Loading...
PC 2012 09 18 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: th Greg & Tammy Falconer 720 West 96 Street Gerald & Karon Story 6281 Teton Lane th Andrew Riegert 620 West 96 Street th Roger Lee 600 96 Street West th Gary Bendzick 731 96 Street West Naomi Carlson 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood Chris Martin John Kunis PUBLIC HEARING: TH 620 WEST 96 STREET VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-904 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TH DISTRICT (A2) LOCATED AT 620 WEST 96 STREET. APPLICANT/OWNER: ANDREW & SHANNON RIEGERT, PLANNING CASE 2012-10. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This first case before you th tonight is located on 620 West 96 Street and the owners are the applicants, Andrew and Shannon Riegert. The applicants are requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and they want to construct a 2,560 square foot accessory structure. The property is zoned agricultural. It’s guided. Excuse me, it’s zoned agricultural but it’s guided for residential single family. The lot itself, as stated in the staff report, is about 4 1/2 acres, although that doesn’t, that’s gross. Doesn’t extract what we believe is wetlands in the rear of that. So the applicants purchased the property, shown here in yellow, in 1998 with the intention of constructing an accessory structure. They stated the intent for the 40 by 60 accessory structure was for additional storage and work space. The current zoning limits accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet so if they were to come in and submit a permit for 1,000 square feet of accessory structure and it met the setback criteria and the like, it would have been permitted. As you are aware in 2000 in response to a number of problems that we had with some of these larger square foot buildings the City did adopt a policy of restricting them to 1,000 square feet and we said that through a variance process we would look at these, if they were intended to be agricultural related, businesses where they’re hobby farms or horse property or the like so in 2000, excuse me, 2007 the, again the ordinance was adopted restricting the size to over 1,000. To less than 1,000. So in this neighborhood there are several accessory structures in excess of 1,000. According to the City records some of these structures were constructed prior to the 2000. I would say the majority of them have been and this is some of the instance where we have records, or couldn’t find records of some of the permits Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 being pulled and that’s one of the reasons, this is one of the neighborhoods, but we’ve had problems throughout the city regarding these structures and then how they would be used in the future. Maybe not the current owners but maybe owners in the future looking for a type of business that they could use it for. And also for the record too, we’ve also, used to allow and we’ll talk about this in more detail later, contractors yards in these but that was also stopped a number of years ago too. So because the applicant, while there is nothing on the property right now, has a right to go forward with a 1,000 square feet, we recognize there are other larger properties in the area but for us the staff the strict interpretation of law based on the fact that this area is guided for lower density residential and we believe that 1,000 square foot is adequate for this type of use, we would not support the variance at this time. We put together Findings of Fact in your staff report. Again those relate back to the agricultural zoning. The fact that, what the intent of the agricultural zoning is and this doesn’t meet it and we believe the 1,000 square feet would be adequate. There are some of that size in the neighborhood so with that we are recommending that it be denied and we’ve attached the Findings of Fact in your staff report. And I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Aller: Any questions from anyone at this point? The, it looks like there was an addition on the property in 2004? Aanenson: No, not on this one I don’t think. To the house, I’m sorry. Yes. To the house, there is a garage attached to the house. I’m sorry, yes. Undestad: Do we know how many of those buildings in that neighborhood are not permitted? Aanenson: Again backed in for agricultural purposes, if it was on agricultural land and they weren’t permitted and that’s why we went back and changed those. It’s not just this neighborhood. We had some other ones that things got pretty excessive as far as the square footage and so we wanted to cap that. When we were spending a lot of time on the complaints and certainly this application doesn’t have an accessory structure yet so. Aller: Okay, then in 2007 it looks like the city code was amended to prohibit anything in excess of 1,000. That was the dateline? Aanenson: 2007. Aller: 2007. Aanenson: 2007, correct. Aller: And at that point there were public hearings and. Aanenson: It was noticed. It was gone through. We had quite a lengthy discussion. It was noticed in the paper. We did it with a code amendment but yes, there was I think certainly the applicant has concerns about that. That they maybe felt like they weren’t duly notified but we went through our normal process for a code amendment, correct. Aller: I don’t have any further questions. If anyone else has. Colopoulos: Yeah, I had one about the agricultural use provision that was adopted in 2007. How many of the structures in the area, and just ballpark percentage had been constructed in excess of 1,000 feet before there was that ordinance. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aanenson: All of them, yeah. Colopoulos: All of them. Aanenson: Yeah. Colopoulos: I mean there was pretty much every, there were a lot of non-conforming structures, or I should say grandfathered in structures. Aanenson: That’s correct. Colopoulos: Once the ordinance regarding agricultural use was adopted in 2007. So if I want to expand a structure in excess of 1,000 feet after 2007 it would have to be for agricultural use. Aanenson: Well you still have to come before. You’d have to demonstrate how, you know I think what we said we’d take it on a case by case basis. Looking at whether it’s for a hobby farm or whether it’s for horses or how is it being used, so we look at that as part of your criteria. Again the comp plan is for agricultural, preservation of agricultural we said we’re not going to continue to do that. We also said in the comprehensive plan that we did not want to proliferate commercial uses in these areas and that’s why we changed that. Aller: Okay. Hearing no further questions I’ll open, or I’ll ask the applicant. If the applicant wishes to come forward and make a presentation, that’s great. Please state your name and state your address for the record. Andrew Riegert: Good evening. My name is Andrew Riegert at 620 West 96th Street. That’s where we are living and what I guess my main concern with the, with this new ordinance is, you know I know they had to pick a number but I don’t know why, where they rest at 1,000 square feet. I just don’t see how that, you know I just don’t know where that number comes from. Some of the things that I want to do in this building are mainly revolve around storage and hobbies and that’s just not a lot of space when you’re trying to store a boat and some snowmobiles and a couple of, you can see in the packet, some vintage automobiles and things like that. It doesn’t take long to fill up 1,000 square feet. That’s basically what I have on my house right now. I understand that there is concern about the home occupation and we just, I have a 5 year lease for a, I have a home, a personal business. I have a landscape company and I just signed a 5 year lease in Waconia for a 6,000 square foot building so needing space on site is certainly not an issue so it’s clearly just for hobby purposes so. In somewhere around ’98 or 2000 when we applied for a permit to have a driveway put in for this accessory structure and paid to have an area leveled out for it so there’s already been quite a bit of cost put in to the development of this so I guess the way I feel is that if I’m limited to 1,000 square feet, it’s not enough storage for me so I might have to go up a level. Maybe do a two story building, which I don’t really want to do. I think the cost would be prohibitive and I just don’t think it would look very nice. It wouldn’t fit into the character of the neighborhood like they ask us to do so. This size of a building is actually one of the smaller, would be one of the smaller sized buildings on the street. You can see the numbers up there of some of the other buildings so I certainly don’t think it’s out of line. That’s about what I have so thank you. Aller: Could you just explain a little bit more about what types of, I mean you use a broad term there for you know hobby and such. Andrew Riegert: Oh sure. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aller: Can you tell us what kind of things you’re expecting to do with it and what kinds of things you’re supposed to store or would consider storing. Andrew Riegert: Absolutely. Yeah, I have 3 snowmobiles. One for my kids. Snowmobile trailer. I have, there’s a picture in here, I have a vintage pick-up truck and I am currently restoring another vehicle so that’s one of my hobbies is vehicle restoration and so there’s you know machinery to do that. There’s drill presses. There’s lathes. There’s metal brakes. Large tool boxes. Basically what I have is 1,000 square foot garage and I, between all the kids bikes and the two vehicles it’s pretty much full so if I, by the time, well I’m also paying my neighbor to store my boat so it’s, it doesn’t make sense when I would like to be able to do that in my own back yard so, by the time I store a couple of items in there and then still have room for work space for that, it’s pretty much, I’m out of room. Aller: And then was there a reason that when you first put in the driveway, I don’t see anything here where you showed up at the hearings, I don’t know whether you did or didn’t. All I know is, new to the commission myself since this ordinance was put in place, this zoning was put in place, the typical thing is that there are notices out to the public. The public come in. There are hearings. There is a determination that that’s what’s best for the city and that’s where the 1,000 foot comes from so I don’t have to necessarily look at that I don’t think but what is your position with that that you didn’t build it before? Andrew Riegert: Yeah, right, right. Well I wish would have, obviously. No, the main reason is I just didn’t have the finances back when we put the driveway in and I was just starting a business myself so I didn’t have the money to do it for one thing. And then honestly in 2007 I just didn’t know that the ordinance went into effect. I had heard rumblings of some of the people in the area, even on our street that were having troubles with home businesses but it went no further than that. I know pretty much everybody just complied and changed what they were doing and it just, it wasn’t a need at the time. It wasn’t something I was looking to do at the time and I guess I didn’t look into it or hear about it honestly because it was a surprise to me when I went to do this what, probably 2 months ago now so. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: But back in 1998 it was your intention to do it as evidenced by the fact that you built the driveway to the pad. Andrew Riegert: Right. Yeah, yeah. It was, I think I was told that there was a 5 foot setback and I, as I don’t need to be that close to the property line, even then I didn’t but I was actually really surprised that being a growing city that that was really the only restriction and then I just. Aanenson: Yeah, it’s 10 feet. Andrew Riegert: 10 feet, okay. And I didn’t do anything formally. I never applied formally for anything. Aller: And the pad is big enough certainly to do a 1,000 feet because it’s less than what you’re asking for. Andrew Riegert: Oh yes. Yes. Yep. Aller: Any other questions? Undestad: How big is the pad I mean when you did it back in ’98? What were you anticipating then? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Andrew Riegert: Wow. I think I was anticipating somewhere around a 2,000 square foot building. The pad is actually bigger so you’d have room to drive around it so I would say 60 by 80. I haven’t specifically measured it. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much sir. Andrew Riegert: Okay, thanks. Aller: With that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting with regard to this particular property. If anyone wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the request. Seeing no one come forward, oh. Thank you. If you could state your name and address. th Roger Lee: My name is Roger Lee. I live at 600 West 96 Street. I’m Andy’s neighbor. I guess I’m just here to say I’m in support of him being able to build a shed of a couple thousand square foot. And I was not aware that things were changed you know to go to 1,000 square foot. I understand you said you put it in the paper. All the other times we get notified we usually get a postcard in the mail if it’s directly affecting us. I don’t believe that was the case. I mean so I don’t feel I’m obligated to read the paper for everything that’s going to affect me personally so, if you guys had that in your, any of you are zoned Ag where you live, did this affect any of you guys? I mean would you have voted that way if it would have affected your house? Aller: I don’t know because I wasn’t there and I didn’t hear all the arguments at the time. Roger Lee: So, but you understand where I’m coming from. Aller: Sure, I understand your position. Roger Lee: So that’s really all I have. I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be able to build a shed just like the rest of us have. We’re out there. We’re zoned Ag. We knew that when we bought the property. I think it’s going to affect the sales of our property you know because right now you know we always thought we could put a shed up. If you sell your property, you don’t have a shed, the new owner can put up a shed so I mean that’s just, I just don’t think it was, I don’t think we were notified fairly or allowed to have an input on that decision. I guess that’s all I have. Aller: Thank you Mr. Lee. Roger Lee: Yep. Aller: Anyone else wish to come forward and speak either for or against? Alright, seeing. Naomi Carlson: I’m Naomi Carlson, is that my property here that you’re looking at? Aller: No. Colopoulos: No, it’s too soon. Naomi Carlson: Okay, thank you. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this particular item? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Gary Bendzick: I’ll speak. Aller: Okay. th Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick. I live at 731 West 96 Street. When I put up my shed I was told at that time I could put up anything I wanted as long as it met the setbacks. I know that planning has changed that but I look at the land that we’re on and I look at what planning is proposing to do to change this more toward residential. This isn’t residential property. This isn’t property line in town here. Yes we’re in the city limits of Chanhassen but these are large acreage lots. Most of the people across the street from me have horses. These horses aren’t going anywhere. They’re going to have horses there til they die and I just don’t see the sense that this large acreage lots is being basically forced to comply with a more residential area. I’m definitely in favor of this structure, and also the one that’s you know going to be after this one and I think that this is a place where this stuff needs to be allowed just because of the type of land that we have. Thank you. Aller: Mr. Bendzick, before you go. When did you put up your shed? Gary Bendzick: When did I put it up? Aller: Yeah, you indicated you had put your’s up. Gary Bendzick: I believe it was 2004. Aller: 2004, okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing. Comments, questions. Undestad: You’re looking my way huh? You know. Aller: Just looking for your input. Undestad: No, I think I kind of struggle a little bit with this one here. Just somewhat understand why someone buying their large site with the idea of I’m going to put up, you know I’m buying this land because I can do this. You put all of your money into buying your house and your land and you can’t do the structure right away but now you can and things have changed so. But I also I think looking at all the structures that are in there, you know so we can maintain control over the home based businesses that were the concern why we put this together in the first place. On the other hand I’m looking at you know we do this and we’ve got something coming up behind that and something behind that and. Aller: Anyone else? Colopoulos: I’m motivated by two influences here. Number one, I’m curious as to who thought the agricultural rule in 2007 was a good idea. We just heard from 3 residents on this, of similar properties in that area that obviously don’t feel that that was a necessary move. Secondly, you know I take a very dim personal view of limiting anyone’s use of their property unless there’s a very good reason for it. I mean I believe that rules should serve the people and not the other way around. So I’m inclined to be in favor of granting this variance based on what I’ve heard here, in this one particular case. I mean there could be other extenuating circumstances regarding the issues that are following us here this evening after this one issue but based on the merits of what I see here there was clearly intention to build this structure back when the property was purchased at which time there was no inhibiting ordinance or rule that would have restricted the property owner’s ability to do that. And you know the only concern I think we all have 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 going forward is the use of the structure for a potential non-conforming home business, which we all understand can be problematic once they’re, once they become in place. I’m sure there’s a lot of legal fees involved with that with the city attorney and back and forth, but that’s another issue. I don’t think fear of a future violation is enough reason by itself to deny a request. Aller: Well I tend to disagree with the analysis in general because I think that we become part of the community when we purchased the property and one of the things that we’ve done, and this is, the property is guided residential so we’ve got a 2030 plan. That plan, we use experts. We have hearings. It takes a better part of a year, two years to put together and it was the intention at that time I’m sure to start limiting the excessive use on this particular property. That’s not to take away from the intention of a homeowner and there a lot of things I would have liked to have done in my life that I am not able to do and have not been able to do because times change. Rules change but I’m inclined to say that 1,000 feet was decided for a reason and I wasn’t there but that’s the state of the structure that 1,000 is sufficient for purposes of storage of materials. That the community at large deserves a plan so that when I have my heart attack or get in a car accident or decide not to sit on the commission or the panel changes, that property isn’t controlled by politics of particular individuals coming from a certain neighborhood or a certain ideology and I think that’s one of the reasons why we have that long term plan and it’s required for cities to have and why it goes through such an intensive process so I’m tending to say that we shouldn’t deviate from that plan unless it’s really exceptional and because of the fact that he’s got use of his property, a reasonable use, that he’s not being unreasonably restricted and in fact he’s got the ability to create another 1,000 square foot structure so that’s my opinion. Undestad: May I? Aller: Anyone. Undestad: No okay, I mean again it kind of comes back to the 1,000 square feet back when it was determined and by whom and why and Kate if you want to address that but it was more the contractors. Aanenson: Yeah I mean let’s talk about how the city’s evolved. When we did the 2000 comp plan, the 2020 comp plan, now the 2030, we said in that comp plan that we’re not going to be, we’re not preserving agricultural in this community. Yes, there’s going to be horses and we did grant a variance for a property up on, that is agricultural. We approved for a barn up there because it was agricultural and there’s an active farm but there’s very few of those in the city. The other thing that we’ve changed over time since the comp plans and the city’s zoning ordinances, we used to allow when the city was more rural, we used to allow contractor’s yards and these types of business. We also stopped doing that because they’re incompatible. That’s our number one complaint in the city is contractor’s yards. I’m not saying, I’m not accusing anybody of doing this but over time they do become a nuisance. Not everybody in this neighborhood has the ability to have as big a structure so you know we try to find a cap. There was some sort of nexus to say that’s what, in a residential zoning district, the 1,000 square feet and we said there are going to be some areas where it may conflict and we’d look at those on a case by case basis was what you’re looking at now. What is the appropriate basis to make that decision on how is it being used? What’s the character of the neighborhood? Yes, there are structures out there and we felt the 1,000 seemed reasonable for additional storage and we did put in this, if you felt inclined to go somewhere inbetween that range, not everybody in that neighborhood has you know 10,000. Some people have you know slightly over 1,000 so trying to find that range but once they’re up there and they’re built, they’re bigger than the houses there and that’s what we’re trying to say. If we’re mostly going to be residential than what is the long term value of these when our goal says we don’t want to encourage spreading of commercial pockets. Where we have those now we’re trying to work through those issues of incompatibility so we made those decisions and it’s not perfect science. This is a neighborhood that there 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 tends to be a lot more of them. Others of them are sprinkled around through the community so we’re just trying to find that balance. Laurie Hokkanen: Does it get back to the agricultural use, the use of the building? Aanenson: Well that was our intent back then and obviously people have hobbies you know so we’re saying that’s kind of what we were looking at is what’s the rational basis. How big of a storage space do you need for your hobby? What’s the appropriate scale? Is it for charging people to store stuff in there? Is that a rental income? Is that a commercial type use? We’ve got those kind of businesses in the community and that was part of, we had a long protracted discussion on when we went through that zoning ordinances when people are using that to store when you’ve got businesses in town that do cold storage sort of thing so we’re trying to say well what’s the basis for that. For your own personal needs, how much do you need if it’s not a hobby farm and every one, every circumstance you’re seeing here is different so that was the basis for that. Colopoulos: See that’s where I’m having issues with the comprehensive plan. I don’t see it as the inflexible document. I don’t see it as an instrument, as a blunt instrument that just basically says okay this is how we envision our community going forward without exception. There are flexibilities built into it. The agricultural use is one of them. You know and so I think that’s something that needs to be explored a little bit from the perspective of you know Ag because to me the first thing I thought of when I read this was, it was kind of my first reaction was well gee if he was in here proposing to build a 2,500 square foot chicken coop, that’s a conforming agricultural use and I wonder how the neighbors would feel about that so, I don’t know where that 1,000 square foot, you know I just, I just don’t, I guess I don’t understand. You know I understand where the process that led us to, you had to pick a number. I just think that might have been a number that in retrospect might have had a little bit more flexibility built into it and we wouldn’t be having these discussions. Aanenson: Well we looked at all the, we looked at all the agricultural zones in the entire city and where they would be. What the implications of the ordinance would be when we put this together. Again it was a pretty protracted conversation. A series of several meetings where we looked at all those agricultural zonings. Where they’d be. What are the problems. Where the rub points are and. Colopoulos: Were you concerned about limiting the size of the structure so it wouldn’t encourage home based businesses? I mean was that the rationale? Aanenson: That’s one of them. That’s one of them and if someone’s doing it for agricultural purposes, if they’re riding horses or if those sort of things, sure I mean but I think you know at what point do you say if someone’s got 10 acres what’s the basis for continuing storage and what becomes down the road when someone else has another goal for that. Cabinet shop, you know those sort of things which we do have problems with. They become a business. Colopoulos: I was going to say I can do a cabinet shop very easily in 1,000 square foot structure. Aanenson: Right, and we’ve had to litigate those unfortunately so you know I’m just trying to… Aller: See the enforcement issue is still there. Aanenson: And not this particular case but representing the cases that we’ve had in the past and that’s how we came to that basis and whether or not it’s being fairly applied you know, we just came through that as a discussion to say well we’d look at them on a case by case basis. We did put an alternative in 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 here. Somewhere kind of splitting the difference or a range within there to say something, you know if you felt so inclined. Aller: And I’m not saying it’s not inflexible because that’s what the variance is about. Colopoulos: Right, exactly. Aller: That’s why we’re here looking at it. What I am saying is that I’m more inclined to stay with something unless I hear a reason to change, and I’m not hearing that the use is incompatible with 1,000 square feet at this point because I don’t want to be, I guess as the old adage with the camel getting his nose in the tent and the next thing you know you’re outside and he’s sleeping inside so. Where do we go with that? Anybody have any suggestions? Have we looked at the middle road? Tennyson: I have a problem with focusing on the numbers just because even if you take the numbers away it’s still a variance and a variance has a certain threshold to get to and that would be the hardship and it’s not there. In theory for what a variance is supposed to be. Nelson: …I feel that this could end up being sort of a slippery slope and all of a sudden we’re starting to revamp the 1,000 square foot situation. Aller: Okay, would anyone like to make a motion one way or the other or inbetween? Colopoulos: One last note. The applicant did list the various items he intends to store as an explanation of why 1,000 square foot structure was inadequate. I just want to make sure that gets in the record. Aller: And then just as a last, does the report state that that other structure that was non permitted in 2005 would be taken down or is that going to remain? Is that this property? Nelson: It’s the one next door. Aller: Different property? Okay. Nelson: Yep. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion or further discussion. Undestad: I’d be in the further discussion side of things. Hokkanen: Yeah. Undestad: You know I just think that what we’ve got, again sitting through a lot of the 1,000 square feet and the areas we were looking at and the problems we were having with contractors and businesses and, but I think again I look at this and say alright, as a board of appeals you know somebody comes to us and he goes I bought this. I want to do. You know I had plans back before. Granted he, you know somebody didn’t get the notice or didn’t show up or voice concern for that but I think we have to look at this lot in the middle of this neighborhood and you know up and down both sides of the street there’s nothing but outbuildings in there. Hokkanen: Structures. Large structures. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Undestad: You know and again it’s, the primary reason or one of the reasons was you know the home based businesses and to keep that out of there. Well I think we all know the phone rings right away if somebody tries putting in their home based business right away. If it was in a neighborhood where he was the only one in there, you know I might look a little different at it. Right or wrong but I just think in this neighborhood you’ve got 13,000 feet. 6,000 feet. 4,000 feet. You know there’s just, and again what he stated and what he’s trying to do in his facility, you’re probably not going to be able to tear apart cars and do your hobbies and rebuild stuff and store everything in 1,000 square feet. That is a small area but. Aller: Does it make a difference that 8 years ago he build 1,000 structure and then. Undestad: Well he didn’t have a garage. That was a garage he put onto his house. Aller: Well that’s why I’m asking. Undestad: Well but you know you have to put your cars in the garage. Hokkanen: Well I also think he had clear intent with the driveway and the pad to do something, whether he was notified or not or didn’t know about it. Every other home along side of it, and I see his point for resale, everybody else on the street has some kind of out building and now he can’t have something similar. There’s the one that came in without permit that went up. Nobody’s make him take it down. He’s coming in asking for permission to do it properly with a variance. It just seems. Undestad: I think the other thing too is that the applicant needs to understand yeah you’re, the 2030 plan is changing. I mean it’s the change. The densities out there. You know okay, if you spend money putting up your building on here that some day this land will change and you’re going to tear your building down but you know that going into it so. Aller: Then we turn to hardships. I mean I’m hearing that you want to say that that’s a reasonable use as collective so the question would come, does he fit the bill for a variance under the hardship. Hokkanen: Kate, what’s the actual legal words for the variance? I’m not the lawyer on the commission. Tennyson: Practical difficulties. Hokkanen: Practical difficulties? Aanenson: Yeah, the first one is, they’re in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the chapter. Practical difficulties would be topography. Limited space. Is not based on economic consideration alone. The…land owners due to circumstances need the property not created by the landowner. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And then I think those are the ones that would apply on this. The other ones have… Aller: So I think, I don’t believe it fits with the harmony of the plan, however it would not change the character of the neighborhood. So then we move to the others which are, what was it? Created by him. I don’t believe is the case but does it fit the bill for purposes of, is it a hardship not to have an accessory structure to store boats? And other items. Hokkanen: For agricultural use. Aller: Not for agricultural use. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Hokkanen: Right. For not, right. Aller: Does anybody feel one way or another? I mean if we go down the criteria I say it would be 3 against, 2 for. In looking at those criteria, the way I’ve described them but if somebody has a different feeling please. Colopoulos: I think hardship is a subjective determine which is the one I’m struggling with. I mean I’m a boat owner and for 23 years I’ve been storing my boat somewhere other than my property in the winter as a matter of convenience. However if I had a 4 1/2 acre property and wanted to build a shed to store my boat I would consider that to be a reasonable use of my property and would consider it to be an inconvenience. I don’t know if hardship is a strong enough term, okay, but an inconvenience to have to store it on a neighbor’s lot and if that neighbor’s lot had, or excuse me structure happen to be a neighbor of mine right next door I might not feel you know, I may feel more than inconvenienced. At that point I might feel myself ill used somewhat. Now does that raise the, you know my consternation to the level of hardship? I don’t know. I think hardship is a difficult aspiration for this thing, but nonetheless I would tend to call it 2-2 tie okay. That’s how I would. Aller: And abstain. Colopoulos: Your list of criteria there but the other point I would like to ask the Chair, being new to, relatively new to the Planning Commission and having stumbled through more than one motion I’ve made already, could we make a motion conditional upon a guarantee from this owner that would, that could possibly succeed this owner against any commercial use down the road? Aller: I don’t see… Colopoulos: We couldn’t do that. Aller: Ask for or enforce. Colopoulos: We couldn’t ask or enforce that, okay. Aanenson: We did put that as a condition of approval that it goes with the chain of title. Colopoulos: We can do it a condition of approval. Aanenson: You can attach reasonable conditions. I think the challenge is just to make sure it doesn’t happen and we have to in good faith, if you put that in there assume that that’s not going to happen but you certainly can attach reasonable conditions with the variance, and we did put that in if you did want to structure something over the 1,000. We did add that. It’s on page 7. Starting on 5 on page 6, yeah. That would have to get a building permit. Meets the building code. Outdoor storage and yeah. Colopoulos: Well in that case I think I’ll have a lash at a motion here. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: I’ll move the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square foot accessory structure on th the property at 620 West 96 Street conditional upon the structure and property not being used for any home based commercial application. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Hokkanen: That only had one condition on it. Colopoulos: Right. Hokkanen: Okay. Aanenson: Chair, can we get a clarification then because there’s a motion on the floor with one condition, correct? Aller: With the additional condition. Aanenson: Yeah, just one. Colopoulos: Oh I’d like to, could I add, yeah I’d like to add two other conditions. The accessory structure will require a building permit. Must comply with Minnesota State Building Code and the outdoor storage facility must comply with the City Code. Nelson: In addition to the other one? Colopoulos: In addition to the other, to item 4 which I already mentioned. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. So I’d like to amend the motion with those changes. Aller: Okay, I have a motion before me. Undestad: Second. Aller: And a second. Any discussion? I’m not sure I want to go with the full 2,560. Nelson: What if we went 2,000 based on the fact that we have one property with 1,300. We have another property with 2,000. We have one that’s under the 2,560 adjacent from that property. Based on the fact that maybe it doesn’t meet the full hardship but at the same time it’s not going to change the neighborhood by providing a 2,000 square foot accessory building to the property. It would still be within the neighborhood and the feel of the neighborhood but at the same time. It would still at least double what was provided so it would be a reasonable variance. However not a full variance in the fact that, I agree. I don’t know that it necessarily meets the hardship requirement. Aanenson: Mr. Chair again before we get to, we’ve got a motion and a second so I think just so we don’t confuse it I think we should act on your motion since there’s a motion and a second and then see if it goes or no goes and then, just to be clear that we’re following Robert’s Rules here. Aller: Well at this point we’re discussing a motion. Aanenson: You are? Okay. Colopoulos: Right. Aller: There could be a motion to amend the motion there so. Aanenson: Okay. Alright, I’m sorry. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aller: We’re still following the rules but I just want to make sure we’re, but thank you. Colopoulos: Just slow. Aller: Well we’ll be out of here by 11:00. Nelson: I guess at this point I would amend the motion for 2,000. For a variance of 2,000. It would at least provide additional storage but at the, and keep it within the neighborhood feel but at the same time, due to the fact that it didn’t meet the hardship and it would still have those 4 conditions stated in the previous motion. Aller: So we have a motion to amend, unless you wish to. Colopoulos: And I can accept the friendly amendment, correct? Aller: Yes. Colopoulos: Okay. And adopt it. That’s what I choose to do. I’ll adopt a friendly amendment to 2,000. Aller: There’s been a friendly amendment which reduces it to 2,000 with the same conditions. Do we have a re-second? Undestad: Second. Aller: With a second. Any further discussion? Colopoulos moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a variance request for a 1,000 square foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,000 square foot accessory structure, with the following conditions: 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor, except for Aller and Tennyson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Aanenson: Just for clarification then for the audience…super majority so this will automatically then now go to City Council because we didn’t have a super majority. You need the 5 votes to go forward so th this will appear at the City Council meeting with their recommendation on October 8. Okay, so anybody tracking it. Aller: So those of you that are listening please make sure that if you’re interested in that, follow that on the website and at the City Council meeting. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Colopoulos: City Council will render final approval. Aller: Correct. The recommendation will be to pass without a super majority. Moving on to item 2. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 720 WEST 96 STREET VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-904 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TH DISTRICT (A2) LOCATED AT 720 WEST 96 STREET. APPLICANT/OWNER: GREG & TAMMY FALCONER, PLANNING CASE 2012-12. th Aanenson: Thank you. Same neighborhood. This address is 720 West 96 Street and this is Greg and Tammy Falconer, homeowners and applicants. Again this property is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limit. This one has two existing structures on the site and I’ll kind of go through the history here a little bit but in December the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor’s yard on the subject property. Again back in the 80’s, late 70’s contractor yards were permitted on these large lots and again the City has done away with that. When the CUP was permitted there was actually two lots, 710 and 720 and those are the conditions there. They also in your staff report we enumerated the uses that could be permitted with that and all vehicles had to be stored within, it’s our opinion that the expiration of that conditional use because it’s not being used as a conditional use was permitted so in our opinion that contractor’s yard is void because they’re not using the cement mixer, the one bulldozer, as stated in that and it becomes non-conforming. That aside this is how the property looks today. The existing building to the north here and then this addition was done. Again that addition was done prior to the 2007 requirement. I’ll go through that in a little more detail and you can see the outdoor storage and then this is the expansion area but I’ll go through that in a little bit more detail here with the site plan. So you have the original shed. There was a snow load collapse on that one you can kind of see here. I have another picture of that and that’s what the applicant just wants to replace is that portion of the building. So with that the original shed and now rebuilding of that so that would give you the total of 1,800. That would be this total expansion area here so this building in 2000 was constructed. Again that was permitted because we didn’t have the rule in place of the limit of the 1,000 square foot so the total out there then would be, for both structures, would be almost 6,000 square feet for accessory structure. Again going back to what we stated previously in the zoning ordinance is the structure limits to the 1,000 square feet. Again the non-conforming structure is in use. This allows for the non-conformity to continue. Now we’re talking about the existing building so the roof can be repaired on that existing building. It’s the expansion of that building even going beyond that, that expansion of the non-conformity. As we stated earlier that building is not being used as was permitted under the conditional use so in speaking to the city attorney that use is no right now. So again the contractor’s yard is prohibited as the current city ordinance today. I’m not saying that that’s the intended use for that property. I’m just clarifying the history of that. So this is the existing building that wants to be replaced. You can see that the roof, there was a snow collapse out there and this is the building that is intended to be replaced and there’s a new metal building going up. It’s kind of, the word-smithing on that was just a small addition but really this building’s being replaced with a metal shed. The plans are in your packet kind of to match that. Again we’re saying there’s reasonable use of that property with existing building. Certainly this roof could be replaced if they want to. They have that right. You can repair a non- conforming structure by city ordinance and it’s just a continued expansion of that building is where the staff was making that interpretation. Again we talked about the comp plan. This area. Agricultural use does not provide in this area not being used for that type of purpose and then again the expansion, discourage of commercial industrial activities in these areas was our goal when we made those changes. So for those reasons we did recommend denial and certainly the applicant has the right to fix that roof so with that we’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aller: Questions. Colopoulos: In the material there was some reference to the type of structure that would need to be build to fix the roof. Is that in any way related to the size of the structure? I mean I didn’t really follow that whole... Aanenson: No, I think the applicant wants to replace the existing structure with a roof and then put a new structure there and not just replace the square footage but make it slightly bigger so. And those are the plans that are in your packet. Colopoulos: Got it. Okay. Aanenson: Showing those cross section, yeah. Colopoulos: Yeah, not being an architect I didn’t quite… Aller: Okay. No questions? No questions? Okay, the applicant can step forward if they’d like to make a presentation at this time. Please state your name, address for the record. th Tammy Falconer: Tammy Falconer, 720 West 96 Street. th Greg Falconer: Greg Falconer, 720 West 96 Street. Tammy Falconer: And before we get started, do you have the same exact packet that we have? Aller: Yes. Greg Falconer: Page for page? Aanenson: Yes. Greg Falconer: Okay. In that order right? Aanenson: Yes. Greg Falconer: Okay. We have some pictures also for reference for this building. What we’re proposing and the site as it is right now. It was deemed unsafe so it had been torn down already. Aanenson: Yeah, if you put them right on top…show up on the camera. Tammy Falconer: Which one do you want me to put up first? Greg Falconer: Well I think let’s put this up first and does it have to be a certain way? Aanenson: Yep. Greg Falconer: Okay. This is the snow load area right here. You can see there’s still snow on it. This is where my snow collects over here in this area which I’ll be talking about in a little bit. This red line right here actually is where the exterior of the building would be. Everything underneath this would be a covered porch area so I’m not actually building a building from here to here. That is interior space. I’m 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 actually not asking for that amount so what I’m going to do is, as we go on here I’ll probably just have th Tammy put up some of the pictures. Our names are Greg and Tammy Falconer. We live at 720 West 96 Street and a unique part of Chanhassen obviously. We are zoned in A2 which explains why there are over 26 horses within 3 houses any direction of our’s, including 2 horses on our property which I cultivate for. A little history on my proposed building site before I get into details. The site building had been built around 1965 and housed both cows and horses throughout the years. When I moved to the property in 1996 the structure needed repair due to a high volume of water runoff that went through the front barn door and out the back. I had constructed a retaining wall on the north side as well as around the sides to divert the water from entering the building. It’s foundation. It can be seen in the photos. You can see, Tammy will put up another photo here showing the retaining wall in the summertime, if you can see that. And this is what it looks like, she’s got another one up here, so I built this retaining wall to stop the water from basically destroying this building when I moved there and it literally did come out one side, out the other during a rainfall. The snow and rain over the years caused significant damage to the foundation and walls, although the retaining wall did help it still did not solve the problem. In 2011 the building roof collapse due to a heavy snow build-up on the back side. The ice and snow along the side of the building made it impossible for me to remove the heavy snow load and the roof collapsed under the weight. Because I simply can’t get around to that side, show that picture right there again, the show is literally up to here in the wintertime and I have no place to pull it. At that point this is a skating rink down here underneath here because the water has no place to go. Let’s see here. The structure wasn’t worth repairing due to the safety and integrity problems so we tore it down. Not knowing about the new ordinance adopted in 2007 we drew up plans addressing the two functional problems we had with the old structure. Number one being the snow load issue on the south side where it attached to the existing building. The new plan eliminates that problem as you can see. This is where, if I can put up some sort of something right here. I’m not going to get that snow load. The snow load should basically be falling off in this direction over here. The second problem was trying to get the water and snow to shed off the roof in a manageable area so the building wouldn’t sit in the ice and rain time after time. This problem has been so bad that I had to create catch basins along the west side of the building to try and stop the water and ice from entering the foundation and walls. The retaining wall you see in the picture on the right side of the building both stops water infiltrating from the ground runoff and where I made the catch basin where that drain drained into draintile so on the back side of this I had a catch basin down here and draintile. Although these ideas helped they certainly were no fix. My true fix would be to extend the roofline to my walking path where the grade naturally runs and I can better remove the snow melting off the roof. In reading city staff’s report it is clear and evident that a large emphasize has been put on the subject of running a home occupation on the property. 7 pages on the report address this subject matter. I would like to say a few things about this. My wife and I are not currently running a home occupation, and nor do we intend to run a home occupation in the future on our property. Our neighbors would be the first to tell you that we don’t welcome strangers on our property. During the construction of our new house that we built in 2009, we had over $10,000 of property stolen on our property. The last thing we want is strangers on our property. My wife has a staffing service she owns in St. Louis Park where she has an office located there. She’s been there for 14 years. I work for her part time and I also am in a partnership in an epoxy coating business located in Andover, Minnesota. I have business cards that prove that. I have a pickup truck and an enclosed trailer that I use for my work. There would never be a need for anyone to come to our house business related for any reason at all. For the record I had a landscaping service that closed it’s doors in 2005 and I ran it legally under my CUP which was attached to the property at that time. City staff has concerns about the potential for a new homeowner to buy our house and use it for business. It’s next to impossible. We just built this house 3 years ago. We have no intentions of leaving and we certainly aren’t retiring any time soon. We’re both in our 40’s. Since the real subject is about square footage I would like to address that now. I’m asking for a variance to add 364 square feet onto my old structure hard cover space. City staff has informed me twice that my new building proposed considers the hard cover space on the roof itself. I was enlightened by this when I was told, I told staff that a large portion of my added square footage would be open to the elements porch 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 overhang as noted in the plan, which is this area right here. And it would look similar to that right there. City staff have my old structure down for 1,280 square feet. The actual hard cover roof was 1,436 square feet. The interior space proposed on the new building is 1,600 square feet which is from here to here. That’s 1,600 square feet. I’m really asking for 164 square feet more of interior space when it comes right down to it. If the Planning Commission would be so kind to allow another 210 square feet for the porch area, which is right here, that would resolve my ice and water and snow problem altogether. In total I’m asking for 374 square feet to my 1,436 square foot building allowed right now. You have questions I’m sure. Aller: Did I hear you correctly that you put in the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: I did. I move in in 1996. I was not married to Tammy at the time. Aller: And then right now it’s a pad, it’s vacant. Greg Falconer: Yes. It looks just like this right now. Aller: Okay. And then you’re not operating a business in there anymore? Greg Falconer: No. 2005 was the last time I filed for taxes but I actually quit in 2004 and I do know about all the problems that the City had with our street and stuff and I wasn’t going to go down there anymore. I’ve had it with that so I got into another business and I’m very happy in that business. Aller: What’s the use of the other structure? Greg Falconer: This structure over here, I have a shop in my first part there. I have been tinkering with cars and motorcycles and stuff my entire life since I was 13 years old so the structure has 2 boats, 3 of my snowmobiles, snowmobile trailer. I have some cars in there. I’ve got a lot of my hobby stuff in there. That’s what’s in there. Aller: Okay. And then there was another structure that looks like it was built in 2005. Do you know about that structure or? Greg Falconer: 2005? Aller: Am I on the wrong property again? Greg Falconer: Not on my property. Generous: Yeah, I think that was the previous. Aller: Oh it was the previous, yeah. So I was right the first time. Colopoulos: The plan that you’re proposing for the structure, where did you get that plan? Greg Falconer: I wanted something that fit the neighborhood and was unique. Just because it has this upper area shown on here, that is not a two story. The equine building, those are just open space from down below just to add some uniqueness or character to it but what I really thought that it would be good for is to get the snow away from the center. As you can see the sun never touches this area over here and the snow builds up and builds up and builds up and I have to get there. Somehow I have to get up there and get that snow off of there. That’s what all this snow is about down here. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Undestad: You tore the other one down on your own or? Greg Falconer: Yes. Undestad: Were you instructed to do that or you just did that on your own? Greg Falconer: I had the insurance company out and they said if you want to recover any of the items in there, you’d better get to them. I had items in there that, so and it was, it could not be repaired. There was no repairing that roof. Even the insurance people said we don’t want you repairing that roof. The side walls on the top bowed out 1 foot after the collapse. These are horses on my east side. These are Carol Dunsmore’s horses on my west side, which they have a pole barn as well. Undestad: Excuse me, those horses are your neighbors on each side? Greg Falconer: Yes. I’m just showing the horses on both sides of us and then 3 doors up there’s 21 horses so you know I’m saying it does fit the neighborhood still. Colopoulos: Hence the design that you chose for the building, got it. Greg Falconer: Yep. Aller: I’m sorry, I missed the answer on the plans. Were they your plans or did you have an engineer take a look at the property? Greg Falconer: Plans for the new structure? Aller: New structure. Greg Falconer: Yes, we drew up the plans with a contractor. K&H Services. Aller: Yes. Did you talk about having a greater slope on the roof or maintaining the square footage or did you only talk about a larger structure? Greg Falconer: Well I thought about three different options for this. One, making the structure not as deep and then I said to myself I’m not taking that retaining wall out again because that took me 4 or 5 days of my own time to put that in and the footings are deep, down in there and so I said that’s not a viable option for me. I thought about moving the building from, go to the other side there. Shifting the whole building over but this side over here I have the same problem. My water splits through the middle of that building and that’s why I put up the retaining wall. Half of my water goes down this direction and half my water goes down this direction and not from anything I did. That’s how the property was when I got there. It hasn’t been re-graded or anything so I had to add, once I put in this retaining wall, we had to add a lot of soil to here to get it to properly shed and stop going through the middle of the building. But I’m still having problems. As you can see right here, the building literally rotted out on this side from all the snow coming over here and this is my walking path right here. If I could get the snow to come off the roof and land there, all I’d have to do is push it that way. And not to mention this is open. This is open space right here so this can get sunlight. This can melt. It’d be kind of a covered space and maybe it’d be more manageable where I’m not going to have all that snow and water issue down there. Aller: Had you discussed with the contractor any other ways to get the snow out of there or any other configurations? 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Greg Falconer: No, I didn’t really see a need to. I don’t know what you’re referencing. Aller: Well it’s a non-conforming building and by code you would be using the same footprint so I’m just wondering how much of a discussion you had with the contractor and whether you really explored the avenues of keeping that footprint, which could be an end result of the hearing. Greg Falconer: Well the area right here is relatively no grade and in order to get grade I’m not sure what I could possibly do to stop, to stop this issue over here. I can’t, you know I can’t add grade to someplace that’s already graded to where it needs to be. And this area over here it slopes quite a bit faster than say this area right here. Aller: Okay. And then did I hear you say that you added soil already? You actually did grade the property some. Greg Falconer: In front of his retaining wall. We had to when we moved there in 1996 because there was water coming straight through the building. Aller: Okay. Anybody else have questions? Undestad: Yeah, I’ve got one more. Aller: Sure. Undestad: Just with your existing building there of a little over 4,000 square feet for your cars and hobbies and things, what’s the intent for putting this building back in? Greg Falconer: Well I was using this building for storage of a couple of my older snowmobiles. Yeah, and this building right here our goal is to take, once again. You know Tammy is, her hobby is antiques and I don’t want them everywhere in the house where they are right now and it would be great if she could have a place of her own out here. This area right here is my area behind here which is our shop. My shop and this would be her area to do what she wants to do with it. So it’s a his and her’s, but you know I just, we somewhat feel a little bit victimized just because we already have this here, if you know where we’re coming from. So people are like wow, why would you need that much space and whatever? Well, back when I built it, it wasn’t a problem. It wasn’t an issue. It just wasn’t. It was never discussed you know, and I certainly didn’t use this building nearly as much as I use this building because this building really looked similar to that back when I bought the property. That’s the original color my house. Aller: Anything else? Anything further? Greg Falconer: Oh, I did want to talk, I know that you were discussing the points of the variance and stuff like that. Just wanted to go over, I think there’s like 5 points that you need to somewhat meet for a variance and I understand it’s all to interpretation and whatever. The first one on there being the variance shall only be permitted when it’s in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I, myself feel that’s somewhat open to interpretation of how people read things and stuff so I’m not exactly sure why I wouldn’t be in harmony with the general purpose because I guess, in my opinion it’s up to interpretation even if staff says this is what it reads. This is what we meant by it. That may not be what other people, that may not be how other people view it so it is up to interpretation. The next one, which has to do with complying with the zoning ordinance practical difficulties. In this case I actually do have a practical difficulty. I would feel 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 sick to my stomach if I had to put up that exact same building there and have these exact same issues again so therefore I do think that is impractical to put up the same exact structure as that when it’s already failed. The purpose of the variation is not to be based on economic considerations. That is obviously not the case here. We do not have any intentions of running an antique store or anything like that. Like I said we don’t want anybody at our house. We have a very bad taste in our mouth after what happened 3 years ago and we really have no reason to have a business in there. The plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property. Well in this case I certainly didn’t create the water problem. The water problem was there and it was created by nobody else other than God at that point because I certainly didn’t have anything to do with building the structure at that point. And then the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. I think you’ve gone over that already. It certainly is in turn with the rest of the area around there so. And then last one does not pertain so I guess that’s what we wanted to. Oh Tammy would like me just to reiterate the square footage we’re adding on. Staff has us at 1,280 square feet but when I talked to them they said that it was the hard cover of the roof itself. Tammy Falconer: That’s an incorrect number. Greg Falconer: So the hard cover of the roof itself was 1,436 square feet and like we had said before from here to here is 1,600 square feet so that’s 164 square feet that I’m asking for. And then if we add on this overhang right here, I can build this building to right here. It is possible to do that but you know like I said I’d like to get my snow and water out to this area out here where it can drain properly that direction. All in all the expansion would be 374 square feet. Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this particular presentation. Anyone wishing to come forward speaking for or against the request may do so at this time. Roger Lee: It’s me again. Aller: State your name and address for the record please. th Roger Lee: Roger Lee, 600 West 96 Street. Aller: Thank you Mr. Lee. I’m just here to say I’m for it. I mean I see no reason not to be done and all of us again that, not all of us probably out there but I’d say a huge majority of us that live in that area bought the property to be able to build sheds and do our hobbies and do things that we like to do out there so it’s, I don’t understand the 1,000 square feet thing. Not all of us can afford to go over to the carplex over there, whatever they call it on Galpin and you know, they’ve got some huge places there and get to do all their hobbies. I’m sure they don’t get scrutinized on what they’re doing in their sheds and stuff over there so I don’t understand why we’re getting picked on in an area that has always been that way so that’s all I have to say. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against. Gary Bendzick: I’ll speak. Aller: And if you could state your name and address for the record. Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick, 731. I live directly across from Greg and Tammy and if you notice in their picture the beautiful house they constructed several years ago has a real unique look. It’s you know it’s beautiful. It’s something different. Something Greg alluded to that they wanted something different. If you look at the design of their structure, again it has a unique characteristic and it in reality actually 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 softens the look of the pole building behind it. Makes it more attractive than if you had the existing structure on it. I feel that it would be you know the right move to allow the variance to construct a building that would improve the appearance of the property. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no one stepping forward, close the public hearing. Comments from the commissioners. I think this one is more difficult than the last one. Colopoulos: I’m sorry. Aller: I said I think this is more difficult than the last one almost for purposes of, if it goes to, if you give it to him do you want to give him the extra 100 square feet or whatever it’s going to be for that porch but at the same time we have to look at the use. The use is a non-conforming use at this point and so right now I look at it as the homeowner is granted the opportunity to maintain this structure and that’s the gift. And the rest of my analysis is the same as the last one so I. Tennyson: I agree. Aller: I think there are ways to deal with the water issue, which are outside the square footage situation and that they have a footprint that they can deal with. Nelson: I would agree with that. Colopoulos: I don’t know the answer to the water issue. I mean yeah, it’s a possibility. I don’t know that it necessarily would be able to be mitigated as conveniently or as easily as this plan. For that matter I don’t know if this plan would necessarily mitigate it either so I think that’s a whole other question. But I think the merits, you know the one thing I found confusing about this was the difference in what I’m seeing here is the requested variance versus the numbers that I heard from the applicant. The question for staff, this 49, 4940 square foot variance, that starts from, they start over again with once the building is demolished and we’re talking about a reconstruction here. That’s where the total square footage? That number. Aanenson: Yeah, the number we’re disagreeing on is we had the 520 square feet additional, the expansion and they believe it’s 374. Again we went off the building plans and whatever that number, that range of numbers is. I did want to make one other point of clarification. The applicant have not run the business out of that property so as a point of clarification, we made that is null and void now. I mean that would go forward on this because it hasn’t been used so that shouldn’t play into your decision. The operation of a business. Nelson: But Kate I’m correct in thinking that they, the shed that has been removed, they have the ability to rebuild it as is still at this point using that footprint and still the, what would it have been, the 1,280 square feet? Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So that’s I guess, and I think that’s the point they were trying to make. So the difference is they wanted the additional expansion to manage their water runoff and make it more assimilate to the site. Hokkanen: But they don’t need approval for that, to replace that building? Aanenson: That’s correct. Right… Hokkanen: Right. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Colopoulos: Just those few hundred square feet, is that what we’re talking about here? Aanenson: Right and that’s. That’s what we’re saying. They’re saying 374 and again for their issues that they enumerated so. It’s got a different look, different pitch but again that’s to manage their water, correct. Colopoulos: Well without understanding the water problem myself and the best way to solve it, I would yield to the applicant’s analysis of the situation in lieu of any better information. I mean they’ve obviously gone to great trouble with the plans and the diagrams and they live on the property after all and have dealt with the water problems that have existed there in the past so unless we’re prepared to hold them to a higher standard of judgment I don’t think we could supersede the observations they’ve made with an opinion that would be more valid. We don’t know is what it amounts to from our perspective. We don’t know what the best plan for water mitigation is. Aller: But I do know that there was water going through the property when he moved on. I do know that he built a retaining wall. Colopoulos: That’s right. Aller: And I do know that the water problem existed after and has continued to exist so. Colopoulos: And he is now planning to take further corrective measures based on the observations that he’s had as the resident. Aller: Which hadn’t been taken before. Colopoulos: Right, which actions hadn’t been taken before so in other words his plan might work. It might be the best thought out plan that we have in front of us at this point is what I’m saying. It may not be the only solution as you’ve correctly pointed out but I don’t think there’s, I don’t think we have better information in front of us. Undestad: From my side of the table I’d have to agree down here this time around that you know replacing what was there, to put it back in but you know having 4,000 square feet for your hobby and being able to have another 1,280 square feet put back in there for another hobby, and you know I think that’s again, the ability to put the existing structure back in would give him enough. Hokkanen: Well and I agree with Mark. As new construction, new technology, you know hold old was that building before? I mean there’s gutters. There’s all sorts of different ways they should be able to get that water to go, I mean we do it all the time with you know different materials. Different roof. Different, you know not replacing the exact same building, exact same roof line but that would be my recommendation as well. Aller: Any further discussion? Does anyone want to make a motion or take a stab at making a motion? Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Thank you commissioner. Undestad: The Planning Commission, staff recommended Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.All voted in favor, except Colopoulos who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Again, point of clarification Chairman. This did meet the super majority but the applicant still has the right to appeal this to the City Council. Aller: Correct. th Aanenson: And that would, could go forward on October 8. We just need to get it in writing the appeal. Aller: Okay, thank you. And we’re moving forward to item number 3 on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: 6411 BRETTON WAY: REQUEST TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 6411 BRETTON ND WAY (TRACT C, RLS 105 AND OUTLOTS C & D, CURRY FARMS 2 ADDITION). APPLICANT/ OWNER NAOMI CARLSON, PLANNING CASE 2012-13. Aller: We’re going to have the planning staff will make it’s presentation ma’am. Naomi Carlson: Oh, okay. Aller: Then you will make your presentation. Have your opportunity. Then we’ll have a public hearing. Naomi Carlson: Thank you. Aller: You bet. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As you stated this is an appeal of administrative decision. Couple things. Administrative decision, staff sent a letter to Ms. Carlson on July th 30 stating that the lawn care service that she was proposing at 6411 Bretton Way was not permitted in the zoning district and could not occupy the space. However we did also point out that the administrative th procedures that she could follow for that. We followed up with a letter on August 17, which is attached to the staff report stating that this lawn care service was a non-conforming use. We determined that that was an intensification of the use of the property and it was not permitted in the district and they needed to have the business vacate the property. Subsequent to that Naomi Carlson submitted, made an application to appeal this decision. The Planning Commission sits as the Board of Adjustments and they can make that determination. Earlier tonight I handed out a petition signed by 21 property owners within the neighborhood. I put it out for all the planning commissioners, stating that they concur with staff’s decision and want you to affirm that we, it is an intensification of the use and should not go there. They further pointed out that there’s some code compliance issues that are in existence on the property. While 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 that’s not part of this discussion tonight I did want to advise the Planning Commission and the neighbors that we are proceeding through our property maintenance ordinance and our nuisance ordinance to work on cleaning up the site with the property owner so that’s really not part of the discussion tonight and so all their petition and information. The second item I gave to you was a letter from the Story’s regarding their experiences with the property and again supporting staff’s decision that this is an intensification of the use and should not go there and again they request that they be, that the code enforcement issues be brought forward and as I stated we’ve done that already. Attached to their letter are numerous pictures of the property. Aerial views of that and then pictures of some of the parking of vehicles on the site. Parking of trailers on the site and then some of the nuisance and building code issues that they have with the property. Again we’re limiting our discussion tonight to just the intensification of the use and decision that we’ve made. The property is located at 6411 Bretton Way. It’s surrounded on the south and, which is this long building located at the cul-de-sac bubble and Bretton Way goes here. Teton is to the west of this property. This building right here is a single family home also owned by the applicant but it’s not part of the non-conforming use. It is a single family home and that’s what it needs to be maintained as. The city regulations. Any non-conformity, including the lawful use of an occupation of land or premises existing at the time the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, the zoning ordinance, may be continued including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not including expansion and in the realm of use of a property it would be through the intensification of the use of that property and staff has determined that the landscaping business meets the definition of a contractor’s yard and would be intensification of the use of this building and the property and so we’re saying that it’s not permitted and it’s not a continuation of any of the non-conforming use. The purpose of the non-conforming use ordinance is to, the elimination of non-conforming uses and/or the reduction of their impact on adjacent properties. Again allowing an intensification of the use would have a negative impact on the abutting property owners and so we’ve directed that the landscape service be removed from the site. However, non-conforming uses may be replaced if approved by City Council from one non- conforming use to another. However that would be a separate item and also the property owner would have to show that the uses would be in the best interest of the community and would be a less intensive use of the property, and I advised Mrs. Carlson that this would be her next step as she goes forward in the process. There’s only two points that the city is sure of the uses in there. In 1987 when the surrounding land was being subdivided there was some inspection and there were two woodworking businesses, Precision Finishes which was a painting shop and a motorcycle repair business. In 1995 the City inspected the property and again we found those same uses in place so any changes in uses from what was there would have to be approved by City Council and the landscape service was not approved by City Council and as we stated we believe that’s an intensification of the use and should not be permitted. And the reason that it’s an intensification because it wasn’t in existence at the time that these uses became non- conforming. The best we can find is in 1986 that area was rezoned to single family residential with a change to the zoning ordinance. Prior to that it had been zoned R1A. This landscape business does have additional impacts on the surrounding properties. They are parking vehicles outside and they’re parking on the lawn and that’s something that hasn’t been done in the past. The vehicles are being driven away in the morning and returned every evening. This is becoming a daily event, even though in her correspondence she says this is only for the summer period but this business is also, lawn care service has also become snow removal services in the winter so who’s to say that they can’t come in there and use their facilities if they’re there to either repair their equipment or just store it. And previously all the businesses operated completely within the building so, by expanding outside we meet the definition of the contractor’s yard with the parking of the trailers and the equipment. For that reason we think that’s an interpretation of the, intensification of the use and should not be permitted. The property owner, Ms. Carlson is, has appealed our decision and her contention is that it is a continuation of the other uses of the property and the machining manufacturing or contracting business of one nature or another that have occurred over time. However the non-conforming ordinance states that it’s actually the uses that were there. Changes of uses must be approved by City Council. And here’s some pictures again. They were in the applicant’s submitted disc for us but these are the two that showed the outside storage of 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 equipment. On the back side of that building. And finally we’re recommending that the Planning Commission, as a Board of Appeals and Adjustment affirm our determination that this is an intensification of the use, non-conforming use of the property and that they order the business to vacate the premises. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Is the business still there? Generous: Yes. Aller: And when you were there did you see the vehicles stored outside? Generous: I did not when I did my inspection. Aller: Did you have the opportunity to talk to any of the other residents around there that maybe saw you at the property or have called in? Generous: When I visited the property I had Mrs. Carlson and the contractor met with me and I told them about the process and that we really need to have them vacate it though. Aller: Okay. Any further questions? Comments? Questions? Okay. The applicant. If you could state your name. Naomi Carlson: Hi, I’m Naomi Carlson. Aller: Thank you Mrs. Carlson. And your address please. Naomi Carlson: My home address? Aller: Ah yes. Naomi Carlson: 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood, Minnesota, 55331. Aller: Thank you ma’am. Naomi Carlson: Shall I start or do you ask me questions? Aller: No, you can go ahead and tell us why you think the decision is wrong because you’re appealing their decision so if you could let us know what things that you would contest about the things that they determined. Naomi Carlson: Okay. First of all I want to tell you that I know, I recognize that the building needs some fixing up and I am only now recovering from a serious illness which left me unable to go to my job and so I haven’t had the funds to do the fix up but now I can do it. Aller: Mrs. Carlson. Naomi Carlson: Beg your pardon. Aller: We don’t have to hear about the actual physical project. You know whether or not it needs to be fixed up or not. What we’d like to hear about is the types of businesses that you have there and why they 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 aren’t an intensification or more of a burden on the community than the other businesses that you had in before. Naomi Carlson: Okay. First of all I feel like the City of Chanhassen is, or the Planning Commission, whoever, city administration, is using the broadest legal term of contractor’s yard and Greenscapes is not, they’re not a contractor. They are small service. They do lawn care. They’ll do minor things for people if they want it but that’s no their main business. They come in the morning. Carpool in. The boys do, only in the summertime. The help. The employees and then they leave in the morning. Come back at night or late afternoon. Get in their cars and go home. The 3 partners drive their trucks home and I don’t want to get into this thing from Mr. Story. This is going to be forwarded to my attorney tomorrow. There is just so much, so full of untruth’s but now I forgot what I was going to say. Aller: Well let’s talk about the business that was in there before. Naomi Carlson: Okay. There have been, I have owned it for 30 years and when all the spaces are rented there are more cars with trucks for the businesses there than Greenscapes adds to. There are fewer cars and trucks there, with that business than there were if all the spaces were rented. And which they have been and even Ramsey Woodworking had his truck and 3 to 4 people working there at a time and I, I can’t understand why they would have to be the same use. It’s very unlikely that when a space becomes vacant that I’ll be able to get another person with that same business to move in there but they’re not intensifying the use of the property. Let’s see. Aller: During the, it looks like almost 10 years that you had the woodworking in there and other individuals. Naomi Carlson: They were there almost, they were there over 20 years. Aller: Did you receive complaints from your neighbors at all or anything like that? Naomi Carlson: No. No. No. Aller: And so nobody complained about the fact that there were storage of vehicles out? Naomi Carlson: No, no. No. There’s a good reason for the complaints that have started now and it has to do with this and I would ask you to take it with a grain of salt. This one from Gerry Story. This is not my first, although I would just like to say if you’ll allow me to, that I harass them and countless belligerent phone calls, I have no idea. Aller: Ma’am, ma’am, I don’t even have to, I don’t even have to hear that. Naomi Carlson: Okay, okay. That’s good. Aller: We’re here about the businesses. Naomi Carlson: If you’re not going to. Aller: Not personalities. Naomi Carlson: Read this and have it affect your decision then I’ll skip it, okay? Aller: Okay. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Naomi Carlson: Okay. Most of the businesses have been rented, that have rented from me for 30 years, they’ve all had trucks that they would usually leave there at night you know because they are contractors in one way or another in that they don’t do business for free. They’ll sign a contract for somebody like the woodworking to install cabinets in their homes or as the, one of the newest tenants downstairs, he’s restoration contractor but he doesn’t have a yard there and he also is an artist and he will contract for somebody to paint somebody a picture. None of them do it for free so they’re all contractors in one way or another. I know that the City rezoned the property but I’m still on the tax roll as both of the properties commercial industrial and I know that the City would like to have it single family residence but I can’t afford to develop it. I do have like a 3 to 5 year plan because I don’t want to be a landlord the rest of my life now and I had bought this for my retirement which could include selling it and which we tried to do when I was in the hospital. I said to my daughter and her husband, please go and try to get the property sold for me you know and, but the commercial realtors didn’t want to touch it. They said we have properties of our own that we can’t sell. This was about 2 1/2 years ago. Aller: Mrs. Carlson, we’re not looking at the plan. We’re looking at what the use of the property. Naomi Carlson: Okay, you want me to focus, okay. Okay. Aller: How it’s being used and how it’s impacting people. Naomi Carlson: Okay. I think it’s impacting people mostly because there’s no screening. Now can I talk about that? Is that? Aller: Well is the use, is the use more or greater than intensified for the. Naomi Carlson: No. No. Aller: Or that causes the need for the screening? Naomi Carlson: Well I would like to have it screened. I think it would, these 21, I’d liked to have been there whenever they were going around getting this petition signed. None of these people, if I could screen it the way that I want to and with Greenscapes help providing the labor with their strong, husky employees, we could get our trees planted and I chose to do that instead of, I didn’t think I could go through this myself and I wanted to get an attorney but instead I decided I would spend that same money on getting some screening. Some trees, arborvitae or something. I don’t think any of these people would have signed it if they could have driven by there because most of the people that I have ever talked to, they say oh we like the building. It keeps the place, keeps this area rural so I had no idea what these people were told. I mean yeah, the one guy across the street, Greg Bazany and his wife, Bazany. I understand their, why they would sign it and I did talk to him and they have to look right at their driveway is right at the entrance to, the entrance to the building. And with planning, whoever I have to talk to with their permission I would like to change that just a little bit so that the, I could plant trees where his driveway is and then it would just mean the cars going out, a few feet up. Aller: Mrs. Carlson, it’s not about screening. It’s about the use and what kind of uses of the property. Naomi Carlson: Well I thought you were talking about impacting the neighbors. Aller: Well yeah but, and I understand that their screening but now we’re getting a little bit into landscaping and other things. How long did you spend on the property? I know that you’re address is different than the rental address. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Naomi Carlson: Well I go over there on a regular basis contrary to somebody else’s. Aller: And what do you see on the property as far as you personally? Naomi Carlson: I see, I see that I need to spend some money on it and I always have felt bad because I couldn’t plant the trees. I haven’t been, or get the some of the glass replaced but that is first on my list. Aller: And again we’re not talking about repair. We’re talking about the, do you see. Naomi Carlson: Do you see? Aller: Do you see trucks out there parked when you go? Naomi Carlson: Well sometimes because. Aller: Of the businesses there operating. Naomi Carlson: They don’t operate at that business, or Greenscapes which is the business in question. I have been out there several times while they were moving in and I go out there on a regular basis and I, when I do go, I mean I know that it needs some fixing but the trucks they’re on the back side of the building and Mr. Story’s house, never mind. Anyway, it’s not an intensification. They come and go in the mornings. They come in the morning. Get their equipment. Put it on the trailer. Drive out and then the only other main truck that’s there, we have, we’ve talked about it and we’ve relocated where they leave it so that you can’t even see it and they want to be good neighbors and they don’t want to offend any of the other residents. Aller: And so this is from your discussions with the owner of Greenscapes? Naomi Carlson: Yes, and one of them was hoping to be here tonight but I got a call at the last minute that he couldn’t make it so I called the other, one of the other partners who lives closer and he had daddy duty tonight so he couldn’t be here but I wanted them to be able to tell you in their own words that this is not an intensification. Aller: Is everything that you really want to say in the letter that you sent? Naomi Carlson: Well I think so, yeah. Yeah, before I got, before I was feeling okay until Mr. Generous handed me this thing. Aller: Well I don’t want you to be nervous and I do want to hear everything you have to say but it sounds like everything that you wanted to say is in the letter in our packet. Naomi Carlson: It is. It is, yes. Aller: Is there anything different or anything in addition that you wanted to say that is not in the letter? Naomi Carlson: Well in, well yes. Greenscapes or whoever, whoever is renting in the back, and whoever rents that property period, including me as the owner has the right to use that easement, that 14 foot easement up on the hill of my property at any time that they choose irregardless of whether it’s an easement to Mr. Story’s residence or whether it isn’t. They have a right to use it and so, and I have a right 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 to use it which I do because it just makes turning around easier for me and the easement is on my property and on my tax rolls and but that’s part of the I think their problem. Aller: And I think that was in your letter as well. Naomi Carlson: Yeah. Oh I don’t think the easement thing was. In my letter. It was probably in this other one. Aller: Okay, perfect. Anything else? Naomi Carlson: Well I don’t think so. Aller: Okay, thank you very much. Undestad: I’ve got one question real quick. I’m sorry, yes. Just one quick question. Is Greenscapes the only tenant you have in the building now? Naomi Carlson: No. There are 1, 2, 3, 4 others. Undestad: And what do they do? Naomi Carlson: They have all of the, I just had a tenant move, he had a very small place and one of the cars in the pictures was his but Greenscapes will take over that space too so they will have most of the upper. Upper flooring. The upper loft forward after Lake Country Builders. Beyond that. They would have all that except the very end one. Undestad: Four other. Naomi Carlson: There are 1, let’s see, 1, 2, 3, 4. Actually 5. Undestad: Five plus Greenscapes. Naomi Carlson: There’s always been that, yeah. Undestad: And those other 5 businesses are what? What do they do? Naomi Carlson: Well that should have been in your packet but I will tell you. K2 Electric is a Chanhassen residence and, resident and he operates his electrical service from him home but he uses that for storage so they come and go in the morning and evening too. Next to him is Bim Restoration. No yard and he uses that mostly for his artwork. He too conducts his restoration business from his home and he doesn’t have much there in the way of his contracting business. It’s mostly his art. Art place. And then there’s Lake Country Builders. It’s warehouse type for them too. They’re in the front. Their offices are in Excelsior and that’s warehouse for them. They come in the morning and come back at night. You know get what they need and leave. And then there’s, besides Greenscapes way in the back there’s Andrew Clark. Very nice young man who wants to get a woodworking business going that’s part time for him. He has a full time job so, and Custom Charters. He rents space for, to store some of his stuff from Custom Charters. So that’s, and I’ve had it for 30 years and like I say, in the next 3 to 5 years I have plans for personal change and the problem is, as far as developing goes it’s, the neighbors to the north pretty much all the way to Lilac Lane, they don’t, they don’t want to give up any of their property for single family homes. They bought there because that’s what they wanted and I’m sorry that Mr. Story 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 can’t develop his property the way he wants but I’m not really the reason that he can’t so. Any other questions? Undestad: No, thank you. Aller: Okay. With that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting with regard to the Bretton Way request for an appeal of an administrative decision. Those individuals wishing please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Karon Story: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, Robert and Kate. We are Karon and Gerald Story. We live at 6281 Teton Lane. We are the owners of the adjacent property next to 6411 Bretton Way. This shows the back of the building and I will call these doors 1, 2, 3. We have owned our property for the last 21 1/2 years. During the last 21 years, if we had a dollar for every time we heard the phrase grandfathered in we could rival Bill Gates. Recently when Greenscapes landscaping company moved into one room in the back of the building they moved into room 3. They brought with them 4 trucks, 2 commercial trailers, and numerous other vehicles including chemical trucks. This is the chemical truck they bought and parked right by it. Gas apparatus. They’re storing gas in that room. Different mowers. Different repairing things for their lawn mowing service. Chainsaws, wheel barrows which indicated to us that it was much more than just mowing lawns. It’s doing landscaping. They took down their website. They had a website up that said Greenscapes Landscaping Service and we went in there and now it’s under construction. I don’t have that with me right now but they’ve changed it to lawn service we assume for the portion of this meeting and they also. Sarah Harvey: Here’s the main picture on their website shows a landscape design. It’s really hard to see it but that’s the main picture on their website and that’s clearly a landscaping sign that they’ve done that… Karon Story: They took it down. Aller: Just for the record ma’am, could you state your name and address. Sarah Harvey: Oh sorry, Sarah Harvey. Aller: And same address? Sarah Harvey: Same address, yes. Karon Story: So I want to get back to this. I just want to spend a few minutes telling you about this building. The building has been 90% vacant for the last 20 years until the summer of 2011 when a man named Andrew, and I didn’t know his last name. She just said his last name. Started coming to the back upper part of the building that faces our home to Room 1. He started to remodel this room. When we first asked him what he was doing there he told us he was going to live there. We told him, it’s not a livable building. It has no bathroom. Cooking facility. All the building electrical and plumbing codes are under code. It’s a hazard. We called the building and the electrical department and they told him he would have to apply for a permit. At this point he changed his story and said he was going to have a woodworking shop, which still was accelerated use of the building. He made an 8 by 10 room inside this room. It’s right behind the door. It’s a room inside a room. He put a table saw and a pile of wood in this outside room to stage it. And he put this room he put a computer in the room. In the year that he’s been there he has not sawed one piece of wood or touched the wood pile. He comes in for hours on end overnight to this 8 by 10 room and goes on the computer. We have no idea what he’s doing but we just wanted to tell you what the tenants that she has in there. Room 2. A young man came and rented the 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 room next to Andrew. We didn’t know his name. He said he was going to make pottery. He brought in a kiln. However he chose to make pottery at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. He would leave at 4:00 a.m. Come back and do it again. Whatever he was doing, we don’t know but he woke us up constantly. When the Greenscapes Landscaping Company moved in all their vehicles and equipment and blocked the road, which they have several vehicles. I mean they came in with all these vehicles. You have some of the pictures. Even the pottery guy left because he couldn’t take all that traffic so he moved out. When the landscaping company came and took over the property and I went outside and I told them they couldn’t park all those vehicles all over. It was a hazard. The one man made an obscene gesture at me and shouted, we’re grandfathered in and we can do whatever we want. The truth is Naomi Carlson is an absentee land lady that doesn’t care about the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. She has totally neglected all the up keep in the building, disobeying city ordinances. Aller: Ma’am. Ms. Story. I’m going to say the same thing I did to her. Karon Story: Okay. I just wanted to. Aller: Let’s stick to the discussion of the uses themselves and what you’ve seen and I would like to know did you take the pictures? Karon Story: Yes. All of them from my home. Aller: And can you tell us the dates, about the time those pictures were taken. Karon Story: Okay. This was taken. Gerald Story: This one was taken before we came here. Karon Story: Yeah, this is what they’ve got parked today. They did take, although that’s painted on. They did take their signs off their trucks to not make us think that weren’t all. Gerald Story: The magnetic signs. Karon Story: Yeah, that they weren’t all landscaping but. All the rest were taken in the last couple weeks. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to say one thing about today. I do have to show this picture. We took this this morning at 7:30. They’ve been getting their vehicles closer to the building to be less obtrusive I guess but here this truck was parked this morning right by the gas meter. If somebody got in there carelessly and didn’t watch, look how close he is to that gas meter and what he could have done. That’s a hazard. There was a gas leak from this very gas apparatus and at our house about 2 years ago. We called the gas company and we paid to update the pipe to be put into our adjoining properties because the gas line runs right down our road easement into Mrs. Carlson’s property and into our property and I believe into Robert Rabe’s property up on the hill so, you can put that picture back on the property so I can explain. We do want to make one more statement about the absentee landlord and that she doesn’t realize what’s going on. She’s made very few visits to the property. She doesn’t know what we’re going through and the neighbors. Just to give you an example of this, there was water out in the street from December, where was it? December, 2010 to March, 2011. We noticed water running on the street when there wasn’t any snow runoff. We spoke to the adjacent neighbor on the east side, which is. Aller: Mrs. Story, did it have something to do with the use on the building? 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Karon Story: Well I’m just saying she wasn’t there for 3 months to see the water running out and when we called her she took a week to come out so she’s saying she comes to the building, she doesn’t. She doesn’t live there. She doesn’t come there. Aller: Okay. If I could just redirect you to the types of equipment that you see. Karon Story: Okay. Wrap it up. Aller: Well I don’t necessarily need you to wrap up. I want you to be heard but what I need you to address is the intensification of the use of the property. Karon Story: Okay, go ahead. Our daughter will tell you. Sarah Harvey: I am Sarah Harvey. I’d just like to say that the reason that we believe that this is an intensification of the use of the property is because my parents have owned this property for over 21 years and there has never been this type of activity and parking of vehicles and a contractor yard used outside of the building. There have been people that have rented. They’ve driven up the driveway very rarely in the back of the building, mostly in the front of the building but we had taken several aerial shots, you know over the years we’ve looked at the aerial views. You’ll notice there’s very few cars in the front of the building. Most of the time that my parents have owned this property I have lived out there. There’s been very few spaces rented. I can’t recall a time that I’ve known of that the building has been full so we believe this is an intensification of the use of the property. The other impacts that this has to the neighbors is there are children, as you can see. If you zoom down on this picture this is a completely residential neighborhood. There’s a cul-de-sac there where there’s quite frequently children playing in the cul-de-sac in the street and the other impact that this has on the neighborhood is there are trucks. Additional trucks with trailers coming and going out of the neighborhood where there are children playing so that would have an impact on the neighborhood. Karon Story: Waiting for the bus. Sarah Harvey: And waiting for the bus, exactly. Especially at the time of day where they would be coming and going. Karon Story: This would show the empty building too. This is 2010. This is the cul-de-sac. You notice there is just one vehicle down here and a storage thing for the electrical. This is all empty. This has always been empty for 20 years. Sarah Harvey: So I believe what Karon was trying to say with the story about the water is that you had asked Naomi a question. Ms. Carlson a question if she is at the property and there have been times when there has been something that’s gone wrong with the property and gone on for a long period of time and she has not come out to the property so she, as far as my parents know from you know looking out their window, does not come out to the property very frequently. Aller: Thank you. Sarah Harvey: Thank you. Gerry Story: Yeah, I’m Gerry Story. In the last 6 years I’ve been working on our property. Our house is right to the north of Naomi’s building. Right there. Over to the west is a house on her property. Yeah, right there. That’s a house. She rents that out to a young man. I have never talked to him. There’s also some garage under that house and she also rents that to the landscape company and they store their 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 mowers in there and they repair their mowers on there and according to the documentation they cannot extend the commercial building into the house building and they’ve also done that too and I don’t know if you guys were aware of that or not but that’s also done but the last 6 years I’ve been working, adding onto our house. We moved in last year but I’ve been there every day. Every day for 6 years. Maybe I miss a few Sundays here and there but I’ve been there every day. No one has rented the back of the building for those 6 years until last year when Andrew came and started to remodel it. No one’s been in that building basically for 21 years, no one’s rented that building. Her daughter did live there for a couple months for a while and she wasn’t running a business. She actually lived there and that’s against the use also from what I understand. The landscape business is intensification. If no one’s ever been there, if anyone comes it’s an intensification because basically no one’s really ever been to that building so I’m in total agreement with the City to deny her the use and make the landscape company leave. Yeah. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you. Anybody else wants to come forward for or against. Chris May: Hi, I’m Chris May. I own the property at 6400 Teton Avenue. It’s the lower left hand corner on the corner of Bretton and Teton. I’ve owned the property for about 3 years now and when I moved in there I originally thought maybe the property was vacant, maybe waiting for the market to rebound for a potential sale. Occasionally you’d see a couple pick up trucks like you’ve seen where it kind of zooms in the lower hand corner there but my concern is that we not allow her to have that business in there. Basically over the summer what you start to see now is just more and more trailers and trucks. They do come in the morning and leave at night but what happens is, right in the corner of Bretton and Teton there’s also a bus stop with close to 10 to 15 kids all the way up and down the street. Everything, it’s kind of a unique area too where it’s just, it’s all residential homes, the whole area and we have just a small little commercial area here and my concern is with all the children at the corner of the bus stops and with the works showing up at the same time, they have kind of a like a coffee and cigarette pow wow and they’re no more than 50 yards away from the corner in the morning so the kids are you know seeing this. This action. There’s a lot of activity in the mornings with the trucks and the people showing up, and my fear too is if we do allow this or this landscape company come in, what’s to stop her from allowing other landscape companies, and it’s just going to become more and more active. I mean there are kids are riding their bikes back and forth and trailers and trucks. Do we get into Bobcats and large equipment at some point too so I just, I feel more for the future I don’t want to have it turn into something that it’s not designed for. I mean the way that, you know the woodworkers use it right now and stuff too, it’s all confined within the building and it’s almost, I feel bad for the storage because it’s almost like they’re hiding all the equipment behind the building, not to make it so visible to the whole neighborhood and stay under the radar. So it’s just my opinion that we deny her request to allow the landscape company to stay and try to keep the resale value of the neighborhood in a positive direction and that’s all I have to say. Aller: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to come forward. State your name and address for the record. John Kunitz: John Kunitz. I live at 6441 Bretton Way. Aller: Welcome Mr. Kunitz. John Kunitz: Just one house down in the circle there but anyway, next to those. On the other side. Go down. No, that side of the, right there. Right about there. Okay. I actually would have to say that because they keep the trucks and trailers, etc in the back we don’t see them that much from whereas the Story’s would, we don’t but my concern and the reason I signed the petition was that if there was an intensification of use of that land it’s the same as the gentleman that previously spoke. That that cul-de- sac there is kind of a gathering place for the children. There’s usually a basketball hoop up there and all kinds of things going on of that nature and if there were more trucks, trailers etc then there are now 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 coming through there because of the number of children that live on the block, and I have to admit that mine have now gone off to college but many people have just moved into this area with small children. The people that live across the street from us there have 3 small children and that’s a concern I guess. The fact that if there was an intensification. I’m not overly concerned with where it is now but they, I do see them gather because I leave in the morning about 7:30 and I do see them gathering in the front parking lot with the radio on and stuff and the guys getting together and it’s, if there gets to be more of that and with the children in the neighborhood, that’s my concern. Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional comments? Yes sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Daniel Feller: I’m Daniel Feller. I live at 6430 Bretton Way so it’s right across the street from the barn and I pretty much can reiterate what the other two gentlemen before me said. I have the 3 children who play in the cul-de-sac. I walk them up to the bus stop every morning and I can tell you these guys show up. They fly around the corner where there’s 10 kids every morning at the bus stop and then they stand in front of their building, drinking coffee, smoking and swearing and then at 8:00 when we usually bring our 2 younger kids who aren’t in school, we let them play in the front yard, especially in the summer before it got too hot and then they have all this lawn equipment out there as they’re revving it up. Getting it on the trucks. It’s just constant noise so we can’t even enjoy our front yard anymore. In addition to that if you know any time you drive by there, there is always the electric truck. There is always a storage truck and there’s always the custom home truck sitting there that never leaves. They’re there right now. They don’t leave at night. They don’t leave in the day. I’m not really sure what they do there. They’ve been there for years so that’s just kind of like the whole, the whole situation with this property. I moved in in ’99 with my wife and I do remember the previous person who was working there was the old, he restored old motorcycles and everything was inside the building and you, I mean you couldn’t tell. I mean it was you know a really nice situation but everything now starts coming out of the building. Even stuff being stored outside the building so it just seems like it’s become worst as the years go by. That’s all. Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward, I’ll close the public hearing. Discussion. Undestad: I think the answers came out who your tenants are right now. You know the five tenants. It sounds like they’re all satellite warehouse people just storing stuff there. They might pop in. They might not pop in but definitely not the activity that’s caused by multiple employees. Multiple trucks. Traffic. Motors. I mean it’s just, yeah I see this as definitely intensifying the use and compared to you know a 1 or 2 man carpenter shop or any of the 5 businesses that are in there besides Greenscapes right now. Colopoulos: Yeah I think staff’s report says it all in this paragraph on page 5. The previous commercial uses were confined to the building. Did not include the storage of landscaping equipment and supplies. Did not have commercial vehicles being parked on the lawn or trailers stored outside overnight. Did not have vehicles being driven away in the morning and returning in the evening and were businesses that operated within the building. I think that, and staff properly has determined that Greenscapes Landscape is classified as a contractor’s yard and is an intensification of the non-conforming use of the property. I’ve seen nothing here presented tonight that would lead me to reach any other conclusion. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: I’m also hearing the items that are stored and serviced there would definitely meet the contractor’s yard definition and so that business I think would fall into that arena. Colopoulos: The safety issues raised also are concerning as well. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aller: And the absence of complaints in the years prior and then the intensification of bringing on the present complaints and concerns of the neighborhood so. Nelson: I would agree. Aller: I would think that the facts that were brought forward substantially and sufficiently meet the burden. So if I have a motion? Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms staff’s determination that the landscape business, Greenscapes Lawncare is an intensification of a non-conforming use of the property and must vacate the property. Nelson: I will second that. Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hokkanen moved, Nelson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms staff’s determination that the landscape business, Greenscapes Lawncare is an intensification of a non-conforming use of the property at 6411 Bretton Way and must vacate the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: Point of clarification again Chairman. This can be appealed to the City Council. Aller: Yes it can so. Generous: Written. Aanenson: It needs a written appeal. Aller: It may be appealed, a written appeal and it will be heard by the City Council. Aanenson: Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. th Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair. At the September 10 City Council meeting they did approve our last group of PUD’s but for Sunny Slope. Someone from that neighborhood wanted some additional information so that’s the one we have out there hanging yet. We did do a comp plan amendment and a functional re-classification. We’re out for jurisdictional review. We’ve got some approvals back on that. The metes and bounds was tabled. That should be going at next Monday’s City Council meeting and the City Council also approved the Canine Club so, that should be on it’s way so get some commercial expansion. And then can we just talk about future business then? Aller: Future business. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 18, 2012 Aanenson: Well first of all, thank you. Those of you that were able to attend the field trip. Just to let you know they did drop the bebo structure into the trail so that went all the way down the big hole and it’s getting filled up and the road should be repaved. 41 opened by next Monday. On Monday so it’s kind of exciting so yeah, thank you for everybody that got to go. I know it’s hard when it’s an off night and people have other things going on. We tried to juggle because we had 2 other commissions so we’ll kind of rotate those on nights and maybe be our night next time and they adjust their schedule but I think it was good to cross populate ideas and go look at things so I appreciate those of you that were able to make it. Also I have news of that night. We did learn that Commissioner Thomas did have her baby that night so congratulations to her and so she will not be with us for a little while and she’s on, got other duty right nd now so. So we do have applications coming in for the October 2. We did, as we drove by 41 we did kind of look across the street over there to an application for senior housing project. That application is coming forward with a code amendment so the signs are out there now. We’re getting some inquiries from the neighborhood so we’re progressing with that. And then we do have another variance request on that one so it’s, it’s not for a storage shed though so. No. No. And then we do have another subdivision th that’s in too for the October 6 and that’s the Song property and that one did come in so we’re working on that one too so yeah. Aller: Great, lots of activity. Aanenson: Yes, there’s some activity so with that, that’s all I had. Aller: Okay, motion to adjourn. Hokkanen moved, Nelson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36