Loading...
PC Minutes 07-15-2014 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Campion STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: 6780 YUMA DRIVE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6780 YUMA DRIVE. APPLICANT: CROSSTOWN BUILDERS, INC. OWNER: DANIEL & SUSAN DEGOLIER, PLANNING CASE 2014-19. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As you stated this is Planning Case 2014-19. The applicant is Crosstown Builders. The property is located at 6780 Yuma Drive which is in our Carver Beach area of the community. An older subdivision from 1929 and so all the properties are made up of individual smaller lots. The applicant is requesting a variance so that he can locate the detached garage 7.27 feet from the side property line. 10 foot side yard setbacks are required and actually the variances for a .73 foot setback because they have a 2 foot overhang on their eave and so we would have to count that against the setback also. So we show that, what they’re trying to do is put a 3 car detached garage approximately 10 feet from the end of their stairway. To do this and maintain the 30 foot front yard setback they’re forced back to that corner point on their property. While we believe the 3 car garage is a good improvement for the property there are some alternatives that they could look at for this and staff does not support this variance in this location. They could shift the building approximately 25 feet to the north. Between 24 and 25 feet and then same footprint complies with the zoning setback. It does go right over the center of a large tree that’s on the property and so the, however this is staff’s initial recommendation because it does comply with ordinance and it provides them with the 3 car garage that they’re requesting. However we did look at an alternative that they go, shift the building forward and look at a front yard setback. This would be a 9.5 foot setback from the front property line. The building would be actually 7 ½ feet closer to the street than the 30 foot setback requirement is but again they have that 2 foot eave so any variance would have to include that. This building would be down approximately a foot from their existing location. We assume that they would follow the grade that they’re proposing for the driveway and then they meet their approximately a 7 percent slope which is under the 10 percent slope requirement that we have under city code for private driveways. Again staff recommends that we deny the variance and that they go with the initial, with a design that complies with ordinance. However if you believe some relief is necessary we prefer the front yard setback variance because it would be more fitting with the neighborhood. If you look at the table that we have for variances, there are several front yard setback variances that have been approved within 500 feet so there is a sort of character that’s been established. These are smaller designed roadways. There will be adequate separation from the building to the front property line. I did draft an alternate Findings of Fact should the Planning Commission decide to approve a variance request. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Questions? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Weick: Yeah, in the second version with the front yard setback. Generous: Yes. Weick: Or for a variance. Is that still a 3 vehicle? Generous: Yes. What we did is took their design and just shifted it forward so that it can comply with that side yard setback. Weick: And then if they moved it the other way, and you said there’s a big tree there. Generous: Yes. It’s approximately 10 feet north of the proposed location of the garage. Weick: Would they have to get approval to cut down the tree to do that or no? Generous: No. Weick: Because it’s on the property there. Generous: Right. Weick: Okay. Generous: They’d like to preserve it. Actually pushing it forward provides a better opportunity to preserve it because it takes out more of the root zone from any compaction or construction activity. The City Forester is concerned that whatever they do because oaks are so sensitive, any construction activity may kill it anyway and so it might be just as wise to take it out initially but they have an opportunity to do that if they use Best Management Practices. Weick: Thank you. Aller: And if we provide the, or if we go with Option 3 which would be the easement to the north, or variance to the north then their footprint for the driveway would be decreased. Generous: Right. There’d be a little less hard cover on the site. Aller: And the garage would maintain the same footprint? Generous: Yes. Aller: And they also would, if the other option, Option 2 makes the walk from the house to the proposed garage that much farther. Generous: Yeah, about 25 foot more. Aller: So you lose a tree and you have to walk. And your driveway gives you more hard cover. Okay. I don’t have any further questions. Anyone else? Great. So with that I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the meeting. And so anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item, the applicant wishing to come forward. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Mike: I’m Mike from Crosstown Builders and there’s a few other pieces of the picture. One is that there are actually are more trees involved than just the one. It is a real substantial oak that we’re talking about that is the primary concern but both toward the street of that and really kind of clustered around it are kind of a number of other trees that are, that would need to be taken out in order to put it where that first choice would be. The first of the examples. It does seem to us like moving it forward would work real well in our situation. To move it back where we originally proposed it, there is a garage that is on the neighbor’s property that actually is about a foot off their property line so. Aller: Right. Mike: There’s kind of a precedence set for how close these are to that side line and that neighbor has said he’s not opposed at all to us putting it where our original plan was but my client and I both feel that either of those choices where we’re not taking down the tree is plenty suitable for us. Aller: Okay. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at the recent rains with the runoff on that garage? What’s the water drainage situation over there by that property line? Mike: There’s actually a pretty good slope that heads toward that curbed street to my thinking that, that is going to take most of that water that way and with, you know if there’s any concerns about that we’d be happy to remedy that with gutters and you know drain tile, down spout, whatever. You know it would really be that back slope that would be the issue and we could pretty easily address that with drain tile and gutter and down spout. Aller: Alright. Any other questions? And it’s a, could you tell me about the 3 car garage? Is it going to have windows? Mike: It will have windows. Aller: Just 2 and 3? Mike: Yeah we submitted plans for it. It will have windows. A service door and it will match the siding and you know the pitch and overhang and everything the existing house has so it fits in well with that. The current garage is a tuck under so there is garage there now but it’s small for today’s vehicles and their plan is to turn that into living space since it’s kind of right in the house set up. The one other thought that they have with the possible placement of it being where that tree is now would be that that puts it kind of a long way from the house and for a couple of reasons that’s an issue. I think one is that it’s sort of, when you drive by it would almost look like it’s not part of that house. It’s, you know it’s a big, long lot that curves that way so it looks a little like a structure sitting by itself over there. And then the other thing would just be the convenience of getting to it in the winter you know. Aller: Alright, thank you. Anyone have any questions? Alright. Thank you very much sir. Mike: Alright, thanks. Aller: Anyone else wishing to come forward can do so at this time. Speak either for or against the item before us. If you could state your name and address for the record sir please. Dan Degolier: Yeah I’m Dan Degolier. The address is 6780 Yuma Drive. Aller: Welcome. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Dan Degolier: And everything that has been stated is pretty accurate and I have talked to the rest of the neighbors and they’re all in favor of you know everyone that I was able to get a hold of, a dozen or so, and they’re all in favor of improving the property. Aller: Sure. Dan Degolier: And I just had a quick chance to talk with my wife and we, I think the second one where we move it forward, that’s fine with us and leave that extra, that 10 feet from the back. Aller: Great. Dan Degolier: We’d prefer not, we just had this, we have 2 big oak trees. We just had those trimmed this winter so we’d prefer not to mess with those at all. Aller: We love our trees here. Dan Degolier: Yeah. We do too. I do too so. Aller: That’s wonderful. Great. Dan Degolier: Any questions or anything else? Undestad: Just one quick one. Dan Degolier: Sure. Undestad: You mentioned you’re going to eliminate your tuck under garage now? Dan Degolier: Yes. Undestad: So is the driveway? Dan Degolier: Yeah. Undestad: Get rid of all that? Dan Degolier: Yeah, we’re going to take the drive away. Do all away and landscape that and put a patio in. More like maybe a fire pit, grass and patio area. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Great. Thank you very much sir. We have someone else coming forward. Hi. Sue Degolier: I’m the other half. Sue Degolier, 6780 Yuma Drive. Aller: Welcome. Sue Degolier: Last time I heard like speak now or forever hold your peace was 40 years ago when we got married so I thought I’d better say something now. This is the only chance I’m going to get so, I just would like to be sure you understand the reason why we’re doing this isn’t because we want to build a 3 car garage. It’s that we’ve added 4 grandchildren and we need the family room space so we spent a lot of 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 time trying to figure out how could we do that because we like where we live. So we came up with turning the tuck under garage into family room and there’s a half bath I think is what you’d call it. Mike: Yeah. Sue Degolier: That we would make a three-quarter bath and then where could we put the garage with our funny shaped yard so that’s how we came up this plan and I agree, I think we can live with a shorter garage because less shoveling. Less to pay for paving the driveway and the trees are an important value for us to preserve so it’s part of what we like about Chanhassen so. Aller: Great. Sue Degolier: Questions for us while we’re here. Aller: I think you’ve answered them all. We like family too. Sue Degolier: Yeah and it’s, the coming across the old driveways would all be, we’d put in some probably pine trees and shrubbery and kind of landscape that and bank it up a bit so there’d be a privacy element there so thanks for your consideration. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against. Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion. Hokkanen: I was just concerned with the other driveway and with 3 accesses to the property so that goes away. Aller: It sounds like that’s gone. Hokkanen: Yeah. Aller: With the variance granting. And I like the north. It’s less hard cover. It certainly isn’t their fault the property is shaped like it is and so I think they meet the requirements with this particular plan for a variance. Aanenson: Just to be clear, we should add as a condition of approval that the, that driveway, the original be removed. Aller: Be removed. Aanenson: I think that should be added just to be clear of our, so while the recommendation there say within we would add condition that says removal of existing driveway. Generous: And replace with vegetation. Weick: So as a matter of process we are actually approve, we would be approving a variance still with this version correct? Generous: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Instead of a rear yard we’re now doing a front yard variance. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Aller: A front yard. Weick: Got it. Aanenson: We flip flopped it. We set it forward. Aller: And in looking at the chart of all the variances it appears that the variances that have been granted were primarily for home purposes. For personal residences purposes. Not garage purposes but I tie that into the fact that they’re really gaining use of a, reasonable use of the personal residence and I think that’s really what the variances are for is to let them use the property in a reasonable fashion so. Weick: Well and technically there’s a slight rear variance here too, right? Generous: No. Aanenson: Actually the green is the. Generous: The green would be the setback line. We left the, their proposal. Weick: Oh front setback variance. I got you. Alright. Hokkanen: So the front would be. Weick: So the eave doesn’t even go over the. Generous: Well the eave can encroach into the 10 foot setback. Weick: Okay. Generous: But once you grant a variance it becomes part of the variance and you don’t get an exception to it. Weick: Appreciate it. No it’s clear, thank you. Aller: Great. I’ll entertain a motion at this time if someone would like to make it. Aanenson: Do you have a motion? Generous: No. They would approve a 9 ½ foot front yard setback variance. Tennyson: I’ll make a motion. Aanenson: Can I offer you something quick here because we changed the motion that’s on the slide. Generous: Well it’s on the Decision. Weick: It’s on the back. Generous: That one that I gave you at the bottom, yeah. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Tennyson: Yeah, plus the condition. Okay. The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment approves Planning Case #2014-19, a 9.5 foot setback variance including the roof eave from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement to allow a 3 car detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential District and subject to the condition that the original or existing driveway be removed. Aller: Okay Commissioner Tennyson has a motion before us. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment approves Planning Case #2014-19, a 9.5 foot setback variance including the roof eave from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement to allow a 3 car detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential District and subject to the condition that the existing driveway be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 17, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Aanenson: I did include in your packet the new businesses so you’ve got a list of, and that’s via the sign permits so you can see we’ve got a few new education, insurance, assisted living, Beehive. That is open. There are a few residents living there and another insurance company so just kind of a good way. Sometimes people go into existing businesses and the like. That’s all I had for that. I did want to talk th about the future Planning Commission items then. On August 5, which would be our normal next regular meeting, which is the first Tuesday in August is actually National Night Out so we hope that you’re with your neighborhood and doing, having a neighborhood get together so we will not have a th meeting so you can attend that. On August 19 we will have 4 items in, or we’re anticipating on Friday that we’ll see the Villages on the Pond project come in and that’s a little strip center there in front of the bank. We also anticipate a site plan out in the auto Motorplex, auto repair. That will be adjacent to Audubon Boulevard. We have a conditional use for extension of the height of a cell tower and then a conditional use for outdoor storage. We do anticipate a couple other projects coming in in September. Both September meetings so we’re going to have some busy agendas. And with that we’re going to have our, this is our third annual joint commission tour so we thought it’d be really interesting with the last storms that we’ve had, we’ve had like 5 inches of rain and then we had another inch last week. We have some areas where we’ve had, you can see the effects of building too close to the edge of a slope so we thought we’d take a tour of some of those issues. You know water management. We’ll probably pick another park to go to. There’s a couple other ideas but if you have things that you would like to look at, let me know but what I need your help on is scheduling a date. We usually go that second week in ndth September because we will have items for the September 2 meeting so it would be September 9 or th September 10 which is a Tuesday or Wednesday. I know Wednesday is the normal meeting of the Environmental Commission so I haven’t heard from Park and Rec what’s a good meeting for them but if you want to let me know what dates works better or I can have, send you out a poll and does it matter to anybody either Tuesday or Wednesday? Okay. We’ll kind of do the same thing. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 15, 2014 Aller: I would recommend, just listening to if they’re going to meet already and that’s their regular meeting date. Aanenson: Wednesday? Aller: Attendance for them at least is almost a guarantee. Aanenson: Okay. Aller: And then if it works for everybody else then great. Aanenson: Yeah. Okay, that sounds good. Aller: And I would just ask if we ever have a meeting that’s on our calendar that we do it on a Tuesday when it’s our turn. Aanenson: Follow that site, okay. That sounds good. Yeah. So you’ll actually have kind of three things in a row there. We do anticipate a couple of bigger commercial projects potentially coming in so, so with that I think. I was going to try to get a group picture but we’re missing one person so that’s on my agenda too to get an updated Planning Commission picture for the City’s website. But that’s all I had for administrative Chairman Aller so if anybody else has anything. I’m going to send out a reminder again regarding the stormwater educational thing on Lake Minnetonka. Aller: Yep. Aanenson: Okay, if anybody’s interested in that. Are you going to try to go? Yusuf: I can’t. Aanenson: Okay. I know Steve and Andrew are going so I’ll sign them up so. Hokkanen: I’d like to but I can’t. Aanenson: And that’s all I had. Aller: Anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 8