Loading...
PC 2003 02 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve Lillehaug, Uli Sacchet and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik, LuAnn Sidney, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Jeff Borns Jason Boldenow Ed & Janet King Jeff King 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7199 Frontier Trail 6890 Lotus Trail 7252 Gordon Drive 767 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR FRONT, LOT AREA AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 767 CARVER BEACH ROAD, JEFFREY KING. Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of either Sharmeen or Matt? Claybaugh: Question. Sharmeen, has the reversal of the plan that you're proposing here been discussed with the applicant? A1-Jaff: We initially talked about it when the applicant first submitted the application. One of the first things that we discussed was if you flip flop the house, you will be able to reduce the front yard setback. And there are issues on the, one of the applicant's concerns, and maybe he should address this issue in more detail, was a privacy issue for both his neighbors as well as himself. Blackowiak: That'd be a good question for the applicant I think. Claybaugh: I'm more after the city's perspective on it. If there's any down side on the city's analysis for reversing that plan with respect to the reversal causing additional hardship or how it affects the applicant beyond the privacy issues. A1-Jaff: I'm not aware of any other. You would have to remove the existing driveway. Push it over to the. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Claybaugh: It was my understanding though that was going to be removed as a part of the proposed plan as is. Am I correct? A1-Jaff: My understanding was the driveway was going to remain. Jeff King: It would be either way...but it would be in a similar spot. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have for staff. Blackowiak: Alright. Steve. Lillehaug: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a quick question or two. You mentioned that maple that is to the east. There's also an oak right in front of the house, about the same size. About a 24 inch oak. Is the plan to maintain that or, if you don't know maybe it's a question for the applicant. I don't think, and I wonder whether it gets affected by one plan versus the other. Jeff King: Do you want to see a picture? I've got a picture. Blackowiak: You know what, we'll. Sacchet: We'll have you up in a few minutes. Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll ask that when you come on up and you can have the microphone. Sacchet: Hopefully being considered so far. Okay, well I'll ask that question of the applicant then when you come up. Another question that I'm curious whether you know the answer. Maybe it's also an applicant question. When you flip flopped the floorplan, put the garage to the east side, would you envision the driveway to be to the east or to the north? Al-Jaff: I was envisioning it to the east and that was based upon a discussion that Matt and I had. Jeff King: It says north on the board... A1-Jaff: I think it says. Saam: Southerly site line. A1-Jaff: North of the southerly property line. Saam: Which would be east. Coming out to the east. Sacchet: Coming out to the east because it also can come out to the north, couldn't it? Saam: Not if it was, well maybe we should touch on that. Let me go up to the. One of the, well the proposed condition is driveway for the new house must stay within 10 feet of the southerly, which would be right here, sorry. Right here. Southerly side lot line to provide maximum sight distance for motorists on Carver Beach Road. That's one thing that I didn't mention. If you do Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 go out there, we want to try to get this driveway to hug one of these lot lines to provide the maximum sight distance for people coming around this comer. We don't want, as you were maybe alluding to Commissioner Sacchet, the driveway coming out to the north. People would kind of come around that comer and then mn right into it so that's why we want to get it to hug one of these lot lines to provide the maximum distance for motorists to see oncoming traffic. Sacchet: Thank you. That is a good answer. Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it? Okay, I don't have any questions at this time. Now would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jeff King: Hello. My name is Jeff King. I live at 767 Carver Beach Road. I've been a resident for 11 years. Well in 2 weeks I'll be a resident 11 years. I'd like to stay at this location but the house was built in the mid-50's and it was built as a cottage. I have a 1 car garage, 1 bathroom. Remodeling, it would be so extensive that I believe it's basically cheaper to rebuild. Right now my main problem is that my house is 57, or my lot is 57 percent the standard of a minimum lot. So right now between, I'm kind of, I have a problem that I'm short to begin with and that curve that you saw creates problems with the front setbacks and the side setbacks. So right now my house, even as it is, you couldn't build my house because it doesn't meet minimum standards. You couldn't build a 2 bedroom, 1 car garage house in Chanhassen so, and right now I'm over the limit of hard surface, which that's my problem right now and that's why I have to ask for variances. I'd like to address some of the safety issues because I've been thinking about that a lot too. Right now Carver Beach Road at my turn, it's roughly 23 feet wide and the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. So if you ever have 2 cars passing on my curve, both going 30 miles per hour, no one can blink because either one car's going to hit the other car or one car's going to be off the road. I mean it's extremely fast for that curve. Right now on the other side of that curve it's a steep bluff going down to the lake. I believe it's considered a bluff. I think it's more than, Sharmeen is it 30 degrees? A1-Jaff: Yeah, and I'll be passing out a photo. Blackowiak: 10 percent, I mean yeah. If you blinked on that curve you'd be down in the neighbor's bedroom or something. Jeff King: And our neighborhood has requested speed bumps and things in the past because really the speed limit should be a minimum 25 if not 20 going through there. My concern is there's no, you really, well you safely can't park. There's no on street parking because the road is so narrow. It's only 23 feet wide. I would like to have a longer driveway so when I have guests come over, it kind of comes back to that sight line thing again. Can I have the overhead? I drive a pickup truck and that's that square right here is the same size as my pickup track. As you can see it's still encroaches the 30 feet, but if you put the driveway down here, I mean it's even going to make it worst. There's a 5 foot drop from one comer to the next so you know a lot of the neighbors have their cars out. In fact the Carlson's who live in the, they live on this comer lot, they actually, they don't use their garage. They always park, it's not on the street but it's, they always park right there so if my driveway comes out there, I'm right where they always park their car constantly. Blackowiak: Excuse me. Could you point out, just on that picture where they normally park. Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 Jeff King: They park right here, well that's the edge of their garage though. Right about here is where they usually park. They've got, it's class V gravel. It's about as wide as a car and they always park 1 or 2 cars right there. I would really prefer to come out this side, for sight lines, and because I could have a longer driveway so when I have 2 or 3 people over, they're closer to the house. The other factor I've, all my utilities come in from this side over here. Gas, electric, sewer and water right now. I have a utility pole and everything comes in on that side. Otherwise I'd have to run all my utilities, sewer, water. I don't know what the invert elevation of my plumbing is. I haven't done enough research to know but since utilities come in that side, I'd rather have the house on that side. The house right now, I'd like to have the garage on the other side because if you look at the sight lines of my neighbors, it kind of creates a buffer having the garage there. And that's the way the current house is right now too. Right now this is all woods on that curve and it's a pretty view and I'd prefer, I look at the trees than my car. You were inquiring about a tree. They call this an oak tree. It's actually a maple tree. Right now it's, the bark is starting to peel off. It's not a bad tree, but it's not a good tree. It's leaning about, I'm guessing somewhere between 5 to 8 degrees towards the house. Every time there's a rain storm and a wind storm I get nervous because if it falls over, it goes directly across my bedroom. It's a nice tree and I'd like to save it but in all reality it's not, it's not a great tree and it's not a very strong tree. Is there any questions you have of me on this? Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, Matt I'd like to ask you one quick question. Just quick do some math here for us and then I'll come to you on this. Can you sort of estimate driveway lengths on both the, hugging the southerly side lot line and hugging the westerly side lot line. Can you give me an estimated driveway length on both of those? And you don't have to give it me right this second but. Saam: So just so I clarify. The driveway... Blackowiak: It would be the staff option, yeah. Saam: And what the applicant's proposing. Blackowiak: Yeah. I'd like to know what both of those lengths would be. Okay, that's my kind of question for in a moment or two. But let' s now, for applicant questions. Craig, I think you had a couple that maybe you wanted to ask the applicant. Claybaugh: Actually I didn't have any new questions. I have comments so. Blackowiak: Okay, well we'll wait for that. Okay. Lillehaug: I do have some questions. Good evening Mr. King. And my questions would be, you've indicated that you're really not too agreeable on staff's layout of how they flip flopped the garage and house, is that a safe assumption? Jeff King: That is safe. I mean Sharmeen mentioned it earlier. I got my packet with the staff report on last Friday so I really haven't had a chance to talk to her about it because I think you were closed yesterday. Lillehaug: Okay. You indicated the utilities are placed at the south, southeast comer of the property. Do you see any significant impacts of putting your house on one side or the other? I mean other than maybe a small increase in cost due to the length. Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 Jeff King: Like I said, I don't know the invert elevation dictates for plumbing how far it can go. I don't know how deep the sewer is at my house. I mean I could find out. I didn't have time to call Gophers State and site everything and check it but it's possible to do everything. Obviously electricity and water is no problem. The sewer'd be the only one I'm not positive on. Lillehaug: So legitimately there may not be any restrictions of the placement of the house due to the underground utilities? It's just more of a convenience than probably a cost reduction. Okay. Jeff King: Yeah, and the current house is that way right now. Lillehaug: And then one other question I have here is, you, in the drawings I see, they're pretty vague but there's an 8 foot wide length between the house and the garage. This kind of comes into play on the whole house pad, garage pad size. Could you kind of explain what this 8 foot wide length would actually be. Jeff King: What he's referring to is fight here between the garage. Actually the garage doors will be on this side. But between the garage and the house there's a bathroom and actually that'd be a stairs. It's kind of a wet area. The house that I'm currently interested in building was the 1999 Life House. It's kind of has a cottage look. It's kind of a modified A-frame. Around me I've got about 6 lot homes and a lot of rustic looking homes and I'm trying to figure something that will fit in the area. The neighbors next to me have a 2 story and the neighbors next to me have a split entry and the people with the log home kind of kitty comer, they have a 2 story also so I'm trying to get something that will fit in and that's just an architectural you know, part of the house to break up the front. Lillehaug: So that is part of the footprint of the house? Jeff King: It is, yeah. Lillehaug: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes, two questions, and I'm still unclear about the trees. There are 2 trees. One of the oak by the front of the house and the other one's the maple further east. Jeff King: Correct. Sacchet: Now, you were commenting about the oak or the maple when you were expressing that it was... Jeff King: It's labeled an oak but it's a maple. Since I've moved in I've planted 2 more maple trees that are probably 4 inch diameter now. So I have, I've known that the, I'm trying to make accommodations for the tree I'll have to take out. Sacchet: One is labeled and one is labeled oak. I'm still not sure which one you're talking about. Jeff King: The one that' s labeled oak would have to come out. Sacchet: The one that's labeled oak would have to come out. That would, and that's the one that's leaning? Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 Jeff King: It's leaning and it's heaving at my driveway right now and the bark is falling off of it. Sacchet: Okay. And the other one that's labeled maple, which you say is an oak. Jeff King: No, that is a maple. Sacchet: That is a maple? Jeff King: That would stay. Sacchet: That would stay, okay. Okay. Just to be clear about that. Okay. So. Jeff King: The other reason I'd like to have the driveway on the side I do is because on that southern lot line, that is a row of oak trees and if I put in a driveway, that's going to cause a lot of stress on those trees. It's, they didn't label it on my plan but there's about, approximately 5 to 6 oak trees at least 17 inches or more in diameter along there. Sacchet: Just across the lot line? Jeff King: Yeah. Obviously whoever built my lot took all the trees out right to the lot line. Sacchet: Okay. But it could be done. It could be done with the flipped footprint. It's just it's not your preferred solution. Jeff King: Well the orientation, the windows of the house and everything like that, I'd probably have to find a new plan and come back to the city with a new plan. I can't imagine having all my windows look at the neighbors house. That wouldn't make any sense to me. Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I have just a couple questions. Number one, it looks like at some point in time there was a deck on the house you're living in right now, and I don't see any plans for a deck on your new home. Is that something you're considering or I mean, that also plays into hard surface coverage. Jeff King: If I did something it would be a patio and it would be something that would be brick or something. It wouldn't be considered hard surface. I don't believe, I would do something. Blackowiak: It is. Jeff King: Okay. Blackowiak: Sorry. Jeff King: No I wouldn't, the house actually has a porch on the front of it and I would see myself using the porch more than I would. Blackowiak: A deck per se. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Jeff King: It's all shade there. You wouldn't be sitting out and sunning yourself right there. The tree canopy is really... Blackowiak: No, just as I drove by I just noticed that there was a header on the house so I mean there was a deck there at one point in time. Jeff King: The deck was so rotted I took it out 2 years ago. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. That's my question. Matt, before we, does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. I'm going to open this up for a public hearing in just a moment. Matt, can you give me those lengths on the driveway? Saam: Yeah. Now these are approximate on a scale but they're probably within a foot or two. The applicant's proposal where the garage is on the west side, that driveway length from the garage out to the street would be approximately 55 feet. And what staff is recommending with the driveway coming out to the east side, that driveway's approximately 57 feet. Sacchet: Is longer? Saam: A couple feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, it doesn't sound right. I was thinking that the east should be significantly shorter. That's why I wanted to kind of get a feel for that. And I don't know, it might just be an optical illusion but. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we comparing the original driveway versus the new or the two options? AI-Jaff: A couple of things going on. What I did was, I scanned these, the original survey and on a very primitive program if you will, I basically changed the layout. Also there are two different scales between what the applicant' s. Saam: This one's a 30 scale I believe. Yeah, I guess I assume the width, the total width of the house would be the same whether the garage was on the west side or the east side. The width is going to be the same so you measure the width of the lot, and then from the setback on the west side over to the street, you just subtract the width of the lot and then you get. I can show it up on. Blackowiak: Yeah, you know what, that would be helpful because as I looked at the survey, I just, it looked different to me. Claybaugh: We want to check your work. Saam: That's fine. Blackowiak: Well we just want to make sure we know what we're talking about here. Jeff King: ...it's fairly flat. That edge elevation...on the other side is more of a hill. Blackowiak: But it goes down towards the road. Jeff King: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: So it would be like draining and getting sun and those are not necessarily bad things in this climate. Jeff King: It's all oak trees right there. Saam: Okay so just, his proposal with the driveway coming up out this way, measuring from the edge of the garage out to the street, you have approximately 56 feet. 55-56 feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Saam: Now, well. Hold on a second. Let me just, the width of the house is going to remain the same. That's 63 feet so you go from the setback line, which is the farthest that the house can be pushed to the west, out to the street. That's about 120-121 feet. Subtract off the 63. You have 57, 58 feet left. So as I said, they're approximately the same. Blackowiak: It's an optical illusion. It looks so different. But we're trusting you on this one. Thanks. Right, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jeff Bores: Jeff Bores. I'm at 7199 Frontier Trail and Jeff's been a neighbor of mine for years and I understand what he's trying to do with the home and observing the lake. What I had noticed, if I could get this overhead. The road tums this direct and from a safety standpoint, from what I understand, the elevation of the home is considerably higher than the edge of the road. And with the consideration of the driveway and the parking conditions and if you see what's going on with the neighborhood, I can see where coming out with a driveway in, with the elevation, with ice and that sort of thing, you know I just question the safety issue with this elevation and actually if a car is coming in this direction, you'd have to take an awful lot of momentum to actually, really create any problems in regards to the home or what have you so. I guess I'd like to see Jeff stay in the neighborhood and I know what he's trying to accomplish with his views, but as far as the whole thing fitting into what's happening with the homes next door and that sort of thing, from what I understand of the neighbors and that, I think this is probably the preferable plan. I know I would like to keep him as a neighbor and you know I would like to have the same considerations for safety and that but I don't know if you folks have taken a look at that elevation there but sliding out the driveway into the traffic situation just doesn't seem like an option. If you look at the demographics of the lot, and you walk the property for some time, this really does seem like the logical application. And to me it's just a beautiful addition to the neighborhood so that's my only comment. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else be interested in saying anything tonight? Jeff King: I just have one comment. Blackowiak: You know, if you'd like to come on up to the microphone. That way we can get it on the record. Thanks. Jeff King: I guess I just don't understand the math because from my proposal to the city's proposal, how can we have a difference of 28 percent to 33.45 percent if the driveway' s the same length. I just don't, I don't understand this. Blackowiak: Good question. Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 JeffKing: It's new math but. Blackowiak: Let's, yeah. Good question. No, I understand and maybe Sharmeen and Matt, we can kind of hash through this one more time because that's why I was asking about driveway length difference because if there's a hard surface difference, that means the driveway's shorter on one side or the other and I was, what I was trying to get at by going through those numbers was parking. In other words, does it make sense. Are we going to be able to really get another full car in or is that not even an issue on the southern versus the westerly driveways. That's kind of what prompted my question. As I look at it, it seems that the southerly, I don't know if you guys will agree with me or not, it seems that the southerly driveway is shorter than the westerly. That would account for the difference in the hard surface coverage. Matt just told us it was a little bit longer and I'm thinking we' ve got a scale problem or what' s, help us out here please. Saam: No. Just as you look at it though, depending on where you are on the curve. Depending on where you are on this curve and you're measuring back to the driveway. I mean if you're up here and measure back to the house, obviously that distance is shorter than is you measure down here where I was at. So it's all subjective. To me they're approximately the same. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, if we could just look, I mean let's look at the, as I look at it, the upper left coruer of the garage as is, that to the 185 mark that you have up on the street. That distance, let's call that distance number i looks shorter to me than, let's go to the lower right comer of the house to the street. Distance number 1 looks shorter to me than what I would call distance number 2. Saam: Right here. Blackowiak: Yes. From there to the street. And if you're assuming that the area that the house covers is going to be the same, which we've made that assumption, isn't distance 2. The southerly distance shorter than distance 1. Saam: And this is your distance 2 where my pen is? Blackowiak: There to the street, correct. Can you give me that distance? Saam: 62 feet. Blackowiak: Why does it look so much shorter? Lillehaug: I concur. I mean I measured it and I scaled it. Blackowiak: You got the same thing? Lillehaug: ...same as he, yes. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess it's just an optical illusion then. Okay, then I'll go back to Sharmeen question. Where do we get the hard surface coverage discrepancy between flip flopping the proposals? AI-Jaff: One of the things that I did was pushed the garage so it's at the 10 feet to reduce the front yard setback variance. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, so that accounts for part of the hard surface coverage because it's coming out of the front yard setback. Got it, okay. That makes sense to me now. A1-Jaff: I should have explained that... Blackowiak: Okay. No, that's... Sacchet: I don't follow it yet to be honest. Blackowiak: Okay Sharmeen, let's let Sharmeen get up there and explain to everybody so we can all understand. All get on the same page where we're at here. A1-Jaff: One of the things that I did was rather than, I'm hoping that this shows. Okay. One of the things I did was I pushed the garage so it was parallel to the southerly property line and maintains the 10 foot setback. This in turn reduced the encroachment into the front yard setback. As you push this back to maintain the side yard setbacks, the 10 feet side yard setbacks, you increase the length of this driveway. That' s where you come up with the difference. Blackowiak: Okay, talk to me about hard surface coverage. So that has to do with the setback. Front yard setback. AI-Jaff: You increase the length of the driveway from, Matt may I borrow your scale. Blackowiak: I'm sorry to be doing this Sharmeen but I just want to make sure I'm understanding where you're coming from here. AI-Jaff: It's approximately 10 by, the driveway I believe is 20. 10 by 20 so that's 200. Blackowiak: So that's going to figure into your hard surface coverage right there. AI-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. A1-Jaff: Versus if you move it in this direction. So now. Saam: You're going to the property line though Sharmeen. A1-Jaff: And I should be at the street? Saam: Yeah. For the full length of the driveway. That's what I measured. AI-Jaff: Okay. So now it's at 7 feet. Well then it's how I measured both. Blackowiak: Okay. Then can you give us. A1-Jaff: 70 versus 50. I'm sorry, less. I need to do this one more time. I apologize. Claybaugh: Point of clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Claybaugh: Sharmeen, what we're actually comparing is the proposed survey submitted by the applicant, which would be the 55 feet. A1-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. Here's the altemative plan so there isn't, in my mind it's not necessary to take that westerly measurement. That' s not part of what he' s proposing. Blackowiak: No. I'm asking, I asked for that. Just for my own head. I mean I want to figure out parking. We're talking parking issues. We're talking safety. I kind of want to know. A1-Jaff: But hard surface is measured on the site itself. Blackowiak: Yeah, but I'm also looking at driveway length too. I'm thinking parking. You know it's. A1-Jaff: You should have enough length for the parking. That shouldn't become an issue. Blackowiak: No, but I'm just saying if he's having guests over, you know is it going to be significantly less parking doing the southerly versus westerly, that was kind of my question. You know if there's no parking on Carver Beach Road, which makes sense, what are the options and how do we accommodate this. AI-Jaff: There will be room for 2 cars within the front yard, on the driveway. Blackowiak: Like 2, 2 by 2, so 4 cars? Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Plus parking in the garage, okay. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: That's reasonable. Thank you. Does anybody have any other questions of staff? Public hearing's still open. Last chance if anyone wants to comment. Jeff King: I have one more, two more comments. Blackowiak: Sure. Jeff King: I want to re-address Steve's question about redoing the utilities if the driveway's them. I'm going to have to redo all my site utilities. I don't think they'll let me have all my sewer and water under a driveway so everything will have to be moved over and re-tapped into the street. Second of all I could also square up my. The reason I cocked it a little bit was just an architectural thing to try to blend the house into the turn. I mean it can be put on, mine can be put on, my proposal can be squared up also. I think it gains you somewhere around 4 inches on the encroachment. You know, I think it just looks better if it was kind of faced the curve a little bit so, but it will be a financial, a more substantial financial impact to redo all the utilities. The site utilities because the, I don't think they're going to let me run sewer, water gas and all that under a driveway. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Just a comment. I think the issue of the coverage is a critical one here because it's shoreland, and I realize he's exceeding it to a certain degree. I think it'd be helpful just from the standpoint of me picking up this report, if they had a matrix showing the coverage of the house, the garage and the driveway and where the driveway was located. It was difficult for me to see how much coverage there was or where the driveway was a single driveway, a double driveway or something. Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. I think we've got a few options floating around tonight so, part of the issue. One more comment? Jeff King: I' m not on the water. I know anything in that neighborhood ends up in Lotus Lake but I'm not on the shoreline. And that whole bluff down below me is all trees. There's no development. I don't think it's, any of that is developable land. In fact the neighbors next to me are on an unbuildable lot that they built on since I've been there so I know you know things have changed. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. At this point I'm going to close the public hearing. It's time for comments. Steve would you like to start? Lillehaug: Sure. Let me start with an easy comment. I don't have a problem with the surface coverage area. We're talking a few percentage differences depending on which option we're looking at. I don't have a problem with that. I guess the point I want to draw further attention to, and it's a single point that I have a problem with is the sight line distance. The ideal case, this is the ideal case why the city has a 30 foot setback on a front yard property, is to maintain a sight line in this particular case. 26 feet seems reasonable. However this option, it doesn't appear that this is an option that's acceptable to you. I would support the 26 feet. I don't support a 20 foot. That seems, you're impeding the setback by 10 feet and that's too much in this case. The sight distance is important in this case because it is a safety issue. And around this curve to maintain as much safety as possible I think it's very important, and without increasing it in this case, because right now your house does not encroach into that setback. Therefore I think this is one particular point that we need to maintain and withhold and that we cannot encroach upon because if we do encroach upon it, it's going to increase negative impacts to safety and I'm not willing to go forward with that. There are other obstacles such as trees and bushes in the sight line also. By further putting a house in that sight line it kind of increases the safety obstacles two fold because you' re really impacting that sight line to provide absolutely almost no sight line because there's trees, bushes and then you're moving that house in that area also. So I think that this option would really be a potential detriment and I don't support it. And I really do want to reiterate again that a 30 foot setback is ideal. One other comment I guess or question I'd like to make is, can we break this variance up? Blackowiak: We can do anything, sure. What would you suggest? Give me a suggestion. Lillehaug: Well there's two variances... Blackowiak: Do you want 3 separate? Lillehaug: ...hard surface coverage and then one for the front yard setback. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Then I would also, I don't want to throw other options out there but I would be more in support of impeding the rear yard or side yard setback than anything with the front yard setback at this point. Blackowiak: Alright. So then your suggestion would be to break this into two motions. Number one, for the front yard setback. Number two, for the hard surface coverage. Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, with the goal of what? Lillehaug: With the goal of what? Well, I guess there really wouldn't be a goal that would probably be acceptable to the applicant if they weren't both approved. Blackowiak: But just sort of what the direction that if you were going to go into a setback, you'd prefer it more to the back than into the front? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: Yes. For the variance it's not a question in my mind that the applicant needs a variance. I think that goes without consideration. It comes down to a question, typically in all these cases, the degree or the extent of the variance. And as Commissioner Lillehaug stated, it needs to be looked at in relative terms. But my fellow commissioner, I don't struggle necessarily with the percentages on the hard surface coverage. It's a consideration, absolutely but my primary concern is the public safety associated with the sight lines. The variance that you're asking for on that is a 33 percent variance. 10 feet doesn't necessarily sound like a lot. 33 percent does, in my mind. And as such, with respect to possibly splitting the motions, I would be in favor of that, but with respect to the 33 percent variance on the setback, I could not support that. Blackowiak: Alright. Uli. Sacchet: Well I agree with the comment that it's definitely a variance in order. I mean the applicant needs a variance in this particular case a variance is necessary, by all means. However, when we have a change of a non-conforming situation what we look at is the non-conformance increased, is it very much increased or is it decreased. Ideally from the city's point of view we like to see the non-conformance decrease. On that basis I first thought that the staff proposal was very good because it made an effort to balance the different aspects of non-conformance. Getting the side yard setbacks respected, which before were a little bit encroached upon. Get front, well I don't know whether you call that front yard. It's the side yard towards the street or the front yard setback. Maintain that as much as possible. It's a safety concern. I think that's very significant. It's a second aspect that needs to be looked at. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the fact, I feel this hasn't had enough time to be discussed and thought through from the applicant's side for one thing. It's my understanding from the applicant's comments that you just got this alternative proposal on Friday. And then on top of that seems to be, I think it would be really helpful in order to pin this down to make clear decision, to be very clear in terms of how are these calculations made for the hard cover surface coverage. Even though that is secondary. That got a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 little muddled here in the discussion. That was unfortunate so I personally, and I don't know whether that's fair to the applicant, I would want to give this more time to really bring it a little bit more into sync with what the situation is. What can be done. I don't think this has been cooked enough so therefore I would want to propose we table this. Blackowiak: Thank you. I don't know if I agree we need to table this. I agree that there's some room for improvement and some more fine tuning, but I think that within the parameters that staff has set, in terms of the setback from the road at 26 feet for a maximum. No, minimum. That'd be a minimum setback. That's kind of my starting point. I really think the sight lines are important like my fellow commissioners have agreed. Those I think are things that we need to, those sight lines are things that we have to preserve, especially in this area because it's a tough area to build. The variance, you need a variance to build. We don't want you to leave Chanhassen. That's not our intent here. We're just trying to make it the best possible layout for this piece of property, and you don't have a lot of property to work with. I mean it's tough and the design you have is gorgeous. That'd be a great addition to the neighborhood. I certainly agree with that. We just have to figure out how we can maintain the sight lines. I think the parking issue is huge. I mean I want to make sure that if you're going to do a house, that you're going to be able to have people over and be able to have them park on your driveway. I mean you have to take that into consideration. I like Steve's thoughts about maybe changing a little bit on the side yard setbacks and the west and the south. We could even look at preserving what's existing. In other words not increasing what's increasing by tweaking it a little bit, shifting the house ever so slightly. I mean I think we've got some options here so I don't think we need to necessarily table this. I think I would feel comfortable moving forward with staff's proposal. Setting those 26 feet, 28 percent, setting those numbers and then having staff work with the applicant to fine tune the project because I think we can do it. I think we can do it. I think it can be done within the numbers that we have and so I would certainly vote for going ahead with this proposal and moving it along this evening. So since Steve wanted to split these motions into two, I will let him make the motion this evening. Lillehaug: I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve a variance request to allow, well I'm not sure if I can make a motion really because I don't have specific percentages. So let me withdraw my motion. A1-Jaff: How...for you. Lillehaug: Say again. A1-Jaff: Do you want me to split the motion for you? Lillehaug: Well the problem I'm having is I don't have a certain percentage for hard surface coverage. Blackowiak: Or not to exceed? Or maybe we give a little. I mean I don't, split the difference between the existing and the applicant or you know, give him a little more room to work as long as you maintain the front setback. Because I think that we've all agreed that that is, in our minds, one of the most important. Lillehaug: Well then let me ask a question here. The existing hard surface coverage is 29.5 percent. Do we need to approve, do we need a variance to approve an existing condition? To maintain that... 14 Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: I think we do. I think yeah, we still need a variance because it doesn't meet current standards. The goal is to not to increase the non-conformity. So if we went with 29.5, that would be within our. Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves a variance request for a 29.5 percent, which is the existing hard surface coverage area. That would be it. Blackowiak: Okay. And do you want to do a separate one for the setback.9 Is that what you're looking for? Or do you just want to put them all together? It' s up to you. Lillehaug: I guess I would like to keep them separate. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. So we'll, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I second that. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request /f2003-2 to allow 29.5% hard surface coverage for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on plans dated January 3, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: A second motion please. Lillehaug: I guess I don't think I have a second motion. Blackowiak: Well we need to do something. The staff's proposal is at 26 feet. So you're comfortable with that, which would give you sight lines of 100 and, no. 200 feet, is that correct Matt? So the 26 foot setback would give you 200 foot sight lines. Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that we approve a variance request to allow a maximum of a 26 foot yard setback. Sacchet: Minimum. Lillehaug: Minimum? Minimum. Okay. A1-Jaff: Would you also eliminate condition number 8 please. Lillehaug: Yep, eliminate condition number 5 and eliminate condition number 8. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, we'll do that. Lillehaug: Boy I struggled through that, sorry. Blackowiak: That's okay. So that would be a 26 foot front yard setback, correct? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Clarification. Condition number 4 stays as is? 15 Planning Commission Meeting -February 18, 2003 AI-Jaff: Matt? Condition number 4 stays as is? Saam: Are you asking? Lillehaug: I would like to withdraw condition number 4 also. Sacchet: I wondered about that. Blackowiak: So the applicant work with staff to sight the driveway as to maintain appropriate distances? Lillehaug: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. We'll sort of redo number 4. Sacchet: Mean not saying work with staff, you just take it off? Blackowiak: No. Put condition number 4, I'm saying that they will work with staff to. Sacchet: Will work with staff. Blackowiak: In an effort to maximize sight distances. I think that's what we've all been saying is that safety's important on this road so, let's let them work with them and. Lillehaug: Before approving this and before I finalize my motion, can I ask a question on this? Okay say the applicant goes ahead and wants to go to this 26 foot point. Does he, if he was within the setback of the side and rear yard, would he have to come in front of this board again to get approval for those variances? If there was one required because existing conditions, I mean they don't meet. Blackowiak: Oh you mean so if he was, oh if he encroached into. Lillehaug: If he encroached into the side and rear, he would have to come in front of this board again for a variance. Would this be an appropriate time to table this so he doesn't have to redo this? That's why I'm kind of leaning towards... AI-Jaff: There is one issue with tabling. We're running into a deadline, unless the applicant. March 4th we run into the 60 day deadline to process this application. We're going to need additional time. Blackowiak: Do you have a comment for us Kate? Is that why you're coming up here? Aanenson: You didn't notice for any other additional variances so you can't grant them at this time. They were not noticed. Legally you have to notice those. We can ask for additional 60 days for additional information. He doesn't have to, you can signify that you need additional information. Therefore we get the additional 60 days. Blackowiak: Okay. Or else we can just go ahead and grant this evening, what's been requested and should plans change or should something else happen, then we can just come back and, so that's certainly up to you. You're making the motion. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Lillehaug: I maintain my motion with the deletions. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion regarding the 26 foot front yard setback. I think we need to vote first. So I have the motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Yes, I can second that. Without 4, 5 and 8. With 4 stating will work with staff to maximize sight distances. Blackowiak: Okay. Friendly amendment? Claybaugh: Friendly amendment would pertain to the orientation of the structure on the lot as it sits right now. The way the motion is proposed, it calls for a 26 foot minimum setback, but doesn't address the square footage that goes beyond the 30 feet. So the house changed with respect to the orientation on the lot, you could have substantially more square footage. Blackowiak: It's already been addressed in the hard surface coverage figure. I think we're okay with that. I mean you wouldn't be adding anything that isn't already there. A1-Jaff: And you can just reference. Blackowiak: The staff's layout. AI-Jaff: Staff' s proposal. Staff's layout. Claybaugh: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe you just want to make that amendment.. Just reference staff's proposal. Claybaugh: Is that sufficient? Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept that? Lillehaug: Yes. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request//2003-2 to allow a 26 foot front yard setback, consistent with staff's proposal, for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on the plans dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Show all the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, i.e. sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain. 2. Show all proposed and existing contour lines along with the proposed house elevations. 3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk, etc. 4. The applicant will work with staff to maximize sight distances for motorists on Carver Beach Road when siting the new house on the lot. 5. Deleted. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 6. The applicant shall flip the home as shown in staff' s layout. 7. The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback. 8. Deleted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: So what happens next? A1-Jaff: It's been approved. Blackowiak: Mr. King, please talk to Sharmeen. In a nutshell. Just hammer it out. I really think it's a great looking house. I think you can work something out, and I'd hate to have you see, I mean we'd love to see you again but you probably don't want to see us again so work it out and build a nice house. It will be a nice improvement to the neighborhood. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 21, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18