Slagle: Okay, that's all. Lillehaug: I have one quick question. I think all my other questions were already answered but there is an out building on the west side of the main structure. Does this, I don't know if it's a garage or a studio. A1-Jaff: Studio. Lillehaug: Is this falling within approximately the same setback as the house or is it more non- conforming? AI-Jaff: Pretty much. I have one point as far as the 877. The studio is located in this area. Probably less, no more non-conforming so it's closer to that line. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 Gordon Schaeffer: My name is Gordon Schaeffer and I can answer your question. It's in alignment with the house but there'~ a possibility it may be 2 feet closer to the OHW. The studio and office, but I did file the permit and we had it surveyed and it seemed to be all in compliance. That was 3 years ago. Basically, I know this is a difficult situation and I would not ask for a variance if I didn't feel there was another alternative. I'm right on the city property on the east. I' ve got the freeway on the south. I've got the studio on the west, so this would be the only place I could build out. I'm looking for about 12 feet. 9 feet from my deck and for those of you that walked out, I do have some structural damage. I'm going to have to replace the northern wall either way, and it should would be nice if I could do this and it's also, it's key for my profession too. I want to put a screening room in and I do music for film and television and I really don't have another place I can do it so I'm pretty excited about it, but ! also know that it may not happen but I just wanted you to know that I looked at all the options. I've got an architect here if you have any questions. The design will be specifically geared towards the environment, to be naturally aesthetically put in. It wilt be stone and wood windows and it will be done with respect, integrity and I can assure you can watch, or see the plans whenever you want them. If you have any questions let me know. Blackowiak: Thanks. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Start down here, Rich anything? Slagle: Just, I have a fun question. What kind of what like 4 wheel drive vehicle do you drive back there? When I was trying to find your driveway and your place, that's back there. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, I kept the gravel driveway intentionally. I like it. You feel like you're going to another world back there, and I actually don't have a 4 wheel drive right now, but I've got a plow so. Slagle: Well good. Gordon Schaeffer: It's a special spot too. The other thing is it's so beautiful when you go back there and I don't have any view of the lake and it's like, I'm appreciating it more and more living out there. It's my fifth year and I bought it from my mother who used to be there, so it's really a spectacular place. Stagle: That was really it. Sacchet: One question. There is some room between your studio on the west side of the main structure. There is no way you could expand that way a little bit? It seemed like looking on the plan, you were actually adding a little bit on the west side too or is that already there? I wasn't quite sure whether I read your plan correctly. Gordon Schaeffer: Actually, there already is a room there that's finished. And then there's a deck that we might have to remove just because when we lay a foundation. That was something that Tom said we may have to, I'm hoping we can save the deck but we may lose it. Sacchet: So those rooms are already there? Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Sacchet: I wasn't quite sure when I read. It said like new, there was like a window that was closed off on the plan and it looked like a new, something new shelving or whatever and I wondered whether you're actually building out there at the same time too. Gordon Schaeffer: That's actually built but there would be some re-orientation that was recommended by the architect to make kind of... Sacchet: Line things up... But you wouldn't actually change the roof structure there? Gordon Schaeffer: I don't believe that. Sacchet: Not necessarily. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, the roof structure would not be changed and it would not be a great place to go between those two buildings. It's kind of an awkward amount of space. Sacchet: So it's certainly nice to have more space between that studio or what you call the little building. Gordon Schaeffer: The other thing I'm really concerned about is the north wall, and that's, there's about 5 holes and my entire top log is concave and I'm concerned about the structure. Sacchet: Going to have to do the same thing there, right. Right. Gordon Schaeffer: And I can't really put windows on that lower level because the logs are the structure, and it's really hard to put windows in a log wall. So we, believe me, we really went through this many times and looked at, I wanted to actually go the long way and we decided it's best to get, stay away from the lake as much as possible so we built it more across the house and in the indentation too, it was designed to have, set it back as much as possible and none of the oak trees would be damaged. There'd just be a couple small aspens. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thanks. Sidney: That was my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Lillehaug: I see that you are removing the deck on the northwest comer of the house, and then potentially a new deck location on the north of the garage there. You also indicate that it's an optional bedroom. If you were to have that a bedroom, then you'd potentially look for a new location for your deck. What I'm getting at is, would you be putting a deck, would you come back here in a couple years and ask for another variance to put a deck on the north side there? Gordon Schaeffer: Well if this plan was approved, as long as it stayed within that distance, would it be okay to build it? Okay, if this plan's approved and the deck's in the schematic there, I wouldn't be going any closer, do I have to build it now? Or could I build it over time? Blackowiak: You could actually build it, if it's in the plan, you could build it. I think the question, and Sharmin correct me if I'm wrong. I think your question is, assuming it's a bedroom, not a deck, will we see, would we see you potentially back here in 3 years saying I Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 made it a bedroom but I really should have made it a deck. I'd like a deck now. I want to go a little closer to the water. I think that's what his question is. Lillehaug: Yep. Gordon Schaeffer: It really wasn't part of the plan, but I guess I haven't thought about it. I would hope that we could salvage part of the deck on the west side and build it out that direction. I'm not looking to get closer. I don't know, I just haven't thought about it. I'm going to be real honest. I was anticipating that that's probably going to be a deck. One thought is we may lose a bedroom with this plan so it may be a good idea to consider a bedroom. But I'm not looking to get closer to the lake at this point.. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Craig, did you have a question? Claybaugh: Yeah. From the ordinary high water mark, and this ma5, be a question for staff as well. Is that parallel with the north face of the subject house? What I'm asking is, does the ordinary high water mark, with the setback, does it run through at an angle or is it pretty much parallel with the other face of the structure? Gordon Schaeffer: We actually measured it straight out and it was 139 and 141, so we took the closest measurelnent. Claybaugh: Okay. Gordon Schaeffer: And we did both sides of the house. And the, I have a much more gradual slope than my neighbors and the water's actually closer to 175-180. Claybaugh: You said you added a studio a few years ago. 3 years back you stated. What considerations at that time did you give to some of the conditions that you're facing now and also the Highway 212/312 issue? Gordon Schaeffer: Well what I, the studio, the one hurdle I had to jump over was the fact that my wood shed was possibly encroaching the city land. Is that what you're asking tonight? Claybaugh: I guess I'm asking back in 1982 1 could make some allowances for lack of foresight with respect to a future highway coming through. To me that was one of the more compelling things in reading the report that it's your view that this is coming through and by looking out in the memo, which is why the house was orientated that way in my mind, and now you're going to have a freeway coming through there and that certainly, if I was the occupant there, that would be a strong consideration for me. What I'm asking is, in 1982 that's one issue. But you put an addition, which now is, becomes a limiting factor in where you can go with future additions back 3 years ago. I'm as~ng you what considerations you gave to the issues that you're putting in front of us now at that time? Gordon Schaeffer: Well the freeway, I had heard about it but I didn't always know how close it was going to be or how soon it would be here, and when I realize it was less than a mile away at this point, I started to get a little nervous, so I wasn't fully away of all the let's say effects that the studio would have. I really wasn't, and my mom might interject. I don't think she knew about the freeway when she bought the house. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Brenda Schaeffer: Also you have to move that, what's now a studio, we had to move those logs so it wasn't. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, there were some other factors. That lot got divided. That building was on the next door neighbor's lot. We had to move it and make a decision. Claybaugh: So the studio, is that a structure that was on the site that just got relocated on the site? Gordon Schaeffer: It was one, when it was 7 acres, it was on. Claybaugh: Okay, so you relocated it over adjacent to the house. Gordon Schaeffer: And it was really the only place that we could, made sense to put it. Claybaugh: The new space that you're acquiring as part of that is for your profession? Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah. Claybaugh: Okay. I read in there obviously for audio reasons, privacy reasons, they wanted to orientate it away from the highway, future highway noise and so forth? Gordon Schaeffer: Absolutely. The ambience rumble. Motor noise. It would be really beneficial. Plus we can design the house specifically. You know it's a rectangular. It's like... room specifically for this. Claybaugh: I wouldn't be able to speak for my fellow commissioners but to me it's very important to understand what you're going to do with it. Maybe I understood it incorrectly but I felt that you inferred that if this was approved, that anything out that 18 foot or 12 foot additional, you had some latitude there in the future to do and pluck something in there or put the deck in there or optional bedroom, so on and so forth as long as it didn't go closer than that. And from my standpoint, I wouldn't be willing to approve it that way. I'd want to know. Blackowiak: Well, any more questions here? We'll just get. Gordon Schaeffer: No, no. So you wanted to know if we were going to do the bedroom or not? Claybaugh: Yes. I'd like to know specifically what the plan would be. Gordon Schaeffer: Okay. Claybaugh: But evidently we're running out of time so. Blackowiak: No, we're not running out of time. I just don't want to get into a long dissertation of you know theories. I mean if bedroom or no bedroom. Claybaugh: Well that's a factor in my decision so. Gordon Schaeffer: We took it this far because, and actually I think Tom went quite a ways knowing that this could get denied, and we wanted to think of every option. And if it fits within Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 the budget and if the aesthetics, then I'd like to build a room there, but I can't give you that answer. But what I don't want to do is build closer to the lake. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Okay. This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, time for comments. Craig do you want to go ahead. Sorry I cut you off. Claybaugh: No, that's alright...give Rich a chance. Blackowiak: Alright, Rich. Slagle: I'tl make it short and simple. I'm going to vote to approve the request for the variance, for a few reasons. Specifically, and I want to preface this by saying staff did exactly what they should have and recommended exactly what the way they should have. But I'm going to take the other approach and basically because a number of these lots are indeed closer. I do believe that this is set back quite some bit. I realize the relevance of the history of this place, and the fact that it really is in some ways it's own unique spot. It is certainly not surrounded by neighbors who will feet immediately impact on their property value or their sights or anything like that. This is a pretty private spot so I'm just letting my commissioners know that I will vote for granting the variance. Feik: My concerns stem a little bit from what this body has done in the past regarding consistency. At the request of staff we were to look at a garage a couple of weeks ago regarding a very narrow setback to the street, and were instructed that was consistent with the neighborhood and we should be cognizant of that and take that into consideration. We also specifically looked at the townhome association just to our north regarding some decks about this time last year where they encroached on the front yard setback and again were, this body basically stated that they want to be consistent with the neighborhood. I find the recommendation to deny inconsistent with what we have done fairly recently. I do very much appreciate the applicant's awareness of the site, the uniqueness of the site, and I think it' s a great addition. I would agree with my fellow commissioners in that if you're going to put a deck, I'd want to see it on the plan today, not tomorrow, so based upon the plan as presented, which would be, I guess it's not a new deck or a bedroom, it's blank space, I would approve this today. Blackowiak: So can I just clarify? Regardless of what it is, you would approve the size and the footprint as is? You would not approve any, I'm sorry what? So in other words, based on this plan, whether it's a deck, whether it's a bedroom, you would feel comfortable approving this as is? But not adding any kind of a deck in the future. Nothing else in the future. Feik: I don't want to nickel and dime it so I would be willing as well, as much as I'd hate to table it kind of thing, I would like to see the final plan. I would like to vote on a final plan, up or down versus what potentially I understand could be a partial plan or 75 percent of a plan with maybe a change or addition or something a year down the road. I would prefer not to see that. But based upon the plan as presented, based upon the consistency that we've done with some of the other variances that have come before this body I would approve. Blackowiak: Okay thanks, Uli. Any comments? Planning Commission Mez.qng - July i 6, 2002 Sacchet: Yes, quickly. Whether this is going to be a deck or a bedroom is not really an issue for me. I mean it is on the plans, it could be one or the other, and the plan states there is something there and that doesn't mean it could be something else that has a similar setback, but it's what's drawn on the plan that we' re looking at that we' re deciding upon, so I'm relatively clear about that. Now in terms of the hardship issue, I think staff did really an excellent job on this. And with the hardship, already when I thought about it and in discussion tonight, I really come to the conclusion that there is a hardship. I think there is clearly a hardship on three fronts. One hardship is obviously that the north wall needs to be fixed or partially replaced. And given that on the west side we're not already doing major work, it's a hardship. If the applicant has to do, hope to do work, major work in both places. Further I think it's a hardship that the highway's coming in there. I mean that plays into it. It's not the major component but it certainly plays into that. So the north wall fixing. The western space doesn't really have that much room, and that plays into that so I would say there's clearly a hardship. Where I have a little harder time is whether this is applicable to other properties in the area. Initially I thought well it is applicable because there are no recorded variances on the record, but based on the presentation tonight, it appears that the majority of houses in that neighborhood are actually encroaching, some of them more than the requested variance does, puts me a little bit into a split opinion. Because on one hand the recent things that were built there, they had to follow the required setbacks but then all the other ones that were there before haven't so weighing that works as the hardship is still little bit of a problem for me. How to resolve that. But then on the other hand, to be totally frank, it seems like City Council has been rather amenable to variance requests that come in front of them. I don' t know if that' s because it' s an election year or what, but it, I mean I think the hardship is significant and I may as well stick out my neck and I'm more leaning towards approving it at this point. Sidney: I'd like to voice a different opinion, and agree with staff's interpretation of the ordinances. I guess this body and City Council have dealt with a lot of issues having to do with structures and use of those structures but really I guess my feeling is that when we're dealing with issues of variances at the Planning Commission level, we should be looking at the land use. And in this case I don't believe the hardship is really demonstrated. The applicant does have use of the property. I guess the requirement that hardship be caused by a particular physical surrounding, shape or topography or condition of the land is really what I'm focusing in on. That we don't have a land, well piece of land or lot that is unbuildable and somebody requests that this is the only option that you have. And I agree the structure, or the roof line you know lends itself only really to what you have proposed but still interpreting the ordinance as such, I just don't see that linkage with the topography a unique situation of the land. So I guess, I hope that made sense. So really it's not a question of lot size increments or whatever, so I guess I just don't see the hardship and would like to stick pretty much to staff' s interpretation of the ordinances at this point. Although I agree, you know this is such a...I can see, you know I could be swayed another way if we discussed this further but I think the idea of the highway coming through is a big issue. And then also I think just the mere fact that other buildings are also encroaching into the setback potentially might be an important factor. And I would think staff may want to actually get those numbers and have the supporting documentation as to the neighboring properties and those setbacks. But I think backing up here to my original statement, I guess I don't see that we meet the requirements in the ordinance for granting a variance, at least in my opinion in this case. Blackowiak: Thank you LuAnn. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to commend the applicant on their presentation. I think they considered a lot of different possibilities and hit most the key points. As I indicated earlier, I could support this with certain conditions. Approving it within the square footage of the footprint Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 .. that's non-conforming on the plan would be important to me tonight as voiced by Commissioner Feik. The structural consideration for me is a non-issue. I understand that it's convenience to be able to do that addition and achieve that new addition, wall, restructuring that wall but from a variance standpoint, for me that's a non-condition. But I am interested in limiting the degree of non-conformity but the most compelling element for me is that you're affected by an external condition, that being the expansion of Highway 212. That's all my comments. Lillehaug: I agree with Commissioner Sidney, and I'd like to maybe comment on a few other items here. I believe that this south property is very well screened with trees. I'm not saying that it's going to screen 212 100 percent. It's screened about as best as it could from a trunk highway. From interstate. I realize you're going to get a lot of noise from that 212 and that probably is a hardship for you. But the point I'm hung up on right now is, as staff indicated that the DNR mandates 150 foot setback. And the questions in my mind are what are the legal implications if the city were to approve this variance at this point? Does staff know? I don't like coining to you...with a question like this either but I guess I'm not comfortable approving this variance not knowing the implications that by approving this, can the DNR come back on the city with this matter? And impose anything onto the city because of this. At-Jaff: I can speak from experience as to what has happened in the past. There was one situation and it was on Lotus Lake. It was encroachment into the 75 foot setback with an after the fact deck, and the DNR strongly recommended against it. The City approved it. There was no action taken from the DNR. Lillehaug: Okay, so you're saying is, if the DNR did not put this 150 foot setback requirement, the city setback would be 75 feet? A1-Jaff: No. No. We have adopted the DNR's requirement of 150 feet on environmental lakes. And that would be the case with this one. So city ordinance requires a 150, and where it came from was DNR standards. Lillehaug: Okay. I'm going to ask a question, and just so it's clear in my mind. If we were to approve this, With the setback, it would be 125 feet or are we looking at a little more than that?-I guess what, when I add up the numbers I get a little more than, or a little less than 125 feet. Maybe, closer to 120 feet. So looking at a 30 foot variance. I mean do we have exact numbers? Is this 125 feet, is it exact? Exact being within a couple feet. I'm looking at it, if we approve something tonight, and these plans, I mean if we approve a 25 foot variance and these plans are showing a 30 foot variance. Gordon Schaeffer: 127... Lillehaug: So we need a 23 foot variance? Sacchet: How is that possible? Blackowiak: Sharrnin, why don't you go ahead and try and clear this up for us. A1-Jaff: Explain this, thank you. This point, from here, from this point to this point we have 139 feet. This addition is 14 feet. So 139 minus 14 is 125. That's where I came up with 125. Lillehaug: Okay. So we're looking at a 25 foot variance then? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Out of 150 foot. A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. That ends my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. I just had a few comments. I tend to also agree with staff on their interpretation of the variance request in this case. First of all, the property owner does have reasonable use of the property. There' s a structure on it. It might not be as ideal as, he' s shaking his head. It might not be your ideal property, but you've got a home and that's how we define a reasonable use. I mean it's not what your business is. It's not what you might like it to be, but it' s, do you have a home? Is it residential single family, is there a home on it? That's a reasonable use. That's the legal definition of the city. Secondly, approving this variance would increase the non-conformity of the setback and depart downward from pre-existing standards. According to variance requirements, unless we find that it will not increase a non-conformity, we can as a commission go ahead and grant it and I stand by that. I agree with staff' s interpretation of that. Three. We have current non-conforming neighbors. I believe we might be even setting a precedent. I mean we're talking about neighbors that are about 120 feet. Now if we grant a 25 foot variance here, we'll have other neighbors coming in and saying well guess what? He got 25 feet, I want 25 feet. So even though they may be even closer to the lake than this neighbor is, they would have a strong argument for receiving the same treatment that their neighbor received. And I worry that we're going to be getting in under 100 feet at places when we should be at 150. Homes that have been built in that area recently comply and I think that's a big thing that we need to take into consideration. Finally, 212/312. I live on the north side of Rice Marsh Lake. Yes, I know it's going to be a hardship. It's been in the works for 50 years. I mean everybody kind of ~knows it's coming. We don't know when. No one's got a crystal ball. I wish I could say you know when it's going to come but it's been there. The alignment's been there. Everybody knows so it's something I think we all have to realize that it's going to come and it comes when it comes and we deal with it the best we can. But I do believe that based on what my main four reasons that the staff made the correct recommendation and I would support denying the variance. So, I need somebody to make a motion. Gordon Schaeffer: Can I make a last comment? Blackowiak: No, sorry. We're done. We're ready to vote. Slagle: I do want to point out something I just observed. That the number of feet, and I don't know if that's what you're going to address, but it seems like there's a difference of opinion of the exact feet for a variance. Is that? I just want you to know that we possibly could be voting on a variance request that is different than what the applicant thinks, based upon some things I just heard. So I'm just wondering if we can ask the question of staff. Blackowiak: Okay, yeah. If you want to clarify that. Slagle: Yeah, is the number of feet, I mean copasetic with what they're applying for. Al-Jaff: 14 foot addition. Blackowiak: From 139. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 A1-Jaff: It's from 139. If you take 139 negative 14, that's 125. Slagle: I'm with that. Sacchet: Point of clarification in this context. Blackowiak: You ~know, let's just let Rich. Slagle: Okay. Is that what you're thinking? Gordon Schaeffer: I thought it was 12 feet, but I guess 14. Slagle: Okay. That's better perhaps. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're comfortable with that? Okay. Uli, what was it? Sacchet: Well the problen't is that our starting point, reference flame is not clear and it would take 3 years for the DNR to provide a final clear reference frame. Isn't that part of the situation? It could be considered part of the hardship. A1-Jaff: Sure. Blackowiak: I don't agree. I think that the OHW is what it is. Sidney: It's elevation. Blackowiak: Yeah. Sacchet: We know where it is? Blackowiak: Right. Sacchet: That's what I'm trying to establish here. That's what I'm trying to clarify. Blackowiak: And they're saying if somebody wants to contest it, they'll go out and measure it but it's going to take them a few years. Sacchet: But we are clear at this point where we consider it to be? A1-Jaff: It's at the 877, which is reflected on all city maps as well as DNR maps. Sacchet: Okay. So that we actually have a solid reference. Claybaugh: It is the official OHW at this point. Blackowiak: Yeah, it's the official. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thanks. 12 Planning Commission Meeting -July 16, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, so we're all clear. We know where we're coming from. Still need a motion. Slagle: Question. Do you want, since the motion here as it stands from staff's recommendation, do you want to try that? Blackowiak: You just go ahead with whatever you would like. You know whatever motion you would like to make. Slagle: I don't know if I need to make the motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Well then whoever's ready to make the motion. Lillehaug: I'll make the motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the request of 25 foot variance allowing a structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the negative variance findings A in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Lillehaug moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the requested 25 foot variance allowing a structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the negative variance findings (a.) in the staff report. Lillehaug, Sidney and Sacchet voted in-favor of the motion. Claybaugh, Blackowiak, Slagle and Feik opposed the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4. Blackowiak: So the motion fails 3 to 4. So now I need someone to make. Claybaugh: I'd like to make a motion. The Planning Commission, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the requested 25 foot variance allowing the structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the variance findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: I' 11 second but clarification. Is the variance findings in the staff report, or is that something that we discussed here that we have to add, that's what I'm thinking. Blackowiak: I would think that'd be a little more, because it's not the findings. Slagle: Yeah, exactly. Claybaugh: That's why I dropped the word negative. Blackowiak: Yeah, that was a good start. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Slagle: Yes, I seconded. Sacchet: Can I do friendly amendments? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 Blackowiak: Motion and second. Claybaugh: Certainly willing to entertain friendly amendment. Blackowiak: Go ahead I guess. Sacchet: Alright, friendly amendments. I really don't think the staff report supports this motion. Blackowiak: I don't think we really need amendments. I mean it's just, it's got conditions. Sacchet: Don't we need to say? Blackowiak: You can just add discussion. Claybaugh: Say based on discussion. Sacchet: Based on discussion of points brought up in discussion? Blackowiak: Yeah. Sacchet: And then I wanted to tied clearly into the layout of the plan in front of us from June 6°~ 02. Blackowiak: Okay, well let's vote on this motion and then you can make comments after. Sacchet: Well shouldn't that be a condition? Slagle: Yeah, if you want to make it a condition of the motion. Sacchet: I think that should be a condition. :'~ackowiak: So that based on the plans dated June 6~h. Claybxugh: The non-conforming square footage is as shown on the drawings. Not to exceed. Sacchet: Yes. Sidney: So you made a friendly amendment to your own? Sacchet: Specifically when it says new deck or optional bedroom, that it will not be bigger and will be there. Whichever it's going to be. Blackowiak: Right. Slagle: It just won't encroach further into. Sacchet: Right. Blackowiak: Okay, we've got a motion and a second. 14 Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve the requested 25 foot variance allowing the structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the preceding discussion. Claybaugh, Blackowiak, Slagle and Feik voted in favor. Sidney, Lillehaug and Sacchet voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Blackowiak: Okay the motion carries 4-3. Is that enough for a variance? A1-Jaff: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: Now we explain. Blackowiak: So let's explain. It has to be 60 or 2/3? A1-Jaff: It has to be 3/4. Blackowiak: 3/4 okay, so it would have had to have 5 commissioners to say yes for the motion to. The motion actually passed but the variance did not, if that makes any sense whatsoever. A1-Jaff: The applicant can appeal the decision. Blackowiak: Yeah, bottom line is yes, you can appeal the decision to the planning department within 4 business days and either talk to Sharmin after the meeting or give them a call and let them know you intend to appeal. Sidney: Then it goes to City Council. Blackowiak: Yeah, if you choose to do that, that will go to City Council and then they can make the final decision. Lillehaug: I'd like to make a comment on my vote. Blackowiak: Oh certainly, go right ahead. Lillehaug: I believe that increasing the, by increasing the non-conformance to a 25 foot is desirable, but I don't think it's reasonable based on city codes. I think 25 foot is too much. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 2, 2002 as presented. NEW/OLD BUSINESS. None. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15