Loading...
1996 06 24CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRF3ENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson, and Don Chmiel STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD, A 4 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD, A 4 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCK~ FOR THE CONSTRUCrlON OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, JAMES JASINo Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Mr. Jasin, do you want to address this? Jim Jasin: You bet, thank you. Johnson: Go to the podium up there and state your name and address please. Jim Jasin: Okay. My name is Jim Jasin. I live at 3870 Maple Shores Drive on Lake Minnewashta. My wife is Susan Jasin. We've lived on Lake Minnewashta for 27 years and we've raised our family there. We now have four of our children in the area of Chanhassen, and two are out of the area. And our goal is to stay here and stay on the lake. This has been our home. Plus with taxes the way they are, we'd like to reduce our...because I'm going to retire and I want to set up a mortgage with a fixed income situation... The Red Cedar Point subdivision was platted in 1916 and didn't really take into account today's zoning so that's why we're asking for a variance. This is a lot of record. There have been many, many variances requested and granted in this subdivision and...community. I put together a plot of the subdivision and in this area here I've drawn out where the variances are, and I've listed them over here. What I'd like to do is show you what we're starting with. A house that we started with is 71 years old I believe and the foundation was, the house was built without a foundation and then it was later dug so it's been shored up with posts...trees in the middle. Do you want me to go into these variances? Aanenson: We've got them listed out. Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Jim Jasin: Alright. So here's another shot of the house. What I'm really working on improving here. Ever since the beginning I worked with the city staff and taken their recommendations and worked with each one of them. So I'd like to go over the proposal that I made to the city staff in detail because I feel I've taken into account every request and some of the neighbor's requests. So first I'd like to apologize for not being in town. Last time I was out of town on business and Susan, and my son-in-law, Bill... Every time we have met the people in the planning group they've been super. My original proposal was drawn to the suggestions of John Rask who was guiding me through the procedure. It was by his suggestion that we move the house forward, to split the distance between the house that I had taken down and the Hempel's... Also it was his suggestion that we go five feet on either side rather than 4 and 6. He felt that you'd like to... This is another shot of the house taken this summer. Last fall. This is a shot of downstairs where you can see...needs to come out because it's just trees... This is a lot showing, or a picture showing elevations... And this is a picture along the frontage of the house showing the neighbor's house and their porch coming out towards the lake in front of our's so we won't be certainly blocking their view at any point building the house the way it's presented. In reviewing the records I note that the city's response to my proposal was postmarked on the 17th. Since the meeting was on May 20th, I really didn't have time to prepare...or any formal response...tabling the matter. It is my intention to work with city planners. I was quite surprised that they changed... Okay the first one falls with the lot line. Maintain the existing side yard of 4 feet along the east side, which is the lake side, by shifting the building 1 foot east. The side yard setback, this will provide a 17 foot separation, I'm sorry, between the building to the east and a 12 foot separation from Hempel's. We will push the proposed home back 8 feet and reduce the size of the deck by 2 feet. This provides a 44 foot setback from the lake, which is well in the back of Hempel's house... In my letter I stated that we can run gutters all the way along the side of the house so that we can take all the water out to the back. The only water that would come down here is found in this 6 feet and...4 feet, and if necessary, I can grade it all back out. But all this water's going to go to the street. So I don't think we're going to have a water problem on the stairs from that much water. I mean it's, I think we can take care of the water on the lot without any problem. And as Sharmin eluded to, the walls...have been professionally designed by the landscape architect...give you the plan. I didn't want to go ahead with a landscape architect until...retain these trees because we will not be filling at all around the trees with any of the excavating. Or digging out around the...This can be done with a good landscape plan. By building tiers of landscaping and I'll show that to you. Okay, any questions on that? Skip the next one... Oh yeah, this is a picture of the Hempel's home, ' which is next door and please note that it is three levels. This is the walkout level. Totally exposed. This is the next level and the third level. So I'm really keeping in line with their elevations. In fact when I bring my grade up, it will be somewhere right in there. So I won't be exposing as much of the home on the bottom as they have here... As you can see in this picture, the stairs are way below the base of the tree so that if I put the stairs in the same Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 place, can you guys see this? How they...coming down at the floor level of the house. So I won't be disrupting any of this soil here. In other words I've been leaving all that in the grading plan...I was hoping actually when I let myself down these stairs and I said my goodness. I can cut through right here. I won't be disrupting dirt. I won't be disrupting the trees that much. I think I can prepare the wall plans that will allow the trees to be saved. I've done it on several other homes that I've built on wooded lots...save the trees there too. Staff was concerned about a full walkout and we had the architect...the plans. We dropped the height of the roof five feet, and we dropped the bottom...three feet so now I only really, I don't have the same exposure as you originally saw. So that should help. If you want to...if people decide for looks you want eyebrows and on the side, I'm willing to spend the extra money to make the house look good and do the lot right. I'm not strapped in building a house. I can add the things where I need. Again we've brought the roof line down to a 6:12 pitch. Here's a picture I got from the Keystone Retailing Walls showing something similar to what I'll be doing. Not exactly but I'll be running the stairs inbetween the retaining walls like that and I'll be doing a number of tiers that the landscape architect chooses to drop. I've done retaining walls with these before, and these are the same I think that you've used on Minnewashta Parkway. Here again I wanted to show you the elevation of the tree bases. But I really feel fortunate that those stairs were there because that will save the trees. Here again is more retaining walls from the Keystone catalog, which you can see...and it isn't that big a project when you're only dealing with 40 feet of frontage. Here's a house that's down the way on the beach from us. But you can see again it's a full three stories exposed. Stacked right up on the other and a high roof so I'll be cutting that off and cutting off part of the roof. And very close on the side. On this side over here and I'll show an aerial photography shot that I made of that house. Here's two houses together, and you can see by this car that's about, it's a small car so it's maybe 7 feet wide at the maximum. These two roof lines are very close, and it's in our area. We won't get anywhere near as close as that with the roof line. Also the coverage on these two is much more than I have. So the letter that I got on Saturday, it says staff recommends the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approve the variance for the 4 and 6 foot side yards and the 34 foot lakeshore setback...so I guess I'd like to ask for the order. I'd like to ask for your approval. There with what the staff has shared... Any questions? Chmiel: No. Not right now I don't. Johnson: Okay. Are you all done sir? Is there any neighbors wish to speak on this project? Please, state your name and address please. Dave Hempel: My name's Dave Hempel. I live at 3707, the adjoining property to the proposed construction. I don't know if I can make any other points that I didn't make last time I was here. The front yard, the grading, the walkout. None of us neighbors...the structure so close to the other building with some concerns if it's properly graded and guttered Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 and so forth, I'm sure that could be alleviated to some degree. I don't know if some of Jim's representations were exactly correct. My house is considered on the tax statement as a 1 1/2 story because that upper room is built in the roof with a window up in there and it's a non- trussed structure so it...attic. There is a...that gives the appearance of a two story at the roof line out on it and I had to replace...I think disagreements or whatever you want to call them on the proposed project, the lot setback and there are variances granted in the area and I had one granted. Several other people have had them granted but I don't know if anybody's had variances granted on just about every aspect of the building code. I'd almost be more willing to accept, I mean if this thing went through as proposed, I'd be more willing to accept the 5 foot setback on my side instead of 6, and encroaching on the other neighbor by going to a 4 foot setback. True it gives the 17 or 18 foot, whatever his numbers were, perhaps between the two structures now but I'm sure...other lot in the future and if you start talking fair is fair and you give the adjoining property a 4 foot setback, you're going to have two buildings 8 feet apart. I don't know. It just seems like about a very large structure for that piece of property, in my mind. I could envision you know a 1 or 1 1/2 story with a dormer roof room upstairs and walkout or something...the length of it. I don't know whether, I can't remember real well. I guess 70 feet. I don't know. I think everybody in the area...and that's basically where we're all coming from. The project is pretty much...and you don't like to see them be encroached upon anybody...the neighbors next door on the other side. I don't know how much work the city will have to do if all that runoff goes out to the street. There is a low spot there and when they put the sewer and water through the area, the city raised the culverts up and there's one part of the street up there that's muddy and...I don't know what kind of problems that will cause... I guess that's all I can really say right now. I don't know. Overall I guess the... I know Jim pointed out a couple of other structures...I've lived there for 31 years...and the other home I believe was, I don't know. Is the code 15 foot side lot? Chmiel: 10 foot. Dave Hempel: So there wouldn't be any variances on that particular structure that looks similar to...three story walkout. I know several of the other neighbors have been denied variances and have built structures to stay within, you know. Odd sized structures rather than 24, 36 feet. They cut down on the 26 feet... Johnson: Thank you Mr. Hempel. Anybody else? Lynn Johnson: My name is Lynn Johnson and I live at 3629 Red Cedar Point. And thank you for showing my home. It was rather coincidence that I'm here today. I was here last week, or the last time that this Council met and did not speak because I wanted to give the property owner the opportunity to make adjustments but since I've seen my home as part of this issue, I would like to respond to first of all some of the things that were brought up about Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 my home. First of all on either side of me, on one side is a home that was built in the 1930%. I have no idea where their property line is but I can tell you that on that side of the property, to the best of my knowledge, I am 10 feet from the property line. On the other side, which is Charles Anding's home, that home was built in the 1950's. I'm not sure what their property line is but I can tell you that I am 10 feet from my property line. Different, at least to my property is the...at the house level and Chuck's son is here and he tells me that on the...side it is 10 feet. So that's...125 feet from the lake. So in no way am I, or did I need a variance in order to put that house up. I'm not sure about the side yard. I did come before the Council and discuss my house and I'm not sure since I've been there 10 years, what the issues were. One of the issues I know was the... The property that I am on, at one point it's all a hill and where I have the property it ended and went down to a dramatic drop. A retaining wall that was there, and existing, and that of course was not touched. But to accommodate the concerns of runoff, I changed the roof structure to a shed roof structure and so the water runs off and it runs out into the street without any problems. I am not opposed to these people building and I do understand that sure, many people do need variances in order to accommodate a structure on their property. What I'm here and opposed to, the reason I came in the first place is, I feel that they need a variance from the...and from each side of the house and also for the lake, which is what... Further I would like to state that when I saw the pictures there, and...was up for sale I went over and looked at it. I was quite surprised that the house currently is very close to the lake and so even using those guidelines of...44 feet from the lake. That really surprises me because there is very much of a grade there and it seems to me the house is extremely sitting on a hill, very close to the lake structure. I, of course would not have...but visually when you look at that, it seems like the house is quite close to the lake. It is my wish that you give careful consideration to giving too many variances. This is the 90's and there are a lot of people interested in having lakeshore property and I can't blame them for that but when you are asking for the ordinance to be looked at from four different angles, and variances to be given to four different...I think that has to be given very, very careful consideration. Johnson: Thank you. Anybody else wish to? Richard Wing: My name's Richard Wing, 3401 Lakeshore Drive. North side of Lake Minnewashta and...long time friend of Jim Jasin... I don't wish to discuss the variances tonight. I think that involves the neighbors and the people that will live near to it, and I live on the north side, not anywhere near this area...after another of 40 foot, 50 foot lots of record, and I was really hopeful that years ago...city would take a dimmer and dimmer view of letting this area just continue to develop in the 1910 style in the period of the 1990's. 40 foot lots are difficult to deal with and...but just as a resident of the city, that the city is continuing to allow large homes to be built on these small lots and additions to be built that just simply didn't fit. When you have 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag...Again, I don't wish to Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 discuss the variances. I guess the only thing I'm really here...I've known Jim as long as I have, I wouldn't want to look at the alternative, or the opposite side of Jim. I think he builds a very quality home and what he puts on that lot regardless...is going to be a home of architectural standard. Quality materials. Quality building. Quality landscaping...are going to be very fine. I think whatever home he puts there, it's going to be a real addition. If you're going to have something built there, I guess I'm just pleased it's Jim because it's going to be a quality home. The concern is if someone like Jim said this isn't going to work and it's too expensive to put up and so on and so forth...around Red Cedar Point, you can see some of the options that would maybe occur on that lot. If somebody came in and said well, I'll get the lot but I can't afford to do much with it, I think the neighbors could suffer greatly...just because of the size of the lot. Again, I don't want to address the variances but I just want to support Jim as quality builder and my friend and I think he'll put up a good product there, whatever it tums out to be. Thank you. Kevin Smith: My name is Kevin Smith. I live at 3837 Red Cedar Point. I'm not what you'd call a neighbor, but I'm down the street. I used to own the piece of property at the end of Red Cedar and I have gone through the process that I hear here and I do want to say that I sold the piece of property and now have a beautiful house on it and the neighbors had some questions about oh, what was going on there. The planning group here, we've worked together. The buyer and the seller and what he wanted to do and I want to commend the planning group here for, I have 160 feet on the lake and 11 feet on the road, so there was some real head scratching going on, on how in the world can you get access that's adequate to this lot. Well, with the planning people it was all worked out and it's working fine but the same issues came up. The amount of water that was going to come off of this new piece of property that used to be an empty lot and now there's a house there. And I guess I want to say that you people have a tough job because you're applying today's laws to yesterday's lots and to my knowledge everything that's out there on Red Cedar Point, which you have allowed variances for, have turned out very successful. I don't think we can point out there to any kind of job that went on that we're really sorry that we allowed the variance. Now as Mr. Wing said, I'm not going to even address the neighbor's issue about the variance. I mean they live next door. But we need to have quality building. We need to be able to address these 40 foot lots that you're stuck with and I don't think it's appropriate to say to Mr. Jasin that he's got to wait for another lot to come available so he can have 80 feet. Then he can build. That doesn't make sense. You've got expensive property and the city needs to build on it. Build something on it and it's your job to decide what you're going to let build there, and all the way along and I know you have in the past and I have a case in point, you have done a good job of deciding for this area, what's quality and what's going to work. And I want to thank you for it and where I come from is, I'm not sure of whether this is really an infringement on the neighbors or there's some politics going on, and it doesn't really matter because I think you'll sort all that out and do a good job of deciding whether this variance, Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 whether these variances should be passed. And as a neighbor far away, I really don't have an objection. What I want out there is in 10 years for us to still be proud of what's there, and these properties, these 40 foot lots are going to continue to come up and up and up and up and up so you are really laying ground work for the future. Alright, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else wish to address it? Gentleman there.9 George Roehl: My name is George Roehl. I live on the property immediately adjacent to the other side, 3703 South Cedar. My address of record is 10 Acom Drive,...Lake, Minnesota. We purchased the cabin about a year and a half ago and the cabin at 3703 is not suitable for year round habitation. It's not insulated...in many cases. I am looking at a piece of property, built about the same time as the property Mr. Jasin has, that will need to be rebuilt also in the future. Both properties are about 70 years old. In my case the property requires a lot more work since it's not insulated. I was not present at the last meeting. I did however fax to the Board some written comments as I could not be here. I also faxed for your review some written comments for this meeting and I'd like to review them very quickly. My prime comment is that I feel that this particular design over builds the property. A 30 foot wide house on a 40 foot wide lot, presenting three stories to the lakeshore, requiring side setbacks on both sides, street setbacks, pavement variance and a setback from the lake. Inasmuch as you're giving variances to virtually everything, I think that perhaps some more consideration should be given as to the scope of the project. My second concern that I have again reinforced this time around is the loss of the trees. I refer to the staff report, I believe it's page 5 of the staff report where staff indicates that the survival, the survival of the trees on the property is in their words, slim to none, even retaining walls. These are oaks...trees, I have some serious concerns that these trees will be taken out because they're not going to grow back. If I could prevail upon about three overheads back, if you have that handy. There was a picture of the rear elevation of the house as seen from the lake that shows the detail of the steps. I have some serious concerns given the drawing elevation. That's a wrong elevation of the house. But I also have some serious concerns regarding the lot and my picture that was up there, that shows the elevation of reference stated on the first floor of the house as seen from the lake. And I would have some serious concerns because of the sharpness of the grade that you have seen in the pictures, that the trees indeed can be preserved when dropping some 9 or 10 feet from the reference grade, right down to make that...where the house is. Again, I'm not a landscape architect. I'm not a landscape authority on this but I would like to stress concerns that the drawing that I see on the overhead right now and pictures and the property that I know to have seen...The third thing of course is that these terraces, it seems to me that we are cutting a very sharp cut into that hillside, that the terraces are going to be rather predominant. We are in the property next door. I have a baby that my wife is currently holding and we currently hear, and a five year old, who also runs around. I would be somewhat concerned about sharp drops, especially as the children being Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 children. As such I cannot really be in favor of the project in it's present form. I would like to address that point. That I am not. I read in the staff report that it is the recommendation of staff to approve. If that is the case, and given the fact that I still oppose the project in it's present form, I then must turn my attention to the preservation of the equity in my own property. If you intend to allow this large of a structure to be built, bear in mind that both of the homes, for 3703 and 3705, were built about the'same time. They have virtually identical footprints. Virtually identical square footage and virtually identical... If you would grant the variance to 3705, then I will be requesting the similar variances be granted at 3703. If the two properties are to be going ahead in unison, as you stated before, we have 40 foot lots here. Then I would be very concerned about the...of my future building plans because of Mr. Jasin's plans. Thank you for your time. lohnson: You're welcome. Anyone else wish to address this? Which one of you two want to go first? Mayor. Don, do you want to address this first? Chmiel: Sure. I think the quality and style of the project that is being shown to us this evening is beyond any question a good looking structure. But the size still bothers me just a little bit. Size being that you would have roughly 30 feet in width and your request for the 5 foot variance on each side. And I look at that and I also have some concerns with the in and adjacent structures next to each other. From the water runoff, and I'm not sure whether that can all be contained or taken care of. But the other aspect would be, as far as any fires. Fires are a real big concern of mine and having structures there and if it's a very windy day, other structures too close can automatically be let as well. Whether it be sparks or just the flame zapping in either direction, and that really gives me some real deep concerns with that. We try to maintain the maximum of having a 25% total for maximum impervious surface, and I think this is something that we really have to continue to look at. I also noted that on each of these other locations that variances were made, I think there's only one other one that had requested almost the same that you're looking for. And that one with the 20 feet front yard variance for the construction of garage, 12 feet from the front yard, 2 feet from the side yard, and a 7 foot lake setback. The garage is probably something in itself that is not quite as tall as these structures that you're proposing. So I really still, I really still have some, as I keep saying, concerns. I know when you try to build a home, you try to build something that's going to be what you'd like. What you'd like to live in and consequently I think I would like to see, in fact I would even recommend, that this be looked at again by Mr. Jasin to something smaller in size for that particular lot. Now I have a cabin as well and it's an all year round facility and if you don't have a 60 foot lot in that particular county, and you haven't built, that's just the way they are. A 40 foot lot to them is just much too small to accommodate a good size structure, depending upon how many square feet. So I would like to, rather than sort of vote against this, I would like to see Mr. Jasin look to something a little smaller that maybe could accommodate, and I know that 20 feet wide to build a home is Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 hardly any dancing room. But nonetheless, I would like to see that done from the standpoint of the city. And thereto, by allowing something to happen, I get concerned about litigation. Why would the City allow this if such a circumstance would take place with a fire? So I guess that's about all I have right now. Johnson: Carol. Watson: I want to maintain the 44 foot front. I want 30 foot back. I want a maximum width of 26 feet...on each side. That way there would be room, and there'd be enough room. The neighbors should not have to absorb all of the area between these two houses. That's what the 10 feet on each side of the house was for. So that each neighbor, each person accepts their responsibility for the separation of houses. So I can't see myself going for anything less than 7 feet, at least on each side, which would give the maximum width of this house at 26 feet. And I want my 44 foot front and I want the 30 foot back. So it seems to me that makes the house about 26 by, oh I'd say 62 feet. And I don't want a lot of dead trees. AI-Jaff: What about a walkout versus a look out.9 Watson: You know, I always maintain I'm not an engineer and, but water runoff, when houses get close together, is a big problem. I mean we always have the person coming in saying, his water's running on my yard. It runs straight off his roof and lands in my yard. When houses get this close together, that's even a bigger problem. So if engineering feels that that can't be done, and maintain the water on this property and get it off the property, then it can't be allowed to happen. It should be so that his water's retained on his property and managed without causing any erosion. Without interfering with his neighbors right to a dry basement. Because there are other 40 foot lots in there and they are very, very correct when they said we will see this again. You bet we will. And I want to know that the next time it comes, that we can live with it at least as well as we do this time because it is going to happen. It's going to happen next door. It's going to happen down the street. I have a relative with one of those 40 foot lots out there. It's still the old cabin on it, and I'm sure they're just holding their breath waiting for something like this to happen so they can say, okay. Now it's happened. Now I can build. Johnson: Well I feel the same way. You've got to come up with something smaller because I wouldn't go along with any of this. It's got to have space. I might go along with Carol's 7 feet but you've got to have some, with that much coverage on a 40 foot lot. I'd rather see 10 foot myself but I think I'd work with something. If they can come up with something... because we're going 51% coverage on the size lot that's double the impervious surface. I can't go along with... Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Watson: Do we need a motion? Johnson: Yeah, do you want to make a motion? Watson: I'll make a motion to deny the variances. Do you want me to list them? You can list them, on the property at 3706 South Cedar Drive, for the reasons stated. I want very clearly what our concerns were stated so that they reflect in the fact that we're not saying that there won't be any var/ances and we're not saying that they can't build. We just feel that this lot is much too small for this size of home and that we do sincerely hope that something can be worked out. So state what you want and our concerns would be the drainage. Johnson: I'll second that. Any more discussion? Chmiel: Yeah. As I mentioned before, I would like to see this be looked at again by Mr. Jasin before we deny this. Is there a timeframe problem with this Roger? Knutson: Well you have, unless the applicant gives you an extension, the City has to act on it in 60 or maybe 120 days. Aanenson: We're okay on the timeframe. We checked already. Knutson: You have? That's not an issue? Al-Jaff: May 1st is when the applicant was submitted so we've got time. Knutson: Then if you wanted to table. If you wanted to ask the applicant if he wants to reconsider and come back with something else, you can table that too, whenever you think that would be the appropriate time. Watson: I can withdraw my motion if we prefer to have a motion to take a little time. Johnson: I'll withdraw my second. Watson: And work this out because that certainly would be our first choice. Knutson: How much time would you want? Jim Jasin: Carol, I have to go back to the drawing boards. I need at least 30 days. Knutson: So can you just pick a time when you want to bring this back? 10 i' Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Jim Jasin: Let's say the end of July. Knutson: Okay. I can't say okay. Watson: We like it when you answer questions. Chmiel: I think that would be fine, if your second also would. Watson: Absolutely. Chmiel: I make a motion to table. Watson: Second. Chmiei moved, Watson seconded to table action on a variance for a 10 foot front yard, a 4 foot east side yard, a 5 foot west side yard, and iakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single family residence on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 3705 South Cedar Drive until the end of July so the applicant can bring back revised drawings. All voted in favor and the motion carded. ZONING APPEAL FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH 169 ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, MARK FEYEREISEN. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Watson: When we were supposedly calling it agricultural and allowing that gas station to be there, how were we justifying the gas station on an agricultural property? AI-Jaff: It pre-dated the ordinance. It was there prior to. Watson: So we didn't call it anything. Or didn't address the fact that it was in fact. A1-Jaff: No, it was agricultural. However it was a non-conforming. Watson: But we called it a non-conforming? Did we actually address it as a non-conforming use on that property? 11 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 A1-Jaff: No. It's always been shown as an agriculture. Through applications that we reviewed in the past, it requests what the zoning is on the site. And it's always been stated that the site is zoned agriculture. The issue of it being a non-conforming use has not come up, at least through the research that we have done, we have not found anything that points out that this use is non-conforming. Watson: But a gas station in an agricultural area is not a conforming use? A1-Jaff: Correct. Watson: I was just curious about that because I mean it didn't. Knutson: Can I ask a question? Sharmin, do you know what date this gas station was initially built? Mark Feyereisen: '74. I believe it was '74. Knutson: How was the property zoned in 19747 AI-Jaff: Agriculture. Watson: And the date, well of course we don't have the record that tells us what decision was made when it was built. Why they granted. But I understand you know that it was allowed to be built but I just. Mark Feyereisen: I've got the tax lease that shows that...The taxes for Chanhassen... Knutson: The tax classification has nothing to do with the zoning. Watson: Right, but I mean we didn't address in '74 the fact that the gas station went in agricultural zoning. I just was wondering if we ever addressed what we called this. Knutson: The question is, how could you be able to, it was zoned agricultural, how could it be able to build a gas station there? Watson: Yeah. If we let him... Aanenson: ...that part of the city at that time, it was part of the Village. Johnson: ...part of the Village if it became a city in 1968. 12 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Knutson: There's a short answer. We don't know how it got built. We don't have a file on it? Aanenson: We don't have a file, that's correct. Johnson: Excuse me, did you want to make a statement a minute ago? Mark Feyereisen: ...I've been driving this 212 route for at least 40 years and the 28 years as a resident of that farm in Scott County. And I've always assumed as I came near the Tri-Y, as it was called over the years. There was a North Star gas station probably 15-20 years before the SuperAmerica bought the site and converted it to their operation. So I always assumed that the motel and the Tri-Y Drive In, which I used to frequent, and there was another filling station across the street which is now a used car lot, I believe. And you would think that these are all commercial sites. So I retired, I would always like to have a drive in like the Tri-Y, and well the Tri-Y is now gone but the building next to it, which was the former SuperAmerica site. A few months ago I thought, oh it might be kind of nice to do something along that line with that particular building, assuming that it was a commercial, retail site. I don't know the proper names of the zoning ordinance... I thought well, this is kind of a nice place and it would enhance the neighborhood. Look at something beautiful other than a filling station. So that's how I got involved. I'm almost kind of an outsider initiating what the owner of the property assumed, I guess we all assumed it was a commercial site. With that I thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Larry Thomasberg: I'm Larry Thomasberg. I live in Bloomington, 8601 Golden Avenue South. We used to live in Chanhassen...for one year. I'd like to read a letter about, and give you each one, about what happened on the site. Early last spring, around February I started talking to Ashland Oil about the site. And throughout the year I made calls to city staff. Kate Aanenson was the member that I was talking to about the property at 615 Flying Cloud Road. I was told by Kate Aanenson, and later by Bob Generous, the zoning of this property was BF, Business Fringe. I've been faxed by Bob Generous with zoning. I've met on two occasions with Kate Aanenson on what I could do with this site. On one occasion was 8-28- 95 alone. Then with Greg Swenson, a perspective tenant who wanted to put in tobacco warehouse on 9-15-95. A week after I purchased the site. I relied on information to purchase the site on September 8th. You see that I put a sign out to see if I could find a tenant. My last conversation with Kate Aanenson was on March, 1996. It was about a tenant named Don Kulver who wanted to put in a sporting goods store. The BF zoning, according to Kate, BF zoning, Section 20-773, conditional use said it was only for trucks, trailers, auto, sporting goods and wholesales and rental. Don Kulver had called Kate Aanenson and said boats and 13 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 cars but nothing else. Then I set up an appointment to meet with Kate on 2-30, on Wednesday the 13th. At that time Kate handed the baton to Sharmin, who was put in charge of this file. Sharmin said that she was reviewing the whole file because it was not consistent. Later on in the week, on the 18th, she sent the file to Roger Knutson, City Attorney. On the week of the 25th I called Mr. Knutson for his interpretation. He said the issue was not clear. A map in 1986, revised in 1989 shows clearly the site should be inside the BF zone, and that's one of the overheads there. While the map in 1987, revised in 1994, is inclusive and unclear and seems to indicate BF zoning. A very obvious question is, why a map revised in 1989 wasn't the map revised in 1994, instead of the map revised, or the map of 1987, revised in 1994. It makes no sense. It sounds like there's something missing here. As of this date, Sharmin said more research could produce that it was BF or not. But until she could find more evidence she was calling it A2, agricultural. I talked to Roger Knutson and he said that I should address the commission here. So my position, to summarize it is, that the 1989 map is clear and the 1987 map, revised in 1994 that the staff was using to give me this information, is unclear. After I had purchased the property, there was nothing more I could do. Furthermore, the lot across the street that's non-asphalt, is BF. Tri-Y, right next to my lot, contiguous, is BF. First time I talked to Sharmin, she was under the impression that it was A2 also, until she found the file. She found the file, the zoning variance. So the inconclusiveness of the 1994 map and the conclusiveness of the 1989 map, I'm asking that I be given a BF zoning that I was told. Why else, if it wasn't conclusive, why else was I told that it wasn't BF. On the various occasions that I spoke with staff, and/or met on 6/16/95, 1/28/96, 9/6/95 and 10/20, or 2/20/96. To top it off, it's shown as, on the sheets that you have, it's taxed as commercial. In 1995. It shows as commercial. It's taxed as commercial. How can so many people be so wrong if this is not indeed BF? That's it. Thank you. Johnson: Anybody want to address this? Watson: The history is rather unclear. It makes a rather strange resident of the A2 zoning district. And in 1988 we said it was A2. In '88 again we said it was A2. And in August, again we allowed a pylon. We allowed them to build commercial things on something that we still showed as A2. I'm real confused. Why did we allow them to, you know enlarge on a commercial zoning in an A2 Estate in 1988, if we believed that A2 zoning was correct? Again, we don't know why. Mark Feyereisen: May I say something? Watson: Well I'd really like to address it to staff, just so we can kind of. Johnson: We're running out of time here. 14 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Watson: And we're running out of time here. Aanenson: There was a copy of the staff report. I'm not sure how that interpretation was made but there's a copy of the staff report that said they requested a conditional use, or a variance for a sign in the A2 district, and I'm not sure how that went through the process but it did. But it specifically said that you were giving approval to something in that A2 zone. We have a copy. That report we do have in the file. Johnson: Was there a variance granted on the sign? Aanenson: Correct. AI-Jaff: Conditional use was granted. Aanenson: Right, a conditional use to approve a sign. A conditional use. Johnson: Okay. Because I didn't think it come before the Board. AI-Jaff: No, it didn't. Watson: We'd remember if it was only in '88. I find myself puzzled by the historic picture. I'm a little puzzled too about agricultural estate zoning in that particular place with the other zonings around it. It would be a very strange relative for that A2 zoning. Is there anything that you can do to clarify this? It certainly is not a nice, neat package. Aanenson: Can I comment on the comp plan, the relevancy to the 1991 comp plan? Knutson: Yes. Aanenson: When the comp plan was updated in 1991, this was prior to my knowledge, and that's why I turned it over to Sharmin. Sharmin has the most knowledge of uses down in this area of the city, and has been here longer. But the comp plan shows everything south of 212/169 as guided as open space, recognizing that uses along there, the hotel...are legal non- conforming and eventually a higher, better use, or open space in this case, would take over that southern part, so that must have come up during discussions in the comp plan. It's not really spelled out very well in discussing those uses down there but everything south of there is intended to be guided as open space. So that was part of my discussion with the applicant is that there was limited use, even under the BF. Watson: Okay. Because some of it is zoned BF and then we have this piece that's A27 15 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Aanenson: Yes. Watson: And then we have BF again on the other side. Aanenson: But we do see it as eventually someday being all open space. Watson: Oh. Aanenson: Yes, Fish and Wildlife has been taking up property in that area. Watson: Well I know. They've taken a lot of the river area. Aanenson: Correct. Watson: And that makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to figure out, you know what, I mean we're supposed to be interpreting what this is. Knutson: What you've got to decide is how is it zoned. Chmiel: Yeah, that's the question. Watson: And when we go and make an interpretation like that, are we talking about what makes sense and what looks logical? Knutson: No. Watson: We're just talking about what. Knutson: What is. Watson: What is, whether it makes sense or not. Knutson: What is now... Watson: Okay. Johnson: ...on the lake, what the print shows. In other words, that jog goes around his property. Knutson: The question is not how it should be zoned, but how it is zoned. 16 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Chmiel: Well I think as you look at that heavy line that goes through that specific area, and carries through in and adjacent to the 169/212, and that existing structure that shows there was the former SuperAmerica. As I look at that, to me it would appear that that is not part of the BF, but it would be agricultural too. Watson: There is decidedly a jog there. I mean there is obviously. What is? Johnson: Comparatively speaking, you've got to decide whether or not that line is off the property, because there is a jog where the building stands...in the A2. Watson: Well just west of it here, we went down and we picked up some property. We seemed to have, for one reason or another, deliberately left it. Johnson: Left it out of there. Larry Thomasberg: ...1989 where it clearly shows the BF. If you look at the 1989...clearly it shows it inside the boundary. I mean there's no question that the BF on that map... Knutson: Did anyone clear these particular maps with a consulting engineer or someone in- house. AI-Jaff: Some of them were prepared by. Knutson: Inbetween the two it could be found out what happened. Going back to original notes or something. Watson: Was the property listed? I mean when they went along, down along that area and there were various uses for the property by, whether it would be a tax piece or whatever you call it. Does it list it separately and each piece separately given? State specifically what zoning, like for instance when they went down and they did these maps and stuff. And that area down there where we were kind of. Larry Thomasberg: I questioned the...use of the gas station rights and they had grandfather business... Johnson: But we also have in the ordinance, if it's not been in use for a year, it converts back to whatever 'previous. Larry Thomasberg:: I guess what we're saying is we want to be able to bring the place back to life and bring it onto the tax rolls instead of sitting there as a piece of... 17 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 AI-Jaff: We don't, I mean this is before our time. We don't know what happened with this. Watson: Yeah, I was just hoping it was written somewhere or that they address any individual plat. AI-Jaff: Basically when this one was prepared, the borders of a district are...can basically they put that tape on mylar which is a sheet, a little thicker than this one and apparently... went over this property. So that's how the confusion with this parcel took place. Watson: In other areas then, how do we designate where that occurred? I mean that must be dividing lots of different districts in the city. How have we interpreted. Aanenson: It should follow property boundary. Not go through a property. Watson: I see. Johnson: In other words it should have been on the edge of the road. Larry Thomasberg: The initial map that I have, that I got from Sharmin does not show this slight jog right here. I don't know if this...Sharmin to make it more explicit, but this is a straight line without the slight jog so it's right over it. If you look at your map that's the correct that Sharmin gave you...See there's no. Al-Jarl: Correct. I highlighted the original just to give you an indication as to where this property is located. That's the sole purpose of why you see that hint of a drawing. (There were several conversations going on at the same time at this point.) Knutson: At this point everyone apparently thought, August 8th of 1988 everyone apparently thought it was zoned A2. How you would get a CUP for a pylon sign on property zoned A2 is .... Johnson: Watson: Johnson: Have you got a motion? Go for it Willard. I've done my motion for this evening. I make a motion that this be... Watson: What do we do, recommend? 18 Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996 Johnson: How do you want this stated? Knutson: Your motion would be, the Board finds that the property is zoned, fill in the blank. Johnson: A27 This Board finds that this property is zoned A2. Knutson: That's the motion. Watson: Second. Johnson: Any more discussion? Johnson moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals find staff's interpretation of the zoning map as A-2, Agricultural Estate District and find the site is inaccurately zoned as BF, Fringe Business. Ail voted in favor and the motion carded. Knutson: The applicant should be advised that they can appeal this to the City Council. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carded. The public hearing was closed. APPROVAL OF MINUTF_~: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated June 10,1996 as presented. All voted in favor, except Chmiel who abstained, and the motion carried. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director 19