Loading...
PC Minutes 5-5-09 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 5, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Denny Laufenburger MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD: REQUEST FOR A ZONING APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON A SINGLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER: JOHN COLFORD, PLANNING CASE 09-05. Public Present: Name Address John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue No, Champlin Gary Connell 6201 Murray Hill Road Tracey Rust 7500 Chanhassen Road Dave Miller 7596 Debbie Lane, Eden Prairie Patty Fitzsimmons 7480 Chanhassen Road Tim McHugh 7450 Chanhassen Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Kevin. Dillon: How did it, well and maybe I’m asking the question of the wrong person but how did the determination come about by removing kitchen appliances you kind of sort of remove the building? Generous: Well that’s his, the applicant under our ordinance it says that the dwelling unit has separate eating, sleeping, sanitary facilities so he thought that if he removed one of those elements he wouldn’t have a second dwelling unit on the property. Dillon: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Generous: And staff says well you still have a second dwelling unit. That’s not sufficient. Dillon: I see. Okay. And then one of your earlier drawings showed the zoning setbacks. Now how did the property first exceed the zoning setbacks like way back in the day? Was that before? Generous: In 1954 the City didn’t, wasn’t the regulating agency. It was a village. Dillon: Okay. Those are the two questions I had. Laufenburger: Mr. Generous, was there any discussion with the applicant about why the garage is intended to stay? Building C. Generous: We didn’t have any really discussion on that. It was always, our discussions were around the two dwelling units on the one parcel. Laufenburger: Okay. And do I understand correctly what you’re saying is if the square footage of Building A, if that building is torn down and they were to build within the building setback, within the blue, if they built a new building no larger than that same size, then they’d be able to do that, is that correct? Generous: That’s correct. Under our non-conforming ordinance you may replace what you have. You just can’t expand it so if it’s a two story building, they would be able to come in with that same two story. Laufenburger: So that would fall, that would fall in the category of replacement or improvement? Generous: Right. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. One other question. Under the discussion in the materials that you prepared for us, there was discussion about hard surface coverage. Could you explain the table on the bottom of our page 4 of 7 Bob. Generous: The table just shows that as part of their new proposal they would eliminate one of the non-conformities on their property with either option by eliminated some of the driveway space. Laufenburger: I guess what I’m trying to understand is, if the combined A, B and C, existing square footage is 28.7% of the hard surface coverage, how can a larger number of Building A be, add up to a smaller percentage of hard surface coverage? Generous: It’s primary through the elimination of hard, driveway space on the lot. Laufenburger: Oh, that makes sense. Okay. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Aanenson: If I can add something else to that Commissioner Laufenburger. I think on the garage, the C, there are non-conforming structures on there. If you don’t do anything to a non- conforming it can remain. Laufenburger: It stays. Aanenson: And the fact that there’s two dwelling units, so that’s what puts A and B in play. Is the fact that they’re dwelling units. If both were accessory structures, as long as it didn’t exceed the, you know we also have a cap on that, then it would be that same issue. It’s the fact that there are two dwelling units on one lot. Laufenburger: Okay. So I think I understand you correctly that their desire to build the new structure or the new proposed home, they could do that leaving C alone and essentially doing whatever is necessary for Building B to make it non dwelling. Generous: Non-dwelling. Laufenburger: Okay. That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Larson: So, you mentioned the word gutting Building B. Does that mean all interior walls, all everything so it’s basically like a. Laufenburger: So it’s a storage building. Larson: So a storage building. That would be the, what would the, the City would accept. Generous: Add a new, yes. Larson: Okay. That’s all I have. Thomas: I think actually all my questions have been asked of Bob so thanks. Undestad: Just one Bob. The reports say you go back to 1992 was as far back as you could find a single lot. Generous: Well we were trying to determine whether or not anyone had established the two part lots as a zoning lot. With a zoning lot you can eliminate the interior lot line setback requirements. We don’t have any records before that showed that that actually happened. And that actually when they come in for a building permit, whatever way they go we would make a zoning lot out of this so it’s clear from this point forward that it’s all one parcel. Undestad: Okay. Papke: I just have one. I think I know the answer to this question but just for clarity for the Planning Commission and the public. What, could city staff comment on what is the rationale 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 for stipulating one and only one principle residence on a lot. I mean obviously you want, it makes sense but why does the City… Aanenson: Sure. This came into play when we recently did a variance for someone that wanted to do on a garage and put a dwelling into a garage. I think for those that are separate to do secondary units, separate utilities. In this circumstance, because there was the two homes in place and they both had been rented, I think there’s some desire to see that there’s permanent residency which is a good thing to kind of manage that. With the existing home too, with the new home it forces that home to the north, instead of centering on the lot, you can see the difference here. Because the existing home is sitting there, in order to make the other lot work, it forces the design of one. And there’s also 101 for, if you had two fully living units there, which there was before, it’s not the best, desirable place to make turn movements. You know we try to not go onto a collector street so those are some of the rationale. And if you look at, it’s an undersized lot for 2 homes, especially a home of that size. Papke: Okay, good. Thank you. Dillon: I have one more question. Papke: Sure, go ahead. Dillon: So if under the proposed scenario up there, if Building B were totally eliminated, would then everything else be in compliance? Except for the non-conforming garage. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Correct. They would come in and comply with the RSF district regulations for setbacks, site coverage and everything like that. Dillon: So have you discussed that solution with the applicant? Generous: Yeah, and he’d like to preserve that second dwelling unit on the property. As we say. Dillon: But it’s not a dwelling unit because it doesn’t have kitchen appliances right? Generous: Well that’s part of his interpretation of it. Our, we’re saying that removing the kitchen appliances doesn’t, does not make it not a dwelling unit. If you understand. Someone could still use that as a separate independent living area. Aanenson: It still has plumbing. It still has a furnace so it’s been used as a rental property so I guess that was our position on it. So herein’s the interpretation whether or not it was the two dwellings or not. Laufenburger: But to a certain degree there are those who would find that garage a very proper dwelling unit. Not necessarily in Chanhassen but. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, if the applicant is here, would you please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. John Colford: My name is John Colford and I live at 11256 Jersey Avenue North in Champlin, just south of Anoka and thanks for letting me speak here tonight but. We had, I had gotten a job in the south of the cities after completing training, my medical training and I joined a group that covers Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and now I’ve got a painful commute from just south of Anoka to Edina and Burnsville and last summer we you know started looking for houses down here and found this nice place and you know we talked to some banks and asked you know will we be able to do this with something like 10% down, because I just finished my training and didn’t have a whole lot of money and they were like wow, you can do it for 5% down because you know everything’s so great and since then we’ve had a complete meltdown in our banking industry. My attempted construction financing for this property was about $200,000 short of the cost of construction, which means that now that the banks are saying you need anywhere between 20 and 40 percent down. That’s of the assessed value and then you have to come up with everything that they don’t believe your project is worth. So in addition to say for instance at TCF they want 40% down, and I have to come up with the extra $200,000 so I’m looking at over 50% of my project here so I need to maintain value on this property to try and offset what the banks are doing in terms of you know appraisals. And that’s a, you know that’s coming up with over 50% of your project is amazingly difficult for a bank that’s accepted TARP funds. All of our tax money but so at any rate, you know I’ve gone with a less expensive builder. A less you know prestigious builder and I’ve eliminated things inside the property to try and bring the cost down. I assume the appraisal is largely based on the square footage. You know I’m trying to do that but I think I need to maintain value on my property as much as possible to try to account for that and I guess some arguments I have, the crux of the staff’s interpretation is that expanding the square footage of the primary residence, moving it and expanding the square footage of the primary residence is, defines expansion of the non-conformity. Certainly the square footage will be expanded. Expanding the non-conformity, there’s really no inherent property of the new proposed primary structure that’s non-conforming. It’s conforming for setbacks. Nowhere in the code describes any conformity requirements in square footage. The non-conformity is in the second principle building which you know clearly the south structure, the smaller secondary structure, even in the existing confirmation and changing the primary structure which is non-conforming for the setbacks to the north to a conforming structure strikes me as odd that that would increase the non-conformity when nothing about the primary structure could be described as non-conforming so the ascertation that increasing the square footage of the primary structure, one of the two living structures on the property, that that is defining expansion of the non-conformity, and clearly this describes any non-conformity cannot be expanded or intensified. They’re describing a non-conformity. They’re not describing you know square footage. They’re not describing anything in particular specifically. So that’s one argument I guess I would put forth. Multiple buildings on the same lot. That doesn’t describe square footage at all. That describes the number of buildings so expanding that would be putting a third principle structure on the property not, you know that would expand the number of principle structures and the number of principle structures is the same. You know the hard cover will be improved mostly by removing, or largely by removing the hard cover driveway so that the hard cover will be improved in that it will be conforming. The primary structure will be conforming for the setbacks. The two existing structures, the garage up by the road and the existing south 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 house will change, you know theoretically could change in no way whatsoever and it would be a continuation of a non-conformity. Now if you know everyone agrees that, except me that increasing the square footage of a conforming primary structure would be increasing the overall non-conformity, you know perhaps that’s balanced by you know making the setback of the primary structure conforming and improving, or making the total hard cover non-conforming as well. Maybe in balance the overall non-conformity could be considered improved. I don’t know. I’ve been trying for 6 months to find someone who you know wouldn’t, is willing to do construction financing. I mean Citibank will not do construction financing. TCF will not do construction financing. TCF, or I’m sorry, yes it’s TCF that will not. Wells Fargo will do it for 40% down. There are a few banks around that will do it for 25% down, and then it’s all if you appraise, you know if I appraise a couple hundred thousand dollars short then I’m looking at a huge barrier. I’m looking at, and this is going to be stuck, I’m going to have to rent it to try and support the mortgage payment you know and it’s going to be years. You know years in the future and all this deficit spending it’s going to drive up long term rates and you know if I’ve got stagflation, long term mortgage rates in the teens again, I can’t afford to build this house. You know it’s been a perfect storm no doubt that I’ve been caught in but I guess you know if one could look at the primary structure as a bigger conforming structure than the two other structures, the south structure and the garage as the non-conformities, those are not changing and the conformity in terms of the position, in terms of setbacks of the primary structure would be improved and the overall square footage would be improved so, I mean that’s what I’m hoping for. Undestad: Yeah, just a couple of quick questions. When did you buy the lot? John Colford: Huh? Undestad: When did you purchase the lot? th John Colford: Well it was, made the purchase agreement in September. I think September 20 th and we ended up buying it November 14. Undestad: Just 2008. John Colford: Yeah. Or 2007, I’m sorry. Undestad: And you know you kind of talk about the non-conformities but I think one of the issues that the City’s dealing with is the dwelling units more so than the non-conforming structures on there. As Bob said if you got the, turned it into a garage or a storage garage or something there’s not an issue. Do you think that you need to, or do you want to rent that? Can you keep this house to rent it or? John Colford: Oh I would be happy to, I would be happy to sign something that said I would give all of my worldly possessions to Chanhassen if I rented out that structure. I mean being a slum lord is a complete. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Undestad: So what do you think the value, have you talked to your lender on what the value of the interior improvements are to that structure? John Colford: Well I mean if it becomes a storage shed the square footage value will be a fraction of the value of a heated, plumbed structure. You know and, I mean taking out the kitchen is going to be a hit. That’s going to be a hit no doubt but yeah, turning it into a barn is not going to be worth it. Undestad: So they haven’t really given you a value of that structure as it sits right now in your appraisal process? John Colford: Well I mean it would be, I mean there’s the construction loan on the front end and then there’s an end loan and it’s probably going to be more important to the end loan because the end loan’s going to look at all the structures on the property and you know I’m going to get, in terms of appraised value, you know I could get $75 a square foot for that. $75 to $100 a square foot for that as a heated, plumbed, you know even as it’s existing. It’s not in great shape. It’s no huge asset to me. Undestad: It’s what, 970 square foot? John Colford: Yeah, it’s 1,000 square feet. Yeah. 929, 930. Yeah. I mean that’s 100 grand. Undestad: The percentage of that for your value on it. John Colford: Yeah, yeah. I mean that’s, I mean that’s sort of make or break for this project. I mean because to try and balance what the banks are doing by totally protecting themselves. Undestad: Yeah, timing is everything isn’t it. John Colford: Yeah. Undestad: I have nothing else. Thomas: No, I don’t have any questions for you. Larson: Well I’m kind on the same lines as what Mark was asking. So you’re kind of relying on your appraised value to include, would it be included as just an extra building or would you be including that as a rental unit to be showing income out of that? John Colford: Oh um, no I don’t. I wouldn’t look at it as rent. I mean any rental income. I mean my monthly income, I’m golden. I’m golden. It’s all about the down payment and it’s all about the value so I don’t need it for rental income. You know I qualify on my credit score. I qualify on my monthly income. All that’s great. It’s, the barriers are the down payment and the appraised value which will you know turn the down payment into you know something else so I would not describe it as a rental unit and you know you have to apply for a permit every year. I have no desire whatsoever, whatsoever to rent. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Larson: So to follow up on that then, if, if for some reason the City allows you to remove the kitchen appliances, is the mortgage company still going to give you that kind of value that you’re looking for out of this in order to help bump up your you know vested value of the property? John Colford: Yeah, it would be an incremental loss of value to lose the kitchen but it wouldn’t be as much as you know completely gutting it and un-heating it and taking out the plumbing so you know that would be a hit. I do want to go forward with the project. I would try with, you know I would at least try with you know, as it is now with the kitchen removed, I mean ideally you know I can keep it in it’s more valuable form but. Larson: So, so if you were to remove the kitchen, everything out of the kitchen, is there a way the City that would look at this, I mean if they only, and I don’t know maybe this is a question for you guys. If he were to remove everything that, you know like gas fixtures and other things that would pertain to a kitchen and have it be more like a bunk house or something, I mean what would that? Aanenson: It wasn’t our idea to split hairs on what appliances go in or out. It’s either a dwelling unit or it’s not because as long as it’s got a furnace and it’s got plumbing in it, it’s a dwelling unit and someone else could put that in. I wouldn’t want to pick that. I think the point that we’re trying to make is, if it’s your interpretation that you’re okay with two houses on there, because once this house is approved, the time to get rid of a non-conforming use is when there’s a change in use because once a change is in use, and this applicant aside, whoever moves there, their lifestyle changes, that house will be there in perpetuity because once we’ve looked at that, someone can remodel a non-conforming structure so it’s going to be there. So the question is, is this the appropriate time when there’s a change in use, that’s the non-conformity. It’s not about his new houses. It’s a lovely home. It’s increasing what’s up there today. That’s all great. It’s the fact that that house, if you choose to do it, and I wouldn’t say take out the stove. That was the applicant’s recommendation. If it’s going to be a dwelling unit, then it’s going to be, or whether he rents it or not and someone’s living in there, it’s that’s what it is. It’s do you feel comfortable in saying someone can use that as a second structure. That’s really the crux of the question. If that makes sense. Larson: Well I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to somehow gain value out of that property for the purposes of what he’s trying to do. Aanenson: Right, he’s, yeah. His request to us was, if I took it out would you be comfortable? That wasn’t our’s. Our recommendation is to say really, it’s the time. John Colford: And that certainly wasn’t the ideal situation. Aanenson: Right. Larson: Right, no and I understand… John Colford: That was trying to come up with something you know. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Larson: …to see how you could. Aanenson: Yeah. I think that’d be kind of, if you can leave it as a unit, then I would leave the kitchen in. If you’re comfortable with that. So that’s really the decision. Larson: Alright, thank you. That’s all I have. Denny? Laufenburger: Two questions. I think it was in here Bob but everything about the application for the new construction, the new home, all of that falls within city guidelines in terms of structure. Generous: Yeah, it appears so. We don’t have the building plan but yes, it meets setback and the calculation from a zoning standpoint would comply. John Colford: And in fact we’re putting in geothermal heating and cooling…technology. I’m sure the carbon and energy and resource footprint of the new primary structure will be smaller than that existing, not insulated 1950’s house. I guarantee you that. Laufenburger: Mr. Colford, can you tell us a little bit about your family. John Colford: Well. Laufenburger: I mean who’s going to occupy this new dwelling? John Colford: Well me and my wife, Jane. We’ve got two, we’ve twin 4 year old, or 4 month old babies. Boy and a girl, and then I’ve got a 5 year old girl so, and that’s why we sort of, you know it’s a two story with all the bedrooms on the same, upper level so we have so many small children that we sort of, we could have made a smaller house and put a bedroom in the basement but you know with so many small children, we wanted them all sort of on our same level and once you put 4 bedrooms up there, you’ve got sort of a minimum footprint and to get at house that’s a reasonable size for a lake lot, you know is hard to squeeze it into the existing square footage of 2,400 square feet so. Laufenburger: Do you have pets? John Colford: No. No. Laufenburger: No wild animals or anything like that? John Colford: No, my daughter and my wife are allergic to nearly everything so. Yeah. Laufenburger: That’s all I had Mr. Colford, thank you. Dillon: Are either one of the houses there now livable? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 John Colford: Well I mean, well the south structure I mean it’s, it’s not in great shape. Unfortunately the previous renters were all animal people. There was some like people with cats before people with dogs so it’s not, I mean it wouldn’t be, my wife and my daughter wouldn’t be able to live there just because of that. The house to the north, the basement’s essentially unfinished and the, I mean the upper floor was subdivided for the purpose of renting so they’re all sort of subdivided. There’s 3 subdivided bedrooms. One master bedroom. A shared kitchen and then 2 other bedrooms and there’s a spiral staircase that wouldn’t be any good for small kids so. Dillon: So prior to you know the economic conditions going south and the terms changing and all of that, what were you contemplating for this lot before all that happened? John Colford: I mean the financing that we sought did not, and really even include the garage or the south house in discussion. That, I had actually called the building department beforehand and I apparently should have talked to the planning commission because the building department told me that all this would be grandfathered in and you can build a new house closer to the lot and there’s no problem with anything so I didn’t know it was an issue even up until it was too late. So you know we hadn’t thought a whole lot about those 2 structures because we had looked at it as a tear down regardless so. Dillon: So it’s possible if conditions were to change again, improve, I mean you could be back to that scenario in hopefully the not too distant future. I mean I don’t know but, none of us does but. John Colford: Yeah I mean, I mean I understand, I mean I think it’d be very optimistic for banks to stop protecting themselves that quickly and I really think the deficit spending is going to start driving up those long term interest rates. I don’t see how that long term interest rates can avoid that sort of inflationary pressures that all the deficit spending that we’re doing is going to have on it and, you know this gets up to 9-10 percent, you know I can’t do this. Dillon: Those are all the questions I had. Papke: Okay, I have no questions but just a comment for you. Just FYI, the Planning Commission quite regularly has to debate these fine issues of what constitutes that condition that exacerbates the existing non-conforming structure, be it the distance into the setback or the number of lineal feet and the number of square feet so just, I’m sure you’re probably aware of that but I just wanted to make sure we were all clear that you know this is something we handle quite frequently so. Undestad: Chairman Papke, I have one more question. Papke: Sure. Undestad: Just to this is kind of based on financial hardships and things here. What is your project, the appraisal, how is it set up? What is the value of your project of putting that house in? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 John Colford: Well I mean the property was acquired for $460 and the new structure, depending on the builder. You know the first builder that we talked to, you know it was going to be just shy of a million dollars into the house and we’ve eliminated several things to get that down to, and shopped around and gone to a little less, a little less expensive builder and we’re getting into the mid to low 800’s. You know it’s going to be. Undestad: I’m sorry you say the lot was 460? John Colford: 460 yeah. Well I mean the lot and the houses and you know the purchase of the property was for 460. So and we’re dropping and dropping it and we’ve, but you know you drop it, drop it, drop it, say I drop it to you know say I build a $400,000 house. I’ve got 460 into it so I’m still at 860 and they’re going to expect 20% down and then they’re going to appraise it at 600 so, or 700 and so I’ve got to do 20% down plus this extra, you know so still I’m looking at a number. You know the total amount, you know it helps some but it’s always this percentage that they expect of the appraised value and then you’ve got to make up the gap in the appraisal and that’s, you know that’s been, you know that’s what’s going to delay this for you know I don’t know how long it’s going to take me to save up a couple hundred thousand dollars. Undestad: But that second house, house B that you’re saying that’s worth $75 to $100 a foot so $75,000 to $100,000 based on your overall package of say a million two. John Colford: Right. See I can come up with 20% down by the end of the summer, but if they appraise it at you know $100,000 or $200,000 shy, then I’m a year or two in the future and you know I can build this house at the current interest rate. You know if the interest rates go up then you know, I don’t know what I can. Papke: Okay, very good. Thank you. Anything else? Thanks very much Mr. Colford. At this point we’d like to open up the public hearing for the general public. If someone would like to step up to the podium and provide any comments on the matter, we’d like to hear it. Gary Connell: My name’s Gary Connell, 6201 Murray Hill Road. I don’t know John Colford but I knew of his proposal. I have a similar situation that I’ve been working with for several months now, but haven’t brought this to the you know, to you guys. Or if you’ll raise an, but you know some of the comments I guess. One is you know, which you’re being asked for the motion is to affirm the city. The planner’s you know recommendation to disallow this based on the non-conforming. I think I want, the financial hardship is compelling but really I think what’s important here is that, we need a clear understanding of what is the expansion here. I would think the expansion would be from 2 dwellings to 3. As John mentioned the square footage isn’t really clearly, it’s kind of in a gray area as far as the ordinance goes and I’m hoping that maybe you guys can, you know there can be some discussion down that line as to just how do we split these hairs. You know what is, what is the expansion really? Is it the square footage? I mean in it’s, would it qualify as it being an expansion? I’m thinking that John, no it’s really if you wanted to go to a third unit it would be. Or if you have a new lot with nothing on it and you want to build 2 dwelling units. Well you can’t do that but here you have some of these older properties, of which I have two. My house was built in 1935 and I’ve got a principle house and then a carriage house up at the garage which we bought and intended to use it as an in-law 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 apartment. Not a rental unit. I mean we’re in a single family neighborhood and we want to keep it that way and enjoy it that way. But we can’t, I can’t add a bedroom or a family room to the main house. I can’t improve my property so in a way I’m looking at a hardship too. I mean I can’t, I have a piece of property that I made an investment into but I can’t improve it. Whether I have a need to do so for my family or I want to do so for a financial reason. I can’t. That’s the interpretation that is you know by the code. So down that line what is the ordinance, what are our ordinances really here to do? You know I mentioned earlier that you know the City would like to take advantage of, or take the opportunity when somebody comes in and wants to make a change like this, to bring it back down to within the ordinance. Well that property had value with those 2 units on it and you know probably changed hands several times and everybody participated in buying that and selling that you know, did so according to what was there. And is the ordinance more for development, new expansion and development or are we going to say, in a way is it there to penalize or you know folks who are trying to just you know make better what they’ve got. Not to try to you know change the flavor of the neighborhood or anything like that. We obviously don’t want to do that but you know when we’re talking about you know changing square footage, is that going maybe just a little bit too far with respect to pushing the expansion you know proposition so. So I guess what I’m coming up here to do is I guess try to, I wanted to see you guys and you know to see if I should even bother to try to pursue my. Papke: We appreciate that. Gary Connell: But so, I guess those are yeah the kind of… Papke: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Just a comment on that, and city staff please correct my understanding if I misstate this but, one thing the last speaker brought up that I want to make sure we’re all clear on that when the city prevents a resident from intensifying a non- conformance, that in itself is not a hardship on the resident. Okay what you have to show is that you are prevented from enjoying using your property as others do without being allowed to intensify that non-conformance. So in your case adding on a new room or so on that, the fact that the city you know prevents you from doing that is not a, is not considered a hardship on you. The hardship is if your house is unusable in it’s current state so you can’t enjoy your property. Did I misstate that or? Aanenson: Yeah, if you can go back to the, on the interpretation. Correct. Again, the goal is, because these were two smaller lakeshore lots, as Mr. Generous indicated. Very narrow lots built under different standards so to try to bring them in conformance with the new ones, the appropriate time is when there’s an application in front of you to try to do that and that’s what’s informed. So the staff’s opinion was is there were 2 homes on the lot. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Square footage aside, that if you’re going to expand another one, beyond the, whatever that square footage is, beyond the footprint. The original footprint. Then the other home should be removed. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Papke: And that’s defining the nature of what it means to intensify the non-conformance but I was trying to get to I think there was some misunderstanding of what is a hardship. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: I wanted to make sure we were… Aanenson: Correct and so what you’re deciding then today is, is the staff’s appeal, opinion of the two lots. Papke: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Okay, thank you. Okay, other residents like to get up and speak up and test the waters for their own possibilities. Laufenburger: Or just meet us. Papke: We’re friendly. Tracey Rust: Tracey Rust, 7500 Chanhassen Road. As much as, excited to see a single family come onto this property, I have to say that my biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental property so I understand the hardship as far as cost for this property but wondering if everything has been looked at with this new house. Just looking at, I guess if you could go to, one more. Let’s do that one. Just looking at the grading of the property, does that increase the cost for the loan because it’s pushed so much further to the lake. Is there going to be more grading involved at that area? That type of thing. Can the house be pushed forward, you know further up to the road to reduce the cost? Those types of things so again I understand, I understand the whole hardship with loans and things right now. It’s unfortunate and wish we were not in that situation. However, again the biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental property. Papke: I have a question for you along those lines. Tracey Rust: Sure. Papke: Did you experience problems in the neighborhood or any nuisances or anything as a result of that use of that as a rental property? Tracey Rust: You know I think it’s the fact that it can constantly change hands and you never know necessarily who’s going to be there so it’s just, you know it’s a single family area. That’s what the lots are intended to be and you know it wasn’t, understand that it was existing that way. There was nothing we could do about it until now so you know again really excited to see a single family move in there. I just don’t want to see a rental property there anymore so. Again has everything been looked to get the costs down to where it needs to be so that we don’t have to have that dwelling there anymore. And then the other I guess if the city decides yes, this is 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 something that you can agree to, the other thing is that you’re going to have this nice, big beautiful home and then these two existing buildings. Would anything be done to the exteriors to match the proposed building and that type of thing? Otherwise kind of have two eyesores right in front of a nice, brand new house. I’m assuming that it’s going to be pretty attractive and just would think that the owner wouldn’t want that either. Two eyesores right in front of the house so. Again my biggest fear is that it just, it stays a rental property and I’d like to see it a single family lot. Papke: Thank you very much. We appreciate you standing up and giving us your perspective. John Colford: So you know when my construction financing, I had no intention to ever be a renter, or a rental unit and when my construction financing that seemed to be going well fell apart at the appraisal, you know the renters asked to stay and I was of course told that they were fabulous people, which was a lie but you know, and so a week into renting it I started encouraging them to leave and there’s only 2 people left in the main house. The south house has st been empty since March 1. No intention of re-renting it. I really don’t want to be a slum lord at all and I immediately regretted it but you know then again my payment is $2,000 a month for an interest only loan that I had to get at the last second when my construction financing fell through, and that’s actually a variable rate, interest only loan to acquire this and that can go anywhere and so I may be forced to move back to renting it but I don’t want to, and you know, and I totally understand why somebody doesn’t want a rental property. My current house I had a rental property right next to me and I don’t like it and I would not want one there, and you know my intention, you know I’m with, I’ve got a, I’m on a partnership track in a physician group at Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and I intend to live there for 50 years. I swear to God so that’s, I foresee myself being there for 50 years and not renting it ever but. And yeah, of course we, we’re you know hoping to do stone and hardy board and a standing seam metal roof on the, in the main house and of course I would match the garage and whatever existing properties, we would certainly match the exterior to like you said not have two eyesores and one nice structure so. Papke: Just one comment on good intentions. Unfortunately the Planning Commission has to make our decisions on the basis, assuming that potentially the, you know houses do change hands and the people that buy the house may not have the same intentions as the person that’s before us asking for a variance or whatever the situation may be so we do have to take the long term perspective on these things. Okay, any other members of the public? Please. Dave Miller: Hi. My name’s Dave Miller. Actually you could probably ignore me. I’m on the Eden Prairie side of this property and got the notice and I came down here with every intention of keeping, I heard multi unit dwelling coming up into a single family neighborhood and that made me nervous is why I came down here and my background is, well we’ve lived here for 8 years. Again on the Eden Prairie side. We’re on the cul-de-sac that backs up to 101 right on the other side of this property, and I also own personally 5 rental properties of single family homes so I can speak to the rental side of things as well as my family living next to a multi-dwelling property and so. If someone, I guess if you want to think of having what’s there now and let’s say he takes this property and let’s say he wants to rent that house out or it sells out and he wants to rent that house out. You think of it long term. There is no investment person that is going to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 come by a million two brand new home and then try to rent it out. I mean it’s just not financially feasible and if you look at having 6 renters on what’s there now, if he has to sell this property and it stays as is, you’re looking at a much, much de-valued property than what it will be, even if you put a $800,000 home plus a, and it ends up being a rental unit, which doesn’t sound like he’s having that as his intention. It is still a quality improvement to that piece of land I mean, and I don’t know if that’s helpful in that but again being a real estate investor, along with owning a personal residence in the area, I just don’t see that that’s going to ever be a factor. It’s still better than what’s there now to the lady in the back. I’ve known some of the people in and out of that property and it’s rented usually to single people that are looking for a quick place to live. Not very stable people and I’m not implying anything specifically about them but when you have people kind of coming in and out and that’s just not really what I want to see in the neighborhood and I came down here specifically to try to say I do not want anything multi-unit dwelling on there but once I actually see the proposal and all that, it’s a definite improvement for the whole area, as well as on the lake so. Dillon: So if you know a lot about real estate and properties and stuff, if you own them, it sounds like you know a little bit anyway. How would, I mean so you’ve got this extra dwelling on the property but you really can’t rent it out because it doesn’t have a kitchen, or at least that’s what we’re being, I mean how does that help you? Dave Miller: Well since I own the properties I’m not a mortgage broker, I guess to comment on that. Every little bit helps on the property but it could get a little shady if you have a mortgage broker that shoos things through that says look, this, and are we going to say to the mortgage company I have a rental unit. I don’t have it leased out but it has potential income, you can get a bigger loan because of that, and I don’t know if you presented to the bank and say hey, this and that generates income and when I pull other loans in, if I have something I can show I can generate income, I can bigger loans on that property. Not just the square footage on the property, but potential income on the property but again I’m not a mortgage broker and I’m not an appraiser either. Along those lines but that’s about all. And then I guess one comment would also be, looking into alternative financing. I mean I don’t know if you’ve looked into just bridge loans. There’s alternative financing to get things going until you get. Papke: Perhaps you could have that conversation... Dave Miller: Yeah, I mean so I mean there’s other, just as far as the, I’m looking for any business. It is a tough financial time. Papke: Appreciate that perspective. Patty Fitzsimmons: Hello. I’m Patty Fitzsimmons and I live at 7480 Chanhassen Road. We’re the next door neighbors on the south side to John… We’re super excited to have new neighbors in that are not, no longer a rental property so again with what Tracey said, and I’m starting to kind of get this whole board thing. Like I’m starting to just understand it that what he does today you guys have to make the decision for the future and I really get that and I appreciate that. I don’t want a rental property next to me because my intention is to stay in the neighborhood for 50 years as well. One of the things that I am most concerned about when we found out about our 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 new neighbors, that we’re very excited about, was that they’re going to be building closer to the lakeshore, within the variance. We understand that. They’re going to block our view. Or our partial view, and everybody on 101, we’re all closer to the highway and not closer to the lake. So now this house is going to come along and be up closer to the lake and that concerns our family because when we purchased our dream home that we would love to live at for 50 years, we had a view and now with John coming in, we understand he’s building his dream house but we’re no longer going to be able to see the full view, so that is my main concern and why I came to the council meeting tonight because I wanted to be able to voice my opinion and also to be heard for you know our children and our neighbors and the community. But again John we’re super excited to have you in our neighborhood and also to just get rid of that rental property all together. Thank you. Papke: Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated. John Colford: So if you noticed on the proposed thing we moved the house as far north as we could because we sort of suspected that we would be doing that, so it’s as far north as we can possibly move it to try and save that view. Tim McHugh: That’s bring up a good point. My name is Tim McHugh. Papke: If you could state your name and address please. Tim McHugh: Yeah, my name’s Tim McHugh. I live at 7450 Chanhassen Road which is the property to the north. John just mentioned they moved their, he moved the house as far north as he could to help their view, however it does the direct opposite to me okay. You know that’s the way things are I guess but if you go back to the other picture where the 3 dwellings are. Generous: The proposed one. Tim McHugh: Yeah, this one. Okay. If you look, and I understand he’s going 75 feet back and that’s code and evidently there’s no restrictions doing that. Okay. That being said, if the little house wasn’t there, which I believe they call B, that could at least be centered or come back farther, like Mrs. Fitzsimmons said, and it helps everybody. All the houses, my house is, oh it’s somewhere around 175, maybe 180 feet back from the setback and if you look at the north side of his property, that blue line is the 10 foot setback and if there’s like 7 cedar trees or evergreens there, once those footings to in those 7 trees are gone and I’m all for increasing the value of property but it’s not doing a lot for me. There’s been a lot of talk about rental property and I don’t think anybody’s put up with more there than I have. I’ve been there since ’87 and I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it because it’s unbelievable how good it is now, but there was a time where you would actually see the sheriff more often than the postman, it was that bad, but it’s not that way anymore but it’s always been zoned residential single family and I presented to the City Council 4 times and they could have, we were told they can have 7 unrelated people on the property, and it’s just, it was always hard to accept that and nobody wants to see it being not rented anymore than I do. But you know that’s the problem I have basically is where it’s set and I’d just like to see some compromises. Like I said, if you can get rid of the little house I know 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 then there’s room. There isn’t room to move it at all based on the driveway and everything, the way it’s currently pictured so if you’ve got any questions. Papke: Thank you very much for your perspective. I think the point you raise kind of comes back to what Kate said before in response to my question about the reason for having just one principle structure on there. That gives you the most flexibility and in this case that second structure constrains where the new residence has to end up. Okay, anyone else? John Colford: I mean the allegedly my builder says that we can save all the trees to the north, even with that position. Another thing was that, we had actually originally drew it in the center and you know all we have to do is shrink the turn around and my architect said that that, you know having it farther to the north, you know one of the reasons of moving it to the north was that you had more of a yard to the south so it’s not a particular, it’s not really that constrained as it is, I mean we’ve got room to center it where it is now but. The other thing, the way the grade is, where the house is not there’s a natural hill down. Because this is a walkout, if we move it back we’re in a much flatter part of the lot and can’t really do a walkout. We can’t really do the house as designed in the center of the lot because the lot is, there’s a hill toward the lake and then there’s a pretty flat part and then there’s another hill up towards the road so we’re, if you look at the lot lines they really start to spread, well it’s not, maybe on the other one all of the lot lines are maintained but you can see the contour lines are closer together towards the lake and then they start to expand where the walkout would be so it’s sort of in the least expensive place in terms of re-grading. Papke: Thank you very much. Anyone else want to voice their opinion on this? Okay, seeing none I close the public hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Kevin we’ll start with you. Your perspective. Dillon: So well, I mean it just doesn’t make sense to me, now of course I don’t have to pay the interest loan for the time being, to keep the Building B around. I mean it’s, you can’t rent it out if it’s, if you do want the person says here like removing kitchen appliances. I mean from a practical point of view it’s not really worth anything at that point, I wouldn’t think. And you know if you’ve got this extra structure, this thing on your property that no one can really, you know really again practically dwell in, I mean I don’t see why a lending institution would really think that that adds much to the overall value of the property. I mean probably some but I mean it certainly diminishes it significantly. Then, I mean if you’re going to have a nice house like this and I mean why do you want this extra like appendage on your yard? I mean just get rid of it is what I would say, so I am tending to support the staff’s interpretation that you take Building B down completely and that way it would minimize the eyesore and you know everybody, I think it works best that way. From my view. Papke: Okay, thank you. Denny. Laufenburger: We’re the Planning Commission of Chanhassen. We’re not the Financing Commission of Chanhassen so while I’m certainly sensitive to Mr. Colford’s financial plight as a result of this, our recent economy, the real question for us is, do we accept the staff’s interpretation of the ordinances. That’s really the decision we have to make on it. I think Ms. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Aanenson made a real good point that this is an opportunity for us to enforce the ordinances based on the desire. I am especially pleased by seeing so many neighbors here. I think this is a real, this is a real testimony to what this community is about to hear what the neighbors are saying and their view of what this is. I think it’s important for the neighbors to also understand that though their preference for a greater view or don’t build so close, you know not in my backyard, the ordinances make it possible for Mr. Colford to build a house exactly the way he wants it right there and you know grading aside, etc. So I’m pleased with this process and it just leads me to affirm the staff’s interpretation. That’s my inclination Mr. Chairman. Larson: I’m going to echo both of these guys. As much as I would like to figure out a way that he could get financing for this that’s cheaper, that isn’t our place. I also agree that somehow I think the existing house B should go away. A’s going to go away. B should go away unless there’s some use for it. I unfortunately feel like our hands our tied and this is a chance for the city to kind of clean up some of these properties that you know through whatever reason were built as rental properties and dual properties on one. It’s time for the change and I tend to support what the city is saying. Papke: Thank you. Thomas: Yeah. Well I do support what they want, what we are trying to do with the city. It makes sense. We try to clean up. I still struggle with how the lot was, just the way it is. I mean you’re dealing with a property that was platted back in what, 1952. You know something that has been the way it is for so long, and it’s the way the owner buys the property. It just, I can understand that it’s a clean-up issue and I understand pretty much our hands are tied that it is what we need to do is say that Lot B, the House B needs to go away. I just still struggle with the aspect that it’s, not how it was but just, I can see what he’s trying to do and I understand that why would you want to have the second home on the property, but it is how it was when you purchased the lot. You’re making the change with the house but I kind of look at it as, it’s kind of how it was and how it was platted so I kind of struggle with it but that’s my thoughts. Undestad: Yeah I don’t really have a lot to add. I mean you summed it all up but I will point out though that I think the last couple people that came up kind of show why we have these rules and regulations and ordinances, things like that. You know don’t build your house to the south side. Don’t build to the north side. If you stay inside your lines and build it where you want to build it, you can put it anywhere you want inside the lines. The same where from the city standpoint that if it’s time to fix something that’s you know, doesn’t fit in there then that’s when we have the opportunity to do that too. Papke: Okay, thanks for your comments Mark. Those are good. I guess the crux of the issue for me is, it seems as if the bank, the dilemma here is the bank seems to agree with city staff. That if that structure B has value from a mortgage perspective equal to a home, a principle home, then it’s a principle home okay and that’s in fact what the city code is disallowing so I think the bank is in agreement with city staff on that perspective so. Okay, very good. With that, if someone would like to make a motion one way or the other. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 Dillon: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit. Papke: Is there a second? Laufenburger: Second. Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit. All voted in favor, except Thomas who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Mr. Chair just for the record. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Because this is a decision of, acting as a zoning appeal, anybody aggrieved of this decision, including the applicant has the right to appeal that decision and so they should do so within 10 days. Papke: Okay, thank you very much. The next item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: POWERS CROSSING PROFESSIONAL CENTER: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; SUBDIVISION INTO ONE LOT, OUTLOTS AND DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL (OI), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A TWO-PHASE, THREE STORY, 160,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL CENTER, UP TO A 731 STAFF, FIVE LEVEL PARKING RAMP AND SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, BUTTERNUT RIDGE (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 312). APPLICANT: UNITED PROPERTIES LLC/TIMOTHY & DAWNE ERHART, PLANNING CASE 09-06. Public Present: Name Address Bill Katter, United Properties 3500 American Blvd W, Minneapolis 55431 Dan Parks Westwood Professional Services Paul Holmes Pope Associates Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flintlock Trail 19