Loading...
PC minutes 2017 11 21Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Randall moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments table Planning Case 2017-20 after receiving written agreement for a 60 day extension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: That motion carries. Do we have a form currently that we can print out? Aanenson: I think we can just ask for the 60 days. We’re within our rights to ask for 60 days so. Aller: Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 204 WEST 78 STREET: VARIANCE FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK. Aller: Is that you? Walters: Yes it is. Aller: Thank you MacKenzie. th Walters: So this is Case 2017-21. 204 78 Street West. This is a variance request. They’re requesting a 3 foot, an after the fact variance for a 3 foot front yard setback to accommodate a pergola and an after the fact for 1.5 percent lot coverage for an expanded driveway. This is in the same neighborhood as the last variance we heard. Let me get my laser pointer up here. The property is located here. The zoning is the same. The only change, the relevant condition is because this property accesses a collector road our ordinance does require it to have a turn around accommodated within the driveway. The current site conditions are it’s an 8,981 square foot lot. It currently has 28.3 percent lot coverage. The existing front yard setback is 27 feet. It meets all other setbacks and as a bit of an anomaly the public sidewalk is actually located on the property instead of in the right-of-way and that’s about 214 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant is requesting to retain an expanded driveway and retain the pergola in it’s existing configuration. The applicant has stated that when the house was constructed about 10 years ago the sidewalk was poured in a different position than intended right up against the house so that forced the pergola footings to be further forward which pushed it out into the required front yard th setback. And then due to the difficulty of accessing 78 Street West they chose to deviate from the proposed driveway and widen it. The other reason they made that decision the construction th was because 78 Street does not allow street parking so they wanted to accommodate some on site parking. After the property was built they had originally put an extra 385 square feet of Class V aggregate or gravel to the side of the driveway. After consulting with staff they did remove that to reduce the property’s non-compliance. As was noted in earlier discussions a lot of properties in this neighborhood do encroach within the front yard setback and they feel the pergola adds architectural interest to the front façade. When staff looked it over one of the things 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 we noticed was as mentioned the public sidewalk. It’s a bit of a gray area in the ordinance. Because there is no easement we would count it against the property. Staff’s preference is that an easement be granted which would then remove that from the private domain. Put it into the public domain. At that point we’d be looking at a 1.5 percent hard surface variance. Staff agrees th with the applicant’s assessment that 78 Street West has parking and access issues and that a driveway capable of accommodating parking and turn around is a very reasonable request. Regarding the pergola the city code actually allows by right encroachment for architectural features. Pergolas aren’t specifically mentioned. Our closest would be canopies and eaves which are allowed to encroach 2.5 feet. From that lands the pergola is 6 inches over but because of the way variances work a full 3 foot would need to be granted. By way of reference if it was a bay window or an open balcony it would be allowed to encroach 3 feet and a variance wouldn’t be required. An open deck would be allowed 5 feet by rights. This doesn’t really interfere with sight lines or increase mass. It’s over the driveway. It’s been there for 10 years. No complaints have been received. Just looking at all those factors staff is recommending approval with conditions for the requested variances and I’ll take any questions at this time. Aller: Any questions based on the report? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Does removing the sidewalk from private and adding it as an easement, does that change responsibility for clearing the sidewalk in the winter or anything? Do we do that here? Aanenson: No. Weick: Okay. I wasn’t sure. Aller: Interesting question. Walters: Good question yeah. I learned the answer as you did. Weick: Where I come from it does change so that’s the reason I ask. Aller: Is it 48 hours after a snowfall. Any additional questions of staff a this point? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: In the report there’s a mention of allowing a non-hard cover bump out to be incorporated into the driveway to provide a turn around. How does that work and does that add to the hard surface? Walters: Yeah so it was not made a condition. Engineering’s concern is that because of the configuration, the wider driveway that it will function more as parking then to accommodate turn around movements. Geogrid which is you know the hexes with the grass is not considered impervious and would be allowed in that situation. So they would have to do that. We briefly mentioned it. I believe when I spoke with the applicant on that in the interest of expediency they 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 just pulled the gravel and re-sodded because they’re trying to move forward with the variance and some projects. We did not make that a condition. It’s a recommendation on staff’s part. Madsen: So they could choose to do it at a later time if they wanted? Walters: Yep, as long as it was geogrid. If they tried to put in pervious pavers or one of those technologies then that would count as lot coverage and then they would have to go for a variance for that increase. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Walters: Yep. Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll hear from the applicant at this point in time. If you could come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know about your request. th Josh Pickard: I’m Josh Pickard. I’m the homeowner at 204 West 78 Street. Aller: Welcome. Josh Pickard: So when we. Tietz: Looks like you have helpers. Madsen: Who’s that? Josh Pickard: Go sit down. So part of the, and forgive us for being a little naïve when we, this is our first house that we’ve ever built. We did our best to try to comply with everything. One of the things that we believe happened, and it’s hard to see in here but the original site plan, which I can zoom in maybe a little bit. You can see where the bump out takes place right here. I don’t believe the original company who no longer exists that did the as-built. Or not the as, or the preliminary drawings, I think they factored in a 5 foot wide sidewalk which you had mentioned and it’s actually a 6 foot wide so it’s exactly 25 as it stands. What we did was we took that little bump out off and ran the driveway straight down so I don’t know how it went from, it should have been almost a wash as far as the hard surface coverage so we think there was some miscalculations that took place. Aanenson: He’s fine. Josh Pickard: Pick it up and go sit down. And so and what we ran into too and once again we should have come to the City to discuss but as they mentioned the sidewalk, the original design was supposed to be bumped out farther allowing the pergola to go set back up against the house. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 th They didn’t do that. Not thinking about it being an issue because you can walk down West 78 from the sidewalk and actually touch structures as you’re walking down. It doesn’t mean what we did was right or wrong. And then what we found as we got into the space was our garage is actually relatively narrow so the way that this set up is it would be next to impossible to actually back out and use the turn around that’s actually there which is where we ended up putting the Class V in. Once again not really thinking that that was going to be impervious surface coverage because most of the water actually does go through it. I mean I can show you pictures of the weeds that grow plentiful there that I have to kill every summer and so that’s why we ended up doing what we had done. We haven’t had any issues with that backing out, straight out or using the driveway as it stands right now as a turn around. I will tell you that the Class V was th extremely beneficial because there is no parking on West 78. We have to go around the corner to Erie, which is, can cause problems in the winter time because you’re not allowed to park th overnight on the street and there’s just no parking on West 78 but to you know to good favor to the City we went ahead and removed that Class V and sodded over it but you know in all honestly we’d love to get some surface coverage back there and if we can work to have it you know not impervious to where it doesn’t affect the hard surface coverage we’d love to have that. And my kids do enjoy stepping out back and seeing the fire truck every summer. Aller: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Hearing none, that’s it. Thank you sir. Josh Pickard: Thank you. Aller: Okay this is a request for a variance so we will have a public hearing on this item so I’m opening the public hearing for this particular variance and anyone wishing to speak either for or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come, oops. Jack Atkins: Since I’m here. Aller: Okay. th Jack Atkins: Jack Atkins. I live about 3 houses west of there at 220 West 78 and we certainly don’t have any objection. That street is a definite hardship for anybody trying to pull out on that road so no objections here and I’d like to thank them. I now know what a pergola is. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments at this time? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion. I think this is exactly the type of reason that we have variances is to come in and try to, this is a practical use of a driveway to make a lot work on the basic standpoint of driveway to garage pre-construction plans and runoff based on the setbacks and the obvious error in the placement of the sidewalk so I think that I appreciate the fact that an applicant comes forward and does it right regardless of how the situation arose. They’re coming forward at this point in time and the Pickard’s are saying you know we’re going to take away this other quick fix that we put in there. We’re going to come in and ask for an appropriate variance which is acceptable to the City and I think that 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 they’ve come forward with something that actually works and is reasonable under the circumstances. Tietz: Andrew? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I just want to clarify though this is, we’re not providing for a bump out for a turn around. We’re only approving what is existing which I assume that the property is for sale. I noticed that when I drove by so it’s, we’re solving a historic issue prior to sale and, but we haven’t solved the turn around opportunity to drive out unless you can back around and hit the grass and turn around on a 20 foot apron I guess so you know I don’t have any problem with it. I’m just making sure I understand that we’re not granting anything more than what is currently on site and we’re just approving that for kind of, well a 10 year old issue. Aller: Well I think we’re allowing for the pergola to come out and we’re allowing for the additional drive to be done, right? Tietz: But I think the owner had stated that the gravel was put on so that they could turn around and that’s not going to be possible now. Aller: But that’s not required by the City? Walters: The, so there’s a memo from the engineering department on this. They are satisfied with the current configuration of the driveway that it would hypothetically allow a turn around movement. That being said there is the staff recommendation that geogrid be used to create a better turn around and parking area but that’s not a condition. That’s going to be up to the applicant and yeah the hard cover variance would not allow for an impervious surface turn around to be included. Weick: And is the 1 ½ percent hard cover variance, is that net of the sidewalk then? Walters: That is with the condition that the easement be entered into to remove the sidewalk. Without the sidewalk easement it’s a 3.3 percent. Aller: I mean in reality it’s, the hard cover’s there and it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with and addressed community wise but I don’t think it should be held against the homeowner in this particular case when the easement can be granted and we wouldn’t be holding it against them had it been done properly in the first place. Weick: Had what been done properly? Aller: If the sidewalk hadn’t encroached farther than it should have. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Weick: I mean the public sidewalk. Aren’t there 2 sidewalks in question here? Walters: Yes. To clarify the construction error is the sidewalk the homeowner installed driveway to entryway. Weick: Next to the house? Walters: Yeah. The public sidewalk being on their property is 1887 survey line type of issue. Weick: I mean I, I hate to tax somebody with that. Aller: Right, which is why we’re. Weick: Because I wish we all had sidewalks but that’s a whole another city issue. Yeah, I don’t know. I’m just thinking in my head. I think I’m thinking probably and I don’t know have to say it out loud what John, Commissioner Tietz is probably thinking as well which is net of that, if we could do even a smaller area where we could actually do a turn around. I mean it’s, I drove around there twice in the last week and it’s busy. That’s a busy street. Surprisingly busy actually. I didn’t realize that and so being able to turn around in there I think is important. I just wish we were sort of solving that as well but that’s neither here nor there. Aller: So then the question is, and since it hasn’t been presented what trade off, or I mean we could make it a condition that it be used for that. I mean that’s really not what has been requested so. Weick: It would be adding something that wasn’t asked for so I guess we just go as is and. Aller: And then what are the numbers and then what would the trade off be? Whether it’s square footage, if we did a turn off and we created it then how much square footage are we actually adding and what does the hard coverage calculation end up being then. Weick: Yeah. But as is I think it works right? Aller: Right. Weick: So I could propose a motion if, are we at that point? Aller: We’re at that point. Weick: Can I do that? Aller: We’re at that point. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017 Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 foot front yard setback variance for a pergola and a 1.5 percent hard cover variance for an expanded driveway subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Weick moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 foot front yard setback variance for a pergola and a 1.5 percent hard cover variance for an expanded driveway subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions: 1. The applicant shall construct stormwater BMP(s), such as rain barrels at downspouts to treat all runoff created by all impervious surface over 25 percent. 2. The applicant shall grant the City an easement for the public sidewalk. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CODE AMENDMENTS: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 “GENERAL PROVISIONS”; CHAPTER 7 “BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS”; CHAPTER 18 “SUBDIVISIONS”; AND CHAPTER 20 “ZONING” OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: A. DRIVE THROUGHS: MODIFY MINIMUM STACKING DISTANCE AND CLASSIFY AS CONDITIONAL USE. B. PRIVATE STREET: SIGN GUIDELINES. C. STREET DESIGN: GUIDELINES. D. ADULT DAYCARE: DEFINE AND ALLOW IN APPROPRIATE DISTRICTS. E. PUD SETBACKS: ALLOW INCREASED FLEXIBILITY. F. LOT COVERAGE: UPDATE ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS, IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS SURFACES, AND TERMINOLOGY. Walters: This one is mine as well. We were talking, I think the best way to do this, if the Chair does not object is to roll all these into one public hearing at the end. Aller: Okay. 19