HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 09-20-20171 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
Approved Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
September 20, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Bryan Oakley, Donovan Saba,
Julie Witt, David Witte and Kira Vanderlan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Jim Kovach
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill and Senior
Planner Lori Sommers
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the
September 20, 2017 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Vanderlan, to approve the consent
agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. JON STAMPS (2017070)
Chair Anderson introduced the request by Jon Stamps for a preliminary plat and variance to
allow the subdivision of a 0.84 acre parcel for property located at 2930 Urbandale Lane.
Senior Planner Sommers gave an overview of the staff report.
5A
2 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
Commissioner Saba asked and received confirmation on which vacant lot the applicant could
purchase land from to create a second conforming lot.
Commissioner Oakley referenced the side setbacks of the existing homes and stated that it seems
it would be difficult to obtain enough land to not impact those setbacks.
Senior Planner Sommers provided additional details on the portion of the lots that could be used
to add enough space to create conforming lots.
Chair Anderson referenced a dotted line that reflects a mistaken survey. He asked and received
confirmation that a variance would not be necessary if that land were to be included. He
referenced Troy Lane, which appears to be dedicated and was previously an easement.
Senior Planner Sommers replied that it would still remain as an easement and identified the
dedicated portion. She confirmed that the plat would dedicate the right-of-way and therefore that
property would not count toward the lot size.
Chair Anderson asked and received confirmation on the required 25-foot front yard setback. He
asked which similar properties require that setback.
Senior Planner Sommers identified the properties mentioned, noting that the other properties are
set back 50 feet.
Chair Anderson introduced Chad Stamps, representing the applicant, who stated that his mother
owns the property. He noted that there are inconsistencies with the planning report. He stated
that if there was not a mistake on the original survey there would be sufficient space to create
both lots, even with the dedicated right-of-way. He stated that the neighbor to the north is
already at the property line and therefore that line cannot be moved further north. He identified
the triangle-shaped property that was initially purchased from the neighbor to the south. He
stated that they began this planning process in 2009. He stated that they would have met the
required setbacks but were short on square footage and then purchased the necessary property
from the neighbor to the south. He stated that a vacation was granted for the future street that is
not going to be constructed. He stated that the revised survey with the triangle pmiion was
submitted showing that there was enough square footage with the vacation. He stated that when
the preliminary plat process began they were made aware that one point was off on the survey and
therefore they yet again would not have enough square footage for two conforming lots. He
stated that their surveyor made a mistake and therefore it is not an economic hardship. He stated
that they relied on the survey to determine the land that would need to be purchased to subdivide
the property. He stated that they are not asking for a separate easement as the lot has its own
access. He stated that they followed the directions they were given through the planning
department and have done everything they need to do and have spent a lot of money to get to this
point.
Commissioner Oakley asked if there are specific plans for what will be done with the new lot.
Mr. Stamps stated that they had shown a proposed pad for a home that would fit with the existing
homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he is unsure if they would build on the lot or sell the
3 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
lot to be built on. He stated that they would like to maintain as many of the trees as they can on
the lot, noting that the proposed plat would only remove two trees. He noted that seven to ten
percent of the lots in this area do not conform to the city standards.
Chair Anderson stated that when he visited the site it was difficult to tell where the mailbox
standard would be compared to the driveway and whether the applicant would take the
responsibility of creating a new mailbox standard with five boxes rather than the four that
currently exist.
Mr. Stamps replied that the mailboxes have been in existence long before they moved into the
property. He said he was unsure as it would depend on who owns the lot. He stated that if they
keep ownership of the lot, he would not be opposed to keeping the mailbox group on the
property. He referenced the staff report that stated this action would be detrimental to the
neighborhood and noted there are a lot of cul-de-sacs that have more homes than this would have
with the one additional home. He further clarified that this property could actually align with the
driveway across the street from the lot and would not technically be a part of the cul-de-sac and
would not require relocation of the mailboxes. He stated that the mailboxes would be beyond
what is being discussed tonight. He noted that while they have allowed the mailboxes to remain
on their property over the years, he would be unsure what a new property owner would decide.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chair Anderson introduced Jon Stamps, the applicant, who stated that there are three
nonconforming lots within 400 feet of the subject property, including one behind the cul-de-sac
with a square footage of 16,584 square feet. He stated that there are plenty of lots in the area
under the required 18,500 square foot threshold, noting that many are in the 17,000 range. He
stated that there are 17 nonconforming lots in Greentree, which equates to ten percent of the lots.
He stated that the house footprint for the proposed plat would fit within the size and scale of the
existing homes in the neighborhood. He provided an aerial photograph showing the distance that
would be between the proposed home and existing homes, noting that the closest home would be
his mother's home. He stated that the current lot is just under 37,000 square feet, which does not
fit in with the existing character of the home and is difficult to maintain. He stated that a
manicured lawn and landscaping with a new home would be a better fit with the character of the
neighborhood. He stated that there are 26 mature trees on the proposed second lot and as
identified on the preliminary plat, only two trees would be removed. He stated that the newly
created lot would be 318 square feet short of the minimum lot size, which equates to 1.7 percent.
He stated that there are many homes within the Greentree development that are nonconforming,
for either square footage or street frontage. He stated that his mother has owned and lived at the
property for 39 years and they began this process in 2009. He stated that his mother would
continue to live in the existing home whether they were to build a home on the second lot or sell
the lot.
Chair Anderson introduced Timothy LaCroix, representing the applicant, who stated that the staff
report recommends denial based on the finding that the request is based upon economic hardship
rather than practical difficulties. He stated that according to the City's criteria for identifying
practical difficulties, which the Stamps' have highlighted, one element is that the plight of the
4 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
landowners is unique and not created by the landowner. He stated that case law has identified
that a bad survey does create a unique situation not caused by the landowner.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Chair Anderson stated that typically in a subdivision, the development of infrastructure creates
the building pads. He stated that in this case, the division would not build any roads and would
use existing infrastructure and therefore could be sold as a buildable lot without building a pad or
removing any trees. He asked what regulations would exist to prevent a land purchaser from
moving the proposed building pad and removing a lot of the trees.
Planning Manager Thomson noted that if this is recommended for approval, staff would apply a
new list of conditions that would cover those elements and would transfer to a new owner should
the lot be sold.
Commissioner Saba asked when the faulty survey was completed.
Mr. Chad Stamps replied that the initial survey was completed in 2011 and noted that a
secondary survey was completed in 2013. He stated that the incorrect pin was kept in place on
both surveys and the fault was not found until the preliminary plat process. He confirmed that
his family paid for all three surveys from the same company.
Chair Anderson stated that he would have a difficult time denying this plat when the difference
in square footage is fairly miniscule on the survey. He stated that putting a home in this location
would conform to the existing character of the neighborhood. He stated that when he sees the
wooded area, he thinks of mischief that has probably occurred in that area.
Commissioner Oakley noted that there are specific criteria that must be reviewed when
considering a variance request. He stated that when reviewing those criteria, he does not agree
with several of the comments identified in the staff report. He stated that you expect to obtain
accurate information when you hire a licensed surveyor and therefore this was completely out of
the property owner's control. He stated that he also does not agree that this action would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated that if the applicant came in to divide the original lot,
he would agree that it would be based solely on economic factors, but noted that the applicant
did purchase the original land and followed the directions that should have resulted in a
successful lot split. He stated that he would be supporting this request.
Chair Anderson stated that staff has only provided a resolution for denial and asked procedurally
how the commission could instead make a motion to approve the request.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that staff could prepare a resolution for approval with
conditions based on the commission's discussion.
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Vanderlan, to approve the
request by Jon Stamps for a preliminary plat and variance to allow the subdivision of a 0.84 acre
parcel for property located at 2930 Urbandale Lane subject to conditions as developed by staff
based upon the discussion of the commission. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
B. LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC. (2017072)
Chair Anderson introduced the request by Lake West Development, LLC for a rezoning and
preliminary plat for a residential subdivision for property located at 3835 Dallas Lane.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Chair Anderson stated that it seems that the building pads are set back quite a distance from the
road, which is different from the character of the existing neighborhood and asked if there is a
reason for that.
Senior Planner Drill identified a dashed line on the proposed plat that identifies the setback. He
stated that the developer is proposing to set the homes further back in order to take advantage of
the natural terrain with lookout basements. He stated that the existing homes were built when
the setback was 3 5 feet. He stated that staff did speak with the developer about preparing a deed
restriction that would be placed on the properties if they are sold to builders to ensure the homes
have consistent setbacks. He noted that while the City has a minimum setback, there is not a
maximum setback.
Commissioner Witte asked the setback of the existing home.
Senior Planner Drill stated that the existing home is set back 40-50 feet, noting that the existing
home was the original farm home in the neighborhood and the other homes were platted from
that original farmstead. He noted that utilities have already been stubbed for these lots.
Chair Anderson introduced Perry Ryan, representing the applicant, who stated that the property is
zoned for six to 13 units, but stated the higher density did not seem to fit with the character of the
neighborhood. He stated that these lots meet or exceed all the minimum requirements and
therefore they are not requesting any variances. He stated that they did think about using the
same setback as the existing home, but instead attempted to equalize the front and back yards
with an estate feel for the properties.
Chair Anderson stated that the lot width proposed is 80 feet and noted that most of the
surrounding lots appear to have larger lot widths. He asked why the applicant believed that the
proposed lot width matches the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ryan reviewed the zoning, which would allow for higher density. He stated that this lower
density request still meets the zoning requirements and while the lot width is on the smaller
range, the lots meet all the required standards and exceed the overall lot size.
Chair Anderson stated that the applicant submitted a home plan that would fit on one of the lots
and asked if a there is a builder in mind and whether the homes would look like this. He stated
that the Planning Commission does not approve home plans.
Mr. Ryan stated that the sketch would be representative of the size homes they would be
proposing but noted that they have not solidified which builder they will be choosing. He stated
6 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
that they had asked staff if it would be worthwhile to submit a sketch and someone had said that
it would, so they included that element with their plans.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chair Anderson introduced Katrina Bocchi, 3800 Fernbrook Lane, who asked for information on
tree preservation. She stated that they have done a lot of tree removal on their own property,
while there are a lot of mature trees that remain on the property line. She asked if there are plans
to remove those trees along the property line.
Chair Anderson introduced David Van Oss, 14035 38th Place, who stated that he had assisted the
previous homeowner of the existing home with snow removal and lawn care. He stated that the
driveway alignment of the existing home is not shown in the current location, as that driveway
more aligns with 38th Place. He said he did not believe there is enough space to create five
additional homes. He stated that while there is sufficient square footage in the area, the lots
would be long and narrow and would be a completely foreign look for the neighborhood and
would not be in harmony with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. He
expressed concern that this action would harm the property values of the existing homes.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Senior Planner Drill presented the tree preservation plan that was included in the commission
packet, noting that the trees along the back lot line are shown to be preserved. He stated that 63
percent of the trees would be preserved under this plan. He provided additional information
related to the comments regarding the existing driveway location and the relocation that would
occur of both the existing driveway and garage. He noted that the proposed lot widths would
conform to the zoning district. He also noted that there are other lots in the neighborhood that
have similar lot widths.
Commissioner Saba noted that the property is currently zoned as future restricted development,
which means that this application could include 13 dwellings rather than the smaller number of
homes proposed. He said he believed that is something the neighbors should consider as there
could be many more homes proposed. He asked if the property could be developed with
townhomes.
Senior Planner Drill stated that in theory that could occur, although the existing homes are all
single-family and therefore it would be doubtful that townhomes would be allowed.
Chair Anderson stated that this request includes a rezoning and preliminary plat. He asked the
type of input the commission would have on the architecture of the homes and how that relates to
the existing neighborhood, which would be of a different vintage.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the commission does not have architectural control over this
property. He stated that staff often sees a flat roof or different type of architecture than existing
homes. He noted that the City can control certain elements, such as the materials that can be
used and minimum lot standards.
7 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
Planning Manager Thomson stated that some years ago the council reviewed the potential to add
architectural standards for single-family homes but chose not to follow through on that action.
Commissioner Witte echoed the comments of Commissioner Saba that this is a controlled
development compared to what could occur. He referenced an existing accessory structure and
asked if that would be removed.
Senior Planner Drill replied that although it appears to be a structure on the aerial photograph, it
is simply an at-grade patio.
Mr. Van Oss replied that the structure is a small metal shed with no historical value. He stated
that this neighborhood was originally a farm and the existing home was a farmhouse with
historical value and is currently on the historical register as it is over 100 years old.
Chair Anderson noted that while that would raise concerns with remodeling, that is a not a matter
for the Planning Commission as that would fall to another party.
MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the request
by Lake West Development, LLC for a rezoning and preliminary plat for a residential
subdivision for property located at 3835 Dallas Lane. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. MATT BOATMAN (2017077)
Chair Anderson introduced the request by Matt Boatman for variances for driveway width and
setback for property located at 15725 47th Avenue.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Oakley stated that there were allegations that the applicant had discussions with
city staff last year and asked for input from staff on what occurred.
Senior Planner Drill replied that he had a conversation with the applicant last summer where the
applicant asked about cleaning up the area next to the garage and wanted to possibly remove a
retaining wall and asked if a permit would be required to do that. He stated that he replied that a
permit would not be required to remove the retaining wall but advised the applicant that he
should speak with the neighbor to ensure that drainage would not be impacted. He stated that the
applicant did not mention the driveway.
Chair Anderson asked the setback between the applicant's garage and the property line.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the setback is seven feet.
Chair Anderson inquired about the minimum setback.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the minimum setback is six feet.
8 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
Chair Anderson referenced the drainage and utility easement that runs through that area and
asked the width of that easement.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the drainage and utility easement is a total of 12 feet, six feet on
each side of the property line. He noted that the swale was located in that easement.
Chair Anderson asked and received confirmation that typically the city does not allow filling of a
swale because the swale is used for drainage purposes. He asked what would be required if a
homeowner wanted to fill a drainage swale.
Senior Planner Drill replied that in order to construct a retaining wall or complete grading, a
homeowner would need approval from the city engineer and noted that was not obtained by the
applicant.
Commissioner Witte stated that Senior Planner Drill mentioned a six-foot setback and noted that
the letter from the neighbor 's attorney mentions a three-foot setback for the driveway. He asked
for clarification.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the ordinance is written such that if there are no easements, the
minimum setback for a driveway would be three feet. He explained that because there is a six-
foot easement, a driveway cannot go within that easement and therefore the setback for the
driveway is also six feet.
Commissioner Witte stated that one condition for a variance is that it cannot interfere with light
or air. He stated that in this case the grade was raised and air was taken away from the
foundation. He asked for information on the building code requirement specific to the
foundation.
Senior Planner Drill stated that when the applicant put this driveway in, he graded into the
neighboring property and in order to keep water from flowing into the neighbor's basement, the
applicant raised the elevation such that it came in contact with the siding, which is a building
code violation.
Chair Anderson introduced Jeff Wieland, attorney representing Mr. Boatman's neighbor, who
stated that he submitted a very detailed written letter to the city. He stated that this was a willful
violation by the applicant. He stated that Mr. Boatman did research prior to beginning the work
and even measured other people's driveways in the neighborhood before beginning work. He
stated that because Mr. Boatman knew he was violating the city code, he also knew that he
would need a variance and did not apply in order to short-circuit the process. He stated that the
applicant denied Ms. Schaefer the opportunity to voice her objection to this work before it was
completed and instead ask for forgiveness rather than permission. He stated that his client is a
school teacher just trying to live in her home and the applicant has changed the drainage pattern
that previously directed water into the street. He stated that the water is now directed into the
side yard. He stated that Ms. Schaefer 's sump pump now runs even when she is just watering
her lawn and therefore she is concerned about what will happen during a heavy rainfall event or
when snowmelt eventually occurs. He stated that his client has filed civil litigation against the
9 of 10 Approved Minutes Meeting of September 20, 2017
applicant because he changed the grading of her property without her permission. He stated that
the commission has a resolution for consideration tonight that recommends that the applicant be
given 30 days to fix this matter. He stated that if the applicant does not comply, he would ask
that the city forward this to the city attorney for prosecution. He asked the commission to
support this action as the action of the applicant has damaged his client.
Commissioner Witte asked if Ms. Schaefer has had a survey done on her property to determine
the exact location of her property line.
Mr. Wieland replied that his client has not done so.
Commissioner Witte stated that perhaps Ms. Schaefer would like to have that completed as this
driveway may be encroaching onto her property.
Mr. Wieland replied that as they move forward with litigation, if that continues to move forward,
they will complete a survey. He explained that the applicant took the downspout from his roof
and connected that with a pipe that runs under the driveway which now drains out onto Ms.
Schaefer 's property. He stated that fortunately the city inspector noticed that action and required
the applicant not to connect to that pipe and instead run the spout down his own driveway.
Commissioner Oakley stated that six criteria must be considered when reviewing a variance
request and did not believe that this request meets any of the criteria. He stated that this is the
first time he has seen a variance request that does not meet any of the criteria. He said he was
also disappointed that the applicant did not attend the meeting tonight. He stated if it was up to
him, he would have city crews go out to the property to tear down the work and assess the cost to
the applicant.
Ms. Thomson stated that if the applicant does not comply within the 30-day time period, there
would be alternative options available the city could pursue.
Commissioner Oakley stated there are building code violations that need to be corrected in order
to prevent structural damage to Ms. Schaefer's home. He stated that according to the notes he
read, Ms. Schaefer went outside and spoke with the contractor and yet the work was still
completed. He stated he will not support the variance request.
Ms. Thomson stated that she has spoken with Ms. Schaefer, who is concerned about the timing
for the variance process because of the upcoming winter and spring seasons and the problems
that could arise from runoff damaging the foundation of her home.
Chair Anderson noted that this item is scheduled to move forward to the City Council on October
10th which would then give the applicant until November 10th to complete the work. He asked if
there is a way to speed up that process.
Ms. Thomson stated that staff would attempt to bring this forward to the City Council on
September 26th in order to speed up that process.
10 of 10 Meeting of September 20, 2017 Approved Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Vanderlan, to deny the request
by Matt Boatman for variances for driveway width and setback for property located at 15725 47th
Avenue. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Anderson, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 P.M.