Loading...
PC 2006 09 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: MARVIN & PATRICIA ONKEN: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6221 GREENBRIAR AVENUE, PLANNING CASE 06-29. Public Present: Name Address Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior Margaret R. Sloan 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark, why don't we start with you. Undestad: I really don't have any questions on this one. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: There'd be one additional person that we're aware of that would go into this particular unit. And then is there, is there a requirement for additional parking for the units such as this? Metzer: They have 3 garage stalls and I believe a 36 foot wide driveway, which from my understanding will be enough in speaking with the applicant. Keefe: Okay, it's the city's opinion that there'll be enough off street parking to accommodate this additional unit? Metzer: Yes. Keefe: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 Dillon: So if this variance is granted and it goes forth and all that stuff, what happens if the property changes hands? Metzer: Typically what we'd do is we'd require that the kitchen be removed or the sanitary facility, one of the items which are necessary to classify it as a separate dwelling unit is defined as eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities. So removal of one of those would basically eliminate the need for a variance. Dillon: And how is that enforced? Aanenson: If you look at the conditions of approval. The first condition, I'm on page 3 of the staff report recommends that the second dwelling unit not be rented to anyone than the applicants. As stated in a letter, the applicants of this proposing to have their 91 year old mother, mother-in-law live with them. Just antidotally, we did receive a concern from some of the neighbors about changing the character, which comes up under the circumstance but we did pull up, we've done probably 3-4 of these. There isn't a big rash of requests for these. I'll just pull up one that we did on Briarwood Court, which is off of Galpin. That was done in '01 and the same owners are living there. Then there was one done in 1990, and that was a similar situation. Mother, mother-in-law. Still living there. And then most recently this Planning Commission did approve a request from Mr. Carlson, up in the Minnewashta area for a handicap daughter, so we don't see more than maybe 1 every 5 years. But understanding your concern Commissioner Dillon and that, we do put that condition in there. It is recorded through the County so if it gets listed as a mother-in-law apartment or something like that, then they need to check and see exactly what the conditions and limitations are when they list that property and how it should be listed. The reason that we don't have as much concern about these. These folks went through the process to do it forthright. We do have other ones where we put the rental ordinance in place that sometimes tried to go under the radar and maybe fix something up but we haven't historically had a problem with these types of units and how they're being used. Dillon: Okay. Papke: The only question I had was addressed. McDonald: Yeah, that was pretty much the one question I had too. At this point then, if the applicant is here, would you please come forward. And I guess the only thing we're looking for is if you have something else you would like to add to what staff has already said or something else that you feel that we should be aware of. Marvin Onken: Well I guess when we started this project we had envisioned that we would try to build a home for my mother-in-law that was as much like our home that you would expect to live in as possible and we didn't realize that including a kitchen facility would infringe on the multi-dwelling home ordinance or whatever. So we had decided we wanted to do this before we found out the details so, had we known in the beginning we probably wouldn't have bothered really with this but I'm hoping somewhere down the line the ordinance is changed such that we can do this without going through all of this stuff. We are willing to remove the kitchen after it's 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 no longer needed. There's no way to really separate this home on the lots and, we're putting in an elevator. We decided to put in a residential elevator because we thought eventually we would need it anyway so we're going to use it as long as we might need it in the future anyway. We have persuaded mom to give up her driving so she has sold her car. There's not an extra car involved in this particular application so we're, we look forward to whatever help you can give us in our project here. Thank you. Any questions? McDonald: Any questions commissioners? I guess not. Thank you sir. At this point, this is an open public meeting and I would extend the invitation to anyone sitting out who wishes to come forward and to speak on this, to come up to the podium. Address the commissioners with your concerns or questions and we'll take it from there. Does anyone wish to come forward? Seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and bring this back before the commissioners for discussion and a vote. Kurt, why don't you start us off. Papke: Nothing else. Dillon: My one concern was addressed and I have no others. Keefe: Looks good to me. Undestad: Same with me. McDonald: Okay, I really don't have anything either. The concern I had was also addressed. I think it's well in hand so at this point I would be open for a motion from the commissioners. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in a single family residential RSF district at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report with conditions 1 through 3 as stated in the staff report. McDonald: All in favor signify by saying aye. Keefe: Second. McDonald: Oh, I'm sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Okay, second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report, with the following conditions: 1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in-law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Dillon moved, Commissioner Undestad seconded to note the verbatim and summary minutes dated August 15, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 4