Loading...
PC Minutes 07-16-2013 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2013 (Due to technical difficulties, some of the microphones were not working properly.) Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Steven Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Moore 3811 Williston Road Chris Hammer 9688 Washington Boulevard th Troy Kakacek 380 West 86 Street Jim & Susan Keeler 1817 Freedom Lane Deb Chenoweth 1829 Freedom Lane LuAnn Markgraf 401 Rice Court Dick Roe 6771 Penamint Lane Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road Keith & Julie Peterson 921 Hiawatha Drive Jeff Kerfeld 2702 Shadow Wood Court Karen Blenker 405 Rice Court Joe Dorn 1833 Freedom Lane John C. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Colleen Kroll 2694 Shadow Wood Court Emily Owen 2706 Shadow Wood Court Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court PUBLIC HEARING: 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INC. OWNER: ANITA BENSON. PLANNING CASE 2013-15. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Aller: I noticed in the report that the first plan came by with 33%. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Was that the porch area then? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aanenson: Yeah I think the interpretation of that was..and actually that was a raised deck so it didn’t include the hard surface coverage. It was this area here because a raised deck off that split so it didn’t count towards the hard cover so it was just a calculation correction on the staff. Aller: And my review of the report it shows the history of the lot, apparently there was an original application for variance which was denied because it was too much on that hard cover and then there was a second one that had been approved? Aanenson: Correct. Aller: And this one is less than the one that had been approved as far as the hard coverage? Aanenson: Yes. Aller: Isn’t that the 16 foot center drive? Aanenson: Yes. That’s pretty minimal. They can go larger, yes. So that’s minimal. Aller: I don’t have any further questions at this time. Any other concerns? Would the applicant like to step forward or make a presentation on behalf of the applicant? Please state your name and address for the record sir. David Moore: Hi. David Moore. David D. Moore, Inc., applicant. 3811 Williston Road, Minnetonka. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could, I know we’re having problems with the microphone. Mr. Moore, if you wouldn’t mind just speaking into, you can speak into the one on the podium too. David Moore: Okay. Is that better? Aller: That’s better, thank you. David Moore: Okay. Aller: Welcome Mr. Moore. Tell us about the variance and what you’re looking for. David Moore: Well I went through several plans trying to fit this lot and the difficulty is the width of the lot. Not necessarily the depth. Originally I spoke with some of the staff members about possibly applying for an 8 foot side yard variance to go with it and they suggested don’t do that. Do, follow the guidelines that were approved some time ago at 36% approval for the hard cover. I did the calculations myself with 33.5% not knowing your deck coverage was not included. I would like to reserve the 33.5% is still on my application. That would be a walkout underneath that deck. Would not be underground. And I would like to reserve that possibly to pour a patio. Aller: Okay. David Moore: Give that consideration. The other option obviously would be to put a slab on grade wood platform deck which would deteriorate over time. Not too friendly to the public I don’t think but it is a three bedroom, three bath plan. I could have gone smaller in house. I wouldn’t be here tonight. It would be an 860 split with a single tuck under garage. Not favorable to the public and the values around the area that I viewed myself. I’ve been selling real estate for Edina Realty for 37 years so I pretty much know values when I see it and the functionality of a house having three bedrooms on one floor rather than two. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 The driveway situation possibly moving it closer to the street. Doesn’t matter to me either way. I would like to comply with the 30 foot setback off the street to go with the back. The other difficulties of this property these, I’m very well aware of this, there is no sewer/water stubbed to the property. It’s out in the street. I visited with staff on several occasions here. There’s a WAC and SAC charge of about $8,200 to go with this in addition to cutting into the street and bringing the sewer service and the water service to the property. Aller: Well I can’t help you with the numbers but… David Moore: No, I’m just saying it’s what I’m trying to deal with here and I understand the whole situation. I’m not new to the building industry. Aller: Great. Well thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions? David Moore: I guess I’d like to leave that, at least on the garage side. An 8 foot side yard application would have been great for only one reason. It gives the width of the bedrooms a 10 foot width dimension rather than reduce down to 9 foot in width. My architect has designed the house for me to cantilever this side of the house 18 inches which does not infringe on the hard cover whatsoever because it’s above ground. It’s a little more difficult to do on the gabled end of a house but it can be accomplished. The aesthetics and the architectural design would be impaired because of that. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: I just want to get a clarification on the cantilever. You’re getting a variance, when you’re getting a variance, you can’t also double dip on a cantilever on a, when you’re encroaching on. You’re giving an 8 foot then you can’t use a variance too so I guess it’d be instead of, I’m just trying to answer your question. So the way our ordinance is written right now, if you’re getting a variance on a setback you can’t also use the cantilever portion of it. We don’t allow that. The way I understood it he was trying to see if he could get an 8 foot and then make sure, if you were to go that direction, that you couldn’t also use a cantilever on that. David Moore: Okay. Aanenson: That would not be the floor plan in our packet. Aller: It’s in the packet. Unless it’s changed. Alright. Well then at this point I will open the public hearing and…come forward speaking for or against the application for a variance on this property can do so at this time. Keith Peterson: Hi. My name’s Keith Peterson. I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive. Aller: Welcome Keith. Keith Peterson: I guess the reason the neighborhood has kind of always been fired up about this lot. Back in ’99 when the lot first came for sale, three of us over there called the City and the City told us it was not buildable. So we were going to buy the lot and divide it up so each of our lots would be bigger, closer to the size lots that should be in Chanhassen. Well then before we got the deal done somebody from the City buys it and all of a sudden it’s buildable and so that’s why we’re very fired up. I can’t believe the guy that sold the lot didn’t sue the City because he sold this lot for $4,200 and $4,200 in Chanhassen you know doesn’t buy much. It’s a small lot. It shouldn’t be a buildable lot. It should be made into, to make the lots more acceptable size for the houses that are actually there. And another thing 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 I noticed, I wish I had more time to prepare but there’s a letter from Anita saying that in ’99 she was approved for variances. I don’t recall that. The first time I recall anything coming to the City was when she was trying to sell it for $21,000 to Habitat for Humanity without doing a thing. To me that’s just pure profit. You’re getting variances for profit and I don’t, unless you have information that I don’t have, I don’t think it was ever approved in ’99 because we didn’t do the, the other one with Habitat until December of 2000. That’s the first I recall. I don’t know about you guys but, so there was just, just a lot of stuff that really ticked us off and now that it’s reopened again they ended up approving, you know the Planning Commission denied it at first and then you guys didn’t want to get sued, that’s why we were told that they had to approve it but you should have gotten sued by the guy that sold the lot because he sold it for $4,200. We should have sued you because you lied to us. Not you in particular but so. So I think this variance, and another thing I don’t understand is a self created hardship. When you buy a lot for $4,200 and try to sell it for $21,000, if you get the variance, I mean you know it’s a small lot. I think the hardship was created by buying a lot like this. You know it should have been a non-buildable lot and that’s what the City told everybody else so, I don’t know we’re just kind of fired up over there and that’s just, I’m not sure what else I was going to say but I don’t recall just recap. ’99 I don’t recall her ever getting approved and she didn’t, it never came to you guys until she was trying to sell it and to me that’s just pure profit and another thing that lot has been there since what, ’99 she’s owned it. It’s never been mowed once. It looks like a jungle now and for her to be, now she’s asking what, $29,000 for it? I mean this variance is just pure profit and for a city employee to, nobody ever gave us a straight answer how it was unbuildable when we called but a city employee bought it so that’s just kind of where we’re, I’m coming from so I’m not sure what everybody else has to say but that’s my piece. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, in the background we gave the dates that, so there was a variance so. Aller: Right. Aanenson: …nothing happens with a variance for one year then it becomes null and void but there was one approved. The first one was denied… Keith Peterson: In 2000. Aanenson: Yeah we do have in the background… Keith Peterson: It was 2000 and it was approved then in ’99. Aanenson: 2001. Keith Peterson: Yeah. She said it was done in ’99. Aanenson: Well I can’t comment on the factual. I’m worried… Keith Peterson: Well she’s saying she had it approved to make it look like it wasn’t done for pure profit. Aller: Okay, I understand your position sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Wally Schwab: Yeah. My name is Wally Schwab. I live. Aller: Sorry? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Wally Schwab: Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road which is just east of the property in question. Most of what he said is true about the variances. She, Ms. Benson was granted a variance on the basis of to deny her the variance would be creating a hardship, which would result in a taking by the papers from the last time this came up. This now is not the case in this instance because the proposed new owner does not yet own the property. Therefore denial of the variance would not be creating a hardship. Myself and most of the neighbors to whom I have spoken have concerns about a house, a building of any size being crammed into a sub-standard sized lot. If you tour the area, all of the lots in that region are a full, at least a full 100 by 100. Some of them are more than 100 by 200. They’re all nice, big sized lots with decent sized houses on them. Yes, there are smaller lots further down Carver Beach Road. These two lots were originally summer cabins. They’ve now become full time residences. To compare the use of them to this property I think is wrong. It just will not fit in our immediate neighborhood. If you tour the area, the lots are all, there’s space. This is like that. It doesn’t work. That’s my concern. Aller: Thank you sir. Dick Roe: Dick Roe. I live 6771 Penamint. I’m right directly across from the driveway. My property and really at this point I wasn’t for or against. I guess I just wonder how, if all the other homes on both sides are all single family, or not single family but just single story, how this in addition to getting approved, how they would allow a two story home, which would be the only one. Would stick up above the rest of the homes there. There isn’t a two story home anywhere either direction so it’s just a matter of, there’s many things that he’s asking for and I hadn’t seen any prints or plans until tonight but I think that if somebody could meet all the 10 foot, 10 foot and they could do it on a single story then I would be for it. Aller: Thank you sir. Yes ma’am. Katie Eckhoff: I’m Katie Eckhoff and I live at 920 Hiawatha Drive. Aller: Welcome. Katie Eckhoff: And I haven’t lived there as long as these folks have so we’ve been there for 5 years. 6 years actually and we, our biggest issue is that, you know we moved to Chanhassen because our neighborhood and the surrounding area has big lot sizes. That was a big factor for our family in moving to this community and I feel like to cram a house into that tiny, little lot is really going to take away the integrity of our neighborhood and what people are looking for in our neighborhood and I feel that it may detract from, it may bring our value of our house down by having this tiny, little house crammed in a lot where all the rest of the surrounding neighborhood has nice large lots and you know family friendly homes. This one’s just, it just is not going to fit in I guess bottom line and I’m worried for the resale of our house down the road potentially and also like I said, you know if we want to live in a community where the houses were crammed in together we would have lived in Minneapolis. I mean we moved to Chanhassen, this community because it’s a beautiful area and the lot sizes are large and that’s what we were looking for for our family so I mean for what it’s worth that’s kind of my opinion and I just don’t think it’s a good fit for our neighborhood. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come up speak for or against? Seeing. Keith Peterson: What was the original proposal on the house to be built that? Aller: My history was. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Keith Peterson: Just a single story wasn’t it? Aller: It was. Keith Peterson: What I recall is they approved a house that nobody would want to build just so they could get something approved and not get sued I guess. Audience: Should you let them know that… Keith Peterson: Oh yeah, she’s been offered to sell that lot at a profit but not like she’s trying to get now. Aller: Thank you. I understand that and for everybody’s edification I can’t control the marketplace and the committee’s not here to look at the value of the property per se but the use of the property at this point which is the application before us and so that’s what we’re looking for and there’s a certain structure that can typically be put on to a property when they combined lots that were platted, these were platted a long time ago so they’re smaller lots so in order to get the value out of the properties owners are required to basically put those platted lots together in order to have a tax parcel and to build on them. Keith Peterson: You should tell the guy that’s selling it that it’s a buildable, not buildable. Aller: But that’s the person’s right and that’s one of the reasons why the property has a value. A person has a right to using that to the best of their ability and for that size…the best use. That’s what we’re trying to do is balance that between what we would like to do as a city and restricting those rights and what a homeowner wants to do with her property so. Keith Peterson: Well I’m sure you would have sold it for a lot more if you would… Aller: At this point I’m going to close the public hearing and we’re going to let the applicant come forward and if you’d like to respond to any of the comments, that’s fine. David Moore: I guess in some of the research I’ve done with the City as well on this property, it was one lot at one point and it was split prior to 1977. The abutting owner’s property, 970 next to 960 was in fact 960 Carver Beach Road. The City did approve and did split along the way this lot. It’s a lot of record and it should be buildable. As far as value, my bank’s got this thing over $300,000. I don’t know where the total values are on Carver Beach Road but I think that’d be on the top of the list right now. Aller: Okay. Any comments? Discussion. Questions. Any questions on the variance? Comments. I think that in looking at this, if we grant this motion we’re allowing for the use of the property in a way which is less than, which was approved by prior Planning Commissions so I feel fairly comfortable with that. That being said I’ve looked at all the conditions and looked at the use that’s been requested. I do believe that it’s a hardship not of the owner’s making but one of the nature of the property itself. I don’t believe that it’s necessarily for purposes of economics, solely for economics but actually use of the property to get the highest and best use of the property is obviously going to raise the value of the property. My hope is that it will raise the value of everyone’s property if it’s built. They still have the hoops to jump through if we grant the variance so I would be voting to approve. Any other comments? Questions? That being said, anybody who’d like to make a motion. I’d entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single family home subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? I’ll just say I believe that there are other variances that have been granted in that area that this would be in line with as stated in the report. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single-family home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property. 2. The building shall be limited to the split level house design. 3. The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES: REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING CASE 2013-08. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application is for a senior housing project, extended care. The site is located north of Pioneer Trail, west of Bluff Creek Boulevard. The existing zoning as well as the land use on the site, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows this area designed for development as medium density. Medium density allows for 4 to 8 units per acre. Types of development appropriate zoning for this type of land use would be an R-8, an RLM which allows for mixed types of low medium density or a planned unit development residential type of zoning. What the applicant is proposing to develop on this site is a single building which will contain 24 rooms. Individual rooms. The occupants of the building will be individuals that need assistance with their mobility. They will put a substantially less demand on the infrastructure of, on the infrastructure than a typical medium density type of development would. And for a continuing care facility the only type of zoning that is, that allows this type of use within the city is the R-8, which is the medium density. So with that said, what the applicant is requesting is a rezoning of the property from currently as I said it is zoned Agricultural Estate District. They are proposing to rezone it from Agricultural Estate to Medium Density which is R-8. They are also requesting a site plan approval for the construction of a continuing care retirement facility and a conditional use permit since the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The only way you are allowed to develop within that area is if the City grants a conditional use. The current zoning of the site is Agricultural Estate District. The applicant is requesting they rezone it to Medium Density. That type of rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. It is compatible with the surrounding area. The area to the north of it has a medium density. The area to the east has 4 units per acre and then as we go into the Chaska portion of the 7