Loading...
PC Minutes 07-17-2012Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING: 6645 HORSESHOE CURVE: REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF). APPLICANT: JOSH KOLLER, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, OWNER: TIMOTHY FIELDHOUSE, PLANNING CASE 2012-09. Mellgren: Good evening. The City has received a variance request from applicant Josh Koller with Southview Design. The property owners are Tim and Carol Fieldhouse. The property is located on Lotus Lake. The address 6645 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant is requesting a 25 foot setback to encroach into the 75 foot shoreland management setback to allow for the reconstruction of a patio on the lakeshore side of a property zoned RSF. There are several existing conditions that the applicant and the homeowner are concerned with. The existing patio, staircase and walkways have begun to erode away and have created uneven walking surfaces. The missing stones have created areas that have one half inch to one inch differentiation in the surface level. The applicant has proposed a deck as a safer alternative to the existing step from the house to the patio. Staff would like to note that the deck was not part of the variance application. However is considered a replacement to the non-conformity rather than an addition. According to current building standards the step rise should be 7 and 3/4 inches and this step exceeds that requirement. The homeowners have expressed a lot of concern regarding erosion taking place the westerly protrusion of the patio. This erosion is likely resulting from directed discharge from the hard cover. Currently the site is exceeding the 25% maximum allowable hard surface coverage by 3.27%. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a patio encroaching into the 75 foot shoreland management setback by 25 feet. This is an additional 13 foot encroachment into the setback than the existing patio as shown as the image in the middle. The red line is the 75 foot setback from the OHW. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing staircase, walkway and patio shown in the blue on the existing plan to reconstruct the patio shown on the right image. This will reduce the hard cover from 28.27 to 25.9 percent which is 867 square feet. Staff believes the proposed design has a possibility through the reduction in impervious surface to improve the water quality of the stormwater runoff from the site. Staff further recognizes that the project constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use. However the net benefits of the water quality and potential screening of the patio as viewed from the public water may outweigh any deleterious effects of this expansion. The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The construction of a patio is a normal use associated with a single family residence. The practical difficulty with the reconstruction of this patio is that the existing patio currently does not comply with the shoreland management setback. The proposed patio will continue the non-conformity. However the property exceeds the City Code requirements for hard surface coverage by 3.2%. The applicant is proposing to reduce the hard cover, or hard surface coverage to 25.9% and staff is recommending the hard surface be further reduced to 25%. This reduction will likely result in improved conditions compared to what is on the site. Staff is recommending the approval of the 25 foot shoreland management setback variance for the reconstruction of the patio, Planning Case #2012-9 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decisions subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. This concludes the staff report. Aller: I know we sent out postcards. Were there any responses? Mellgren: I did not receive any. Aller: So no negative responses from neighbors or? Mellgren: No. Aller: Okay. And has the applicant been made aware of the findings and the request for the reduction to the 25? 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 Mellgren: They did receive a copy of the staff report. Aller: Any other questions from anyone? Comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward and be heard? Josh Koller: Hi, Josh Koller. I’m with Southview Design. Our address is in Inver Grove Heights. 1875 th East 50 Street so, a couple things on this. The property owners have only been here for 2 years on this property. This house was built in I think 1918 or something like that. Obviously there weren’t any of the issues with hard cover surfaces or anything like that. Permits weren’t pulled for patios, these types of things. We appreciate the approval of the City or the you know asking for approval from the City here on this. Going all the way down to the 25% is going to be a very difficult thing. We’re already shrinking over 800 square feet of hard cover on this property. Right now with the existing condition we’ve got overhead trees. We’ve got the hill that slopes down. We do have erosion problems, stuff like that. We are planning on planting that. There’s a retaining wall being proposed in the design to help with the erosion as well. You know that’s where we’re looking at you know again we’ve dropped over 800 square feet here so we’re trying to get it as close as we can. If we keep shrinking that up, I mean we’re just not going to have anything back there. The other point that the City had mentioned was, you know that Ashley had mentioned was the deck not being part of this. The deck was submitted by another company that was doing the deck work to get approval for a permit on the deck so I guess I was under the assumption that it’s basically a large landing was separate and was getting approved for a permit there so those are the kind of the things that we have issues with you know going forward with this project. We’re just trying to eliminate a lot of hard cover issues and it’s pretty bad right now. If you walk out on site it’s, not only is it you know not a very comfortable, usable space but it’s fairly dangerous. They’ve had people trip on the patio. There’s big gaps on there and the stairs are just falling apart altogether. A lot of that has to do with a lot of erosion issues and how it’s running down the hillside there so that’s kind of what we’re looking at doing. Aller: With the other conditions on, for instance on the. Josh Koller: Yep, the 9. There was 10 conditions total. Aller: You obviously have read them all. Josh Koller: Yep. Aller: You understand what they’re asking for. You’ve met with them. Josh Koller: Yep. Aller: Is there a problem meeting any? Josh Koller: Nope. All of those are fine. That’s pretty basic. Usually when we submit for a permit we’re going to put a plan together for erosion control. Whether they want silt logs or whether we want you know, it really doesn’t matter to us. We can submit that. The elevation piece for the plan that’s, those are very easy pieces for us to submit so everything on there was fine. Aller: Okay. Josh Koller: It’s just trying to get to that, you know we’re already going down like I said so much square footage there and we are trying to get into that 25%. We’re just a little above it. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 Aller: And the overstory trees will stay? Josh Koller: Yep. We’re not taking any of the trees out. There is one diseased pine that we might want to talk about. We can get an arborist out there but that actually has nothing to do with what we’re doing here. It’s not even in the area so, yeah. Yep. Aller: And so could you explain the difficulty and the difference between what planning is requesting, what the Code basically requires which is the 25. Josh Koller: The 25, yeah. Aller: And the 25.9. What are we talking about in reality? Josh Koller: I didn’t do the calculation so I guess I don’t know. I’m assuming it’s probably going to be, you know it’s a pretty good sized lot so it might be even a couple hundred square feet I suppose. I guess I didn’t do the calculation on that. We have a couple things with this lot. I mean it is a pie shaped lot. They moved the house you know when they built the house in 1918 or whatever clear back by the lake. Well one thing we have is we do have a very long driveway going to there and different things like that but then like I said this back patio was just really expansive and you know the biggest thing is we were trying to shrink it down to get to that area. If we shrink it much more than that I mean they’re just not going to have much of an even a place to sit and they like to, just like everybody, like to at least have a table and chairs out there. The new patio, I think the square footage is I think 400 and some square feet. I don’t recall so it’s not very big you know so we’re just again, just trying to create a little bit of usable space. I’m never going to get good grass to grow underneath there anyway so erosion’s always going to be something. That’s one of the big things with the retaining wall is to stop that and then you know we’re also, we are going to have to set some boulder outcrops in there to help with that but you know what it’s like when you have a hillside, if I just mulch it and plant it, I mean it’s just going to rush down anyway and so otherwise they’re just going to have a mulch patio which obviously isn’t going to work very well either so. Aller: And the square footage now of the patio? Josh Koller: It says on here. I believe, I’m sorry I would have to find that. Well the square footage of the patio now is, I mean I guess I’m reducing it to the 8, by 867 square feet so I mean it’s fairly, fairly expansive. I’d have to get back to you on that. I don’t know what the exact square footage is on that, unless I have it on the. Aanenson: Chairman I think that staff would know the answer to that if you’d like us to answer that. Aller: Sure. I want a real good understanding of what we’re talking about in reduction from what’s there now to what is proposed. Josh Koller: Flagstone, if I can answer that. Mellgren: Yeah. Josh Koller: It’s right here. The flagstone patio right now, that’s there right now is 1,293 square feet. Colopoulos: And you’re going down to 400? Josh Koller: And we are going down to. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 Mellgren: 426. Aanenson: Can you say it louder Ashley. Josh Koller: Yeah, 426. So I mean. Colopoulos: An extra 9 percent, .9 percent would be approximately 360 square feet so. Josh Koller: Yeah so I mean they wouldn’t have anything. Colopoulos: You wouldn’t be left with much. Aller: You wouldn’t be left with anything. Josh Koller: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for the calculations. I’m a landscaper, not a math guy. Aller: And my understanding is that all the, they’re new to the lot, that the actual prior patio and all the work was done pre permits? Before they were… Josh Koller: Yes. Oh yeah, I mean they were done. Aller: So the City wasn’t aware of anything and they certainly weren’t in a position to control or do anything when they came in. Josh Koller: No. Aller: Other than what they’re doing now which is asking for the variance. Josh Koller: Yep, that’s correct. They’ve been there 18 months so not even 2 years so. Aller: Any other questions? Concerns? Comments? Thank you. Would anyone else like to come up and speak on behalf of the applicant? No? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing. Questions or comments for. How do we feel about the difference between the 25 and the 25.9 because that’s really what it boils down to at this point. And I’ll start off by saying a substantial reduction this is from the 1,349 and that I would, I think we appreciate, I certainly do, people coming in and asking for a variance rather than just doing and asking for forgiveness later and creating a big problem where the City has to come in and make alternations and do something else so we’re looking at something that is better than what was there and it’s not perfect. It’s not optimum but I think that’s what variances are all about. Okay. Colopoulos: Want a motion? Ready for a motion or are we still in public hearing? Aller: No, the public hearing’s closed. Thomas: Oh you did that? Colopoulos: You closed it? Oh you didn’t have the microphone on. Aller: Let’s make sure for the record that the public hearing is opened. And no one coming forward it’s closed. So any other comments, questions? Thoughts. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 Hokkanen: Well I have a question, just so I’m reading this right. So if we approve this as it is the condition of going down to 25 percent. Aller: Would be. Hokkanen: A requirement or could we strike that? Aller: If we approve it as is it’s 25%. Is you want to modify it. Hokkanen: We can modify each one, okay. Aller: Then you would need to say that it would be 25.9 which is what the request is. Hokkanen: Alright, that’s what I wanted to clarify. That answers my question. Colopoulos: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the reconstruction of a patio in the Shoreland Management Setback, Planning Case #2012-09 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to conditions 1 through 8 and condition 10. Aller: So we’re… Colopoulos: And leaving condition 9. Aller: In it’s entirety or modified? Colopoulos: In it’s entirety. Thomas: I would say modified to the 25.9. Colopoulos: To 25.9. To 25.9, okay. Modifying. Aller: Make it clear. Colopoulos: Yes, let me restate that last part okay. Subject to conditions 1 through 8 and condition 10 as written, modifying condition 9 to read, existing hard cover must be reduced no more than 25.9 percent of the lot area. Hokkanen: Second it. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Colopoulos moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves the request for the reconstruction of the patio located within the Shoreland Management Setback located on Lot 5, Rearrangement of lots in Pleasant View, based on the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed deck can be no larger than indicated on the plan set provided with the revision dated June 14, 2012. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 2. The proposed deck cannot be covered or enclosed at a future date. 3. Any proposed drainage, erosion control and grading must be shown on a plan and cannot be more than is required to meet the requirements of this project. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate remedies to the erosion problems on the western portion of the site. 4. The applicant must demonstrate that the patio cannot be constructed without retaining walls. Further, any walls determined necessary must be the minimum height needed to achieve the above parameters. 5. Any retaining walls exceeding 48 inches in height require a building permit and professional design. 6. The top and toe of any wall determined necessary should be shown on the plan. 7. Proposed finish elevation shall be shown on the southerly extent of the patio. 8. No tree removal may occur as a result of this project. 9. The existing hardcover must be reduced to no more than 25.9% of the lot area. 10. There shall be no expansion of the water-oriented structure located on the site unless the portion of the proposal located in the Shoreland Management Setback is removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION: REQUEST FOR A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL (A-2) AND LOCATED AT 1551 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK DORSEY, PPB HOLDINGS, LP, PLANNING CASE 2012-08. Aanenson: The applicant is requesting a metes and bounds subdivision to create two lots from a 20 acre parcel. Parcel C is 4 acres and Parcel D is 16 acres. The 40 acre parcel is being split into two lots via an administrative subdivision, and I’ll go through this in detail in a minute. So the administrative subdivision by State Statute requires city approval on that. That action has not taken place yet. The proposed subdivision does meet the metes and bounds would meet the city ordinances with conditions of approval. So the subject site is located on Lyman Boulevard. Even for an administrative subdivision to occur properties have to have access to the site so the two access points right now, so when we look at the subdivision which I’ll show you in a second, the administrative subdivision, there’s an access point via this street here which is on the LDK development. The Preserve and then the other one’s over the existing driveway so that allows the first split of the property. There were several applicable regulations which I’ll explain in a little bit more detail as we go through the development itself but again the main one is that the City can approve a metes and bounds subdivision so this is different than a plat. It’s a metes and bounds but it has to have access onto a public right-of-way is one of the criteria so we haven’t seen too many of these specifically since my tenure here. This is the first time we’ve done a metes and bounds with this type of thing inside an urban service area. Typically they’re platted. So the other, and as I explained it is exempt. The metes and bounds from the subdivision. Excuse me, the administrative is exempt. The metes and bounds does require city approval. Chapter 20 also comes into consideration and that’s the density. If you’re outside the urban service area we have a requirement of density allocation. 8