Loading...
PC Minutes 06-19-2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Bill Colopoulos MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Kelsey Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner Aller: We’re starting the meeting a little late but let the record reflect that we have a quorum and we’ll be taking some matters out of order tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE BEACHLOT: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-26 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CANOE RACKS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED ON OUTLOTS I & J, LAKESIDE. APPLICANT: LAKESIDE MASTER ASSOCIATION, PLANNING CASE 2006-26. Aller: Okay, the first item will be taken out of order. It is item number 2 and it is a request for an amendment to Lakeside Beachlot Conditional Use Permit. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. As you stated this is an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for a beachlot at the Lakeside development. It’s Planning Case 2006-26. The th public hearing is being held tonight, the 19 and this is being turned around for council next Monday. The property in question is located on Lyman Boulevard on the north side of Lake Riley. The development immediately to the north of that is the Lakeside development and just to the northwest of that is the North Bay development in Chanhassen. The property to the east of this is in the City of Eden Prairie and that’s the Bearpath golf course that you can see to the northeast. In 2006 when this project came forward they did a conditional use permit for the beachlot but they didn’t include any canoe racks or non-motorized racks for the development. Now they want to come in and put those in and they’re trying to expedite that process. The conditional use permit standards for beachlots allows up to 4 racks and with up to 6 canoes or other non-motorized watercraft on it. They originally came in for only specifying 2 but as part of this approval, because there are so many homes that may be in that association that we allow them to do up to the 4 over time as they develop so. Here’s the original plan. They’ve just shown in this little area to the northeast of the totlot area that they want to be able to put canoe racks in. Very simple construction. It’s cross beams with wood. Maximum height of about 5 feet I think so they don’t have to lift them very far. Actually the construction of these will not require a building permit from the City because there’s no standards involved with that. That is the extent of the proposed amendment right now. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for the beachlot to permit canoe racks subject to the original conditions of approval for the beachlot. And here’s the motion for you. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Who will be maintaining them? Generous: The Lakeside Homeowners Association. It’s a master association I believe. It covers the entire development and then there’s sub-associations in there but they’re all part of this association which has the beachlot and the club house within the development. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012 Aller: I have no other questions. Anyone else have any questions, comments? Thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to come up and say anything? State your name and address for the record. Gary Roethle: Hi. Gary Roethle from 8776 Lake Riley Drive, Chanhassen. Aller: Thank you Mr. Roethle. Gary Roethle: I’m President of the Highlands Homeowners Association and on the board of the master. We’ve gotten approval from the master board to do this. We’ve also been accounted for making sure we had an insurance rider, just so you’re aware, to our lakefront property to make sure in case there were any injuries or whatever that that coverage is there and it’s the people who are paying, doing the work to build it that are going to be responsible for the maintenance and whatever, and as Bob Generous mentioned, the verbiage in the original submittal included statements of the boat racks but they never put them in the drawings so we have a group of enthusiasts currently and then another half a dozen so I’m glad you took it to 4, who wanted future access to putting kayaks or canoes up there so we’d like to do that and get it in so we can enjoy the summer on the lake. Aller: Thank you. I have no questions. Anyone? Thomas: No, no questions. Aller: It looks great, thank you very much. With that I’ll open the public hearing for comment. Anyone wishing to step forward and discuss the request can do so. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Any need for discussion? Questions? I’ll take a motion. Colopoulos: I’d like to move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit application 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non- motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions of approval. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion? Colopoulos moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non- motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. th Aller: Motion carries and please note again this will be before the City Council on June 25, which is Monday. Generous: Clarification Mr. Chairman. Was that motion to also adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation? 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012 Colopoulos: I’ll make that motion to the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, development review application and racks schematic Section 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code and public hearing notice. Aller: Can I have a second to that for motion for amendment. Thomas: Yeah, motion to amend. Colopoulos moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non- motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aller: Passes formally. PUBLIC HEARING: 6561 TROENDLE CIRCLE: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 6561 TROENDLE CIRCLE. APPLICANT: JAY DONOHUE, PLANNING CASE 2012-07. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request for hard surface coverage on the property zoned single family residential. Planning Case 2012-07. The Planning Commission is sitting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in reviewing this item. The property is located at 6561 Troendle Circle. This is in north central Chanhassen. Just to the east and south of this is the Carver Beach area of Chanhassen and approximately a quarter mile north is Pleasant View Road. It’s currently these areas aren’t connected yet to come back out to Powers to get to them. Single family homes in this neighborhood developed in the early 90’s. The request is for a 6.9 percent variance to permit hard cover of 31.9% on property zoned single family residential. Our normal standard for single family homes is 25%. When this, the applicant, or not the applicant. The original homeowner came in or the original builder came in, the first approval actually allowed a house and driveway that exceeded the 25%. However at that time we did not catch the coverage because it wasn’t included on the survey. Since then the City has changed it’s review processes and for any improvements now we get those calculations so that we don’t end up in situations like this. The existing hard cover on the site is 32.7%. What the applicant is proposing is to put his porch and deck in the rear of the house over where the existing patio is, which is hard surface and that was put in by the previous property owner. With the proposed, even with the proposed expansion the applicant is looking at reducing the hard cover on the site by 117 square feet, which is just under 1% hard cover for the property. The reduction in the hard cover includes the construction of the porch so that was a pretty good. It makes the situation better from what’s existing. He can keep what he has now and so we actually will improve it. And we believe that the granting of the variance is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. We allow people to have porches on their property. It is a reasonable use and it’s normally associated with a single family home. And the practical difficulty in this situation is that he bought the house and it’s already over and he wanted to do a reasonable improvement and he’s not permitted to. Had this been a simple non-conforming site and built before 1972 the assumption would be that it complied with ordinance and any reduction is appropriate and the staff could have signed off on that administratively. However since this was built since that 1972, our ordinances have been in place and so his only relief is to request a variance from the hard cover. Staff is recommending approval of the variance application to permit 31.9% hard cover on this property and allow him to construct his screen porch. With that, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. 3