Loading...
PC Minutes 10-07-2014 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 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 Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The request before is Planning Case 2014-27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners. The property’s located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It’s a riparian lot on Lake Riley. It’s in the northwest corner of the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it’s guided for residential low density uses. The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2.9 percent above what the 25 percent minimum requirement. When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1 percent variance that was approved and they’re adding 1.9 percent to that so a total of 2.9 percent variance. The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a single family home located on that. There’s a patio under a porch area and then there’s a deck area in the middle of the house and on the northeast corner there’s an open space. The applicant would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe the applicant has under estimated what they’re actually requesting for a variance. Their notes show that they’re looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio. We believe they meant in this area. However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it’s unclear from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75 shoreland setback. In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the environment or the water resources in this area. By increasing hard surface we will increase the stormwater runoff in this neighborhood. The property to the north was inundated this June with one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending. We looked at other variances in the area. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 7, 2014 There were 4 other requests. One of them was for this property. It’s the bottom one on that and that’s the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the 75 shoreland setback. It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home. The other applications were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it under our shoreland accessory structure thing. In that case you’re limited to 250 square feet. However we believe that there’s approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent properties. The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to the staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives like wood decking or anything like that? Generous: We hadn’t directly brought that up but that is a possibility. Under the City’s ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained as ground area. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any further questions based on the report. Anyone? Okay. Any from this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record that’d be great. Rosemary Kelly: Okay. I’m Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Rosemary Kelly: Thank you. And thank you for the time this evening. I have a few comments to make in regard to the application and then the staff’s reviewal of our application. In the first application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the time it was submitted in July. I think both individuals at the date of submission were not available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding and the measurements. The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance is as you saw with the property it’s the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface, particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home. It’s one of the reasons we bought the home and it’s also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is 90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area. The, in response to the staff’s concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 7, 2014 accurate. However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood. The original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would have counted that as hard space because it’s part of the home. In addition I kind of just went around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design we’re expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface. There would be approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition for say a shed or something within the setback allowance. We’re requesting approximately a 200 square foot variance of a setback. My main point in all those numbers is to point out I’d be happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is. Finally the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind. The biggest problem that we faced this spring was that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a consideration of my neighbor. There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers to reconstruct. That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that’s coming down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that has occurred in that area just north of us of multiple homes. So my request I guess is to just state I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility that we plan to use the rest of our lives. And I believe that we are within both the setback consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard surface area. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Just as a quick question. So if I’m understanding you, you don’t believe you need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you’re saying that you fit. Rosemary Kelly: No, no. Aller: You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage. Rosemary Kelly: Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet approximately still needs the variance approval. I believe the setback requirement for like a shed or would fit, the amount we’re requesting would fit in that allowance already. And I’d be happy to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case. Our intent is not to make an extensive patio. It’s to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side. Aller: Okay. Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck? Rosemary Kelly: Yeah, actually we had discussed that. The main reason to not do that, actually we just had, we’re a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we had stucco pillars for the deck and what we’re finding is because they’re wood core, it’s allowing water to come up into the core of the columns. Where it’s the concrete, those pillars are fine. It’s more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that’s going to be durable. I think 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 7, 2014 if we use wood deck again the water’s going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so that was an unfortunate discovery. Aller: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you. At this point we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item. So anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium. State your name and address and speak either for or against. Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Joan Ludwig: Hi, I’m Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. I’m Rose’s neighbor. Aller: Welcome. Joan Ludwig: I’m the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that my situation is, I don’t care what they have in their yard. In fact I encourage everyone to have whatever works for them. What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is going in the right direction and isn’t going to put me under water again. The City is working with us. Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I’m happy with that. My concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we’ve got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I just want to make sure we’ve got the infrastructure to handle it. That’s all I have to say. Aller: Great, thank you. Joan Ludwig: Thanks. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners. Any comments? Questions? Further questions. Undestad: My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a little more time to work with staff. Hokkanen: Or revise it. Aller: Maybe it’s premature. Hokkanen: Maybe revise the plan and come back. Aller: Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point? Aanenson: There’s a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an accessory structure it’s over the hard cover. It would still need a variance so I think there’s some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements. Make sure we’ve got those correct. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 7, 2014 Aller: So it’s just a matter of amount that we’re still going to need the variance. Still going to have to. Aanenson: That’s correct. But that doesn’t mean we would be happy to work with the applicant. Aller: Sure. Aanenson: If that’s okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time. Give an extension on the application we’d be happy to do that. Aller: I guess that’s what I would be inclined to recommend. Is, the applicant’s here, are you interested in doing that? What I see, I think it’s just a little bit premature and I don’t, I just don’t want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I’d rather give you the time to work with them and see whether there’s some alternatives and move it forward with the extension on the application and that way you’re moving forward with hopefully something that will be satisfactory to you in the future. Rosemary Kelly: And that sounds… Aller: Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion. Aanenson: Before you do that Chairman, we’re at the end of the 60 days so before we do that. Aller: Oh, so you need a waiver. Aanenson: We’d like to get a letter right now, if that’s okay before you make the motion extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I’m just looking for a blank piece of paper here. Aller: How about we do this. If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being received. Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend the application past the 60 day because she’s waiving the requirement that we rule because the alternative is that we deny. Hokkanen: Do we have to put a time on the extension? Aanenson: She’s going to give us 60 days. Aller: …or grant but I’m inclined to. Campion: Alright I’ll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days. Aller: Well subject to receipt of the waiver. Campion: Subject to the receipt of the waiver. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 7, 2014 Aanenson: That’s fine. I think you’re technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may. Campion: Yes. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60-day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Good luck Ms. Kelly. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE-FOOT ONE-STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND TH LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4 ADDITION. APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 2014-29. Aller: We have received some alternate pages. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There’s pages and 5 and 18, there were some minor changes. A strike through and bold format. There’s nothing really substantive to them but it’s for accuracy and consistency in the report. Aller: Thank you. Generous: Planning Case 2014-29, Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail building that’s being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company. As you said it’s located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site they’ll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went forward so. At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run it hasn’t worked out that way. Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses. It’s zoned Planned Unit Development so there are specific design guidelines. That’s the part of the reason why there’s a variance in the request. Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the th Ponds 11 Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size. Under the PUD standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The 6