PC Minutes 10-3-06
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 3, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Dillon,
Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water
Resources Coordinator; Josh Metzer, Planner I, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
OA TH OF OFFICE: Chairman McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Kathleen
Thomas.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A
GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED AT
3735 HICKORY LANE. ED & CHERYL BIXBY. PLANNING CASE NO. 06-31.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan, you want to start us off?
Keefe: Y eah. You know I was looking at the history that Cedar Point variance history and it
does look like, there's the property right next door 3733, that particular number looks like they
want to add an 18 foot front yard setback variance and a 5% hard surface coverage variance for
the construction of a 2 stall garage. And in this case they're asking for a single stall, is that
correct? And hard surface coverage variance would only be 3%, is that correct?
Metzer: Correct.
Keefe: So if you kind oflook at, sort of compare the properties and things that we've done in
the area but it looks like maybe the best comparable for that might be the one right next door. Is
that correct?
Metzer: Yep. It's the same size lot.
Keefe: Alright, I just want to make sure I was interpreting that correctly so. Okay, thanks.
That's all I have.
Larson: Kind of on the same vein, had they originally wanted a 2 stall? No? Okay, that's all I
have.
Undestad: Just one question Josh. With the proposed or possible reconstruction of Hickory,
then recommendation A is what we're looking for for an 18 foot?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3,2006
Metzer: Correct.
Undestad: Front yard setback, is that right?
Metzer: Correct.
Aanenson: Maybe we can ask Alyson to comment a little bit about the need for reconstruction.
The purpose why.
Fauske: Certainly. Planning Commissioners. When engineering staff looked at this proposal we
looked at long term, what will happen in that neighborhood and we realize that the streets and
right-of-way widths for that matter are sub-standard in this area so we do realize that there's
some flexibility required in through here. The need for street reconstruction is actually two fold.
One being the surface condition of the streets, and they are not very good. And the other is the
utilities in there. They're old cast iron watermain. The old sanitary sewer in there. We have a
problem with inflow and infiltration and so when we looked at this situation we realized that in
the next 5 or 10 years this street will need to be reconstructed so we wanted to have a staff
recommendation that would allow the applicant a good use of their driveway, i.e. having a
parking space available while being able to have room to do some reconstruction in the area.
McDonald: Thank you. Kathleen?
Thomas: Actually I believe Alyson answered my other question I had.
Papke: Just one clarification question. The table on page 2. Very handy little table. I assume
that they could have penned a column 3. The first column is the ordinance. The second column
is the proposed by the applicant. Third column would be the staff proposal. The detached
accessory structure would remain at 280. The front yard setback would go to 18 feet. Side yard
setback would stay at 10 feet. Hard surface coverage would go up to 28.94%. Do I have that
right?
Metzer: Right.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: And that's what we're really talking about here so it's really, unlike, it's actually about a
4% delta.
Metzer: That's correct.
Papke: Not a 3%. Okay, I got it.
Dillon: I don't have any additional questions.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3,2006
McDonald: Okay. I don't have any questions either at this time. If the applicant is present,
would you care to step up and make a statement before the commissioners?
Ed Bixby: The survey I had originally was faulty. They missed part of the house and that's why
I actually come up with the plan for a one car garage. And I came in under the 25% hard surface
but then when they found out that the survey was faulty, I wasn't, this is more of a variance that I
was originally looking for but it's...
McDonald: Excuse me, before you go on would you state your name and address for the record?
Ed Bixby: Sure. Ed Bixby, 3735 Hickory Lane.
McDonald: Go ahead.
Ed Bixby: I don't have anything else to say.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone, Planning Commissioners have any questions?
Keefe: Just one quick question. Did it say you were going to tear down a shed or something?
Ed Bixby: Yeah.
Keefe: Okay.
Ed Bixby: And that was originally to make it to get in under the 25% hard cover.
Keefe: Okay. And so would that, since this is at 28.94, would you still be doing that then or?
Ed Bixby: I probably would, yeah. Since I've been planning to do that.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Nothing.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: No.
McDonald: Kathleen?
Thomas: No.
McDonald: Okay. At this point what I'd like to do is open the floor for public comment. What I
would ask is that you would come up to the podium. Please state your name and address and
3
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3,2006
address your comments to the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward, I close the
public meeting and at this point bring the matter back before the commissioners for discussion.
Why don't we start with you.
Dillon: Well it seems like the staff has worked with the applicant to come to a reasonable you
know acceptable solution here. That coupled with all the other variances that have been granted
in the neighborhood, you know it would be hard to, this is certainly not maybe as egregious as
some of the other ones so I mean I think it sounds like something that would be certainly
supportable from my point of view.
Papke: Given the balancing act here, I mean the applicant can't meet all the city code regardless
of what he does here so between you know on one hand the 2 car garage and on the other hand
the setback and the hard surface coverage, I think this is a very reasonable request and I
appreciate the applicant for not, for stopping at a 1 car request. I think this is very reasonable.
Thomas: I agree as well. I think that the 1 car request is very, was... of the applicant and I agree.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Keefe: I think there's plenty of precedence in regards to variances here and I think the hardship
you know has been satisfied and he should have a garage like every other property in the city so I
think it's fine.
McDonald: And I guess the only thing I would add to that is the fact that the minimal lot sizes
that we've got now are 15,000 square feet. This is 5,000. I don't see how you're going to do
anything to meet it upon a 5,000 square foot so I'm, plus going out looking at the property, I
commend you for working with staff. You probably could have brought us a very grandiose plan
but you didn't so for that I would have no problem supporting this either. At that point I'm ready
for a motion from the commissioners.
Papke: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance #06-31
for a 12 foot front yard setback variance to construct a 1 stall, oops. Yes. To construct a 1 stall
garage with an 18 foot front yard setback and 3.94% hard surface coverage variance on property
located in the single family residential (RSF) with conditions 1 and 2 as listed in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #06-31
for a 12 foot front yard setback variance to construct a one-stall garage with an 18 foot
front yard setback and a 3.94 % hard surface coverage variance on property located in the
Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1. A building permit is required for the construction of the garage.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3,2006
2. A revised survey showing proposed structures and hard surface coverage data must be
submitted with the building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOLF ZONE: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #98-2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. LOCATED IN THE
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) DISTRICT AT 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.
APPLICANT. JEFF HELSTROM. GOLF ZONE. PLANNING CASE 06-30.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Dan, you want to start?
Keefe: Sure. The 800 square foot that is in the, that it's currently operating under. Is that, where
did that number come from, do you know?
Metzer: Well originally there was an existing structure on the property, which is what the
existing clubhouse is today. Which I believe was 800 square feet at that time and the reason the
standard was set at that is, that was viewed as the size of a structure that lends itself to a
temporary use, and that what was being proposed was an interim use which had an expiration
date on it so.
Keefe: Yeah, so I guess what I'm struggling with here is yeah. I mean you look at the variance,
800 and 11,000 and it's like oh my gosh. That's just gargantuan but I guess a long range plan is
for large lot use here but I mean is the use of this particular, I mean the temporary use something
that we're trying to prevent or don't want or, it does seem to me that there's some reasonableness
to the request to maybe have a little bit more of an operational facility. And I don't know that
800 feet is enough to accommodate that sort of winter use, which I think is what they're driving
at. To have a larger club house that can accommodate more the winter crowd so anyway, any
idea on that?
Aanenson: Yes, that's a very good point and it's kind ofa struggle that the staff had, and if you
look at the purpose of interim uses, we have a number of interim uses in town. For example
across the street we have the garden center. Those uses which were given interim uses were put
in place because they were going to go away when a higher and better use, for example sewer
and water was to come to the property. So we allowed garden centers, but we put time lines on
all those, assuming that once sewer and water became available, value of the property would go
up. So the issue here really is, if you're to expand. Now this is guided large lot. When we're
updating the comprehensive plan this will be one of the properties that we'll also look at. There
are some properties along the south side of212, which originally, or the last update and the one
prior to that, the 1991 update, didn't anticipate sewer and water. We're re-evaluating that
decision as we look through the County's. Working with the County. Looking at the
transportation corridor there and what is the best way to provide services. A lot of that area
5