Loading...
4. Scherle Variance Request CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 4 --- MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: D~. October 22, 2007 SUBJ: Scherle Variance Request - 8541 Flamingo Drive Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition Planning Case #07-22 EXECUTIVE SU~IMARY The applicant is appealing the denial of their variance request for an after-the-fact 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback for the addition of a shed. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2, 2007. The Planning Commission voted three for and one against the motion, denying the setback variance. The Planning Commission discussed moving the shed to the rear yard behind the garage to maintain the lO-foot side yard setback and the drainage and utility easement. They also discussed the importance of the drainage and utility easement, which is to allow storm water a path to the storm sewer. The Planning Commission was concerned that approval of the variance could lead to a lack of separation between adjacent buildings. By granting this variance a precedent could be set to grant other properties setback variances and reduce or possibly eliminate a drainage and utility easement and create a flooding situation. The Planning Commission suggested the applicant work with staff to come up with an alternative location for the shed that meets city ordinances; the applicant has decided to proceed with the original setback variance request. The Planning Commission minutes for October 2, 2007 are attached to this report. RECOMMENDA TION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion as specified on page 6 in the staff report dated October 2, 2007 denying the side yard setback variance with the conditions outlined in the staff report and adopt the attached Findings of Fact. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt Scherle Variance October 22, 2007 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from David and Julie Scherle Appealing Planning Commission Denial. 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 2,2007. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 2, 2007. g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-22 scherle variance\executive summary. doc October 5, 2007 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen,~ 55317 Re: Scherle Variance Planning Case 07-22 Dear Sir/Madam: This is to notify you that we would like to appeal the decision made on our variance request for a side yard setback on the construction of a shed on our property at 8541 Flamingo Drive; Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition. Thank you, /T~~ David Scherle CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 0 5 2007 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CeAtH/ED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of David and Julie Scherle for a 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance for the addition of a shed - Planning Case No. 07-22. On October 22, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Appeal of David and Julie Scherle for 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance for the addition of a shed at 8541 Flamingo Drive, located in the Planned Unit Development Residential District (PUD-R) at Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, which had been denied at the October 2, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council reviewed the October 2, 2007 Planning Commission minutes, heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/ Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, and a two-car garage are constructed on the property. An alternate storage area could be constructed and comply with City Code. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the PUDR zoning district. All properties within the Lake Susan Hills West development must maintain a 10 foot side yard setback. When the subdivision was platted in 1987, the developer had to demonstrate that a 60 by 60 house pad could fit on each lot with in the required setbacks. c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged hardship of encroaching into the side yard setback is a self-created hardship. The desire for the proposed shed is based on the purchase of a motorcycle and indoor storage. An accessory building is allowed within the buildable area provided it meets the 1 zoning requirements. The applicant has reasonable use of the property, a single family house and a two car garage, as well as another shed in the rear yard of the property. The proposed variance is for convenience, rather than necessity. e. The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Since the shed crowds the common property line to the North and reducing the required separation between buildings. f. The proposed variation may impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, due to the close proximity of the structure to the property line. 5. The planning report #07-22 Variance dated October 2,2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The City Council denies Planning Case 07-22, for a 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance from the required lO-foot side yard setback for the construction of a shed on Lot 4 Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The City Council further directs that: 1. The applicant must move the shed and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 22nd day of October, 2007. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07 -22 scherle variance\cc findings of faCl.doc 2 CC DATE: 10/22/07 [2] PC DATE: 10/2/07 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/29/07 CASE #: 07-22 BY: AA STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an after-the-fact 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance from the 10- ~ foot side yard setback requirement for the addition of a shed. Z -< LOCATION: 8541 Flamingo Drive U Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition ~ ~ APPLICANT: David and Julie Scherle ~ 8541 Flamingo Drive ~ Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development Residential (PUDR) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.33 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 2-foot 9-inch side yard setback for -< the construction of a shed. ~ -< Q Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. ~ 5:: LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in 00 approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Scherle Variance Request Planning Case 07-22 October 2,2007 Page 2 of 6 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 2-foot 9-inch side yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires a lO-foot side yard setback on all properties in the Lake Susan Hills Subdivision. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential Single Family (PUD- R). It is located on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition west of Powers Boulevard. The applicant received a "Stop Work Order" issued by a City building inspector, as it was obvious that the shed did not meet the lO-foot side yard setback requirement. The applicant came to City Hall and inquired about the setback and then applied for a variance. Upon inspection of the property on September 6, 2007, staff noticed that the amount of impervious surface on the property clearly exceeded the hard surface coverage maximum allowed in that development. Staff notified the applicant of the impervious surface maximum requirement and the applicant worked with staff to bring the impervious surface coverage into compliance. The applicant began construction of the shed because he purchased a larger motorcycle and no longer had space in his two-car garage to house it. This is a self-created hardship. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use is defined as a single-family home with a two-car garage, which is currently constructed on the property. There are alternative locations for the shed. One alternative is to locate the shed behind the garage rather than on the side. This would eliminate the need for a variance. Scherle Variance Request Planning Case 07-22 October 2, 2007 Page 3 of 6 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances . Lake Susan Hills West PUD Development Contract . Section 20-506 (b) Standards and guidelines for single-family detached residential PUD, Minimum lot size . Section 20-615 (6) RSF District Requirements; Setbacks BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, which is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R). The subject property has an area of 14,374.8 square feet. It has a lot frontage of 69 feet and an average depth of 156.09 feet. Minimum lot dimensions required by ordinance are an average of 15,000 square-foot lot size for the entire PUD, 90-foot lot frontage and 100-foot lot depth. Since discussion between staff and the homeowner began, the applicant has reduced the hardcover on the property to bring it into compliance with city code. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance from the lO-foot side yard setback requirement for the addition of a shed attached to the north side of his garage. The shed is 6-feet 3-inches by 20-feet 5-inches, which would require a 3-foot 9-inch variance, but the eaves of the garage overhang 12 inches off the side of the shed. Eaves, generally, may encroach 2 feet 6 inches into a required setback when the structure meets the 10-foot required setback. However, if a variance is requested, then the allowed eave encroachment no longer applies to the property. The eave overhang must be part of the variance request, resulting in a setback of 2 feet 9 inches, rather than 3 feet 9 inches. While the footprint and eaves of the shed extend 7 feet 3 inches into the setback, the shed has a net floor area less than 120 square feet. Therefore, the structure does not have to meet building code requirements and does not require a building permit. However, all improvements must meet zoning regulations such as setback requirements, drainage and utility easement encroachment and hard surface coverage requirements. The applicant constructed the shed without contacting the City or the City's website and received a Stop Work Order from one of the City's building inspectors. A Residential Zoning Permit acts as a safety net to identify prior to construction any potential code violations, including but not limited to setbacks and hard surface coverage requirements. This permit is at no cost to the homeowner and allows the City and the homeowner an opportunity to correct any encroachments or violation before installation begins. It is the contractor/homeowner's responsibility to contact the City prior to construction and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit to ensure compliance with City Code. Scherle Variance Request Planning Case 07-22 October 2,2007 Page 4 of 6 Staff called Gopher State for a locate to determine whether any public utilities were in the drainage and utility easement; none were identified in that easement. Site Characteristics The applicant currently has a shed in the rear yard as well as a two-car garage which could house the motorcycle. There are not topographical or pre-existing characteristics on the site that would constitute undue hardship or the need for a variance. The homeowner has worked diligently to remove much of the hard cover on the property to comply with the impervious surface requirement: an accessory driveway, concrete behind proposed shed, shed behind garage, retaining wall along removed driveway, and retaining wall around garden. Permitted Use The site is zoned PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential. The Lake Susan Hills West PUD development contract approved November 19, 1987 states that "Single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF (Single Family Residential) Zoning District." Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single- family home with a two-car garage, which is currently constructed on the property. An accessory structure to store vehicles is not considered to be a necessity. Accessory structures are permitted provided they meet the zoning requirements for that lot/development. A shed could be built behind the garage. However, the applicant would have to remove more impervious surface to allow for this addition. The shed for which the variance has been applied for is currently on a concrete slab, which could be removed allowing the necessary square footage for a separate shed addition. V ARIANCES WITHIN 500 FEET There are no variance requests for properties within 500 feet of the subject property. There were four variance requests within the Lake Susan Hills West Subdivision located on the west side of Powers Boulevard: CASE # ADDRESS REQUEST DECISION & CONDITION 98-10 1520 Heron Drive 28-foot front yard setback for a Approved: pool (2' Variance) screen bottom of pool 22-foot rear yard setback for Approved: 99-05 845 I Pelican Court three-season porch on existing demonstrate existing deck can support deck (8' Variance) porch without structural changes 02-01 1420 Heron Drive 23-foot front yard setback for a Approved: third garage stall (7' Variance) No Conditions Approved: 36.7% Hard Surface Coverage 1) Work with city forester for additional 03-06 8632 Flamingo Drive trees and/or shrubs for accessory structures 2) no future conversion other than to green space Scherle Variance Request Planning Case 07-22 October 2, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Should the Planning Commission City Council approve a variance, the following issues must be addressed: the applicant must get an encroachment agreement to be within the drainage and utility easement; and the applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod. This could set a precedent within the neighborhood, and findings of fact would need to be created to support the approval. FINDINGS The Planning Commission City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, and a two-car garage are constructed on the property. An alternate storage area could be constructed and comply with City Code. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the PUD-R zoning district. All properties within the Lake Susan Hills West development must maintain a 1O-foot side yard setback. When the subdivision was platted in 1987, the developer had to demonstrate that a 60' by 60' house pad could fit on each lot within the required setbacks. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship of encroaching into the side yard setback is a self-created hardship. The desire for the proposed shed is based on the purchase of a motorcycle and indoor storage. An accessory building is allowed within the buildable area provided it meets the zoning requirements. The applicant has reasonable use of the property, a single-family house and a two-car garage, as well as another shed in the rear yard of the property. The proposed variance is for convenience, rather than necessity. Scherle Variance Request Planning Case 07-22 October 2, 2007 Page 6 of 6 e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The shed crowds the common property line to the North reducing the required separation between buildings. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation may impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, due to the close proximity of the structure to the property line. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission City Council denies Planning Case 07-22, for a 7-foot 3-inch side yard setback variance from the required lO-foot side yard setback for the construction of a shed on Lot 4 Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The Planning Commission City Council further directs that: 1. The applicant must move the shed and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot survey. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 5. Letter of Appeal. g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-22 scherle variance\cc flamingo var report.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kathleen Thomas and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Krista Torgerson, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: SCHERLE VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO A SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED AT 8541 FLAMINGO DRIVE, APPLICANT: DAVID & JULIE SCHERLE, PLANNING CASE NO. 07-22. Public Present: Name Address David & Julie Scherle Daniel Tan Robert Whims 8541 Flamingo Drive 8551 Flamingo Drive 8556 Flamingo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark, any questions? Undestad: Just one on the driveway. You said there was a hard surface issue and now that's been, with the shed, square footage and everything else is okay on there? Generous: Right. They removed the excess. There used to be an expansion on the driveway that was in there. There's some retaining walls and some other things that the property owner removed in the interim since when they were first notified that that was an issue and the present time. Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 Undestad: The square footage of the shed area is, that can stay. That square footage is okay? Generous: I believe that was included in, I don't know. I had it. Yes, the shed was included in that. And it would comply. Undestad: Okay. McDonald: Okay. Thomas: Yeah, okay. Of the things that they removed in the interim, does that also include the shed that's in the back, or is that. Generous: No, that's still. Thomas: That's still there on the property. And then I saw in the paper where it said the city, we maybe could put it on the back side of the garage I believe is what I was reading. Is that really a viable space or? Generous: Not if you look at it, not immediately behind the garage. Thomas: Okay. Generous: Unfortunately the survey doesn't show all the improvements on the property. It's from the original building permit application and so if you look at the picture you can see there's a deck behind there. Thomas: Okay. Generous: But there is room in the rear yard that a structure could be incorporated. Thomas: Could be incorporated in back. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: The, this is a PUD. Is the setback in the rear 5 feet like it is in RSF? Just out of curiosity. Is it 5 in the back for accessory structures and then 10 on the sides and that's for RSF right? And that's what was applied in this particular PUD? Generous: Yes. Keefe: It is. So it's consistent with the. Generous: With the RSF. Keefe: With the RSF. Alright, so we don't have a conflict there. Okay. That's all I have. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 McDonald: I don't have any questions at this time for staff. Is there someone here to present the applicant? Would you step up to the podi urn and state your name and address and just address the commissioners and tell us your side of all this. Dave Scherle: My name's Dave Scherle, 8541 Flamingo Drive. We think the location of the shed is the best place for it and we're hoping to get the variance to keep it there. Angie, the planner, she was suggesting we put it behind the garage where it would fit there, but to drive our motorcycle back in that location we'd have to go over grass and we can't, it just, the motorcycle weighs over 800 pounds and it, it'd be too much, too dangerous. You'd have to drive over grass or dirt and you could damage the motorcycle or injure the rider, and the shed itself will have the same siding as the house has and the roof will have the same kind of shingles as the house has and the soffits and the eaves will have the same color as the house too so it should fit right in with the house, but it won't be part of the garage. It will be right next to the garage. It won't be actually you know connected. But it's right next to the, to the garage. We'd have to remove the sidewalk that the shed is on right now to meet the requirements of the hard cover so that's why we'd have to be driving on grass to get the motorcycle back there. So that's the main reason why we need it where it's at right now. That's it. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: Yeah, just one, well actually a couple questions here. The foundation, is it a below grade foundation or is it just the sidewalk and you're building. Dave Scherle: Just the sidewalk. Kind of a floating slab. Undestad: Okay. So it will move in the wintertime when... Dave Scherle: Yeah. There could be some movement with it, yeah. Undestad: And looking at how this sits on there, I realize where you're at in the stages right now when it's out there. Did you look and see, can it be just pushed back along the garage a little more to get it out of that easement area? Dave Scherle: Well, I looked at that and I, there isn't, you know I was actually thinking about doing that because I was going to try getting some rollers underneath to move it back farther but it would still be in that easement. Otherwise yeah, that is a really good idea. Yeah there is, it still would be in the easement. Undestad: And that sidewalk then that you've got already poured in there, you can maneuver your motorcycle around the front of the garage to get into that? Dave Scherle: It will be a little tight but I think I'll be able to do it. McDonald: Okay. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 Dave Scherle: Might have to put in a, you know I'm a little, I've got probably a little bit of play with the hard cover where I could put in some concrete blocks in that comer to help make it a little bit easier. Undestad: It looked a little tight for that. Dave Scherle: Yeah. Yeah, it is pretty tight so that, I might have to do that but there is some easement, I've got I don't know how many feet but I've got a few square feet. I could just get that in there. Because I would like to make it easy as I could to get in and out. Undestad: How far back, if you could move it back, do you know, did anybody, how far back would it have to go before it's outside of the easement area. Do you know? Dave Scherle: I'm not sure. Undestad: 15,20 feet. Aanenson: I'd say about 20, yeah. Generous: Probably a little bit farther. Dave Scherle: Because the long property line is not too far from the retaining wall so, but it does, you know it does have a few feet but you know for that kind of feet, you'd have to go back probably by the oh, the deck back there I think probably to get to that far. Undestad: Would it have to be that big for the motorcycle? Dave Scherle: Does what? Undestad: Does it have to be that big? Dave Scherle: No, it doesn't have to be quite that big but you'd still would have to move it so far back. I don't know, let's see the motorcycle's 103 inches long I think. It's pretty long. But yeah, it wouldn't have to be quite that big. You could make it smaller but if that's what it would take to get it, we could do that too. I mean it's able to take it down and move it. I mean if we have to, we'll take it down and that's all that's to it too. If we don't get the variance so. Undestad: That's all for me. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: So I want to know what kind of bike it is. Dave Scherle: It's a Gold Wing. Thomas: Gold Wing? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 Dave Scherle: Yeah. Thomas: Okay. We have a motorcycle too and I, so I was just curious. Then are you, is it going to be heated? Is it just going to be like a garage? Dave Scherle: Just a garage. Thomas: Just like a garage. Dave Scherle: Yeah. Not heated. Thomas: Not heated. You'll have to go start it and, okay. Alright, I'm good. Keefe: Just to probably state the obvious, were you aware that a permit was required for doing that? Dave Scherle: I didn't think for 120 feet or less you needed a permit for it. That was what I have heard before and I thought that was the case for this. Keefe: Okay, that's it. McDonald: Okay. Where do you currently store your motorcycle? Keefe: It's in the garage with some lumber and stuff right now and the car is outside right now. McDonald: Okay. And how long have you been doing that? Is it just kind of a seasonal thing in the winter you'll put the motorcycle away? Keefe: Well right now, see our old motorcycle that we owned before, we just got this July. I could fit in the garage and it was okay. Plus it was easier. It was a smaller motorcycle. I could drive it on the grass and get it to the back shed to store. But in the summer I could, yeah or summer I could get it off the side so I could get the car in and out and then my back was bothering me with that motorcycle so we bought this other motorcycle to you know help out on the back and it really has because there's not much vibration on a Gold Wing. McDonald: Okay. And then on the shed itself, how wide does it really need to be because it looks as though, could you narrow things up? Bring it in closer to the garage? Keefe: See it's really pushing it for even a 4, I've got like a 4 1/2 foot garage door that I can just get in there. That's the best I could and let's see what is it? 3 1/2 feet wide I think from mirror to mirror so there's not a lot, even with that 4 1/2 foot garage door for you know, you have a little bit on each side but you want something on each side of the motorcycle to get in there so you don't hit. Hit the door. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay. And the retaining wall that's shown in that photograph, is that something that was built as a part of putting the shed up, or was that already existing? Dave Scherle: That was already existing and the only thing that's left of that is the retaining wall the length of the shed. It's been removed in front of it. Well it actually goes a little bit in front of the shed. It goes probably approximately 3 or 4 feet. I can't remember exactly. There's an apron. It comes out to that. Actually it shows on the picture here. That it comes out. The retaining wall comes out to there. So yeah, so the retaining wall starts there and goes all the way to the back of the shed right now. The rest has been removed because of the hard cover. McDonald: Okay. And okay currently you've got a patio on the back side so that's why you're saying that the shed actually couldn't be moved around to the back then? Dave Scherle: Well, if we did move it around to the back, you'd have a hard time getting the motorcycle to it because I'd have to be going on grass with it and you should really be on hard surface to be moving that motorcycle around. Because it could easily, you could easily dump it. I haven't dumped it yet and I hope I never do. It's a lot of weight to pick up. McDonald: 800 pounds, that's going to be kind of hard. Dave Scherle: Yeah. McDonald: Well I guess I don't have any more questions at this point. Undestad: Just one more. Dave Scherle: Okay, sure. Undestad: The shed, is the primary use, is it for the winter storage of the bike or is it just for all time? Dave Scherle: It will be all the time is what we were planning on using it for. McDonald: Okay. Well we thank you for coming up and addressing us then. Dave Scherle: Thank you. McDonald: Okay. At this time then I would open up the floor for public comment on this issue and if anyone wanted to come up and make comment, please do so. When you get to the podium, if you will state your name and address and address your comments to the commission. Robert Whims: Hi, I'm Robert Whims. I live right across the street from Dave. 8556 Flamingo Drive and Ijust wanted to say the garage, it looks good so I hope you give it to him. McDonald: Okay, thank you. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 Daniel Tan: I'm Daniel Tan, 8551 Flamingo Drive. Just a neighbor to the side. You know aesthetically the garage looks good and I think you guys, I think...I think you guys should let it be there. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up before the commission? Okay well at that point then I guess I will close the public meeting portion of this and I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for open discussion then. Why don't we start down here with Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I've got just sort of two thoughts on it. One is you know, if we allow this to go in on this side and then say the next door neighbor or you know that's adjacent to him, you know decides they want to do that and because it's on this we sort of, maybe are obligated to do that. Then you end up with a pretty small space inbetween the houses. Do we end up with a potential you know issue with fire and being able to get emergency vehicles or so far, you know. I think in part the purpose for the setbacks is to allow you know space for, space between the houses both for maybe emergency vehicles and then also just for aesthetic reasons, so kind of tom on that issue. I don't know if you guys have any thoughts on that. The side setbacks. McDonald: That's kind of what I'm kind of tom between too. Those things are put in there for the reason that you state. It's very, I mean we face this same problem just about everything that comes before us. You know developers come in, sell us on a house. It meets the setbacks and they go right to the limit and then we end up with the homeowner trying to do something and we tell them they can't. But the setbacks are there for a reason and you know we are very consistent with that so yeah, I understand. I'm kind of torn on this myself. Kathleen. Thomas: I'm the same issue. I can totally understand setbacks, if we grant them like this it creates like a slippery slope of who else will want the same type of thing, but I understand what the gentleman is saying about the shed. It being, it's really I'm quite tom just because I see it, both sides so. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Well you know primarily it's drainage in there too. Everything goes from the back of that lot out to the street to the front of that lot. You know if we start pushing those setbacks and drainage in there, you know you've got a happy now. I'm sure he wants to keep him that way too instead of flooding out his basement in there when the heavy rains come in but again, nobody likes to see something that's already built and have to start moving things around but you know, that's again, that's why we have the setbacks and the easements and basically the no build... McDonald: Yeah, I guess the thing I'm kind of tom between is that you know emotionally you're probably one of the nicer guys to come up before us and ask for this. Most everybody else is very much in our face about why we ought to do this. The setbacks are there for a reason. The drainage is very important. We have a lot of problems within the city as far as drainage. Every time a developer comes in, that's part of the design process that we go through with the developer to say you've got to do this as far as drainage and they put this stuff in. What you're asking us to do is similar to two other applications that came in before us and I know that in one case we asked a guy to take out a gazebo because he was on easement and drainage and it was 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 just going to create a big problem. It was a beautiful structure. He had a lot more money into it by the time he got to us than you know what you've got at this point but we have to enforce the rules and they're there for a reason. One thing staff does, we study these things very hard to give homeowners maximum use of their property without interfering with the rights of others. I understand, and again we all feel kind of your pain about this. Yeah, 800 pound motorcycle, you've got to put it someplace. Gold Wing's a beautiful bike and everything but the problem that we run into is that we can't base decisions based upon that. Ijust don't believe we can do that or anyone can come in here and again give us a good story and reasons why, we've had to turn down people because of physical handicaps and everything and that's the hard part about this job but I guess you know my leaning is, yeah I would feel for you and everything. You've got a good reason I guess for building the shed to begin with. I appreciate your civility about coming up here and the way you've approached this and stuff but I'm probably going to have to lean on the side of where the rules are at. I guess. Undestad: Can I add one thing though? Again I mean you can go to the council on that but these types of structures too when they're built without foundations on there, and again being in the area that it's in with the drainage and that, there's potential for a lot of movement. You know hinging off your house. You can be kind of faced with problems quite a while as that thing constantly goes up and down. You know it will pull away from your house. Go back to your house. Kind of the reasons too why you know a lot of the stuff, sheds like this should be put on something a little more stable foundation wise. McDonald: Any further comments? Then I guess at this time we're ready to accept a recommendation. Who'd like to. Undestad: I'll get it here. Recommend the Planning Commission denies Planning Case 07-22 for a 7 foot 3 inch side yard setback variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a shed on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. The Planning Commission further directs that number 1, the applicant must move the shed. Comply with zoning ordinance. And the applicant must revegetate all removed hard surface as with grass seed or sod. Keefe: Second. McDonald: Okay. Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies Planning Case #07- 22 for a 7 foot 3 inch side yard setback variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a shed on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. The Planning Commission further directs that: 1. The applicant must move the shed and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 2007 All voted in favor, except Thomas who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. McDonald: Okay, motion passes 3 to 1. What I would suggest is you talk with the city staff on this. You have a right to appeal this up to the City Council. The minutes of this particular hearing will go into the packet for the City Council. You may be able to reach a compromise with staff that would work within the ordinance and everything and still accommodate what you want. I think you'll find them very accommodating and try to help give you some you know good ideas as to what to do. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PARKS & OPEN SPACE, NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENTS. Public Present: Name Address Tim Erhart Glenn Stolar 9611 Meadowlark Lane Park and Rec Commission Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. As you know the last year we spent a lot of time going through the evolution of the comprehensive plan, which I'm happy to announce is out and out for press. It did go out last Friday for jurisdictional review. It is required for 6 month open hearing date, so that time is starting right now. I also wanted to let you know, you do have a hard copy, the entire hard copy in front of you. Just for everybody else, for their knowledge and information, the entire comprehensive plan draft is on the city's web site, so if anybody's interested in reading a particular chapter, I hope you read all the chapters, they can go online and do that. The goal of the public hearing process to get input from our residents to see if we're moving in the right direction and address their concerns. Not only our residents but the jurisdictions that it goes out to, includes the school districts, the watershed districts, DNR, just to name a few. So we're hoping to get positive input, or informative input that we can respond to as we move forward in the process. So as we set up this process we're going to take a couple chapters at a time for you to hold the public hearing and to gather that input and at the end of that process, as we break it down, we'll move into January where we respond in writing to the comments that are received and the staff that it's more appropriately addressed to will also respond so actually you'll have that collection of responses. So whether it goes to engineering or parks and rec or planning, we'll respond to those comments and you can see what those are. Then ultimately your comments will be forwarded up to the City Council for their review and then after we have the 6 month jurisdiction review, it goes up to the Met Council who gets another 60 days to review. So we're looking probably in sometime the first part of July for final adoption. So I just wanted everybody to know there's plenty of time to get comments into the city. If you want to call and speak to the person that would be most appropriate to talk to, whether it's engineering, city forester, the planning department to talk to and get your questions answered. We hope people take the time to review that. So for tonight the first two chapters that we'll be looking at will be the natural resources which includes forestry, natural resources and water resources and then park and rec. The Environmental 9