Loading...
5 Rezoning 9201 Audubon RoadCIT OF CHAN EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation P hone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: July 28, 2003 SUB J: Eric Theship-Rosales - Rezoning #2003-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a rezoning of a portion of his property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to IOP, Industrial Office Park to permit him to use an existing accessory structure for an antique and classic boat and refinishing shop. The comprehensive plan states that "regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the land use designation until such time as urban services are available. Current zoning of a parcel with a less intensive land use designation may remain. Intensification of land uses may only happen with the provision of urban services." The Planning Commission and staff are recommending denial of the rezoning based on the findings in the Findings of Fact and Recommendation attached as pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public heating on July 1, 2003, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the rezoning as provided in the motion on page 4 of the staff report. The summary and verbatim minutes are item lb of the City Council packet for July 28, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the following motion: '°the Chanhassen City Council denies the rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to IOP, Industrial Office Park based on the fmdings of fact on pages 6 and 7 attached to the staff report dated July 1, 2003." ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 1, 2003 g:\plan~bg~tevelopment review~executive summg~ theship-rosales rezone.doc The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF: STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 7/1/03 CC DATE: 7/28/03 REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/29/03 CASE #: 2003-2 Rezoning Z PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to IOP, Industrial. Office Park, to use an accessory structure as an antique and classic boat and refinishing shop. 9201 Audubon Road Eric Theship-Rosales 9201 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: DENSITY: NA A2, Agricultural Estate District Office/Industrial 1.66 acres I.fl SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a mzoning of a portion of his property. to permit him to use an existing accessory structure for an antique and classic boat and refinishing shop. He would continue to live in the house on the site. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) I. 9201 Audubon Road 0 .(3 ~ ~ail (Hwy 14~ / Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a rezoning of his property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to IOP, Industrial Office Park, to use an accessory structure as an antique and classic boat and refinishing shop. The City has noticed and reviewed the application as a rezoning of the entire parcel to IOP. However, the applicant would like to only rezone the easterly 120 feet of the property to IOP so they can keep their house on the front part of the property and use the back half for the operation of his business. The property is accessed via a gravel driveway with the neighbor to the south. The neighbor's driveway runs parallel to the Theship-Rosales driveway. A single-family home is located on the property to the south. The property to the north, east and south is zoned A2 and Bluff Creek Overlay District. This area is guided by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for Office/Industrial and Parks and Open Space. The land to the north and east is currently being used for agricultural purposes. The property to the west, in Chaska, is zoned for office and industrial development. The site is located within the 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). City sewer and water service is not currently available to the property. The site is currently being used for a single-family home with separate storage/garage buildings. The comprehensive plan states that "regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the land use designation until such time as urban services are available. Current zoning of a parcel with a less intensive land use designation may remain. Intensification of land uses may only happen with the provision of urban services." The site slopes down from Audubon Road to the east to the Bluff Creek corridor area. A treed area is located in the eastern portion of the property. The use of the site for industrial development may negatively impact the residential use of the property and abutting residential property. If the property is rezoned, the only restriction on the use of the land is the requirements of the Industrial Office Park District, IOP, which would permit offices, warehouses, light manufacturing, etc. From a practical standpoint, The lOP district requires a minimum lot area of one acre with a minimum lot depth and width of 200 feet. The area being proposed for rezoning is approximately 0.64 acres with a depth of 120 feet and an average width of 231 feet. This does not comply with the district regulations. Access to the site would be through a gravel driveway, rather than an improved driveway, i.e., asphalt or concrete. This driveway provides access to the existing house on the site as well as the accessory building. Use of this driveway for an industrial use could negatively impact the residential use of the driveway. Staff is recommending denial of the rezoning of the property to IOP, Industrial Office Park. It is premature to rezone the property to lOP without the provision of urban services. Additionally, it is uncertain whether this property should be rezoned for industrial uses or for office or institutional type uses. Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 3 BACKGROUND On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2001-5 to permit construction of a 1,640 sq. ft. garage/pole barn subject to the following conditions: 1. Show the location of the proposed driveway access to the garage. Also, show the proposed driveway grade. 2. Show the proposed floor elevation of the new portion of the garage. 3. Show all existing and proposed contour elevations. 4. Add silt fence along the north side of the proposed garage. 5. There shall be no grading past the top of the bluff line as shown on the survey dated July 26, 2001. o The applicant must contact the Inspections Division to discuss the possibility of locating and establishing an alternate on-site sewage treatment site. This site as well as the existing site must be protected from damage during the construction of the building. 7. A building permit must be obtained before beginning construction. 8. The 10-foot side yard setback on south property line must be shown accurately to scale. 9. The proposed garage/pole barn may not be used to conduct any home occupation as subject to Sec 20-977 of the ordinance. At that time, the city also approved a 3,654 square foot lot area variance from the minimum 2 1/2 acre for the property, as it was a nonconforming lot of record. On June 23, 2003, the city approved a Conditional Use Permit for development in the Bluff Creek Overlay district to permit the applicant to expand the existing house on the property subject to the following conditions: The on-site sewage treatment system must be inspected to determine if it is in compliance with City Code and the size of the system must be increased after inspection if necessary to accommodate the addition of two bedrooms. The compliance report must be received, and the permit to increase the size of the system must be issued, before the building permit for the addition can be issued. The septic tank must be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the addition. This site as well as the existing site must be protected from damage during the construction of the building. 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning construction. Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 4 4. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 5. The application for building permit shall include a haul route for removal material from the site. of excavated Erosion control shall meet the City's Best Management Practices. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permit application. The existing driveway shall act as the construction entrance. All tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto the public roadway shall be removed daily or upon verbal notice, the City shall clear the dirt or debris using a contractor or city forces and equipment and charge the property owner. o All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched within 2 weeks of grading work stopping, except in the case of temporary delays longer than 2 weeks, in which case the applicant may submit an alternate for temporary stabilization of the site for consideration by the City Engineer and Water Resource Coordinator. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays or legal holidays. Although the property is currently zoned A2, permitting a single family home; it, as well as the surrounding properties, are guided by the 2020 Land Use Plan for Parks/Open Space and Office/Industrial uses. The city is currently conducting an Alternate Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) study of 650 acres which includes the subject site. The purpose of the AUAR is to facilitate the future development of the area. Issues that will be examined will include: environment, traffic circulation, zoning, land use, infrastructure, etc. Until this study is completed, it is premature to change the permitted intensity of development of the area. MISCELLANEOUS This change in use would require that the building be re-classified into the appropriate occupancy group. The owner must submit a detailed account of the finishing process, and types and quantities of materials used and stored. After review of the information, the building can then be classified as to its use. The building cannot be occupied until any required alterations are complete and a certificate of occupancy is issued. The owner shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss the code ramifications and inspections process, resulting from the change in occupancy. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning recommends denial of the rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to lOP, Industrial Office Park based on the findings of fact attached to this report." Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Letter from Eric S. Theship-Rosales to Bob Generous dated 6/10/03 Development Review Application Reduced Copy of the Survey for Erik Theship-Rosales Email from Connie and George St. Martin to Bob Generous dated 6/23/03 Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Eric S. Theship-Rosales for rezoning of his property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office park District, 1OP. On July 1, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Eric Theship-Rosales for rezoning property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office park District, IOP. The Planning Commission conducted a public heating on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT o o The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial and Parks and Open Space The legal description of the property is: see attached Exhibit A The site is located within the 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). City sewer and water service is not currently available to the property. The site is currently being used for a single-family home with separate storage/garage buildings. The City is undertaking an Alternate Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to determine the environmental and physical impacts of development in the 2005 MUSA. The AUAR is to be completed by the end of 2003. The City of Chanhassen 2020 Comprehensive Plan adopted June 28, 1999, page 11, provides that regardless of a property's land use designation, properties not served by urban services shall not be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the land use Theship-Rosale Rezoning July 1, 2003 Page 7 designation until such time as urban services are available. Current zoning of a parcel with a less intensive land use designation, may remain. Intensification of land uses may only happen with the provision of urban services. Intensification of the land use without the provision of adequate urban services may negatively impact the environment and community. Rezoning of the property from A2 is premature until the City determines the appropriate intensity of development for this area. The application to rezone the property is premature. The planning report #2003-3 Rezoning dated July 1, 2003, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the rezoning. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of July, 2003. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary EXHIBIT A That part of the following described property: Those parts of Goverr~ent Lots Two and Three, Section Twenty-two, Township One Hundred Sixteen North. gangs Twenty-three West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot Three; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 29 minutes ll seconds East, along the East line of said Government Lot Three, a distance of 1306.64 feet to the Northeast corner of said Goverrunent Lot Three; thence North degrees 16 minutes 22 seconds West, along a line extending Northwest corner of said Goverr~ent Lot Two a distance of 321.10 ~eet; thence Southerly a distance of t16.40 feet along the non-tangential curve concave to the East; having a radius of 3477.1S fee~, a cen=ra! angl~ cf ! degree 55 minutes 05 seconds and the chord o~ said curve bears South 6 degrees 47 minu~es 28 seconds West, thence South 5 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds W~st, tangent to said curve, a distance of 203.36 feet; thence Sou=kerly a distance of 279.5i feet along a tangential curve concave no ~he East, having a radius of 1940.17 fee~ and a central angle of 8 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds; thence South 2 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds East, tangen~ to the last described curve, a distance of 450.30 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 368.70 feet along a tangential curve concave to She Eas~ having a radius o~ 1798.65 feet and a central angle of II degrees 44 mir~utes 42 seconds: thence South 14 degrees 10 minutes 02 East, ~angent to the last described curve, a distance of 129.50 feet to the Sou~h line of said Government Lo~ ~nree; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 44 seconds East~ along said South line, a distance o~ 151.98 fee~ ~o ~he point of beginning~ ~x~hich lies Northerly of a line bearing North 86 degrees 42 minu~es 35 seconds West from a point on '%he East line of said Goverrunen~ Lot Thr~e distant !76.09 feet Southerly of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot Three, Carver County, Minnesota. June 10,2003 Eric Theship-Rosales Kathleen Theship-Rosales 9201 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 City of Chanhassen City Planning Department Attn: Bob Generous Dear Bob, Here is the letter you asked for describing the portion of my property I am applying to re-zone. I have marked it out on the attached/reduced copy of the most recent survey dated 5/6/03. The property is presently zoned A2 Agricultural Estate. A line drawn north from the southern boundary line which starts on the southern boundary line 120 feet from the south-east corner of the property will establish the new zone. The areas to the west will remain A2. The areas to the east will become I.O.P. Thank you, Eric S. Theship-Rosales CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* V~'Rezoning Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* Subdivision* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/S PR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~'~ 4:~"~"'~ (, Jl Call TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES PRESENT ZONING /Z~ 2 REQUESTED ZONING ~ O P NO PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST /~j v~ ")'~ ~ ~ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard tothis request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or pumhase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Signature of Fee Owner Application Receivedon ~o'~0~ Fee Paid Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'S address. !l / ; / ! / Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: stmarting@ msn.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 4:00 PM To: bgenerous @ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Rezoning Hearing Mr Bob Generous, This note is in response to the hearing on July 1 for the Theship-Rosales application to rezone their property at 9201 Audubon Rd from Agricultural/Estate to Industial Office Park. We live next door at 9231 Audubon Road and feel there are some noise and access issues for industrial to be in such close proximity to us. The Theship-Rosales have a boat refurbishing shed they built a stone's throw from our living room, bedroom, and deck. They built the shed ten feet from our property line. Although we don't care what goes on inside the closed doors of the shed, we feel that there should be some ground rules regarding consideration for our quality of living and maintenance of our property values. The existing compressors/generators in the red hut and grey wooden box near our property line should be contained inside the larger shed. We don't want to listen to this loud noise for hours on end. Eric Theship wears professional ear muffs to grind. We don't want to wear ear plugs to sleep or sit on our deck! Eric's boat work should be done 8-5 Monday through Friday. The door to Eric's shed should be closed so that we don't have to see or hear his work. Also, greater care should be taken to keep tow trucks, boats, delivery trucks and construction equipment off of our driveway. We've re-rocked it to get rid of the ruts and it's not meant to be used as a public alley. Perhaps Eric should put up a wooden or rock fence between our properties to keep vehicles off of our property. (We have already decided against Theship's requests to sell them part of our driveway or to make an access gate to drive onto our property through a fence.) We're retired and would like some relaxation before this 600+ Bluff Creek acreage goes into massive redevelopment. Connie and George St. Martin 6/23/2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 1,2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Rezone Property to Industrial Office Park APPLICANT: LOCATION: Eric Theship-Rosales 9201 Audubon Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Eric Theship-Rosales, is requesting a rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate to lOP, Industrial Office Park located at 9201 Audubon Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 19, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Dean & L. Degler 9111 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels George St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric Rosales-Theship 9201 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Laser 5160® CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 20O3 Summary Minutes PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK LOCATED AT 9201 AUDUBON ROAD, ERIC THESHIP-ROSALES. Public Present: Name Address Eric Theship-Rosales Mrs. Dean Degler Connie & George St. Martin 9201 Audubon Road 9111 Audubon Road 9231 Audubon Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on items he felt were more opinions than factual. Commissioners Lillehaug and Tjomhom questioned why this item was in front of them for consideration. Commissioner Claybaugh asked if the applicant has been working cooperatively with staff in trying to find a resolution. Eric Theship-Rosales, 9201 Audubon Road, the applicant provided background information on his reasons for seeking this rezoning. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant for clarification on condition 9 concerning the home based office. Commissioner Claybaugh asked staff to clarify how Section 20-997 affects this application. He asked the applicant to comment on what kind of equipment is in the shed that emits odors, makes noise, hours of operation, all those things that go in and affect the quality of life of the neighbors. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant to explain why he didn't get the rezoning prior to building the shed. The applicant stated his plan was to build the shed with the idea of rezoning it for his business when needed. Chairman Sacchet called the public heating to order. George St. Martin, 9231 Audubon Road asked if the Planning Commission had received a copy of the email he sent to Bob Generous. His three main issues were noise, hours of operation and impact on his driveway. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing and asked for commissioner comments. After comments the following motion was made. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to IOP, Industrial Office Park based on the findings of fact attached to the staff report, amended to strike the phrase "from a practical standpoint". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS In summary the Planning Commission felt this application is premature rezoning, that the condition in the original conditional use permit for the shed was clear that it was not supposed to be used for business, and that they could not find any pressing reason to recommend approval at this time. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue to work with the applicant to find a solution to his business needs. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2003 VERBATIM MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK LOCATED AT 9201 AUDUBON ROAD, ERIC THESHIP-ROSALES. Public Present: Name Address Eric Theship-Rosales Mrs. Dean Degler 9201 Audubon Road 9111 Audubon Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Feik: I'll start. Bob I want to address one of the issues that you had just brought up, which was something that I highlighted. You had stated that the IOP district requires a minimum lot area of 1 acre, but in the staff report you preface that with from a practical standpoint. What I'm trying to get to is it either does or it doesn't. From a practical standpoint is sort of an opinion. Generous: It does not, this does not comply with that. Feik: That's where I'm trying to get. So really from a practical standpoint is irrelevant, it does not. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Right. Unless we were to rezone the entire property and then. Feik: Right. I was just trying to ferret that out a little bit. And then the same thing in the second to the last paragraph on that same page on page 2. Last line, the use of this driveway for an industrial use could negatively impact, do you believe it will or will not? Generous: I believe it would if the use were to intensify yes. Feik: Just trying to identify some items here which I, when I read it looked more opinion and less factual. Another question was in the miscellaneous portion on page 4. Second to the last sentence in that paragraph. Would you please tell me what I'm looking at there. It says the building cannot be occupied until the required alterations are completed and certified. Certificate of Occupancy is issued. It's currently occupied, correct? Generous: Correct. Feik: The structure. So what would that mean? He would need to vacate? Generous: Or verify that it complied with the building code requirements for the industrial use. Feik: And it does not? Generous: Our assumption is that it does not, but. Feik: Would that require sprinklers and other issues? Generous: I contacted the building official regarding that issue and he said this type of occupancy would not. It would require ADA accessibility and probably a bathroom. Feik: I understand the applicant is doing a boat restoration work, antique work. Wood work, I'm assuming stuff like that. That would not require additional fire suppressant type equipment? Generous: No, that's what he told me. Feik: That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve, any questions? Feik: Yeah, I'll stay away from my comments here. Lillehaug: Yeah, we've got questions. My question is, is currently it appears that he's using it for the purpose, these purposes and this business and shop. Would that be correct assumption? And let me just kind of preface that with another, is there any reasons that he has to get this rezoned to operate this business on that property? Generous: To operate the business on the property he would need industrial office park zoning. Lillehaug: So by not doing this, he cannot operate that? Generous: Correct. Under the previous CUP he was not supposed to use it for operation of a business also. Lillehaug: So that' s the whole reason the applicant is in front of us tonight? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Just so he can operate his business. Sacchet: Is that it Steve? Lillehaug: That is it. Sacchet: Bethany. Tjornhom: Well I have written down here why is this necessary? I guess he took my question from me. I didn't understand it either as I read it. Why this would be happening if he already was doing something. Is there any other places around his property where this has happened, where other people have done that? I mean do other people have small shops on their properties that you know aren't rezoned or that are. Do you know what I'm saying? Maybe that's a bad question. I don't know. Aanenson: Well there are other ones. It's probably our number one complaint in the city and they usually end up in the legal process. We didn't want to give the background, too much of this. This is a way to seek remedy. He was informed that he was in violation of city ordinance. Not to put the use there. We found out so this is a way to seek relief from that. So yes there are other people that are doing. The way that we handle those is if we are made aware of them we investigate and follow up and we're working with him to find other spots. There isn't a lot of in the city doing what he wants to do. Live and work. You cannot do an accessory structure business and accessory structure so it makes it a little bit more complicated. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Kurt? Papke: ...the fire protection and so on, if the applicant were to have this rezoned industrial commercial, would there be, would he be subject to further inspections with OSHA and things? I would think a boat refinishing business you have solvents. You have welding equipment. Generous: The fu'e marshal would have to inspect it and the building official. Papke: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'm trying to think how to phrase the question here. The application in front of us, the city staff is recommending denial and my question is, is in the process of working with the applicant has there been any movement with respect to how he can make this work or is it pretty much, I hate to use the word loggerhead but is this the application that came in or has there been any movement with staff on improving this application? Is this what came in the door the first time or was there any? Aanenson: No. We met with him. He's looking for other sites you know and as part of what he is pursuing to find other spots. Claybaugh: Right, but with respect to this particular application, this property. Aanenson: Again I'll go back to what Bob said and it's in the staff report. It's premature when there's no sewer and water. We wouldn't let any other industrial, you know if you don't meet the standards of that, plus you've got a house and a building on there. We're in the middle of the AUAR study. It's premature. At a minimum I think we need to, you know how would you get access to this lot and the lot next door. Claybaugh: No, I'm very sensitive to those issues. I was curious if this was what came in the door. What kind of movement there was. It seems like there's still a long ways to go. Aanenson: Right, our advice is not to pursue it but certainly an applicant has the right to pursue the rezoning. We just felt it would be better to try to move it. Claybaugh: Understood. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Rich, no comments? I do have a question. Hopefully the question doesn't become a comment. In the background, number 9 on page 3 of the report it says the proposed garage pole barn may not be used to conduct any home occupation subject to the city ordinances. That was a condition when the City Council approved the conditional use permit to put that structure up. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: So it was very clearly stated that it was not to be used for home occupation at the time. Now, just to clarify, you pretty much said that we want to be real clear about this. Basically one of the main reasons why this application is in front of us because it is being used for a home business. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and tell us your story. We'll listen to you. Eric Theship-Rosales: Eric Theship-Rosales, 9201 Audubon Road, Chanhassen. Slagle: Welcome. Eric Theship-Rosales: Thank you. It's good to be here. I've kind of written this out long hand because it's kind of hard for me to hold all these variables in my head and it begins with a little bit of a biography. An introduction to my business and the reasons for application to rezone my property at 9201 Audubon. In high school I was voted into the National Honor Society, took varsity letters in 3 sports. I was a member of the drama club and my school's choral singing group. I graduated with honors, courses in math and science. I'm telling you these things because I want you to know who I am. Exactly what happens on the hill across from the Chaska Industrial district on Audubon is about the people who live there. The businesses they do and the community they live within. I grew up in Marshfield, Massachusetts where Daniel Webster had his farm. He's the one who wrote the famous Webster's Dictionary. From my own lineage I'm a tree Pilgrim, a direct descendent of Miles Standish who stepped off the Mayflower onto Plymouth Rock and established Plymouth Colony. The first of the America's thirteen original colonies. I went to An'and School Design and graduated from there in 1983 with a Bachelor's degree in 2 and 3 dimensional design. Took several courses in sculpture and glass blowing. After graduation I took a job with the Providence Granite Company. For a year I carved granite, making architectural stones for buildings. Providence Granite Company closed down after that and I moved back to my home town and bought an old wooden boat. I started taking on wooden boat work. That year the boat yard where I had my boat hired me on as an employee and an apprentice. I worked there for 5 years. It was total emersion into the business of wooden boat repair. Big boats and small boats. In 1990 1 moved to Seattle with both to practice stone carving as an artist and to do wooden boat work to support my sculpture interest. They are both labor intensive activities as you can imagine. When I met my wife Kathleen we decided to get married and we moved to Minnesota because her family was here. I found work at Excelsior Boat Refinishers and started work there in 1995 as their head carpenter. At that point, some 10 years after beginning my boat apprenticeship, I had almost 10 years and about 15,000 to 18,000 hours of experience working exclusively on wooden boats. While I was pursuing a sculpture career in Seattle, most of my income came from that field. From that field came from contract carving that is carving letters in stone or otherwise being paid to fabricate stone parts for buildings and monuments. This is almost over. Bear with me. As a part of my own artistic aspirations I began a series of large granite busts of George Washington, as well as putting together a concept proposal for the Seattle Arts Commission to finish Mount Rushmore. I don't suppose you think about Mount Rushmore as something that needs to be finished, but I do. Abe Lincoln's left ear is missing. There's enough stone there to do the job. Back in 1993 1 thought I was the man to do it. Come to my home and I'll show you the shed I just completed. I built it myself, designed and fabricated the forms for the concrete. I rented a backhoe and excavated the earth and put in the full foundation. I did all the carpentry, purchased the scaffolding and raised the metal sheeting for the exterior sides and the roof. I put in all the insulation and the doors. In the same way I will also build the addition to my home which was recently approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. I have all these skills and I enjoy the learning that's involved. I also, and this is the most important part, enjoy the money savings by doing it myself. This rezoning is very important because without it my system breaks down. I won't be able to build my addition unless I can work for an income out of my shed on the property. I have searched the area surrounding for low cost space, and we can talk more on that later, but considering all the loans on my shed I'm paying 21 cents a square foot now to work on wooded boats on my home and the other options are not pretty. Now I want to talk about my interest in rezoning my shed property to IOP, but fu'st I want to say that I really appreciate the work this Planning Commission has done over the last few years to watch and listen to the sensitivity and objectivity of the Planning Commission members, that the Planning Commission members have shown to various requests and disputes that have come before you. Chanhassen has grown so incredibly much since I have lived here. It was about a few years ago when my proposal to build my shed came before the Planning Commission and you were there Uli, as one of the newer members I believe, and it's good to see you as Chairman now. I really appreciate your work. Sacchet: Thank you. Eric Theship-Rosales: You have a lot of good experience and I fully trust you to lead the commission today as we all discuss a solution for my company and my life. I trouble you with my short biography because I wanted you to know about my deep patriotism. I was present when the two newest members of the Planning Commission were sworn in and excited to hear their pledges to uphold the highest values of the Constitution of the United States. We are talking here about liberty today and about those highest values. I sat at my business in my home in December of 1998. My employer was talking about selling his boat shop and it seemed time to return to self employment. As a first time homebuyer we purchased my property at Audubon, mostly to stop paying rent to a landlord. But one could clearly see the potential of the location to put up a shed and use it as home base from which to make a living. My home business consisted in my home, consisted of freelance boat work. I had a telephone, a file cabinet, desk in my basement, and that defined my home business. I was running around the Twin Cities with my pickup truck and my tools. I worked on people's boats either at their homes, down on their docks, or at the marina's. Slagle: Eric, if I can. Mr. Chair, I mean in all, if you can move it a little quicker. And the only thing Mr. Chair is for the folks who are here for the rest, because I want to hear more about the point 9 I think of where you before us applied for the shed, the condition not to use it as a business and now it is part of, I want to hear why that happened. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well that's actually a misunderstanding. That point 9 specifies by code, as you work on a home business you're allowed I guess one employee. There are several restrictions, both in the IRS code and the local code, it says you cannot, you can't put any extra stuff that you make when they use in your home business 25 percent square area, square footage of one floor of your, you know what I'm trying to say. I think you know the code. Sacchet: Now that is something that we want staff to clarify because it does refer to Section 20- 977 of the ordinance in the context so maybe, why don't you finish your presentation but try, yeah I mean I kind of took a clock. I thought well we'll listen to your background for a while, but we do need to get to the issue at hand. I appreciate your devotion and all but. Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. Let me address the issue of home business and not using the shed for home business. Sacchet: Please. Eric Theship-Rosales: Because you're not allowed to do that and that was understood at the time. I never intended to do home business in my shed. I intended to move my home business out of my home and into my shed. That was the. Sacchet: Within the allowable fi'amework that the ordinance allows home business basically? Eric Theship-Rosales: No. Skip home business. We're not doing home business. We're moving into the shed. We're going to rezone for home business in the shed. Excuse me, rezone for business in the shed and not do home business in the home. Two very different things. Sacchet: That's what you're trying to do with the application of rezoning? Eric Theship-Rosales: I'm sorry? Sacchet: Your rezoning application, that's what you're aiming for. But in the absence of that rezoning being in place. Eric Theship-Rosales: Correct. We're not, you understand the point? When I applied and it was approved for building the shed. Sacchet: Right. Eric Theship-Rosales: Number 9 stated that I was not permitted to do home business in the shed. I'm getting to that, it's right in the next paragraph. Sacchet: Okay. Well I'll wait for you to get to the next paragraph then. Eric Theship-Rosales: Thanks. Okay. I first started looking into zoning in 1999. I had the opportunity to ask former Mayor Nancy Mancino about how the new highway project 312 would affect zoning in Chanhassen. She informed me that zoning isn't something that's handed down by the city, but rather that while the city is required by the state to create a plan which would forecast the planning direction of a town, and the actual zone changes would come as requests from contractors and other interested parties who may have an interest in developing available lands, etc. After the regular meeting, and I have a transcript if you're interested of our conversation for the highway was finished I questioned her further and she said that I would need to split the zoning if I wanted to live on the one side and do business on the other side of my property. A trip to city planning informed me of the primary and secondary overlay districts as well as the 2020 plan to guide my area either to industrial office park or parks and open space. My business was growing slowly. This is my home business now. When my former employer did finally go out of business I was called back by the new owners to do structural wood working that his other employees didn't have the experience to do. By the time spring of 2002 had rolled around I had completed a canoe rebuilding project in my garage. This was before the new shed went up. I was renting business shop space from both Volkminger Properties on Galpin Boulevard and had purchase plans and dug the home to lay the foundation for the shed at Audubon. I had signed a lease with Volkminger with the understanding that the landlord would install heat and update the electricity to handle my larger wood working equipment. This is a 3 year lease and I have a copy of that if you'd like to see it. Sorry, 3 month lease. When the lease ran out, I operated there without a lease until October, 2002. Heat was finally installed. So now you can see I'm building the shed, putting a lot of time into that, and trying to get hours away to go down to the shop right here on Galpin and work on the wooden boat contracts I had lined up. The problem with that was that every time I turned on, well every other time I turned on my table saw it would, the lights would go out and I'd have to take the key and go running around to the next door business, unlock his door, flip on the lights and go back to work. It wasn't very practical. He promised me that he'd put in electricity to 220 volt so I could run my thickness planer and really get up to speed and do some good work. He never did that. Instead they asked me to leave in February because the heat that they had installed wasn't working because I wasn't working there. In other words you've got to use the heater for it to work properly, okay. I wasn't using the heater because I didn't have the electricity to do the work. I hope that's clear. It's very clear in my head. It was a big problem. Okay, let me catch up with my words here because I'm not a public speaker by trade. The overhead heater wasn't working properly which they said was due to lack of use and of course I wasn't using the space because I didn't have the electricity I needed. They refused to grant me a lease in mid-February and I was stuck with contracts to fulfill and nowhere to do the work. I have a copy of the lease here with me. I then moved the boats to my shed which was complete except for the garage door and the electrical. You can imagine my panic. This was a true business emergency. 3 of the 4 boats were due in the spring. This spring, two staff came to my house to look at the proposed site for my new addition. That was Bob Generous and Angie Auseth. Intern Angie. Up until this point I had no notion that there was any discrepancy in my master plan of living and working at my home. I planned to change the zoning over to business use as soon as my shed was finished. And with lots of long hours and income from the business I would continue to build my business and also build a recently approved addition I desperately need for my growing family. Two sons now, one 7 and one 13 months. That was on Friday, May 16a~. I discussed the zoning with Bob. He said the same thing that Nancy Mancino had said in 1999, and he held up his hand and drew a line which passed by the front of my shed to a north/south direction. He said just split the zoning. It was the next Monday that I received a letter from the city planning giving me 30 days to move my business. Perhaps you can imagine the state of panic I was in. I think $40,000 worth of contracts. No time to look for a place because I need to work on the boats. I certainly had time to consult with staff. Quite frankly they were rather quick with me. As I read through the staff report I see stipulations from legal code that regulate the erection of new buildings, new business buildings on land that is already zoned for industry. The dominant theme from staff seems to be that activities as a business may negatively impact the environment community by creating an intensification. When I applied for the required secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District conditional use permit to build my shed, I included the intended purpose of boat building in that application. Perhaps you remember that. Sacchet: I do. Eric Theship-Rosales: I did that because I didn't want to get all set up to do work on boats and have someone come by, tap me on the shoulder and say hey buddy, that's not a cow and that's not a tractor so you can't do that here. Staff also states a finding of fact number 6 that to rezone the property is premature. I can state flat out that other than the septic system that's not a finding of fact, and I didn't know about the septic system needing to be a requirement for doing business. That simply doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And anyway as I went to apply for the permission to build the addition to my home, all that was in place. The plumbing that I did put into the shed for a small bathroom in the back was found to be within limits for the size of the capacity of the septic for the addition. In other words I had two bedrooms in the new addition. Two bedrooms in the old home and the old home bedrooms would be eliminated and the shed was already confirmed as being the shed bathroom usage was already confirmed as being within limits. I built this building for this intended purpose, although I didn't know when I would move my business in. I didn't know how fast the business would grow, okay. The plan passed the Planning Commission and the City Council unanimously. The fact is I need to use the business, the building now for business. It would pretty much put me out of business now if I went and paid I think double or more. Right now the lowest per square footage shop space that I can find is either downtown on East Hennepin Ave or out in, I don't know if you know Hollywood, 30 miles or so. I think it's 29 miles out there. I visited 5 or 6 different people looking for shop space and the square footage cost is between 33 cents for the two I just, 33 cents per square foot per month for the two I just mentioned, or up to 50 cents per square foot which is twice what I'm paying on my shed. Okay. The impact of light industrial operations like a wood shop is quite a bit less intensive than the agricultural activities, okay. There's no diesel run equipment. No heavy machine traffic like columbines and tractors. No midnight lights on while planting and harvesting, and no maintenance activities for that machinery. Allowable decibel levels and hours of operation are higher in agricultural zone land use designation than they are in my proposed rezone to IOP. The well on the property is working fine. It's a newer well. The septic .system and leach field were built between, were built new in 1994 and a tie in to that system for the bathroom and the shed was inspected and approved for compliance before my shed permit was issued. No update is needed to build my home addition either. I can understand how staff at the planning department must be anticipating the outcome of this new study and the surrounding area. This alternate urban area wide review. The troth of the matter is, that withholding my liberty on a wait and see basis for this study to be complete is quite unethical. As the city is forbidden by law to purchase and hold land if the only one to benefit would be some future developer or contractor within that 650 acres that is under review. So it's for me it's a Constitutional issue and we'll have to talk about that some more. Slagle: Eric, are we close? Eric Theship-Rosales: We are. One more sentence. Council members, I need to be allowed to do my boat work on the property. Would be willing to give up the home addition plans and rezone the entire property IOP if that meets legal precedent for you more easily. I would of course in that instance be looking for some business to rent my house and I would expect to have confirmation tonight from you for that activity. The other option that comes to mind in reading staff's report is that rezoning may not be necessary at all, but rather than a condition could be granted on the present zoning to allow my wood shop as a conditional use in the agricultural zone. Perhaps then waiting until a few years passed and we are closer to the 2020 target date for the rezoning of the entire area over industrial uses similar to mine. Sorry for the broken speech, I'm really nervous. But that's the basic, that's my basic argument. Sacchet: Okay, thank you for your story. Questions from the applicant? How about we start over here? Lillehaug: Can I ask one before it slips me here? Sacchet: Okay. Lillehaug: Because I didn't quite understand something you said there a paragraph ago. Were you saying, I didn't quite follow you. Are you saying that you'd give up your house? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Lillehaug: Could you kind of restate that? I wasn't following what you were saying there. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, do you want to switch to video, Bob's got a picture here for us. See I outlined this because what Bob suggested when we were standing there in front of my shed. You know I don't know either one way or the other, I just, I don't have the mental capacity perhaps to follow all this. I mean I read your report, staff report, I can't follow it. It seems I should be able to but it's beyond me. If we sit down calmly and talk about the options then we're going to find something that works and tonight is the night to do it. My wife's given me permission to give up plans on the new addition, rezone the entire property and we have to rent out this, the home we're living in now for some business purpose. That was the point. Slagle: So you would move? Eric Theship-Rosales: Certainly. We would move into an apartment until we could find a home to purchase. That would be the plan. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: And believe me Eric, my questions about your...and your story, don't think that it's, I'm not for some of the things you're wanting to accomplish here tonight. But my question I guess centers on, are you aware that the 2005 is, and correct me if I'm wrong staff, more important in the sense of this being premature. Is that correct? And so my question to you is, that year in my mind is a more applicable date than a 2020. Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I'm not aware. Please read it to me. Slagle: Well I'm willing to read it to you but what I'm trying to say is that it says by 2005 is when you're supposed to receive the extension of MUSA. Aanenson: Can I just make something clear. I did meet with the applicant and tried to go through all this with him. I'm not sure we had an understanding, for a lot of complex reasons which you can see here tonight. Try to go through all this with him. He's been notified on the mailings. Everybody in that area has. Hasn't necessarily attended some of those. I did try to explain. I did advise him to maybe seek some other counsel regarding pending assessments that may be coming on the property, those sort of things. Wasn't a lot of movement in that area. Slagle: What I'm trying to, as a fellow citizen here to say that from my standpoint the, that year is important because really up until that year they're saying anything like this, rezoning might be a premature request. So I think of that and then I look at we had a condition and maybe there was some confusion as to what a home you know work situation was. Eric Theship-Rosales: No, there's no confusion. Slagle: Well I thought you said earlier there was some miscommunication. Sacchet: A misunderstanding. Eric Theship-Rosales: No, not on the application for the shed. Slagle: Point 9. Eric Theship-Rosales: Point 9. Slagle: But let me say this, when you described your search for alternative spots, and basically you're saying I can't find anything. I have a hard time with that. Eric Theship-Rosales: That is as of 4 weeks from today. Slagle: Would staff be open to extending? Aanenson: Yes, and we told him that. In good faith we're trying to work with him. We put a deadline on there to make sure that in good faith they are looking and he has sent me some information of sites he's looking at and this is one other remedy that he chose to seek relief from the requirement to, so we're looking at all those. Happy to continue that. Sacchet: Any other questions? Claybaugh: Well, would it be possible for staff to comment on Section 20-997, specifically what that ordinance states. How it affects this application. Generous: I can read it to you. Claybaugh: Please do. Sacchet: If it's short enough. Generous: One paragraph. Section 20-997, subordinate use. The use of a dwelling unit for any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to a residential use. Not more than 25 percent of the floor area of one floor of a dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. No garage or accessory building, except accessory agricultural buildings existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation. Claybaugh: Now during your comments to the commission you indicated that some of the agricultural requirements were possibly more lax than the office industrial, but the bottom line is is that you're not using it for agricultural. Okay, you're using it as a business and specifically I'd like to go through this part of the process but I'm very interested in hearing what the neighbors have to say. I'm also curious about what kind of equipment is out in the shed that emits odors, that makes noise, hours of operation, all those things that go in and affect the quality of life of your neighbors because it's really more than likely what it's going to come down to, at least from my perspective. So if you could comment on that. Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. I do have a gas operated compressor. It's 14 horsepower. The plan is to convert that to electrical and put it inside the shed. I've discussed that with the building department. It would be located over the bathroom inside on the northeast comer, not likely to produce any audible noise during the day. I would like to say that when I bought the building it was designed for 2 by 4 construction. I beefed up the walls to 2 by 8 construction. Pretty much doubled the thickness of them. That extra insulation is known to decrease sound. I did that of course to decrease my electrical bills for the in-floor heating which I installed also to reduce the possibility of sound getting out as a stone carver, granite, carving granite generates a lot of noise. I've had noise issues in the past. I've researched decibel levels on Seattle and had some dealings with that so, generally speaking my intuition for the law came from Massachusetts law, not necessarily Minnesota law but I know the regulations of say 65 decibels at the source is considered residential, if it's in part time use. Okay, the compressor generates probably 85 decibels at the source, which is like a loud scream. It's lower than a loud whistle. If you've ever been a concert and someone's whistled in your ear, but that noise level dissipates rapidly as a square of the distance to the next source or the next person hearing it. Okay, I haven't had any complaints from George or Connie about the air compressor but there are several ways to mitigate the problem. Right now it has a small canister muffler. Could increase the size of the muffler. It's also a portable unit. It would be moved to the opposite comer of the property when the landscaping is done. Claybaugh: h also sounds like there's some issues with the driveway as well. Some deliveries for equipment. Boats coming through. So on and so forth. Eric Theship-Rosales: Let's talk about that. Sure, so just to say, I'll talk about that next. Just to say, as far as the compressor goes, there are several options. Like I say I haven't had a single complaint, hasn't come up as an issue in the neighborhood, and I'm happy to move the compressor or put a bigger muffler on or eventually say a few months from now get it inside the building. Now regarding the. Claybaugh: I guess one question I have is, to you is, a lot of people have home based businesses but at some point as those businesses grow, they cross a threshold and to me what's in front of me, it's clear to me that you've crossed that threshold and it becomes a question of now you've graduated into a different category. On some level you want to keep your feet in both worlds. Eric Theship-Rosales: No, that's not correct. Claybaugh: You want the advantages of the office industrial but you want to anchor one foot solidly in agricultural and that it's a home based business. And I'm not sure how to reconcile that or to help you with the problem that you have. At this stage it's clearly tragic on a personal standpoint for you, and I'm not, I'm just. Sacchet: We're still at questions Craig. Eric Theship-Rosales: Can I respond? Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Talk of liberty here, we have the liberty to speak. We're practicing it right here. Eric Theship-Rosales: Number 9. Okay, in the conditions for permission to build a shed, any home business shall not be operated in the shed. It's legal code. Okay, that's what the law states. If you're doing home business in your home, do not move any parts of it into the shed. That was understood when the application was given. I confu'med it with a yes. You can find it on the video record. The goal was never to do that. The goal was to take Nancy Mancino's suggestion and split the property into part industrial zone, and keep the other part agriculture or residential, a place where I could live. I was a little bit premature. Slagle: Eric, can I ask why didn't you, why wasn't that presented to us 2 years ago? Aanenson: Yeah. Slagle: Why didn't you follow that path? Sacchet: You usually do the zoning first and then you would build. I guess that's where Rich is coming from. Slagle: Yeah. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, I wanted to build a shed for myself. I wanted the accomplishment of doing it. I wanted the labor savings. I didn't understand that point that you should rezone and then build. Simply put. Claybaugh: What was your intended use for the shed when you were building it? I mean it had to be more than self gratification of building 4 walls and a roof. Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. The people I mentored from, gave me the apprenticeship for the wooden boat building, the first boat that I ever worked on, the first boat I ever put planks in is still sitting in their shed. They gave that to me. It's a 38 foot long boat. It's worth, right now it's worth about between 7, I'm telling you. I'm answering your question. They gave me this boat. I wanted to build this shed, put the boat in there. Fix it up and use it for personal use. Perhaps put my company name on the back and use it as advertising. Okay, so that's your answer. I wanted to build. Claybaugh: So you wanted the shed to store the 38 foot boat? Eric Theship-Rosales: To work on it. To work on it. It's a re-build project. It's a hull and parts. Claybaugh: Okay my next question, follow-up question would be, are you doing more than that at this juncture? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Yeah, the plan was to build the shed with the idea of rezoning it for my business when I needed it. That's the understanding that I had, and that was my understanding of my option. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Kurt, any questions? Papke: I don't believe you've answered the question of the hours of operation, in which you actually perform your business in the shed. Eric Theship-Rosales: Right now? Papke: Yes. Eric Theship-Rosales: 8, 10, 12, 14 hours a day. Trying to get these boats done. Papke: So from what time until approximately what time? From 8:00 a.m. til. Eric Theship-Rosales: It changes depending on my, depending on everything in my life going on right now. 7:00 to 7:00 p.m. Good 12 hours right now. Papke: And one of the letters in our packet here stated that apparently sometimes you keep the doors open and so sometimes the 8 inches of insulation, the noise comes out anyway. Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I wouldn't keep the door open when I'm making noise. I'm very careful to close the door if I have grinding to do. The compressor does run. It's outside. The grinding is, I grind with the air. In other words, air power from the compressor powers the grinding tools. I don't suspect that I've been over code for agricultural industrial office use zoning or residential, as far as the neighbors are concerned with the noise. I do walk around with the ear muffs on because I use them. I tend the compressor while I'm running back and forth to my tool. Papke: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Bethany. Tjornhom: I have a question. How long have you been doing this where your business has expanded to where now you are working 10-12 hours a day? How long has this been going on where you are in the shed? Eric Theship-Rosales: I moved out of the Galpin space that I mentioned in my letter, I moved out of there in mid-February. I hired a hauler. He hauled the boats up. I stuck them in the shed and I started working on them. Tjornhom: So, if you have, do you advertise your business? What address do you have on for your business? Eric Theship-Rosales: I use 9201 Audubon Road. Tjornhom: Okay. When you first decided to have this business, this is just a surprise then? You didn't know you couldn't do this where you are now? Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I knew that I needed to rezone. Understand in my letter that I put down, I had a business emergency. I didn't feel I had time to. Tjornhom: So you didn't really intend to have this happen where you are right now? Eric Theship-Rosales: No. Tjornhom: It just sort of fell into your lap this way? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yeah. It was tragic as you say. I mean it was pretty hard to take. Tjomhom: Alright. That's all I have. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce. Feik: I just have one question. Should you be successful with this, there is a concern from the neighbors regarding hours. Can you live with working 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday period? Eric Theship-Rosales: No I can't. Not during this next two years. Feik: Thank you. Thank you. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: I'm looking for a reason to help you out here. There's a lot of, I agree with staff. I'm getting to a question. I agree. Sacchet: We're still in questions area, please. Lillehaug: I agree with staff on a lot of these points. Or on all the points. But I'm hung up on this miscommunication. You're saying the miscommunication, there's no miscommunication with the application? When you presented the application for the conditional use permit to build a barn, that's the application. In my mind there's no miscommunication in condition number 9, so could you, I'm just looking for a reason. Why should we go against everything in, I mean there's ordinance after ordinance here to say that you shouldn't be allowed to do this at this point right now. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I want to talk about. Lillehaug: Other than a hardship, is there, what is, is there one or two specific reasons that the city should go against all these ordinances to approve this? And that's, maybe that's just too vague of a question. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, we should maybe consider the larger question because like I say, I don't need to just zone part of it if it would mean that my business could survive and exist, we could perhaps, if it was zoned a section as it' s laid out in the drawing, rezone the whole property. Okay the other option would be to keep it A2 and create a condition here tonight whereby I could operate for say 24 months or so, perhaps 36. That would give me the option to build my addition. It would give me the option to build the business far enough along so I didn't have to go out of business, okay. I could generate a client base to get my name around more, etc and I could afford one of these places like in Waconia where I can do business for 50 cents a square foot. Lillehaug: So let me hit on this one more time. Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. Lillehaug: Is there a miscommunication with number 9 there in the ordinance? I mean are you fully in agreeance that you're going against the ordinance? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Yes. Lillehaug: As far as operating this business. Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Lillehaug: Knowingly. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well yes. Like I said, it was a business emergency and I made that challenge to the law, I did. I realize I did that without, I mean it was basically a panic situation. Lillehaug: So you're saying a miscommunication is coming when you're allowed to rezone this property? Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I believe I was talking about miscommunicating between staff and myself in terms of defining condition number 9. It's a much simpler issue. Sacchet: So just to add onto this, so when you came in for the permit to build this shed you did understand that the shed was not to be used for business? Eric Theship-Rosales: No. I understood that the use of the shed was illegal if I had a home business also. In other words it could not be an extension of the home business. I never intended for it to be an extension of the home business. I wanted to close the home business down. Sacchet: And move it to the shed? Eric Theship-Rosales: Exactly. Under proper zoning conditions, applying for them under all proper practices of law. Sacchet: And that would, that would only work if it's rezoned though. Eric Theship-Rosales: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yes, you still have a question Bruce? Feik: No. Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I did want to respond to. Sacchet: You want to add one more thing? Okay. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well Craig mentioned an issue about the fence between the two properties. And well this is my first home as I say, and you don't necessarily catch all the issues when you're a first time homebuyer. I didn't actually eye balled it to the two telephone poles that define the property. Okay, if you walk around in front of the one telephone pole near Audubon Road and you eyeball the second telephone pole, you draw a line where you see the lines connected and you measure to my house, okay to the front door, it's about 14 feet to the front step. It's about 10 feet. If there were a fence there, right on the property line, I would not be able to have driven my car on the first day of owning the property. Open the doors and not hit the fence. Okay. It's just, it's always going to be a shared property. It's going to be a shared driveway. If you extend from my gravel edge at my doorstep, to George's the end of George's gravel at his lawn, it's about 20 feet. There's plenty of room to drive agricultural vehicles back and forth in there. Okay. Now, so I walked over there and I said well can I buy some property from you because I don't think I have a legal property line here. I don't think if we put up a fence there I'd be able to use my property. They said no. Okay. And then later on, the issue came up with they were going to build a fence. Sacchet: I don't think the fence is an issue here tonight Eric. Eric Theship-Rosales: Well it will be in a second when George stands up. Sacchet: Well you can address it at that point so let's not try to address everything that could possibly come up, otherwise we're going to be sitting here addressing things until we turn gray. So why don't we see what comes up and deal with it. Is that acceptable to you Eric? Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I would like to say that we need a solution tonight. Sacchet: We certainly want to find something that's equitable. Eric Theship-Rosales: I would hate to stand down at this point and not be able to come back and discuss other issues. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Eric. Now this is a public hearing so anybody who wants to come forward and address this item, please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record and let us hear what you have to say please. George St. Martin: My name's George St. Martin. I live at 9231 Audubon. Everybody got my e-mail that I sent to Bob Generous? Okay, so I have no further comments except for one thing. The driveway. It's not a big deal but again it is. I pay taxes on that driveway. There was no question that when somebody buys a property they should know where the property line starts and ends, and also back before Eric bought the property there was a fence there. Two neighbors ago. I mean there was a big wooden fence inbetween those two properties. And that's all I have. Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Just to summarize for everybody else here in your note I recall there were mainly three issues. You had a concern about the noise, the duration, the hours of operation, and the impact on the driveway. Those were the three main items, correct? George St. Martin: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. George St. Martin: If Eric could agree to those things, you know we don't have a problem. Sacchet: So you're trying to work it out, that's good. George St. Martin: Well yeah, absolutely. We just want to be good neighbors. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Anybody else wants to come forward and address this item? This is your time to do so. Seeing nobody, I close the public heating and bring this back to commissioners. Comments please. Lillehaug: Yeah I can start. I'm going to open up with a question though because I agree, fully agree with staff on this. So to come up with a solution, is the solution allowing him to rezone? Can he rezone this? Or not even rezone it, just not occupy that home and have that business on that property? Aanenson: If a business went in there again that would trigger a change in use, so if it' s a change in use then again you kind of go through the site plan review because for occupancy and that sort of thing, they have to do some modifications to the home for building code issues. If it was to go office, if someone was to rent it for, because now it's not used as a residence, so there'd be some code issues on that too. Parking standards and those sort of things would also come into play. Lillehaug: So if I understand it correctly, the only solutions per code would be to not operate the business there? Or have the property rezoned. Aanenson: You could rezone it, yeah but I'm saying that for the existing house it wouldn't probably stay in the exact condition because it would go through site plan at this point because it's changing residential to an office use more than likely if it's going to stay in the home kind of, and then have to go through to meet those standards. Parking. Whatever other codes would be required for occupancy. Lillehaug: My comments are, it's in the 2005 MUSA. The city is not ready to extend services down there based on the AUAR that is currently being performed. So I support not making any plans to extend services down to that property at this time until that report is complete. I do not support it also because of fact number 2 that if we did go according to the plan in front of us, it wouldn't meet the district regulations on the size of the lot and depth of the lot. We did hear from the applicant that he's willing to change that but that doesn't help the services issue. The driveway's an issue. And then my bigger issue is, under the conditional use permit it's very clear that that barn, that shed was not to be used as occupation until it was rezoned. So I cannot support his. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Bruce. Feik: Comments, but quick question first. Kate or Bob. Had this been zoned previously, and the applicant had come in here two years ago when he brought his application for at that time it was defined as a shed and this was rezoned to IOP, would the construction materials, the setback have conformed at all to the IOP zoning at that time. Generous: Only the setback would conform. Feik: Only the setback. So what I'm proposing gentlemen, and lady, that one of two things would happen. One is either the applicant had an unfortunate job situation where he had built a hobby shop, and now wants to convert it to a full time business of fairly lengthy hours with a neighbor that's next door and not necessarily a compatible use, or he builds a property knowing it wouldn't conform, which I don't think he might have done, but certainly wouldn't have been the best thing to do. Hoping to get it sort of grandfathered in which would not have been a good case. Would not have been a good thing to do so in either case, as well as all the other comments, I cannot support the application. Tjomhom: This is probably the worst vote I'm going to have to do so far I guess. I feel really bad. You know I hate to see you have hardship with your business. I know you're trying and that's to be commended but I have to agree with Bruce and Steve that there are ordinances and there are regulations and there are zoning laws for a reason and unfortunately where you live those that apply to your business and so I guess I can't support, or I have to agree with staff in denying the application. Papke: I empathize with the applicant. I respect him for trying to go through the process with the Planning Commission and trying to get it resolved. I think this was a noble attempt but as Steve mentioned before I'm still looking for a reason as to why we would approve this and I don't see any compelling legal reason that would suggest even that we pursue that so I would have to disapprove that at this point. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: Like fellow commissioners I genuinely empathize with your situation. It's clear that you're an artisan. You take a lot of pride in what you do. That definitely showed through in your presentation. Unfortunately there is a number of compelling reasons not to and the absence of compelling reasons besides what I would 'consider on some levels self created hardship to approve it, and as such I don't feel that I can support the application in it's current form. I agree with the staff's findings and it's a very unfortunate situation but it is what it is. Sacchet: Rich. Slagle: Basically ditto what the other commissioners have said. I'd like to throw out for the commission if we proceed onto a motion that, if the motion does go against the application, I'd like to encourage us to consider an extension. Lillehaug: And extension for what? Slagle: For the cease and desist. Aanenson: That's not within your jurisdiction to be clear. That's a legal issue that we're working with him. We're trying to work with him. Slagle: When you say it's not legal. Aanenson: You can't give a use variance. You don't have the jurisdiction to say you can continue to use that for a certain period of time. Slagle: And where would that come from? Aanenson: City code. He's in violation of the city code. The clock's ticking on that. Certainly we've given him time. We're working with him and we'll continue to work with him. Slagle: So city code dictates 30 days? Aanenson: Yes, that's our policy 30 days. He's past that. We're going to continue to work with him. If you want to give staff the direction to continue to work with him fine but you can't give a use variance so we'll be happy to continue to work with him. Sacchet: Is that it Rich? Well, I have a few comments to make. I don't remember all the details that went into the discussion when this barn was approved, however I clearly recall that the use of that barn for business purposes was a major issue at the time. So I have a hard time figuring out how that could have been lost or misunderstood at the time. It's a tricky thing. I mean we drive through a red light and then tell the cop we didn't see it. We still drove through it and if you have an accident you have an accident, whether we saw the red light or not. It's a tricky situation. In terms of the liberty, I mean we're almost July 4th so it's our celebration of liberty here in this country. We certainly exercise a fair amount of liberty of speech already here tonight. The liberty of doing what we want to do and you have an incredible talents and incredible drive that I really respect and admire. That should not be impacted by where you do it. But then it's the other aspect of liberty. Maybe liberty starts where somebody, ends where somebody else's starts. My liberty starts where you, mine ends where your's starts and here we're talking about the city framework that is clearly established and defined. Also, what our thing in front of us is very clear. I mean I agree with you Rich that we'd like to find ways to mitigate the hardship and help you find a solution, but then at the same time what's in front of us is to rezone half of the lot and have a lot. I mean if you would come in, if you want to consider rezoning the whole thing, that's a totally different thing. We can't really even discuss this at this point because that's not an issue in front of us. The issue in front of us is does this zoning, half of it into IOP, half of it residential, does that meet ordinance and it clearly doesn't. It really doesn't. If you want to come in with a different application, trying to apply for rezoning the whole thing to industrial office, then that would be a different move. But we can't really tell you whether that's going to go through or not at this point. That's not...it hasn't been studied. It hasn't been discussed. I'm just curious from staff, would the whole property fulfill the requirements in terms of size to be rezoned because that's... Aanenson: ...there's an access issue, upgrading the road. Now you have two uses so you'd be, you know the driveway to engineering specifications, storm water management, so you'd really include a site plan review with that. Sacchet: There's a whole other program. Aanenson: Yeah, it's a different application. Sacchet: Now I do have another question for staff. I mean staff, you focused on the aspect that this is premature in view of the whole area being studied very extensively which we expect to be complete later this year to plan what's going to happen overall in that area for the 2005 timeframe. There's another aspect here though. This would be spot zoning. Wouldn't it be spot zoning? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And spot zoning is a bad thing in city planning framework, that way I understand it. As a matter of fact it'd be...illegal if it got contested, is that correct? Aanenson: Yeah, I think the bigger issue too is we want to look at accessing not only this parcel but topographically what pieces relate together as part of that whole study. What's the best way to provide access to those parcels that may get access off of Audubon and how we efficiently work that through so it's not looking at this piece in a vacuum. It's looking at the neighboring property too and looking at rezoning, and that's what the study is looking at. What's the best way to provide access to those and looking at this separately. It may not be in the best interest of both properties. Sacchet: Okay. Well, let me clarify once more for my fellow commissioners what's in front of us is very clearly the application to rezone half of it and so that's what we're voting upon tonight, and what goes beyond that would be something different so with that comment I'm willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Can I add something? I don't want to give any false indications here either. If an application were to come in to rezone the whole property, my comments are the same. Services aren't provided there at this point and they're not ready to be and I wouldn't support rezoning the whole property either so I really, I don't want to give any false indication that I would support rezoning the whole property either. So you're aware. Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Discussion? Claybaugh: I would concur with Steve for the record here so the applicant understood where likewise I was coming from. Lillehaug: And that's at this current time. Sacchet: At this time, right. With the study, with the AUAR study being in progress at this point it'd be very hard to justify any rezoning in that area. Plus it's contrary to what the comprehensive plan indicates and that's kind of the foundation of the framework that we're working with for the city's comprehensive plan. So with that, I'd like to have a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Brace. Feik: I move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to IOP, Industrial Office Park based upon the findings of fact attached to this report with, I have one change please if you would be so kind as to that one from a practical standpoint, if you'd either strike that or remove it so that it's clear. If the applicant chooses to pursue this with the City Council, I'd like that to be clear for the council. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to lOP, Industrial Office Park based on the findings of fact attached to the staff report, amended to strike the phrase "from a practical standpoint". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: This will go to City Council on the 28z of July, and that gives you a chance to present your case to City Council and I sincerely hope you find a good solution. It seems a little bit out of view right now but I'm sure there's a solution somewhere in this. For summary for the City Council, we are in agreement as a Planning Commission that this is premature rezoning. That the condition in the original conditional use permit for the shed was clear that it was not supposed to be used for business use. And that we couldn't find any pressing reason that would allow us to recommend approval at this time. Slagle: And we also ask staff to work with the applicant. Sacchet: I think we have consensus on that. We'd like to definitely show every possible good will to the applicant to do whatever we can to find a solution to the challenge at hand but certainly from having heard a little bit of your life story Eric you're very used to dealing with pretty heavy challenges. I mean if you carve beautiful things out of granite, here you've got a chance to carve something. Slagle: We have a bowling alley for 6 months don't we that he could use? Sacchet: Alright, let's hold those horses. So with that let's move to our next item.