Loading...
PC 2012 11 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: th Wes Dunsmore 730 West 96 Street th Gary Bendzick 731 West 96 Street 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. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request. It’s Planning Case #2012-12. It’s actually a re-submittal. They came in previously for a variance request. th Greg and Tammy Falconer at 720 West 96 Street are the applicant. The property is located in the central th portion of the city. It’s the northwest corner of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101. 96 Street is a local city street. These are larger lots. Areas approximately 5 acres in size. There’s a big wetland complex that th covers everything on Pioneer Trail but stuff off of 96 Street is upland. The property owners currently have, the applicant is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand by 520 square feet the original 1,280 square foot non-conforming shed. We’re calculating the total area of the proposed shed at 1,800 square feet. They were previously denied a variance on September 18, 2012 and rather than appeal that decision to City Council they revised their building by reducing the structure width to 37 feet with an 8 foot overhang area and are resubmitting this for your review. That 8 foot overhang area became important because the city attorney directed that we look at that as part of the building area under our previous review of a barn which had a large overhang that they could use for storage and for horse shelter and so to be consistent that’s why we’ve included it as part of their request. City ordinance Section 20-74 states that non-conforming uses and structures allows for the non-conformity be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not through expansion and therefore that’s why they are, they would be able to build the same square footage building on site. They just requesting that it be allowed to be expanded. Section 20- 904 of the ordinance limits accessory structures in this zoning category and several others to 1,000 square feet so. Again they’re proposing to reconstruct the shed, which is shown here in yellow but expand it all the way over so basically they’re squaring up the building roof area if you will. Expansion is 520 square feet. Again 200 square feet of that would be for building and 320 square feet of that is for that overhang area which is 8 by 40 feet long. In 2000 the southerly accessory building was built and that was 4,140 square feet. Both structures would total 5,940 square feet if approved and again that’s in excess of what city ordinance requirements are. And this is an aerial view of what they propose. The dashed line would represents the expansion of the building envelope on the site. It should be noted that this is the second, these two accessory structures together are the second largest on West 96th Street immediately for accessory structures. Here’s a picture. This outlines the roof area of what they’re proposing to do. Again Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 they want to sort of square up the roof area and Greg will explain further what they’re problems and concerns were. And it was mostly regarding snow storage and the shadowing that’s created on there. The subject property is guided in our comprehensive plan for residential low density uses. This permits future densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre which is our suburban style density that we have. Agricultural uses are not anticipated or proposed to be preserved in the community. We don’t want to, we’re not going to force anyone out through our development process but it’s something that will, we see continuing in western Carver County which is in the Carver County plan and so eventually we see our whole community developing. And the goal for residential low density is the standard RSF zoning permits 15,000 square foot lots and these larger accessory structures aren’t conducive to that type of use. We did look at providing some alternatives that would meet some of the criteria that the applicant advised us that they’re looking. On the left is the applicant’s proposal. What we looked at is if we did a building that was that wide that could be 28 and 5 and a third feet deep and then it’s 45 feet wide and they get the same, at least roof effect of it. Their concern is that it’s not as long as they’d like it and I’ll let him get into it. The other option would be to go with a 40 by 32 foot wide building and that would be basically taking the existing building and turning it 90 degrees and then add 2 1/2 foot overhangs which are permitted under our ordinance and not count it against the obstruction ordinance and then they would have a 40 foot wide roof area and again they would be able to get the snow to come off outside of the sheltered area on the southerly building. We believe that the, during the 2007 ordinance amendment discussion as indicated that requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on agricultural uses and council also seemed to agree that that was the best way, mechanism for us to allow those increasing in intensity and doing it through a variance process. The property owners currently have a reasonable use of the property and are allowed to replace the 1,280 square foot non-conforming accessory structure without coming through the variance process. This area is guided for residential low density uses and we believe eventually it will redevelop and it is again consistent with the land use in that this area is guided for residential low density uses. Staff is recommending denial of the variance application and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Thanks Bob. Colopoulos: Bob is, you mentioned two alternative plans there. Were those the City’s recommendations? Or alternatives. Generous: Yes. Those are things that we came up with. Colopoulos: That you would consider to be acceptable. Generous: Right. Colopoulos: Okay. Aller: I don’t have any questions. Okay. Applicant, Mr. Falconer and Mrs. Falconer. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. th Greg Falconer: Greg and Tammy Falconer, 720 West 96 Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Greg Falconer: Welcome. I won’t take as much time as I did last time. I appreciate you all being here tonight. I’m sure we can all get through this much quicker than last time. The one thing I did want to point out and I did talk to Kate Aanenson about this is at the top of this sheet, and you did change that on 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 there but at the top of this sheet it does say 4,940 square foot variance. She did change that. She said she was going to change it on here so I don’t know, that doesn’t coincide with what you have but you have it right on there Bob. In the beginning so you know as far as we were concerned the variance was for like 520 square foot is what I was saying. Yeah, right. But it was kind of misleading. Last time we were here somebody mentioned you’re asking for a 4,940 square foot and. Tammy Falconer: Variance. Greg Falconer: Variance and it just raised some questions so I did bring that up with Kate Aanenson. So basically what we’re asking for is an extended shed roof onto our plan. I did change the plan. I brought the interior wall into another 3 feet so basically we’re looking at an 8 foot overhang which is on one of the sheets there. You can see in the plan right here. So anyhow this is 8 foot right now so basically from my old existing building to here is 13 feet so there’s 200 square feet of additional interior space in here and the reason being was the plan right here, this is the old previous submittal. This is the new one I believe right here. This footing right here which also is a column in the building is right in front of the entrance door. There is a small garage door right here and then there’s an entrance door right here. The only reason why I moved the wall out a little bit was so that the door would impede for people walking in right here. If it’s in the old place this wall would be right here. You’d open up the door and run right into the one supporting column so that was my reason for just bringing it out a little bit further than the old building. So basically what we’re asking for is 200 square feet of interior space, which is a very small portion all things considered. The rest of this would all be open air. You would see this from the outside. This would just be a long shed roof right here as depicted in that last picture right here. So you would literally see all this so it’s open air. The reason why we’re trying to do this is because obviously in the original picture that you saw up there the roof had collapsed, which is this picture right here. This is the area where it collapsed. The snow builds up heavily in this area. This faces north right here so this never sees any sun as you can see the amount of snow that collects you know here and here so on a regular basis I have to try to get the snow off of here. Now in the new plan we would be doing a metal roof which is just like this one and the metal roof would shed snow off in front of the buildings which collects similar to what you see here but also in front of my other building and it can be a real, real serious problem with metal roofs. That being said I did have an engineer look at these plans. Last time we didn’t have any supporting documentation to what we were talking about and I know some of you had expressed concerns in your discussion after I had sat down and said you know that we really don’t have anything to base this on so I did hire an engineer firm and I would be glad, Tammy will hand you a copy for each of you to look at. It’s fairly simple. I told him not to write anything lengthy on there because I know that this, this is pretty self explanatory and what he had to say in there was that my building, the way that I proposed it is in a favorable, it’s favorable for shedding off the snow and the water to an area that is manageable and I have another picture here and the reason why I took this picture today was to show you, without being on our property it’s very hard for you all to tell where our water goes and where it drains to so I took this picture today. As you can see this is our retaining wall right here that I built in 1996. Half my water goes down this side inbetween my neighbor’s building and mine. The other portion comes down here and flows out through my parking lot back this direction so what I am trying to do is get my water and snow over into this area right here so that it can properly drain away from my building. We have had issues with this water collecting in here and soaking the ground which is clay soil. The clay soil is not conducive for footings. This original building was going up and down by 4 or 5 inches and in the winter time this door basically doesn’t work because my frost footings aren’t even deep enough in the existing building which were built to code and the building is going up and down. So if I can get my water and my snow away from this area I’m not going to have those issues. One other thing. Tammy Falconer: It’s a safety issue. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: One other thing I need to mention and Greg Havlik put that in there, is there is an egress issue with the snow runoff of the existing building. It does impede the entrance into this door and can be a safety issue and he brought that up when he was out at my property. So, let me see where I’m at here. The City did come out, Bob was out with a, was that a city engineer? Generous: It was Alyson Fauske. Greg Falconer: Okay, and Alyson came out. I met her and Bob had presented his proposal for maybe some options for me. Tammy Falconer: You want to talk about each option and how it won’t work? Greg Falconer: Yeah. The option, and I took pictures of this too. This would be the front of the building right here where we, my old building used to come right to here. As you can see this was filled up with drainage rock and a pretty extensive drainage system that I had in the front and I put draintile that came around and dumped out over on this side over here. The interesting thing about it is, if we pull the building back to here, which this is about where the building would be 13 feet back, and we went with one of the options. This entire area is open to filling up with water and has no place to go and once again I say we’re in clay soil. It does not drain properly. This fills up with enough water. It’s actually 988 cubic feet of area that could fill up with 7,410 gallons of water and I just did that math you know by the area of this right here. The option of removing the retaining wall and pulling it back to here would cost me about $6,000. There are footings underneath here. The entire area of this retaining wall at any one area could be as much as 3 feet deep down into the soil. Another view of that as well from the other angle. This is where the proposed building, the option was. You can see this area here is completely contained and water could not drain out and I’d have a bigger issue here than I had before with standing water and building basically an ice rink or whatever else that little deal. Another view of that. Put the camera on the ground. This is where the building floor would be. This is how high my retaining wall is. I’m not sure how this can be a viable option when it obviously has, the water has no place to go. One other issue, my electrical line which is dead right now is in this corner right here. I’d have to relocate my underground electrical lines again which are in the corner of the building right there. So I guess you know that’s the evidence that I have for our water issue and our snow problems and Greg Havlik is, has also verified that in his letter there. One other thing I want to say about the comprehensive plan, and I know that you know we need to work off of some basis but you know the comprehensive plan is an open ended document that needs to be revisited on a regular basis and I understand that we have to have a motivation to go someplace and I respect that and I do. In our situation this street has been here a long time. Three doors down from me they have over 20,000 square feet of building. Pole barns which is never mentioned on here because they do have 10 acres but there’s over 20,000 square feet of building 3 doors down from me. There’s 3 homes with steel structures like mine on there and I would like to somehow, some way build this building again which I am going to build it one way or another I’m going to build the structure. I would like to do it correctly if I could and I would like to do that with the overhang on there and get my water and snow to shed to the proper area and not have a safety egress issue which the engineer has defined. So that being said I would like to take some questions if you have some so that I can answer anything that you might have. Aller: Mr. Falconer, did HavTek get an opportunity to, I mean you presented your option to HavTek, did you present the other options to HavTek or did he, why didn’t he send us something saying that they wouldn’t work? Greg Falconer: It was, when Greg was at the house I told him the option of this and that and he looked at me and he says you’ve got to be kidding me. Those were his exact words. You’ve got to be kidding me. And the reason why he said that was, where does this water go? It’s self explanatory. He literally looked 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 at me and said you’ve got to be kidding me. I’m just telling you what he said. I’m not trying to you know…I’m just saying that he just said you’ve got to be kidding. It’s not an option. It just simply isn’t an option. I mean anybody can see, if I have a, if I have a wall right here which is in front of my structure, where is this water going? It’s undeniable. Aller: And this structure was there originally, correct? The one that has collapsed and come down. Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And that was the result of the snow piling up on top? Greg Falconer: Correct. Aller: Did your building, the second building cause a lot of that snow to pile up? That was built afterwards by you. Greg Falconer: Yeah, correct but that building also, this building also before I put this retaining wall had water flowing through this door and out the other side and that obviously was an issue so it was taking a beating as it was and so I put up this retaining wall and the, you know the structure itself has been going up and down regardless of whether this building was here or not. The structure’s been going up and down because this area over here is very, very, very wet. Aller: And you put in the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: Yes, in 1996. Undestad: Can you put that picture of that? Greg Falconer: Yeah, which one do you want? Undestad: There. So where did all the water go that went between the building and the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: This, you can see this is drainage rock right there. Before this, I’ve got a drainage trough in here. Well it was made out of rubber and it went up the side walls and then I had a piece of draintile that started off at a high point over here, came around and as it got over to this side over here it exited out the side between this wall and the existing and so I collected all of that water and exited out this side, which is the reason why you see it’s free standing right now. Once I took my building down we took all the drainage rock out of here and put it on the parking lot. Undestad: So wouldn’t it actually help if you eliminated some of that slab and add more rock in there to move that water around? Greg Falconer: Well where’s. Undestad: Instead of having it all into just a little 3 or 4 foot area. If you had that slab out of there and put one of the city options on here you’d have more area in there that you put your rock in there and get your water to draintile around the other sides and things. It’s what comes off your roof on that building, off the rain, you know it’d be the same. Yeah. Greg Falconer: Well here’s the height of my retaining wall and the building would be back here. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Undestad: Right. And if you took that slab out of there, now you’ve just got more dirt in there and you can do more in the landscaping. Greg Falconer: This is 13 feet from here to here. This is this high and has to be because you can see this, yeah I don’t know if you’re seeing the elevations here. Undestad: Sure. Greg Falconer: This is my elevation right here in the yard. Undestad: Could you do something on the foundation on that north side and just bring the masonry walls up higher to create another retaining wall in there? Greg Falconer: Like I said you know, this retaining wall here, you know if like I said in a perfect world yeah it’d be great. Remove the whole thing and put it all over back in here and get rid of it all together. You’re talking about many, many tons of dirt or rock or whatever else and rebuilding it. Like I say you’re looking at about $6,000. Undestad: I’m not saying get rid of it. I’m just saying your north wall of your new barn, your new shed, if that was masonry up to an elevation the same height as your retaining wall, you could fill that whole thing in with dirt. Landscaping. Greg Falconer: I don’t want to fill this in with dirt. I’m just saying. I don’t see, I don’t see why I would have this 13 feet from here to here all dirt. I mean people are going to look at it and say what is that? Undestad: Landscaping. Greg Falconer: I’ve been a landscaper 16 years, I’ve never seen anything like that. Ever. Undestad: I’m just talking out loud see what some options are. Greg Falconer: I know. Undestad: And then that 13 feet, is that just looking at this first option. Greg Falconer: Yeah well basically both of them pull it back. Undestad: Well it looks like the 40 by 32 with the 2 1/2 foot overhang doesn’t come back that far. Greg Falconer: Yeah, can you put that other one up Bob? Undestad: So the 40 by 32 doesn’t come back the 13 feet like the other one. Generous: There’s an 8 foot difference between that 32 foot option and their 40 foot option. So that’s the first part of it and then it’s a separation to the north of that. Undestad: Right, I’m just assuming that the picture he showed me was the middle option of how much of your old slab would disappear. Am I right? 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yeah. Well this is just, this is. This is the 13 foot mark right here. On the other option, Bob on the other one if you could show that on there. The 40 by 32. The right one. What is the setback on that one? Generous: That would be 8 feet short of the existing building. Greg Falconer: 8 feet short, yeah so 13 and 8 foot. Undestad: Then one more question on your door. If that 200 square feet, you said you kind of pulled it out because of that door. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Undestad: Could you just shift that door over a little bit? Greg Falconer: Yes. That certainly is an option. Undestad: Okay, I have no more questions. Aller: Okay, anything further? Hokkanen: Well I have a question back to moving the door over. If you move the door over 3 feet, is that an option? 3 feet to the left on this diagram. Greg Falconer: Yes. Hokkanen: And you could still be within the number, I’m confused with which one we’re looking at now. Back to the proposed city’s, would that work on the 40 by 32? Undestad: Well I think you’re, moving the door is. Hokkanen: On their’s, okay. Undestad: Their applicant’s proposal but I was adding 200 square feet to the interior space. Hokkanen: …okay. Undestad: If they move the door then maybe they can go back to the regular square footage… Hokkanen: Regular square footage, right. Okay. That’s what I wanted to clarify. Okay. Colopoulos: Mr. Falconer, Mrs. Falconer, would you characterize your engineer’s recommendation as one that was designed to optimize water mitigation? Greg Falconer: Yes. Colopoulos: Which is really what you hired them for? To try to come up with a plan. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That is what I’m hiring…my water problems. I’m not here to build a bigger pole barn. I want to be done with the water and snow issues and obviously I, you know by pulling my wall back even further I’m demonstrating that I really don’t care about 200 square feet. 200 square 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 feet is, isn’t even what you see inside of here. You know I can rebuild this building but I don’t want to build it with the same issues, especially with the metal roof that I have. The metal roof is going to cause an incredible amount of problems if I rebuild it just the way it is. And you know like he says in there, there’s an egress issue with the snow dumping off into the door that is right here. Tammy Falconer: Well you can already see, when this gets icy it’s not a lot of fun. We’re out there everyday and falling on your tailbone and what not, it’s not for just oh we didn’t get out there and shovel. This is happening on a consistent basis. Greg Falconer: But this is relatively relaxed. I’m talking about snow from here to here after a major snowstorm and up to here to the peak of this roof. It’s not just a little bit of snow and my neighbors deal with the same, with the same issues. You know like I say, all I’m trying to do is get the snow and water over to the manageable area over here so it can evacuate properly. Keep this drier and stop my frost footings from going up and down. Like I say this building would go up and down by 5 inches. This would go up enough to cause this door not to work again. Aller: Do you expect to use the same footings for the new structure? Greg Falconer: No. Aller: So you’ll be putting in new footings? Greg Falconer: Yeah, got to put in deeper footings. Aller: And what have you been told with regard to the metal roof and a regular roof, why you would have a different amount of water or moisture at the end of the day? I mean whether it slides off early or whether it melts off, you’re going to have the same amount of snowfall. Greg Falconer: Yeah. As my neighbor is probably going to attest to, does anybody here own a steel building? I just want to ask that, okay. So you know what I’m talking about. Once it dumps off, if you don’t get onto that right away this is already snow that is probably half melted or whatever else and that’s the reason why it’s coming off but once it hits the ground and you don’t get to it right away, it freezes to complete ice snow. You can’t take a regular shovel into it. You don’t remove it like that. That’s why once it starts piling up here and keeps coming off the roof, half of it will go this direction. Half of it will go that direction and it’s almost impossible to get rid of at that point. Aller: And you built the larger structure, which is to my understanding is the second largest in the area, with a metal roof too? Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And what are you doing now with that snow? That’s been happening all along. Greg Falconer: That is correct and I get on that as far as we can and I have a skid steer that I put on a tooth bucket and on many, many occasions you sit there and bang on it and bang on it until you can get back into your building. Aller: And you’d have to do that regardless of what structure you’ve got coming in. You’re going to have to continue to do that. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: I’m going to have to continue to do that over here so I don’t have the ice build up that we’ve been having over here on this side. Aller: Well what would change with the other, the green roof? Greg Falconer: Get everything over here to a manageable area where I can, in one of these pictures, I don’t know if, I don’t know if I have it but in one of these pictures my sidewalk right now ends right here and it’s a paver sidewalk going from the house all the way down to this area right here. Once I get my pavers down to this area here where all the snow and water dumps off I can scoop it up and push it right on down and get rid of it. That’s basically what I do here. I run along side of the building and chisel and chisel and chisel until I can get back in my building doors. Aller: Is there a reason you can’t do that now? Say the building wasn’t there, what’s stopping you from putting your pavers in and running down there to clean up whatever snow falls there? Greg Falconer: Well this is grass down into here right now and there’s edging right over to here and I stopped the pavers right here because I just did this in the last 3 weeks. Because I don’t want to put my pavers down here if I’m going to be building this building and ripping out the footings and stuff. I’ll just damage all my pavers right now but yeah, if I can get it to dump out on my sidewalk over here, manageable. Aller: Anything else? Any questions? Alright. Undestad: Just one more. So back to your, how you’ve got that laid out. If you move that door, you’d be okay with pushing the wall back in so you’re back to the same square footage? Greg Falconer: Same square footage, as long as I can get my overhang on there. Undestad: And that would put the overhang. Greg Falconer: At 13 feet. Undestad: If you eliminate the 200 square feet. Greg Falconer: That’s correct. Aller: How large would the overhang be? Undestad: 13. Greg Falconer: 13 feet overhang. Right now I have it at 8 foot. Aller: And the purpose of the overhang is to still square off the building, correct? The roof. Greg Falconer: No. It’s to mitigate the water and ice and snow. Aller: By taking away that angle perception… Greg Falconer: Yes, that is correct. Aller: So we’re on the same page. I’m just. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yep. Aller: You want the same roof line. Greg Falconer: Yes. Yep. Aller: And it doesn’t matter for roofline purposes whether or not it’s open or closed. Greg Falconer: No it doesn’t and the reason why you know I pulled this wall, you know in my original plan I had this wall out over here. I pulled this back closer and talked with the City about that and they said well unfortunately your roof overhang constitutes square footage of a building so a carport in other words would constitute square footage of a building. So thus the problem we’re having. It’s unfortunate that this, I mean constitutes square footage because really. Aller: Well when you look at, when you’re looking at water though I can certainly understand it because it’s not a tree canopy which is going to absorb water. Whether it’s, whether it’s a carport or a closed in section you’re still block. Greg Falconer: Shedding water. Aller: And shedding water and collecting water so. Greg Falconer: Yeah and you know, and you know the hard surface of this piece of property, well I have, there’s basically 5 acres here so it’s not like we have a hard surface issue going on. Undestad: Can I ask one more question here while we’re looking at that plan and this plan. We’re kind of just always stayed away from the east side of the building over there but. Greg Falconer: The east side? Yes because that area here on that side over here, I take all her water. I take all her water from this side and my water runs right next to the building right here. Undestad: So you know if you moved the building to the west then you’ve got more grass. More… Greg Falconer: Yeah it’s not possible over there to do it because the building blocks that off and just, if I pull the building over here I don’t have any way of pushing the water away from this building right here. It runs right along side that edge which is along here. Undestad: Only on the other side of the retaining wall. Greg Falconer: Yeah, well no. Well yeah, on the other side of the retaining wall, yes. Undestad: Yeah. Greg Falconer: Yeah it’s not feasible to move the building over because that’s a drainage, it’s a, it’s already almost too low over there. Undestad: That retaining wall goes all the way back to the bigger building? Greg Falconer: No, this retaining wall actually stops, there’s a picture of it right here. Stops right here so it comes around and wraps back into the building right here. So right now the water comes down here 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 and hits this retaining wall just a tiny bit and then it drains in a drainage trough all the way back by the existing building. That can be an issue over there already. I’ve had water infiltrate into the large building in heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy rains. No matter what you do it comes in. On the large side. It only happens probably once every 2 years but I have had water inside of that building. Aller: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Greg Falconer: Alright, thank you. Tammy Falconer: Thank you. Aller: Okay, we’re going to open up the public portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak for or behalf please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record sir. th Wes Dunsmore: Wes Dunsmore, 730 West 96 Street. I live just to the west of Greg and Tammy. Aller: Welcome. Wes Dunsmore: And thank you for having us here. One thing I don’t know if Greg pointed out, if you guys saw where his old building was, that’s in the northwest corner. There is absolutely no sunlight in there so nothing gets a chance to melt but if he got to extend that roofline that snow would all be out further and water seems to be the main issue here. Some years ago the City of Chanhassen applied and received a grant and they put in city drain field on that street because the soils are so bad. Every single house we have a city drain field for liquids only. That’s the kind of soil we’re in that clay. It goes nowhere’s. Winter before last with all that snow, I have a 40 by 63 pole barn. The north side of my building raised by 4 inches and as I stand here it’s still 4 inches taller and the trees aren’t growing on it. It’s just one of those things that happen. It is just all clay. You have to get rid of that water. I have snow coming off of my buildings but they come off on the side just like on Greg’s big one. It melts a little bit but in that corner that he’s talking about, the reason he wants to cover that, again you can’t get that and that stuff gets hard. During the day you might be able to move some of the other but I too use a skidster to get rid of all of that snow. It’s a lot of work. Couple years ago I made a mistake of leaving my truck alongside the pole barn. I was out of town for a day or two. The snow came down. 2 days hand digging that out. Just between the building and my truck 3 feet away so I think what they’re looking for would make that place look a lot better. It would make a lot of sense. You’ve got to get that water out of there. It’s just heavy ground on there so I’m in favor of him with a variance. I have no problems with that. I think it would be better. I think what he’s trying to do is to build it right the first time rather than go back again. It’s a lot cheaper to do it right the first time then to go back and try and put a band aid on it and that’s just kind of a waste I think of everybody’s time on there but I understand where you’re coming from but I just want to voice my opinion on that. I think what he’s trying to do is get that water out of there and just improve the neighborhood so I think that’s all I need to say. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Okay, please state your name and address for the record sir. th Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick, 731 West 96. I just would like to reiterate a couple of things. Obviously the water is a huge issue. The last meeting a comment was made after the public was closed that said we’ll just up a gutter. Unfortunately we don’t live in Arizona. Unless a gutter faces straight south in Minnesota it does not work in the winter. I think the water issue in the summer is minor in their situation. It’s not a fun thing to deal with but the ice build-up in there, to be able to remove the snow in the winter, once there’s a base of ice there his equipment isn’t going to remove that without any problems. I’ve been in the building business for 40 years. There’s one sure fire method of solving a problem and that’s eliminate the problem. If that roof is extended so that everything dumps outside his big building 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 and he can push it straight to the south, it’s going to be much easier situation to clean up. It’s going to be safer and just an all around better situation. I have a little bit of a hard, you know disagreement with the hard surface issue. My lot, I could have a roof over my entire lot, it wouldn’t make one bit of difference with my ground water. When I did my addition, first addition 20 years ago I believe when we moved in, or 18 years ago, whatever, we were in a normal or above normal wet year. The top of my footings was level with water. Inside the structure. I had to hold the plumbing pipes down with 2 by 4’s for inspection and until I put in two additional sump pumps I couldn’t even control it. I love droughts. My grass is green as can be this year and I don’t water it. Maybe once, we watered it twice this year because of fertilizing and it was supposed to rain but we have such a high water problem in our area, as Wes stated with our city drain field, it’s just a tough situation to handle water. If we were in a soil that allowed that easier, there’d be other solutions but like I said before the sure fire way to eliminate the problem, or to get rid of the problem is to eliminate it. By extending this roof out and getting everything to dump out where he has some positive flow for drainage is only going to make it a lot better situation. And the other thing I just want to comment on, on the comprehensive plan. When I did my remodel 5 years ago when I did my final renovation I was told that we’re in an area, you know this was by planning and I don’t remember which, whether it was Sharmeen or Alyson or who told me that but we’re an area that will always be large lots. There’s really nothing else that can be done with it. The last meeting Kate had said that you know the plan calls for medium density housing in there. I’d like to know where it would ever be. The only way you could ever increase the number of houses in there would be to bulldoze the entire street down and possibly put a U in there. We’re bordered on both sides by wetlands which you know they say you can remove them but I don’t know how you would. Again the water issue with where I’m in, not in wetlands is I could consider wetland so the idea that this is going to be medium density housing someday, I just don’t buy that. I can’t see that ever happening. I don’t know what developer would want to come in and buy the whole street, all you know 15 or 18 properties and then bulldoze them all down and try to maybe get 3 or 4 more houses in there because I just don’t, I just don’t see economically that that would make any sense so to me the 1,000 square foot thing in a city lot in town, it’s wonderful. It should have always been that way. Where you’re in a large acreage lots, R2, A2, 1,000 square foot structure to me is ridiculous because it just doesn’t make any sense for the area. So I am in favor of their being granted a variance to build their structure correctly and I feel that if they do that it only blends in with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Aller: Thanks. Any further comments any individual wishes to come forward. Okay, I’m going to close the public hearing at this time seeing no one come forward. Comments. Questions. Colopoulos: Well the last time the Falconer’s came before the Planning Commission I made a motion to grant their variance on the assumption that they knew better than we did at that time the measures that needed to be taken to mitigate their water issue and the reconstruction of this building. And since that time they’ve come back and modified the plan and an engineer certification that also agrees with their plan to optimize their water problem. Situation. So if anything I’m more encouraged than I was before that this, that my original decision to support a motion to grant them the variance was a correct one. Now since that time I’ve also gone to read the, read the comprehensive plan and you know I have to say, I haven’t read all 489 pages of it but I have, but there was one quote, one section that leaped out at me in the introduction. It says encourage low density, low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a matter that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods with similar quality. That’s a pretty wide, broad statement. You know so the interpretation that we’re all moving in the direction of medium density housing, you know smaller unit parcels, etc, I don’t think the comprehensive plan is quite that set in that direction. I mean it seems to have, it seems to bounce around from you know different definitions depending upon whether you’re talking about the need for, that the community has for high density housing, medium density housing and low density housing. I mean the comprehensive plan tries to make a go of addressing all 3 of those needs in it’s own manner so I don’t see the comprehensive plan 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 being an immoveable force that’s trying to eventually bulldoze your neighborhood and crush into smaller sections. I don’t think that’s an issue here. And so what is? You know what is the purpose going forward here? I’ve also taken a closer look at 2058 which, section of the code with conditions variances are granted and gee that language is, is well subjective shall we say in several areas to say the least. I mean it can be interpreted a number of ways. You could read that to say that for example it says, yeah I’ll have to put on my glasses for this one. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met and then it lists 6 things. Now if you read that one way you’d think well, then you’ve got to meet all of those requirements before your variance could be granted. But if it meant that wouldn’t it say a variance may be granted only if all of the following conditions or criteria are met. So I take that to read something different. That if you meet any one of those you might have grounds for the variance being granted and in your case, in the case of the Falconer’s rather I think that you’ve probably met 3 of the 6. The only reason why I’m not granting more, or seeing more of that is because I’m not sure reading 1 and 2, you know such wide, subjective statements as in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter in one variance, well. You know that could mean a lot of different things. And then the same thing, practical difficulties. Again that could be subject to interpretations. But the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Boy if that isn’t a water problem situation I don’t know what is so from my humble opinion, I don’t know how the rest of the commission, I’m sure I’ll find in a minute how some of them think I’m dead wrong, but from my perspective number 4 is good enough for me to grant the variance. Subject to this plan. Before I make a motion I want to make sure that it has a fair chance of being seconded anyway so I’ll let the others speak their minds first. Undestad: I think the only comment I have to your, to what you’ve just said there was, you know the water problem not caused by the landowner. I think in this instance that larger building plopped up behind everything else is the water problem right there. I mean before that was there I’m sure the water all just took off and kept on going. Greg Falconer: It didn’t though. Undestad: I’m not, and I’m not saying that that’s a reason. The other thing that I think I’m looking at here is that, you know it looks like the City provided a couple of you know what I think good options in there that neither one of those were really talked about in there so I’m kind of leaning the other way. I think there were a couple of good options and even if the City came in and did the 1,280 square feet with the 200, or 2 1/2 foot overhangs, that gets all the water and snow away from the building and gives them the same square footage they have in there. And looking at any of these designs it looks like a bunch of the retaining wall’s going to come out anyway so, I don’t know. I’m guessing there’ll be a lot of grading done around that new structure when it’s put in. Aller: Comments. Questions. Tennyson: Yeah, the problem I have with the proposal is that in general a variance isn’t used when there are alternatives. That’s where I’m stuck. That there are other things that can be done and it seems like the applicant is chasing a variance in order to get exactly what they were trying to do. They want their building with the retaining wall, with the other building, with no change to the landscaping, the grading. It’s just, it’s not changing anything. It’s a replacement. I don’t know if it fixes the problem. I don’t think it’s to me it’s not exactly about the water. It’s about the Findings of Fact and what a variance is for and when there are alternatives we don’t usually use a variance. Thomas: Yep, I guess I appreciate the findings from Greg over, your engineer and what not. I guess I would say I wish that I appreciate that you said that he said that you know the proposals, the actions from the City are you know a joke or not going to be what could help your property out. It just sort of would have been nice to have seen it as opposed to just, you know hearsay is harder to interpret than an actual 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 like here’s the proposal that we have that you guys proposed. Here’s what the City has proposed. Here is why each of these options aren’t going to work for your property. It would have been just a little bit you know, especially when the city engineer went out there and I know Alyson does a good job of finding out where water moves and the engineering process so you know I’m surprised that the other options that we have aren’t going to work. Greg Falconer: Well let it be noted that Alyson had no comment. Thomas: No comment. Greg Falconer: No comment when she was there. Thomas: On? Greg Falconer: The city engineer. Thomas: No I know Alyson. Yeah, I’m well aware. Bob, what does that mean? Greg Falconer: If you don’t have a comment, why don’t you have a comment? Tammy Falconer: You have no opinion either way. Greg Falconer: No opinion. You can’t offer an opinion. Why? Thomas: I don’t think the City’s trying to hide something but I mean you know I mean, I’m just trying to understand. I mean you’re saying like she just didn’t have an. Greg Falconer: She didn’t have an opinion for the option. Tammy Falconer: Right. Greg Falconer: Because when she looked at the property she realized the option wasn’t a viable option. Aller: Well I’m not sure that that’s the case but I’m also not sure that it’s the City’s job to go out and do your engineering work. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That’s why I never invited them out in the first place. Aller: So my problem with the engineering work is that you were given options and HavTek I’m sure is familiar with going through options and taking a look at them and it looks to me in reading this that he’s using your re-build and saying it will work. It’s not that he created this to fix a water problem. Greg Falconer: Can I say one thing to that? HavTek never had these options because I didn’t have those options. Tammy Falconer: Right, we’re just seeing this for the first time. Greg Falconer: We’re just seeing this for the first time. Tammy Falconer: These options right here. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: These options weren’t given to me. Bob just came up and said what do you think about pulling the building back. That’s all he said. I never had these drawings. Tammy Falconer: We never had these drawings. Hokkanen: Well if it gets to me. Thomas: Go ahead Lisa. Hokkanen: I’m on the fence on this one. I could go either way because one I don’t, I haven’t seen enough about these alternatives that that will solve their problem. It’s staff I’m sure did that but I haven’t seen anything saying that they’re not going to solve your problem. I’m also, there was one other thing. Now I’ve got, I didn’t know you just didn’t see these. That you just got these options. Oh, the HavTek, I would have liked to have seen them say these won’t work. I mean we don’t really. Tammy Falconer: We didn’t have these. Hokkanen: I know. Greg Falconer: Like I say we didn’t have them so I couldn’t give them to Greg. HavTek. Hokkanen: Because I understand, coming from my, from a real estate point of view with your home and your land and all that and with the comprehensive plan, I agree with Bill on that part of it but I also want to make sure if there’s another option versus the variance that is viable, and also you’ve said you’re a landscaper by business for, and Mark kept saying you know fill that in with dirt. I mean you could landscape. I mean I know what Mark was meaning from a, but look you could fill it in. I mean we do it with houses. Grading so the water comes off and goes down, you know with draintile, with whatever, I think that’s what he was getting at and if there was a way I’m sure you would try and do it that way but I haven’t seen a proposal to see if that’s possible from a landscaping point of view if that is, you know if we did one of the alternatives and some landscaping and some draintile, I guess I feel like we’re still missing parts of this in order to get me off the fence. Oops, sorry. But do you see what I’m saying? So I just feel like we need a little bit more, either from the City or the no comment, I don’t understand that if that’s, I don’t understand Alyson on that but. Colopoulos: I think your explanation may have, Mr. Chair may have indicated that it’s not the City’s purview to offer engineering plan which in that case defers to the only expert testimony that’s been provided which is my position. I mean what is the harm in granting this variance on the basis of that report? It wouldn’t compromise the variance rules if we yielded to that recommendation being the optimization plan for water mitigation. Look at 20-58, Subsection 4, there you go. You know that would be the clean interpretation and it would let us move on to other things. Aller: Well I don’t read this the same way. I don’t read this as saying it’s going to cure anything. It’s got load requirements for snow so the roof won’t collapse again. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: I also see it as a professional landscaper who’s built a retaining wall which channels water as well as a building which is the second largest building in the area and obviously the water was there when he built it so how can we say in looking at this that it wasn’t caused by the homeowner. We’re allowing. Colopoulos: The other building? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Aller: We’re allowing under the code for a rebuild so he’s actually ending up with more than he would have had if we didn’t have that in the code. And now he’s asking for a variance from that, which is an addition so I would strictly construe things when we’re saying we want more, and I think that’s what a variance is for. It’s to say do we not have a reasonable use of our property and here he’s got more use of his property than others so it’s more than reasonable and the question is why should we give him extra? Especially when there are other options. Tennyson: And I think as far as those other options it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s exactly what was proposed by the City. The two that were in the packet. It’s just that there may be other alternatives in general. Greg Falconer: But then I have to go through a variance again because of that? I mean how many times am I going to have to do this? See what I’m saying? Aller: Sir, this was before us once and there could have been an appeal to the City Council already. Greg Falconer: I can still appeal to the City Council and the reason why I didn’t was because I would prefer your, I would prefer your signature on this than the City Council because I really think that we could get this right in this area here. You know and I have, I have done everything I possibly can do. I’ve hired an engineer who said, you can read it, Greg’s roofline is favorable to obviously what he’s trying to do here. I mean. Aller: But what I’m not hearing is I’ve looked at every option and this is the option. Greg Falconer: Right. Aller: Which is what I would expect an engineer to do. To say this is the best option. Here’s my, here are your options. 1, 2. What this says to me is I’ve looked at Mr. Falconer’s option and it will, it will work but it doesn’t mean that it’s not one of many which will work. Greg Falconer: Okay, so he comes up with another option and then I have to come back for a variance again? Hokkanen: Maybe if you come up with one that’s within. Aller: If it’s within that square footage. Greg Falconer: When does common sense take over with the situation here? What other option is there? I mean let’s just look at this for what it is. There is no option. I mean I saw this option here from somebody who doesn’t even know anything about it and he says here’s an option for you. Why is Bob a person to give options? What’s his background? Is he a landscaper? A hydrologist? You see what I’m saying? You guys just throw stuff out but you won’t listen to me. I’m just trying to do what’s right for my building. You keep saying well geez we can’t do this. Can’t do that. There’s got to be some more options. What is wrong with the option that I gave you? What’s wrong with it? Aller: It doesn’t in my opinion fit the requirements for a variance. Undestad: What Bob has done, with all his years of experience out here is to try to help you get some more ideas and go for other options that would come through here and have a better chance of saying okay, that fits. That works. We’re not here just to say no Greg, Tammy. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Aller: And that’s only if you’re asking for a variance. You have the absolute right to rebuild what was there. Greg Falconer: Yeah but I rebuild the building and I’ve have the same problems that I had with the building. Aller: Well and then we’ll differ because my opinion is, and I’m not a hydrologist either but my common sense look at it is that that second building and the retaining wall and a lot of the other things that were done to the property created that problem. Greg Falconer: So the fact that our buildings are going up and down from our moisture problems that we’re having, that doesn’t say anything? Aller: It says that you have a water problem. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Isn’t that what I’m trying to avoid? Water problems. Aller: Maybe you want to jack it up and put hydraulic vehicles in there and they won’t go up and down. I don’t know. Greg Falconer: Well I do know. I’ve got a certification from an engineer that says this is favorable. This will work. Aller: It says your roof collapsed due to, probably due to excessive snow load. Your proposed rebuild will alter the roof, favorable alter the roof slopes and snow loadings. So that to me means your roof is not going to collapse. Thomas: But it doesn’t talk about water, does it? It just talks about snow load. Aller: Then it shows that the configuration will provide safety egress function of the pedestrian door but there’s no requirement that you have a door there. Greg Falconer: Wait a minute, they’re talking about my existing door into my existing building. It’s an egress issue. It’s a safety violation as far as I’m concerned. I build it so it ends up in front of the door? It’s an egress issue. Aller: But that could be corrected with snow removal. Greg Falconer: Pardon me? Aller: That’s correctable with snow removal. It’s not an issue if you shovel. Greg Falconer: Can I hire you to come out and make sure that the snow is gone? Aller: I didn’t build the building. Greg Falconer: I’m saying that, it doesn’t even make sense what you’re saying. He just testified that we have major snow problems on steel roofs. I’m telling you the same thing. I have the snow come off the roof and it ends up in front of that door. Ices up. I can’t get in the door. I can’t get out the door. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Undestad: We’re not here to, you know we’re not telling you that it’s right or wrong, your snow slides off a metal roof. Greg Falconer: So you’re going to tell me to build it and I’m going to have an egress problem. Undestad: No. Greg Falconer: I’m going to build the building just the way it is right now and I’ll have an egress problem. A safety issue. Originally you know before the variance I never had any options for the first variance hearing. They never offered me any options back then. Never even came out to my property to take a look at what I was getting. Just kind of said well I’ll see you there. I guess that was it. Aller: Anything further? Undestad: No. Aller: Anybody want to make a motion? Undestad: I’ll make the motion. Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except Colopoulos and Hokkanen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Aller: Again any person who is aggrieved of a decision may appeal a variance decision in writing within 4 days of the decision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 16, 2012. COMMISSION PRSENTATIONS. Chairman Aller: Commission Kelsey Nelson has moved from Chanhassen to Chaska. Is no longer a resident of Chanhassen and she therefore will be unable to complete her term and has submitted her resignation to this commission. Her contributions will be missed and we wish her well. Those individuals out there who wish to apply for a position with the Planning Commission should look to do so in the spring when those positions become available and notice will be provided in the Chan Villager and elsewhere. Anything further? Any motions to adjourn? Thomas moved, Colopoulos 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 8:10 p.m. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2012 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19