Loading...
PC Minutes 3-15-05 os-'o Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 3. All outstanding pennits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 4. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. 5. Rental licenses must be obtained in accordance with Chanhassen City Code. 6. The applicant/property owner must obtain pennits for accessory structures constructed without the required pennits. . 7. The variance shall expire upon the sale of the property by the Carlson family. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: The motion carries 5 to 1, which is enough for it to carry right? Shanneen and Jason? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: So this does, is considered approved unless somebody complains about it to the City Council. If it has to go to City Council, it can go to City Council on the 11 th of April, according to staff report so I wish you luck with this and thanks for coming in. It was nice to meet Molly. Slagle: Thank you Mr. Carlson. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LAKE SHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10. Public Present: Name Address Michael Sharratt Lissa Tenuta Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Jason. Any questions? McDonald: I had some questions for staff. On that sentence where you say that you would support the variance to allow the applicant to maintain, at that point what kind of a home are they 48 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 building? This is where you get me confused a little bit. Is that within the almond colored area? On your map on page 6. We've got kind of an almond colored area. Sacchet: That's the buildable area, right? McDonald: Yeah, what is that? Okay, that's the buildable area. And then that would go back to where the current back ofthe house is at? Is that. .. Metzer: Right, where the same footprint is which encroaches on the shoreline setback. Because once they demolish the home, they lose their non-confonning status. McDonald: Okay, so what you're recommending is that in order to allow them to better utilize the property, they could go ahead and keep their setback but the buildable area is as defined and right now the current house does not meet that. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Jerry, basically all the houses in that neighbor have problems with setback. Side setback. Front yard setback. Lakeshore setback, and basically everybody who does something in that neighborhood has to come up here. For variances and then as you can see the list that staff gave us, there's a lot of variances in that area. And what we're trying to do is that we have some mitigating factors. And I'm not sure whether the current plan has some, does it mitigate? Does it lower any of things, non-confonnances? It intensifies all the non-confonnances, okay. That's one of the problems. Any other questions? Slagle: I've got a couple. Looking at this sheet that you were kind enough to provide, I am trying to understand, and I don't know, Sharmeen if you want to put it up there. But where is a variance File #1996-9 relating to a 33 foot shoreland variance. What lot is that or what? Do you know what I'm saying? Al-Jaff: Would you call out that. Slagle; It's 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. Metzer: It should be the one that says 7262 I believe. Slagle: 7262. Sacchet: The one right next to it. Metzer: The one that she handed out is from another... Slagle: I understand, yep. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Metzer: The map you're looking at is south of where we, where this southern property is located. Sacchet: Oh that's not, okay. Subject is, okay. That's not the same thing. Al-Jaff: It is located right here in relationship to the subject property. Slagle: Yeah. And just for the fellow commissioners, the reason I'm asking is, it's the only one I see on 9 or 10 other homesites on this side of the lake that has anything close to a request for a variance ITom a shoreland that this applicant is asking for. And if I understand, getting back to my question, am I correct that right now they are 36 feet ITom the overall, okay. And they want to move it to 33.7 with the new home. Metzer: Correct, but the area, if you see here. Slagle: Show me where 33.7 is. Metzer: 33.7 is this deck footing here. Slagle: So it's a comer of the deck, okay. Metzer: Right. I have outlined the existing home in black here. The 37.3, or 36 actually is here. And they're proposing this but this. Slagle: I'm with you. Let me ask this question then of staff, and I don't know if it would have been fair to ask the City Engineer but I mean when they came to you with this plan, I mean was there a question asked back to them why aren't you moving it closer to the street? Metzer: It was not asked. McDonald: Can I follow up Rich's question because he brings up a point about the 33 feet. The topography of that area is such that where the subject site is at, it is flat and right on the lake but then directly below that, or directly south, the land begins to rise. This particular one at 9225, what is the site on that? And what I'm getting at is, I noticed the house next door, again it is at a higher elevation so at that point I wouldn't worry so much about the setback versus this one where the setback is on flat property. That becomes to me a bigger problem. What was the property at 9225 like because I didn't go down there. Sacchet: Do you know? Slagle: In remember, that's next to the Hamilton's. I think you had a little bit of a hill. McDonald: Okay, so that one's also on a rise, okay. Thank you. Keefe: I've got one question. The properties on either side of this subject property, both those I think are relatively new houses, particularly the one to the south, and then the one to the north. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 What is the setback? Do we know what the setback is on both of those properties, the one to the north? Directly to the north and then the one directly to the south. Metzer: Yes. It's 50 some feet. 57 feet approximately on the property to the north. I got that based off of a survey that didn't measure ITom the ordinary high water mark. Larson: 57 from the lake? Metzer: Yeah. Larson: Okay. Keefe: It looked to be on your map that this particular property, the proposed building would be in fÌ"ont of the properties on either side, so if I looked, if these buildings are placed, perhaps not. I can't quite tell on the, fÌ"om the contour ofthe. Sacchet: If you look at this, you actually see where. Keefe: I can't quite tell from the contour where the lakeshore goes though. Metzer: The lakes are kind of. Sacchet: You don't know, yeah. I mean if you assume this is straight, and the properties, or the buildings are here. Keefe: It looks like it's. Sacchet: It's definitely sticking out more. Keefe: Okay. That's what I really wanted to know. And both of those properties are newer than this property. Metzer: Right, yeah. Sacchet: Any other questions? Okay, if not, do you have something to add Jason? Okay. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you want to give us your side ofthis story, we'd greatly appreciate it. State your name and your address for the record please. Mike Sharratt: Chainnan and Planning Commission members, my name is Mike Sharratt. I'm the architect for the project. Been working with the Cooper/W alker family and trying to justify pretty difficult planning constraints. We have a property that is about, I believe it's 84% oflot size, sub-standard lot size and the buildable area as a result of the lake setback and creating a very narrow, buildable area. This is a diagram. The shaded area is the buildable area of the lot. It's, as staff said, it was a little over 2,000 square feet, which is about 62% or so of what was mentioned earlier as a 60 by 60 pad as being desirable. 3,600 square feet. It's not an easy site to deal with. Programmatically what we've been trying to solve for the client is handicap 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 accessibility. This site is fairly flat but they have 2 handicap members, and friends that visit their home regularly and presently their garage is a tuck under situation. So they would not be able to access the first floor, so we've been working with our client to try to bring the driveway up to the first floor. We looked at recessing, at the same time of course solving all the programmatic constraints ofthe space that they need on the first floor. Need and want. As opposed to what we heard earlier, we did talk with staff regularly on the phone and we were, it was suggested to us that we bring the garage forward and ask for a street side variance. There's a little bit of resistance from the client that they don't want to be a whole lot closer to the street but, and so we decided to leave the front yard setback as it was and not propose that. This is a diagram, and I apologize that this was not on the original survey of the two adjacent structures. Sacchet: I think you've got it upside down sir. Mike Sharratt: Upside down. Well the two adjacent structures and. Metzer: Lake Riley's here. Mike Sharratt: Right. This is the most projecting bay in the back of this house. And this I believe is a deck, as this is a deck. And on this side, again it does not show on our survey. Unfortunately our surveyor was in Florida at the time the project was corrected but there's a projected pointed bay on the back ofthis, as well as a stair over here in this location. Ifwe take a straight line in those two non-confonnities that are existing, it adds this sliver of possible reasonable, buildable area. This line being, this diagonal line here being the one that is created by the existing structure that will be removed, so we understand that a lakeside setback, it is the neighbor's or the 50 feet I think it is, whichever is greater and that creates the other, the very narrow space. Which by almost any standard is very difficult to work with. So given the constraints that we had to work with, and that was to try to bring a garage up to the first floor. We couldn't just come straight in ITom Lake Riley Boulevard. We could not come straight in and give enough rise to the driveway. We had to make some length on the driveway to get that up to the upper level. The client is willing to only have a 2 car garage at the first floor rather than a 3. We had originally started with a 3 car garage. We have looked at many, many options including these which show alternative configurations and, hard to read but we're playing with how do we manipulate this. We're looking here at 15 foot setback to the street and asking for that as a variance. Sacchet: Would that work? In view of you just explained what the topography. Mike Sharratt: Well 15 feet is so tight. We're substantially improving the. Sacchet: How bout with the grades? How about the grade aspect that you just pointed out. Mike Sharratt: The grade will work. Sacchet: Okay. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: It requires retaining walls in the front yard unfortunately but the grade will work. At the same time the client doesn't want to be 15 feet fÌ"om the street. Maybe 25 might work. People ask for a 5 foot variance, which case the house would be behind the existing position of that existing rear wall. So we would be making our structure than existing footprint as it is now. Slagle: Mr. Sharratt, is that right? Mike Sharratt: Yep. Slagle: Would it be fair to ask, in the scheme of things if someone was watching this from their home that an applicant would be as equally or more concerned about the setback to the lake than they would be to the street? I guess what I'm getting at is, we're intensifying the non-confonnity by moving closer to the lake and I'm hearing that it's the client's, your client's desire not to be as close to the street that's pushing them closer to the lake. But I'm sitting here going, that doesn't seem fair. Sacchet: Let's hold that for discussion. Slagle: Well I ask, I want to hear his comment. Mike Sharratt: My comment would be, is that they were concerned about that and that's why we tried to pull the back comer of the structure no closer than where the back comer of the existing is, and the decks are exceeding. You know we could possibly get back behind the existing line, the existing structure if we were to have a 5-6 foot encroachment into the fÌ"ont yard. We didn't know really what to ask for. We didn't know really what was going to be the set points. We hear from staff that a lot of variances have been granted on this lakeshore, particularly for lake side setback. There also have been some granted for fÌ"ont yard setback. The reason we looked at all these options and we were faxing these back and forth with the staff at the end of last week, was because of the staff report that we got early and we wanted to try to address where's our flexibility? In accommodating the client's program of getting handicap accessibility to the first floor as well as balancing, okay what's the hotter point here? What's the bigger concern? I think we can get behind the existing setback of the existing structure if we come into the fÌ"ont yard a little bit with the proposed design. We also, there's a curious line on this drawing. I don't know if you guys have, I think you have the survey that was originally fÌ"om the adjacent house here. There's a line here that says, that this is the, this is I believe it is, this line right here, that is to grant a variance for when this house was built. And I don't, that's well outside ofthe envelope of where the house was, as well as way outside of the envelope of where the existing house is, so I don't know what that was about. This is the survey we got fÌ"om the contractor who built this house, and here you can see on the survey the variance setback line that was granted is right here. Sacchet: Is there a year on that sir? Mike Sharratt: There's not on this because we reduced it fÌ"om the original survey but we can geta year on that survey. Mid 80's? Mid 80's when that house was built. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Does it show where the existing structure was? Mike Sharratt: Ah yeah. This really light dotted line as you can see going through here, right there, that was the old structure. Lillehaug: It looks like the house moved forward, right? .. .on the lake, right. , Mike Sharratt: The deck, no. The actual, the house is maybe 3 or 4 feet more forward than where the house is. Here's the light dotted line right there and the deck is substantially forward from where the old house was. Sacchet: Alright, let's stick to the current situation. Mike Sharratt: Right. Sacchet: You want to add anything else from your end? Mike Sharratt: Maybe the client would like to speak. Sacchet: Okay, please. Do so. Laura Cooper: My name is Laura Cooper and I live in this house and I have for 8 years. I have to say, excuse me. We have made all, probably 15 to 16 different versions of this and our goal, first and foremost was the handicap accessibility and a lifetime house. Pat Swenson, who used to be on the City Council and her husband Ben left this house. I bought it from them because of their age and infinnities. This isn't our preferred design. This is 10 feet from both sides and as far using the comer ofthe existing property, which we took the deck into account because we didn't know about whether it was a deck or the back wall to work with. I don't like that we're 15 feet to the front. When you come down Lyman Boulevard, it's kind of a nice view and the houses, both to the north and the south. If we, our preferred view for the same footprint would be to be halfway into both variance lines so you've got the fÌ"onts ofthe houses and the backs of the houses in line with each other. Sacchet: Line them up. Laura Cooper: I think that would make Nonn and Kim happy and Joan's happy anyway so, I think we've definitely done our diligence with this one. Every single proposal we put with the garage, the grade was too high. I don't really like having the garage on this side, the north side ofthe property anyway, but that's the only way that we can meet the grade as well as hit the setbacks. We spent hours trying to get something that would be amenable to the neighbors. Amenable to the spiritofthe intention ofthe non-confonning and 9225 is a flat lot and many of them up in that comer are actually fairly flat. There's some rise but it's not like the ones just to the south of us where some of them go straight up. I think it would be, you know we should probably have just asked some of our neighbors to come. I don't think that we're trying to, we don't want to change the character of the neighborhood, and if it means that we have to go to the ITont setback instead ofthe back, that's great but I think if it was 15 feet from the front edge of 54 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 the property, when you come down Lyman Boulevard you're going to see Joan's house, my house, Kim and Nonn's house and the rest and I think what we, why we put it where we put it was to meet the spirit of the variances. Not because it makes good sense for the neighborhood. So we're not stuck on that placement as much as doing the right thing. Sacchet: Thank you. Anything you wanted to add? Tim Walker: No, I think I'd just re-emphasize what Laura said, really trying to strike a balance as far as positioning the house on the lot between the road and the lake. Not being to the detriment of neighbors to the north or south on either the street side or the lake side, and to where Mike was trying to show if you struck a band between the north and the south houses, we're trying to fit in that band and get as much of the house in that band as possible. As Laura said, we've gone through many iterations, starting out with the garage on the south side ofthe lot. It's sort of a parallelogram. There's more room. East/west on the south edge of the lot. Put a garage there but the lot actually slopes upwards to the south so then you end up with more grading in the driveway, so that's why we ended up putting the garage at the north end and trying to strike a balance there. Sacchet: I do have a question for you. I mean your current design, it has a lower level garage and an upper level, correct? Now how would that access the street? Tim Walker: The lower level would be a shop more or less so we would not use that for regular driving in and out of. We would use the upper level for. Sacchet: So your main driveway would be the upper level, but you would need a driveway to the lower level, a separate one don't you? Tim Walker: Actually we would not. Laura Cooper: Tim's a car guy. He's got more parts and more pieces and he, that's what he does to keep himself sane. We've got a Porsche. We've got an Audi. We've got a BMer. Larson: I'm married to one of those, I know exactly. Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because that would potentially be another need for a variance because having two driveways would need a variance I believe. Tim Walker: Actually we are not requesting two driveways. One driveway to the upper level and the lower level garage, if we had anything we'd consider using grass pavement. I'm not sure if you're heard ofthat. It's like a grid under the grass so you can drive over it without creating ruts. Sacchet: Would that be considered a driveway fÌ"om city viewpoint or not? Kind of wonder about that. Al-Jaff: Ifit's grass. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Grass is not a driveway. Grass pavers, then you're kind of halfway. Larson: Is it considered partially used possibly for a boat or anything too or? I mean when I looked at this, that's the first thing, cars did not pop into my mind but obviously boat deal or storage did. Tim Walker: Yeah, and hobby shop, garage if you will. Sacchet: Toys. Ultimately known as toys. Larson: Gotch ya. Tim Walker: Getting back to the second driveway, if we could use, and it sounds like staff doesn't consider paver driveway as penneable. Sacchet: I don't think they answered really yet. Metzer: Pavers we would consider, this grid, I'm not an expert on it. I've heard of this grid being laid out and allows grass to grow through. Mike Sharratt: It's actually a plastic grid that you put under the grass and it resists ruts and you can drive occasionally across it. I mean I would be surprised if you're going in and out of this garage once every 2 weeks or something. I mean it's not that it's being used as a garage. So there's no desire to pave it and there's grass going through a soft cover. Not hard cover. Actually below the grass. Below the soil. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks for answering that one. Any other questions from the applicant? Jerry? McDonald: Yes, I have a lot of questions. I won't ask that many. I've been out to the site. The house to the north is higher. That's why I think the variances are there, so I don't think it's apples to apples. The problem I have with all of this over under garage, the new access, how are you going to elevate to get up there because according to the drawings you show this new driveway coming in offthe street level, yet it has to be below. You're going, you'd have to be going up a hill. Are we changing? Are we talking about changing the topography on the south end to bring the house up because otherwise I don't see where there's room for an over under garage on that current site with it the way it is without changing the lot. Mike Sharratt: We're not changing the lot. The lot is not higher to the north. It's higher to the south. McDonald: You said it's not that much higher. I mean right here are the pictures. You've got a slight rise. The lot directly to the south rises steeply. It goes up quite a bit, but to show where this driveway's at and everything, I cannot picture this because how are you going to get that up from the street without raising the grade or that part of the lot. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: We're going to leave the grade where the driveway... McDonald: Okay. And then what's the impact on the other lots? I mean now you're changing the lot, the character of the lot completely at that point. Mike Sharratt: Explain character. McDonald: Explain character. The current lot is a flat lot that drains fÌ"om the front to the back toward the lake. At this point you're going to bring up a lot that almost is going to create a valley between the lot to the south and your new lot as you raise things up, unless you're now going to go the lot to the south and fill in where they have that boulder wall. Mike Sharratt: The drainage, the existing drainage to the lot right now drains between the houses down the property lines. McDonald: Right. Mike Sharratt: It would not change. The drainage, the driveway would drain down the driveway back onto the street. McDonald: Okay, then I need further clarification. I need some drawings that are going to show that because right now the way this is with the setbacks and everything, I cannot visualize doing this and I just see a lot of problems as far as variances. Mike Sharratt: Did you see the front elevations? McDonald: Right, the front and that's the one I've got the most problem with it because that shows everything being relatively flat across the lot and it's not that way. Mike Sharratt: The grade on the street is about 4 feet higher on the south end than it is on the north end. McDonald: Okay, and a typical garage is going to be anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. Your under garage. What I have a problem with is, I mean this begins the looks of, right now this lot is relatively flat across here. Yes, there's a slight rise but there's a hill that comes down with boulder walls here and you've got the drainage. It's flat and you've got pictures in here to show it. It goes down to the lake. Mike Sharratt: And it's going to continue to do that... McDonald: But then how can you put this house on that lot when this is coming down and if this is street level, there's not that much variance from that end of the lot to that end to rise up 6 to 8 feet. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Can you comment ofthe grades of your driveway? It's less than 10% right? And in your grading plan it shows a tying in on the south property line? Relatively with, yeah we want flatter slopes. I mean it doesn't exceed 3 to 1 slopes. Mike Sharratt: The grades? Lillehaug: Right. Mike Sharratt: Other than retaining walls, no. Lillehaug: Exactly, right. Okay. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Slagle: I've got a couple. Have you seen these photos? Have we distributed that to the applicant? Sacchet: No. Slagle: Can we do that? I just want their input. You're going to see on the bottom right hand side a photo oflooking down Lake Riley Boulevard to the south and having been through a few cases before us, you can show it on there. There are homes that are close to the street as you go down. I would not argue the point but I would say that there, it gets hillier down there. And so again, the necessity for them to be a little further up towards the street, any thoughts on that? Laura Cooper: If you go down to the comer I think it looks really cramped and crowded. And from the perspective of character, you know Kim and Nonn for example on our south side built a beautiful house. If we pulled that garage forward, maybe not as you come directly up the road but as you come towards it, that garage structure I believe will look out of character with what is there on the road, if we go too far towards the road. Slagle: Let me ask one more question then. Was it ever contemplated in your 15 or 16 versions or variations, which I applaud your patience, of somehow incorporating a house that has more of a garage that you drive straight into. House above it. I mean instead of having a, I'm just trying to think how you could have built a house there that. Tim Walker: You just can't get the driveway and the garage up to the first main level. You just can't get it up there. Laura Cooper: It's the handicap accessibility that's really what we've struggled because if we put it right in the front say and face it directly and tuck it in with I don't know, a bedroom or something above, the grade on the, where we want it on the south side was greater than the 9 or 10 percent that you allow. If you put it on the front of the house. That's why we've got, it's so long. Slagle: And did you say that you have a family member who's. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Laura Cooper: Actually a very good friend and his friend, best friend who visit the house and have you know, played on the water toys and had their families out with us, but it's a very difficult thing to do. Tim Walker: They're both in wheelchairs. Laura Cooper: They're both in wheelchairs and one of them lives in England. He comes back for the MS 150, the first time again this year and we'd like to have him stay with us in the future. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Larson: Yeah. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So they're non-residents. They would not be residents. Laura Cooper: They wouldn't be for anything other than a visit. Larson: But they're just frequent visitors, okay. Laura Cooper: Correct. Larson: I had a question if, going back to your many attempts at trying to redo this. Was it ever a consideration to, because ofthe setback to the lake. I mean there's a pretty decent setback right now. 30, whatever, 7 feet or 5 feet. Was it ever a consideration to try and do a 50% add on to that house or to restructure what's already there? I mean I don't know if that was. Laura Cooper: It's a split level and that's the issue. Larson: That's the issue, okay. Laura Cooper: I've dragged Rob at 170 pounds up those stairs and I've also got, he's got a great ability to get down the stairs fÌ"om my deck, but it scares the living daylights out of me every time. It's not that it's not physically possible to make it work, but also this is our lifetime house. We don't want to have to leave at some point because either one of us is incapacitated. And I think the families who was here before, Chanhassen would do well to have a few more places like that in the long run. Larson: Okay, that's all I had. Lillehaug: I had a question. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Sharmeen, can you put that up. I want to ask you a question. I highlighted in the area on your map that you provided. Would you agree with me that that is an area that you are intensifying and increasing and expanding into, intensifying the variance that you're requesting. Is that an area that goes deeper into the wetland setback than what's there currently? That that darken area is intensifying. Laura Cooper: Based on the angle, yes. The one comer I think is probably pretty dang close to where the existing property is. It's just that. Lillehaug: So, at that comer? Laura Cooper: Yes. Sacchet: That's why he didn't color it. Because there you're not intensifying. Lillehaug: ...is specifically the area compared to the existing house, your proposed house according to that drawing, you're intensifying the wetland setback, would you agree with that? Tim Walker: You're including the patio and... Sacchet: Yes. Laura Cooper: Yes we would agree with that. And we would also be amenable to turning that so that it didn't as much as well. The challenges then, we're asking you for a different variance which is a front variance, and to Mike's point, when we went through this process we asked okay, we want to minimize the variances. Let's do 2. Hard cover and we heard that the front setback was going to be the issue so that's where, no we heard the front was going to be the issue so we didn't, we avoided that. Slagle: Who, can I ask who shared with you that the fÌ"ont setback would be more of an issue than the water? Mike Sharratt: ...we were trying to minimize the number of variances we're asking for. Sacchet: Well, that's besides the point. Slagle: It is but, but let me just throw this out for consideration. We've seen a number of cases on this lake. At least in my 4 years, at least 3 or 4. If you had a chance to watch any of those or research them, I mean we literally spent a lot of time talking 1 foot, 2 foot. Moving a room, and I mean, so I'm just sharing with you, I'm hoping that you understand and get the concern that we're talking 7 feet I think. Something like that and just what Commissioner Lillehaug showed you, I'm just surprised you wouldn't have come with not encroaching in any ofthose areas. Just sharing that with you. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Laura Cooper: And we are novices. .. .I've had the variance notices but I'm not come to any one. I think as Mike shows you this picture here, if we, we are willing to move. We met after the fact when we saw the denial. If you see that straight line there, to your point, if we move the angle back on the... where the garage fits, do we have to go through the variance process again for 4 or 5 feet on the front? Do you see where the challenge is? Sacchet: Yeah. Laura Cooper: Weare okay with moving back to that line if the intensification of the back is the true issue. Sacchet: You see the problem we have is, we have to make a decision on the proposal in fÌ"ont of us. We can't make a decision on something that hasn't been worked out in detail. That hasn't been studied by staff so we can maybe give you a little bit of a reference point, but these can't go further than that. So we have to contend with that. That's the best we can do tonight for you. Laura Cooper: Well and then that gets back to the, if you do recommend approval, which we hope you will, the conditions that are included at the back. Can those conditions, to avoid us getting into. Sacchet: Well we're not quite there yet. I mean you'll just have to wait til we get there, I mean we will get to that pretty soon I hope. Lillehaug: Can I ask one more question? Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Did you consider any mitigating factors such as, you know we saw one a year ago regarding a variance and we have this whole list of variances out in that area. This is the map for that. It shows variances. But in this case they mitigated something. Like the case we saw, they moved their whole, the existing structure, they moved it away from the shoreland so there is a, in my mind you can't just look at these and say well, they have a setback. They have a variance. They have a variance. They have a variance. You should grant us one. In these cases there is most, in more than likely a mitigating factor and do you have any mitigating factors? I mean I don't see any, do you? Tim Walker: Well I guess what we hear a lot is that they should be able to put their property to similar use that others are having granted. We have maybe a 36 foot here and maybe about 45 foot here, setback to these structures. I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that we should be significantly tied in with the existing neighboring structures are, or have been permitted to do by the city. I think if we can verify scientifically this line for you, that we stay behind this line, that seems to be a reasonable approach to me. McDonald: If I could make a suggestion. Are you willing to table this and to come back to us at some other point because. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Well, I'm not sure I'm willing to table it. McDonald: Okay. I'll wait. Laura Cooper: I think another mitigating factor, we have lots not only behind but in front of these houses and looked, and it's 30 foot, 30 foot, 20 foot, 20 foot, so I mean in tenns of have we investigated their variance reports? No. But have we looked at the houses? Yes. The last 4 on the comer that were built, some of them have side variances as well as front and back variances and the bottom line is it's a hardship lot. I've got 12,936 feet and even in your new guidelines, 15,000 feet. I'm still a hardship. Sacchet: Yeah, and that's the case with just about every property there because we have quite a bit of experience, at least those of us that have been sitting here for a while because we have these cases come in several times a year. And again, our aim is to be somewhat consistent with how we treat everybody, and we're not there yet in our discussion but I think you certainly picked up some of the elements is that we look for a lessening of the intensification. What I see here is intensification only in tenns of the lakeshore setback and if you would have looked at some ofthe debates that we had in the past in similar situations, I would definitely think that you could back up that this lakeshore setback is the most significant in this gang here, okay. But we'll get to that when we get to the discussion but I mention that here because there is no way of spinning our wheels here. We have a proposal in front of us that we make a decision about it. We cannot make a decision about another proposal at this point because it's not in front of us. It's as simple as that. And I'm sorry because that basically means that you're going to have to come back for another variance, okay. We're not there yet but I don't really see much other possibility to be honest with you, and I mention that here because there is no point in us debating this over and over and over because we're not making headway with it. Do you understand where I'm at? I mean. Laura Cooper: I think based on the fact that we are going to have to come back, it will be very helpful if you knew exactly what we really need to come back with. Sacchet: Yeah, and give you an idea. Absolutely. And that's what we're trying to clarify too at some point here. Slagle: But if I can, point of clarification. I mean truthfully that, those discussions and those helpful points if you will would really come fÌ"om staff I mean we're 1 of7 or 6 that we have our own opinion but that's really, you know. I would suggest whatever happens tonight you really work with them in refining. That's assuming it doesn't pass. It might pass, who knows. Laura Cooper: And ITom that perspective, we would like to thank Josh because I know he's worked a lot with Melissa on. . . Sacchet: We haven't made a decision yet so, let's take it in steps definitely. By all means. Anything else you'd like to add from your end. Let's open the public hearing and see what anybody else wants to address this item. This is a public hearing so if any of the other residents 62 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 want to speak up to this item, this is your chance. Seeing nobody getting up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Lillehaug: Can I blurt a few things out? Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I have to believe that based on staffs recommendation that most ofthis stuff has been discussed with them. Or some of our opinions anyways. Is that a fair statement? Metzer: Particularly which? Lillehaug: Well particularly I mean one in my mind reasonable use. You know I'd love to have storage for my boat at my house. I mean I see a pretty significant 14 plus foot by 32 foot lake storage as labeled on the plan. I mean is that a reasonable use? I mean it's a little more than a reasonable use in my mind. So that's one thing. Because the main thing is, I absolutely don't support intensifying and increasing the encroachment on the wetland setback, and we have some footages in here, 33.7 foot setback. Well, if you really look at it, it's worst than that. If you look at an area intensification because the house is skewed right now. You straighten it up with the shoreland and, on the map that I highlighted there. I mean it drastically increases the intensification and I absolutely don't support that, especially on a lake lot like that. I think we need to be very sensitive to that. Intensifying the hard surface. It's not a drastic intensification but again it's intensifying it. Just simply put there is absolutely no mitigating factors and I think that the commission and the city and staff should be very stringent on these standards. Like I said, in the earlier, in the past there's always been a mitigating factor that I've been involved with. Significant mitigation factors and this way it goes totally the opposite direction, so me. I would not support any intensification on the lake side. That's where I stand. Sacchet: Let me clarify Steve. When you, and I think that's important for the applicant to understand. When their idea was that it they stay 37.3 feet away from the lakeshore, the whole fÌ"ont, that that's not intensification, but that really is not what we're saying here. It's because the building was not the whole building was at 37.3 feet. Only the first comer was, and the other comer on the other side was more something around, probably 60 feet or so from the lake. So it's not the straight line that we're looking at, but as you were able to see on the drawing, what he highlighted, I mean that gives you an idea of what we look at, okay. Is that understood because that's important. Thanks Steve. Anything else? Lillehaug: That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Anybodyelse? Dan? Keefe: Just some brief comments. I don't support this particular proposal just to really the comments by staffthat it's an intensification and it's of both the hard surface coverage and particularly the lake side. Intensification. One question I've got in my mind is, if there are a lot of variances on this particular lake, which obviously there are, particularly in regards to the lake side intensification, I might be willing to consider some level of variance, as long as it's 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 consistent with the neighboring properties, and I can't get, I mean I've seen a couple different maps. I just can't even get a feel for whether, at least the one that I've got in fÌ"ont of me looks like it's significantly in front ofthe other properties, but I don't know the answer to that so I really can't even rule in regards to that at all. I would like to see no intensification of it but I think in regards to whether we would consider granting a variance, I would like to at least have that trued up to a certain degree so that we've got a better feel for that. And the hard surface coverage, you know I'd really like to just see that, no intensification there as well. So those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie. Larson: Okay. First of all I want you to know I think the idea of upgrading the property's a great idea. There's many of the homes in the area have been upgraded and you know, your's does stick out as being one that needs it. It's a nice home but certainly the ones around it definitely have gone further extent of that. I'm very also worried about the intensification. The encroachment towards the lake. Seems a bit excessive but if you're willing to move it back, maybe my main concern would be maybe this garage area because that's what's, I know what you're saying as you come down Lyman you can see the house and then I drove it today and it's definitely going to look odd to me. Whether it's placed closer to the street or not. It's still going to look weird to me, and I don't know if there's something that can be designed differently to that to where it can be more part of the main structure or something because the two houses on either side, as you saw by the new photographs, don't really have that. They're more flat fronted and so you know, since we're in the process of having to do a 16th version, I hate to have you do that but at this point I'm not comfortable with passing this either so that's all I have. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comment. Jerry. McDonald: Well first of all, I understand the problem you got with this lot. It is not the same size as the others and I understand how that will limit you and everything. And again because of the lay ofthe land, it is different than the other lots so you've got a challenge and I mean you've done a great job with what you've come up with but at this point, to me you're changing the character of what's there. You're asking us to create too many variances and I have a problem with that, as I've said. I'm not against creating variances, and again I looked at the other properties and we're talking decks. We're talking footers. Your property is plat with the lake. All these others again going to the south, there are different reasons why they got that. It is not that you can just draw a line. That is not your answer. I would suggest again you need to work with staff as far as coming up, there are going to be design constraints. I'm sorry. You may not get to do exactly what you want to do with the land. I do agree that an individual should have rights on their property, but however that's why there are city zoning laws and variances and those things. You have rights within certain limitations so it's not a blank check. And then based upon all that, unfortunately I've got to say you've got to come back. I mean that's why we would prefer to table it but it's the same thing. You're not there yet. I'm not sure that when you come back the design's going to be the same as what it is. Maybe it is. Maybe you can work something out but you can't bring us something where you intensify things. I mean to me when I look at this and I look at the property, it's trying to put 10 pounds of sand into a 5 pound sock. I can't support that, I'm sorry. All I can say is based upon maybe the comments and what staff 64 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 has said, that's your variances. That's your design constraints. I'm sorry. That's the way it is. That's what you'll have to go around. That's it. Sacchet: Still nothing Rich? Lillehaug: Mr. Chair can I ask? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: I also wanted to make a point that in reviewing a variance we have findings of facts that we need to. . . Sacchet: I was just getting to that. Go for it. Lillehaug: It's not iterated enough that there's. Sacchet: 5 or 6 points. Lillehaug: ...6 points and a majority of them, they're just not met so that's something that at the board level, at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals level, we need to consider. That it doesn't meet those standards. Sacchet: Actually Steve I'd like to go through these points for the benefit of the newer members on the Planning Commission. And also for your benefit. I mean basically for us as a Planning Commission to approve a variance we have to look at 5 things. That's anchored in by city code. The first item is that the literal enforcement of the code creates undue hardship. Now undue hardship is defined that it would prevent somebody from making use ofthe property as it's commonly used within 500 feet and surrounding. Now if you take that literally you could say in 500 feet surrounding are single family homes. With 2 car garages. You have a single family home. You have a 2 car garage so therefore it's not causing undue hardship, if you look at it in a nasty way you might say. From your angle. If you look at it in a very factual way let's say. Objectively. The second point we have to look at is, does the condition of this variance create a precedent for similar properties, for similar places in the same zoning district. Because here we're trying to treat everybody the same way. And that's partially what your reasoning was too. You said well the guy next door and the guy there, so we have to make sure that we make something that is not creating a precedent for everybody else in a similar situation. The third thing we have to look at is, is the aim for this to increase the value of the property? Which is not the sole. I wouldn't hold that against you. I mean you're building your house. It's going to be worth more, but that's not your main aim here. The fourth thing we need to look at is the hardship self created? Well the hardship is self created because you want this type of house. You want it the way you want it. The way you put it. You put it there. And then we also need to look at does the variance detrimental in any way to the public welfare, and there could be a case made that encroaching further into the lakeshore setback is damaging to the other welfare. That's the position that I've seen the city take repeatedly. And then the last point is, does it impair adequate supply ofland and air and all that to surrounding. Light. Light, and that's not, that doesn't come into play so much with this one, but that's the 5 criteria that we go by. And I 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 think it's very obvious that in tenns of hardship, in tenns of making a precedent, in tenns of self created, we're falling way short. On top ofthat, and I don't know, did you want to add anything else at this point Steve? On top of that, the encroachment is very big. I mean you may have thought that well you're only increasing from 37 to 33 feet. However if you look at it with the way Steve colored it for you, there's a big chunk there. Now are we holding you to just be able to build in the little sliver ofland that is actually buildable? No we don't. I mean that's not reasonable. There's the aspect where the hardship, where the reasonableness of the request comes into play, so we try to balance that in a way that is workable for everybody. So we try to work together. However, the intensification on the lakeshore setback is very significant. The lakeshore setback is the most sensitive constraint you have on that lot. The second sensitive is the hard cover. Because that also impacts the water quality of the lake. That has an impact on that too. So your second variance is also the second in sensitivity. While the encroachment on the front yard setback would be the least sensitive so that I think I feel confident to give you that as a framework of how we look at it. That doesn't mean that everybody's going to agree with me and that, I mean we can't give you any guarantees what we decide anytime in the future but to give you a little bit of an insight into the thinking that we have. Now in tenns of the size, and Jerry put that, I mean you can't put 10 pounds of rice into a 5 pound bag. I mean when I looked at this first I thought well, either the lot is too small or the house is too big. Now you can't make the lot bigger so you might have to make the house smaller. I don't know. I mean but that's, and that's where I draw the line but I don't think government should dictate to you how big your house can be, but that's for you to balance. But then when you come to us with a request for variance, we have to look. How does it fit with those 5 criteria? The hardship. The self created. The impact it has. Is it detrimental to public welfare? In this case the quality of the lake. And one important thing that's always been a gaining factor is, you have to lessen the non- confonnance. If you come in here with, and I can tell you that fÌ"om me personally. I can't speak for everybody. If you come in here with a proposal that's well, now we're not encroaching any further than 37.3 feet, which is where the comer ofthe deck was before, I was like well that's not a lessening ofthe non-confonnance. We're looking at a balance, and that's why I wonder whether the lot is simply not big enough for the size of house you want. There needs to be a significant lessening ofthe non-confonnance to justify all the other variances. And it's not necessarily the number of variances, if you have a front yard, a side yard and an impervious surface and a lakeshore, all these things. It's the amount of variance. I mean if you have a big variance, that's much more weighted than if you have a small variance. But I hope that gives you a little bit of feedback. Now I have to pounce on staff a little bit too, in all fairness since I'm kind of in a pouncing mode. Laura Cooper: .. .on your feedback? Sacchet: Yes. Laura Cooper: One of the challenges, why it's so big isn't because we need a 30 by 10 garage below. That's.. .but we do want to have the master suite and living suite on the same place as the kitchen and the laundry. That's why... Sacchet: And you see that's why I'm saying, I don't want to get involved with that. That's your business. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Laura Cooper: But if we come back with that same kind of goal, are we really defeating our purpose? That's what I'm asking. .. . accessibility is why the hard cover is so big is you have to have a 60 foot driveway. Sacchet: The hard cover is not a significant increase but it's not a tremendously, what is it? It goes fÌ"om 26 to 33 or something like that. Metzer: 26.8 I believe to 32.4. Sacchet: So we're looking at about 7-8%. I mean it's not a trivial increase but it's not really a insane increase either, but I can't tell you where we're going to be because you don't know what you're going to bring to us. Okay. Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can throw this out again, just as a word of, as a word of thought. We have seen others come back in a revision fonn and really in some respects it's a different house. I mean not that I want you to pay your builder or designer more money but I mean really people have gone from really a certain type of fonnat of a house and decided you know what, this is not going to work. I'm not suggesting that but I mean, be open at least to that possibility. Sacchet: Now I do want to address staff on this. I'm not thrilled with this coming in fÌ"ont of us in this shape, I have to be very honest about it. Because there's no mitigation. This is all intensification. And I wonder if they have to make another variance, do they have to apply for a new variance? Is there a fee involved with that? Could we ask staff to waive that fee for them to come back? Al-Jaff: We don't have the authority to do that. That's something that the City Council can do. McDonald: I have a question then to that, that's part of why I wanted to table this, to keep all this within the same record. Ifthey need to make the changes at that point, we're talking about the same thing. That solves that problem. If they're willing to do that and to re-look at things, then we don't have to get council involved or anyone else. It is the same file. Sacchet: The reason why I disagree on that Jerry is because this is so far away from something that I consider acceptable. McDonald: I agree with you 100% but you know, they can change it and come back. I don't know that there's any requirement that says they've got to just tweak it here and there. They could come back with something totally new. I mean we're asking them to table this and at that point they need to bring back something based upon what we have said that we would probably consider, and if that's totally different than it's totally different. Sacchet: How much is the fee for a variance? Metzer: 250. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: 250. McDonald: And at that point I think it begins to solve the problem but they have to agree to the waiver and to give them more time. Sacchet: What's the time clock on this? Because you see we have time restrictions. McDonald: I understand. Al-Jaff: Application was submitted April 15. Deadline. Slagle: Not April 15. Metzer: The review deadline is April 12th. Al-Jaff: Sorry. So that's the 60 days. Sacchet: 60 days is Aprillih. Al-Jaff: Correct. We can take an additional 60 days. Sacchet: If they agree. Al-Jaff: If they agree. McDonald: Otherwise what I would propose is that they have to pay the fee again. I mean that's one of the risks that you run when you submit something to council is they, is going to be turned down and at that point if you have to start all over again, you need to pay the fee again. Mike Sharratt: May I ask a question? Sacchet: Yes. Mike Sharratt: As far as coming back a second time around here, would we have any leniency on the amount oftime required for review since you've already familiarized yourself with somewhat with our situation tonight, would require the full 30-60 days or could we come back next Planning Commission meeting say with submitting the plans? Sacchet: I don't know how full our schedule is, do you know? Al-Jaff: It is full. Sacchet: It is pretty full isn't it? AI-Jaff: We have some heavy items. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: I know we have a pretty heavy schedule these days. Lillehaug: If I can also add. Like I said before, I mean I have to believe that staff has done their due diligence in working with the applicant. Literally I mean staff denied, recommended denial of the variance based on all those findings. Sacchet: So it shouldn't be a total surprise. Lillehaug: I'm not saying let's send a message here, but I mean the fact of the matter is, I mean staff relayed this infonnation to them. I mean it's pretty straight forward. Sacchet: Okay, I can accept that. McDonald: What I would only offer is that you know, ask us to waive this and at that point fine. The fee's taken care of. Ifnot, I'm afÌ"aid I'd have to support, you're going to have to repay the fee because again I think staff did do their job. I mean they pointed out this isn't going to pass. It is your choice to bring it to us or to halt it. It is totally within your control. So that's what I would offer as a compromise is that if they want to ask for a delay in our decision, I'm fine with doing that. Sacchet: Personally I still think it's the wrong signal. I mean this is so far away in tenns of intensification and no mitigation that tabling is, I'm not really considering that personally myself I don't know, maybe you all are. ... we can make a motion and see what happens, yeah. Keefe: I was just going to say. When would be the soonest we could probably get it back on? Do you have any idea Sharmeen? Slagle: Point of clarification too though. I mean just making sure we're on top of this is, if they grant the, agree to the waiver ofthe timefÌ"ame, it's really up to them then. Forget our schedule. I mean they have to put together something. Work with you, so I guess I would just ask if they're open to it and if they are, we might make a decision. If they're not, then we make another decision. McDonald: And I would suggest at that point that if staff says it's not ready, do not try to bring it up. Sacchet: Well you see that's one of the things I'm concerned about. Once we put the timefÌ"ame on it, if we don't act within the timeframe, it becomes automatically approved. Now if they don't come in with another applicant though it would never get to that point so yeah, that would work. Keefe: It's May 3rd. It looks like May 300. Sacchet: I think it'd be better to be crisp personally. Do we want to take a motion? Or do we want to know whether the applicant's willing to extend, since some of us asked. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then I'd like clarification. Sacchet: Please. Mike Sharratt: Do you want to waive the 60 day rule? Sacchet: Basically extend it to 120 from 60. Mike Sharratt: Set it for 120 on the same application. Lillehaug: You can also appeal our decision directly to the City Council. Laura Cooper: If we extend. . . Mike Sharratt: Well it's more absolute that way with staff, but here's the clarification I'd like. Sacchet: Go ahead. Mike Sharratt: What I'd like is clarification tonight so that we know our constraints. Is our constraint. Sacchet: Can you zoom in on it Nann? Thanks. Mike Sharratt: What I've been, is our constraint location of the rear facade of the existing house or is our constraint the precedence if you want to call it that, of the actual setback of the two neighboring structures or the average thereof? Or the straight line between the most projected parcel of those structures. What is our, can we have a scientific direction from you as to what. Sacchet: It's a combination of all those. And I tried to give you a little bit of, at least fÌ"om my personal prioritizing and idea of how I stack them. I would stack the neighboring context further down the line. I didn't touch on that one. I think I touched on the other ones to some extent. I don't know whether any of you wants to add something to that. McDonald: I would defer to staff. I mean. Sacchet: And it's really a thing you have to work with staff. McDonald: You really need to work with them and you know, they're much better at I think doing some of this balancing and bring it to us and at that point what we can do is apply our perspective. Mike Sharratt: .. . communication. Sacchet: There is no scientifically fixed fonnula. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: That's, but what we're saying is.. .that we are further encroaching toward the lake setback. Sacchet: I would interpret it that way, correct. But then there are mitigating factors. I mean nothing is absolute because you have a little comer of a deck stick out a little bit. And it's on the side where the house was further back. I mean that's why I'm saying, it's a combination of all those. AI-Jaff: I can work with the applicant and Josh and I can both. Sacchet: Yeah, I really I think we told you that several times. It's something you need to work with staff. Because they, I mean that's their job. Alright. Did we want to get a clarification whether to extend the timeframe or do you want to make a motion? McDonald: Did they want to ask for one? I mean we can't just ask for a motion. It's their. Mike Sharratt: They said yes. McDonald: Then in that case, I make a motion that we table this application until the applicant re-submits. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: I second. McDonald moved, Larson seconded to table Variance Request #05-10 until the applicant re-submits. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Sacchet: Now for a table that's enough, right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, it wouldn't be enough to approve the variance but it's enough to table. Alright. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: Alright, we got that in place. Thanks for bearing with us. It's a beautiful property you have there so. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 71