Loading...
PC Minutes 10-02-2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, and Kathleen Thomas PUBLIC PRESENT: Patrick Furlong 1405 Knob Hill Lane PUBLIC HEARING: 7250 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 7250 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. APPLICANT/OWNER: MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI, PLANNING CASE 2012-14. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request. It’s Planning Case #2012-14. Mark and Donna Malinowski at 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. This property is located on the east shore of Lake St. Joe. Lake St. Joe is a natural environmental lake and it has more stringent setbacks than either recreational development or other lakes in our community so the building setbacks are 150 feet instead of 75 feet. The site drops down from Minnewashta Parkway approximately 35 feet to the building location so there is a significant drop down onto the site. The applicant is requesting a variance so that they can build an addition on the back side of their existing home as well as a garage addition on the end of the house site. However because of the location of the existing home it does not meet the 150 foot setback and so any expansion they’re looking for a variance to approve it. The buildable area as presented by Mr. Malinowski is the area that’s actually on the upside of the hill. There is a significant retaining wall on the east side of the house and as part of their request we’ve requested that they push the garage expansion as close to that as they can do that, and here’s an example. The 68 feet that is shown from this is from the shoreland that was presented at the time of the survey. The ordinary high water elevation for Lake St. Joe is 945.7, and I should point out that on page 4 of 5 there’s, in the third paragraph it says 947.5. It should be 945.7 for the second time it’s listed in that paragraph. But anyways the applicant is proposing that both of these additions be on the lee side of the house, so farther back from the lake than the existing home is proposed and while we don’t have the exact location of the ordinary high water elevation so we can’t give an exact distance in it, we’re proposing that this variance request be approved based on the plans that they submitted and that are being reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed additions to the house are reasonable accommodation. Again on the north side of these, or the east side of this property there is a retaining wall and he’s pushing his garage right up next to that so he couldn’t go any further back on that and this addition is on the east side of the house so it is away from the shoreland so it shouldn’t create any additional impacts to the water. With that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the variance from the 150 shoreland setback requirement based on the plans that are submitted with this report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision with the two conditions that they preserve the existing slope with a retaining wall, and that they remove the existing carport which is located to the south of the house at the end of the driveway. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Do we know what the square footage and the hardscape is? Is that within, does it meet our requirements? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2012 Generous: It’s way under what is permissible in the district. Aller: And I think I read somewhere where part of the retaining wall was going to be removed, is that still the case? Generous: And replaced. Aller: Replaced, okay. Colopoulos: Along with the carport. Generous: And the carport’s going to be removed. It can’t be kept on the site. Aller: Okay. I think the report is complete. I think it’s self explanatory. I think it’s great that the structures are actually farther away so it’s a non-conforming use now but the additional requested use is actually farther away than the present use so with that I don’t have any further questions or comments. Anyone? Nelson: No. Colopoulos: No. Aller: Okay we’re going to open, the applicant present? Mark Malinowski: I’m here. Aller: Sir, would you like to make any presentation or stand on the presentation? Mark Malinowski: No…pretty much says…have no problem with the two requirements. Removing the carport and replacing the retaining wall with a better wall. Aller: Okay, great. Thank you. Alright I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone present wishing to speak for or against may step forward. Seeing no one step forward, I’m going to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Do I have a motion? Tennyson: I’ll move the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2012-14 for a variance to the 150 shoreland setback requirement as shown in plans dated Received August 22, 2012 and subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Colopoulos: I’ll second. Aller: Does it also include the two conditions? Colopoulos: The two conditions. Nelson: The conditions outlined in the staff report. Tennyson: Yes. Subject to conditions. Yes. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2012 Aller: So I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-14 for a variance to the 150 shoreland setback requirement as shown in plans dated Received August 22, 2012 and subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. Preserve the existing slope with a retaining wall. 2. Remove the existing carport from the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY CODE AMENDMENT: REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING TO ALLOW A SENIOR CARE FACILITY IN MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICTS. AND BEE HIVE HOMES: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8); PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2.16 ACRES INTO ONE LOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 41 AT 6330 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: TYLER & KATHRYN STEVENS. OWNER: ROR, INC, PLANNING CASE 2012- 15. Generous: This item and the following item are both linked together and we’re requesting that these items be tabled to the next Planning Commission agenda. Aller: Any discussion? Anyone here on that item that wishes to be heard. Would you like to be heard at th this time or would you like to follow the matter to the 16. Audience: Ben, did you want to say something? Ben Gowen: Well if it’s going to be tabled… th Aller: I would make it be the end of it if you can’t be here on the 16 sir. I mean if you want to. Ben Gowen: I’ll be here. Aller: Okay. Tennyson: I’d like to make a motion to continue the public hearing related to the City Code amendment and also item number 3 Bee Hive Homes. Aller: Okay, so items 2 and 3. I have a motion. Similar motion on both to continue to October 16, 2012. Tennyson: Due to issues that have arisen regarding utility services. Nelson: I’ll second that. 3