Loading...
PC Minutes 01-06-2015 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hansen Minnetonka Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044 Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27. Ingvalson: For those that don’t know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson. I’m a planning intern at the City of Chanhassen. Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members. So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request. As you might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also just did some other calculations with that. Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing shoreland setback. The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the northwest side of Lake Riley. Looking at the picture, image on the right we’ll specifically be looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there’s two actually requests for this. Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent variance for hard surface coverage. This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent maximum allowed. Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4 feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property, like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission. This approved Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback. A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance. One percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These variances actually reduced the non-conformities with the property. The property had a larger hard cover percentage. It was at 26.4. It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet. So this is an image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005. The setback was 37 feet and the hard surface coverage was 26. A little over 26 percent. And this is the existing property. It has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8. These are images of the subject site. The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the porch. It’s about 13 by 13 ½ feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house. There are 3 exits from the rear of the property. One underneath the porch. One underneath the deck and then one to the far right. So here’s an image of the request that’s being made. The blue you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion. There are 3 house exits. The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed onto hard surface coverage. The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is a 4.2 percent hard surface expansion. Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500 feet of this property. One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were passed. Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface variance, there’s also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed. Three properties actually have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent. Four properties have setbacks that extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots. It is 12,900 square feet. The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet. There are 3 other properties within 500 feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there’s some hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it’s size exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we’d still include that area in the hard surface coverage and that’s what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion. Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase drainage issues for adjacent properties. So the alternative plan that was, came to between a conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet, which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion. The addition will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you’re looking at here in blue is the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion. This patio expansion will not encroach any further into the shoreland setback. It will maintain that 43 feet. Another part of this alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space. Due to the grade it’s, there’s very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property. What we’ve communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn’t be hard cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that can be used outdoors. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact. However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan. And be subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew. It was a great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you. At this point in time we’ll hear from the applicant. If you could come forward. State your names and addresses for the record, that’d be great. Thank you. Rosemary Kelly: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Good to see you again Ms. Kelly. Rosemary Kelly: Yeah. It’s been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially. From my aspect we had worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is not, actually they didn’t never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair and we’d like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this design and so we eliminated that completely. Finally we expanded only to the really the minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28.5. Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn’t allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project. I had no other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage issues and… Rosemary Kelly: Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that because we knew the ground was going to freeze. So that’s been completed and that was kind of 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street. It wasn’t really from hard surface so much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior. So that’s been completed. Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on? Thank you. Sir, did you have any comments? I know you came up together. Are you moral support or? Phillip Sosnowski: No additional comments. I’m just here to support the, to Rose and address any questions that the commission may have of us. Aller: Okay, thank you. Nothing right now? Okay. We’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Yusuf: It seems like they’ve reached a consensus. Aller: Well I’m not, I don’t know whether it’s a consensus. When I first looked at this I saw the package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the numbers were wrong. Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable. So I’m glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn’t meet the variance requirements and that’s what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them. Weick: Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was another one. Yeah. The only thing I’m, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you know if the house slants that way. I know there’s runoff from the street that comes down between the houses is the way I understand it. I just didn’t know if the landscape was pitched such that it also runs you know into that yard as well. But it doesn’t. I mean everything looks like it’s pitched down to the lake. I don’t know that adding you know concrete, hard surface against the house there and I’m certainly not an engineer but it doesn’t look like it would add significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think? Hokkanen: I don’t know if it meets the requirements of a variance. The legal. Maybe you can explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance. Undestad: That’s kind of the issue I have too. I mean it’s nice we’re trying to move things back and all that but what’s been granted previously on here and I just don’t think it meets the requirements that we could say yes. My opinion. Aller: When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non-conforming in the first place and it wasn’t, my understanding it wasn’t their property at the time but the builder came in. Took away a lot of those non-conforming uses and issues but they still needed a variance. It’s still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the variance, and it’s still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new construction as well. So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues? I mean that’s. Tom Goodrum: Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum. Aller: Thank you. Tom Goodrum: The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County and Minnetonka. Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and just to address a couple of comments that you made. First of all, again we’re thanking staff. They’re supporting the request after we met with them with this alternative plan. One that we felt was reasonable for this site and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked us to go back. Talk to staff. Work with staff. We did that. We came up with the plan supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up. Again the property line, between the property owners, that’s not part of this proposal. That’s a whole different issue and that’s going to be solved so now we’re just looking for what’s a reasonable use for this site. We’re not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing. Similar to the two lots next to us. They’re both 43 feet back as wise so we’re not doing any more impacts to the neighborhood that already exist. We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one just next to us is 27 point something. The one next to that, he’s more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we’re still in that ballpark. We’re still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason we’re doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family. The house was built for that need. Now that the family is reaching that age or have family members that have those needs, they’re now discovering some of the flaws with this property and that’s what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility. Now that we have that need we’re finding out that there’s some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request. Don’t know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would support it as they supported the other uses on here. The hard surface we’re requesting is for access. You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage. Don’t even have to maneuver within the house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of that house. With the expansion we’re asking for, you’re pulling into the garage. You get out of the car. You go out the back of the garage and you’re in the back of the patio, you know envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake. You’re not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering through the doors in the house. Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio. So the, again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before. To work with staff. Come up with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project. There was a variances for hard 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 surface coverage for two lots. One at 28 and one was at 30 percent. There’s one in 2013 for a hard cover. I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to come up with something that everybody could support. I sure hope that the Planning Commission understands where we’re coming from. Our request and that you can support us as well so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Weick: Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that’s underneath that deck, that’s not, that’s currently considered hard cover? Ingvalson: No. Weick: No. Ingvalson: Incorrect. It’s underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage as long as water can penetrate through them. Weick: Through, okay. Ingvalson: So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that’s right outside the door. Weick: Got it. Thank you. Undestad: Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the existing? Yeah, that red. There you go. So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk. The patio coming out of the garage back there. What, is that about 4 feet? Ingvalson: 5 feet. Undestad: 5 feet. And that transitions across the entire garage door back there? Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: I think that’s the minimum, right? For wheelchair access. Ingvalson: For any. Aller: The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot, correct? Undestad: The 12,900. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Aller: So we are dealing with apples to apples? It’s not something because of the reduced lot size, they’re doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers. Generous: Correct. Undestad: And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we’re asking them if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we’re kind of back to the how do we monitor there? How do we know? Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It’s basically with the initial design we’d be able to determine whether or not there would be benefit. And the idea actually came up with the original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that’s coming off of that hard surface. Undestad: So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design into that plan? Generous: Exactly. Aller: Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control that process? Generous: We do. Weick: I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are. Hokkanen: Shrubs or landscaping. Weick: Right. I mean there’s no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is maintained, correct? Generous: That’s correct. We don’t take any securities or anything like that for that. We would, the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they’re going to. Weick: Understood. Generous: Right. Weick: Understood but again as we’ve talked about before if someone else were to move into the house, if something were to change there wouldn’t be anything that would prohibit anybody from changing that landscaping, I don’t think is there? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 Hokkanen: It does. Weick: So it does? I guess that’s my question. Aller: The condition would be there. Hokkanen: The condition does but enforcement is the issue. Weick: Okay. Aller: Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there’s something going on next door. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you’re going to do? Yusuf: Not really wrestling. I appreciate that they’ve been able to work with staff to come up with an alternate plan. Seems like a nice agreement there. Provided that the conditions are met of course. Aller: Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one. Yusuf: I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014-17, a 3 ½ percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aller: I have a motion, do I have. Yusuf: And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there. Aller: I have a motion which includes conditions. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-17, a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller: So do we have a date for that? Aanenson: Yes we do. th Aller: January 26. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it’s final conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at th 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86 Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD’s and cleaning up different applications 9