Loading...
PC Minutes 9-7-04 oti- (~, ''t, Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 1. Less than or equal to 14 lights. 2. Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam. 3. Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light. 4. Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: We have 4 to 1 which is 80% so it actually carries. I do want to emphasize the importance of bringing this up with Council. Frankly, what made me go for this is that we do have a Council work session scheduled in, how much, a week or two? Generous: Monday the 13th. Sacchet: The 13th. One week. I think we have to bring it up there and make it clear because with that in the picture I don't think it was necessary to send it to Council to catch their attention and create potentially an order of difficulty for the applicant. So that's my comment here. Did you want to state, I guess you stated your opposition, its clear enough, Steve. Lillehaug: It passes; it doesn't have to go to Council, correct? Sacchet: It does not; we would have to have needed two oppositions for it to go to Council. Alright, thank you very much. Good luck. With that, we get to our second item. PUBLIC HEARING: V ARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R), LOCATED AT 7200 LODGEPOLE POINT, JAMES & KRISTIN RUELLE- PLANNING CASE NO. 04-28. Public Present: Name Address Jim Ruelle 7200 Lodgepole Point Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Metzer: Chairman Sacchet, members of the Planning Commission. I am Josh Metzer. I'm an intern with the Planning Department. The next item before you is a request for a variance from the side yard setback for the construction of a three-season porch. As you can see, this site is comer lot located southwest of the intersection of Lodgepole Point and Longacres Drive. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential. The applicant is proposing the construction of a three-season porch. This porch will be located 6.75 feet from the southern property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 2.25-foot side yard setback variance from 15 -- Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 the required 9- foot setback. One of the conditions of approval for The Woods at Longacres subdivision allowed interior side yard setbacks of 9 feet for living areas. For the purposes of this variance, the side yard setback was measured from the eaves of the proposed porch rather than the footings. Typically, eaves are permitted to encroach two feet, six inches into required setbacks; however, for variances granted from a required setback, they are not entitled to such an encroachment. Staff realizes that the portion of the porch which will require a variance is minimal at 4.68 square feet; however, in order to recommend approval of a variance, a hardship must exist and staff'has determined that the applicant could build a three-season porch without the need for a variance by choosing a design which is different or is angled. The current design could be angled. Therefore, staff sees this as a self-created hardship. Staff has reviewed variance applications fìled for properties within 500 feet of the subject property. One request for a 26-foot wetland setback was approved for a patio, and another request for a 4-foot side yard setback and a less than 20-foot separation between neighboring buildings was denied for a screen porch. Staff has recommended denial of this application based on the fact that applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, the applicant has a reasonable use of the property, and there is sufficient area on the property to construct a three-season porch meeting required setbacks. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this variance, there are a set of conditions located on page 6 of the staff report. Sacchet: Thanks, Josh. Questions for staff? Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I'll start. What is the elevation difference between this house and the adjacent house to the south, if any? Metzer: I'm not sure what the difference in elevation is. The back of the house is a walkout from the front so from the front yard to the back yard it drops about the elevation of equal to a.. . Papke: But how about the change in elevation from this property to the property to the south on which we're encroaching. Metzer: The back yard where the proposed three-season porch would be located, I believe there is not a !:,Tfeat difference in elevation. Maybe Jim Ruelle could better give us an idea. Ruelle: The elevation is the same as the neighbors. Papke: Pretty much level? How about the distance to the neighboring house to the south? Metzer: The distance between the current structures, the existing structures, is 33 feet and the distance between the proposed three-season porch and the neighboring structure is 35 feet so they're within that 20-foot separation. Papke: I think there was a mention that there are some trees separating these two houses. Yes? No? Metzer: No, there is not. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Ruelle:... tree that separates... Papke: There's one tree? Ruelle: .. .one tree that... Sacchet: We'll have you up in a minute... Papke: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Does the City, do you know if the City has any potential need for a full 9 feet on this side as far as a emergency response access, future utility easement, something like that? Metzer: There is currently a 5-foot utility and drainage easement... Lillehaug: So 5-foot on each side of the property line? So there will be a 10-foot path that's reserved by the D & U easement? Metzer: This PUD was allowed to have 9-foot side yard setbacks so yes, between the two properties yes, 10 feet. Lillehaug: Thanks. Sacchet: A couple of quick questions. So the 9-foot side yard setback was something specific to this PUD when that was created? Metzer: Correct. Sacchet: Now, there is actually an existing patio door that is not going to be centered to that porch. It's actually just going to be barely in that porch? They already accommodated as much as they can by actually putting the wall right up to the patio door? Metzer: That's correct. Sacchet: So when this plan came in, City staff didn't realize that this was kind of a unique angle? It seems like in fact Lundgren Bros. having goofed a little bit, isn't it? Metzer: Staff realized that the home was constructed at a funny angle. Sacchet: The angle of the home, it makes sense it's angled that way so its away from the road and all that but to it that much onto that short setback basically made it impossible to build the porch flush with the building from the very start. I would think ideally staff would catch something like that when a site plan review comes in. I don't know, as an intern it's probably unfair to ask you this question and Bob is safely there operating the video equipment but I think 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 that's a valid question ultimately if you really try to figure out what's the root cause ofthis here? Root cause is the way this house is situated and you can say, well Lundgren goofed, but then we have to turn around and say, well why didn't City staff catch that? So we goofed also. Metzer: Actually, there is another piece. The application for the variance that was denied was also in the same development. .. Sacchet: That was my next question. We have two comparable variances. One was denied in 2000 and the other one was approved a year ago. Can you tell us a little bit the specifics of that please? Metzer: The one that was denied, the way the home was angled on the lot and the shape of the lot itself are almost identical to Ruelle's property and it was the same situation. They wanted to build a three-season porch at the corner of the lot which was going to encroach, I believe 4 feet into the side yard setback and it was also going to create a less than 20-foot separation between neighboring structures. Sacchet: So there was much more encroachment than what we're talking about here? Metzer: Right. As far as the neighboring building is concerned, but yes, it was almost identical. Sacchet: Identical in terms of the type ofrequest but it was not identical in terms of the space that was left between the buildings? Metzer: The angles of the homes were built the same. Sacchet: So there was another one of those? Metzer: I'm just stating that this might have been Lundgren Bros.' shortcoming. Sacchet: They wcre consistent with it. Keefe: It's a good question for comparative purposes. The one that was denied was, there's 20- foot separation between the proposed improvement and the house next door. This one we're looking at 35 feet, correct? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: So we really, there's 15 additional feet that would be on this if it were to be approved. Sacchet: So there were two aspects to that other one that led to denial, one of them which are eomparable to the one we have in front of us, correct? Metzer: The reason that those were denied, the Commission stated that the applicant had reasonable use of the property and that a hardship was not demonstrated. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Sacchet: Okay. And then the wetland setback? I guess most of us would remember that one. That was the one with the pavers, right? Keefe: In terms of the design, I think I noticcd somewhere in here that staff thought that the porch and deck could be accommodated through a different design. Can you speak to that a little bit, just in terms of... Metzer: If you look at the area of living space, if that small bit of living space were eliminated, the eave, we wouldn't have to count the eaves in the variance. They could have been overhanging. So it's just that one small section that could be designed in a different way. Keefe: Would it line up appropriately with the sliding glass door and be a standard, it looks like.. . Sacchet: It already does line up with the sliding door. The sliding door is at the very edge. If you look at the plan, it's actually pretty dramatic. Like this one, you see it. The door is actually flush with the wall of the porch already, they went the max they can. Keefe: But if you slid it... to get it within, you would need to move it over 4 feet or something like that with 2 foot of right in the edge, right in the middle of that door. It looks like it matches right at the edge. Sacchet: It would be in the middle ofthe door if went the same distance. Keefe: Right. And it looks like the way they've got it now it goes up over the door itself: if you look at these drawings. Papke: If you move it over anymore it's going to block windows. Keefe: Right. Metzer: No, I don't mean move the entire porch over. I'm just talking placement of the one footing. Sacchet: Now, you made an interesting other point, Josh. You said that we consider only the structure, the building, and not the overhang? Metzer: If that part of the structure was eliminated, then there would be no need for a variance because our code permits... Sacchet: If it's only the overhang that encroaches then it's not a variance need. I think that's significant, too. Metzer: Right...In the case of a variance they have to include... Sacchet: Okay. Any more aspects, Dan, that you wanted to ask? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Keefe: One little question. In comparison to the 2000 variance that was denied, you say it was a 4-foot side, now is that... Metzer: I'm not exactly sure how many feet it was. Keefe: So here we're asking for 2.25-foot variance. Was this a 4-foot variance or was this the actual setback, in comparison? Metzer: They were requesting a 4-foot variance from the 9-foot setback so it would have been 5 feet from the property line. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Alright. There's currently a concrete patio underneath it already? Metzer: There is. Sacchet: So there is a structure underneath. Metzer: Which I don't believe encroaches into the setback. Sacchet: Okay. So really that encroachment of the porch is only like, lcss than 2 feet? Metzer: The square footage of the living area is 4.68 square feet. Sacchet: Alright. I think that's all our questions. If the applicant wants to come forward, state your name and address for the record. Actually, we know your address. Ruellc: My name is Jim Ruelle and I do live at 7200 Lodgepole Point. (NOTE: Mr. Ruelle's comments were mostly inaudible and difficult to transcribe) ...1 think you're right when you state that.. .our house was positioned on the lot at a -degree angle... towards the south property line which we share with our neighbor. ... We had looked at many different ways oflaying this out and even to the point of cutting this off at this angle right here and leaving the opposite side the same. The only problem we encountered was matching of the roofline... We probably went through about 8 or 9 different drawings when we were looking at what we thought was originally a 10-foot setback and angling even fàrther in there. Based on all the different scenarios in order to find.. . square footage of usable space, this is the best possible.. .space. ... Do you have any questions? Sacchet: Questions for the applicant? Steve, go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Lillehaug: I have one quick one. I need a hardship here. In your letter that you submitted to staff you indicated that you did look at different options and the one I'm looking at is, one of the options was moving the sliding the glass door and removing the window. Can you maybe speak on that a little about why that is just not feasible? Ruelle: In order to move one we would have to move the other two. There are two sliding glass doors, one on the second level and one on the first level. . . Lillehaug: And are you saying it's just not feasible to do that structurally for some reason? Ruelle: ... was talking to some people...in order to do that and structurally I'm not sure from what.. . Lillehaug: That works for me. Ruelle: We also looked at. . . Sacchet: Steve's got his hardship. Alright. Any other questions of the applicant? No? No questions of the applicant? I think you've pretty much answered the questions I had. Let me look. Obviously, I did want to emphasize you have a signed letter from the neighbor to the south supporting you in this. I think that's quite significant also. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anybody want to come address this point, please come forward now. I don't see anybody so I close the public hearing. (The tape was changed at this point). Josh: ...a couple weeks ago just to check on the property and I did speak with the neighbor directly next door and shc let me know that they were in support of the variance. Sacchet: Alright. Any other comments? Papke: I think my night is the night to be the contrarian. I'm not supportive of this. I think there's plenty of other opportunities here, whether it be a gazebo detached. I understand the applicant's desire to enjoy your property in a bug-free environment but I think there's other ways of skinning this particular cat. I don't really see a hardship in this particular case. Granted, we do have a letter from the neighbor but that neighbor may not be there one year of five years from now. This could be a different neighbor that has a very different view. We're only talking a separation of 3 5 feet which is quite small. This is 10 feet above the ground looking down into some portions of the neighbor's property with only one tree in between the two so I don't see sufficient justification to allow the incursion in this case so I do not support this request. Sacchet: Thanks, Kurt. I come at this from a little bit different angle. I think Lundgren goofed and I think we goofed at the City when this was reviewed so I would say shame on us. I would commend the applicant for having gone through considering a list of different alternatives. I think considering how small this variance is and then that only I would have to say the City is part of the responsibility why this situation got created in the first place. Looking at the fact that 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 the door into this porch is actually flush with the wall of the porch and obviously, in terms of design it was meant to be in the center of the porch and the porch would be flush with the outside wall of the building. I would think it would be excessive to deny this and I think it's a reasonable request. Is it self-created? I don't think it's self-created in this particular case. It's created by the builder and by the City. What are the other things we need to look at? Is it applicable to other properties? Yes, it's applicable to other properties where the City didn't catch, that site plan wasn't lined up in a way that could be built to the way it was intended with the door of that porch being built into there. Papke: A previous case was denied for a similar variance. Sacchet: Yes. That's a good point, Kurt. I would say that in the context that if you get into less than a 20-foot separation, we start having a safety issue or an access issue for drainage and all that. In this case, we're far beyond that so I would put it into that context to distinguish it. So, with that, I'm willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Can I make a comment? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead, Steve, please. Lillehaug: Just my quick comments. Probably in my two-and-a-halfyears I've been here I've been a real stickler on preserving setbacks and whatever between properties. I have strong opinions on that, but in this case I think it's a reasonable request. It's pretty small looking at the eaves compared to the actual structure. We lose that two feet somewhere. That's always kind of funny to think about. Sacchet: Even less than two feet. . . Lillehaug: But that's the way our code is and that's the way... Sacchet: And we have to implement it. It's not up to us to... Lillehaug: I think this is a reasonable request. I've seen many other setbacks that have been far more than this, especially along lake lots. We're maintaining more than the 20-foot separation between structures and I support it. Sacchet: Okay. Any more comments or a motion? Now Kurt is not going to make this motion? Papke: I'll make a motion. Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-28 for a 6.75-foot setback as shown on the plans stamped "Received August 5, 2004" with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within onc year of approval of the variancc or it shall become void. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received August 05, 2004." 3. The proposed addition must not encroach into the existing 5 foot drainage and utility casement. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: Looks like that is our ratio for tonight. Thank you very much. Good luck with your porch. With that, we get up to our third item. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD DESIGN STANDARDS TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TH ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF CORPORATE PLACE, HELSENE PARTNERS, LLC - PLANNING CASE NO. 04-29. Public Present: Name Address Chris Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Brenda M. Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Gene Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chainnan and Commissioners. Again, this is an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development. It was designed to be a light industrial park. There are some commercials in the development. A hotel is going up across the street from this site. They do have a restaurant pad. However, retail uses were never anticipated as part of this project with one exception of the C-store on 82m! Street and Highway 41. Sacchet: The convenience store there? Generous: The convenience store, yes. Citgo. Arboretum Citgo. The design standards were very specific in that there would be the only one retail site within the development street and it would be on 82nd Street. That was intentionally put in there to provide for the large industrial base in Chaska just to the south of there and as a convenience retail opportunity for the rest of this development. The City has other areas that are currently guided and zoned for commercial uses just to the north of Highway 5 on Century there's a commercial center going in. That's where we believe retail operations should be located. There is an advantage to this site because it wasn't zoned commercial for retail uses. There is a different valuation type down there so we would put the other commercial sites at a disadvantage if we permit it in there. Staff is 23