Loading...
PC Minutes 09-18-2012Chanhassen 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