PC Minutes 5-17-05
j
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
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005
Metzer: Fire Marshal had no comment.
Keefe: Okay. Ahight. 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 neighbOling 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 neighbOling propeliy 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 propeliy.
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 pmi 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 majOlity 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 cOlTect?
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 propeliy 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
alternati ves 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 tiding 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, COlTect.
Keefe: Okay.
Timothy McHugh: Which is the owner of this propeliy 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 nOlih 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 fOlih 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 tight 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 stoties 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
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 % inch extetior 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 fmiher 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 light 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 propeliy 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 Kmi 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 Yz 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 light 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 pmi of the reasoning from what I read in there that, does it confOlID
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 propeliy 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 propeliy 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 ofthe use ofit'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 ofthe 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 repOli and the
following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. And number 2. The
propeliy 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 propeliy owner has reasonable use of the propeliy.
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