Loading...
PC Minutes 7-7-20Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 13 Building: 1) A building permit will be required for unit improvements, silo installation, and unit remodeling. Engineering: 1) If an intensification or increase in use or an expansion is requested for the site, a traffic analysis will be required to determine the volume of traffic the new site will generate. 2) Any future intensification of the site usage shall investigate the use of the driveway access to Audubon Road. Natural Resources: 1) The applicant shall work with city staff to finalize a planting plan. 2) The applicant shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the north side of the building, which includes Autumn Blaze maple, Siouxland poplar, Black Hills spruce and Amur maples. 3) The front planting areas shall have wood mulch as a ground cover. 4) All proposed parking lot landscape islands and peninsulas shall comply with City Code. Planning: 1) When the site is redeveloped or the usage intensifies, the existing pickle tanks shall be removed from the property unless they are used as part of the building tenant operation. Water Resources: 1) Updated plans illustrating the total land disturbance activities associated with all site improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the city. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: That motion carries unanimously 6-0. And we with that, thank you again to everybody for presentation. Staff as well as the applicant and good questions on behalf of the commissioners. I’m looking forward to seeing that business prosper for Chanhassen. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7701 FRONTIER TRAIL. Weick: MacKenzie. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 14 Walters: And just to note this item if appealed would appear on the July 27th City Council meeting. As mentioned this is a variance to construct an open porch with a zero foot lot line setback at 7701 Frontier Trail. So this is located in the oldest part of the city. It’s zoned Residential Single Family. The lot in question is a corner lot. Modern zoning standards would require a 15,000 square foot lot, 30 foot setbacks from both street frontage, 10 foot side yard setbacks for the non-street lot lines and limited to 25 percent lot cover. The parcel in question is just under 10,000 square feet. Has about 16 percent lot cover. It has a non-conforming zero foot front yard setbacks along both the north and the west lot lines. Portion of the home and eaves encroach into the city right-of-way. The detached garage has a non-conforming 4 ½ foot front yard setback but it does appear to meet the other aspects of the city zoning code. So the applicant is proposing to reorient the main entrance of the house which currently exits directly into the right-of-way. They are proposing to shift it south and then construct an 8 by 25 ½ foot open porch to maintain, which would maintain the home’s existing setback along the lot line. The moved reoriented entryway will increase safety. The porch will provide protection from elements and improve the façade of the home. The setback they’re requesting they believe is necessitated by the existing placement of the home on the lot. The porch being further back from the intersection will not in any way negatively impact sight lines. Because it is open style it’s not expected to significantly increase the visual mass of the home. The porch has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. Staff looked over the area. We noted that of 6 houses along the two block stretch of Frontier Road 4 have zero foot setbacks. Again this is one of the oldest parts of the city. Stuff was built where it was built. Staff agrees that reorienting the entrance will improve the property. We believe the existing placement of the home justifies the requested setback and is reasonable relief for a non-conforming property. Staff is concerned about allowing the porches eaves to encroach 4 feet into the right-of-way. Several of the neighborhoods throughout the city that also have homes built right up to lot lines where road right-of-ways are much smaller. Much more constricted and staff is concerned about establishing that precedent of allowing encroachments into the public right-of-way. Engineering staff has noted that in the future they will be conducting a street project in this area and they are eager to minimize any encumbrances with the right-of-way. That being said staff is recommending approval of the requested variance with the condition that the porch be redesigned so the eaves do not encroach into the right-of-way. And I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. I know I went through that pretty quick. Weick: Nope that’s probably fine. Thank you MacKenzie. I will open it up for our commissioners. Any questions for MacKenzie regarding this variance? Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. Is the redesign of the eaves to satisfy the requirements here? Is that easily done or is that kind of a difficult or burdensome change that would need to be made? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 15 Walters: I would defer that to the applicant. They’d be in a better position to discuss the architectural implications. Staff’s belief is that it is a viable change but again I think they are the best party to address that question. Noyes: Okay thank you. Walters: Yep. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: Is the overhang just on the end of the porch? Show me where it overhangs. Walters: Yep so if you look at this picture right here, the lot line would go. Reeder: We don’t have it. Walters: Oh could we get the power point up please? Reeder: There you go. Walters: If you look at the edge of the house the lot line basically runs parallel with the wall so the overhang is that kind of 4 foot there. Off the edge of the house that would go into the street. The existing house has approximately a 2 foot eave that would run you know there that’s not shown on this drawing. Here’s a good example. Again keep in mind the foundation of the house is basically paralleling the lot line. Reeder: So that’s why I thought it was just the end piece that’s going to have to be redesigned. Walters: That’s the recommendation yes. Reeder: Right. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Other questions or a need for clarification of MacKenzie. Okay hearing none thank you MacKenzie. I would invite the applicant if present to come forward. Just state your name and address for the record and tell us about the project and certainly if you can address the eaves question that’d be great. Dan Burke: Sure, that’s the main issue. My name’s Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th Street. Lived there for 36 years and this has been my neighbor. I bought my neighbor’s house when he moved. And in the neighborhood, I don’t know if any of you know the house but I’m kind of the hero in the neighborhood at this point for it’s been cleaned up considerably at this point. I get a Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 16 lot of people walking by and giving me thanks for fixing the neighborhood. And the only thing I can say about the overhang is, the existing and if you go back to that one picture of the drawing. Or not of the drawing, of the rendition there. The overhangs on the existing house are about a foot. Not two feet. About a one foot overhang and I would happily reduce the overhang from 4 feet but I’ve requested I make it down to the existing overhangs of the above part because that would allow me to put a kind of a gable end on the end of that porch versus the hip roof design that it has now and that really I think would fit in with the other overhangs and the other lines of the house. And other than that I really, the house was built in 1896. I think it’s the second oldest standing house in the city right now. The oldest one I believe is on West 78th Street and it was built a year earlier. And the third oldest house is about 2 houses down so it’s an old neighborhood and we have a lot of issues with the old houses and I want to maintain it. I don’t want to, I mean my alternative would be to just tear it down and I don’t want to do that so, and having looked at it for the last 36 years I think a porch would genuinely improve the looks of the house on the south side. And moving the entrance will greatly improve just the appeal of the house and the safety of walking out onto the main street of, on Frontier Trail so that’s why if you have any questions I’ll gladly answer them but I would like to have the one foot just to be able to really match the character of the rest of the house and with that. Weick: Great, yes. And I think I echo your neighbors in saying thank you as well. You’re brave. Dan Burke: Oh you don’t know the least of it. This is the least part of it. Weick: I can only imagine. Dan Burke: But I don’t know where you live but so I think you’ve driven by the house once or twice. Weick: I run by there. Dan Burke: Oh okay. Weick: It’s great back in there it’s fun so. Dan Burke: Yeah it’s a great run. It’s a great neighborhood. Weick: Yeah. Dan Burke: And the neighborhood’s changing with all the other houses and there’s so few that are left from the original that it’s nice to have somebody crazy enough to try to save one. Weick: I say brave. Not crazy. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 17 Dan Burke: …That’s my presentation. I’d just like to have a one foot overhang. Any other questions I’ll be happy to answer. Weick: Yeah and certainly would open it up to our commissioners with any questions for the applicant. Or comments. Von Oven: Yes so, Commissioner Von Oven here. Just I guess a clarification on that last piece. I’m not sure how exactly to do this but you know I’m looking at the staff report and on page 6 of the staff report there’s the rendering that we’ve been using. Dan Burke: Right. Von Oven: The proposed and then the existing. Is what you’re saying in the existing picture the roof line that I’m seeing come out. Dan Burke: What I would call a shed roof line that’s directly to the house, the main roof along the whole thing. I would envision that, that part of it coming to the edge of the house and then at, and then one foot beyond that have a gabled roof like a triangle at the end of that to have a slight overhang over the stairways coming up and so I can, because that’s now the main entrance to the house. Give me a little protection for somebody coming up the steps. The basically triangle gable roof right there right on the very end of that I think would fit in with the architecture of the other dormers and everything else on the house so. That’s what I’m looking at doing is moving that little part that’s going up to the house. Moving that all the way to the end but then the overhang itself only being a one foot overhang which matches the rest of the house so that’s what I’m looking at doing. Weick: Got it. Von Oven: And then as a follow up staff went through their findings. They recommended zero based on a desire not to have any overhang. Did you come back to staff with exactly what you’re proposing or is this, would this be the first time they’re hearing that part of the proposal? Dan Burke: Well yes I did. I came back to them. They were already writing this report and MacKenzie told me that if I came back to the meeting and asked for this same protrusion over the lot line that the staff would support that. Now MacKenzie’s here he can argue with me but that’s what he told me on the phone. Walters: I will absolutely confirm that. The report had already been published at that juncture. We did discuss it with the City Engineer and engineering staff. They agreed that given the existing encroachment, as long as it was kept to existing they were comfortable granting the encroachment agreement so staff would wholeheartedly support the proposal. Von Oven: So that’s helpful, thank you so much. That’s all I have for now. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 18 Weick: Thanks for that clarification Commissioner Von Oven. Reeder: So Mr. Chairman MacKenzie the overhang on the top of the roof is that a foot too? Is that what we’re saying that we’ll have it the same? Walters: Yes that is my intent. Dan Burke: The overhang on the main roof up above is a foot. So it’s just going to match it. Looks like it had been there. Reeder: I think that’s for staff consideration for the future things that we consider we’re matching existing things that were done, yeah. I’m comfortable with that. Weick: Other questions for our applicant? All very good so far. Okay hearing none thank you very much. Dan Burke: Thank you. Weick: Again we appreciate what you’re doing in the neighborhood. At this time I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone present wishing to come forward and provide comment on this item may do so now. The call in number is on the screen. We’ll keep an eye on the phone and see if we get a caller and we did receive an email. It was in favor MacKenzie I believe of this variance. Walters: I will summarize it while we wait to see if we get any calls. This email is from Paula and Jack Atkins, 220 West 78th Street, Chanhassen. They support the variance request by Dan Burke for the house at 7701. They say he’s made great efforts to improve the quality and attractiveness of the neighborhood’s housing stock. They think the plan upgrades are tasteful and well thought out and they think these small lots and extraordinary setback requirements in this area are a hardship in and of themselves. Weick: Thanks MacKenzie and again that email will be summarized, or included in it’s entirety in the record as this item moves forward. Things are quiet I believe. Mr. Generous there’s no calls so with that and seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open it for commissioner discussion and/or a motion. I would just say based on what I’ve heard so far, I think what we would add to the motion is that we would, or a possible motion would read that we would allow the applicant to match the existing overhang. I think there’s, whether it’s a foot or 13 inches or whatever it is. I think in the spirit of this if we so desire the motion could be to match the existing architecture of the overhang with the porch. It sounds like that would be acceptable to city staff as well as the applicant. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 19 Walters: Staff has directed a sample language where the commission would direct, would approve it subject to conditions of approval as amended. So maybe to direct staff to so amend it. We would alter the variance document and that would be able to go forward. Weick: That’d be even easier. Thank you. But before we jump to that, I don’t want to jump the gun if there’s any other comments or discussions. If not I certainly would accept a motion. Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. I would propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a 40 foot front setback variance for the construction of an open porch subject to the conditions of approval as amended and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Von Oven: Second. Weick: We have a second I believe from Commissioner Von Oven. Von Oven: Correct. Weick: Yes. Wonderful, thank you and with that we will open for any final comment or discussion for the record on the item. Hearing none we will have a roll call vote. Noyes moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a 40 foot front setback variance for the construction of an open porch subject to the conditions of approval as amended and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: I am also in favor which is a unanimous 6-0 decision in favor of the variance. Thank you to everyone involved. City staff as well as the applicant. Good luck. And look forward to seeing your improvements in the neighborhood. Thank you very much. With that we will move to the third and final item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPARRAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. Generous: Planning Commissioners, Planning Case 2020-10 is for an amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development. Tonight’s the public hearing. It goes to City Council on July 27th. The City’s correcting this. We’ve had discussion with a property owner who would like to subdivide their land within part of Chaparral. However when you look at the ordinance we discovered that the intent portion of the ordinance and the permitted uses in the ordinance did not match and so we’re here to correct that. Chaparral subdivision is located east of Powers