Loading...
PC Minutes 6-7-16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 2016 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Kris & Dawn Knox 3801 Leslee Curve th Dough & Paula Steen 701 West 96 Street Mike Howe 2169 Stone Creek Drive Dave & Jennie Melin 3627 Red Cedar Point Road Court & Jeanne MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve Ladd Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Dawne Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Aller administered the Oath of Office to Mark Randall. PUBLIC HEARING: 3627 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR HARDCOVER AND SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, LOT 13 AND LOT 12 EXCEPT THE EAST 10 THEREOF, BLOCK 4. APPLICANT: DAVE & JENNIE MELIN. OWNER: ILMARS & KATHLEEN DUNDURS. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-11 is a variance request from Dave and Jennie Melin. They’re requesting variances so they can build a new home on this property which is located on Red Cedar Point. Red Cedar Point is an older subdivision area. A lot of the plats were done in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s and so a lot of the lots don’t meet ordinance requirements. A lot of the houses don’t meet the ordinance requirement. This house was built in 1927. It’s approximately 6 feet from it’s south property line. Existing conditions, it’s a non-conforming status. Under non-conformities you can maintain what’s there. Any expansion would have to comply with ordinance so instead of doing that, keeping what they had there they’re requesting, they want to tear down the existing house and build a new one on site. They’re actually improving the situation immensely from what is existing there. Here’s a Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 picture of the house and as you can see to the south of it the house behind it is quite a bit taller. They’re proposing a two story building to go on there but it will be back more where that pine tree is in the middle of this picture. On the west side of the property there’s a deteriorating retaining wall. As part of this project they would also be rebuilding that so it will meet with the modern code requirements. I don’t believe it’s over 4 feet so it will just be a zoning permit. The actual request is for a 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 foot requirement which is 61.4 feet. This is actually an improvement from the existing house which is 60.8 feet from the high water mark and the setback variance is actually for the patio portion of the house that they’re proposing rather than the house itself which would be meeting the 75 foot shoreland setback. Additionally they are requesting a 4.8 percent hard cover variance to permit 29.8 percent hard cover on this site. This is a reduction from 34 percent hard cover which currently exists so we’re improving the situation both from setback standards and from the hard cover standard. And again they are moving the new house 10 feet from the side property line so there will be a little separation between this house. This future proposed house and the house to the south. Again looking at the existing survey the orange highlighted area is the non-conforming setback on the west side of the property. Just outlined the existing building footprint. Underneath you can see the 75 foot setback cuts a third of the way into the house so they’re moving the future house back at least that far. This is a survey of their proposed development. The red line around it represents the building envelope that complies with all the setback requirements. As you can see their proposed house meets that with the exception of there’s a small window well for egress purposes and that encroaches slightly into the 75 foot setback. The side egress window wells are permitted to encroach into that side yard. However our ordinance does not specify that the lake setback is a required yard and so we’re including that as part of the variance application and review and approvals. This area is, there’s a lot of non-conformities in Red Cedar Point and the ones that show up in X are all the properties that don’t meet the shoreland setback requirements. The other ones have other variances or non-conforming issues that are involved in it. I can continue further to the west with this so it would almost completely be redden out so just to understand that setbacks from the lake haven’t been maintained as well in there because of the ages of a lot of the houses that went in so. Staff is recommending approval of the variance application and the hard cover variance subject to the plans that are included as part of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have any questions at this time? Weick: The deck. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The deck is included in the hard cover calculation? Generous: The patio yes. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Weick: Or the patio. Generous: Yes. Weick: Okay. And it’s part of the setback variance? Generous: Correct. That is the setback variance. Weick: It is the setback. Generous: So we’re approving this 64 foot. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Okay. Any further questions at this point? Alright. Again Bob it’s a good report. I think that’s a tribute again to the staff. We don’t have to ask very many questions at this point because we understand what’s being presented and for those of you who are present or those of you who are at home that want to take a look at these plans and what’s been presented in packages, they’re on the City website and you can take a look at those certainly tonight or if this matter goes to the City Council before City Council if you wanted to come down at that point in time. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Welcome sir. Todd Simning: Commissioners good evening. Todd Simning with Kroiss Development. I think Bob did a good job explaining things. I think we really thoughtfully fit the house on pretty much what’s conforming and very little asking of a variance in a sense so I really don’t have a whole lot to say unless you guys have some questions to me but we, when we set out to design the house, when we platted out where it needed to be in the conforming sense we really tried to stay within that footprint. Aller: And I think it’s pretty clear from the plans and we appreciate that. Any other questions? Great, thank you. Todd Simning: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time I’ll open the public hearing. That’s an opportunity again for any individual present to speak either for or against the item before us. If you have a comment or question. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this matter and open it up for commissioner comments. And further action. Okay well then I’ll entertain any motions that anyone would like to make. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Mr. Undestad. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Undestad: That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard cover variance as shown on the survey prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20, 2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two story house and patio subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Thank you. Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard cover variance as shown on the survey prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20, 2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two story house and patio subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Such landscaping may be at the edge of the patio or on the landward side of the rip rap. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. 2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with tree fencing located at the dripline or the furthest feasible distance from the trunk. Fencing shall be installed prior to any grading or construction and maintained until construction is finished. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman I’d just like to remind anybody that might be tracking this item, because this was a super majority unless somebody appeals this decision within 4 days, at the end of 4 days then it would be deemed approved. Aller: Correct. Thank you for bringing that out. And so we’ll move onto item 2 on the agenda tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: 3801 LESLEE CURVE – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3801 LESLEE CURVE, LOT 19, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT ACRES. APPLICANT/OWNER: KRIS KNOX. 4