PC Minutes 11-05-2013Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013
something. They’ve come and asked for permission. They’ve gotten it granted and then they decide not
to do it so again anything we do today is advisory. The City Council’s going to make that decision.
They’re going to take a look at the costs. The expense as they move forward which is why they haven’t
done it in the past in my estimation so.
Hokkanen: Okay.
Aller: Comments.
Yusuf: No further questions.
Aller: Yeah, I agree with the comments. I think it’s important that we take a look at the parking
situation. Whether or not there’s a permit scenario or a special permit for purposes of funerals or for
those holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day where people will be visiting those graves. The buffer
aspect again, I think the City’s been a good neighbor since the cemetery was there to begin with, has been
a good neighbor in allowing what has been termed as a buffer to remain. Basically it’s trees. There is no
buffer requirement so when I look at it I say well by leaving it there they’ve allowed for a cloaking of the
cemetery on those sides and there certainly is nothing to stop anyone on the northeast or south from
putting up their own barriers and putting up their own trees. Putting up their own fences if they are at the
right height and all those requirements but there’s nothing to stop them from creating their own barriers
and creating their own buffer on their own property so I would encourage, and my comments would
follow along with the report. I would encourage them to continue in that vein. To work with them to
truly create a buffer to the extent that it doesn’t require the City not to do and not to fully utilize it’s
property.
Audience: Can I interject something? I could not put up my own buffer on the south side. That’s not
mine. I don’t own the property on the other side of the street. That’s the cemetery’s so I’m sorry to
interrupt.
Aller: No that’s fine. I mean what we want to do is have a conversation so that the City Council will get
the information it needs to make an appropriate decision. Okay, so with those comments we’ll ask that
those comments be passed along to the City Council.
Aanenson: That’s correct and then just again a reminder. This is currently scheduled to go to the City
th
Council on November 25. We do not send a notice out again but if you want to check the City’s web
pages with any updates then we’ll certainly have those in the project file.
Aller: Correct and there’ll be an updated package for the City Council people to look at so.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Aller: Any of those numbers or things that are provided will be on the website. Okay, let’s move along
to item number 2.
Commissioner Withrow returned to the commission for the rest of the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN
CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6780 LOTUS TRAIL.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013
APPLICANT: PETER ROCHFORD/LISA THOMPSON. OWNER: LISA THOMPSON,
PLANNING CASE 2013-22.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2013-22, Peter Rocheford and
Lisa Thompson. They’re requesting a setback variance for the construction of a detached garage on their
property. It’s a 12 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement to construct a 27 by 24
foot, 648 square foot detached garage 18 feet from the front property line. The property’s located at 6780
Lotus Trail. It’s in the Carver Beach neighborhood which is made up of multiple platted lots. This
property came in last year for a variance request to construct a second driveway to the property. It’s
rather steep on the existing driveway up to the house and they were having problems with people parking
there and so they wanted to have a safer location for people to park so they did get the variance and they
installed a gravel cut right now. In the future when they were going to build the garage then they would
have to improve that to either concrete or pavement. The proposal is to construct this garage on the
southern part of their property 18 feet from the south property line and 18 feet from the street right-of-
way. This would give them a 30 foot setback on the rear of the property. However city code permits an
exception for construction of accessory structures if they’re less than 399 square feet. Then they would
be able to have a 10 foot rear yard setback. That would give them approximately a 34 foot building
envelope and still meet the 30 foot front yard setback. We believe that they have the opportunity to
construct this accessory structure without having a variance approved for their property. They could, like
I stated, they could construct a smaller accessory garage on the property eliminating the variance. If they
did receive the variance they would be shortening the parking area that they would have within their
driveway to park vehicles that was part of the reason that they came in for the variance last year. And
additionally they do have an existing garage on site so this would be for additional storage for the
property. 400 square foot building provides adequate space for that. Staff is recommending that the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request for the setback and adopt the Findings of
Fact and Decision in the packet. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Can you just refresh our memories, if you can, on the first variance. The reasoning for that. If I
remember it was a safety situation with cars and parking.
Generous: Yes, they were saying because of the steepness of this driveway, people were sliding down
that in the wintertime and so they were looking to provide a secondary driveway that didn’t have quite the
slope in it and with the approval of the second driveway they were able to do something, I think it was 9%
but then it dropped down to 4%. The way he’s actually constructed it, it’s almost level with the street
right-of-way because he dug into the hill and his proposal for the detached structure would be to have an
in-ground building.
Aller: So they continue to dig in.
Generous: Yeah. Continue to dig in. The back wall would be the retaining wall and the side walls and
then the hill would come down on the side of the garage. However by shortening that he loses a lot of
that parking space and so we believe by granting a variance he then encroaches his parking area into the
city right-of-way and losing at least 2 parking spaces.
Aller: And then he’s also requesting a garage rooftop?
Generous: Well they would put, as part of their construction plan they’re showing a flat roof and on top
of that they would put a deck area that they could, that they would use as a deck.
Aller: And that deck would need a variance typically?
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013
Generous: No because the structure itself would be receiving the variance so it would be in conjunction
with that.
Aller: So he would piggyback then onto the variance that would be granted, if the request is granted.
Generous: Yes. They are getting additional relief from the City Code to have a deck.
Aller: Because if it was a stand alone deck it would need a variance to be there.
Generous: Right, because they’d have to have a 25 foot setback so they’re receiving a 7 foot variance in
essence.
Aller: And the present garage, how large is that?
Generous: I believe it’s a 2 car but I don’t know the dimensions.
Aller: Okay. And the community, are they typically one car, two car, three car garages?
Generous: They’re all over the place. This is Carver Beach. Some don’t even have garages.
Aller: Any other questions of staff?
Yusuf: This one seems pretty straight forward.
Withrow: Can you point out where the garage typically is to go?
Generous: It would be on the southern part of the property.
Withrow: Oh so it’s quite a ways from the.
Aanenson: From the driveway.
Generous: Yeah, here’s the existing driveway. If you’ve been out there the curb, the cut that he’s created
currently starts about at the corner of this catch basin and then comes back in and then comes over this
way so they would be shifting it down further to the south. And they’re showing it at 18 feet from the
south property line. A side setback is 10 feet.
Withrow: In terms of the traffic driving through. I mean that’s right on the street kind of isn’t it? Is that
an issue?
Generous: Carver Beach is a local street so I don’t know if there’s really a lot of traffic down there.
Withrow: No, okay.
Generous: But the City does have a park across the street from this so you get some outside traffic.
Withrow: Nothing else.
Aller: Anything else? Alright. Would the applicant like to step forward and make a presentation of any
sort? Is the applicant present?
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013
Generous: I don’t see him.
Aller: Okay. Then what I’ll do is open the public hearing. If any individual present would like to speak
either for or against the requested variance, come forward. State your name and address and let us know
what you think.
German Sugura: My name is German Sugura and I live at 750 Carver Beach Road.
Aller: Welcome.
German Sugura: And I’m opposed to it. One of the reasons being is because my property is the one that
is being directly, they have impact. I purchase this property 12 years ago. I close the day after 9-11 and
so it was a big day for everybody. I didn’t think I was going to close. That was September. I move a
month later to this place and when the leaves started falling from the trees this amazing view just open up.
I can see downtown Minneapolis from my house. Well in the last 2 years there’s been a lot of changes.
There’s been trees coming left and right and even in my property. Well where they are proposing, where
they put that driveway, I didn’t even know because I was out of town. There was one tree that they…that
they cut down. I don’t know if it was before or after. That tree disappeared.
Aller: And I guess my question is with the cutting of trees.
German Sugura: He’s talking on his property.
Aller: It’s on this, on your property or this property?
German Sugura: On his property.
Aller: Oh okay, thank you.
German Sugura: There’s one but there’s going to be more trees that have to be cut down and they are big
trees so although I love the view, because it is unbelievable but also the trees kind of keep the noise away
in the summertime and it’s, they are just gone. There are trees gone everywhere. These property has
changed in the last 2 years and this is going to effect me more too so I’m then, most people, I’m about
this property because I live on a cliff so I get to see everything that happens right there. I love my privacy
so more is less room.
Aller: Okay, thank you.
German Sugura: So thank you.
Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public
hearing. Open it for comment. Discussion. Anyone? I think the report is a good report. I concur with
the findings. I will note that we did receive an email dated November 4, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. which has
been read and will become part of the record and that was objecting to the grant as well. And that will be
th
on the website in the future and this item will be before the City Council on November 25.
Aanenson: If it’s appealed.
Aller: If it is appealed. So I guess the question becomes, how do you feel about it?
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013
Weick: I don’t think it meets any of the variance, if you look at any of the bullet points. Stipulations of a
variance. I couldn’t find one that it met in my opinion so.
Yusuf: It seems as though the City has done a fair job of assessing all the criteria and even offering
options that would meet the City’s regulations.
Aller: I would again state that I think it’s important to note that there has been an indication that the
desired end can be met without the need for a variance.
Weick: Absolutely.
Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion if anyone would like to make one.
Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the
variance request to construct a 27 foot by 24 foot detached accessory structure 18 feet from the front
property line and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Any discussion? Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Now any discussion. Hearing none.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies
the variance request to construct a 27 foot by 24 foot detached accessory structure 18 feet from the
front property line and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: The requested variance is denied. All interested parties are reminded that a variance decision must
be appealed in writing and that must be done in a short timeframe. Typically 4 days. Moving forward.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESIDE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER SETBACK STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-UNIT
TOWNHOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL
(PUD-R) AND LOCATED ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, LAKESIDE SECOND ADDITION.
APPLICANT: JOHN ARTHUR HOMES. OWNER: LAND HOLD CO., INC., PLANNING
CASE 2013-21.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Planning Case 2013-21, John Arthur Homes is
requesting a variance for the Lakeside Development from the eastern perimeter setback requirement. The
request, specific request is a 5.7 foot variance from the 50 foot perimeter setback requirement for a main
floor cantilever to construct a building at 44.3 feet from the perimeter property line. The location of this
development is 8711, 8719 and 8727 Lake Riley Drive. It’s within Lakeside Second Addition. These are
actually the last housing sites on the east side of this development. The PUD standards permits the, all
the twinhomes that are south of this to be within 30 feet of the property line. However because this is a 3
unit structure there’s a 50 foot requirement. These design standards were originally adopted when the
PUD standards specified a 50 foot perimeter setback for any type of planned unit development, no matter
what the development was nor what the adjacent properties were. Since that time the City has amended
the PUD standards to permit the setback requirements to be determined as a function of the proposed
development and in the interim the PUD standards for this were amended several times to change the
15