Loading...
PC Minutes 9-1-20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Weick: Reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting, as we have done over the past several months this is a Zoom meeting and anyone new to that I please ask for your patience. It does take a little longer in the process to hear everyone and to discuss the matters. It’s not quite as easy as being in person but we are making due. The one thing I do ask is that commission members don’t hold chats, text, or side bar discussions through the Zoom application. All of our discussions do need to be public and on the record. We have, as I mentioned, 3 public hearings on tonight’s agenda. The items are presented as follows. Staff will present the item. When they’re finished it’s open for the Planning Commission members to ask comments or clarifying questions. We will then ask the applicant to make any presentation or comments that they wish and they will then also be able to field the questions from the Planning Commission. At the conclusion of the applicant’s presentation I will open the public hearing and we’ll try and take our time there. We’ll summarize any emails that we received for the record. Anyone in person in the chambers will be able to come forward to the podium and be heard on the item and we also will put a telephone number up on the screen and you may phone in and leave your comment that way as well. Once we’ve had a chance to hear from everybody on the item we’ll close the public hearing. Again the Planning Commission will have a chance to discuss among themselves and then we will entertain a motion, a second and we will take a vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR LOT COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY WITH TURNAROUND ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7727 FRONTIER TRAIL. Weick: I will turn it over MacKenzie. Walters: Yep. So as mentioned this is Planning Case 2020-17. Applicant is Paul Pope and they are requesting a variance to construct a detached garage with a driveway turnaround. So the location is 7727 Frontier Trail, shown here. The property is zoned residential single family. That zoning district requires a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Because it is a corner lot the project has 30 foot front setbacks along both street frontages with the remaining two lot lines subject to 10 foot side yard setbacks. It is limited to 25 percent impervious surface coverage. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 2 The lot is substandard and non-conforming with a total lot area of 8,819 square feet. The existing house gives it a lot coverage of 19.9 percent. The house is non-conforming with 7 foot west and south front side setbacks and it has an existing shed which has a non-conforming 4.7 foot northern side yard setback. All of the other requirements of the zoning code appear to be met. I should mention this is one of the older houses in the city built in 1906. The applicant would like to add a 22 foot by 24 foot detached garage to the property and then install a driveway with a turn around to serve that garage. The justification is that the property does not have a 2 car garage. This is a requirement for single family dwellings under the city code. The lot is substandard in it’s lot area, it’s width and it’s lot depth and many other homes in the area have garages and very few homes in this neighborhood meet the required setbacks. The applicant would like to note that they have altered the design of the project and driveway at staff’s request and we’ll go over those changes in a little bit but one of the big impacts of those changes was staff required that a turnaround be added because the city code requires driveway turnarounds whenever a driveway accesses a collector street and 78th is designated as a collector street by the city code so the driveway changes staff required added a little over 2 percent to their required lot cover variance. So staff’s assessment in summary, very few properties located in this area meet the required front yard setbacks. Historically the City has given 11 setback variances to properties within 500 feet of this. Five of those setback variances were to allow garages to be installed. The proposed garage is set back further than the existing house. Any increase to the garage setback would also increase the needed lot cover variances and pushing the garage further back would eliminate any available real yard space. At 22 by 24 the size of the garage is about average for a 2 car garage and the total lot cover in absolute terms is not excessive at about 2,800 square feet. As was noted earlier some of the lot coverage is actually a result of staff request to ensure safe access to the site and water resources has stated that the area does not have any history of drainage issues. Given all these staff believes the proposed garage is reasonable and recommends the variance be approved subject to the conditions of approval one of which would actually be that the driveway turnaround be pushed back a half foot. That’s because the city code doesn’t allow driveways to exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line and so pushing that turnaround back a half foot would let it meet that design criteria. That is why staff is recommending a slightly higher lot cover variances than the applicant requested. It’s to accommodate about an extra 57 square feet of lot cover to allow for that design change in the driveway configuration. At that time I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. I will open it up for commission comments or questions for MacKenzie at this time. You can go ahead and just speak up and ask your questions if you have them. Give folks a few minutes to maybe collect their thoughts and read over notes. I see Commissioner Reeder you are in the house. That is good to see so we do have a full quorum. We’re hearing, MacKenzie hearing no questions. Great presentation. Seems pretty straight forward and at this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation. Perhaps via phone. Walters: I will run out and check and see if they’re on the Zoom call. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 3 Weick: Okay, we’re just going to take a quick break. Not a break. The applicant is not in the chambers right now so we’re just going to make sure that they’re not trying to call in to the Zoom or anything else. Walters: He has joined and will be with us in just a micro second. Weick: I love it. If you didn’t hear that the applicant will be joining here. Hello and welcome. Dean Urevig: Thank you. Weick: Can you tell us a little bit about your project that’s before us tonight? Dean Urevig: Alright. Well I’m Dean Urevig and I’ve been hired by Paul Pope to do the drafting and design work on this project. I’ve done quite a few different projects for Paul. Yeah it’s pretty basic garage. There is actually a plan to remove that shed that’s in the back once the garage is constructed because you know storing stuff in there, so the plan is for that to disappear. I don’t know what, there isn’t too much else to talk about the project. It’s a simple garage. Weick: Yeah great. And thank you for joining us tonight. Did the homeowner share with you their need for the garage? Did they express any justification or needs? Dean Urevig: Just the desire to park vehicles inside, especially in the winter time and yeah so that was the primary concern. And the work vehicle you know person is out and about working and they’ll be keeping their work supplies in the vehicle and want to be able to park it in the garage. Weick: Perfect. That’s good to know. Planning Commission any questions at this time for the architect? McGonagill: I guess Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: Yep. McGonagill: You know it’s a beautiful house. It’s been there since 1906. How are you going to build a garage, the garage is designed in such a fashion to fit in with the character of the house and the neighborhood? What’s he doing to do that? That’s a beautiful part of town. Want to be sure it kind of fits, you know what I’m saying sir? Dean Urevig: Yes. The code requires that there’s a substantial conformance with the design of the existing building and in my discussions with MacKenzie about that he said we want to make sure that the garage does meet that but we want to make sure that somebody isn’t putting up a steel building. You know we’re not doing an approval and then all of a sudden you end up with you know some steel post building there. So the existing building does have corner boards on it Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 4 and it has 4 inch lap siding so those are the types of things that are matching. You know and I’ve done these projects too where we need to put board and batten vertical siding on whatever it might be but we are meeting the requirement as far as that goes. McGonagill: Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman that answers my question. Weick: Great thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, thank you again for joining the Zoom call and I appreciate you having the opportunity to answer a few questions from us as well. We really do appreciate that. At this time I will open the public hearing portion of this item and invite anyone wishing to come forward and speak on this item. To do so there is no one in chambers and I’ll just give it a few minutes to see if anyone wants to call in. The number is on the screen. 952-227-1103. Did we have, I don’t believe, did we have any correspondence from. Walters: No member of the public contacted staff regarding this variance. Weick: Okay so there’s no emails or anything to add? Okay. I don’t see the, the lines are not lighting up over there are they? Okay. With that I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for commissioner discussion. I think one, before commissioners jump in I did want to make a couple comments on this item. One is, and I know this is, for those of us that have been on the commission for a few years you know you do see certain patterns and there are certain areas in the city that are older and don’t currently conform with current city code just based on when they were built. The one thing I would say there though is that applying city code should go both ways and by that I mean, if we’re going to say that you know that the home shouldn’t have to abide by the setback variances and things like that because the city code wasn’t in place, it doesn’t feel right to then go ahead and say the city code says you know we require 2 car garages. To me there’s a disconnect there and there is, you know there is significant, although it was noted that the lot cover is a modest increase. It’s fairly significant of a lot coverage increase in my mind as well. I’m still in favor of this and I’m in favor of it because I do believe that homeowners need, a garage is a need and I definitely see that. Like over a deck or a pool or something else that isn’t in my mind a needed item to increase lot coverage but I do wanted to, I did want to point out that there is a little bit of a disconnect between the usage of city code sometimes and I think we should be aware of that moving forward. Those are my only comments on the item but again as I mentioned I’m definitely in favor of adding the garage even with the lot coverage variances because again I, based on our winters and also just the safety of being able to put cars in the garage and conceal them from both the weather and maybe criminals or whoever might be out there is very important. And then the other item that I thought was really important was removing the shed. And even though it’s a relatively small amount of the lot coverage, every little bit in my mind helps and so that’s a huge, in my opinion I think that’s a really huge effort by the homeowner to do the best they can to work with the current situation so long winded way of saying I think this is a great project but I will open it up for other commissioner comments and/or motions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 5 Von Oven: I also think it’s a great project and I’ll make a motion. Weick: Wonderful. Von Oven: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a second? Noyes: I will second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Noyes. Any comment? Any final comment on the item before we vote? Hearing none we will conduct a roll call vote. Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated July 31, 2020. 3. The detached garage must be architecturally compatible with the existing home. 4. The driveway turnaround shall be relocated at least one-half foot north so as not to be on the property line; the maximum driveway width at the right-of-way line shall not exceed 24 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: The item passes 7 to 0 unanimously. Thank you again MacKenzie and everyone for their presentations this evening. Walters: Thank you. Dean Urevig: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020 6 Aanenson: Yep and do you just want to do the script that we normally give at the end of a variance that anybody could appeal this. Walters: Yep, yeah so this item is subject to appeal. There’s a 4 day window. With the holiday if we don’t receive an appeal by close of business on Tuesday the decision of the Planning Commission will be final. If we do receive an appeal it would then go to the City Council on the September 28th agenda for final determination. Weick: Thanks MacKenzie. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE 1”=200’ SCALE MYLAR REQUIREMENT. Weick: Do you want to move onto item number 2, the code amendment? Walters: Yep absolutely. So we have two small code amendments to discuss today. Both of these are probably rightly considered technical corrections. The first one is the city’s 1 inch to 200 foot Mylar requirement. So the city code requires that one of the documents developers submit when, for the recording of a final plat for a subdivision is that they submit a 1 inch to 200 foot Mylar reduction. This was previously a County requirement in 2004 and so we had adopted it into our code to align with county standards. As digital technology has become more ubiquitous the County decided they no longer needed this. The City has absolutely no use for a 1 inch to 200 foot scale Mylar reductions. Mylar’s are relatively expensive to produce so the City thinks it would make sense to remove this requirement from our code and just basically removing an unnecessary burden that’s currently being imposed. So that’s the gist of this amendment. I’d be happy to take any questions you may have on it. Weick: Great, thanks MacKenzie and open it up for commissioner comments or questions for MacKenzie. It does seem fairly straight forward MacKenzie but I will pause in case there are questions. I guess hearing none and seeing none I will open the public hearing portion of this item at this time. Anyone wishing to comment on this amendment may call in. 952-227-1103 is our call in number. Again there is no one in chambers to come forward and I don’t believe we received any email comments. Walters: We did not receive any comment from the public on this item. Weick: While we’re, I’m not going to say that. We’ll give it a few minutes for the phone in case someone’s dialing. Von Oven: I’m assuming we have no Chanhassen businesses that are solely based on producing Mylar reductions.