Loading...
PC 2005 05 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet and Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, PLANNING CASE 05-10. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions from any of the commissioners? Papke: I can start here. Under applicable regulations, point (e). The issue of destruction of non- conforming to the extent of more than 50%. Is this particular proposal more than 50% of it’s estimated value? So is this regulation enforced? Metzer: Well yes, by demo’ing their existing home. Papke: So this thing is. Metzer: It’s 100%... Papke: It’s 100% gone so it’s like 99%. Okay. Given that, what is the precedent for allowing a conformity under that particular situation. The non-conformity. How many times before have we allowed someone to bypass that limit of the 50% demolition and then allow them to have a variance, the non-conformity. Al-Jaff: In the past we have ran into situations when, and it was in that exact same neighborhood. They maintained existing and there was another situation where they exceeded what originally was on the site as far as hard surface coverage and setback. Papke: So there is precedence for doing this? Planning Commission Meeting – May 17. 2005 Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. The reason I bring that up, because I know in that same neighborhood there are some homeowners that have gone to great extent not to exceed that 50% to not lose that grandfather clause, and my concern here is, you know are we establishing a precedent here that these lots along Lake Riley Boulevard, we can mow them down as long as we can build them back up and make it a little bit better than it was before. Okay, that’s the concern. I’m just wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time? Al-Jaff: We have done this before. McDonald: Next? Deborah, do you have any questions? Zorn: No. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Okay. No questions of staff from the council at this point. I will ask that the applicant come forward. Tim Walker: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. It’s good to see at least some of you again. Recognize some new faces. I don’t think we have anything to add other than the staff report, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to Josh and Sharmeen. Laura Cooper: And Matt Saam. Tim Walker: And Matt, yeah. We spent quite a bit of time and worked very closely with them. Appreciate them putting effort into it all. McDonald: Okay. Any questions of the applicants? Keefe: No, I guess what I’d like to say is I appreciate your willingness to work with staff and consider the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission and really work on your design because I know you guys kind of went through a wholesale change from where you were before and we appreciate that. Tim Walker: Thanks. McDonald: Okay. Well with that I’ll throw it open to the floor. This is an open meeting. Anyone that would like to come forward with any comments on this matter, please do so now. And when you come up to the mic, would you please identify yourself and tell us where you live in relation to this home. 2 Planning Commission Meeting – May 17. 2005 Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name’s Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I live down the street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So I’m very interested in what happens to our shoreland. I have to apologize to staff because I was not able to look at this until late this afternoon and there’s a finding that I think is important. And that is, you list applicable regulations, Section 20-73. Non-conforming use of structures and Kurt asked some questions about that today. But there’s also another section that’s relative when a home is totally eliminated and that’s Section 20-73. Non-conforming lots of record. And point (b), I’ll just read this. It’s hard I know when you don’t have it in front of you but I couldn’t copy it either. I should have probably printed this off at the office. Anyway, no variance shall be required to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record excluding platted outlots, provided it fronts on a public street or approved private street, and provided that the structure meets the minimum requirements of this chapter. The minimum requirements it’s speaking about are the shoreland regulations, zoning setbacks. So this was re-written, it was enacted as a new ordinance on May 24, 2004. So one year ago this was changed. And one year ago it used to read 70, it had to meet 75% of the ordinance. Now it reads it must meet the minimum requirements of the chapter. Not 75%. The minimum requirements of the entire chapter. So that’s important. It’s also important in light of, if you look at the other homes that are listed in your report, if you look at 1999, the last one on the first page. Number 14. And 2003, number 7. Those variance files. The shoreland setback for those properties was set at 57 feet. Which is 75% of the setback as the code was written then. But now the code was changed last year. No more 75%. It means 100%. So I just think you need to realize that. That yes, variances were enacted over time but the code was strengthen last year and you can look at all these items but the purpose of it is to protect the shoreland. Also the first 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of these items highlighted in yellow were all variances granted before 1994, before we re-wrote the shoreline code in Chanhassen. So I think you kind of have to kind of disregard that too. Not that I’m like against these people or anything. They’ve made some progress. I think maybe more progress could even be made. That impervious surface number is outstanding, and that’s why it’s hard to stand up here and say anything because that is really outstanding. But I was contemplating all of this and I was thinking, you know it’s society. We all want what our neighbors have. These big homes or whatever. I’ve never in what, 5-6 years here have ever heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It’s small. I’d like to build a small, quality home. May I have a variance please for a single car garage. A single family with one car, they do exist. This property, lovely. 3 car garages. I mean a 3 car garage. I think there’s room here for a more, even though progress has been made, you know and I applaud them for that, and if I owned that piece of property I’d want to put the best home on it too, but I think there is opportunity here for improvement. And to Kurt’s point, you know where do you hold the line? You keep making variance, variance, variance. You know I write the City Council and I do crazy things and I kind of dubbed our little development by St. Hubert’s, I don’t even remember the real name. What is it? Pond? What’s that supposed to be called? Al-Jaff: Villages on the Pond. Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. I’ve kind of dubbed that, you’ve never heard this before, sorry. I’ve kind of dubbed that Variancea. I don’t want our whole town to become a variance. I 3 Planning Commission Meeting – May 17. 2005 mean we have standards and that’s why I continue to come up here, embarrass myself and, but I try to bring forth what’s in the code and make it valuable to you as well. Keefe: I have a question for you. Just you know the thing that I like about this is they’re actually improving the hard surface coverage from the existing home. And I don’t know, what year was the existing home built? Metzer: ’78. Keefe: ’78 so I mean they’re improving the hard surface coverage. And so you know, in regards,. And they do have a very small lot so I’m sitting here going, at least so I’m kind of sitting here going, okay. Since ’78 we’ve been living with a situation where it’s been non- conforming and now they’ve come back and they’re actually, yeah they are making a bigger house, but they’re improving the hard surface coverage so, I’m not sure what type of an improvement we could suggest on that particular property, particularly in light of a smaller. Debbie Lloyd: I think the setbacks on the lake is really vital because the 75% with that 57 feet back, the requirement is 75 feet and this one is at 43 feet. Keefe: So what does that leave on this lot? Al-Jaff: If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non- conformities that the 75 applied to. Not the setback. Debbie Lloyd: Well the setback is at 75, for both of those other lots that were approved, they were approved with the 75% deviation of the 75 foot setback from the lake, and I know that’s vital to our Minnesota shoreland regulations. That’s where the regulations came from, State of Minnesota. I don’t want to debate anything. It’s not my job to debate it. I just wanted to present it. Thank you. McDonald: Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak on this? Okay, seeing no one else I will now throw it open to the council for discussion. Papke: I really respect what the issues that Debbie brought up here, but I think in this particular case they’re, you know at the end of the day what we really care about is forward progress here, and every time we approve a variance, it seems important to me that we’re making the city better in some way. And in this particular case I think these applicants are doing that and you know, we can debate the fine details of the city code and how we interpret them, but I think in this particular case it’s well warranted from my perspective. It’s my two cents worth. Zorn: Josh or Sharmeen, could you talk a little bit about the variance that is being proposed. What that is equating to size wise? That little portion of the garage. Metzer: It’s 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that’s just for the very outside corner. Zorn: It kind of looks like it’s 2 feet by, kind of narrow. Angles in. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – May 17. 2005 Metzer: Right, it’s this section here. That shaded in the front. This is the front of the garage running down this line. And the setback line runs on a line like this. Zorn: Okay, thanks. That’s the only question I had. McDonald: Next. Keefe: You know I’ll just re-state briefly, I think that they’ve improved the situation. I’m happy to see that. I mean I think really to Debbie’s point as well, you know we tried to improve the code last year and strengthen the code but, and that’s a good thing. I think it’s also a good thing to see proposals come in which actually improve the situation where they’re at in terms of you know runoff potential, in terms of the hard surface coverage from the existing situation so I’m in favor of approval of this particular proposal. Undestad: I guess my comment, I didn’t, wasn’t here the first go around, but looking at the two, it’s a great job. Revisions and I think you did great. McDonald: Okay, I guess what I would add to the record is that I do want to congratulate you. I know that when you left the last time it did not seem as though that it was going to be possible to build a house on that particular lot. And I am, I guess I’m very encouraged by the fact that yes, the lakeshore setback has been increased from what it was, and it doesn’t seem to affect the quality of the home. This will be an improvement for the neighborhood. One of the things that we talked about variances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the fault of the owner, that we can grant a variance. In this particular case we’re dealing with a lot that, if we enforce the variances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think this is a case for where the variances need to be given, and again this home improves, and this is what we asked. The home improves all of the setbacks. Improves the encroachments. It takes away from the hard surface areas. I think they did everything that we asked in order to build this new home there. I hope that in the process of doing so that they are getting a home that they can live with and that meets their requirements and everything, but I believe that kudo’s for you all for working with the staff. We really appreciate that. So at this point I guess we will vote. Do I have a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve Variance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1% hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and re-building of a single family home on a riparian lot zoned single family residential with conditions 1 through 12 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I second. McDonald: Having the motion made and it being seconded, we will now vote. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – May 17. 2005 Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1.Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house. 2.Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply. 3.The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 4.Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey. 5.The applicant’s contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection. 6.Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. 7.The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. 8.Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. 9.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days 10.Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11.A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 6 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 0. 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 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 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. Actually 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 of the 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 questions 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 corners 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 ¾ 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 questions 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, if the 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 corner 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 ½ feet so we could get the mower in at least enough room for the headers and what you need to support 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 of the 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 of this. 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