PC Minutes 5-17-05
Ö5 ~·¡O
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MA Y 17, 2005
Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and
Kurt Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet and Debbie Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
REQUEST FOR V ARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT
SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Any questions from any of the commissioners?
Papke: I can start here. Under applicable regulations, point (e). The issue of destruction of non-
conforming to the extent of more than 50%. Is this particular proposal more than 50% of it's
estimated value? So is this regulation enforced?
Metzer: Well yes, by demo'ing their existing home.
Papke: So this thing is.
Metzer: It's 100%...
Papke: It's 100% gone so it's like 99%. Okay. Given that, what is the precedent for allowing a
confOlmity under that particular situation. The non-conformity. How many times before have
we allowed someone to bypass that limit of the 50% demolition and then allow them to have a
variance, the non-conformity.
Al-laff: In the past we have ran into situations when, and it was in that exact same
neighborhood. They maintained existing and there was another situation where they exceeded
what originally was on the site as far as hard surface coverage and setback.
Papke: So there is precedence for doing this?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
AI-Jaff: COlTect.
Papke: Okay. The reason I bIing that up, because I know in that same neighborhood there are
some homeowners that have gone to great extent not to exceed that 50% to not lose that
grandfather clause, and my concern here is, you know are we establishing a precedent here that
these lots along Lake Riley Boulevard, we can mow them down as long as we can build them
back up and make it a little bit better than it was before. Okay, that's the concern. 1'mjust
wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time?
AI-Jaff: We have done this before.
McDonald: Next? Deborah, do you have any questions?
Zorn: No.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: No.
McDonald: Okay. No questions of staff from the council at this point. I will ask that the
applicant come forward.
Tim Walker: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see at least
some of you again. Recognize some new faces. I don't think we have anything to add other than
the staff repOli, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to
Josh and Shmmeen.
Laura Cooper: And Matt Saam.
Tim Walker: And Matt, yeah. We spent quite a bit of time and worked very closely with them.
Appreciate them putting effort into it all.
McDonald: Okay. Any questions of the applicants?
Keefe: No, I guess what 1'd like to say is I appreciate your willingness to work with staff and
consider the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission and really work on
your design because I know you guys kind of went through a wholesale change from where you
were before and we appreciate that.
Tim Walker: Thanks.
McDonald: Okay. Well with that I'll throw it open to the floor. This is an open meeting.
Anyone that would like to come forward with any comments on this matter, please do so now.
And when you come up to the mic, would you please identify yourself and tell us where you live
in relation to this home.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Dlive. I live down the
street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So 1'm very interested in what happens
to our shoreland. I have to apologize to staff because I was not able to look at this until late this
afternoon and there's a finding that I think is important. And that is, you list applicable
regulations, Section 20-73. Non-conforming use of structures and Kurt asked some questions
about that today. But there's also another section that's relative when a home is totally
eliminated and that's Section 20-73. Non-conforming lots of record. And point (b), 1'11 just read
this. It's hard I know when you don't have it in front of you but I couldn't copy it either. I
should have probably plinted this off at the office. Anyway, no valiance shall be required to
construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record excluding platted
outlots, provided it fronts on a public street or approved plivate street, and provided that the
structure meets the minimum requirements of this chapter. The minimum requirements it' s
speaking about are the shoreland regulations, zoning setbacks. So this was re-written, it was
enacted as a new ordinance on May 24, 2004. So one year ago this was changed. And one year
ago it used to read 70, it had to meet 75% of the ordinance. Now it reads it must meet the
minimum requirements of the chapter. Not 75%. The minimum requirements of the entire
chapter. So that's important. It's also important in light of, if you look at the other homes that
are listed in your report, if you look at 1999, the last one on the first page. Number 14. And
2003, number 7. Those valiance files. The shoreland setback for those properties was set at 57
feet. Which is 75% of the setback as the code was written then. But now the code was changed
last year. No more 75%. It means 100%. So I just think you need to realize that. That yes,
valiances were enacted over time but the code was strengthen last year and you can look at all
these items but the purpose of it is to protect the shoreland. Also the first 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8 of
these items highlighted in yellow were all variances granted before 1994, before we re-wrote the
shoreline code in Chanhassen. So I think you kind of have to kind of disregard that too. Not that
1'm like against these people or anything. They've made some progress. I think maybe more
progress could even be made. That impervious surface number is outstanding, and that's why
it's hard to stand up here and say anything because that is really outstanding. But I was
contemplating all of this and I was thinking, you know it's society. We all want what our
neighbors have. These big homes or whatever. 1've never in what, 5-6 years here have ever
heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It's small. 1'd like to build a small, quality home.
May I have a valiance please for a single car garage. A single family with one car, they do exist.
This property, lovely. 3 car garages. I mean a 3 car garage. I think there's room here for a
more, even though progress has been made, you know and I applaud them for that, and if I
owned that piece of property 1'd want to put the best home on it too, but I think there is
opportunity here for improvement. And to Kurt's point, you know where do you hold the line?
You keep making valiance, valiance, valiance. You know I wlite the City Council and I do
crazy things and I kind of dubbed our little development by St. Hubert's, I don't even remember
the real name. What is it? Pond? What's that supposed to be called?
AI-J aff: Villages on the Pond.
Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. 1've kind of dubbed that, you've never heard this before,
sorry. I've kind of dubbed that Valiancea. I don't want our whole town to become a valiance. I
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
mean we have standards and that's why I continue to come up here, embarrass myself and, but I
try to bling forth what's in the code and make it valuable to you as well.
Keefe: I have a question for you. Just you know the thing that I like about this is they're
actually improving the hard surface coverage from the existing home. And I don't know, what
year was the existing home built?
Metzer: '78.
Keefe: '78 so I mean they're improving the hard sUlface coverage. And so you know, in
regards,. And they do have a very small lot so I'm sitting here going, at least so I'm kind of
sitting here going, okay. Since'78 we've been living with a situation where it's been non-
conforming and now they've come back and they're actually, yeah they are making a bigger
house, but they're improving the hard surface coverage so, 1'm not sure what type of an
improvement we could suggest on that particular property, particularly in light of a smaller.
Debbie Lloyd: I think the setbacks on the lake is really vital because the 75% with that 57 feet
back, the requirement is 75 feet and this one is at 43 feet.
Keefe: So what does that leave on this lot?
AI-Jaff: If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non-
confOlmities that the 75 applied to. Not the setback.
Debbie Lloyd: Well the setback is at 75, for both of those other lots that were approved, they
were approved with the 75% deviation of the 75 foot setback from the lake, and I know that's
vital to our Minnesota shoreland regulations. That's where the regulations came from, State of
Minnesota. I don't want to debate anything. It's not my job to debate it. I just wanted to present
it. Thank you.
McDonald: Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak on this? Okay,
seeing no one else I will now throw it open to the council for discussion.
Papke: I really respect what the issues that Debbie brought up here, but I think in this pmiicular
case they're, you know at the end of the day what we really care about is forward progress here,
and every time we approve a variance, it seems impOliant to me that we're making the city better
in some way. And in this particular case I think these applicants are doing that and you know,
we can debate the fine details of the city code and how we interpret them, but I think in this
particular case it's well walTanted from my perspective. It's my two cents worth.
Zorn: Josh or Sharmeen, could you talk a little bit about the variance that is being proposed.
What that is equating to size wise? That little pOliion of the garage.
Metzer: It's 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that's just for the very outside comer.
Zom: It kind of looks like it's 2 feet by, kind of nalTOw. Angles in.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
Metzer: Right, it's this section here. That shaded in the front. This is the front of the garage
running down this line. And the setback line runs on a line like this.
Zorn: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I had.
McDonald: Next.
Keefe: You know 1'11 just re-state briefly, I think that they've improved the situation. 1'm happy
to see that. I mean I think really to Debbie's point as well, you know we tried to improve the
code last year and strengthen the code but, and that's a good thing. I think it's also a good thing
to see proposals come in which actually improve the situation where they're at in terms of you
know runoff potential, in terms of the hard surface coverage from the existing situation so 1'm in
favor of approval of this particular proposal.
Undestad: I guess my comment, I didn't, wasn't here the first go around, but looking at the two,
it's a great job. Revisions and I think you did great.
McDonald: Okay, I guess what I would add to the record is that I do want to congratulate you. I
know that when you left the last time it did not seem as though that it was going to be possible to
build a house on that particular lot. And I am, I guess 1'm very encouraged by the fact that yes,
the lakeshore setback has been increased from what it was, and it doesn't seem to affect the
quality of the home. This will be an improvement for the neighborhood. One of the things that
we talked about valiances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the
fault of the owner, that we can grant a valiance. In this particular case we're dealing with a lot
that, if we enforce the valiances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think
this is a case for where the valiances need to be given, and again this home improves, and this is
what we asked. The home improves all of the setbacks. Improves the encroachments. It takes
away from the hard surface areas. I think they did everything that we asked in order to build this
new home there. I hope that in the process of doing so that they are getting a home that they can
live with and that meets their requirements and everything, but I believe that kudo's for you all
for working with the staff. We really appreciate that. So at this point I guess we will vote. Do I
have a motion?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve Valiance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard
setback variance, 1 % hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback valiance
for the demolition and re-building of a single family home on a lipalian lot zoned single family
residential with conditions 1 through 12 as listed in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Zorn: I second.
McDonald: Having the motion made and it being seconded, we will now vote.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17.2005
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #05-10
for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance
(26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the
demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1. Drainage swales are required to be graded In along each side of the house.
2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3: 1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the nOlihwest
side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply.
3. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed
by a registered civil engineer and a pelmit from the city building department must be
obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall
within a public easement.
4. Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey.
5. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and
submit revised service tie cards upon connection.
6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation cleating within the shore impact zone.
7. The applicant shall detelmine whether pelmits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed DistIict and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project,
including the shoreline liprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of
approval should be met.
8. Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake
side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side propeliy lines. Silt fence shall be
removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated.
9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
10: 1 to 3: 1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
(maximum timc an arca can rcmain unvegctatcd
whcn arca is not actively bcing worked)
7 Days
14 Days
21 Days
10. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any
construction activity.
11. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a
fabric liner.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO BUILD A STORAGE SHED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7450
CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT. TIMOTHY & DIANE MCHUGH. PLANNING
CASE NO. 05-17.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: In terms of the storage available on the site here, the garage, the dimensions are listed
here. I take it this is a two car garage, is that correct? That the occupant currently has.
Timothy McHugh: Yes.
Papke: Okay. And is there any storage above, maybe 1'11 hold this for the applicant. Okay,
that's all I have.
Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other valiances that you found on that area of the lake.
You've got 2 listed in here. Is Hill Street nearby?
Metzer: Yeah, it's to the southwest.
Keefe: Oh I see it, south of the property. So there are a couple of them.
Metzer: Hill Street is here, Subject property is here.
Keefe: Alright. And then in terms of 27 foot front yard setback valiance. Construction,
expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct?
Metzer: COlTect.
Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what 1'm looking at? Okay. 9 foot side yard setback.
Construction of a one car garage. Okay. And those are the only two that you found in regards to
variances which have been granted along the sort of east and south of Lotus Lake?
Metzer: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. And then another question, what does the fire department say about access in
regards to this?
7