Loading...
PC Minutes 07-19-2011 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Kairies, Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: CHRISTENSEN VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (HORSE STABLE) IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) LOCATED AT 10 PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT: MATT AND SARAH CHRISTENSEN, PLANNING CASE 11-06. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Matt & Sarah Christensen 10 Pioneer Trail Phil & Deb Gjervold 9381 Highview Drive, Eden Prairie Kairies: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you tonight is for 10 Pioneer Trail, Lot 3, Block 1, Lake Riley Highland Addition for an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet. The subject site is located just south of Lake Riley. It’s bordered by Pioneer Trail to the south. There are other agricultural, excuse me, agricultural estate properties to the west and the east edge of the property is the border between Chanhassen Eden Prairie. The request tonight is for a 1,304 square footage variance from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure size limitation for the construction of a 2,304 square foot horse stable. The site conditions on the site are, again as I mentioned it’s within the shoreland district as Lake Riley is to the north of the property. There’s a wetland to the south of the property along Pioneer Trail and then there are single family residential homes in Eden Prairie. It’s accessed via private drive which serves 3 homes coming off of Pioneer Trail and staff did speak with Eden Prairie, with the City of Eden Prairie to see what their ordinances were with single family residential homes next to an agricultural estate district and they do have similar regulations as the City of Chanhassen. For some background, in May, 2007 the City Code was amended to limit accessory structures to 1,000 square feet in all residential zoning districts. The intent of this was to limit home occupations that were bring run out of large accessory structures. At the time of the amendment it was also discussed that agricultural uses that require larger buildings would be a reasonable request for a variance from the 1,000 square feet. Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code does address private stables and horses within the city and the number of horses is based on the area or the number of acres for the site. This site is over 6 acres, therefore it could have up to 16 horses on this property. As part of that it requires Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 that the shelter provide adequate protection and space for animals. It does require that the barn is at least 100 feet from any neighboring dwelling. That includes the neighbors in Eden Prairie. And 200 feet from any wetland and it also requires a perimeter fence around the property. And here’s just, if you can see the white stakes which is they staked where the barn is to go in. This is looking from their driveway towards Eden Prairie, towards the neighbors. Just to give you an idea of where it will be located on the site. The proposed stable is, the actual barn portion of it is 48 feet by 36 feet and then attached to that would be a 12 foot by 48 foot awning that would protect the animals when they’re outside. After speaking with the City Attorney we decided that we would combine both the open area and the enclosed area as part of the variance for the overall request. For the interior layout the common size, as recommended by the equestrian experts is a 12 foot by 12 foot stall or a tack room with a 12 foot center island, or center aisle, excuse me. And then the applicant proposes to house approximately 4 horses, tack, feed and then hay and other related equipment. This is a practical difficulty to exceed 1,000 square feet because it is directly related to the horses and the requirements as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code. And I should also mention that the stable will meet all required setbacks as outlined in the city code as well. With that staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request and I’ll take any questions at this time. Aller: It will then meet the 100 feet behind the dwelling requirement. Kairies: Correct. Aller: And it meets the 200 feet from the watershed of wetland. Kairies: Correct. Aller: And then the perimeter fence. In reading this it looks like it’s not quite on the edge of the property, is that? Kairies: Right. The perimeter fence is approximately 9 inches inside the property. City code requires 1 inch within, however the applicant’s placing it further in to make sure that the horses remain on their property and don’t lean over to the other property. Aller: And then in looking at this it looks like the shed is capable of holding 4, or 6 horses and their intent is for 4? Kairies: At this time as a part of the application the intent was for 4 but it could house up to 6. Aller: But the code allows them to have 16 based on square footage. Kairies: Correct. Aller: I have no further questions. Anyone else? Undestad: I just have one with the wetland down there, are there any issues? Is that fenced off from the horses or are… 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 Kairies: The applicant could answer that. Matt Christensen: I’m Matt Christensen. This is my wife Sarah. We’re the applicants and the owners of the land. We actually have permitted and, for the better part completed the perimeter fencing with the exception of the west edge where the barn will eventually go because we didn’t want to put it in the wrong place and end up having to move it or whatever. And it does go up the wetland a fairly considerable distance. We permitted away from the wetlands even though the fencing could go down maybe even closer but we wanted to get a good buffer area there and keep it real natural for the health of the wetlands. Sarah Christensen: And we did talk to Terry about where he would recommend that it should go in order to maintain healthy, I mean we want that part to do well too so. Aller: Okay. Anyone else? Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair, thank you. Angie, when I started reading this it looked like there was kind of a conflict with the number of horses that are allowed and then the size of the building that was constricted and then I got to the part where there was a presumption about a variance would be allowed for agricultural use. Is that just institutional knowledge or is that invented somewhere in a code or you know how does that come up? You showed it to us and told us but if we just looked purely at, and I didn’t go back and read the code but we look purely at that, would that jump out at us or? Kairies: It’s part of the staff report from when the code was amended for the 1,000 square foot limitation so that was the intent of it. Aanenson: I could address a little bit further planning commissioners. At the time that we drafted the requirement restricting the accessory structures we had some larger lots in the city. As the city has moved from agrarian to more suburban, those tend to be conflict areas where people have large structures that they’re actually running businesses out of, so the question came up when we put the ordinance in place to restrict that. If it’s an agricultural use, we look at it a case by case basis because, just because you’re on agriculture doesn’t mean you’re using it for agricultural purposes so what we said in the staff report is that we look at those on a case by case basis because sometimes agricultural land, people tend, or may want to be running a different type of a business out of the barn so in this case you have the opportunity to actually look at what the intent is for, clearly this intent is for the agricultural purpose of horses. We did put in the staff report kind of another discussion point that wasn’t really addressed and you know we talked about what if it went from horses and someone decided to run maybe a small minor goat and dairy kind of operation out of it so just something that you may want to talk about in your conditions of approval as far as what the expectation would be from the neighbors. That they’re expecting that it be a 4 horse property which may have a different type of nuisance than someone else keeping maybe sheep or something like that so again the intent is just to disclose to the neighbors what their expectations would be for the property. Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 Aller: I guess I would have a question for the applicants then. In the report it indicates that additionally staff has added conditions that the structure not be used as a dwelling in the future at any time. Is that your understanding as well? That it would not be. Matt Christensen: Yep… Aller: Just so everybody’s clear on that. Aanenson: Can I just add one other point of clarification too that did get brought up but just in case, because it’s for their purposes, if they were to actually take in boarder horses then kind of maybe operating as something else, that also would require a different permit to come back before you to look at that and just so everybody’s on notice on that too so if they’re using it for their purposes and not boarding horses, that’s fine. But if they were to maybe take in some additional and do riding, that would require them to come back and ask for permission on that too. Aller: Any further questions? Tennyson: I do have one question then. So is there any commercial purpose to this stable and horses? Matt Christensen: No. Sarah Christensen: We just want our girls to grow up around animals. That’s what we grew up with and that’s why we bought the property. Tennyson: Thank you. Doll: One question Angie. Did the, what is the Eden Prairie property, it says residential and it’s not in agricultural. They don’t have horses there? Kairies: They do not. It’s an agriculturally zoned district but in talking to one of the city planners at the City of Eden Prairie, they said if, within the city of Eden Prairie residential next to agricultural would have similar, they would be allowed to have horses and do agricultural type activities neighboring residential as well. Doll: Then what kind of feedback did you have from any letters that went out to anybody? Kairies: Mainly just asking what we were doing. Making sure that we weren’t subdividing property essentially and once we explained that it was for a stable for private use, everyone was okay with it. Doll: Okay. And is there, you know there’s setbacks but how do the horses are large and what comes out of horses is kind of large, how do we take care of that and protect the wetland and the lake? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 Kairies: Right. Within the city code there are regulations for collecting manure and making sure that the area is kept clean and things like that. Doll: And how is that enforced? I mean. Aanenson: Can I just elaborate on that if I may Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Doll: Please. Aanenson: A private stable license is required and those are inspected. We have someone that’s qualified on the city staff to actually go in and inspect those, so they check that to make sure if their flies become a nuisance or anything like that, manure, any other nuisance then those are inspected annually, and any complaints would be followed up by the City on that too and that’s part of the first condition which is the stable permit so those are inspected annually. Doll: Okay. Ellsworth: I have no further questions. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else from the public, opening the public portion of the hearing. Would like to come forward. No one coming forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners. Comments? Motion from the commissioners. Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case 2011-06 for accessory structure area variance subject to conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. Ellsworth: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Undestad moved, Ellsworth seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2011-06 for a 1,304 square- foot variance from the maximum 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure for the construction of a 2,304 square-foot stable on Lot 3, Block 1, Lake Riley Highlands Addition, based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to the following conditions: 1.The private stable must meet all setback requirements. 2.Building permit required. 3.Structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 4.The applicant must obtain a stable permit. 5.The accessory structure may not be used as a separate dwelling unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BURROUGHS VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A SPORT COURT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 10036 TRAILS END ROAD. APPLICANT: JOSH KOLLER, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN. OWNER: STACEY & PHIL BURROUGHS, PLANNING CASE 2011-07. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Zwart 1301 E. Cliff Road, Burnsville Craig Jones 1301 E. Cliff Road, Burnsville Josh Koller 1027 Northview Park Road, Eagan Phil Burroughs 10036 Trails End Road Kairies: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you tonight is for 10036 Trails End Road, Lot 15, Block 1, Settlers West. Property zoned Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting, back one more time. Excuse me. It’s located south of Pioneer Trail. To the west of the property is the Hennepin County Regional Railroad. To the south of the property, south end of the entire development is basically bluff area and then to the east is also Eden Prairie towards the north part of the subdivision. The applicant is requesting a 4.3% or 681 square foot variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation within the residential single family district for the construction of a sport court in the rear yard. The Settlers West subdivision was platted in 2005 and as part of platting the subdivision there was several environmental considerations that took place. For instance there are bluffs which are all outlined in red so the majority of the southern half of Settlers West. There’s a seasonally high water table within the development. There are several tree preservation areas and outlots to protect the natural features. The development is made up primarily of clay soils. As also part of the development to control some of the storm water runoff, there were reverse swales that were put in on the southern part of the development to ensure that water does not go down the bluff and cause erosion problems. And then again on the west side there were storm water pipes that were put into the rear yards in drainage and utility easements to control where runoff is being distributed so that it’s not causing erosion in the bluff and then on the regional railway. And all of the runoff does go into the Minnesota River which is an impaired water. The subject site came in for a building permit in 2006 and at that time the hard surface coverage was at 24.7% and again 25% is the maximum. The property included the house, garage, driveway, sidewalk from the front door to the driveway and also 180 square foot patio. Prior to tonight’s meeting the applicant did come in and request a zoning permit to install patios and stepping stones which brought the property to 25% exactly, and then today they’re requesting to install a 681 square foot sport court which would bring them to 29.3%. The 6