Loading...
4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 Chairman Johnson called, the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Mark Senn and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner H REOUEST FOR A 16 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 855 LONE EAGLE DRIVE. 3ohn Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Mr. Kvam, do you want to address us at this lime? Kevin Kvam: Sure. Go up here? .Johnson: Yes please. State your name and address. Kevin Kvam: Hi, I'm Kevin Kvam at 855 Lone Eagle Drive in ChAnhassen. Basically what he has said is, you know the 3 foot back I agree with and the variances would line up with the rest of the buildings on the block with the house and the neighbors garage and I'd be more than happy to put it back to... Johnson: Are there any neighbors here that wish to speak for or against? Audience: Well I'm for it. Audience: I'm for it. Watson: Do you live on Lone Eagle? Audience: Yes, I live fight across the street from Kevin. Audience: And my garage is the one that he wants to line up with so I don't see why, to me they should just line up directly. They don't have to go 3 feet back farther. Our's is already in existence. You're going to line it up directly. Watson: I think they would put it 3 feet back from... Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Audience: ...and that's fine with us. Watson: And John, you swear there will never be an upgrade or a vacation or anything of that sl~eet? " Rask: That's correct. Watson: Okay. Audience: Can I have that in writing?.., we had a wall put in. A wall variance that was changed and we went into the easement and so... we basically have' the legal property. Watson: Oh, out to the middle of the road. Audience: We didn't go into the middle of the road. We went like 2 feet or 3 feet into the easement spot to help alleviate the drainage problem from the street down into our house. So we had the final words that that would be it and... Senn: I'll move approval. Watson: I'll second it. Senn moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve a thirteen (13) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a 28 x 32 foot detached garage. (Note: A revised survey wm be required prior to issuance of a building pemlL) More specifically, the Board finds the following: '1. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship in the topography of the lot. The variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public street or endanger public safety. Permitting a reduced setback'on the subject property will allow the garage to blend with the pre-existing standards for the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent structures as appropriate setbacks will be maintained. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 REOUEST FOR SIDE YARD, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 922~ LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DAVID DUltAIME. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Jo~ Is the original footprint, was that about 40? Rask: Yeah, the original footprint I believe was 61 feet. Or actually excuse me, it looks 52 feet from the nearest comer. Watson: So this deck is how large? Raslc It's 32 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Long or protruding away from the house. It's 23 feet, and then it's the width of the house which is 321 believe. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Johnson: You figure what, about 46 feet? Rask: Yes. 46 feet was the average. The DNR, they have a provision. There is a provision in the statutes that allows the averaging of setbacks. We did not adopt that part of the state statute which allows that averaging but we do use it as a rationale for determining what is an appropriate setback in these instances. Watson: I have just a comment to make, after resding this...and it's kind of discouraging that people who have the privilege of living on the lake and also have the responsibility therefore of protecting that lake, are the ones who want practically to build inside of it. They want to go wall to wall on the lots. They want to cover the whole lot with a building or deck or driveway or something, and I guess the last few proposals we've seen here on lakes have been very discouraging as far as any responsibility towards the lake and what's going to happen to it. I mean we've come in and we've got 52% impervious lot surfaces. 17 feet or something from the lake....DNR can't possibly fix up a lake fast enough to keep up with that. Rask: Yeah just to, the setbacks of 7 feet were obviously taken from the most recent request that we had, which was real similar to this. I mean the Board and the Council both had quite a bit of discussion on this issue as far as what is an appropriate setback when you're dealing with these smaller lots. Watson: Right. Instead of it that...ceminly it's better than what we had seen. Johnson: ...gentleman address this and then we'll come back to comments from the rest of the Board. Senn: In your impervious calculation, did that include the deck? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Rask: Yes, that did include the deck and the driveway. Watson: The 52% then. Johnson: ...address this... Jim Corrigan: I'm Jim Corrigan, and I'm the builder and this is Dave D~,hoirne the homeowner. I just have a couple quick things. I want to address the responsibility issue, and I can definitely. see your point on most lots. The size of these lots are, they make it, as you can see...42 lots...and that's our argument that these lots are too small to actually build on and Dave made an attempt to buy the lot next door but wasn't able to do that. So we're stuck with this and it's almost impossible to get the 25% impervious, ratio on these lots and get a house... I'm not sure if that showed up anywhere on any other lots...that 25%. I can't see mating 25%. I mean I can see the responsibility but I think to try to meet 25% is almost impossible. Watson: ...but anybody's use for a deck is not necessarily 23 x 32 so you know. I mean I unders~d what you're saying but also we're looking at things that go beyond the. Jun Corrigan: On the deck, that's not a concern of our's. The only reason I think they put in a 23 foot deck, he doesn't plan on building a 23 foot deck. Is that they drew a line between the two homes on each side and that's what, on thc original plat, if you drew a line between the two houses, it showed that we had room for a 23 foot deck and we thought that was reasonable, as long as we stayed in line and didn't move any closer to the lake than the homes on each side. And we did talk about moving the house forward 10 feet, which we thought we'd be willing to do but the only problem I ran into was this huge oak tree that we really can't move closer because we'll kill that oak tree and take that oak tree out. If we move it closer. So we're almost at the point where we have to keep that footprint the way it was on the original. On the original survey, at setback. So we're not, definitely not ~lose enough to be on the 17 foot setback. And I mean we're more than willing to be at 40 feet to go along with the 40 foot lakeshore setback, h's just, we don't intend to move the house forward because of the oak tree. And then we were, where... house, we tried to maximize the side yard setbacks but we unfortunately found out that we were at 3.92 instead of over 5 feet. The couple of issues that I guess I'd want to lgok at is, I know the mffrecommended 7 feet on both sides. The only problem with going ? feet on both sides, · where we're trying to encourage 5 feet on both sides, is that at 7 feet on both sides, you without a doubt would have to go to a two story house. And a very narrow two story house, and you may as well make a wall to the neighbors. Almost more of an eyesore than if you go with a story and a half and are able to put a couple of bedrooms on the main level. It allows more light in and I lhink it's more appealing to the whole neighborhood rather than a real narrow, two story house. So that's the big issue is the setback here. And yeah, he recommends 46 foot setback. I mean we're real close on that. What shows up on the survey right now is that's just one of those things that the person that drew the plans just drew a line between the two houses. I think the house 'next to it had a 32 foot setback and we're looking at probably about 40 foot setback And then Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 the driveway issue, I think hinges on the first two issues. From...we have no problem coming up with that information at all. Showing the trees and all...but I think the big thing we're looking .for direction on is side yard setback. If we can have 5 feet, I think we can put a better looking home on the lot than if we had to go with the 5 feet because at 5 feet, or at ? feet we most certainly have to go to a two story house. A narrow two story house, and I don't know if Dave has anything to say. Dave I~haime: I think Jim covered most of the issues. I just want to point out a sense that I have where we really would like to get some direction because I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place. Again we purchased this lot, which is, if you look on the survey, the width reduces as you get up towards the road and so you're in a position where if you try to position any home, that they'H keep playing with on this lot, you will align yourself either with one side or the other and which ever way you align yourself with, you create yourself a problem in the opposite back comer because the lot reduces as you go back. If you look at the table of side yard setbacks that John has prepared here, you can see that that's a common problem to the lots in that area. Where they've got, in most cases, a very small setback. 3 feet, 2.1 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet are the smallest side yard setbacks in all four of those properties listed on this table. And on the opposite side, because they've aligned themselves parallel on that side, they can create more room. What we've tried to do here is center it as much as possible, and if you look at the plan and you lo0k at the home that was next door, you can take that particular home when it comes to the coverage issue. If you were to take the footprint of the home next door and overlay it on the existing property, I think that you can see what I'm talking about is, if you took the existing house right here and laid it in scale on top of the proposed home right here, you're almost in terms of lot coverage, looking at the identical situation. One difference however is that their garage is incorporated into this home so this whole part here is garage and so I think from a standpoint of coverage, we're doing a, I thought when the architect came up with this, a good job of taking what's already existing in the area and making what we're doing here similar, or more conservative in the case that we considered a garage. Of building a garage into this. And we went to the I ½ story specifically because in addition we think it has more of an aesthetic appeal to create that look. But this home, would in any event...or 5 feet, this one here...would be so closing into it that if you go with that wall as he points out, on two stories, you're going to be looking at a wall there. The sun comes across in this direction and we thought if we made it a story and a half...more air flow, more light and everything. We did put a lot of thought into that. Also as Jim points out, just so I'm sure it's clear. If you draw a line from this deck to the deck on the house over here, that's how we came up with this proposed deck length. That's completely arbitrary and not particularly important to me at all. I have no, I certainly don't have an objective of covering the lot with deck. With another consideration here as you increase the elevation you need to get down on the house.., onto the ground level somehow and over the course of that kind of...The deck is not an important issue to this plan and I think what we're, oh the other thing I wanted to point out is, the existing house is 34 feet so we'd come in 2 feet on both sides. And in every single case...trying to move the house back or move the house fOrward, 'and then counting the fight-of-way and the house with a detached garage...so hopefully we can get something definitive this meeting... Johnson: ...does anybody else wish to talk? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Ronnie Ytzen: The only thing. I'm...and I live fight next door. I live... John.~OlE State your name please for the record. Rormle Ytzen: Ronnie Ytzen. I live at 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. I like the idea of a story and a half house. I guess the only concern that I was really thinking about was the side yard setback on my house, and I've been there for 25 or 30 years and I've seen like four houses bum down in that area so I'm very nervous about houses close to each other. Every place you go you see the same thing. Houses really close to each other. I think with just a house a story and a half, as you said, it does allow for people...to look across and see some of the lake. It looks more airy. I have a feeling that if he's required to raise his driveway, it's going to create quite a drainage problem and all the water can flow right down between the two houses and puddle up in there so that's something that might be addressed or something to give thought about if you require him to raise the driveway. That's all I have to say, thank you. Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. I have thc lot on thc other side of Dave and I would have . loved to have bought the lot. But after this meeting perhaps I can. I just want to encourage you folks to know that on those lots have been sitting that way for a long time. He's...there's no place to go...so I'd just encourage you to see that those lots originally were just small.., small little homes...owned one of those that Ron mentioned that burned to the ground and thc only reason I've been waiting to do anything with my lot is because I was hoping to get one of the side lines. And so now that it's there, I'm all for putting something nice on that and I'm going to put something nice on _mine and make the whole neighborhood... 5 feet, plenty of room for him to, I mean to access...as far as fire fighting and that kind of thing, that is true but I mean you're constl~ining a lot on the lots that you have already...so I looked at what Dave had put together for a home and I just wanted to come in here and...on the other side and...fine with what his plan is .... I know it's a tough thing for you guys to figure out too, what to do with this as far as what's best. If you own lakeshore in ChAnh~lsse~ you've got to do something with it... Eunice Kottke: My name Eunice Kottke. I live at 9221 Lake Riley and we have been through... not intentionally. I first drew up plans for...home in about 1985. '84 or '85. It was approved immediately by the Council, or the Plsnnirtg department. It was...all of the statutes which meant that we had to stay on the footprint and my home is exactly on the footprint as the summer place. We could increase...but it was our choice to go up because I didn't want to lose any...and I find it a very livable, lovable house. With the...somebody came up with a new street plan. I never made it...I was working. I had a job at that time. My work was in Florida winters for 6 years w . while the house was being.., was to the garage down next to the house. That would have 'eliminated all...to the house...I want you to understand why it is...I'm also a woman and I don't want to be shoveling 8 feet 6 inches out to...just about what your elevation is. I'm not sure. That's what mine was and so that's why I worked and worked and we eventually got the garage at the rosd...boardwalk so that.~people can come down comfortably. There's a lot ofthlngs happening so that...get rid of the shed and get rid of some of the...but I welcome to the neighborhood. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Senn: I've got a suggestion. I think this works. I do not have a problem with the lake setback as long as whatever we do stays at the outer most part of that line. Johnson: 46 foot? Senn: Well yeah. If somebody lands a number there. Rather than just say, so I would say align the outer edge of thc deck with the line between the two neighbors, okay. So now that's the outer edge of your deck. Reduce the deck that 12 feet. Move the house forward, okay. With the stipulation...that line of the deck to 12 feet. Back the house up to it...down a little bit further, okay. Which will bring it... Maintain at least a 5 foot setback on the west side and 7 foot setback on the east side, okay. Driveway would be reduced to a minimum width. I had 10 feet down but I don't know, John I'll leave that up to you guys, which would help with the impervious surface. And the addition put on, that only a one and a half story house can be put on this...and then just basically throw in the other staff conditions regarding... Rask: Yeah, as long as we can get past the driveway. The slope of the driveway. Tun Corrigan: How about the tree? We've got a...very much appreciate this discussion. This is kind of like. . . the tree that comes into play if we try to move the house closer. It's about, it's not shown on there but what would you estimate? It's about 4 feet. It's a big oak. It's a 100 year old oak...but it's maybe 3 or 4 feet in and over a little bit probably from the house... Senn: But your deck goes there anyway. Jim Corrigan: Your deck can go around the tree. We're talking about going down with a foundation and I think it'd be. Senn: Okay, so your other plans that you're talking about...talking about building the deck around the tree? Tun Corrigan: No. I think you technically could go on the side of the tree with the deck if you followed that side of the house. But if you put a foundation under there, you're going to now be so close to that tree, as to cut off. I don't know. Watson: How far between the house and that tree were We? I mean. Dave D~hairne: ...fairly close. Rask: That 7 feet would be... Watson: I'm going to make a motion then we can discuss and, okay. After we get a motion and a second on the floor then we can discuss it. Okay. I make a motion to table. Johnson: Okay, I'll second that. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watso~ And provide some, information for them to go with. Senn: I think that makes sense. I think we've got to pin point where some of this stuffis. Watson: Because this tree...I don't want to pass on it and I certainly don't want to say we don't want to do it. I think we just need to pwvide some of the information that it needs to go forwarL Senn: If it works out what do you thlnir of the suggestion? The question is now we need to put it on paper and from where everything is in rehtionship to it. Watson: Right. When we have, on the east side you said there's 5 feet? Senn: Yeah, I was saying 5 feet on the east side. 5 feet setback on the west side, I'm sorry. 7 feet on the east. Watson: What's on that side? Is the east side...? Rask: That's correct. Watson: And how far is that house from his property line? Rask: About 11 feet so you're pwviding a 16 foot separation between the two structures. The side of the 7 feet is kind of the unknown. It's the undeveloped lot. Watson: Okay. Johnson: You Want to go 5 on this side? Senn: Well I'm just looking...speaking of the widths...give somewhere. If you go 10, let's say you go 10 on the other side...balance it out. You've got 16 over here. You've got 17 over here. It seems to me the balance... When the neighbor comes in with a pwposal, we're going to go to lO. If we hold at lO, then like I say, we've got 17 there and 16 there. Watson: Okay, then we get down to the issue of impervious surface. If we can get rid of a lot of, and that's one we can get. Senn: Yeah, that's reducing the deck in half. Okay, effectively. And it's also reducing the size of driveway because it's going to help on the impervious surface. Watson: Now where are we corniog with the DNR as far as how they're going to feel about our decision? If we were to move the house forward. Senn: Are we going to table? ' Can we table and...pwvide that direction. I'm supposed to leave. ..you guys can keep discussion. I don't want to cut that short. You know how I feel and he knows how I feel .... I agree with you. I want to see the tree. I want to see wherever. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Yeah, and we have to incorporate the DNR...more information. Senn: Yeah, from the DNR standpoint. I would not, I'm not insistent on 25%... I think we'll go a long ways towards doing that. As far as the lake setback, I won't agree with them on that either. I mean from that standpoint I think we need to maintain in unison what's there now. I mean I don't want to see something going closer to the lake than what's there now but at the same time I'm not going to sit here and tell somebody to move their house back when all the other houses are down here. Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table the request for side yard, impervious surface, and lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single family residence located at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Jim Corrigan: May I throw something out or is that out of order?... That 5 foot setback side that you were talking about that we've got 16... On the other side was the unknown or the empty lot. Where we need the 15 feet is in the very back far comer...so we're really talking about I think it's 8.9 or something...So on the one side we could utilize the 5 yard setback...and use it. Senn: I don't have a big problem with that. You guys can figure this. Sorry about that. I've got to get to the other meeting... Watson: Bye. Come again. Johnson: You're talking about maintaining on the left hand side 5 feet? Watson: Yeah. Johnson: ...far comer. Watson: Well...far comer which is the worse case scenario and...7 feet... l'un Corrigan: Is there a way to make it a setback...over the course of the lot? Raslc It's always whatever the minimum is. The minimum setback is what you need the. variance from. Tun Corrigan: Well we can commit to the placement of the house that recognizes the small part as a non-conforming legal use and build 1 ½ stories which meets... Watson: Then if we move thc house forward, like Mark was talking about, and we cut this deck down to 12 feet. Isn't that what we decided? Rask: Yeah...12 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Okay...we're still over 10 feet. 10-11 feet. Somewhere in there. Rask: Yeah I think. This revised plan you have before you tonight, this one, they brought the house forward 8 feet from what was originally proposed. Watson: So we're looking at another, moving it forward another 10 feet? Rask: I don't think that's possible. I think this is what Mark was referring to. It'd be two additional feet here. To basically keep it in line with what's currently on it. Johnson: But he wants to stay even with the neighbors... Watson: Even with the neighbors and then move the house and move that 12 foot deck which... And that would, and John was talking about a tree and stuff so perhaps that is. Rask: Yeah, there are some significant trees to the front of the existing cottage. Between the cottage and the lake, which probably would be okay with the placement of the house because by the time you get construction equipment in there and you impact the red zone, you're going to lose them eventually even if they don't come out now. That was a concern of our's from the start. Even with the original proposal, the closeness there. Even though the house paid isn't on them, we've learned through experience that, especially with oak lrees, they're very sensitive to any type of construction activity. We had our forester out there to look at them. She thought 50% at best with that proposal. .Jun Corrigan: Could I make one more comment? Johnson: Go ahead. Jim Corrigan: On the, Councilmen Senn mentioned drawing a line between the two and I guess I'd like a couple things. Whether or not we drop the deck or patio from the house and... avera~ng them out between what he says is 54 feet and 32 feet and averaging it to 46 and then you draw a line, I think there's a big difference between those two. Between those two so I just wanted to make sure that's clear. If we draw a line, I think we'd be more than willing to go along with that line and then determine what that line is. If it's from the patio and the deck or if it's from the house and right now they're showing that from the house and not necessarily the deck that sits out in that 10 feet or 12 feet or something. I guess that's what I'd like to... The other thing on the grade of the height we're putting in. I notice...the height of the driveway, that's another thing we were considering. There's another oak tree in back so that's why we're trying to keep it down a little bit to try to help preserve another oak tree as well so those two things. Watson: Yeah, and that's kind of an engineering issue, and not being an. engineer, I'm not willing to tackle the...and height and move this and move that you know. That's what that guys sits there. That's his job. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Johnson: Watson: ...use that patio is... And the house itself rather than decks because. Jun Corrigan: Our's would encompass the deck. Rask: Yeah, the DNR does consider the deck to be pan of the structure. Watson: Well I understand a deck is a structure but when we're Irying to figure out where, you know the deck being l0 feet or 12 feet or deck's kind of. Johnson: Yeah so if you figure, let's just as a figure say it's... Watson: Worry about the building. Johnson: Let's say that you average that in and come up with a figure of 46 feet. That's where the deck has to start and then the house. Watson: Yeah, the house would have to be, I mean the deck and then build the house...sidewalk even would be supposed to be 46 feet away. Johnson: Yeah, we want nothing closer than 46 feet. Rask: Okay. Yeah, I took an average of all the, well I took an average of this one, this one, this one, this one and the one adjacent to it. And I included in an average...so that's where I had come up with the 46. Watson: And even though there isn't a house on the lot...that all the responsibility for setbacks cannot be his. Rask: Correct. Watson: The setback responsibility has to be divided equally between this gentleman, and the gentleman who's going to build a house. Nobody's responsible for that in and of themselves. So I mean if we...like you were saying we wanted to come up with 16 feet or something or 1 ? feet between the houses, it's going to have to be an equal 1 ? feet. Not all the responsibility, the 10 feet respons~ility on the neighbor who hasn't happened to build yet. And the other, the smaller portions here. We can't do that in all good conscience to the person who's going to try and put a house on another skinny little thing next door. Johnson: Yeah, because we don't know what's going to be on next door. Watson: I think...like he's building a tower either .... No, It's actually 20 feet. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 .run Corrigan: Can we coordinate that? Alan, if you know how you're going to place your's and I know how I'm going to place mine and we end up with... Watson: The only pwblem is, you probably won't own your house forever and either will.he. · We have to do this as though, it can't be k/nd of an arrangement between you guys. It has to be something that's logical from a zoning and business standpoint that would fit and look reasonable. I don't want to have to move away from Chsn~ssen because we. Audience: We have a house at 9203 Lake Riley, which is up the hill from there. And we have 16 feet fight now between our two homes and I have about...and my neighbor has...and they were both existing structures that we were dealing with .... some of these things that we always...try to lay the garage where it's narrow and slowly expand out and some of those are just kind of restrictions of building too... Watson: Right, so we want to be sure that you're not dealing with something more restrictive than him simp.ly because we've decided that we are going to end up 16 feet between these two houses and if he's using say 10 feet of that, then you're going to be responsible for more of that setback in order to come up with the 16 feet... Johnson: ...and he's already built then we've got to deal with the new guy that you sell to and he'll say well gee, how come you allowed this to happen? Watson: We always start with 20 feet and try to stay as close to the integrity of that 20 feet as we can, and still allow some...but the 20 feet is a minimum and the variance process begins the minute you say I want less than 20 feet between these two houses. Audience: Then the 16 comes up as kind ofa. Watson: No it was picked, Mark just picked it. I mean it still seems like a reasonable figure but there's nothing magical about 16 feet or 18 feet or 12 feet. It's just... .Johnson: I'd rather see 10 put on both sides but we were trying to come up with a compromise of some son. Watson: See ev~y's equally responsible for that 20 feet. Audience: Right. I understand. I agree with you whole-heartedly on lots that are being developed r~w... .Johnson: After you've been here a couple years on this Board. Watson: When you talk about variances...been there, done that you know. John~n: And I feel if you crowd them too much, you've got to realize the fact you're going to get from that front right yard is the street being considered. It's in the lake. If you build right up J J Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 to the neighbor's property...and the neighbor decides to put a fence right up there, how are you going to get by, you know. That's why I look at this. I've been on a few of these cases where a guy got mad and they threw up a fence and you don't have any room to get by. Audience: Our kids are EoinE to be playing together anyway. Johnson: Things change. ~'un Corrigan: You'know John you gave us a plan that you said was, here's one that's two'story. If we build that, you know a couple things apply and we really try and used a two story plan...which we looked at. First of all I think it's going to be very offensive... The second thing, that plan shows, and this was a big problem. How do you get from the street into this house? · · You've got a garage sitting where the back of this house is. You end up...and so you don't end up being able to get through the house and so that's maybe you house for example, it has no door facing the street. It'd be a side door, which is how you enter that which means you'd be coming in and out...ofhis house and I think that would be also... Watson: And that's why I assume those houses will end up with detached garages because, in order to accommodate that... ~'rm Corrigan: I just wonder if you do that, if you go with a detached garage, and...anyway from the street... Watson: Of course it does. Of course it does. Jim Corrigan: You know compared to what we proposed, which is very charming. Rask: Well just about anything that can occur on this lot is going to require variances. Either from impervious surface, setbacks. The only thing that wouldn't...to save at least 50% of the structure and build on that. You could build up or improve what's there. Anything else is going to require a variance. If he went two full stories, he's right. The concerns do come in with light and air. However, that may be reason to deny two story. The Board certainly has the right to. Watson: It is one level. Rask:. Yeah. What it boils down to is what's reasonable for this property compared to the adjoining structures and what's been done out there now and staffs position, the 7 feet seems to be adequate given that the other homes adjacent to this are 23, 24 feet in width. 6 feet smaller so. Watson: Let's go with staff's 7 feet. That's what we did before too and I think... Johnson: Can you work with something if we give 7 feet on there? Rask: I think that kind of contradicts what Mark's $ feet on the one, which was basically the motion made. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Wm~m: Well the motion was to table. Rask: That was different from the direction given by Mr. Senn. Johnson: Because I'd rather see you hold to 7 feet...understand where Mark's coming from. Watson: Well I sort of picked ? out of the air before because I decided that I could get comfortable with it before on that other 40 foot lot. We've been here before. The ? feet because that way, even if the adjacent person builds 7 feet from their property line, you still have at least 14 feet, which is not wonderful but we only have 40 foot lots to begin with so. As far as the distance from the lake. Without knowing exactly where those trees are and how this would... When you look at redoing this, can you just look at doing it without messing around, but on the next t/me, can we see where these trees are and how big they are. Because I looked at the lot and it was hard.to know. I'm not a good judge of distance and how far something looks from som~g else. Rask: That's on part of the recommendation is to show trees in excess of 6 inches. Watson: Yeah, so that we can see...and if we move the house forward, cut the deck down, how much can you do that without disturbing. Johnson: Use your 46 foot. I think we can use that... Watson: Yeah, using that as the basis for the least amount we can be from the lake. Johnson: Is the DNR going to go along with that? Watson: As far as this house, I'm trying to envision where's your garage... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) .run Corrigan: ...I think at this, in fact 24 foot houses? Is that correct with what you're describing right now? And so that house there is room, given the 1 ]4 stories, truly becomes a hallway because the pitch of the roof makes that room so narrow when you try to get what we would shoot for there is 5 foot walls... AS you move that in you're, you'd end up with nothing. Watson: I know and I still feel we have to be more concerned with how this thing sits on the property when you're desiging the house. Right? Johnson: I feel that way too. Rask: Yeah the setbacks are the issue here. Watson: The setback is the issue for us. House designs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: You can't deal with 5 though on the one side and something that compromises on the other because that we feel would be doable. Still maintaining and having... IfI go 7 and 7, I've already told him; start over. Johnson: I'd rather see 10 but I'd go along with the 7 and 7. I realiTe it's a bad situation with these small lots but we've work with them for years and. Watson: Do you have enough John? .Rask: Yes. : Watson: We've already moved on this to table...when you work something out we'll get it back. Rask: Yes, the first meeting in October. Watson: We want to leave that public hearing open then so we won't close the public hearing. Johnson: Yes...there's just two of us. Watson: Yeah, we'll withhold the Minutes until next time too because Mark isn't here. I have one comment to make before we adjoum. Johnson: Sure. Watson: There's a variance that the Council granted in Saddlebrook for the storage building. When those storage buildings are built and they put those roll doors on them, they look like one car garages sitting at an odd angle out in the middle of a bunch of lots. I'm sure there are people who drive through and think, why would anyone want to do that? And I have to ask, the question does beg for an answer. So if, I don't know. If they're going to use those rolled doors, I think we have to be more concerned about the placement on the lot. It does look like a one car garage planted out in the middle of this green space when and they put little petunias in front of it to think that's going to... Because of the rolled doors, it doesn't look like a storage building. It looks like a single car garage. Sust for future reference. If it was even not at an angle or something. A little more, there's just something about when they sit at this angle... I make a motion to adjourn. Johnson: I'll second. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at '/:IS p,m. Submitted John Rask Planner H Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRSENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I REfe' UEST FOR SIDE YARD, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, LAKESHORE SETBACK_ VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9225 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DAVID DUHAIME. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: I have a question... Do you wish to say anything at this time? David Duhaime: Sure. Well, we went back to the drawing boards and looked at...we staked out every single location. We measured down to the 100t~ of an inch. Revised the architect plan and everything and tried to squeeze that house in as tightly as we possibly could. I feel like I'm working very hard to get this to conform. To what's there and really do have some legitimate physical... I can't move it closer to the lake because we will definitely impact on the damage to that tree, which is now shown on that survey. If we go closer to the lake. I'm further set back than the other houses anyway, and one of the things we looked at is even if you take a garage and try to put it on the back, which was one of the suggestions, I've got a 35 foot thing back there in the back and the house next door is, what is it, 4.7 feet from that lot line. Actually part of the cement structure of that garage is on that property line, which I don't care about in particular. It doesn't matter but it kind of points out just how tight that area is. And I guess the point I want to make is, if you look at how over the years people have dealt with these problems, I want to point out back when I first applied for this, the west wall of the existing home on the southern comer was 3.9 from the lot line, and that's going to be improved to 5 feet from the lot. The west wall of the existing home on the northern comer, on that same side, is currently 2.1 feet from the lot line, and that will be improved to 5. So the 5 foot side on both comers of the house goes from 3.9 in one comer and 2.1 feet on the other comer, to 5 feet in both cases. On the east side, the side where the vacant lot is. The southern comer is 6, which is nearest the lake, is currently 6.8 feet from the lot line. Now that will be improved to just in excess of 10 feet. So actually that comer of that house is conforming. Again that same east wall against the vacant lot, on the norther comer down toward the street is currently 6.8 feet from the lot line. And that would be improved in what I propose to 7 feet. So when we first came, when I came here on the 23rd what I was looking for was to be able to be 5 feet from the lot line on both sides. And I think Councilman Senn, before the meeting expressed some thought. That were it to be 5 feet on the one and 7 feet on the other, perhaps that was something under the circumstances, given the tree and the nature Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 of the lot, etc, that he could live with and so that's really what we architected toward when we revised all of this. Was for that, the possibility that maybe if it got that far, you guys could see through, or see clear to letting it pass with the effort that we've put forth. The other thing the architect tells me, if you do make this house any more narrow, you are going to have to go two StOry because you're going to end up with using the 1 ½ story design, a second story that amounts to a narrow hallway that goes, it's going to look like a hallway so you're going to have to move the wall back out and use a traditional roof. And that's something that the neighbor, well the neighbors on both sides, neighbors on both sides expressed their feelings that they'd rather have the 1 ½ story. I don't see her here tonight but also across the street from the garage, that neighbor has expressed her feelings that she'd rather have it 1 ½ stories because she can then see the lake through that lot as she has all these years and feels that it would be more restricted if it was 2 story. The other thing, again in the report, if you look at what others have done there, we are looking for 5 and 7 with side yard setbacks. Neighboring homes have as small as 3, and this is on page 4 of this variance. In that chart that was provided. They have 3 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet aS their minimums on sides. One side or the other respectively. And I guess I'm just trying to feel like at this point, it's very difficult to get a house to fit in there and I think a lot of work has been done to conform and I think the hardships that are talked about as those that might justify a variance, I feel are beaten back here and with all this consideration I hope you will allow this thing to pass. Johnson: Carol, do you want to go first? Watson: So what we have here is an improvement of 2 ½ feet on the one side, is that correct? Rask: Correct. At least. Watson: I mean we have a 5 foot and a 7 foot. Rask: Yes. Watson: And we had a 5 and a 5 ½ so. Rask: Well no actually you had a 5 and it was 3.9, so it was a little less than 4 the first time it came through. It was written up wrong the first time. They re-surveyed it so this is what they came in with originally was 3.92 now. Watson: That's what we saw last time? Rask: Yeah. And about 6, a little over 7 here it looks like so they did make some drastic improvements as far as that lot line is concerned. Watson: But basically, if they thought they were doing 5 and 5 ½ the first time, right? It's just that the lot was not. Rask: Correct. Yeah, after they re-surveyed. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: So we have a 2 ½ foot improvement? Rask: Correct. Watson: Okay. Let's not try again to put too much stuff on here. It's fine but it was obviously out in lel~ field the first time so what we've got is an improvement but not what we asked for. That's all I have. Johnson: Mark. Senn: Well I don't know. What all I started to say was I think you guys know this too. I don't like these deals. I don't like these little lots that we have to, how would you say, cram them... They're developable lots and there's not a whole beck ora lot we can do about it. We have to build houses in there. I think what I try to do with these, I listen very closely to what the neighbors had to say when they were in. And the other thing is, if you go out there and you see a couple of what I'm going to call towers that have been built already, I think that's the worse solution unfortunately and I think the neighbors kind of came through loud and clear on that. That they'd just as soon not see more towers out there. I liked to see the fact that the driveway grade has been improved, so that's good. They are bettering the existing setbacks...which are 2.1 right now, and 6.8 on the other side. The tree's going to stay, which I know was something the neighbors want to see. It stays one story, which was probably the number one concern. I think if we force this thing any further, I guess that's the way I look at it. I think we force it to another one of the tower situations and that I just don't want to see. I don't think it's going to set anything that I'm uncomfortable with as it relates to the lot next door... The lot next door is a separate situation. Has no structure on it. Has no existing setbacks in place. They're less than this. What I like I guess about the 7 and 5 is basically it balances it between two sides and I think it's roughly around, or what should end up being roughly around 16 feet or so of separation on each side so, that's kind of where I'm... It's kind of like the best we can achieve so. As far as how it's being presented...I don't have any problem with it. Johnson: I'd rather have seen 7 and 7 on it. Watson: How tall is a 1 ½ story house with a peaked roof like that? David Duhaime: Well the size is roughly usually. Watson: No, no, the top. David Duhaime: The peak, this one would be another 14 feet. So roughly about 22-23 feet. Watson: And two story with a standard roof is how tall? David Duhaime: Well that depends on how steep the roof is. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Senn: Standard is roughly 30 feet. If you take your 9 foot ceilings on two floors, which is what most are being built at now. 8 to 9. Watson: It's just hard you know. It seems like we just have to go in and set the standards. Johnson: ...problem is, I seen a house over the weekend that was 5 feet from the property line. How that guy's going to get to his back yard...I don't know. Senn: I know it's a problem. Watson: Well and you know, it doesn't look good. I mean it looks like downtown Minneapolis. It certainly doesn't look like something you'd do on the shore of a lake that we spent all our lives trying to preserve. Senn: How do we change that now unless we force him to buy two lots and put them together? Watson: Well you know we have standards that we stick to. Senn: Then they're just going to build a...house. I mean we've got that going out on Red Cedar Point. We've got it going out in this area too. I stand back and look at those things and I think they're terrible. Watson: Well I don't think this is that much shorter. This one isn't going to appear that much shorter. When you get 1 ½ stories and you peak the roof like that, it isn't going to look that much shorter. I mean I realize it's a few feet shorter, sure. But I mean from the standpoint of what you're standing there and looking at, you're going to be looking at something that's high. It isn't whether it's 22 feet high or 28 feet high isn't going to make a damn bit of difference by the time you're actually standing on the lot and looking down towards it. Johnson: Are these below grade? Road grade by quite some. senn: Yeah, that's a pretty good drop there. Johnson: So he eats up a pretty good portion of the home, you know if you're going to use your sight over the top. Senn: Well again, I'm just kind of going back to the premise of the neighbors and they said their preference was the lower profile, 1 ½ story versus the 2 story roof. Again, there is no good solution so... Johnson: As I travel I watch all these other cities and... I say gee, these people are doing... It may sound dumb but I don't have any problem with a two story home. I know the neighbors don't like it. I can understand that. Just like years back when I had some guy move in with a two. story house. That's before things were like we have now. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Senn: Well the guy on the west said he'd much rather see the 5 feet. That's kind of, again what I was kind of going back to. To me the aggravation over creating a situation effectively that the neighbors don't like. Johnson: I just don't feel that you should be able to stick your finger out, I mean arm out the door or window and touch your house. I don't like that situation. Senn: ... 16 feet from the neighbors. Again, that's their choice. Watson: I hardly know anybody who lives 16 feet from you. Johnson: If times change there and neighbors change, and I've seen it happen, when a guy says.., put some fence fight straight up and there's no room whatsoever. I 'know a couple instances. Watson: But a fence is going to have to be 1 foot inside your property line, fight? Rask: Not even. Just off the property line. Watson: ...especially privacy fences. You know solid structures. Johnson: I know where a couple of those are. Watson: If anyone wants to make a motion. It isn't going to be me. Senn: Well, I don't know if it will go anywhere but I'll make a motion to approve it as submitted, under the revision. With the 5 and the 7. Otherwise, one of you have got to make a different one. Johnson: It will die for lack of a second. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to deny it...7 and 7. Watson: I second that. Johnson: Discussion. Johnson moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the side yard setback, impervious surface and lakeshore setback variance requests for a single family residence at 9225 Lake Riley BoUlevard. All voted in favor, except Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1. Rask: Just...your denial was for the reason that you wanted to see 7 foot setbacks along both properties. Johnson: I wanted to see 7 and 7. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Rask: With a split vote, as you're aware, serves as a recommendation to the City Council. It will be in front of the City Council on October 28th for reconsideration. ZONING MAP INTERPRETATION FOR LOCATION SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AND EAST TRUNK HIGHWAY 169. ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA. LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Senn: John, I looked back and got out the old maps and you know, at least from what I saw on those maps, I couldn't think it was anything else other than BF so where are you getting the basis from off the maps that you think it's A27 Rask: I'll just briefly go through that. There's a chronology of events included in there too. Senn: Well I understand but in all fairness let me ask you the second question... I mean as long as I remember that parcel, which goes back quite a ways, it's always been a BF use and it's always been a fairly intensive commercial site. I don't ever remember it being anything else. In my mind that's what it's always been. I can't imagine how that parcel would be separated and be something else. So I'm just kind of curious that you come up that You'd want it to be something else. Rask: Well, zoning on the comprehensive plan for the city has it guided for open space. It's always had that designation. Just to go through, and these are probably the handouts you're referring to. In '72 it was clearly outside of the BF district. Senn: But it's use was commercial. Rask: It's use was commercial. Senn: And it's use was commercial long before that, correct? Rask: Correct. As far as we have records on the property. In '86 it was clearly outside of the BF district again. Senn: Which one now? Rask: This zoning map of'86. It's clearly outside. Moving to '89 is where it jumps into the BF district, and I think what happened here, and...line where the drive thru was here on the comer, that wasn't BF either prior to '89. The applicant there had requested a zoning change from A2 to BF at that time. So up until '89 you had no commercial zoning south of 212. Just pure speculation at this point. I think what happened is when we remapped this, this little parcel in here showed up within that BF district. We have no rezoning... Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Senn: Okay, but before you jump on the next one, okay. If that's true, then why isn't there documentation showing a commercial use in existence on that property long before it had it as a non-conforming use? I mean nowhere have I found anywhere, any documentation which says that's a non-conforming use. That must exist through what you just said to be tree. If this is no zoning south of Highway 169, and this is A2. Then where's the non-conforming use? Watson: Is it...that you just didn't do it? Rask: Yeah, we don't have good records of what was there at the time. We know it's been used for... Senn: In regards to how far back it goes. If it wasn't zoned properly for it be there, there has to be a non-conforming use. Rask: Sure. You don't get a non-conforming use permit. You have the status. Unfortunately back then we didn't'go through and normally we do with lot lines. We don't have clear documentation on every use that's out there and every use that's non-conformance. Senn: It was there before the City was. Watson: Yeah. And I don't think the old township probably, the zoning was not exactly an issue Mark here back then. Senn: I understand that but I think you can say the same point about maps, except for it existed during the same period then. Watson: Well absolutely. Senn: I mean how can you take the premise one way and not the other way so I mean to me you come up to the '86 one, which is the first real attempt of documenting something... Why wasn't it all straighten out at that point? And again, there's nothing straightening it out which to me tells me gee, that's what it's always been. I mean how do you... Watson: It doesn't mean because we didn't document it appropriately in 1986 that the zoning was appropriate before. Unfortunately one does not necessarily follow the other. Senn: No, but if in '86 that was clearly A2, then there should have been documentation put in place in '86, which we were clearly doing by 1986. Making that a non-conforming use or at least calling it that or saying it's that or whatever. · Watson: It would have been nice. Right, it would have been nice. Senn: So what I'm saying is now all of a sudden...and say whoops, we just. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: I know. But i't doesn't mean the zoning...A2. It just means we didn't document a non- conforming use. It does not mean that the zoning was BF. Johnson: Well take that piece of property over on TH 41 that's now a housing project. There was a factor over there. Between TH 41 and TH 7. Right straight out practically out here. Watson: Oh, across from Tanadoona. The road from Tanadoona. The guy that ran, he ran... · Johnson: Because that one come in for expansion and they wouldn't let him expand because he was non-conforming but it was not zoned. I mean he was in agriculture. Senn: Well but he was clearly, there wasn't any. Watson: No there wasn't, you're absolutely fight, there wasn't any but there wasn't any documentation. There wasn't any non-conforming use. Senn: That's why I'm having trouble here. Watson: I mean it would have been nice if we'd gone back and picked all these things up in '86 and cleaned up all these little things. Senn: Well I agree. But I mean at the same point I don't think it's fair to go back and say now gee. Watson: But What they asked us Mark was, what is the zoning. Senn: What is the zoning in the 1986 map? I don't know how it can be any clearer than BF. I mean how can you look at that '86 map and say it's anything other than BF. And the back up to that evidence is, what then at that point in time there should have been some documentation put in place as a non-conforming use. We were doing that in 1986. Watson: Oh I understand that. I was here. Senn: So what I'm saying is, one's not following the other. Watson: But see then I'm having trouble trying to follow why it's BF because we have never documented that it Was A2. I mean that it was a non-conforming use on an A2 zoning before. I'd like to think that that was. Senn: Except for changing the official map... Watson: I don't think we did. Senn: You can honestly look at that map and tell me you don't think it's in the BF zone? That was again revised in '89 and still not look at it as though it's in the BF zone? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: I think the line went through it but I don't think that necessarily... It engulfs the property. On the outer edge of the property. Johnson: ...said what you feel it should be, and that's what...and that's the way I feel. What I'd like the gentleman to have is...yes. But the way the law interprets, I can't go along with that. Senn: Well when Roger asked me what I feel it should be, I can't go down there and look at it and say that it should be anything else other than BF. Watson: Simply because there's gasoline on it? Senn: No. Because if you take that parcel where it's sitting, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense any other way. And what's around it and everything else. Johnson: That motel is not a BF. Rask:' No, that's also in A2 and again. Watson: ...that was all A2. Johnson: See that's where I go along. Watson: That's how we... Senn: Did you stick a non-conforming on the motel? Rask: Yeah, it's a non-conforming use. And where we may not have documented all the uses down there, in the comp plan again it clearly states that those uses, commercial uses on the south side of TH 212 .are...because of the lack of sewer and water and access problems along TH 212, the comp plan clearly states that the City would like to see the eventual elimination of those uses. Also in relation to the flood plain issues. Watson: So the dump is. Rask: That's non-conforming also. In a big way. Watson: In abig way, okay. Senn: Well again, I'm not trying to change your guys mind. I'm just here for...I'm just telling you, now is my first chance to look at it. I mean you guys can just. stick with what you stuck with originally. It's going to go to Council tonight anyway. It's already on the agenda because they've appealed it so I mean that's find but I'm just telling you why I feel the way I do. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Watson: Well I certainly agree that there should be documentation for non-conforming uses. Which means they should have to come in periodically, but you see why would you even allow a non-conforming use down there with no sewer and water in that flood plain. Not on the day that my... What I had thought that that was that petroleum products and junk fi.om cars. I don't think so. And then you look at the Minnesota River and you say, my goodness the pollution is so bad. And you say gee, how do you suppose that happened? Senn: Again, like I say. I mean...we don't need to spin any wheels here. 'Johnson: Do you want to address something for it, or do you want to just let it go to Council? Applicant: Pardon me? Johnson: ...it's going to go to Council so. Applicant: Then it appears to me that there's nothing I can do to say to address Councilmember Watson's or Councilman Johnson's to sway how they feel right now at this point? Watson: Well I'm not a council person. Johnson: I'm not a council person either. I'm on the Board of Adjustments. Watson: Yeah. Johnson: Mr. Senn is a Council person. Watson: Yeah, he's our Council person but I mean it's going to go to Council anyway. Johnson: Even if we took a vote on it, it would be a split vote and it would have to... Senn: Effectively they're just saying they don't want to reconsider their motion. I mean they · don't have to so I mean... Applicant: ...task board member wants them to review and reconsider your previous stance fi.om the last... Watson: There was no new information. Nothing, the last time when I made this decision and I was very clear on why I made the decision I made.' And there isn't anything here, you know anything new. Applicant: Well I think there are some additional things that should be discussed. Now as you're all aware, Mr. Hopfenspirger's point was that initially when he applied, initially when he Was interested in this property, he approached the city. The City told him... His business is commercial property. He's not going to dabble in a piece of property zoned A2 with no chance of going commercial because that's not his business. He's maintained that he has spoke with Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Kate Aanenson and with Bob Generous on several occasions. They relayed to him that it was BF, and he had clients, one by the name of Eric Swenson that also indicated that Kate Aanenson had told him that it was BF. And I have a letter from that gentleman. May I approach? This is a letter from Eric Swenson and Eric Swenson was a perspective tenant of this parcel back in 1995. And if you look at the last sentence in that...paragraph, he was clearly directed to speak with Kate Aanenson. Now the last paragraph... On August 28, 1995 1 spoke with her, Kate Aanenson, about the use for a convenience store under it's present zoning, which she stated was BF. On September 15, 1995 you, meaning Larry Hopfenspirger, and I met with Kate in her conference room in Chanhassen. At this meeting we discussed conditional uses for a BF zone, including motor fuel stations, truck/trailer, auto, sporting goods, and boat sales/rental. We asked if we could have tobacco under a convenience store conditional use and she said only if it was in conjunction with the motor fuel. The zoning was A2 or agricultural was never mentioned. Now this is from someone other than Mr. Hopfenspirger. This is from an objective third party that was supposed to own...was a conditional use permit under the BF. Now John, can you put that '86 map up... And as Councilman Senn was speaking to before, that subject property is clearly within the boundaries of BF. Now that last ...that was drawn in 1986, so as of February of 1986 it must have been in the BF district. Now it was revised on August 24, 1989 still within the BF district. Historic use of the property, as Councilman Senn has indicated, we have a North Star gas station. We have a SuperAmerica. We have a pylon sign. We have a bituminous lot surrounding this property. We have property on the north side of 212 there being zoned BF. We have the property on the east side being zoned BF. And the property on,-I'm sorry, the property on the west side is zoned BF. The property on the east side of the motel is zoned A2. But then it's also commercial property in nature. We go through the transcript, I'm somewhat surprised Ms. Watson at a couple of things that you had been saying earlier this evening because in reading through the transcript it struck me that you had the same questions that Mr. Senn had. I'm looking at the.., you had asked how the property. Watson: I've read my commission. I know what I said. Applicant; Okay, but you brought out the fact that it had had commercial use for at least 25 years prior to today's date. That how could this have been zoned anything but BF with all of the gas stations and the. Watson: But it was a question, not a. I was saying okay, obviously we let a gas station be there. And we obviously, apparently were letting a gas station be there with an A2 zoning. That's, and if it continues to just operate as a gas station, it probably just would be a gas station in the A2 zoning. Applicant: How could it have been a gas station under an A2 zoning? That's not a permitted use under the A2 zoning under a conditional use permit. It perhaps was a variance but there's no evidence of that. Watson: And that certainly doesn't support your claim. Even if it was, it certainly doesn't support let's mm it into something else. I mean. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Applicant: Well I'm not saying turn it into something else. Let's use it as it's consistently been used for the last 25 years. Watson: Well has anyone told you you can't operate a gas station here? Rask: Sure, they can't. It's lost it's non-conforming fight in that aspect. If the non-conforming use would have been continued in perpetuity. Watson: Oh I see, because it stopped business. Rask: Because it stopped for over a year's time, it lost it's non-conforming status. Applicant: And frankly there is no interest by Mr. Hopfenspirger to open up a gas station here. We don't want to see that kind of use. Obviously with Rice Lake and the wildlife refuge behind that, I don't think the city would be too keen on that idea and that's not what we want to do there anyway. Mr. Hopfenspirger was thinking of opening up something in the nature of a coffee shop. Something that would be consistent with the area. Make it look good. Be a service to the community. Clean that property up. Right now it looks junky. It looks dumpy. And that could be changed. All Mr. Hopfenspirger is asking for is to be reasonable in the fair interpretation of...and we think that should be BF. Thank you. Any other questions of me? Johnson: I understand what you're saying John because we have a number of pieces of property that do revert back to, if it was a filling station...but isn't used for the last year, it reverts back to A2. I know a number of pieces of property in the city that have...to single family dwelling or duplex or whatever. Senn: Well that's true but, if those uses would have changed in terms of physical improvements and it's location or anything else...non-conforming status and that's not what happened here. Improvements were allowed to be made. Intensifications were allowed to be done and there was never any question about it. Johnson: Well there was...why it was allowed. Senn: But again, did those require a conscience action.., and there isn't one. Watson: But nObody changed the zoning either. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that the zoning was different. Senn: No, but that's predicated on the basis that you think it was A2 and I can't find any evidence to tell me it was A2. ApPlicant: Could I just make one more comment? It strikes'me inlooking at these maps, whether we're looking at an '86 map, revised '89, which clearly shows an error or we're looking at the '94 map, which has to be a boundary, it certainly looks to me like it's going over the property. Or some of other maps that showed A2 in earlier maps, in '72. It strikes me that what Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 we have to do here is come to some sort of interpretation of what that zoning can be. And if you lOok at the prior use...and the zoning maps, along with the representations made to Mr. Hopfenspirger that it should reasonably and fairly be zoned BF. Thank you. Johnson: If you look at the '86 map, there's a line that goes right down the middle of it...heavy line fight down 212. It shows a box right off.the motel. BF shows north of 212. So you've got your railroad tracks up there... Senn: And my premise is, if that's mae and if that's the case, then why isn't there a document saying there's a non-conforming use. In 1986 there should have been... Watson: Well then the property should be, then they should try to rezone the property and make it again. Senn: Again the appropriate zone...but it's use again. Watson: We're not talking about use. We're talking about zoning. Senn: Well everything's A2. Johnson: The next one too. I mean if you watch the line, the line is right down 212. Sure you've got the box there showing the existing parcel but it also shows the motel to the east so, and there's not a heavy line below. Watson: Well it's not Mark. It's just that, I don't disagree with you that maybe it isn't zoned correctly. I feel it's zoned A2. If that's not the correct zoning, then rezone the property and make it appropriate with the use or come up with something. I mean I don't know. Senn: If you look at the documentation though for 1986 or 1989, or whatever it is...f'md any specific documentation that... Johnson: And then it hasn't been used for the last few years so...I understand what you're saying. Watson: It would be nice if all the properties, their use and their zoning matched. Then that would be certainly something to strive for. Senn: You know that... · Watson: Absolutely. I think we have probably several in the city that aren't, that don't have nOn-conforming uses that are zoned differently than their use. I would hate to say that this is the only one. I think that would be an over statement .... no, but we didn't mn into this one until recently either. As you pointed out, it's been sitting out there doing the same for a very long time. Look at the...zoning. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 Johnson: ...we don't have to take a vote on this now do we? Tom Scott: Yes, you should. This is an entirely new application so you should. Senn: Treat it as a separate new application. Tom Scott: Separate new application so you should make a motion determining that the property is zoned whatever you determine it as. Whether A2 or business fringe. Watson: Okay, well I'll make a motion that our decision at this point is that the property is in fact zoned A2. It has however had a BF use without documentation, or a non-conforming use from a lot of years and either we should clear up the non-conforming use issue. Rezone the property or something. However we do this, every~ng should match and now is the time... And maybe property needs to be rezoned so that something in the nature of the 20 some years of history can be used on that property. But it it zoned 3,2 and at this point, maybe the appropriate thing to do is to rezone that property. In which case the applicant... Rask: It could be either way. Watson: You need to look into getting it straighten out so that use and zoning match or have a non-conforming permit or one or the other. And maybe we should spend a few minutes trying to figure out how many of these little lemons we have out there. Rask: This is it. Watson: This is it? You're sure? Rask: Well actually we have made great strides in this area. I don't think you've ever had one before so. Johnson: Is that your motion Carol? Watson: That's my motion. Johnson: I'll second that. Any more discussion on that motion? Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals finds that the property at Flying Cloud Drive is zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, although it has been operating, without clear documentation, under a BF, non-conforming use for many years. All voted in favor, except Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1. Johnson: It's scheduled for the Council tonight anyway. Senn: Yeah, it's on our agenda tonight. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 14, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated September 23, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carded. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carded. Watson moved, Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Submitted by John Rask Planner I Prepared by Nann Opheim