Loading...
PC Minutes 7-19-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Matt Wessale Dave Johnson 9350 Gary A venue, Waconia 219 W. 82nd Street PUBLIC HEARING: HARD COVER V ARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME LOCATED AT 380 WEST 86TH STREET. TROY & VIRGINIA KAKACEK. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-18. Public Present: Name Address Larry Martin Ginger & Troy Kakacek 2707 Spy Glass Drive 380 West 86th Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions at this time? Larson: Yeah. I've looked at this... Is it on? Hello. When this came up before, you know I understand that they didn't pull the permit to do the extra patio. Is it that large of an issue? I mean we've gotten letters and things from some of the neighbors. They don't seem to be opposed to it. What is the main problem with this because the way I see it, as it is, it looks like a nice improvement. It's not a detrimental looking improvement to the home. So is the problem because of the surface water? Metzer: Right. This home's located in a single family residential district and they are limited to 25% hard cover for the whole property. If they're over that, they either have to bring it to compliance or we end up here with the variance process. We as staff can't be subjective about it. Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 2005 Larson: Okay. So the main issue we're dealing with here is the fact that maybe their lot is smaller than maybe others in the neighborhood. Metzer: Right, but the fact remains that they have to comply with the 25%. Larson: Okay, thank you. That's all I have. McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Zorn: Josh I have a question. Metzer: Yes. Zorn: In order to come into compliance you need to, for hard cover surface, surface ratio needs to be 25% or less. Metzer: Right. Zorn: And on page 4 of the report indicates that as the survey had shows that the home and driveway alone are 25.8. Have you discussed with the homeowners ways to rectify that? Or what an option would be... Metzer: The only option would be to remove part of the driveway. Shave off some edge of the driveway. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: It's not that significant. 111 square feet. If you took a strip along the edge of the driveway you should be able to accomplish that. Zorn: Okay. Papke: What's the style of the house? Is it two story, rambler? Metzer: It's a two story. Papke: It's a two story. So it's almost a 2,600 square foot foundation, two story house. That's pretty substantial. Keefe: What is the, you said that the homeowner came in and asked for, you know consulting with staff in regards to the landscaping. What do we typically communicate to homeowners in regards to landscaping in terms of what they can do and what they can't do? Do we have sort of strict? Metzer: Well I believe the specific question at that time was, and this occurred long ago. The specific question was how close can they come to property lines with landscaping and the answer 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 was, you can landscape anywhere on your property but we encourage you not to, to stay out of the easements in case we have to come in there and do work. The city would not be liable for replacing any landscaping that was removed. Keefe: Right. Do we typically you know recommend any sort of materials or recommend anything in regards to how we landscape? And one of the things if somebody were to come in and say well here's what we're thinking of doing, you know they might say we're thinking about putting in some plantings and whatever and they might include a patio, but maybe they wouldn't, but do we get into those types of. Metzer: It's got to be very case specific I guess. You know it's hard to say. In general if there's an idea that they're going to be placing patio or anything like that, the issue of hard cover would be discussed. Keefe: Okay, so it really just never came up in regards to. Metzer: Apparently not. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Metzer: I can't say first hand so. Keefe: Right. McDonald: Anyone else? I guess I've got a couple of questions for you. On the patio you had talked in here about maybe alternatives. If they were to put a deck up, does that begin to alleviate the problems and if so, are there special considerations there as far as the under foundation of a deck or anything? Metzer: As long as, we don't consider a deck to be hard covered if there's no hard cover underneath. If it's soil or some sort of landscaping with a fabric layer, we don't consider that hard cover. McDonald: Okay. On the, there was another thing in here that I'm a little confused about and that's the drawings that were submitted. And correct me if I'm wrong but as I read this it sounds as though the owner had one set which may have had these layouts on it. You had another set that did not have these on it and what we approved as far as I guess the final approval were the drawings in your possession. What happened? Metzer: The big issue with the difference in the drawings was the driveway. The shape and size of the driveway. What the city received in the permit package was the first drawing that I put up there. You can see the difference in the driveway there. This was submitted as a part of the building permit process and this is what we received as an as-built survey, and the applicant informed us that this was what they had in mind the whole time. So that's where the confusion came across as far as we know. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Undestad: The submitted one was the 25% hard cover, is that right? The permit? Metzer: I believe it was the 24 point some odd percent. McDonald: Any further questions? Keefe: Just to be clear on this. The driveway on the right looks like it's more like a lane and a half coming in from the curb. Then widens out to the two lanes, and is it a two stall or three stall? Three right and then the one that you received or approved did not include the patio coverage or the sidewalk coverage. Metzer: Right. The survey on the left was, we require as-built surveys for after homes are built so this was the survey on the left was an after the fact. Keefe: And the one on the right doesn't have either sidewalk or patio and had the reduced driveway. Metzer: Right. Keefe: And that meets, it just barely meets the cover at 24.8. Okay. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Any other questions? Zorn: I do have one more. As a new home builder myself, during the process when we were working with our lot and the way the house would sit, I don't recall our builder indicating at all a concern about size and this hard coverage surface ratio. Is there, do you encourage builders to talk with their clients as they move forward? Just thinking that that might have resolved a lot of confusion.. . Metzer: Well I know builders are made aware of the hard surface restrictions in their zone that they're building in. Zorn: Okay. Generous: Well it's a requirement on the design now that they give us those calculations. Zorn: And that will likely help a lot. Generous: Yes. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay. And with that are the homeowners here? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Larry Martin: Good evening Chairman McDonald, commissioners. My name's Larry Martin. I'm here on behalf of the homeowners this evening. My address is 2707 Spy Glass Drive and I'd like to address this issue for the homeowners. The commission asked, you know what is the procedural posture for this evening and the answer that was referenced is correct. It is in the alternative that there's two possibilities at the end of this process, after you make a recommendation to City Council. City Council can either grant the variance, based on your recommendation or deny the variance and once the variance is denied, if the variance is denied, then those hard surface improvements will have to be removed. If the variance is granted, those improvements can remain and the variance runs with the property and so there will always be an exception for that piece of property that they'll be allowed a 30% hard surface coverage, based upon that variance. And that's the reason we're here tonight is to ask for that variance. The back drop, the question you had of staff is very good review of kind of the key issues, but as you focus on this variance request, really what you need to kind of key in on are the 6 elements that staff has outlined for you in their staff report. I think you'll find that on page 6, it's listed as items a through f, and I think when you page down and take a look at item f, well there's really no dispute there. I think item f is the one that talks about light and view and that kind of thing, and interfering with your neighbor's property. Well that's not a concern. There's no dispute about that. However, there is a little bit of a disagreement on each and everyone of the rest of the elements and so what I'd like to do is take a little bit of time and talk to you about those and explain to you why you can make findings that are reasonable and make a recommendation to City Council that this variance would be okay. And what I'd like to do rather than starting with a is kind of go down the line a little bit to item d, which is whether or not the hardship, the purported hardship is one that's self created. That's kind of an important issue when it comes to variances and Planning Commissions generally spend a lot of time on that. One, it's kind of like well are they making their own problem. In this case staff is saying that yes, this was a self created problem because the applicant should have made a request for a zoning compliance review, and if they had done that then this problem wouldn't have occurred. And that's a fair observation but the commissioners need a little bit more of a back drop to the history of this so they can understand how things, how the miscommunication occurred. Now we're not here to say the staff did anything wrong. We don't think we did anything wrong either, but we got caught in a sideways position here and that's why we're seeking your help. Those surveys that were presented to the building department and the planning department a while back and when the application was first made do not show the patio but I think that the actual building plans show a patio and actually the future expansion of a, I don't know if it's a porch or 3 season or screened porch. Maybe if I could ask for your assistance so I do this right. What the file should have, or we didn't compare this to the file. The file didn't have these plans along with future patio, future patio, four season porch, hot tub.. . Well of course under the hard surface requirement, none of that's going in. However, we did set out very early on disclosing that these future plans were intended. My clients recollect it very well because there was an issue with the proposed footings for the four season porch that had to be revised. I guess it was a $200 cost revision for making that footing revision. However when they actually came in to build the house it was decided they couldn't afford all that and so it was pulled back and they just decided to build it without the four season porch and without the patios for now. After that, and I think it was something like the end of 2004. End of 2003 when the house was being completed, when well there was a 6 month time period when the landscaping had to be completed and at the end of the 6 months they knew they had to have all the landscaping in. They decided well you know 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 what, maybe we should put in the patio now as long as we're putting in the landscaping. The applicant came to the city and met with them two times in July to talk to them about the patio and the landscaping and it was specifically a question of whether or not they needed any permits for the patio. And of course the city code at that time, and I think it's still true today, you don't need a permit for the patio. So there wasn't a triggering event for a review. And so that's really where the miscommunication is and that's kind of what generates a problem. But anyway, not only did they come in twice in July to ask about the permit process and whether or not one was necessary or what they needed to do, including the patio, but their developer came in after. Not developer but their builder also checked to see whether or not he needed a permit to put in the patio. And of course the response was no. You don't need one in the city of Chanhassen to get a patio built. What you do need is a planning review. Well, I don't know if you necessarily need it because there's no permit that you have to take out for it. But arguably because of this result you do need to come in and talk to staff about it and get permission. Otherwise you get in the situation that we're in. However when you go to the counter and talk to people about it, they say you don't need a permit. Well it sounds like staff's kind of worked that all out and you're required to show calculations to prove your hard surface requirement is met or that you're not exceeding it. But we were caught in that gray area where things weren't explained quite so well. Now, that's all important back drop to this item d. The alleged hardship is not being self created. Well, you know who's fault is it? I don't think it's my clients fault, and I don't want to say it's staff fault either, but there was a point in time when things where a little bit gray about what you needed to do to put in a patio. You didn't need a permit. But a zoning compliance review would have been really good if somebody had told us that we needed to do that. If they would have told us, then they would have built a deck. Now we've got the patio and that's a problem, and tearing it out now is a hardship after all this is said and done because there's a significant amount of money that's invested in it. Okay, so that's kind of the critical juncture where things went awry. Now is that a hardship created by them? I don't think so but you know that's a finding of fact for you to make and make a recommendation to the City Council on. But then after you decide that, if you decide that that's not self created, then the rest of the elements I think are a little bit easier for you and so like for a, literal enforcement causes undue hardship. Well, if the hardship is based upon a miscommunication with staff and it's really not the applicant's fault and here they are in a situation where they spent a lot of money on an improvement and if you go the wrong way on this and don't grant them the variance and they have to tear it out, they've lost a lot of money and if you lose money, that's a hardship and if it's a lot of money, it's an undue hardship. And in this case I think we're talking about an investment of about $6,000. That's going to be painful if they have to do that. Item number b. Conditions are applicable to other property generally in the zoning district. Well what staff is saying is true there. Certainly the 25% requirement is a requirement of each and every property within the zoning district that they're in. However, the special condition that applies in this variance request is that it's the miscommunication is the condition or the event that creates the hardship that creates the problem. Is the miscommunication and the unfortunate circumstances that arise because of it the same thing for each and every property and the jurisdiction? Or in that zoning district. The answer is no. I mean this is going to be one, you know hopefully you won't see a whole lot more of these pop up but when they do come up, it's a good thing to help your neighbor out on when things have gone awry. It won't be an overriding problem with a bunch of property in the zoning district. C. Is the purpose of the variance based upon a desire to increase value or income potential for the property? Well certainly there's an investment in those improvements. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 However this is a motivational element. You know what's the purpose of the desire or the intent of the applicant once they achieve it? Well it's not a money making thing that they're working on. What they want to do is avoid losing money that arises back again from that miscommunication. And so I think staff's proposed finding there is a little bit too strong, and it's more to avoid loss than it is to seek gain. And that brings me back to that item d which is the not self created issue that I started the discussion out with. Commissioners, the light and air problem is not an argument, point of argument with staff. And I want to say again is that there was, I think it's clear that there was a gray area in how they should have been treated a while ago. That's something that happens frequently in cities and I don't think anyone's to blame but we strongly request that you give the alternative. Staff's been kind enough to list an alternative decision for you to recommend approval of the variance. We hope that you, to pick that out as your choice this evening and adopt findings of fact consistent with our presentation. There is, this isn't worth mentioning because really, but I just put it on the record so you understand the issue. There's a condition that's been added regarding trees. With respect to trees, I think there is a subdivision condition that requires 2 trees in the front of every lot, and then there's a series of trees that were to be planted in the back of these lots. In my mind there's a little bit of a difference in interpretation on how that applies. But after I reviewed the condition it just says you know comply with the subdivision condition and so if there's a disagreement on how that's to be interpreted, we can work that out. Certainly it's reasonable to require us to comply with the condition of that subdivision because it's already stated. How you interpret it's a different thing. Unless Ginger and Troy have anything to add, we'll answer any questions that you have of us. McDonald: Okay, I'll throw it open to question. Undestad: I just have one question. When you did your initial building permit application, did you talk about the 25% coverages and all that at that time or? So you really had no idea that any of that was going on? Larson: I've got one quick one too. We spoke earlier about possibility just cutting the driveway out. Is that a consideration for your guys? A portion of the driveway which would put you in compliance. Rather than taking out your patio. I understand not wanting to get rid of that but a portion you know. Undestad: I don't think that would work. A sliver would be if they didn't have any other hard surface on there. Their initial plan that was shown on there, their house and driveway was, actually that was over on the 25%. Larson: I mean instead of. McDonald: If they take all the hard surface out except the driveway, you're still over. Papke: So let me ask the converse question. At the end of the day we have to either approve or deny the variance. Would you be willing to accept a variance of .8% that would allow the driveway to remain intact and simply remove the patio? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Larry Martin: We definitely would like to have this heard by the City Council. Let me state it this way. When we made the appointment for the initial meeting, there was also a request in the application for a variance to include the sidewalk and the other hard surface areas, and we took a look at that and we said well, you know what. The biggest issue that we have here is the patio. That's where the biggest expenditure is. That's where we were. We got off the beaten path by the miscommunication. We're trying to avoid that loss and so we really want to exhaust all of our potential remedies. Now having said that, what we did try to do when we tabled it and came here tonight is try to eliminate anything that you know is easier to say yes to, and so like if you wanted to say you know, take the sidewalk off. Well we would say yes to that anyway. Or take the gravel pathway out. Well they ask us that, we'll say yes to that. So you know let's just do that before we go ask them for the big item. Because that's really what we want. If there were a way to easily do it structurally to amend the construction of the driveway, it'd be easier to say yes to that too but the thing about that is, it is constructed in such a way that it's not a 2 car garage, as it says in the staff report. It's a 3 car garage and if you don't you know have a minimum amount of dry space to get to that third stall, you know even if you, even if you cut it out, then you're driving over the grass and that gets compacted into a hard surface and becomes an eyesore and we just want to maintain it for reasonable maneuverability. Keefe: I've got one question. Can you go back to the permitting of the patio briefly and restate kind of, I got lost a little bit in regards to what happened there because at least my thinking is that most builders who come in and most patio builders are pretty familiar with coming in to draw a permit for a patio within the city of Chanhassen. Larry Martin: Well that's the confusing part is that Commissioner, Chairman McDonald, Commissioner Keefe. The city doesn't require a permit for a patio and so when people come in and say, do I need a permit for a patio. The city says no. They walk away and say well I can go build my patio. What you need to say in addition to that is, however you might run into a problem if you don't have the zoning compliance review, which technically is a permit but if they don't hear that, they just walk away and figure that they can build it. Now staff has solve that problem because you have to submit your impervious calculations before you draw a permit. So that glitch in the system has been eliminated. But we're still stuck...was still confusing. Papke: Several questions all related. Was the builder of the patio the same as the builder of the home? Larry Martin: I don't think so. No, it's a different builder. Papke: And did you ask the builder of the patio whether or not he or she was aware of the hard surface coverage? Larry Martin: Actually the builder of the patio came in to ask also about permit requirements and he was told that there weren't any permits needed. Papke: But did you ask him if he was aware of the hard surface coverage limitation within the city of Chanhassen? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Larry Martin: We didn't understand the hard surface requirement until. Papke: Have you asked him since then? Larry Martin: No. I'm assuming not. McDonald: Any other questions from anyone else? Larry Martin: Thank you commissioners. McDonald: Well I've got a question for you. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out this permit thing myself. As to when things happened. The original builder of the house I take it had nothing to do with the patio. The patio was contracted after the house was built? Larry Martin: That's correct Chair. McDonald: Okay. And the builder who did that you're saying was unfamiliar with the zoning compliance review or the fact that there may be other zoning issues that just because he doesn't need a permit for a patio, he may end up needing a permit to be in compliance with our zoning ordinances. He didn't understand all of that. Larry Martin: Well there is no permit requirement. McDonald: There would be no permit requirement but with the zoning compliance review you would have found you didn't meet the 25%, so a builder should have known that while I don't need a patio, I may need to look a little bit further and make sure that there's not something else that's going to jump up and sabotage all of this. Larry Martin: That's true commissioner. If it's reasonable to anticipate that a builder once told that permits are required, should have a reason to believe that a zoning compliance review was necessary. Which seems unlikely to me. That's a little backwards. McDonald: Was this a builder who had done other projects within the city of Chanhassen? Larry Martin: I don't know the answer to that question. GingerKakacek: Yeah he's been... McDonald: And he's done projects in other municipalities I take it also? Ginger Kakacek: Yes. McDonald: Then why wouldn't he be aware of the fact that there was probably a zoning compliance that he should have looked at? I could understand where the homeowners may be confused in this. I'm having a problem understanding how a licensed builder would be confused. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Ginger Kakacek: ... where he should put the patio... McDonald: He's still licensed. He is licensed, right? Ginger Kakacek: Yes, he is licensed. McDonald: Ifhe's done, ifhe does commercial projects he should know. Larry Martin: Quite frankly Chair I've been practicing land use law for 25 years at a broker, appraiser. Worked for cities. Worked for counties. I understand the hard surface requirements. It seems easy for me to see and understand how someone would be confused if they came in for a permit and if the issue about zoning compliance wasn't raised at the time of permit application. That they would think that nothing else would be necessary. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing no one else I will bring it back up to the council for discussion. Who wants to start at which end? Papke: Okay, I'll start. I'm opposed to granting this variance for two main reasons. First of all it was partially justified by the applicant that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the hard surface coverage, but the city code clearly spells out that we manage hard surface coverage on a lot by lot basis. To try to manage this across a whole neighborhood would get us into a tar pit of discussions as to how do you allocate the over's and under's and all that kind of good stuff. So clearly from my perspective the fact that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the coverage is no, is not a valid argument. The other one is the argument as to the hardship nature of the request, and this is similar to some of the other ones that we've discussed in the past, that as as-built situation, just because someone has built the structure or put in the patio, that does not, and having no knowledge of the city code restrictions, does not constitute a hardship in retrospect. So I do not see any cause for hardship here. The third argument, or issue is, well I'll leave it at that. That's probably enough said, thanks. McDonald: Debbie. Zorn: I also would not recommend this variance for the same reasons as Kurt. I've been through that process of the home building recently and I know it's a difficult situation and I feel for this homeowner but I think it would be very hard for us to continue to be confronted with variances throughout the city. And I am very pleased that there are some alternatives that the city is recommending and if considering a.8 variance might, probably wouldn't be something we would recommend. Possibly so, but I guess that's something for a discussion for another time. Papke: I've got one additional comment. Yeah, the third issue reoccurred to me. The other issue surrounds the zoning compliance process and the applicant stated that this is new and so they weren't aware of it at the time but one has to recall why this was originally implemented and I haven't been around that long but I've been around long enough to been a part of the initiation of that process and the zoning compliance process is there specifically to help avoid 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 these kinds of situations as a communications tool. It's not a requirement that we put on people to add extra work or there's no extra rules there. It's just specifically to help avoid these kinds of situations and help eliminate communication miscues and so the fact that this occurred during the time period within which that was being implemented, okay so we're improving the process but that doesn't necessarily excuse the lack of knowledge of the city code. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I'm trying to find a hardship here and I think despite what the applicant came up and said in regards to letter d, I'm just not quite there in regards to buying into that. Our job is really to you know enforce the code and we can potentially grant a variance here if we find a hardship but I'm just having a hard time getting over that threshold and I feel for the applicant but I think our job is really to, you know we're here to interpret and I think you've got to take it to the next step so I would deny this. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: My main issue with this is the whole reason these rules are put in place is because of the, to keep Chanhassen and to keep the water and all that in compliance or just to make sure that the land doesn't get messed up in case we have a big water event or whatever. And yes it's a hardship but it's also that if you have to tear this out, all the money that was wasted going into this. However, like everybody else has said, lack of knowledge is not necessarily an excuse. I feel bad that it wasn't spelled out to you as clearly as it possibly should have, but again I think too your builder, your original architect, everybody that was submitting plans and they.. .had known. The fact that it was put in there as a potential on your original plan isn't saying that it's actually going to be done because that would be an issue that would be brought up later. So unfortunately I would have to suggest denial on this as well. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No comments. McDonald: I guess the only comments that I will make, I don't want to repeat what everybody has said but you're asking for a big variance. 4.8%. While that may not seem like a big variance, we've had people in here before that have asked for less than that and we've sent them back to the drawing board. These rules are in there for a reason. Again what I go back to is that you had a licensed contractor do this. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are code compliant. They have a liability to do that as a duty to you so I just, I have a problem granting the variance. I would probably be more likely to grant the variance on the driveway because you do make some good points there, but as far as the patio, it's not as though we're going to be taking away your back yard. It's not as though we're going to be taking away your patio. You can put a deck out there and it's the same thing. You will still be able to use your back yard. So based upon that, I guess I would throw it open for a recommendation. Papke: Before we make a motion do we want, based upon what the applicant has heard, do we want to give them one last opportunity to amend their application? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 McDonald: I will advance that courtesy to them, if they wish to amend their application. Larry Martin: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Then I will throw it open for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements and to plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. McDonald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS. 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AL TERA TION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 12