Loading...
PC Minutes 09-15-2015 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: M.P. Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Road Frances Paap 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman and good evening Planning Commission. Please note that there is a submission that we have here from email from the previous submission that we had for this case stating essentially that they’re from Susan Proshek stating that her family has been here for many years and owned a property at 3613 since the 1930’s. This also states that they would definitely not be in favor of what was previously illustrated Option D which was on the west side of the home. Also stating that they would be open to one of the other options that were on the east side of the home as long as the proper setbacks and variances could be met. So this case as you stated before was brought to the Planning Commission on August 18, 2015 and this is looking for, it’s seeking an expansion of an existing non-conformity variance request. Aller: For the record we have received a copy of the email and it will be attached on the copy of the record and if this matter goes to City Council then it will be attached there as well. Ingvalson: On the August 18, 2015 meeting the applicant proposed four locations for a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Staff recommended denial of the 4 locations with a recommendation of 2, of an alternative location if the Planning Commission deemed their request reasonable. The Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 applicant requested a 60 day extension to propose 2 new locations. Here’s the location of 3603 Red Cedar Point. As you can see it has water on both the north and south side of the home from Lake Minnewashta. It’s also, has a private road that cuts through the property. Here’s an image of the home, this is facing on the northeast of the home on the north side of the private drive. Here’s another image from the northwest of the home. The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non-conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. The legal non-conformities that we have for this property are with the front yard setback, the way this property is on a private drive the front yard per our city code is on this line will be the front property line. This far property line would be the rear yard and the other ones are required shoreland setbacks so the property meets the 75 foot shoreland setback from the north. However it does not meet the 75 foot shoreland setback from the south. It is 31 feet away from that setback and encroaches into the 30 foot front yard setback by 20.2 feet. 9.8 feet is where it currently sits from that property line. The property owner came originally looking for options for a variance originally seeking to put one on the north side of the private drive. Issues came up with that due to public utilities that go through that area. The sewer main and water main as you can see in red and blue. After realizing that there was an option to put the garage somewhere on the north, farther north towards the shoreland. This was difficult for staff to recommend approval for so that one we moved forward with other alternatives. The one that we have today are for Option E and for Option F. Option E is attached to the existing structure. Is a 21 foot by 21 foot. Also we have Option F which is a 23 foot by 27 foot. Both of these options will require additional pavement to be put down. For Option E pavement will be put down here to make a wider turn radius for vehicles going along with the private drive. It will be 18 feet shown in this radius. From the corner, this corner of the structure. Option F will also have pavement completed so that the driver will be able to back out of the garage and continue their way down the private drive. Also please note that these two options are not including the roof overhang that is being proposed in the architectural drawings that were submitted. These are for, these were what was submitted on the site plan so any additional, an additional variance would be required. Additional feet would be required for those overhangs of the structure. Option E. This is a 21 foot by 21 foot attached garage as seen here. You would load into the garage from the north. This location will require a variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to the south. As you can see here there will be a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and then also a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance from this far property line. This option will allow for a 15 foot building separation between this 3603 and the neighboring property. Hard cover on this will be needed on the north side of the road but hard cover will not exceed 25 percent. What has been proposed by the applicant will be 23.9 percent. No mature trees will be removed from this option due to there not being any trees located in this area and this structure being located completely on existing hard cover. Here is the location of Option E. Here is the adjacent property. There is a window that will be facing Option E. This line is the approximate location of where the corner of that Option E will be. Here’s a view from that window just below it. Notice Option E will be located approximately the corner would be in this location. Here’s a view of the viewscapes from the property. One of the concerns from our previous meeting would be the viewscapes lost of the lake by the construction of a 21 by 21 foot structure in that area. Notice that the red area is 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 the lake viewscape that will be effected by locating Option E. Blue is the viewscape that will not be affected by this option from that window that we previously looked at. Our ordinance reads that there’s a 75 foot setback required from the lakeshore which will be met by Option E so as we look at that it’s used for multiple purposes. One is for to protect environmental resources such as the lake but also to protect viewscapes from the public and in this situation to protect viewscapes from an adjacent neighbor to make sure the views are protected by that 75 foot setback which will be met by this option. Here are the architectural plans. Please note that the 21 foot would be for this area. Anything extending beyond that, any roof overhang would not be a part of the site plan that we looked at. That 21 foot. Any, to approve this it would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. That would be an addition to what is currently being shown on here in our plans. Here’s Option F. This is for a 23 foot by 27 foot detached garage. The variance needed for this will be a 45.6 foot shoreland setback, a variance. This will also require the relocation of a fire hydrant so you can see this location will be the new fire hydrant location. The existing fire hydrant is in this area. This option will increase hard cover near the shoreland. The applicant proposes 24.9 percent hard cover. The maximum hard cover allowed by our city code is 25 percent. This is viewed to be possibly harmful to the environment and also to the viewscapes from public waters. Four mature trees will also be removed by this project. As you can see as in the image over here, you’ll be loading again from the north and there will be additional hard cover required for this area, loading it and then also in this area for a turnout. Here’s a look of the location for Option F. Option F will be approximately in this location. This picture was taken from the lake from the south side of the property so as you can see there is very little screening that will occur due to this structure being built. Here’s a look, view from the private drive. This would be looking from the north to the south. Here’s the subject home and this would be the approximate location of the structure and here is the fire hydrant that will need to be relocated for this option. Here are the architectural plans for Option F. Please note again that the 23 foot here and the 27 foot here are what was shown on the site plan. That is what was viewed by staff. Any, there’d be an additional variance, additional feet as the variance request to allow for these overhangs. Here are the additional architectural plans for Option F. This would be looking at the property. Here is the existing home and here’s the detached structure. Furthermore to review this case we also looked at the surrounding neighborhood for this area. Properties within 500 feet of the subject site with a garage is one thing that was looked at by staff. Green properties are properties with a garage. Gray are ones that are without a garage. After review we found that there are 8 properties that have a garage and out of the properties within 500 feet of the subject site there are 3 that are without a garage. We also looked at the variances that were granted for properties in this area and then also ones that met the shoreland setback. All properties within this area have structures that do not meet the shoreland setback. Those are properties seen in red. The yellow property is included in the properties that don’t meet the shoreland setback. We also looked at properties that have been granted variances. Ones with X’s are ones that have a shoreland setback variance. Ones with squares are properties with a front or side yard setback variance. The majority of these were for single family homes. You can see multiple single family homes to build one there on lot. There are also 2 that were for garages and then also a couple one for a home addition and then another for a porch and deck. Another view of the neighborhood we looked at was properties within 500 feet of the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 subject site that do not meet front, read or side yard setbacks. Looking here properties in red are ones that do not meet front and rear or side yard setbacks and the yellow one again is the subject property. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construction a two story, 441 square foot attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. There are conditions with this. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. After speaking with the applicant’s architect there were some alternatives that they might be presenting tonight to you for Option E due to those overhangs. Possibly putting some sort of, moving the structure over here which would still could use the proposed motion with the square footage and also the setbacks would not change but those will be presented here later tonight. At this point I’m open for any questions. Aller: Any questions from anyone at this point? Second time through. Very thorough. Good job. Any questions? Hokkanen: No. Aller: Okay. Alright. The applicant, if the applicant would like to come forward and tell us about the project. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger. I’m the resident at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Pat Mackey: My name is Pat Mackey with Mackey Malin Architects. We’re the designers. Aller: Welcome. Gregg Geiger: Per instructions from the last meeting we’re presenting what we considered new information that’s in addition to what we presented at the previous meeting so we’ll go forward here. What we are. Oh I’m sorry. So during the July meeting as was just presented we had 4 options that were indicated on the south side of the road and there was one option that was brought forth by staff and so those are now identified as Options E and F and we’re retaining those just a note that we have been looking at several options here. In this particular presentation we are going to do 2 things. We’re going to talk about the drawings of the garage and we’re also going to give you some considerations from our perspective as to the impact on the land and such. So onward please Drew. These are the option locations as have been discussed before. The house is outlined in blue. Option E is to the left of this particular view and Option F is 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 highlighted in a purple. What we’ve also done here is indicate by red markings the trees that we believe are going to be negatively impacted by Option F and those are indicated right there. There are also a couple big trees and we’ll talk about this in a little bit. The orange outlines there. The one orange outline and the question we really have. The orange, the one on the southeast side of the house there, it’s right up against the house and as we’ll discuss it’s about a 4 foot diameter based tree and plus it has a considerable canopy so it’s, it’s a big tree. We know it will just be shown here on the particular survey drawing. So what Pat is going to go through now the drawings of the house and just discuss some of those features there. Pat Mackey: Thank you. This is north and west elevations of the existing house with the adjacent neighbor’s house shown for context taken from the survey and from site photographs. You can kind of get the general layout of the existing house as kind of a multi load structure that’s probably been added onto several times but generally stick holds together in a consistent form. Next if you could Drew. What we’ve shown here is how an attached garage would manifest itself onto the existing house. I think we’re able to work with the existing roof lines. The existing interior layout of the house and achieve a massing that’s compatible with the existing house. Compatible with the scale of the surrounding structures and the neighborhood in general. Again this is a 2 story. It’s not simply the garage but it’s space above for additional living space for the homeowners. These images show the overhangs which as Drew pointed out, since it came to light that the overhangs were not going to be accommodated in the structure, these would be modified to suck that wall of the house back so that the overhangs obey the variance. We’re not interested in pursuing an additional variance for simply the overhangs. So it would be slightly narrower as shown in the top drawing and slightly shallower as shown in the bottom drawing. Aller: So I understand you, you’re going to reduce the actual footprint of the garage to allow for the space that you’ve requested? Pat Mackey: Correct. Next one if you could Drew. If we could I’d like to stick to Option E first. Sorry Drew and back up to maybe the site plan. What, to accommodate kind of the pulling back the walls to meet, you know to allow a now reduced overhang, we can do several things to reduce the overhang and that impact you know on the variances that we’re requesting. We can reduce the length of the overhang to something like 1 foot which they’re currently shown at 2. We could put the overhangs to 1 foot or less and then pull the garage wall back that foot so that the overhangs obey the setbacks. What that does though is, it takes 21 by 21 foot garage which needs to accommodate 2 cars and a short slight of interior stairs to get to the house level. It makes it very, very tight on a practical basis as a 2 car garage so what we would request is you can see to the right of E, the letter E on the garage there’s a gap there that’s currently occupied by an existing air conditioner. Air conditioning equipment and electrical equipment. During the course of construction of the garage we would propose to move those to a spot allowed and fill in that gap just to get the additional use of the garage. The thing, the only impact that has as Drew pointed out is the only constraint then that changes is in the staff recommendation there’s the figure of 441 square feet. We would ask for an increase on that but the exact same setbacks. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Exact same hard cover percentage, etc. It’s just we can obey 2 or 3 of those constraints but if we’re constrained on 4 dimensions we’re going to have a hard time making this work. Gregg Geiger: It seems, if I may, from a geometry point of view if you bring that back a little ways. Audience: Excuse me, we can’t hear at all back here. Could you ask them to speak up? Aller: If you could just speak into the microphone so that they can hear that would be great. Gregg Geiger: If you look at it from a geometry point of view it seems like if you would bring it back that additional foot and start doing what Pat just described then it will probably move that northwest corner a little bit closer actually out of the driveway. Existing driveway space so there are advantages to that even. Pat Mackey: Exactly. It brings, the diagram that Drew showed with the vision cones, it actually brings this garage further, tighter to the existing house reducing that by the amount of the overhangs. Aller: If I can interrupt again. You’ve got mechanical equipment inside that space now. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Where would you propose you put it and would it be a hard cover pad? Pat Mackey: It would be a hard cover pad. It would likely be on an existing piece of hard cover that’s, there’s plenty of it existing out onto the east side of the house or if we can accommodate, it’s really just the. Gregg Geiger: It’s the air conditioner. Pat Mackey: Air conditioner and that’s it. Everything else could be, is wall mounted or could be taken inside the house. Aller: So, and my question goes the intention of, I don’t want to consider something that takes that and just adds it to the hard cover so that you move and you have another pad somewhere else and then we’ve lost that ability to say you’ve got 29.4 all of a sudden is above 30. Pat Mackey: Correct. If we have, this came to light today so we haven’t had a chance to fully parch through the options. The first option of course would be to find existing hard cover to place that on or if it were required to put this on current non-hard cover then we would just simply reduce whatever is necessary. Probably structure because drive is something you can’t just take away without consequence by the 9 or so square feet that the pad would require. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. If we want to just follow through on F, I think if it hasn’t been stated I think it seems clear that that Option E is preferred for a number of reasons. Probably most significant to feel of what’s happening in the area is this shows it better than the site plan does but if Option F were pursued it’s cutting back into a fairly pronounced berm. Natural berm or what’s become a natural berm that probably contains more roots than soil and would I think undoubtedly cause not damage but destruction to the existing mature trees in the area. It just, we haven’t you know, I’m not an arborist but I can’t imagine those trees faring well with Option F. Gregg Geiger: So then this is a picture of looking at Option F where we tried to highlight in red the trees that would be cut down as a result of trying to do that. And so the view on the left is from the northeast corner and the view from the south, or the view on the right is from the southwest corner so they’re kind of looking at each other. Again the red trees and I’ve indicated as best as I can of approximate heights so those are, the red trees are give or take as best as I can tell. The yellow line then represents the large, the 4 foot diameter tree that is immediately adjacent to the corner of the house there and on the right hand view then you can see the 2 trees and the one tree on the far right is not shown on the left view but that’s the tree that is on or on or very close to the existing hard cover. The berm area that was near the old oil tank. I have a question mark, oh I’m sorry Drew. I have a question mark on the one tree there towards the, what we consider the front of the house there. It’s a very large tree that again as Pat has indicated there’s probably a lot of root system in there that would be challenged by the addition of Option F. The one yellow tree I want to mention real quickly the canopy. So the canopy goes almost to the, within several feet of the shoreline so it goes from the house to the shoreline and it covers in addition several other trees that are in the what we consider the back yard. Okay next one. So here then are the considerations then for Option E just as we see the pros and cons. The pros are that really, even though we’ve discussed a couple hard cover considerations for replacement or change in location for the air conditioning unit there’s substantively there’s not a real hard cover increase here. There’s no movement of a fire hydrant. No trees are affected and it does include the current parking area so there’s not, from a functional point of view there’s not a big change here. The cons are that it would require a significant change to the house. There’s no doubt about that and there will be a slight driveway adjustment that’s required. Then from Option F’s point of view there would be no change to the current home. To the house and the structure and that is clearly a good thing. It does have a larger plan area so it will impact the yard, the lawn and the plot area in some way. The cons are that trees will be removed and as we’ve discussed there’s significant trees that are, if they aren’t torn down they will be, they will be affected. It will move the fire hydrant across the driveway. We will add to existing hard cover there and we will be digging very near a previous oil tank. Pat indicated that there is that rise. That berm area that’s adjacent to the house that runs, runs east and west and we will be digging into that berm area so there’s going to be something that will happen to the water runoff or we will have to adjust, accommodate that. And that’s all we have for our presentation. Thank you. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you. Questions at this point? Questions over here? Any questions? Madsen: I do have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: On Option E there’s currently a turn around located near the home there. Gregg Geiger: Yes. Madsen: Would that remain or would that be removed with Option E? Gregg Geiger: So you’re, yeah where Drew is indicating right now. Madsen: Yes. Gregg Geiger: That will remain. Madsen: That would remain. So if the hard cover expanse issue became a concern because of the air conditioner could that be reduced so that there would be no increase? Gregg Geiger: Certainly. It’s a question for a fire truck. Ingvalson: The property is actually going to be, is significantly under hard cover there, with this proposal that they would be doing with this additional of hard cover put on there it’d be at 23.9 so still 1 percent hard cover would be available per our city code and would be open for replacement. Madsen: Okay, thank you for that clarification Drew. Aller: Thank you Drew. I had it at 29.3 in my mind so. Any additional questions? Clarifications. Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Aller: Okay we’re going to open up the public hearing portion of this. Aanenson: Mr. Chair we’ve already had a public hearing. Legally you cannot open another public hearing. If you choose to take comments you may but I would not open a public hearing. Aller: Let’s do this. I had that in my mind, thank you. Because we’ve already had a public hearing on this I do want to entertain comments from individuals and certainly individuals that 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 were not present at the last hearing on this, on the properties and the suggestions which are now E and F so that we can hear comments from the public so we certainly want to hear those so I’ll open it up to comments from the public on E and F and any individual who was not present at the last hearing I’d like to hear first and then any other individual that would like to comment at that point in time would be great so any individual that was not here that would like to make a comment, if you could please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we’d love to hear your opinions. Frances Paap: Hi, my name is Frances Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point. Aller: Welcome. Frances Paap: Thank you. I just have a couple of comments for consideration. Whether we’re looking at Option E or Option F and really those are just to make sure that we’re looking for enough variance for delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. I know today in the current structure we do, that issue does exist where we’ve had you know like our garbage service, we’ve been cancelled by people and things like that because there’s just not a lot of turn around so just a comment that if we can keep that in mind I would really appreciate that. Same with emergency vehicles. If there’s enough space for them to get in and out in case something were to occur, that we leave enough hard cover for those folks to turn around. And the reason why I bring up garbage is because our house got hit already this year and so just, that’s a concern of mine. Other than that. Aller: I’m just going to ask you. Frances Paap: I’m sorry. Aller: If we could bring up where the lots are. If you could point out. Frances Paap: Oh sure. We’re at the very end. We’re at the point. Aller: Oh you’re just on the end. Frances Paap: Yeah. So we’re to the east. Aller: I just want for everyone here so we can see this is where you are so when you’re discussing this everybody gets a better picture of what you’re talking about. Frances Paap: Okay, sorry. Yeah so we’re at the very end so when, you know when trucks come down they do have to come the whole entire way to get to our property and so we just, just want to be sure that there’s ample room for folks to get in and get out and not have any damage to the property or damage along the way because it is pretty tight today. So really that’s my only comments unless anybody would like to ask me a question. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: I think that’s fine. Aanenson: Can we answer that question briefly? Aller: Absolutely. Aanenson: You want to go to the site please. Ingvalson: For Option E we have discussed with the Fire Marshal here at the City and discussed any concerns that they would have when these options came through first for the first round and then also for this round of options. The option that we have here is going to actually make a wider distance then what is currently existing here on this option. One of their concerns that he had also was making sure that the road was not reduced in any way for size for emergency vehicles. Also that this area was left open even though it is a private road. That this be left open for turnout. After speaking with our Fire Marshal and also with our Fire Chief they said as long as the road is maintained at the 10 foot wide width that it’s currently at they believe that will be sufficient for them to get their emergency vehicles down there so essentially keeping it as it is and not reducing it in any way and what we have proposed is actually to have it wider. A wider turn around this home than is currently there. The radius here is 18 feet. The existing one throughout this area I believe the widest it averages around 10 feet. Aller: And then on Option F where there’s a dark gray area, is that proposed additional? Ingvalson: Absolutely so that is a proposed additional area. However the road will not change. There’s some main roadway left. Aller: So right now that would just be the roadway, not the gray area. Ingvalson: Correct. The road, the gray area is what will be added on mainly to access F. Then also for when you’re backing out of F to come out of here instead of going out onto the grass when you back out. So this width will not be reduced in any way. It will actually be slightly expanded in this area as you drive through, and then also for E will also be expanded. Tietz: Drew this might be a question or Alyson. Are there standards for private roads to support garbage trucks and fire trucks? Aanenson: There is. This is a legal non-conforming so it’s not decreasing the situation. In fact we’re trying to increase it with the recommendations on E. Tietz: I’m talking about base and construction. Aanenson: Yes. Yep, yep. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Typically for a private street it’s 7 ton design and 30 foot right-of-way, 20 foot of pavement width but this does not meet that and so this house with the variance is not going to be able to solve the problem for the whole neighborhood. Aller: This whole point was non-conforming. Aanenson: That’s correct so what we’re doing is not reducing it but trying to improve it especially on that radius. Aller: And as a result of the request for the variance, whether it’s E or F that will then be increased or maintained at the widest level. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: And so that is what’s before us today. I suppose if it was granted then the neighbors right and left could take it upon themselves to make sure that their portions of the drive were wider as well so that would just be something to consider as a neighborhood or as individuals. Frances Paap: Okay so our easement, we have the easement to get through but all the way to the property line is right at the very end so the rest of that drive, as residents we don’t have control over. We start right at our mailbox and then have a drive so that’s why there’s just the concern there because we don’t have control over any of the other. Aller: Great. Frances Paap: Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any other individuals that were not present at the last hearing? Okay moving forward to individuals that were at the last hearing that would like to comment on items E and F or plans E and F as proposed tonight? Good evening. Nelleke Knight: Nelleke Knight. I live at 3605. Aller: Welcome. Dave Bishop: My name’s Dave Bishop and I’m the same. Aller: Welcome. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Nelleke speaks English but not as good as some of us and so I’m going to be doing some, most of the talking but please direct your questions to her if you wish to talk to the owner who’s lived there for 41 years. Many times today people have referred to this as a, I think they call it at the beginning of this document that you guys had, the principal structure is an existing legal non-conformity. We don’t think it is a legal non-conformity and, I’m handing out to you the Affidavit of Maria Knight who’s standing next to me. You can read it yourselves and I won’t bore you with the gist of it but with other than the gist of it which is to say your ordinance is very clear that non-conforming properties only include those that have been unoccupied, that have not failed the criteria of being unoccupied for more than a year. This property fails that criteria because it was unoccupied from the time the last people left it pursuant to or just prior to a foreclosure and the time that the current owner bought it. It’s not an issue of abandonment. It’s an issue of not occupied. Occupied requiring human beings. Because it does not fit that Nelleke’s feeling, this is Nelleke Knight. That’s her nickname. Maria and I both feel that this august body is not empowered to grant this variance and for these exact same reasons should not. Just plain should not grant it. Now this is, I’m not going to repeat any of the stuff that described in our prior hearing. I know that there’s a transcript of this and I know that you’ve read that. Other than to say that we in addition to what I’ve presented to you now continue to believe that the variance is improper because the property already had a garage and as a result of that it is a request that is being made because of a situation that was caused by the property owners themselves and it’s our position that they inherit the actions of the prior property owners because zoning runs with the land. Now in addition to that it is clear that the least burdensome, most reasonable alternative if 2 car garage has to be on this site is to simply reopen the 2 car garage that’s already there. The one that they covered up. That doesn’t require you know any setback changes. It doesn’t require, in fact there is no zoning change that would be required at all if they would simply reopen their garage and it is unreasonable, it’s improper and we think it’s prejudice to us as the next door neighbors. I didn’t say it but we live just to the west, for them to build. You know cover up the garage. Build another garage and I assume when they, if they flip this. It’s their tenth house. If they flip this one and the next guys come in, you know somebody will cover up this garage and we’re right back here for another garage. How many garages, how many times can you play this game and the answer I think is set up in the ordinance. You can do it once. If you have a garage you’re entitled to keep your garage. If you decide to turn your garage into another use, you’re not entitled to have a zoning variance for that garage. Now those are two reasons we think you cannot and should not do this. I also have comments, we have comments about the two proposals that are here. The, we feel that this is like a constantly chronic moving target. We had A. We had B. Then we had C and then we had D. The applicant never even suggested E but the City came up with E. Then you guys suggested taking C and moving it over to the west and they did that but it’s clear from what they said here that they’ve abandoned F. They’ve given you 20 minutes of why they don’t want to do F. At the last meeting you members were very clear that you wanted a proposal of F that had the same footprint of Drew’s suggestion for E. 21 by 21. The applicant decided to ignore you. What they suggested was essentially a Taj Mahal. Three car garage with a living space up above and the complaint that if you force them to do this they won’t like it very much and they’ll have to take down a lot of their trees. Because C was their first pick when we were last here. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: Let’s stick with E and F please. Dave Bishop: I am, I find it disingenuous that they are making the exact opposite argument today that they made to you the time before, which is what they’re now doing. They’re saying yeah, you told us we had to come up with F so here’s F. Then here’s all our reasons why if you make us do this it’s such a bad thing and so now we’re left with E. Which is right next to us and Drew would you mind going back to that little cone of obstruction that you put together? This is the first time I’ve seen it and so I’m a little unclear about it. The first question I have is, because of the way the site plan is built I can’t tell whether this proposal for E is flush with the south side of the existing property or whether it’s in fact sticking out. Can anybody enlighten me about that? Understand what I’m saying? If you look at this thing it’s impossible to tell whether the south side of the existing house and the south side of E are parallel to each other or whether one is bumped out. Ingvalson: If I may answer that. Aller: Yes. Ingvalson: The green should be approximately across with this. Aanenson: Flush. Ingvalson: Flush with it across with this. Obviously using the equipment that we have here at the City I did this to show the closest representation that we can to show what sort of viewscape was lost. That’s why this was done on an aerial image. Not done on a survey or something along that. It would maybe give us more accurate lines of where this would be but possibly wouldn’t give us the same view of what sort of trees are possibly in the way. Possibly where these homes lie. Things like that so that’s why it was done on an aerial image. And this was also a part of the packet in the staff report. Dave Bishop: What I, the other thing that I don’t understand is I think that I’ve heard in the presentation that none of that red stuff is any, in any area affected by the 75 foot setback and if I’ve heard that correctly I’d like to know how that applies say at the right side of the property. Aller: Drew could you just tell me where the 75 foot setback would be. Ingvalson: Sure. So the 75 foot setback is if you look at previous submittals for the, this is right here. Across the front of this house. Continuing across the front of E. Aller: So E would meet the 75 foot setback? Ingvalson: Correct. Correct and that would be without any overhangs. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Well E would meet the setback but the, your zone of red is within that 75 foot area right? So, I don’t want any people to be mistaken that that zone of red isn’t in fact covering up the area that the 75, that encompasses the 75 foot part of the setback. Ingvalson: Chairman if I may. Aller: Sure. Ingvalson: The red is shown simply to show the viewscape that would be lost from that window. It is not a part of the, it’s showing nothing with the 75 foot. Simply to show viewscapes. Viewscapes of what will be lost potentially by a structure that is built within this area that would meet the 75 foot setback. I know that this isn’t perfectly to scale. As you can see this was done on a Word document so this was done simply to show the viewscape that would be affected by, and then also showing the viewscape that would not be affected. Nothing to do with the 75 foot setback. What was simply noted earlier I believe was what, the 75 foot setback is on our, in our city code to protect multiple things. Protect number one, to protect the environment but also to protect viewscape. Viewscapes of people from the public and also property owners. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: Drew could you turn this on so that the members can see this? That red cone it, I mean because it’s an illustration it just, it’s like a, kind of a gross description of reality okay so this is our actual living room window. This is what they’re taking away from us if your proposal is, if their proposal would be approved by you. In fact this understates it because now I understand that there are, or I think I understand that there are overhangs and in fact that white mark is less than 21 feet from the existing building so you in your own minds just have to bump it a little over to the left. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I asked Drew to put that slide in because we’ve had a lot of discussions about what’s appropriate view shed and this came up a number of years ago on actually on Minnewashta Lake where we had houses that were built on septic and well and they came up with the theory that if you were to do an addition, while you could go to 75 feet but your neighbor was sitting back you know 100 plus that you had to meet that and that just seemed unreasonable because as people changed ownership they might not of wanted to be held to that same standard so that was put in place for not too many years when it seemed really inappropriate to try to match that uneven way to go so I asked Drew to put this slide in to show that what is the expectation that you need a 360 view of the lake? Is it in front and behind or what’s reasonable so looking at this the intent was to show. You can see the side window there. The majority of view is out the front and out your back. That yes you will have some obstruction of your view. Of the 360 but we were trying to show illustratively that the majority of view is still looking out the front is still there. Yes you will have some compromise but that’s not the majority of your view shed. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: And I appreciate both your points because I believe that it’s a, although it might not be controlling it’s certainly one of the things that should be looked at is the neighbor’s view and the aesthetics and how, the impact on the neighborhood when we look at these variances so now we have photographs that we’ve seen on both sides so any additional comments or information on E? Dave Bishop: Yes I do. Drew could you show them this picture please? Aanenson: Oh just go over here. Dave Bishop: Okay, I mean the implicit assumption of what you just heard was that nobody cares about the views on this property unless they’re inside the house and we disagree with that adamantly. This is the area where they want to build this. This is the view from Nelleke’s property and this, and I’m sorry I can’t put it in black because I also had to Photoshop this, is a representation. We don’t, we never had any elevation so I have to make it you know based on what we have heard so far. This is an estimation of how much it will be blocked out. Now some people will say well okay, you’ve lost this much of blocking out. You know you have all these other areas that you can look at. We disagree. We feel that you know this view has been available to Nelleke since 1974 and it, we find this difficult because in the July 22 letter that the architects sent to you on this C, which has now become F the fundamental complaint that I can get from that is they didn’t want, I’m sorry from A to F. It’s basically the same area as where F is, is that they didn’t want to do that because it would hurt their view out of their house and now we have F, the alternative and they’ve got 64 reasons why they think it’s a bad idea. The only th thing they didn’t tell you is what they told you on June 24. They don’t want to do it because it will hurt their view and so for us this is a very frank issue of whose ox are you going to gore. Aller: Any last additional comments? Dave Bishop: The descriptions that we heard today were impacted on the issue of, is this upside down? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: It’s hard for me to see, sorry. Impacted on the issue of whether or not the impermeable property requirements have been met. You should know that both the first neighbor who spoke and I, or we dispute the property descriptions that the applicant has put in. They have taken this part from the neighbors to the east and they have taken this part from the neighbors to the west and after you subtract that approximately 500 square feet or so I do not think that the 25 percent permeability numbers still hold up. I can’t tell you for sure because there’s so many numbers that we’ve seen since this started I can’t even tell you today what numbers they’re trying to present to you. I think you said 25.93. Anyway we don’t believe those numbers hold up. I think it is probably clear that all of the neighbors that have addressed 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 this issue have been not in favor of proposal E. That has been uniform. I have to make some comments about F because F is still here, even though it isn’t. In practicality in my mind. It’s too big. It’s too tall. It has all the ecrudaments of a second house because there’s no suggestion made in here that they can’t put plumbing in it. And the last thing we need on the point is another house. They talk about berm issues and tree issues and this, that and the other. There is currently a berm right where they are putting F and yet the back of this, as far as I can tell and you can correct me if I misread it, as far as I can tell they haven’t taken advantage of that berm at all as they address the back end of F which is the part that points south which would be easily bermed to reduce the you know who knows what. 16 foot vertical to something you know around 12 feet. They just continue the berm. That hasn’t been proposed and I really think that’s indicative in my personal opinion of wanting to have a garage and not really caring what it’s going to do to our lake. This is as far as I know the only point in Carver County. There’s two on Lake Minnetonka and they’re very wealthy people who are living on those two points. If you are a person of Minnewashta you know that if you’re on the north side of the lake the way that you know that there is a south side of the lake is because when you get in the area of the point you can see through it. Once you fill it in it’s just two lakes. It’s just, it’s not special anymore. It’s just two lakes. I don’t understand why the proposal authorizes the applicant to make a 24 foot wide road. What I heard today was that the widest of the new asphalt that’s going to be laid, it will be 18 foot so why authorize a 24 foot wide road? Does anyone know? No one knows. Okay. Aanenson: Yep, we can answer a couple questions any time you’d like to. Aller: Why don’t we answer that one now but now we’re getting into things that we discussed the last time we were here too as well. Dave Bishop: No that wasn’t. Aller: Which was the width of the road. Dave Bishop: With respect to the item E there was no discussion of how much they were going to extend the asphalt north and that was one of our complaints at that time was that we were asked to comment on stuff and there weren’t even any proposals so I’m addressing the particular proposal that they’re making I guess today and I’m wondering why are you authorizing 24 feet if you’re saying that you’re only going to take 18 feet. Aller: So are you saying that you would take, you would like F with 18 feet as opposed to 24? Dave Bishop: I would like either one but 24 is ridiculous. Aller: Then I understand your point. Dave Bishop: Good. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: And do you have any other points that you’d like to make? Dave Bishop: My next point is, I understand that the little white knob just to the north of that E asphalt, which is a turn out. It’s supposed to be a turn out. The purpose of that as I understand is so the fire department can get their stuff in this tiny little point, one lane road and get it turned around in the middle of a blizzard when there’s a fire with 4 inches or 4 feet of snow on either side. Now they’re going to have you know a almost equivalent amount of new asphalt in that area. Well currently the applicants park up to 6 cars here. When this gets built I don’t see any indication why this new asphalt is just going to be more parking lot. If you put 4 cars in this area you’re building, 2 cars in the turn around, there is no turn around so one of the requirements if, conditions of this we believe is that you should specify no parking because otherwise the whole purpose of this is just completely defeated. I don’t understand this overhang thing. I listened to it. I do not understand it. What I think I heard them say is that their original proposal had 2 feet of overhang on the west side of E and then I heard them say we’re going to make that only 1 foot. And then I think I heard them say we want to shift the 21 feet east. The whole 21 feet garage east a foot and then I think I heard them say if you do that that doesn’t change the amount of encroachment in the setback but they said because of that we now want to make a bigger house because we want to fill in all the stuff inbetween the existing house to the north and the proposed garage E. My question is, if they can fill that in why don’t they just move, make it less than 21 feet and just move the whole thing over. Aller: Any additional comments? Dave Bishop: All I can do I think is sum up and say this is, this has been a difficult issue for us. We have lived, Nelleke has lived here for a longer period of time than some of you are old. Everything is entitled to have some change but we are a country of rules and regulations and in two significant areas this one does not meet the requirements of the ordinance in our opinion. Even if it did the applicants have said we don’t want to gore our own ox by cutting off our view so we gave you an F that nobody thinks is practical so instead let’s gore the neighbor’s ox. Cut off their view. You don’t have to make that decision. You’re not the judges of that issue. This is not a reasonable proposal. It’s not necessary because they already have a garage. They just, it’s just boarded up under their living room and this can all be addressed without ruining our view simply by denying this and allowing them to make changes without this request. Now if you are going to do this there are conditions that the City has proposed for these. One of these is the 18 feet and I’ve talked about that one. I think for F you should require berming. I think you should require it to be 21 by 21. I think you should limit to one story. I think you should limit it to a shed roof which would vastly decrease the height and the unattractiveness. I think that you should forbid them from putting water in there because if you don’t do that this is just going to be a house for the children who want to come back or when it gets sold it’s going to be a mother in law apartment and that is clearly not what the zoning variance process was intended to allow. Anything else? 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional individuals who weren’t here or were here at the last hearing who would like to make comments regarding E and F? Seeing, oh I’m looking left. Susan Proshek: I was here but I didn’t comment at that time. Aller: It’s your turn. Ma’am if you could state your name and address for the record. Susan Proshek: Susan Proshek, 3613 Red Cedar Point. Aller: And we did get, so you know we did your email. Susan Proshek: Yeah. Right. Aller: What else would you like to say about E and F? Susan Proshek: Well I kind of agree with some of the things that he has mentioned. I was wondering why they have not considered opening up that old garage and making it into a garage again without having to, as I call. I mean I think it comprises the integrity of the point all of this actually. I would be very sorry to see all the trees go down. I think that’s going to affect the green canopy on the point. So I’m, I just wonder about that. If that could be addressed why not use the old space that is I don’t know, empty space or a part of the basement or whatever to put a couple cars in without having to have a whole other structure and all these things changed. I feel kind of sorry for the Knight property. It does impact their situation and that’s it. Aller: Thank you. Additional comments. Any individual wishing to come forward speak for or against can do so at this time. Seeing none, would you like to come? I’m going to close for additional comments. Aanenson: Closing the non public hearing. Aller: The non public hearing. Aanenson: I just want to clarify a couple of things. There has been a number of variances out here. To say that things have been stagnant out here forever would be completely misleading so when someone came in to meet with us that’s the first thing we say is you know, there was a garage a long, long time ago put on the property. We reviewed this with the city attorney. They have a right to come in and ask for another garage. We have houses in Carver Beach for example that are older houses that someone’s remodeled. Taken the single car garage and someone else 10-15 years down the road comes in and asks for relief. We take those on a case by case. The city attorney agrees with our process on this and we’ve spoken to the previous speaker, the neighboring property about this and agree to disagree on that. There is a registered survey on this. If there’s property disputes between the two property owners we can’t resolve that here but we’re going by the registered land survey that was submitted by the applicant. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Again we did, the Fire Marshal has commented on the access regarding parking. No parking. They can get there. They have over time. We’re not decreasing that at all. The road right-of- way. It’s sub-standard out there today. What did you want to add? Ingvalson: So I know there’s a couple other questions. First of all city code does not allow having a second livable space. There’s very specific things you have to meet to be a livable space. Specifically having another kitchen, a living room and a bathroom facility. If those are not met it is not considered by our city code another livable space so that’s something that when this would come forward, if it was proposed to have all these things met with the building construction plan, it would not be allowed by the building plan which is allowing a building permit for this which is a part of the conditions. Also there is some questions regarding the width of the road for the entrance. 10 to 24 feet is what is allowed by our city code at the entrance of a right-of-way off of a public. Off of public right-of-way so that was given as an area, we want to give this no narrower than 10 feet. However we want to give the option to also have it wider for the possibility of entering through, I know we’ve had multiple concerns here about access and about the width of this so it was given as a little bit of wiggle room and what was given to us was an 18 foot wide area which is larger than what’s there existing. We thought that was a fair alternative. As we stated we also. Aller: So that’s a plus for those individuals who wanted greater turn around. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: For safety. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: And it’s also under the hardscape requirements by that amount. Ingvalson: Absolutely correct. We also had as Kate Aanenson also mentioned, the Fire Marshal was spoken with about this. They have reviewed it. The Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief have both spoken about it and they believe there is enough space for them to get an emergency vehicle over there and this alternative will not make that any more difficult. And then lastly for Option E the location, nope that was already discussed so that is all the questions I believe that were mentioned. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Madsen: Yes I have a question. Are there any parking rules that would apply to this private road area? Aanenson: It is a private road so they kind of manage it themselves. How they want to do it. Talking to the Fire Marshal, the Fire Chief, if they have to get down there they will. If they have 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 to move something out of the way, a car then they will. That’s how it’s managed. If you look out there at different times of the year there are people parking all different places. Preferably not on the road but maybe at the end when they don’t need to have, nobody needs to go past the last house. They might have more freedom to park on the street itself but technically it should be kept open but there are other, you can see parking pads. People that have other sheds. Storage structures on the property on both sides so. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Additional questions. Yusuf: I have a question. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: In this affidavit that we were given, what does staff say about the status of this being a legal non-conformity? Aller: Or whether it matters. Aanenson: It doesn’t matter. We believe that’s not a factual interpretation of non-conforming. Non-conforming would be if you have an illegal structure like a dock that you haven’t used for a number of years and we no longer allow that type of a dock. If you had a horse property, I mean you haven’t put horses out on your property for a number of years then you’ve lost that right. We believe that interpretation of legal non-conforming that was proposed here tonight, that goes away on this, that doesn’t apply to this type of structure. Just because it was vacant for a year. Yusuf: Okay. Aller: Additional questions at this point? Okay, in light of that would the applicant like to make any additional comments or statements? If not that’s fine. Gregg Geiger: Two points. One of the challenges here is that the neighbor’s garage is so close to the property line right now and that’s clearly causing some difficulties as far as his space is concerned so. The second point is that while there was a garage there and we recognize that fact, that it is now sunk and compared and relative to the road. To the roadway so about 18 inches or so and so it’s not a case of simply opening the wall and driving a car in. There’s things that would have to be done to the structure in general. Pat Mackey: I believe there’s a photo in one of the site photos that shows the condition of what used to be by all accounts a functioning garage. I attribute it to the, and actually the white doors that you see in the right center of the photograph are not what used to be the garage door. What used to be the functioning garage door I believe is on the stoned in part of the very right edge of 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 the house. Yeah over there. At the time the property was built that was a reasonable spot to put the garage door. As the private road was built and as this low lying point was flooded and reflooded and reflooded, that existing garage which is now accessed through the white doors is approximately 5 to 5 ½ feet clear. You could fit in a nice Mazda Miata or a formula one race car in there. Other than that as a functional practical vehicle storage it just, it stopped being that many, many years ago. Well prior to the homeowners. Aller: That was going to be my question. My recollection is that you purchased this property in the condition it was in. You didn’t close in a garage? Gregg Geiger: That’s true, yes. Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you. Gregg Geiger: Thank you. Aller: Okay we’ll open it up to the commissioners now for comment and discussion. Any feelings one way or the other? Hokkanen: Not right now. Oh I’m leaning towards E. Aller: It’s time to try to cut the wheat from the chaff. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: E versus F. Hokkanen: E versus F even a smaller F. Aller: E versus F? Tietz: Yes. Aller: So we can move on pretty much to E it sounds like. I mean if you have feelings for F instead of E let us know. Yusuf: No, no. If the discussion on the table is E versus F then I’m leaning towards E. Aller: Okay. Because what I like to do is narrow it down to what may or may not work and so if we’re going to take F off for all the reasons stated by the comments individuals made and comments others made as well as the actual application and then let’s move on to E and. Hokkanen: Well I would like to note F, even a smaller version of F is not. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: Is not acceptable to what you think would be. Hokkanen: For what. Aller: Okay, and obviously I’ve heard from everyone that this is quite a unique piece of property. In fact it’s the only one in the county that’s one a point and I think F in those statements was kind of knocked out because it is a view point and that would knock out that through view for sure and at least E we’re dealing with something that’s close to a structure and minimizes the view obstructions to all parties, whether they’re on the water or on the land. Tietz: I agree. Aller: So with regard to E what are your feelings? Is it too big? Too small? Just right? Tietz: Well the mass of the building is actually pulled back a foot or more and the overhang is reduced by a foot, the overhang is really at the variance point that Drew has been explaining tonight so actually the mass of the building with the exception of the eave is further back then it was presented on the plans that we received. Integrating it into the house even though it’s a difficult corner of the home to integrate it I think that there’s more benefit then going with the F option. I think some of the F options that were discussed at the prior meeting, if it had been able to be pulled in really tight to the house, maybe that could have been interesting to look at but I understand the restrictions that the architect was working with and I think this is, this massing even though it’s going to impact the house to a greater extent because roof lines are, you’re going to have to open up more of the home to do this and then by pulling it in the air conditioning compressing unit and evidently the power incoming power would have to be re- routed to enclose that space but it looks like a reasonable solution. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: And then I want to direct us back to the I guess what we really need to discuss in the first point of view is do you believe that a variance was required here or that the comments made that an individual homeowner should be held to the standards and the requirements or actions of a prior owner. I think somebody buys the property in the state that it’s in. Tietz: Well you’re buying it as is. Aller: They did nothing to close it in. That would be a different story potentially but we don’t even have to go there. So I don’t see anything that shows me that the practical difficulties that they’re having in utilizing their property as a result of the actions of the owners. Does anybody hear anything different or find anything different with that? Hokkanen: No I agree 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aller: As a Findings of Fact. And then you know one of the reasons that we have variances is so that we can look at unique properties and as much as we like to plan and zone we don’t have the square boxes all lined up with a nice street here. It’s messy out there and that’s why variances are granted so I think this is a very unique property and that requirement is met as well. Does anybody disagree or have any? Tietz: No I think Drew’s illustration of where variances have been issued over the years illustrates the complexity and the difficulty and working in today’s world on a very narrow point with issues that have been there for 80 years. Aller: Okay, and I think we also look at fairness and what’s the reasonable use of the property and I think it’s fair to say that somebody in Minnesota and in this particular area that with all the individuals that have garages including the neighbors who got variances for garages, that they would be entitled to a variance for a garage. Hokkanen: Correct. Aller: And I don’t believe that if we grant the variance that it would alter the nature of the neighborhood. Single family. You’ve got restrictions and limitations that are put on it which we’re allowed to do by the variance code so I think that requirement is met as well. I think it’s not detrimental and in fact it’s aligned with the common zoning and the plan that we have in place. And I think the essential character is not changed if we grant the variance. I do believe that we should always look at whether or not a variance impairs adequate light and air and I think we’ve done that. I think Drew illustrated that pretty nicely with the overview and we’re able to take into consideration that as well as the other photographs that were presented in the comment period and it looks to me as though the minimization when we look at the entire property, if we’re going to grant one that this limits the and minimizes the obstruction to light and air for all the neighbors as well as from the water. I don’t believe that granting the variance would substantially impair the traffic or create a hazard. In fact I think it’s quite the opposite. If we’re going to allow for more hard cover, it’s going to allow for a greater turning radius and make it easier for garbage as well as safety vehicles to get in and out and access the point. So for all those reasons I would be in favor of granting E with the additional modifications that it be within the requested scope so that the eaves would then be included and how they do that, if they need to move things would be fine but they have to get the proper building permits. Submit them but they won’t have to come back here for an additional variance. Ingvalson: If I may interrupt. That if you’re looking at the recommended motion here, that would be just removing the 441 square foot portion of the motion. The rest of the setback that we have here would still be met with what sounds like what you’ve been going for here. Aller: Then let me ask you this as long as we’re discussing the 441. Is that in addition to the 441? Then would it be a larger footprint? 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Aanenson: It may be slightly larger but it’s still within that building envelope. It wouldn’t get any closer to the neighbor. Aller: So what I want to do is make it clear that they can’t exceed that building envelope. Aanenson: Correct. The only place it would potentially would be towards the house to take the HVAC and that air conditioning. The electrical panel would be the only place it would project. Aller: So we could make that a condition or an additional condition I think that would be. Ingvalson: I do not believe there’d be an additional condition required. If you’re looking at here, the setbacks that we’re going to be, variances that will be granted by this would be from this portion of the home so it couldn’t be any farther south then here. Aller: Okay. Ingvalson: Also it couldn’t be any farther to this property line this way to the west. Aller: Okay so that does. Ingvalson: And it would be also, and with what we have there with the motion taking away that area required 441, it would also not be allowing it any closer to the shoreland to the north. Aller: Because I want to make it clear to the neighbors and anyone else that we’re not exceeding what has been presented in any form or fashion and that they’re limited to juxtapose as necessary and required within that limitation. Does that make sense to everybody? Madsen: Would it limit the height as well so they could not? Aller: It would still be a two story in line with the roof structure. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. Ready? Aller: Any additional questions or comments? I mean those are my comments. My feelings. Any additional? Hokkanen: No? Okay. Aller: Okay Commissioner Hokkanen has a motion. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2015 Hokkanen: I crossed it off. Okay. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Nelleke Knight: I have a question. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? We’re voting thank you. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second and any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1.The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2.The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3.The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4.The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Nelleke Knight: Can I ask you something? When will that will go…decision sort of? Aller: That’s the decision. What you would want to do is if there’s an appeal to be filed you would want to do that in writing. Aanenson: We will put together, we’ll put together a written report to the applicant stating what the conditions and we’d be happy to share that with them. Nelleke Knight: When will those 4 days start? When would that be? Hokkanen: Tomorrow. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay we’ll move on to item number 2 on the calendar. 25