Loading...
3 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Jason Angell, Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: ~ Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 7550 FRONTIER TRAIL, CHARLES STINSON. Public Present: Name Address Charles Thiss 5025 Normandale Court Tom & Nancy Manarin 7552 Great Plains Boulevard Steve & Nancy Rogers 7520 Frontier Trail Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, did you have any questions of staff?. Anyone? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a few questions. As a matter fact I got a call from a resident tonight posing some questions that I'd like to address quickly. This person that called was confused first of all about the address of that property. I don't know whether that has any bearing but the person pointed out that that property is recorded as 7550 Great Plains and not Frontier Trail. I would assume that with the access going to be from Frontier Trail, that is going to be changed and that doesn't really have much bearing on this, does it? Angell: No. The access would be from Frontier Trail. Sacchet: Okay. Then the second point that was pointed out to me is, it looks like this lot is within 1,000 feet from shore. From Lotus Lake, and I just want to clarify whether, if this is within the shoreland zone, or how we call that. Whether that puts any additional restrictions on this or where do we stand with that? If you could clarify please. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 A1-Jaff: The ordinances pertaining to shoreland and removal of vegetation actually are applied to the shore impact zone, which is 50 percent of the required setback from the OHW of a lake in this case. So half of the 75 foot setback from Lotus Lake is 37 V2 and this property falls beyond that distance. Sacchet: Okay. So it doesn't have any additional ramifications for us here. And the third question this resident pointed out, I think I already answered that. There was a question whether the notification that went out about this meeting stated the council meeting or this meeting, and I looked in the packet. It actually does state the meeting for tonight so that was clear, but I want to mention that for the record. Now I have a few questions of my own. First of all, I want to clarify on the plat that comes with the packet, it looks like that's two small lots. Angell: Actually the plat that was sent out is an error in the system. It is actually one combined lot but through staff' s review, that line that bisects the property is actually an indication of an easement that is shown on another sketch that was submitted in your packets. That easement is in the process of going through vacation and will appear at the next council meeting and will require a council approval. That is an addition, or a condition that we have added also tonight, that the approval of the variance shall be contingent upon council's approval of this vacation so that is a buildable area. Sacchet: I'm just a little bit confused. I mean you say it's a two lot subdivision in the report and you still keep talking about two lots. Was it, is the lot above it was originally part of the same lot or what's the two lot component in this picture? I'm not quite sure yet where to go with that. Angell: Yeah. Actually the property just to the north of it was the other portion of the two lot subdivision. Slagle: Can you show us on a map? Angell: Yep. This property. Sacchet: West of it. Angell: West of the lot, I'm sorry. Was also, was part of the original Kolbinger Subdivision. Sacchet: And that western lot has access from the western side? Angell: There's actually an easement that comes out here. A driveway easement and it will have access to the property. Sacchet: Now one thing I'm kind of struggling with in your comments, just a minute ago you mentioned that the reason why the house is pushed in so far is because they need the distance for the driveway. I find that contradictory because as it gets pushed in, it goes, gets pushed up the hill so it actually, as you push the house up, you have further incline to overcome. So it would seem more logical to me if the house comes down, then there is less grade to overcome and therefore it would be less of a problem. Could you explain? Angell: Actually in the footprint that was indicated, you can see that the actual bluff stretches down further on the south property line and is pushed back as you go further to the north on the property. The driveway starts at the base of the bluff, towards the south but then actually follows along the same contour, and thus they're stretching but staying at the base of the bluff really with Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 the driveway so you're actually not climbing up the hill. It's once you get to that point it's kind of flatten out along the contours. Sacchet: Okay. And one condition says that there is a 40 foot setback from the western line. Can you show us on the drawing where those 40 foot roughly is? Angell: Well this is the westerly line, the westerly property line and the reason why we put in the 40 foot restriction or setback is so that upon approval or if it is approved, that the applicant would not be allowed to encroach any further into the bluff. At it's closest point on this footprint, the closest point I believe being the south point down here. Sacchet: So that is the 40 foot is actually that comer of that drawing? Angell: Yep. 40 feet as it's shown here so that is what we went with and that is one of the conditions. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: I just had one. Touching on Uli's comment about just the comments about the taking or the variance is granted or not. I just want to make sure I understand. If we were to deny this request based upon what we see here, and it might be just the way the plot is plotted or the design of the house or who knows what, I mean that, I'm just trying to understand that clearly means then that it's deemed a taking if we don't approve it for whatever reason? A1-Jaff: You can approve it with conditions. Slagle: I understand. But the conditions could be potentially something that is unacceptable to the. A1-Jaff: As long as the conditions are reasonable. Slagle: Okay. I just want to make sure I understood the taking. That's strong. A1-Jaff: If they're not permitted a variance on this site, the lot is considered unbuildable. This is an existing lot of record and it would be deemed a taking. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Do you have another question Uli? Sacchet: I'd just like to add something to this discussion. Just be really clear. If they are not able to build, it's a taking? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: I don't know if I'd even agree with that. If we do not allow them to build. If they're not able to, that's another question. If we allow them and they can't. You know what I'm Planning Commission Meeting -August 20, 2002 saying? If we say yes, you may build and if they decide that they can't, that's another issue. It's not a taking. But if we say no you can't even have a chance, then that's a taking. Am I correct? A1-Jaff: That's correct. They need reasonable use of the property. Blackowiak: Correct. Okay, I just have one quick question. As I look at the bluff and the contours, you were talking about a variance from the bluff setback. Is there any wisdom in granting a second variance, which I don't know if it would make sense or not, to pull the house even closer to the street. From an ecological or an environmental standpoint would that be helpful in any way to get the house back from the hill or is it to the point where there's no difference? Sharmin, could you put that so north is on the top please. Little bit more. One more time. Thank you. A1-Jaff: The site is encumbered by an existing easement so nothing can encroach into that area. As Jason mentioned earlier, this is a fairly busy street so the distance along the driveway is necessary. Blackowiak: Right, no I understand that but I mean even if we just sort of move this house let's say parallel, just sort of shifted it over say 5 feet or 7 feet or whatever the distance would be between, I've got my little ruler out here. The edge of the driveway to 15. Edge of the driveway to the coruer of the lift station easement is approximately 15 feet, if I'm measuring correctly. So I'm just curious if it would make any sense just to shift it a little bit. Just from an environmental standpoint is actually what I'm asking. AI-Jaff: Jason worked closely with our engineering department on this and the alignment of the driveway was going to work with the contours. Blackowiak: Right, I'm not suggesting to change the alignment at all. I'm just saying if you just shifted. It looks, if I'm reading this properly, it looks as if the driveway more or less parallels the contours. So I'm just wondering if we shifted it to the right, kept paralleling the contours and yet made it a little lower in effect, thank you Uli. I don't know if it would help her out. I'm just asking if that was even considered or should we even worry about that? Angell: I would see no problem in it, and engineering is just, their main point was to look at the contours of the land. Blackowiak: Right. Angell: And as long as I believe that the driveway access was to stay at a reasonable length as shown on the sketch here, I believe. Blackowiak: Right, because you don't want to exceed your grade, your 10 percent. I understand that. And I didn't actually figure that, what the grade is. Angell: As long as it can stay below the 10 percent, it should be. Blackowiak: Okay. And don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for another variance but I'm just kind of curious if we looked at it. Slagle: Would that be a variance or just an added condition? Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Blackowiak: It would be a variance from the front yard setback. Lillehaug: I have a question. Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: In looking at that we discussed it earlier but that 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements, I just want you to state for the record that it doesn't have a present or future utility need. Angell: No. Engineering department has indicated that there are no utilities buried within that area and there is currently no use of that area really for any drainage or any of that so there is no future plans or existing plans for that easement right now. Lillehaug: And I guess I have one more question and it's regarding the for sale sign I think on that property but I' 11 save that for the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay. At this point would the applicant or the applicant's designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Charles Thiss: My name is Charles Thiss and I live at 5025 Normandale Court which is in Edina, and I work for Charles Stinson, the applicant. And I don't have anything to add. I think they've summed up the case well. The only other physical conditions on the site that are there is that obviously there's a bluff restriction and the easement fight here, but also there's a power pole, or power lines right there so as far as we tried to position the house in a place where you could get possibly some planting buffer from some of those physical conditions around the site. I'm not sure if anyone's seen this area but it's just a mowed grass area with some power poles so those are, that's what went into placing the house so, and trying to keep as close as we could to the street but keeping a reasonable distance. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Commissioners. Could you stay up at the microphone please. I think we have a couple questions. I know Steve, we'll start with you. You have a question. Lillehaug: The for sale sign. It appears that it's on that parcel or on that property. Can you verify that and then I' 11 have a question beyond that too. Charles Thiss: I cannot verify that. As far as I know it is on the property. Lillehaug: Okay. Charles Thiss: I've seen the property but I can't exactly remember where that for sale sign is. Lillehaug: So there was a joint applicant for this, is that the current owner for this parcel? Their name was. Charles Thiss: The Linders? Lillehaug: Yes. Charles Thiss: Yeah, they are the people selling it. And as far as I know they are the ones who live to the west, but I'm not sure. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Lillehaug: Okay, so they're the current owners of the property. Do they plan on developing and then selling? Charles Thiss: The current owners? No, they do not. Charles Stinson would like to buy this property and in an ideal situation he would find a client to build this house. Lillehaug: Okay. I guess what I'm getting at is, you're showing us a footprint for a house here. You give us some profile views of the house. Are these plans, I mean I intend on attaching them to this bluff variance here. Is that legitimate to say that the owner/buyer intends on attaching these plans to this variance also? Charles Thiss: He intends to, as far as I know, build something that is within this size of house and some of the things that he put on here like the driveway and the tuck under garage are alt things that will go into this house and as far 'as the aesthetics, it should stay just about the same. But as far as size, he made it to be a small house but not too small. I think it's, I'm not sure what the square footage is but it's like, you know somewhere between 1,60'0 and 1,700 square feet on the main level so. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Questions? Claybaugh: So if I understand you correctly, you'd be loo~ng for approval of footprint size? If you don't have a buyer in place at this time I'm assuming that's not something you can... Charles Thiss: Yeah, and I understand there's a minimum requirement for a main level. Claybaugh: With respect to staff, how do we go about or stating that we just are approving the footprint size of what's proposed here? A1-Jaff: You can do that. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all my questions, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, two quick questions. Could the house be shifted further down the hill? Charles Thiss: The only thing that Charles may object to would be that there wouldn't be, if we moved the house down the hill and that driveway ends up being right on that utility easement right here, or the lift station, then it will just be driveway and then grass and then there' s no opportunity to buffer with some trees or something like that. Sacchet: So part of the intent of pushing it up there is to maintain some of that wooded area, and I very much appreciate that. You're trying to preserve some of these nice trees between the house and the street and that matter the lift station. Charles Thiss: Yep. Sacchet: And that, is what part of the reason why you pushed it in that far? Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Charles Thiss: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then my second question, it kind of follows up on Commissioner Lillehaug's comment. Staff, in their comments, pointed out that this is not a definite footprint. This is not really a definite plan that's in front of us and that kind of raised a flag for me. So you're saying it's a concept type of thing. How far do you consider it a solid thing? Charles Thiss: Well one of the reasons why you didn't get a definite plan was that this is part of a contingency to buy the lot so the contingency was that the lot is buildable. So we proposed a possibility on the lot so you could see some of our intentions, and that the size is in what kind of scale that we would like to do and it runs similar to some of the houses across the street that Charles worked on, the Frontier development. He's done all those houses in that development so he'd like to keep that neighborhood you know with plenty of trees and wooded area so, that was part of the intention on buying this was. Sacchet: This builder built other houses in that neighborhood? Charles Thiss: Charles Stinson designed the houses across the street and in the Frontier development. Sacchet: That's what I thought, okay. Thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? No? Thank you very much. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to comment, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jen'y Paulsen: I'm Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I think we've ascertained that the lot definitely does fall within the bounds of the shoreland code because of it' s proximity to Lotus Lake. The City admits that. Therefore the entire lot, because it is such, has such a steep slope, it is in essence a bluff in itself. The entire lot is a bluff. So there' s no doubt that a variance is required to construct a house here I think. The other thing is that the applicant is purchasing the property under the knowledge that these conditions exist and therefore it's not a hardship in that respect because he knows he' s getting himself into a situation that requires meeting these restrictions. And therefore it' s difficult to build a house 30 feet from the top of the bluff because it's a bluff. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment? Tom Manarin: I'm Tom Manarin at 7552 Great Plains Boulevard. I'd be to the west of it I guess up the hill. The longer lot. But my question would be, if a variance is granted in this situation, does that open up the possibilities for Bongard's property to have variances being that that's going to get developed too. Blackowiak: Okay. Could we put the map up and could you just, like to kind of point out where you are and then the property you're referring to please? So if you're on Great Plains, which would be just east. Tom Manarin: This is my property here. Blackowiak: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Tom Manarin: Bongard's is this property which is going to be sold and be developed, and if this is going to be a variance, that would open up this for a variance. I guess I'm questioning why we have a bluff line. Blackowiak: Okay. Sharmin, or Jason. I don't know which one of you would like to tackle that. You're deferring, okay. A1-Jaff: I've had several meetings with an individual who's looking at the Bongard property. If they subdivide the property, it's no longer a lot of record and current ordinances would apply to it. We've made it very clear to them that there is reasonable use on this site. There is an existing single family home on it. One of the things that they talk about is potentially demolishing the existing home and further subdividing the site, but even then, as they go through the subdivision process, they would need to abide by today's standards and today's ordinances. Blackowiak: Okay. Just let me clarify, so I'can get this. Initially this was divided in 1984, and there was no bluff ordinance then. So because it was pre-ordinance we can't apply the ordinance to this lot. However, anything divided after 1996, after ordinance date in 1996 will be post ordinance and would have to apply all current ordinances. So are there bluffs then on the Bongard property? Angell: Yes there are. Blackowiak: Do you think there's an ability to subdivide? Al-Jarl: Last week I met with the person who's looking at this site. I asked them to prepare a survey showing the contours on this site and delineating where the top of the bluff is. Blackowiak: Okay, so then they would have to then find the bluff and then be 30 feet away from the bluff. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Blackowiak: Okay, and then at that point if there's a buildable area, they could go ahead and subdivide and have lots, but until that happens I guess we don't even have to WOITy about that. Tom Manarin: So the Frontier property. Blackowiak: Is already a lot. Tom Manarin: Yep, but that was a lot that was, I'm just trying to get it straight for your benefit too. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Tom Manarin: If it's plotted out, or I shouldn't say if it's address is 7550 Great Plains, it sounds to me that now we're trying to subdivide it. Because that lot was always together, you know for years and years it was the same owner. So I'm a little, you know at one point in time you said that the address is 7550 Great Plains. And then another time it's Frontier so what is it plotted out as? Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Blackowiak: Good question. I thought it was just a typo. I thought it was on, I mean as I drove by today I was seeing it as a Frontier Trail address. A1-Jaff: The site is platted as Lot 2, Block 1 as far as the plat goes. Blackowiak: So it doesn't really matter what the address is, is what you're saying? Okay. So it's just the legal description sort of supercedes whatever the post... Tom Manarin: ...at one point in time maybe it was put back into one and that's why the 7550 address. I don't know. Blackowiak: I don't either. Tom Manarin: Thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, anybody else like to speak? Okay seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any brief comments? Slagle: Alison? Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: One quick question for staff on the lift station if I may. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Slagle: Currently where does the lift station pump to? I mean where are the pipes? And again I'm just getting the utility easement, I just want to make sure there's nothing going underneath , that property that they might have to get to. Angell: Currently the actual lift station pumps across Frontier Trail, so it's actually pumping to the east off the property. It's not running along or...across the street. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, any comments before we get a motion? Claybaugh: Yeah, a comment for staff. So with respect to what the applicant had set forth, that this wasn't a plan that was set in stone by any means. That it was more conceptual than anything else, what's really in front of us is approving a footprint, is that correct in staff's mind? A1-Jaff: You can approve the footprint. Claybaugh: Okay. Blackowiak: Yeah, and I think the idea of having a footprint size condition would be appropriate. Steve, any comments? Lillehaug: Just a quick comment I guess. Really by looking at this parcel of land, you restricted it to 40 foot on the rear yard property line for that setback, and it really doesn't allow much room to shift this footprint at all so I guess what we're looking at, there's really not much room to shift that footprint so I guess I would probably approve, just this plan in general and approve the variance. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Do we know what the footprint is for this? I guess all I'm saying is, do we have a numerical figure that we can say footprint is X and that is what we're voting on? Blackowiak: Well I think that Steve's point was very good because given the setbacks from the west property line, the north and south property line and from the lift station easement, I think they're pretty constrained as to where. I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room in there. Slagle: So it's not so much a footprint that we're voting on, is a placement. Blackowiak: Placement. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, Uli any comments? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few comments. I thought this would be easy but I find different. I do have some concerns about this. One is that we have these 3 variances above it that was for 22 V2 feet encroachment. Now here we're making an encroachment that's double or more that, and the comment of the gentleman that lives next door, what does it do to the neighboring properties. It's going to make it more difficult. I mean it's a mushrooming thing. I'm a little confused about the ta -king to be honest. I want to take time while you're discussing it, but I remember at one government whatever training I went to, they were talking about a case where a case went before a judge because it was a taking and I think if I remember right, the ruling was if you can go there and put a bench and enjoy the trees, that's a reasonable use. So I'm not quite convinced that reasonable use absolutely means you have to be able to build. Okay, that's my point but that be it for that. I can see the placement of the house that it's shifted up a little bit. I mean they have a little buffer between the road and the house is desirable for the house and for the people around it. I do take real issue with the word eliminate in the recommended motion. I'd certainly, I'm not prepared to eliminate the bluff setback. I mean we're, I'm prepared to give a variance to make something. Certainly not to eliminate it. I'm a little dismayed that this is just a concept plan. I mean basically to give a variance, I like to have a real concise framework. What the variance goes with, and at a minimum if this is going to go through tonight, I think we need to be very clear that this variance is in the context of this concept drawings that are in front of us. There is a lot of merit to these drawings. But there is apparently no assurance to what extent these, this concept is ultimately going to be implemented. So I'm a little torn from that aspect. But that's my comments, thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. I really don't have anything else to add. To sum it up, it's a lot of record. It's one of those cases I feel that we don't have a lot of room to deny something like this. I'm a little more clear from my perspective that it would be a taking. That's how I read it, and so I guess I don't have a problem with it based on what I see before me this evening. So with that I would like a motion please. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve a variance to eliminate the 30 foot bluff setback to allow a single family home to be constructed on the property located at 7550 Frontier Trail, based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions attached 1 through 8. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: Friendly amendment? Can we replace the word eliminate and say something like the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves a variance to encroach into. To allow construction within the. How would we best say it? To allow construction within the bluff setback. Slagle: How about allowing 30 foot, or excuse me. Allow a, well actually we don't know what it is. Sacchet: Well that's my problem. We don't know what it is. We're giving away the whole thing. Blackowiak: How about if, approves a variance from the 30 foot bluff setback. That way we're not allowing, we're not specifying. Sacchet: And then condition 7 will be want actually quantifies it somewhat. Blackowiak: Right. And then we have condition 8 as handed out this evening. And did somebody want to add a condition 9? Claybaugh: With respect to the approval of the footprint. Square footage size for the pad, hard cover as showing on the attached sketch. A1-Jaff: Attachment number 3. Blackowiak: Attachment #3, thank you. A1-Jaff: Certified survey. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Accepted. Sounds good. Blackowiak: Okay, amendments have been accepted. Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approves a variance from the thirty (30) foot bluff setback to allow a single family home to be constructed on the property located at 7550 Frontier Trail based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. A professional engineer will evaluate the soil conditions and slope of the site and design the foundation of the building accordingly. 2. A detailed grading, drainage and tree removal plan will be required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. 11 Planning Commission Meeting- August 20, 2002 3. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the grading limits prior to excavation and remain in place throughout the construction of the home. 4. The maximum driveway grade will not exceed 10% at any given point. 5. Top and bottom elevations will be shown on any proposed retaining walls. 6. The maximum yard slope will not exceed 3:1. 7. The property will maintain a forty (40) foot setback from the existing rear (west) property line. 8. Approval of the variance shall be contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the utility and drainage easement currently bisecting the site. 9. The structure may not exceed the proposed footprint square footage as shown on Attachment #3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 6, 2002 as presented. Blackowiak: It's not listed on here Sharmin, any new or old business we need to know about before we adjourn? A1-Jaff: Your next Planning Commission meeting, which is September 3rd, you will have Building C, which is within Villages on the Ponds. It's a 4 story, retail on the first floor with 54 unit apartments above that. There will also be an office bank on that Planning Commission meeting, also within Villages. As well as the Bernardi application will be reappearing before you. Blackowiak: Thank you. A1-Jaff: And if I may add, your City Council/Planning Cormnission joint work session is on September 30th. Blackowiak: Do we have a time for that yet? Is it going to be maybe an hour at 5:30 or 6:30 or, based on past, that would be a Monday night so. A1-Jaff: I can double check on that and get back. Blackowiak: Thank you very much and I will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 12