The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Storage Shed/McHugh, 05-17 J. PC DATE: May 17, 2005 to - CC DATE: June.g 27,2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/14/05 CASE #: 05-17 BY: JM STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a 5-foot variance from the minimum lO-foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 7450 Chanhassen Road. (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) LOCATION: Lot 5, Block 1, Sunset View 7450 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 ~ APPLICANT: Timothy & Diane McHugh 7450 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/ Acre) ACREAGE: 0.42 acre DENSITY: N/ A < ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to build a storage shed on the side of their home. The proposed storage shed will require a 5-foot side yard setback variance from the minimum 10- foot side yard setback requirement. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in 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. ICANN!D McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 2005, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 for a recommendation of denial. This application has come before the City Council because a 75% majority vote was not reached by the Planning Commission. The summary and verbatim minutes are attachment 8 of this packet. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located in the southeastern comer of Lotus Lake on Chanhassen Road and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5-foot variance from the required lO-foot minimum side yard setback for the construction of a storage shed. The current ordinance reads that eaves may not encroach into the required setback if a variance is granted. Therefore, all setback distances for variance consideration will be measured from the eaves of the structure while the foundation is recessed six inches from the eaves. APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side yards, 10 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: (2) On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks and may not occupy more than 30 percent of the yard in which it is built. Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances e:ranted from a required setback are not entitled to the followine: additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two feet, six inches; Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc.: One-story detached accessory structures, used as tool or storae:e sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, less than 120 square feet in buildine: area. McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27, 2005 Page 3 (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in the southeastern comer of Lotus Lake on Chanhassen Road (Hwy 101) and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5-foot variance from the required lO-foot minimum side yard setback to build a storage shed. The subject property was platted as part of the Sunset View Subdivision which was recorded on May 11, 1954. The house was built in 1987. This property is a non-conforming lot of record in that it is only 55 feet in width at its widest point. Also, the minimum lot size for a sewered riparian lot on a recreational development lake is 20,000 square feet. The subject property has an area of only 18,295 square feet. However, the lot does meet the minimum depth requirement with an average depth of 326.17. The shed in question came to the attention of the City on August 30, 2004 when the City received an anonymous letter stating that Mr. McHugh was constructing a "small addition" on the side of his house and it was thought that a building permit was not applied for. On August 30, 2004, an inspection of the subject property was made at which time the applicant was informed that a building permit (zoning compliance review) must be applied for or else the shed must be removed within fourteen (14) days. McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27,2005 Page 4 On September 7,2005, Mr. McHugh applied for a building permit (zoning compliance review). The permit was denied because the shed was located within the side yard setback. The applicant was informed that the shed must either be removed or a variance for encroachment on the side yard setback must be applied for. In discussing the matter further, the applicant informed staff that he was aware that storage sheds less than 120 square feet in area did not require a permit, but was unaware that such structures must maintain a lO-foot side yard setback. Staff reviewed city records to determine if setback variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. This review turned up the following cases: Address Variance File Number Variance 27-foot front yard setback variance for the reconstruction and ex ansion of a ara e 24-foot front yard and 9-foot side yard setback variances for the construction of a one car ara e 40 Hill Street 99-20 20 Hill Street 85-4 Staff also reviewed registered land surveys for all surrounding lots within 500 feet of the subject property to determine if any structures with non-conforming setbacks exist. The following non- conforming setbacks were found: Address Setback 7410 Chanhassen Road Two accessory structures with 2 foot side yard setbacks 7480 Chanhassen Road Principle structure has a 9.3 foot side yard setback 10 Hill Street Shed has 3.5 foot side yard setback Principle structure has 25.41 foot front yard 20 Hill Street setback and 9.9 foot side yard setback, detached garage has 2.7 foot front yard setback and 3.5 foot side yard setback 40 Hill Street Detached 2ara2e has 3 foot front yard setback McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27, 2005 Page 5 ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed a majority of the construction on the shed in question. The shed measures 8' x 12' which equals 96 square feet. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for storage sheds of less than 120 square feet. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Checkpoints of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. The topography of the site is sloped significantly in various locations, thus limiting the options for placement of a storage shed complying with ordinance requirements. The elevation of the lot changes from a high elevation of 945.6 at the northeastern front property comer to an elevation of 934.67 at the front of the garage to an elevation of 896.3 at the lake, which is the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW) of Lotus Lake. \ I' *Picture taken from garage facing Chanhassen Road. *Picture taken from shoreline of subject property. McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 Ala)' 17 June 27, 2005 Page 6 Larry Mon, the owner of the neighboring property to the south (the side of the home where the shed is placed) has written a letter expressing his support for the variance request. Mr. Mon states, "With the design, placement and tree line that separates the two properties I am confident it will in no way be detrimental to my property or hinder any views." *Picture taken from the vantage point of the house located on Mr. Mon's property (7470 Chanhassen RoadIHwy 101). Staff acknowledges the applicants' efforts to design and place the shed in a subtle fashion. The applicant has built the shed with the same roof pitch as the principal structure that it sits next to. The applicant is also proposing to use the same vertical siding on the exterior of the shed as that used on the principal structure. The exterior of the shed will also be painted to match the existing home. The pictures below demonstrate that the shed is situated such that it is almost completely unnoticeable from Chanhassen Road or Lotus Lake. *Picture taken from near the front property line. *Picture taken from shoreline of subject property. McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27, 2005 Page 7 The width and topography of the lot greatly limit options for placement of a storage shed. The only viable alternative, which would comply with ordinances, is to place the shed in the middle of the rear yard between the home and the lake. The lakeside elevation of the home on the subject property consists primarily of windows overlooking Lotus Lake. Placing a shed in the rear yard would obstruct the lake view of the homeowner and potentially that of the applicants' neighbors. Furthermore, the shed would become visible from Lotus Lake. Because of this the applicant chose to place the shed on the south side of the house. However, approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts staff must recommend denial of this request. FINDINGS 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. 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 this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has a reasonable use of the property. 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 that lie within the Single Family Residential District. 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 construction of a storage shed will not significantly increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction on the storage shed began before completing a zoning compliance review; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. McHugh Variance Planning Case #05-17 May 17 June 27, 2005 Page 8 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: Staff does not feel the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. 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 will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDA TION Staff The Planning Commission recommends that the Plafll'liflg Commission City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planmflg Commission City Council denies Variance #05-17 for a 5-foot variance from the minimum lO-foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property." Should the Plafll'lil'lg Commission City Council choose to approve the variance; staff recommends that the Plannil'lg Commissiol'l City Council adopt the following motion: "The PlaflRing COmmiSSiOfl City Council approves Variance #05-17 for a 5-foot variance from the minimum lO-foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Construction of the shed shall match the principal structure by using vertical siding on the exterior of the shed and painting the shed the same color as the principal structure." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Timothy & Diane McHugh dated April 15, 2005. 4. Letter from Larry Mon dated April 13, 2005. 5. Lot Survey. 6. Building Plans. 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 8. Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-17 mchugh variance\cc update. doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of Timothy & Diane McHugh for a 5-foot variance from the minimum 10- foot side yard setback to build a storage shed - Planning Case No. 05-17. On May 17,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Timothy & Diane McHugh for a 5-foot variance from the minimum lO-foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 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 ofthe property is: Lot 5, Block 1, Sunset View 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management districts. c. The construction of a storage shed will not significantly increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. 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 of land is located. 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. 5. The planning report #05-17 Variance dated May 17, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the variance from the side yard setback for the construction of a storage shed. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 17th day of May, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Planning Commission Chairperson g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-l7 mchugh variance\findings of fact.doc Planning Case No. 65-' 1_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: Timothv J. McHuqh Timothv J & Diane A McHuqh 7450 Chanhassen Road 7450 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen. MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN55317 Contact: Tim McHuqh Contact: Tim McHuqh Phone: 952-934-0533 Fax: Phone: 952-934-0533 Fax: Email: timm@mchsLcom Email: timm@mchsLcom Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit X Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* x Subdivision* ~ for Filing Fee~ney Cosf.. $50 UP/SPRNA~AP/Metes & Bounds - 400 Minor SUB M6.00 TOTAL FEE $ 200:00 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. * Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for i each plan sheet along with a di~ital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: Storaae Shed LOCATION: 7450 Chanhassen Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 12 Two 116 Ranae 023 Sunset View Lot 005 Block 001 R25.8400040 TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES x NO PRESENT ZONING: RSF REQUESTED ZONING: N/A PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: l.tSt'ckrt-h~f- LOIt..J f)QJI1?,:!r REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: Due to the lona narrow size of the lot I am aoplvinq for a variance for a storaae shed on the south side of the property. Enclosed yOU will find the followinq documentation: Evidence of ownership. Plot plan showinqpropertv lines and location of storaae shed. Bill of material. Documentation Showina the base for the shed; drawina showina the shed's placement to the existinq structure. and a letter from Larry Mon owner of the property to the south suoportina the placement of the storaae shed. This application must be completed in full and be. typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself infOrmed of the deadlines for submission of m,Cjlt~rialand the progress of this application. I furt~~r ' understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior io--ariy authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I haye<sul:lmitt~d are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. c . ~.@; jM~ . J~g Signature of Fee Ownd- ~ . Lf - IS -oS Date y - , S - r.;J- Date C:\Documents and Settings\timmchug\My Documents\City of Chanhassen varience Request\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 3/05 SCANNED 04/1512005 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Application for Variance to construct a Storage Shed at: 7450 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-934-0533 DescriDtion of variance request. · Construction of a storage shed that would not conform to the 10' minimum required side setback. Due to the narrow width of the property 55' I am requesting a 4' variance to the south side lot line. Justification for variance. · We have looked at alternative locations for placement of the shed without obstructing lake views or impairing property values within the neighborhood without success. Placement of the shed on the south side of the house is supported by the property owner on the south side as stated in the attached letter from Larry Mon. There is a row oflarge 50 ft pine tree's that serve as a buffer between the two lots. · We designed the shed to use the same roof pitch and vertical siding of the existing structure to assure it will blend in with the existing structure and be architecturally appealing to the neighborhood. · The topography on the property does not allow placement of the shed on the front side [East] which abuts to Hwy. 101 also known as Chanhassen Road, the [West] side which abuts to the lake or the limited space on the North side which provides access to the lake side of the property. Sincerely, -:J~ M~~ ~/JJU~ Timothy & Diane McHuJ 7450 Chanbassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 SCANNED 04/13/2005 Tim McHugh 7450 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE:ProposedShed 7450 Chanhasssen Road This letter is in response to our conversation regarding your intent to apply for a Variance with the City of Chanhassen for a storage shed on the south side of your property. I wanted you and the City to know that I support you in your effort to obtain the necessary approvals required for the Shed to extend into the 10' Side Yardo Setback requirement. With the design, placement and tree line that separates the two properties I am confident it will in no way be ~etrimental to my property or hinder any views. ~ Larry Mon Property Owner of 7470 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen,. MN 55317 612-636-7389 SCANNED CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Roe-Cot Ccnstroctlon Lot 5, eXOc.K /, 5cuJ5et Vie k/ Carver Coun t'll Hmne5ota... ,;-')_ .(Q3IU) iii T. H. NO. , \Jl (..';3)/ I '" 0 I I '" I I I 101 . '('1:>8.~) ) ed1~ of fj,-t f!oc4 I.iI I') /1 (--I.. I z.. " wai( N ------' 1"-1 \ & '" " 'f'fJ e.I~,.bn" .prA eft W'"'" .. .. '" ~ ~ lQ ~ SlJ~<.,-+- Shed { ~ I/}' I') "- ,~l " V-' '_J ,RDV'D ROSID ONTR L LEGEND ~us \-.0 e.l'-v vJD-~(.( ~'i-. ~ \-. <;; _ qIP-' ~B PROPOSED ELEVATIONS o Iron monuments (U-r) existing elevations ~ lowest floor I~$.of. I propo.ed elevations 1"'~."71 garage floor __ direction 01 proposed surlace drainage 1~3s:ol top of foundation 1. T7 Hansen Thorp ~ l) Pell!nen Ol~on Inc. . ConouIlIng ~ & land ~.. 75&5 Offic:. Ridge Cilde E.... PreIrie. MH 56344-3644 (812) ~700 I hereby certify that_ au",.y. PJtlparecl.", "'. or.under "'y cllrect ~n, 10.. \rue Fil. No. ==~~"'.:=~:,,;f.e~:::==~"::'..:::::'II':=. ~",O~r~ ~-/20 ;-::::"3~~O~ ;;'\I~f:'" reoi-Iered lancle..",.yorunderStat. ofMI_taStafut_ _ _ Pag. D.t.: D/Z-8c;, --:> /~~ R~tIon No. /.3'':::; 7 i?7 - (,5 Scole /".3() Q) --0 :::.... CI) Q) ::J ~--o~ o () Q) ::J ..c: CO ..c: CI) ..c:.8 :t::CI)--o -8 cq::OQ) "- --0 ........ ........ ..c: - Q Q) CI)"~ () () o C\I C\I ..c: 0> -J "J::: CO 'h.~-()C:: ................ ><: ,- CO "- - () ........ .s - cD:t:: 0 "~ Q) CO --oco,+-cooQ5ijjQ) Q)Q)o........'h......... Q) ..c: "~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ CI) CI) CI) a:: <: <: c::: "' -Ie 'U Q)'U I/) Q) &...c oc/) L. D.. .c o a... Q) o tn a.. :::J o g>:c :t:ic: .!!! 0 >< w ,,~ I -Z I ^ :71 I I I Co I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , V ~ RECEIVED SEP 7 2004 HANHASSEN INSPECTIONS ~ ()~ \, V) \'i x. ~ ..... \r) ~ -- .....~- ..--~~-~ J '0 ~ 'U CL .?;.... -:~--... i Ch:::> ./; SCANNED Shed Base _............1 '" -. '..,.. / . JiiB~;~.I..~. . .." _.. .,.liM~; / SCANNED ,,: Floor Joists ,........--.. :..'. . -'''~' < .gi'. '". : - : -",'.~~lf~; 12 ft I. 8ft ~I SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 5, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for McHugh Variance - Planning Case No. 05-17 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of \Ylo....~ ' 2005. ~,~T~ j'-' NotaryPu~ I KIM 1. MEUWlSSEN I Notary Public-Minnesota My CommissIon ExpIres Jan 31, 2010 SCANNED . .. ..0 0~mn~>~u~~OOigg~oo~~~oo~ ~~~~G~~~~~~~8mG5g~~~&~ ~g~~~5~OG~033~;~u~ag~. ~~m O~~~0mO-3mU ~~~-~< ~- CD CD ~ 0 (T ::s .:E ::f ~ 5 ~ CD ::1. g, Cil ~ 5'tC t5 2!. .. :::'{;:;::f~3-~~in Q.Crii~SD-g~;lO.!"g~. ~g~~~g~~~~;~~~a~=~30.!"~ mi~~n~~~~a~~ggSD~SD!,3~~g ~::s~~sm_~ogm~o_ma@i~~u~. ~S~~3~~~ae~~~~g~~~~~~~ ~i~~mm~o~S~3~~3~~~?~n~ ~oo~-"Oo~o~o~0~3~O~00C ~o~~~~~3m~~-~~cr~~-~~ ~a3u~~:f~G~~~~o~~~-~G~ :f53~~om~ ~~=OO~(TG~o.~o ~~~~~~Q~~~~~g335~~i~~~ ~~.- m~_~~::S::s :;:s$(Tm::s::JG 2 CD g ~~~ o~(rZ ~:OQ.~" .g'(D ii~)>.g ~~~~6~o'g~s~~~~~~nno33 ~,~~ &~5oging~::S~~m~~~$ I~' ,)" (JJ 0 3. Q. ::T (I) U> C --::T::E;::::e: "U::1'" 0. a- Ge_ "'a-:fu~(I)~m=CD~~~CD3~ ~ff::T ~~3mc-CDu>Qo3-o~~mm CD::sCD omCDuCDmSD~~~~ia_~a= (") ::E -0 0. -. ~ .., o~ 3 Q) CIJ -- o::S CD en at g~~ i:~~9~~&~~~~~i~~~ ~(Tff ~::s. cnm~o.cC::T~::s~o.un~ UCD::T ~g ~~g3cn~CDoae_"'o::S _ - CD 9: C CI) (") ::s CD at =="'0 "'C ::J - 0 ~ 0 JJ ~~m ~m ~OOOa~3&~~5mat~~ ~E~ ~~ o3-00~~=CDO-~~CDS. 'lJ a.~ ~ at 5.."'2. 0 =t' 0.,< 0 a. 0 a. CD '< ~ CD ~&~ ~~ ~~i38@i53~&_~.3~ ~~i ~o i~"'C~i~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~U 0 am~~~~0=m::J~o 59Q ~a ~3na3~o~~"03m3~ (1)<>>':< 0:5. :E~~~CD- 1U-g::J(Dmo<>>Q: -mO 000. ~_m~::JIU::Jcr3amoa~ ~~g ~: ~~~~~~~~<>>~~~~g g~::J (f)O ~CD ~;:~ 3 (ij.ct!.3.tfl 9lZ!!!. ;o~ sg ~~~~~Qgoo~~ a~~ 0-0. ::::t- p)"< -.0 3 cn"O- 0' .--, a. ~i~ ~~ ~~~3io~:cn~ ~:~ ~ocn ~- 5-o3m~i~g~ cnu~ 3~::J ~Q ~3~~m~~~~~ ~&~3 ~~~ .,9 og~~'!!!'~~30=~ ~5' o <CD CD~cn_3~ ~~m _ C g5~ ~~ ~05~~~~~<a ~i~ g Q. ~ ~":< ~ 0 <D g. CD 0 a. m CD D.l CD ~.,!'J CD~m <Do (Dg~~~~3~~; o::J~ ::J_tn -_ :J3-_.(5"~P.lO<D8 crfO(D g~~ ~ CD ::-u i6~:::!.::1@"8 0-3 (1) ~~ ~g; ~i ~!~ ~~P.l1~3 ~~& ~~~ ~< a.~ gi ~<~ ~~~ ~~! 9~ ~~~ ~~ :~i ~i~ o~ <D-g ;::+'<2 :::~ uti"g: So ~ ~n ~ 0 ~::J ~~::J ~ 0 ~ en CD~ o~. CD ~ <1> -. 00 !!1.:E r--a>"tI " r-C o c O~fg- ., o I>> 3 CD -~ nOS>> 0 n - ~I>> I>> "C _ :s '0 I>> CD 3 en CD - ~CDO=' 0 ~Ro - CD 0" :s:X O,;:$.I>> a en g-l :s :s CD I>> :S'<:s ' I>> uren CD '0 - u 3" _'0 u:n u Ro -CD ~ !I! :J:s ~en -ItToo.:E3s::s:rr=:;; !>-!JJ!'>:-" ~ CD .g CD ~. III (if 0 '< '< C I>> _.~ ~= :JOO ....."UO-fCf) [~ ~ ~ ~ 3'"3 g-~ ~ ~ fr ~ ~ [ ~ iif 0 CD g m. (j)'~ I III ~ 5' 3, III :;- ..............~3NO:J"Ill:J0 "0< ~ ::=. ::T;=:', CD:+..... = ..... 76' :J" CD U == :::!.,CDCD 5'3 @"'Q.g 0.00 m ~g-<o OOO.CD CD<ocen~.....enlll-' ":!.o ~~~'Ill ::T 5' CD 5"~ ~~ o 5" 3 ~ !!' g. ~ ~<O ~ ~. CD :E III - CD ~.:J ::+ III 0 a: Q. :J" en (0 == :J ~lI)eno(ii':Jolll_CD 000 CD _ en CD ::T :J ,<0'"0 0 CD "0 < "tI~O.O::rIll...... CD - en -'(0 CD _=:J_CDen~_ III CD~en< l>> :;::-. ..... -0 en ..... - ::T :J a. 0. CD -. :s ~ ::T _ CD '< 0 en :J CD, :s::::-fCDs.?~o~rr Ill::;-.....:E 5"1\)~3.....3encenm ~o"Oo roOCDCDO:J:J"<-cnO' .....30>- "'O)en ....... """,s. ..... ...... :J..... O. _CD"" c::::..en oCD .........en::T O. ~ II) c: l>> en CD :J" 0 ..... CD CD::T CD ~::::I::J<...... ::T 0 0 3:""-CP CD_CDNOIll CD o-o:J"Q 0)' 0-' c.....o 3..g :J '< .... i>> 3 3 3 O"::T"lj iii~oCf)CDOa;;;:' CD 3=CDO en == ::i. i>> 0 C <0..... 0 m. -. p "0 en 0" CD _:::: 0 0 01 0 ~ 5' ~ a ~ :J tT 0 :E u ::T 1\:1 en .. <0 O' ~. s=.,=~g",o~- :J ~"Q ~' " ;:-0" 0 en N 3 u"'Q. 0. ~.2. CD _ -...... ..... CD ....... CD. CD (ii' CD _~eno::To~031ll 0 U -CD-<CD ......:J. en c . .::! S' a: en (,) CD - CD en ~ 3CD frl\:llll ~ ~ == ~. Q g .g en = ......<0-+ - . Disclaimer ThIs map is neither a legally recorded map nor a SUIVey and is not Intended 10 be tJSed as one. This map is a compolation 01 records,lnlormation and data locaIed In various cIly, county, stale and lederaI offICeS and other sources regardng the area shown, and is to be used lor reference purposes only. The City does not warrant lhal the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used 10 prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represenllhalthe GIS Data can be used lor navIgaIional, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement 01 distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic leaturns. " errors or dsaepancies are lound please contact 952-227-1107. The precedng <isclaimer is provided pursuant 10 Minnesota Statutes !i466.03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user 01 this map acknowledges lhal the City shall not be Hable lor any damages, and elCpl'llSSly waives all daims, and agrees 10 defend, indemnify, and hold harrrless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its 9f11lI0yees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the lISef's access or use 01 dala orovided. "01llll.l-f C 0""0 ::T 0"0"0 CD g- S. O"u ::T.....IllC CD :r. ~-a Illen-O ~.u en en :J..........CD <0 ..Q.~ 0 .....CDC- ::TOm..... a~(J):r. c ..... en <oOlllu ::Tc:Jc ..... ~. a. 0" ......:J.....- a; <0 0 o' -.....O::T g,~E:CD o III III :E 3 5' 5' -.CD :J CD 5~<O <0 ='"0 (ii' en <3 c ..... <D- ::'0 -c r+ -, -. en::TO:J .. CD 3 0' 0......... ::T::r3 IllCD,< "":J 0 :E Q!.C = <0 III - :J" rr -rro CDOC Ill.......... O'::T..... .....O::T ::TO CD CD a. >...... -fO~ :DO-f -J>.. -3'01 III m -.c o 01 ......'....0. .0 ::t CD aO~.......encI~ -o=! CDCDIllIll g :J" .... ET~ == :.< 3 ~ S2<> 1110 0' 0 - DI :J" 0 " ..... 0 :s: 'tl ll.l -. ,Ill C III iii' en III 0 01 :J -< en:J ,0...... Qm CD 0"0'=....... ~:J s: ~o 0- ~:D 0 0. ..... :J" I\) ~. 0 I III ~ III g ~~~ ~~.g.01 ~. :J" Q~CDa s: ~g(il....... !!. CD ::;-.......0 g. eno.......o 0, ~ 3 gP :: 0. :T :s: 3 2: CD III ~ 3 ..... C) 5' ~ g 3' ro . c< 3p. .... o ..!,. o o ..... en 0: CD <<NAME1 )) ccNAME2>> ccADD1 >> <<ADD2>) <<CITY>> <<STATE>> <<ZIP>> o :r Q) :J :r Q) en Ch CDZ ::] 0 .... ::g... cr Q) CD :J' 0 :J-h -. :J"tJ mc 0'2: o o' 3:J: 3 (I) C;;'~ en -. -~::J Occ :J S (I) !. -. :J cc Location Map . McHugh Variance 7450 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-17 - - ~ ~~ \ -Mrr ~~ ~>';<0\ ( G~\ BasJWood ~ ~ Lotus Lake '- ? I - ~ I- i h ahd\ [br"~$ J I Clma ~~.r . .. 7450 Chanhassen ~ ~~ Road ~ r 1X$1 f:-~ \ / ~ - ~l'1 t) ,~t .-- Ct1~ '" Y~~f~ II ~ - - _"^\ I () ~ s- - J"(Y ~--rla;1 ~ \ \ -~_~ 1 '- ~.c::-; / ~ e L~ - L1- I~~' ~'f mj'Mt ~ - -.- 7 e-l s 00 ~ .J \' I /,.. ~ &. :E- ,"\ \j -'- ~I ~L %'<& ~~ L m"'i..~ ~ - y~/ ~i HIli / V; /r -- ~ J /j ~ --...- ------- THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT FLYNN & VALERIE FLYNN 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEANNE M RAYMOND 7440 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL C & RUTH C SHOEMAKER 7380 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARL B FITZSIMMONS & PATRICIA K FITZSIMMONS 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAT H FITZSIMMONS & PATRICIA L FITZSIMMONS 7400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN T JENKS 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & BETH A MCAULEY 20 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY P MON 7470 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL 7410 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SEYMOUR S RESNIK 7370 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER & TRACEY RUST 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT J & DENISE B SMITH 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLlN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,'.C '-I' l)-...>- 'Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner. ,.. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A STORAGE SHED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7450 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT. TIMOTHY.& DIANE MCHUGH. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-17. ' Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Papke: In terms of the storage available on the site here, the garage, the dimensions are listed here. I take it this is a two car garage, is that correct? That the occupant currently has. Timothy McHugh: Yes. Papke: Okay. And is there any storage above, maybe I'll hold this for the applicant. Okay, that's all I have. Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other variances that you found on that area of the lake. You've got 2 listed in here. Is Hill Street nearby? Metzer: Yeah, it's to the southwest. Keefe: Oh I see it, south of the property. So there are a couple of them. Metzer: Hill Street is here, Subject property is here. Keefe: Alright. And then in terms of 27 foot front yard setback variance. Construction, expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what I'm looking at? Okay. 9 foot side yard setback. Construction of a one car garage. Okay. And those are the only two that you found in regards to variances which have been granted along the sort of east and south of Lotus Lake? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: Okay. And then another question, what does the fire department say about access in regards to this? 7 ICANNQ Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 .. Metzer: Fire Marshal had no comment. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Because what space do we have between then the shed and the neighbor to the south? Metzer: Quite a distance. The existing garage of the subject home and the, you have an existing garage here which is probably the most proximate to the neighboring home. The proposed shed here is a much greater distance. Actually there's a photo in the staff report showing, a picture taken from the neighboring property looking towards the shed. There's a row of trees that are inbetween the shed and the neighboring home. Keefe: And the access from a fire perspective would be, if they needed to get to the lake side of this property. Metzer: This wouldn't hinder that. Keefe: This wouldn't impede that. Undestad: .. . non-conforming under the 20,000 square feet. How many other lots around there, that lake are under 20,000 feet? Metzer: That I don't know. It looks like possibly, right next door it may be, and the 2 or 3 to the south of it. After that the lots get quite longer. And they're 18,000 some thousand so it's not that far out. So I would assume maybe 2 or 3 others surrounding. Undestad: In this development, this Sunset View as part of this that was done back in '54, was that this whole area along. Metzer: I believe it was the 10 lots, the 10 long narrow lots that you see on the east. The eastern shore. Undestad: And the rest of those, I mean width wide, are they all in the 55 foot range or are they a little more? Metzer: They vary. The ones toward Hill Street look to be about the same as this and a couple others next door, but other than that, a majority are wider. More so up the street. Undestad: Anybody else have sheds out in the yard out there? Timothy McHugh: There are other sheds. Metzer: Quite a few, I noticed a couple right down at the lake. McDonald: I've got a couple of questions. First of all, this shed is not attached to the building, is that correct? 8 C3/1tl'lAOa Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I'm a little unclear about this myself but what would happen if they went out to Home Depot and they bought one of those plastic sheds- you can buy? At that point, they probably put a foundation in to level it up and everything. Would that also have to come before us then for a variance review? Metzer: Placement of the shed would have to, yes. McDonald: Okay. And then one of the things you put in the report, you said it may impair the adequate supply of light and air. How? That's on page 9. 1\ctually I'm sorry, it's on page 7(f). Metzer: That might have been a typo. McDonald: Okay, because I'm at a loss to see how it impairs. Metzer: I am too at this moment I guess so it's most likely. McDonald: With that if there's no other questions, I will now ask the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Timothy McHugh: My name is Timothy McHugh. I live at 7450 Chanhassen Road. Right on Lotus Lake there. To give you a little bit of background here, we built in '87 and you know we understood all the setbacks and everything and when we placed the house where we did, we basically took into consideration what it would do to the other neighbors. I originally wanted to put the house closer to the lake to get more of the view because right now I'm over 200 feet away from the lakeshore, and the reason we didn't plan the house that way is because we thought we would impair the view for the neighbors, and I know I wouldn't appreciate anybody doing that to me for what you pay to live on a lake, so basically we put it back so both neighbors bought into it. If I would have put it forward I probably could have put the shed on the street side. I really don't have room on how the lot is. You are correct, I was notified about it. I was under the impression you could build a shed as long as it wasn't over the 120 square feet and if it wasn't a structure attached to the house, I thought it was perfectly legal, and I didn't think there were any requirements and I found out later I was wrong and for that I apologize. And after we were notified, we looked at all possible areas to put the shed and I cannot find any place to put it where it will conform and not be in the neighbors view or from the light, so that's kind of how it really were it ended up where it is, and we went to great expense and pain to decide that so it doesn't look like somebody went to Menard's and bought a shed and just plopped it in there. And we were had the cedar siding and everything to match it to where it actually looks like an addition, and that's why somebody called is they thought I was building an addition, which I wasn't. Because the original notice I had had addition on there, and then it was crossed out when the inspector went down there, he realized there was a shed but I am too close to the line, so I do understand you know why I was ticketed basically for it. Let me put this up. It's currently about 2 inches away from the house and I have cement blocks on there and ties underneath it in the ground to hold it so it won't shift. I know there other sheds in the area and there are a lot of structures that don't conform, however they were built basically before there were any laws and 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 so forth. I mean if you actually look right here, this deck is like 18 inches from our property line and the house is 4 feet from my property line. I don't know what else to say. I really don't have any place else to put it and I really need the storage, mainly for the riding lawn mower which is 4 feet. If you have any questions I'd. McDonald: Any questions? Papke: Do you have any rafter space or anything for storage? I know you can't obviously put a riding lawn mower on the rafters but I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your alternatives are for storage. Timothy McHugh: Yes, there are rafters up there. I have some lawn chairs but that's about it because there's not much weight you could put up there. Papke: Okay, so the main purpose of the shed is storage of the riding lawn mower. Timothy McHugh: For yard tools and riding lawn mower. If it would help I wouldn't have any problems putting a fence in down the property line. Not a whole one but you know just to off set it, if somebody really thought it was necessary. I do have a letter in there from the neighbor. He totally is for it and he doesn't believe it obstructs his view. Keefe: Do you see the neighbor to the south? Timothy McHugh: To the south, correct. Keefe: Okay. Timothy McHugh: Which is the owner of this property right here. Keefe: And was it the City who thought you were doing an addition or was it another? Timothy McHugh: I don't really know. Maybe. Keefe: I think it said an anonymous letter, didn't it? Timothy McHugh: Yeah. Undestad: On the north side there, is that your access down to the lake? Timothy McHugh: There's a pathway here. That's also where the gas meter and so forth is. On that end ofthe garage. And that's where the electricity comes in and there's really not enough room there either. Undestad: If you had just the opposite side of the structure where your shed is now, what's on that side of your house? 10 Planning COmmission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Timothy McHugh: I'm sorry. Undestad: Yeah, you're showing that the drive. Timothy McHugh: Oh, I pointed in the wrong place. Yeah, the gas meter is right in here. Undestad: And the rest of that kind of elevation just keeps going down? Timothy McHugh: Yeah, it goes down correct. Undestad: .. . the jog, where your house jogs in down there. Did you look at putting it over there too? Timothy McHugh: Well actually we looked at putting it over here, but there are windows there for the bedroom in the basement and so forth right on the ground level. Really can't put it, and in front of it, and also I have the same problem width wise over there as I do on the other side. McDonald: Is this envisioned to be a permanent structure then? Once you put it up it will stay up? Timothy McHugh: I didn't plan on taking it down if it's approved. McDonald: At the front of your lot, toward 101 and the area there I guess that would be kind of to the north. Where your front yard is at and everything. What's up in that area? Timothy McHugh: We actually dug it out on the south side of the lot. On the east side of the property there for the driveway. There's probably a 4 foot high berm up there with trees and so forth. McDonald: Okay. And the drop off from the house, about where the house jogs on the, it'd be on the north side. Is that a rather, I mean looking at the pictures it looks as though that part of the house begins to, it's two stories at that point. Is it kind of a walkout like at that particular stage where the ground's coming down toward the lake? I'm trying to get an idea of where the elevation begins to drop off. Timothy McHugh: Basically after the garage it starts dropping off. However on the other, where this is, it actually starts dropping off right at the end of the garage. It just, the natural slope goes all the way down to the lake that way. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questio~s I have. Undestad: One more quick one. On here it says you have no foundation or anything on there. Is it just dirt floor and you just drive into that? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Timothy McHugh: No. Yeah, what I did is I dug it out. Oops, sorry. There we go. And I have cement blocks. These squares and then these are what, 6 by 5 ties that are attached on all the comers with angle irons screwed into the, so it can't move. Undestad: So you just put a wooded decking or something over the top of that? Timothy McHugh: Right. I've got a complete write up in there on the % inch exterior plywood treated. It's built not to go anywhere or it's basically built to code of any thing as far as materials go. McDonald: Okay. And at this point there's no further questi9ns from staff, I'll throw it open to the floor, if anyone out there has any comments. I would invite you to come forward now and speak before the council. Well I guess having seen no one moving to come up, I will close discussion and turn it back to the commission here for comment. Keefe: One more question Josh. On the one picture it looks like there might be a retaining wall on the south side of the property to the east. Is that a retaining wall or what is the sort of garden area ? Yes, that one. Metzer: Yes, it's probably about, how many feet would you say that is Tim? Timothy McHugh: Lengthwise it's probably 30. It's two tiered from the ground up. Diane McHugh: ... up from the south neighbor... Keefe: Right. Right. Metzer: From the view we're looking at is the short side. Once you get to around to the back of it, it's a bit higher. Keefe: Right. And then the, it looks like the retaining wall extends further to the south and the proposed shed is. No? Timothy McHugh: No, actually. Diane McHugh: It's right by. Keefe: The tree. Diane McHugh: Yeah, that's where it's. Keefe: But what I'm saying is I think the retaining wall takes up more, is closer to your neighbor's property line than the shed will be. Timothy McHugh: Correct. You're correct. 12 Planning CommissIon Meeting - May 17. 2005 Keefe: Is that a fair statement? Metzer: Yeah, it's probably very close, I'm sure. Keefe: Yeah, okay. You know retaining walls are fairly permanent type of fixture. We don't require a variance to have a retaining wall. Metzer: No. Retaining wall's actually are treated like a fence. They came come within 1 inch of a property line, granted that engineering okay's it and there's no easements. There'd be no easements on this property. They could be within 1 inch of the property line if they chose. Keefe: Okay. Without a variance. Metzer: Yeah. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: You have one more? Timothy McHugh: If I could say one more thing. The retaining wall was put in by the request of the city to give us a move in permit because of the, they were afraid of runoff and erosion. Keefe: I may as well just continue since I'm going. Now I guess one of the questions I'm struggling with is what is the hardship here and I'm trying to come up with a reason for hardship other than potential for no room for a riding lawn mower. You potentially could put that in the garage. Not enough storage on site, I mean in order to approve a variance we have to meet the conditions of the hardship right, so we need to, in order to be able to grant it we'd have to come up with some. Any thought from your perspective on, I mean that's why you denied it, right? Metzer: Right. We don't have the ability to, as staff to recommend approval of something like that. I'd just note the applicant's you know great lengths to help it blend with the existing structure. We recognize that. Keefe: Right, but that doesn't really address the hardship requirements for hardship. Okay. Any thoughts on hardship guys? McDonald: Hardship's one of the things I was struggling with too because it's, you know I think you probably look at replacing the property to place this and I don't know where you're going to place it because he's on a hill. I understand that. But then at the same point I don't have a good hardship either. I thought about that. Does anyone else? Papke: One other data point to consider, I think this is about the fourth variance request I can remember in the past 6-8 months or so where the variance was requested after the entity had been constructed. Whether it was a garage or a shed or whatever, and I think in good faith to the city code I think we almost have to shut our eyes to the fact that it's already there. I mean I think we have to just say, would we approve or deny this if, I think you did a great job of building the 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 shed, as I'm sure it'd be a great shed. But I think we just have to kind of close our eyes to the fact that it's there right now and approve or deny it on the basis of, ifthe applicant was in here and there was nothing there, what would we do? So, just another perspective. McDonald: I would agree with that and I tried to look at it from that standpoint too, but I guess, Deborah, you got something? Zorn: I would have to agree with Kurt that it does seem like quite a challenging lot and I don't know if there's any way to, for the applicant to look at possible storage under what he's got or that's probably been considered already but, I would have to treat it as well as Kurt mentioned, as if there was no, a structure was not there currently, how would we treat this and the hardship is probably where I would feel it's not as strong. Undestad: And you looked at other places on the site. Could you slide that around the comer or anything? Diane McHugh: If you... we did manage to try to get the DNR... so we have access for things that we need for the back yard, not for the front yard. The front yard doesn't really need any... Undestad: We're not even making you stand up here. Diane McHugh: .. . We felt that that would be deter from the look of the lake from people coming around and driving to take a very rubbish area and.. . Undestad: Yeah, I mean I can see how you can't see it. I mean you did a great job of blending it in there. Like they say, the problem we're having is trying to come up with a reason for a variance that will be based on hardship here. Diane McHugh: It was difficult.. . for the garage. Okay. We're looking at a lot that we bought and we feel we could.. .It' s not a very big home. It's a very small home, and so from the side if you are looking at where we could take a mower through, it's not easy. It is not easy going through there with a mower. If we had to work around the drainage off the Highway 101 to be able to not bother our neighbors to the south, and work it so it goes along the side there and there's a not a lot of room to work with on that side, so...but we have retaining walls on both sides because there's a slope here to the lot, and.. . going towards the lake. And makes it so much easier, I'm going to be very honest. We do not put our mower in the garage. We found it a hardship to try to keep it in the garage. We put it on the patio blocks that's back there underneath the 3 season porch. We would like to keep it a little bit neater, cleaner look to our... lot so we wanted a small shed to be able to put a snowblower, and also the.. . cleaning up the yard back there. That was our hardship. We felt, I did not like the garbage. I did not like seeing my mower and my, all the things laying out on that patio underneath my porch. Timothy McHugh: .. .nice patio. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Diane McHugh: Well it just looks dirty... They have a hard time finding them on the lake but once you get there, you can. . . you can see them. It's not easy to keep bringing them up to the garage. McDonald: On the shed itself, how big of a, if we were to say you've got to cut it back, could you cut it back? Would it be usable at that point? How much room do you actually need in there? Timothy McHugh: We would need 48 inches for the mower pad. So if we ended up with, I have... It's like a garage door but it was made for a 5 ~ feet so we could get the mower in at least enough room for the headers and what you need to sup~ort it. McDonald: Any other questions? Papke: Just one other observation. You know I think also the comment from the neighbor that he approves, I think we do have to take into account that that neighbor may not be there forever and whoever buys the house next door, at some point may not approve and that's why we have the codes in place is because people change and opinions change but you know the code should stay the same. Keefe: Just a question in regards to reasonable use. I mean one of the things that we got on page 7(a) is, you know second sentence says undue hardship means it probably can't be put to reasonable use because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography. Is there anything in that, given where the shed lies and the need to do, traverse the property? Question of reasonable use. Do they have reasonable use of the property for themselves, and I can't say that they don't. You know. McDonald: Well as far as flat areas, where is the property flat besides that one particular spot because you've got a berm up front. It evidently starts sloping from the garage down to the lake on the north side. Where else on the property could it go? Undestad: Right, assuming they didn't have one and they brought something in, where they logically put it. McDonald: Where would they logically put it? Undestad: Probably right there. Keefe: Well you know, the question of reasonable use of the property is having a shed you know sort of a requirement for reasonable use. Metzer: Down by the lake isn't really an option either because it has to be water oriented accessory structure to be within 75 feet of the lake and using it for storage of a lawn mower or snowblower would not be considered water oriented. 15 --- --.--.--..--.- Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 McDonald: So that keeps pushing them back up toward the house, and it keeps putting them in that one particular area. Timothy McHugh: We tried looking at every possible place and there isn't any other place it can be that somebody isn't going to object to. If I put it out in the middle of the yard. McDonald: Well does anyone else have any more comments or any further discussion on this? Any recommendations that maybe there's something else that we could do? I'll be truthful, I'm afraid that if we say yeah we'll go ahead and give you the variance, we have no basis to do that. You'll get up before the City Council and it will be denied up there because we need to give them something and right now I can't see it. I mean I understand not wanting to have clutter in your yard. All of that's a positive and everything, but I'm afraid this just doesn't rise to the level of a necessity at this point. And the only way that we can look at this is as though it doesn't exist, so you know if you'd come to us with this and we were looking at it as to approve it or not, I think we would be hard pressed to give you the variance. Timothy McHugh: I thought part of the reasoning from what I read in there that, does it conform to the rest of the neighborhood? And I mean look at what we're really up against right here. I mean you don't even notice this. I mean I see this every day I go in and out of the house and the garage. McDonald: Well I agree with you but as the last case points out on all these lake front properties, we have to be very careful about granting variances. There have to be good reasons for doing so, and whereas a house, a place to live is one thing. A shed is something entirely different. And that's what we're wrestling with is that you know to grant this variance, are we opening up Pandora's Box to all these other lots? Now one suggestion I might make is that, is it possible to table this and work with staff on something to come up with another solution on this? I don't think it's going to end up where it's at, I'll be honest with you but maybe there's something else that could be done. It's just at this point I'm afraid the sentiment is that if this goes to a vote, we'll probably go along with what staff recommends because we have not been able to find I think what you need us to have us grant a variance. Keefe: Let me ask just a couple of questions. You know on the other side, I mean we're having a hard time with the hardship but on the other side, you know if you look at where the retaining wall is on their property, it actually extends and it's a pretty permanent structure in that retaining wall that they've got in there. I mean it actually extends closer to the property line than the shed would and so, I mean you've got a, really a hard structure that's already there that's sort of encroaching on the neighbor's yard. You've got the agreement from the neighbor that it's okay to do this. You've got...it' s still closer to the property line than this shed would be if it were approved. Those are some of the things that are on the other side, but the question we've got is, can we find a hardship and then I guess by, you know I guess our task is to uphold the codes of the city as best we can, right? So, anybody else got any thoughts on that? McDonald: Where on this drawing is the retaining wall? I mean I see the picture here and you're talking about the one that goes down by the... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Keefe: This line here. I mean that one is closer to the property line and that's a fairly permanent structure. It's landscaping. It's not a shed that's, unattached shed, right. It's not. Timothy McHugh: Yeah, there's a porch here. This is-our entry into the house. And then as Josh drew in here, the retaining wall comes up this way and it's two tiers and each tier is probably what, 4 feet? So we're probably 8 feet in the retaining wall there. Where you see the difference in the colors of the stone is actually the property.. . Undestad: And you can't really drive your tractor down that side of the house can you? .. .So that's part ofthe reason why you want your shed in the back there because you, it's difficult to get back and forth. Timothy McHugh: Right. McDonald: Well, I guess if you look at it from the standpoint of the use of it's property. There's no place else to put it. Keefe: Would that create a hardship? McDonald: Well I guess where it begins to create a hardship is that, I mean one of the things that's advantageous to the city is that as people are on the lakes and you know the homes and everything present a neat you know appearance. It doesn't look as though we have junk cluttered up or anything such as that. If you go around the lake, on most of the lots around there, you don't find those kind of situations on Lotus Lake. People are able to put these types of things, either in a garage because they've got a larger lot, or they do have sheds on the garage, or on the lots that they are able to take care ofthis. He's not able to use, there is a patio underneath the 3 season porch, am I correct? Timothy McHugh: That's correct. McDonald: And at this point that's where all this ends up going. Timothy McHugh: Rather than get stored there. McDonald: So it, I mean based upon all that, where else could he put something such as this? There is a hardship there that there is not another place on the lot where something such as this could go. Papke: Mr. Chair, I guess I respectfully disagree with that. I don't think having an enclosed structure for one's lawn mower is a hardship. I agree with the aesthetics and we want the house to look nice from the lake, but you know, they're parking it on the patio now. And that seems to work so. McDonald: Okay. Well at this point I'm willing to accept a motion from the committee. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Papke: Well Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05- 17 for a 5 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned single family residential based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. And number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I will second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-17 for a 5 foot variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard setback to build a storage shed on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential, (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. All voted in favor, except McDonald and Undestad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. McDonald: Okay, motion passes 3 to 2. Variance is denied. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2005 as presented. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director - Prepared by Nann Opheim 18