Loading...
CC Minutes 3-13-06 City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006 forward to seeing the report come back. We're pleased to see the highlights and the number of areas where we made progress this year. I'm sure to Councilman Lundquist's standpoint, we're not going to see any motors being rebuilt in the CIF, or at least hope that we're not as a way to reduce our oil discharge. And I'm sure that's not the case, but to the city staff we thank you for all your efforts on this and we look forward to seeing that report come back in June. Thank you. Any other, to my knowledge there is no action required for the council this evening, other than what we've completed. Lori Haak: No, that's all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Lori Haak: Thank you. DA VE & MARY.JO BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A 22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE (DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT) AND A 2.39% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE-STALL GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A MODIFIED THREE STALL GARAGE ON A NONCONFORMING CORNER LOT OF RECORD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again you did look at this at your last meeting on February 27th and you asked the staff to work with the applicant to see what we could do to reduce the hard surface coverage. Just a reminder, the two lots on Minnewashta will, one of the conditions we're doing is combining those so they have one lot of record, which we believe is prudent. So that's one mitigation strategy would be to combine the two lots. And then in working with the applicant, the issue was the garage across the street. The original proposal had the garage coming out Red Cedar Point Road, and a three car garage. In working with the applicant, we reduced the hard surface coverage and the garage size itself so it's a modified three car garage. There will be two door and the actual access will be off of, so we reduce the hard surface coverage on the driveway itself. So if you look in the staff report, we went from the 31.5 down to the 27, so ultimately again looking at the other side where the house sits with the grades and the retaining walls and the driveway that they used to get to the house, it seemed at this point ultimately there's changes we would look at trying to reduce that. They do do some shared parking with the neighbor next door that we believe this is the best way to get those numbers down and did recommend approval of that. And those conditions of approval are found in, on page 10 of your staff report. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, you feel like as you've worked through this in the last couple or three weeks that this is a good compromise? It looks like we've made some significant improvements here and the applicant's supportive of it and gets them at least closer to what they're looking for? 28 City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think the goal was to get a garage that they can put you know more than a single garage, which is there in place, which was their goal, and because of the topography next to the house, so I think in good faith the goal's always to try, as we stated before with the variances that we try to get those movement towards compliance and we believe this was what they.. . Councilman Lundquist: And this leaves the driveway and the stairs. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Next to the house so that they can get to the house without having to build some stairs and all that? Kate Aanenson: Right. That became too complex and ultimately they made the other modifications we looked at making some changes at that time. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So everything around the house stays the same. The only changes are around the garage. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bangasser, Mrs. Bangasser, are you in agreement with the proposal here or is there anything you'd like to address council with? Dave Bangasser: I'll be real brief. We are, we do find the compromise acceptable. Of the 7 I just might point out one fact. Of the 7 properties in the immediate area, this reduced plan would be the second smallest garage and we have the second largest amount of land there, so we do think that that fact, along with the facts that we presented 2 weeks ago make it very clear that we aren't deviating from the established standards for the neighborhood. We do think there are a couple of positives as far as from the city standpoint, as Kate mentioned. We're combining two non-conforming lots into one lot that does conform to the minimum lot size. In addition currently don't have a garage that meets the minimum standards and we will have one that meets that standard so with that we just ask your approval of this revised plat and we thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions of Mr. Bangasser? Very good. Thank you for taking the time over the last week, or couple weeks to work with staff on this. We appreciate it. Any other items? Questions on this. I'm sorry. Councilman Lundquist: Did you want to ask for more comment on the. Mayor Furlong: Public comment? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. 29 City Council Meeting -March 13,2006 Mayor Furlong: Certainly, if there's a desire for public comment. If anybody in the public would like to provide comment on this. Mrs. Paulsen, did you want to, have a question. Raise a comment. Janet Paulsen: I'm Janet Paulsen again. I certainly support Mr. Bangasser's request for a larger garage. That's not my question. My question is combining the lots and their impervious surfaces, and I'm wondering what are the parameters of doing something like that. Mayor Furlong: For combining two lots into one? Janet Paulsen: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is that a legal question? Kate Aanenson: I believe we addressed that last time too. It's a zoning lot so even though it is allowed by ordinances to combine the two, and we believe that it's prudent therefore, obviously Mr. Bangasser bought this lot. Somebody else could buy it and not attach to it. It is a lot of record which would have some rights to it so by combining it, we've eliminated the possibility of a separate structure on one. Janet Paulsen: So would this be applicable to any lot in Chanhassen that wanted to enlarge their impervious surface? They could buy a lot. I mean what are the parameters? The geographic parameters. Across the street or kitty comer or down the street? Ijust don't know. Kate Aanenson: Well we have those existing conditions. Lake Minnewashta, if you go on Minnewashta Parkway where the lots have been segmented by the road. It happens. Again it would be a lot of record. By doing, by combining it, making a zoning lot it gives you, affords the city actually greater protection so. Janet Paulsen: So this would only apply to a lot of record? Kate Aanenson: Well you can always buy a part of the property next door to you or attach it to your lot administratively. We've had that. Somebody wants to buy some of their neighbor's property and attach it to their lot administratively, that doesn't require a subdivision. That's another way to get more impervious surface too. Janet Paulsen: But those are adjacent lots. I'mjust wondering what are the parameters. Kate Aanenson: Well it's defined in the city code and that'd be the definition of a zoning lot. I believe what you asked me last time was combining a lot, and there's a separate definition for lot and a zoning lot as defined in the city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. These are separate parcels I think, and I don't want to get into nomenclature because I'm going to screw that up but this issue, when you raised it I know Mrs. Paulsen at the Planning Commission and I think we talked about it last time too, having a street divide a parcel, which is what this will become is a single parcel, Ms. Aanenson mentioned 30 City Council Meeting -March 13, 2006 some, to my knowledge, just looking at the County GIS system, that situation occurs directly to the north of this parcel. I think is that Hickory that angles up to the north? There are 3 or 4 properties that have the same type of situation where the single parcel is divided by the public street. Janet Paulsen: So does that mean they're right across the street from each other or down the street? Ijust don't know. Mayor Furlong: In those that I've mentioned, I believe they are straight across the street from each other. Kate Aanenson: So the intent would be not to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it. There has to be some nexus there and proximity. We wouldn't allow someone to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it under zoning law. Councilman Lundquist: Is that within our jurisdiction to determine? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: If they have to be. Kate Aanenson: Adjacency, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean reasonable people would say you have to, you know they'd have to be adjacent for it to make sense. We have jurisdiction to. Kate Aanenson: I believe so. I'll double check with the City Attorney, yes. Roger Knutson: Yes, what we're saying is, but for the street they're abutting and when you use the definition of abutting, it's very common to say even if you're divided by a street you're still abutting. If it's down the street and around the comer, then certainly it wouldn't meet our criteria. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. It's an interesting question, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or is there anybody else who wanted to make public comment? I'll bring it back to council for our discussion then. Seems that we've made some progress over the last 2 weeks since we first heard this. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff with the findings of facts presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 31 City Council Meeting -March 13,2006 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. ROSSA VIK ADDITION. 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT ARILD ROSSA VIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR 32