Loading...
PC MinutesChanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 1. The sign’s height measured from grade shall not exceed 12.75 feet, including temporary banner mounts. 2. The sign shall be constructed with individual pole wraps to minimize the visual impact of it’s supports. 3. The sign shall be a minimum of 45 feet from the northern edge of Tanadoona Drive and a minimum of 10 feet west of the Highway 41 right-of-way. 4. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City in order to locate the ground low profile sign on city property. This encroachment agreement shall include language stating that if Highway 41 and/or Tanadoona Drive are widened the City can require the sign to be moved or removed if the sign’s location impedes sight lines. 5. The applicant must apply for and receive the required sign permits from the City. 6. The ground low profile sign must meet the sign code’s design criteria. stth 7. Temporary banners may only be displayed from January 1 to September 30. 8. Temporary banners must be maintained in good repair. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3622 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ROOF HEIGHT. Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 2017-09. 3622 Red Cedar Point Road variance. The applicant is requesting to intensify a non-conforming garage by increasing it’s height by 2 feet. It’s located at 3622 Red Cedar Point. This area is zoned residential. Typical zoning is a 20,000 square foot lot. 30 foot front yard setbacks. 10 foot side yard setbacks. 25 percent hard cover and residential buildings are limited to 35 feet in height in this zoning area. As I mentioned this is a non-conforming use. I was not able to ascertain the date of the original, original house but I believe it was in the mid 60’s. That house is shown in, oh I’m sorry it cleared my pointer on me. In red here. In 1983 that house was demolished but the original detached garages were allowed, were kept so those are non-conforming uses that are located within the front yard setback and side yard setback. When the new house was built in 1983 it was attached to one of the existing detached garages and the existing conditions on the property are the pre-existing garages are in blue here and you can see here where this one’s in the front yard setback and this area in red is the section that requires the height variance. The applicant is allowed to replace any non- conforming structure at it’s current intensity. However because they are proposing to increase the height of the garage that is in the side and front yard setback they require a variance because 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 it’s intensifying the non-conformity. They will not be encroaching more into the setback but it will be taller within the setback. So the proposed project is increasing the height of the garage to 15.5 feet. That’s a 2 foot increase in height. The goal of doing this is to allow them to replace the existing 7 foot high garage doors with 8 foot high garage doors. As I mentioned this isn’t going to increase the encroachment to the setback. It’s just the height of the structure. The applicant has stated they need 8 foot high garage doors to allow them to park taller vehicles within the garage and to store larger accessory vehicles. Essentially as time’s gone on vehicles have gotten larger and the original garage height is no longer sufficient. You can see there’s a little bit of a height differential between this section which was the original detached garage and the part that was built in 1983. The other purpose of raising is going to be to even out that roof line. This center section would increase by one foot. This section would increase by two feet. And then over here on the left is just a full scope of work they’re doing. Most of this does not require the variance but just to provide some context. They will be removing a non-conforming structure in a shed, deck and patio back here and stairs here which will decrease the property’s non-conforming hard cover. I believe this one is being rebuilt exactly as it was and then as I mentioned this section is going to be expanded and this addition is legal and within code and does not require a variance. The proposed height is significantly less than would theoretically be allowed by city code for the region were outside the setbacks. Residential garage doors are typically 7 or 8 feet. Most new houses, maybe not most. A lot of new houses are going in with 8 foot garage doors so it’s not an unreasonable or atypical garage door size. As the applicant noted larger vehicles cannot fit under the 7 foot garage doors. The city code does not restrict garage door height within residential districts. In theory individuals can put in 12 foot garage doors if they choose. Regarding the general neighborhood. It’s one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many properties are non-conforming. I was able to find 12 variances granted for 29 properties within 500 square feet and staff recommends approval of this variance. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them at this time. Aller: Any questions for staff at this point? Seeing none we’ll go ahead and ask the applicant to come forward. If you could state your name and address for the record sir. Steve Keuseman: Yeah I’m Steve Keuseman. I’ve lived at 3622 Red Cedar Point Road for on and off for 54 years. Aller: Welcome. Tell us about your project. Steve Keuseman: We’re actually remodeling the whole house and we’re rebuilding the garages because as he stated that one garage that we want the new roof on, well it’s going to be a new garage and with the additional height. That garage was built in about 1965. My father built that and you know back then the existing vehicles were a lot lower than they are now. Like my son has a Suburban that has roof racks on it. We can barely get that in the garage. And if you can get it in the garage you can’t even hardly jack it up to change your oil so that’s part of the reason why we need the height. Plus you know if you’re carrying a ladder or 2 by 4 or something you just you know bang, you hit the light in the ceiling and that and so that’s part of it. And then it’d 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 just be a lot nicer for things. My son has a boat also that he backs in the garage and has a wakeboard tower on it. He can’t put his wakeboard tower up in the garage so like if he wants to get in the boat and clean it out, take things in or out or something, he can’t lift the tower up in the garage. He couldn’t put it, he’d have to have about a 10 foot door, high door to back it in with the tower up. But he’d just like to be able to put it up once it’s in the garage you know. Like I say we’ve lived there for 54 years and my son is going to, my son and his wife are going to live there also because we have like a full apartment downstairs. We built in ’84. We built it that way at that time and we wanted my parents were going to live downstairs and I was going to take care of my parents in their later years. Well unfortunately things didn’t work out that way and but hopefully it will work out that way now and we plan on living there another 54 years so we really like the area. We like Chanhassen so we’d just like 2 more feet in the garage you know in the height. Aller: We love Chanhassen too sir. Just for the record your son is not going to live in the garage right? Steve Keuseman: No, no, no, no, no. Aller: Just when he’s in hot water. Steve Keuseman: You want to talk Matthew? Okay no. And by the way he is a Captain on the fire department here in Chan. Aller: Awesome, thank you. Steve Keuseman: So I don’t know Bob do you want to say anything? Bob Mattson: They pretty much said it. Steve Keuseman: Yeah I didn’t really have to say anything. The gentleman over here pretty much said all I want to say. I think my son’s wife actually sent in a letter saying the reasons why we wanted to do this you know. Aller: Great. Steve Keuseman: And it’s not for, we don’t have any ulterior motives. We just want a little more height in the ceiling you know. Aller: Awesome, well thank you very much sir. Steve Keuseman: Yeah thank you. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 Aller: Any questions? None. Alright we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak for or against the request can do so at this time. Seeing no one coming forward to speak we’ll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Weick: It’s a good project. Tietz: Andrew it looks like, if I may ask the gentleman, the owner. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: It looks like where the excavation where you took out that free standing garage closest to the road. Steve Keuseman: Yeah. Tietz: It looks like you found a little bit of rubble under there. Steve Keuseman: Well yeah, yeah. It had the old walls where they were rock and cement. Tietz: Yeah. Steve Keuseman: Yeah so. Tietz: Yeah it looks like you ran into some interesting things there. Steve Keuseman: Oh yeah. See my dad, a lot of the stuff that was in there was from my father so we had, and the foundation wasn’t safe. I didn’t want, see there was a basement. There’s a basement under that garage. Tietz: Oh there was. Steve Keuseman: And we’re going to rebuild it with a basement under it so on top we can store a car and underneath we can put our lawnmowers and stuff. Tietz: Interesting, okay. Aller: Thank you. Tietz: Thank you yeah. Aller: Any additional questions based on Commissioner Tietz’ question? No, okay. Any comments? I think it’s a great project. I think it’s certainly limiting itself to the needs of the 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 applicant which is what we always want to do when granting a variance so I would be voting in favor. Any other comments? Would someone like to make a motion? Yusuf: I can do it. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow an intensification of an existing non-conforming use by raising the attached garage height to 15.5 feet within the required front and side yard setbacks, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow an intensification of an existing non-conforming use by raising the attached garage height to 15.5 feet within the required front and side yard setbacks, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Good luck sir. Steve Keuseman: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commission Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 18, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: City Council action update. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 Aanenson: Well we didn’t have any items that went to the last City Council meeting. I just th remind everybody next Monday we’re having the 50 Anniversary of the City so that’s going to be right out here in front of City Hall so anybody that wants to come to that 5:30 and cake and sandwiches and a ceremony. Aller: And that invitation is not only to the Planning Commission but those of you at home as well. Aanenson: Right. Yusuf: Isn’t there a weather permitting comment. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. If it’s raining they’ll come inside but right now it says 69 and sunny so. Yusuf: Awesome. Aller: It’s always 69 and sunny here. Aanenson: Exactly, perfect. Just take a minute to go through the Planning Commission upcoming items. Aller: Please. th Aanenson: We have scheduled for the May 16, your next meeting is the Avienda. We’ve talked to the applicant about that. There’s some issues that I’m not sure we’ve got enough detail to continue with the report so we’ve asked for some additional time. I’m not sure where we are on that so we’ll let you know. If not we didn’t schedule anything for the comp plan because we figured that would take quite a bit of time so if that does move we will let you know as soon as th possible. Hopefully we’ll know by tomorrow and then we would move that to the June 6 meeting. Therefore we’d probably move some of those other land use items down. We are working on the Frontier project. Sharmeen Al-Jaff is working on that. I think the architecture is coming together really nice so you’ll see that with the Aldi. That also may bump down a th meeting. We had that scheduled for the June 6 but that may bump down. We’ll find out. Their submittal date is this Friday so we’ll keep you posted on that. And then also the Klingelhutz property. We have a good project on there. A townhouse project so I think that will also be th coming in potentially June 20 so you’ve got a couple of big meetings coming up here. And as I stated before we’re trying to supplement, put some of the chapters in and get you up to speed on those before we have some public comment as we move to July and August and then have some, th take those out to National Night Out and the 4 of July so we’ll be trying to get your more information on that. So that’s all I have right now. Those are the bigger projects that are coming in. MacKenzie might have a couple other variances coming forward so that’s it and I’ll keep you posted on upcoming agendas. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 2, 2017 Aller: Great, thank you. Any further items? Seeing none and hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Aller stated it was non- debatable. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 11