Loading...
PC Minutes 11-05-2013Chanhassen 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 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 setback requirements for the twinhomes in the project. The footprint of this building is slightly longer than what was originally envisioned for this site. Cudd Homes was the original proposed developer for these townhouses in this location. As you can see the 50 foot setback would cut into the, just a small portion of each of these townhouses so 5.7 feet seems reasonable considering that had this been divided into twinhomes they could have gone within 30 feet of the eastern property line. I did provide a sample of the Cudd Homes. You can see that the unit is a little squatter in design. It doesn’t have as much of a rear area. Even with this large setback there is a, it would be larger than the rest of the setbacks along the eastern perimeter of this property and really we’ve discovered that to the east of this is a trail system within Eden Prairie and then one of the greens or the drives for the Bearpath Golf Course so there’s no homes immediately adjacent to this development that would have any impact by, they wouldn’t even realize there’s a change in this from the distance so. Large separations are not necessary to provide screening or buffering for this project. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request to permit the 5.7 foot encroachment into the 50 foot side yard setback and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. And with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any questions? Withrow: Yeah Bob, why is the setback requirement different for a two house structure versus a three house structure? Generous: Because at the last amendment that was done to this was the developer who’s doing the two house developments and not the three house developments. It was, from the original beginning we had that 50 foot perimeter setback requirement that was prescribed as part of the PUD ordinance. However in the interim the City’s gone through numerous iterations at looking at the intent and the function of the development so we’re learning. Withrow: Okay, so materially it’s not going to make a difference in any way. Generous: No. Aanenson: Wouldn’t you say too Bob it was probably more of an omission. We used the word twinhome as opposed to saying a three-home. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: So it was really just an omission in the type of product so it should have said the setback as opposed to specifying a type of home. Weick: Is that why we’re here is because it was specified as a twinhome setback? Generous: Right. Aanenson: That’s correct. Weick: And that’s why this is a variance… Aller: The PUD is the actual zoning. Aanenson: The literal interpretation, yes. Weick: Okay, thank you. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aller: Any other questions for staff? I think the report is very complete. Thank you very much and I don’t have any questions so I’ll ask the applicant to step forward if he’d like to make a presentation at this time. You can state your name for the record. Art Plante: Good evening, Art Plante from John Arthur Homes. I’m the owner. Aller: Welcome. Art Plante: I think staff’s done a good job of summarizing the facts. I don’t really have anything that I could add but I’m here to answer any questions. Aller: We always like to say, tell us about your project. What’s going on? Art Plante: Well the good news is the project was you know quite stalled a couple of years ago and we’ve come in and bought the remaining 14 lots and 10 of those are sold and we’re trying to build it out. Aller: And the materials that you’re using in general? Materials. Colors. Art Plante: Hard board siding. Paver driveway. Cedar garage doors. 8 foot wood doors for entries. 30 year shingles. Hard board siding is the best. Aller: And of course price point. Art Plante: These particular home sites are $600,000 to $700,000. First one that we sold was $650,000. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Art Plante: Thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the requested variance can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. Comments. Concerns. Questions. I think it looks like a good project so I’m glad it’s hopefully going to get completed. So with that I’ll entertain a motion. Withrow: I’ll do it. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance, I move that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance to the perimeter setback requirement to construct a three-unit townhouse subject to the conditions of this staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Withrow moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance to the perimeter setback requirement to construct a three-unit townhouse subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 1. The minimum setback from the eastern perimeter property line shall be 44.3 feet for building, decks, patios, porches and stoops. 2. The applicant must apply for a separate building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN GREAT PLAINS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 10,443 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-LEVEL RETAILCENTER ON 1.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) AND LOCATED AT 7905 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (BP GAS STATION SITE). APPLICANT: NHH CHANHASSEN PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: CAMELOT CONV. QUALITY FUEL & FOOD, PLANNING CASE 2013-23. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The request before you is for a site plan. The site is located northeast, at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. Currently there is a convenience store with an area of 1,030 square feet. There’s a gas canopy as well as 6 gas pumps and along the northern portion there is an existing single bay automatic car wash. Access to the site is gained off of Great Plains Boulevard. Currently there is full access to this location off of Great Plains. The current land use on the property, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows the area guided for commercial. The entire surrounding area is also commercial. The zoning is Highway Business. With this request the applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures on the site and replace them with a retail office building which is permitted under the Highway Business district zoning. The site plan request is for the construction of a 10,443 square foot multi-tenant building. It’s a single level building. The maximum permitted site coverage in this district is 65%. The proposed development has a total hard surface coverage of 67.2%. That exceeds the minimum. The maximum permitted in that district. The applicant is fully aware of this and will be able to correct the situation. As part of this application the applicant is also proposing to extend sidewalks along the westerly portion of the site as well as around the building. This will allow the site to connect with surrounding areas. It will also separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. Parking is located north of the site and it’s mainly screened by the proposed building. However the easterly portion can be viewed from Highway 5. The applicant will need to improve screening of that section to meet ordinance requirements. City Code requires that all parking be screened. Again we had conversations with the applicant and they are fully aware that will need to be done and they are, they will be able to accommodate it. The trash enclosure is located north of the building and again that is completely screened by the building itself. As part of this request the applicant is proposing to add a turn lane, a right in turn lane into this site. Access is still being maintained in the same location off of Great Plains Boulevard but it will be improved. The architecture of the building is, the design of the building is very attractive in the opinion of staff. It is being constructed of very high quality materials. There is a sample of the materials which includes stone, stucco, glass and metal panels. Aanenson: Just set it down. Aller: Because there will be people at home that are interested as well. Dean Dovolis: I have it upside down. I hope no one. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That’s alright. That still does it. All elevations that can be viewed from the public, even those that are hidden have been given equal attention. The building is, meets ordinance from every single elevation. Entrances into the building are pronounced. They utilize durable exterior materials. 18