Loading...
PC Minutes 6.19.18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 3861 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD: SUBDIVISION AND PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCE. Walters: Thank you very much. This is Planning Case 2018-10. It’s a subdivision with a lot width variance for 3861 Red Cedar Point Road. The applicant is requesting a 10.04 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1 in this proposed 2 lot subdivision. Thank you and Sharmeen has pointed I need to get it off our holding screen. Thank you for that. Right here you can see the proposed, the location for the subdivision. This is a little over an acre parcel in the Red Cedar Point neighborhood. The parcel is zoned residential single family. There’s a section of property zoned planned unit development residential to the north. With regards to the preliminary plat the minimum lot area required for residential single family zoning is 15,000 square feet. The proposed area for Lot 1, Block 1 is 20,417 and for Lot 2, Block 1 is 23,572. The proposed lot width for Lot 1 is 79.96 feet which would require a variance from the 90 foot standard. Lot 2 would meet that standard and both properties significantly exceed the 125 foot minimum depth. There are two other kind of miscellaneous code provisions that pertain to this case. The city code does not allow for the presence of an accessory use without a primary use so you can’t have a garage without a house on a lot and it does not allow for a single family dwelling without a 2 car garage. So in order to avoid creating a non-conformity with this subdivision the applicant will need to remove the existing garage and then construct a 2 car garage to serve the existing house which they’re proposing to retain. One of the other things we look at in a preliminary plat subdivision request is whether or not it meets the City’s tree preservation ordinance. The tree preservation ordinance requires a minimum canopy coverage of 35 percent. The property currently has 42 percent canopy coverage. The applicant is proposing to remove the trees here but has submitted lot cover calculations showing that the property would still have 36 percent so it meets that ordinance. They would be required to install one tree in the front yard if none are present under ordinance as well. The other thing we look at is whether or not they have access to park infrastructure. In this case the proposed subdivision would be served by both Roundhouse Park to the northwest and the Minnewashta park pedestrian trail Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 2 which is in green. In terms of utilities and access, the property has access off of Red Cedar Point Road so no new street would need to be constructed and it is served by city water and sewer. The existing house would continue to use it’s existing connections and the new house would need to tie into those lines. In terms of right-of-way streets and easements, the property has an existing 595 square foot easement for Red Cedar Point. The applicant will be dedicating 10 foot front and 5 foot side and rear drainage and utility easements. The City is not requesting the dedication of any existing right-of-way. As the report mentions Red Cedar Point Road is substandard with 50 feet of right-of-way instead of the traditionally, instead of the currently required 60. However because there is no opportunity for the other properties on the southeast to subdivide and there’s no way the City will ever be able to get that additional right-of-way we’re not going to be asking for any additional right-of-way at this time because we couldn’t find a way to widen the road. In terms of the requested variance, they are requesting a 10.04 foot front lot line width variance for Lot 1, Block 1. The justification is this is a pretty straight forward subdivision. If the applicant conducted a partial cul-de-sac configuration and they presented two they would be able to meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance without needing the variance. They would have 90 feet front lot width. Because this property is located within the shoreland overlay district for both Lake St. Joe and Lake Minnewashta staff feels it’s important to do everything possible to minimize the creation of extra impervious surface and by granting this 10 foot variance staff estimated it would save about 1,500 to 2,000 square feet of impervious surface that’d be required to create the cul-de-sac and meet the subdivision requirements. The other alternative is a flat lot which would in itself require a variance from the city’s subdivision ordinance and also create lot lines that can cause issues down the road for future property owners. The proposed variance does still leave room for a 60 by 60 building pad and can accommodate the house and 2 car garage so it would be able to meet all current setbacks and looking through both properties within the 500 foot notification area and the neighborhood at large, there are numerous properties that do not meet the 90 foot lot width so it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff did receive some comments and concerns from some of the neighbors. One of the concerns that was brought up was concern about establishing a precedent of not meeting lot width. Because lot width in this case could be met through the use of the eyebrow or partial cul-de-sac allowing the property to be subdivided without a variance we don’t believe this establishes a precedent that we’re not going to require properties to meet the lot width to be subdivided. With regards to future issues with setbacks, the parcel is able to meet the required side, front and rear setbacks. The applicant is not requesting a setback variance and staff would not recommend approval of any that were requested subsequently. The lot can accommodate a 60 by 60 building pad. It does meet the tree preservation ordinance requirements. If any trees are lost during construction they would need to be replaced. There have been some historic issues with erosion control in the neighborhood. Engineering and building will monitor those throughout the construction and have been made aware of that. Looking over the proposal for the variance and subdivision staff, as I kind of went through all these so I won’t go into too much detail but we do feel the variance is in keeping with the neighborhood. There are other properties including one adjacent to the west that have similar lot widths of around 80 feet. The subdivision can go forward without a variance with the use of a partial cul-de-sac and staff believes that minimizing impervious surface in the shoreland is of Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 3 greater importance than the 90 foot minimum lot width. And both lots are well in excess of the minimum lot area with over 20,000 square feet compared to the required 15,000. The subdivision meets all the requirements of city code and for that reason staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat with the variance. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Thank you. Does anybody have questions of staff? Seeing none we’ll have the, oh Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: MacKenzie I see that it says that they can build that partial cul-de-sac without any kind of variance so any development could just put a partial cul-de-sac on their lot off any road? Walters: Not necessarily. In this case they can do it and meet the 90 foot but yeah they could choose to dedicate the extra right-of-way to the City in order to meet that frontage. Madsen: And there’s no rules about having several partial cul-de-sacs on a road if various lots wanted to subdivide? Walters: I’ll defer to Sharmeen. She’s a little more familiar with that aspect of the ordinance. Al-Jaff: If you look at areas along Lake Lucy Road, that would be a perfect example. We have a few eyebrows that we look at the situation. Can they put a full pledged cul-de-sac? Does it make sense for them to put a full pledged cul-de-sac and if the answer is no, then we will allow an eyebrow. In this case they would be able to put in the entire bubble of a cul-de-sac. The way the ordinance reads is if that road is not going to go anywhere, let’s assume that there is a wetland further down, which is the case with this one, then they would be able to put a bubble for a cul-de-sac and would be able to meet the ordinance requirements by doing it. Madsen: Okay thank you. Al-Jaff: Sure. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Okay we’ll have the applicant come forward and make a presentation should they decide to do so. Welcome sir. Tom Gonyea: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Tom Gonyea representing Estate Development Corporation, 15250 Wayzata Boulevard in Minnetonka. You know I think MacKenzie went over the matter pretty well. I really don’t have too much to add to it. I think it’s going to be a nice addition to the area. The existing house that’s there is actually a nice house. The garage could use a little help so the proposal is to take the garage down and that’s going to sit on the proposed new lot but the house itself is actually in very good condition inside and out and adding a 2 car garage on should enhance the value of that quite a bit I guess so anyways if there’s any questions of council or staff. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 4 Aller: Can you tell me how you come to the decision to subdivide as opposed to use an eyebrow or what did you use in making that decision? What were you looking at? Tom Gonyea: You know I guess we looked at it a few different ways. We looked at the flag lot option. There’s a potential to do that within the ordinance. We didn’t pursue it that much. And then we looked at the eyebrow and we came to the conclusion that it probably wasn’t worth adding the road. It was within the shoreland district and that was actually brought up you know between my engineer and Sharmeen are the ones that looked to that and it just kind of doesn’t need it. If you look at some of the other properties in the area it seems to work pretty well with the smaller lot width as it stands so I guess you know I felt it was probably a better way to do it. You’re not adding infrastructure. It’s less disruptive and it should provide a nice building pad for a nice house. Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? Tietz: Yeah just a question. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: It looks like the, it says sample building. It looks like it’s more than a sample buildout. Is that a proposed house? It seems to just max the site. You really property line to property line is built within, is that what’s going to be proposed? Tom Gonyea: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. That’s truly proposed. I don’t have a house plan in mind at all. I haven’t selected a builder to build it. What they come up with for a final design certainly will meet the requirements but that is not representative of what will be built there. Tietz: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you sir. Tom Gonyea: Thank you. Aller: Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion of the item and open it up for commissioner comments. And potential action. I’ll start off by saying I think it’s great that it is being considered and that you have a homeowner and their representatives that come in and work with the City on a solution that is a better solution than one they can do anyway and on that fact alone I would almost give you the nod but it does fulfill all the other requirements for a variance in that it’s the nature of the piece of property itself and it’s a reasonable use of the property and the other items that we would be looking at but I certainly agree with the minimizing of the impervious surfaces that Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 5 would be used and the benefits to the shoreland management districts that were considered that it tips me in favor of approval and I’ll be voting that way so. Any additional comments? Concerns. Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Just a, well just a observation. Obviously they want to maximize the lot for sale with new construction but it, the plans presented here limits any really further construction on, adjacent to the existing house. That 2 car garage kind of maxes out side to side you know lot setbacks so obviously they wanted to max the for sale site but you could have had 90 feet for the existing home and a reduced lot for the for sale site. And they still would have met all the standards. Just a comment. Weick: They still would have needed a variance right? Tietz: Yeah either way. Weick: You’re just saying switching. Tietz: It’s just flipping the 90 foot. Weick: I gotch ya, yeah. Aller: I guess I look at it that it should be presumed that a homeowner’s going to try to maximize the value of their property and maximize the space used so whatever is put on there we have representation in the city and they would have to come before us if they wanted a variance or to alter those setbacks when they’re in use and it sounds like most likely this board as established and the staff would not look favorably on that kind of request so. Any additional comments? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion. Tietz: I’ll read it. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision and a 10.04 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Red Cedar Point as shown on the plans dated May 15, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion by Commissioner Tietz and a second by Commissioner Madsen, any further discussion? Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 6 Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision and a 10.04 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Red Cedar Point as shown on the plans dated May 15, 2018 subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building: 1. Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing. 2. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures. 3. Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 6. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Engineering: 1. Drawing 4 – Site and Utility Plan: a) Change detail 1006 (Gate Valve and Box Installation) to detail 1005 (Water Service). b) Add City details 5202A (Bituminous Street Patching), 5203 (Curb and Gutter), 5208 (Concrete Driveway), 5209 (Bituminous Driveway), and 5221 (Tie Card). c) An abandoned watermain exists between the sanitary sewer and the watermain. Add note to make this known to the sanitary sewer and water installation contractor. 2. Drawing 5 – Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan: a) Add City details 5301 (Rock Construction Entrance) and 5302B (Erosion Control for Individual Lots) b) Provide geotechnical report. c) Include first floor elevation of buildings on adjacent lots. d) Existing and proposed elevations shall be shown at each lot corner and top of the curb at the lot line extension. e) Identify proposed soil stockpile locations. f) If importing or exporting soils for the development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 3. SAC and WAC fees due at the rate in force at time of building permit application. Environmental Resources: Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2018 7 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits as shown on the plans dated 5/15/18. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 2. No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area. 3. One tree must be planted in the front of each yard, as per city requirements. Parks: 1. Park dedication fees for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. Planning: 1. An escrow of 110 percent of the estimated demolition costs for the demolition of the detached garage on lot 2, block 1 must be received, and the detached garage must be removed within four months of the approval of the final plat. Water Resources: 1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to issuing permits. 2. Must show existing and proposed drainage. 3. The applicant will need to pay the surface water management (SWMP) fee for 1.010 acres at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: The motion carries and then I would just tack on a little recommendation that a notation be made of the community’s request that we keep an eye on the silt fences and there’s a history in that area of having problems and it seems like the plan itself is doing a lot to protect the surface area and the surface water management and we should be doing our best to enforce those requirements as we are imposing them on the construction sites. Tom Gonyea: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 5, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.