Loading...
PC 2013 05 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2013 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Marty Schutrop 540 Lakota Lane Bruce Geske 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard th Chuck & Sandy Worm 760 West 96 Street th Gary Benziek 731 West 96 Street PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK GARDENS: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT 96-2 TO ALLOW FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PER SECTION 20-233(C) OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) AND LOCATED AT 850 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. APPLICANT: SKIP COOK, PLANNING CASE 2013-10. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. Bluff Creek Gardens is in for an amendment to it’s Interim Use Permit because the property owner would like to change the property line of the development. Under City Code such changes require an amendment to any approvals that they have. The applicant is Skip Cook. Again the reason for the amendment is due to the lot line adjustments. They’re reducing part of the property out of the development. The site is located at the northwest corner of Highway 101 and Flying Cloud Drive. It’s a unique shaped property. The new lot line will be an adjustment of this lot line will come down 101 so that they’ll have direct frontage onto the highway. Right now they have an easement agreement to access their property. This area of the garden center will be coming out of the project. The existing Interim Use Permit divided the site into four areas. Area 1 is the retail and storage building site. Area 2 is the growth area where they have the nursery stock out in that. Area 3 is for hard object stock such as rock and they have their bins for the mulch and things like that. And then Area 4 was an overflow area as part of the overall development and it was for overflow landscaping materials that they had and some equipment. This area has very little use within the development. We are recommending approval of the amendment to allow the lot line change subject to the existing restated and amended Interim Use Permit which is attached to the project and the additional conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any of the commissioners have any questions? I received the packet. The packet’s a part of the record. I don’t have any questions. Aanenson: Chairman Aller, if I may, just for some background. It’s in the staff report but I want to make sure for our new commissioners, we had made a code amendment a couple years ago where we had conditional uses, interim uses, in certain circumstances people can subdivide if it’s in agricultural zone and it may have an interim use on it and because the State law allows you to subdivide a piece of Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 property, but we wanted to make sure if it had an interim use or a conditional use on it, or even a lot line moving that we would notify on that because it may affect the terms of the interim use so this would have gone through the staff administratively but because of that new ordinance put in place, and really it’s a control point where someone may sell off a portion of it. They moved a property line. Sell off a portion of that property that would affect the underlying conditions of that interim use. For an example on this one, there’s a lot of ways the lot line could have moved that would affect the functionality of that so we just want to make sure that it worked for the interim use and it doesn’t change the terms and conditions of that so with that we are supporting that as Mr. Generous stated but I just wanted to make sure for the new planning commissioners that was really the rational basis behind that. Aller: Great. My understanding is that the landscape materials will be moved from Area 4 to 1 and 3. Generous: And to the garden center site that remains after the approvals. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Weick: One question. Area 4 becomes just part of the small triangle then that the home is on, correct? Generous: Right, part of the single family home. Weick: So that becomes one lot. Generous: One lot. Weick: Okay. Generous: In the future this area is guided for office use so we think when urban services become available it will intensify the uses down on the property and they’ll work together. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Alright. Any additional comments? Questions? Okay, is the applicant here? Would like to make any comments. Presentation. Anything. Skip Cook: Not at this point. I’m here but… Aller: We don’t have any real questions based on the report so. Skip Cook: Okay. Aller: With that, okay. I’ll entertain a motion or, any comments or questions? Oh, what I need to do is open a public hearing so at this point, since we have public here, let’s open a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so. Everyone else must have read the report as well. Seeing no one come forward, public hearing is closed. Comments. Questions. Motions. I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Okay. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Hokkanen: I move the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Interim Use Permit 96-2 to allow for a lot line adjustment subject to the amended and re-stated Interim Use Permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Comments or questions. Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Interim Use Permit 96-2 to allow for a lot line adjustment subject to the amended and restated Interim Use Permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK WOODS: REQUEST TO REZONE 3.57 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE STREET AND USE OF A NECK LOT; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7331 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: MARTIN SCHUTROP, PLANNING CASE 2013-09. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Bluff Creek Woods is, the applicant is Marty Schutrop. It’s a proposed development located at 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard. It’s on the east side of Highway 41, just across from Tanadoona Drive. The property’s approximately 3 acres in size. The request is to rezone the property from Agricultural Estate District to Single Family Residential District. Subdivision approval with variances for the use of a neck lot and the construction of a private street and a Conditional Use Permit to allow development within Bluff Creek Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to divide the property into 3 buildable lots. The existing house would remain on the middle lot and then there’d be 2 new building sites. The most southerly portion of the site would be put into an outlot status. As part of this the Bluff Creek Overlay District is being redefined. Under the existing mapping system that we have it shows that the whole property is within the primary zone. However we know that there is actually developable area and as part of the process the City is permitted with the developer to look at the site and determine what would be an appropriate delineation for that primary zone. The three green lots on here include 2 of the new building sites and existing single family home in the middle I should note that I did hand out earlier, put in front of you an email that I received from Hal Newel. He’s opposed to this development because of the addition of traffic onto Highway 41. It’s hard to tell from his comment whether he thought that there would be two new driveways going on there or if he’s aware that we’re forcing them to have a common access point out onto Highway 41 and that’s part of the reason for the variance because of the private street serving more than one property. Aller: Just for the record we have received and read the email. Generous: Okay. All the lots comply with the minimum requirements in the City’s zoning ordinance. The smallest one is 33,000 square feet which is about three-quarters of an acre and the other two are over one acre in size. The most northerly, Lot 3 is the neck lot and that’s any lot that does not have it’s full frontage on a public street. We wait until it gets back to the lot width hits 100 feet and then we have a valid lot and that’s where we establish the setback area from. As part of their application they did show a plan for a private street. However staff in going out to the site and reviewing it was concerned that the access to Lot 1 would require additional grading and take out some significant trees that are on the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Highway 41 side of the development so what we are recommending is that at the current turn around, hammer head area, that they extend that, you follow that alignment and extend that for access into this property. That provides a turn around area right in this corner and it also will reduce the amount of grading that they’ll need to do to build a house on this one site. The use of the private street and the creation of the neck lot are not mere inconveniences. It’s due to the unique nature of this property because of the angle of Highway 41, the most northerly lot becomes narrower at the street frontage but then it widens up as you go back through the wetlands and the natural area behind it. Otherwise all the lot lines are following, are at 90 degree angles to the roadway which is what our ordinance prefers that development follow. The most southerly part is the Outlot A. This will be part of the primary zone. There is a drainage swale system through here that runoff comes to the site and into the wetland complex behind it which is the head waters for the Bluff Creek. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare and it meets the intent of the subdivision and zoning ordinance as well as the Comprehensive Plan. We believe it’s justified in this instance for those two criteria. As part of the realignment of the Bluff Creek Overlay District this orange area on the schematic shows what we will be defined as the primary zone boundary. What’s required under the ordinance is then a 40 foot setback from that boundary for structures. What that will do is force Lot 1 and Lot 3 to move the housing sites from where they put them preliminarily. However as you can see there’s significant amount of buildable area in both of those lots. Grading of the site will be, as each individual lot comes in they’ll have their own grading plan reviewed. We looked at some initial things to see that they could comply with our driveway slope ordinance and look at the house placement for sewer and water services but they will have their own plan. And utility services provided off of Highway 41. The applicant has provided a tree inventory and tree removal plan. Their landscaping plan basically exceeds city requirements so they’re not required to provide any additional landscaping unless they remove additional trees on the Highway 41 side as part of the construction of the development. This area is served, there’s a neighborhood park just to the southeast of this and then to the north you have a regional park. As the driveway crosses a regional trail that the City recently completed so it is adequately served by parks and recreation facilities. The development will be paying two new fees for the new lots as they’re built so staff is recommending approval of the subdivision, rezoning subdivision with variances and conditional use permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation attached to the report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: What was the Department of Transportation’s response on traffic? Generous: They did not have a concern. They just said any alterations within their right-of-way will need a permit. Aller: Okay. So to go through that permit process as we move forward. Generous: Yeah, for any alterations that they do within the right-of-way. Aller: And then the Outlot A is non-buildable? Generous: Non-buildable. If it’s not donated to the City then it will be under a conservation easement so. Aller: And then the water usage and runoff will be looked at as each building is located, placed and built. Fauske: That’s correct. Aller: Okay. And then we have the one home location which will stay where it is, and then as a condition, if we approve this, those properties will move forward out of those areas that you had 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 delineated as being green so they’ll have to move those buildings from the spot they originally requested forward and the setback would be increased. Generous: Right. They would have to comply with the setback based on the primary zone boundary. Aller: I don’t have any further questions. Anyone? Weick: I do. Can you go back to the streets and access? I just don’t understand what’s existing and what’s new that’s being proposed in this. Aanenson: Bob make sure you show what’s a trail up there too. Generous: Yeah, this is the trail system that actually continues to the north. It’s not shown on this plan. This is the existing driveway. Weick: Driveway, okay. Generous: And it goes to service. Fauske: That’s the trail. Generous: Or, the trail yeah comes right here but this is the driveway and it goes up to the house to the north of it. And this is the existing driveway that services the house on this property and so this is the turn around area that’s in place and that’s where we recommend that they align the driveway for the property to the south through there. Weick: Okay. Okay. Got it. That’s all I had. Aller: Great. Hokkanen: I have a couple questions. So the existing house is staying in the middle, so two new houses are going to be one on each side of the existing home that’s there. Generous: That’s correct. Hokkanen: Correct, so it’s not 3 buildable lots. It’s 2 plus an existing. Generous: Yes. Hokkanen: And then did the Department of Transportation have any say or across 41, when you’re coming south on 41 to turn left into these, into this private road, is there a, like when you come and you turn into Lake Lucy off of 41. You turn into Longacres off of 41, they have a, what is that? You know what I’m talking about? Fauske: A bypass. Hokkanen: Bypass lane, yes. And up by the church they do as well. And there was only one home here before. Do they have any concerns about that with more, because you can’t have individual, they have a home that was on 41 that had to change their driveway into Hillside Court a couple years ago from 41. Is there any concern with the Department of Transportation on that? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Fauske: The Department of Transportation did not provide any comments on limiting the access. The point with this particular development is they’re not proposing to construct a new access point onto Highway 41. It’s the addition of two homes that will ultimately access at that location. With regards to, in the past your example on Hillside Court, in that example there was a development that could provide an acceptable and appropriate access from a grading standpoint and from an access standpoint for that particular property. In this case, given the site constraints with the wetlands and the trees, the tree cover on the site, there really is no other appropriate place to provide access and so that’s why we’re supporting the proposed access as shown. Hokkanen: Thank you. Aller: Okay, good question. Okay, applicant wishing to step forward and make a. Marty Schutrop: The only comment I have is that. Aller: Could you please step up to the podium. Thank you. Marty Schutrop: The only comment is, actually there’s two people that access point. Aanenson: I was going to say that too. Marty Schutrop: Not just one currently so. And also we pretty much have complied with the Outlot A as far as, I mean that’s a huge amount of land that we’ve pretty much donated to the City to make the other two lots appropriately you know acceptable so. Aller: Right. Marty Schutrop: We’ve you know conformed to everything the City has asked on that property so. Aller: And of course there’ll be hardscape requirements when it goes to permit that will have to be fulfilled. Marty Schutrop: Yeah, and I have to comply with all those obviously. Aller: Right, and it sounds like your overstory trees and landscaping right now are fine. Marty Schutrop: Yeah, and we’re taking a minimal, minimal amount of trees out of the property just because of how we laid out the lots too so. Aller: Great, thank you. With that I’ll open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against the project, please step forward at this time. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you think. Bruce Geske: Hi, I’m Bruce Geske. I’m the neighbor right to the north and we only have a couple of concerns. One being the drainage on the Lot 3. It’s the driveway appears to be coming in over a current culvert that’s there and the drainage was never put in properly to begin with so the water has always been on our neighbor’s property and we’re concerned that with the new driveway would we now have a lake in our yard. That’s our first concern. Our second concern obviously is the trail system in Chan. There’s been several near misses because people are confused of our turnoff being the entrance for Longacres and they come flying in there and several families have had to scramble into the grass to avoid accidents so that would be our only two concerns. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Aller: Great. Bruce Geske: Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Comments on? Fauske: With the comment with regards to drainage, we could certainly look at, and I apologize I don’t have a great scale to provide you some comfort but I’m more than willing to talk to you after the meeting if you’re available to go over your concerns and show you the plan and we can talk a little bit more about that and insure that the existing drainage patterns are met and create either an equal or better drainage pattern that currently exists. And then with regards to the pedestrian, the pedestrian concerns, we can certainly talk to our parks and rec director about that to see if there’s something that can be done. You know trail. See if we have some ideas. If the residents have some ideas, work with them to see if there’s something that can be done to help alleviate that situation. Aller: Great. I don’t, because it’s a current access, that’s really not going to be changed or modified correct? Fauske: Correct. Aller: So really that’s a concern that should be addressed in any event, whether this moves forward or not so we’d appreciate if that could be followed up on. Fauske: Certainly. Aanenson: If I may I think one of the things too the Fire Marshal mentioned too is addressing on that so if we clearly put the address on a post or something on that end, even though they’re private we still have addressing for that and that would identify those 3, or those 4 houses. Their address there and try to clarify what the purposes are. What’s the road right-of-way. What’s the trail and what those addresses are. Aller: How are they addressed now? Are they addressed on a post now or? Aanenson: I’m not sure how they’re addressed now. We can find that out. Aller: Maybe if there’s nothing there, maybe that is the problem. Aanenson: Correct. Right. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward, speaking for or against? Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. I think it’s great that the concern, the water concern is being met. I know that the City has been in the past and will continue to be concerned about drainage so I don’t really foresee a problem with that. Hokkanen: Actually it is a problem over there. I’ve seen it personally so if they will address that issue when it comes up. It never affected anybody before. Aller: But now we’ll be building a pad Hokkanen: Right. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Aller: So there’ll be some modification over there. It’ll be a good opportunity to look at the drainage. Hokkanen: And even though the signage doesn’t affect anything with the moving forward of this, there is some confusion with the trail there and that driveway so maybe just, you know after the park and rec can address that with a trail sign too or something. Aller: Warning sign of some sort. Hokkanen: Yeah, something. Aller: Further comments, questions. Would anyone like to make a motion? Withrow: I will. I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezoning preliminary plat with variances and a conditional use permit subject to conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: I’ll second it. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion, questions or comments? Withrow moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat with Variances and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.At the entrance off Hazeltine Boulevard, a monument sign displaying all four address numbers shall be installed. In addition, at the start of the individual driveways to each home, an address sign shall also be installed. Submit proposed signage to Fire Marshal for approval. 2.Park fees shall be collected in full for the two new homes at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. 3.Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right-of-way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/. 4.Outlot A and the conservation easement shall be coincidental with the primary zone for the Bluff Creek Overlay District and shall be recorded with the final plat. The primary zone shall extend to a point 18 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 3. 5.A structure setback of 40 feet is required from the primary zone. No disturbance shall occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. The proposed grading plans shall be amended to show how the lots may be developed. 6.The Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone and the corresponding setback shall be shown on all plan sheets. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 7.Signs clearly demarcating the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be installed at all major angle points and at the intersection of lot lines with the primary zone boundary. Site plans shall be amended to show the placement of the signs. 8.In keeping with the purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect natural resources, the proposed driveway for Lot 1 shall share a common drive with Lot 2 until the existing hammerhead. 9.The applicant shall provide drainage calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions. 10.Preservation of natural vegetation shall be allowed as a volume and rate control tool. Water quality best management practices are still required. This shall meet the requirements of the NPDES permit for drainage to an impaired water or NURP plus enhanced treatment, whichever is stricter. 11.SWMP charges shall be waived in lieu of in-perpetuity protection of land through a combination of conservation easement and the dedication of Outlot A to the City. 12.Water that now heads west and then south along the trail and away from this area will be directed northwest into the depression north of the shared entrance. An adequate outlet must be provided for this area and the existing drainage patterns must be maintained. 13.Prior to grading, each lot shall install tree protection fencing at the edge of grading limits. 14.Building permit surveys for each lot shall be required to show all inventoried trees within the grading limits and 10 feet beyond and their removal or preservation status. 15.The developer must revise the Existing Conditions plan to show the power pole, utility box, propane tank and shed. 16.Ground shot elevations must be shown on the Existing Conditions plan to verify that a topographic survey was completed. 17.The developer shall work with staff to realign the access to Lot 1. 18.The developer must provide proof that the common portion of the driveway to Lots 1 and 2 meets a 7-ton design. 19.If the existing driveway does not meet the 7-ton design standard, the developer must install the 7-ton driveway and submit an escrow with the final plat to ensure that the driveway meets this specification. 20.The driveway easement shall be recorded as a separate document; all references to the driveway easement shall be removed from the preliminary plat. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 21.The grading plan must be revised so that the grades do not exceed 3H:1V. 22.A permit is required from MnDOT to install the sewer and water services as well as grading in the right-of-way. 23.The City must be notified a minimum of 72 hours before the sewer and water services are to be installed. 24.The sewer and water service connections must be inspected and approved by the City. 25.The developer must submit an escrow for the necessary boulevard restoration associated with the service installation. 26.Lots 1 and 3 will be subject to the City sewer and water hook-up charges and the Metropolitan Council Sanitary Access Charge. These fees shall be collected in accordance with the City Code at the rate in effect at the time. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 760 WEST 96 STREET: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-904(A)(1) OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TH DISTRICT (A-2) AND LOCATED AT 760 WEST 96 STREET. APPLICANT: CHUCK WORM, PLANNING CASE 2013-11. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This application is a variance request to construct an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet. The applicant is Chuck Worm. The property is th located at 760 West 96 Street. This is an area of larger lots in the community and they currently, this th property’s, he owns two properties at the end of this West 96 Street. On the most westerly one there’s a 10,000 square foot storage building and some fields and pasture lands and riding areas and then his house is on the property to the east with additional, I believe the stables are on that location. The variance is to construct a 7,120 square foot accessory structure for the storage of hay and agricultural equipment. There currently exists on the property 10,240 square foot accessory building. An additional 9,960 square feet of accessory structures are on their house site so there’s a total accessory structure of 20,912 square feet. Part of staff’s concern with this is the creation of these large accessory structures in an area that at some time in the future will be converting to single family housing on smaller or more suburban style lots when urban services become available. In May of 2004 the City approved an Interim Use Permit to allow the riding academy on the property. Annually they have to renew their stable permit to continue the use of that for horses. In researching this property for this development we did discover that there was a contracting business associated with the property and our concern is that the existing accessory building is being used in conjunction with that instead of or in addition to the existing agricultural use. Equipment and hay storage on the site so part of our concern is that they’re not utilizing the building in the appropriate way for the zoning district. There have been other variances in the neighborhoods for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. Within the last 2 years there were two. One for an 1,800 square foot accessory structure and one for a 2,560 square foot accessory structure. This property is at the end of the street where those are all located. Then in 2007 there was a variance for an accessory structure off of Homestead Lane which is a large lot development area. The person wanted to expand 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 their garage and they had been planning this and so they did receive approval. Historically we have been looking at the 1,000 square foot accessory structure exceeding that for legitimate agricultural uses and so we’ve had some barns and stables that have been approved for variances in other locations in the community. This neighborhood is full of accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. They range from 2,000 square feet to 13,500 square feet of accessory structures. We’re creating a little conclave of these large accessory structures in the community. We want the Planning Commission to be aware that if this is approved that they will have added to that area. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the variance and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. And the attached Findings of Facts, I did provide you with a revised ones. The City Attorney discussed this and he wanted us to change Finding B and D and I’ll just read the new language that we added in there. Under Finding B we added, the addition of a 7,120 square foot shed is not reasonable since there is currently a sufficiently large shed that can be used for equipment and hay storage were it’s use limited to those that are permitted under district regulations. The property owner is using the current storage capacity of the building in a manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. And then under D we added on the second sentence there, no circumstances unique to the property that preclude it’s agricultural use. And then at the last sentence we added, were all non-agricultural uses removed from the existing shed, there exists a sufficiently large shed that can be used for equipment and hay storage. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Bob in looking at this, if I’m remembering correctly, and I know I voted against both of the other variances in the last few years. One was the result of, it actually had a building permit taken out and then was not, they weren’t able to complete the structure, the garage structure and then they came back. That was one of them. Generous: Well they came in for a permit and they wanted to expand the accessory structure and we said no, you can’t do that. You need a variance. Aller: But before that they had built basically a pad already for the structure. Generous: Yeah, they had a large area. Aller: And then financially they just couldn’t complete it and then time passed. Generous: Right. Aller: And they came back to complete it. Generous: Yeah, the one guy had the intent of building this large structure and he didn’t just have the money at the time so he cleared out an area. Never came in for a permit but his intent was to do it and then he came in and requested the variance. Aller: Okay, and then the other one was for agricultural use? Aanenson: No if I can clarify. The other one, the building was, it collapsed. Was existing non- conforming and it had collapsed. He wanted to go larger. Aller: Go larger. Aanenson: To resolve some drainage issues. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Aller: That was the second one, yeah. Okay. And then what’s, what is the business that’s currently being associated with the property? Generous: It’s an excavating business. A contractor. Aller: Okay, so that’s not agricultural in nature. Generous: No. Aller: Okay. Generous: Unless you’re tiling. Aller: And if this is approved, that would make this the largest square footage. Generous: Yeah. Accessory structure in that neighborhood, correct. I should note that we did provide an alternative if the Board were to approve the variance that they add the 6 conditions, which are outlined in the staff report. Plus we’d need to come up with additional Findings of Fact and Decision for them. Aller: I don’t have any further questions. Anyone? Questions of staff and then the applicant would have the ability to come forward and you can ask questions of him too. Withrow: Just a point of clarification. The proposed accessory building would not be the largest in that area? Is that, was that? Aller: No, it’s the largest in the amount of square foot total for accessory structures. Aanenson: Cumulative. Withrow: On that property? Aller: On that property as opposed to all the other properties. Withrow: Okay, fair enough. And then what about having accessory buildings on the property makes it difficult to meet the future planning? Aanenson: Well if you look at this over time, you know the City in their Comprehensive Plan has said we’re not going to be agricultural in the long run down the city so when you put a building of this size in there, over time as the city changes use, there will be development immediately to the west of this, you have a conflict there if someone, because someone were to buy that property in the future, the current owner were to sell, the desire then would be to use it for, if they didn’t want to use it for a riding stable. Would want to use it for some other type of, maybe someone would want to use it for storage but somebody might want to use it for something else. For the same reason the city eliminated contractor’s yards. They did allow contractor’s yards in the southern part of the city for conditional use and interim use and we’ve slowly over time eliminated those. As we’ve become more urbanized there’s a lot of conflict with those. That’s our number one complaint in the city is contractor’s yards adjacent to residential areas where you have people coming in down a residential street and people working. Now everybody in this neighborhood has that type of use. There’s a different tolerance level out there. I don’t want to dismiss that. People tend to know what’s in that neighborhood but over time those tend to be, they don’t go away. Those size buildings. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Withrow: Okay. Aanenson: So that’s our concern and that’s what we’re trying to raise to you tonight. However you vote on that is just to keep that in mind. Withrow: Thank you. Aller: And I believe it was, was it in 2005 that we started limiting the accessory structure sizes in the agricultural, and only allowing for agricultural use? Aanenson: I had 2007 it says in the staff report. Yeah, 2007. Aller: 2007. Aanenson: Yeah, and again that even goes back to just people that had garages that were in excess of so it may be a garage. If they had a larger lot that was maybe 3,000 and again maybe they’re storing hobby cars in there. Maybe they’re doing a side business. Cabinetry, those sort of things and those become problematic for the neighbors and it’s a code enforcement issue when we have neighbors that are building cabinets you know around the clock and other people in the neighborhood don’t expect that in their residential neighborhood. Kind of separating the commercial type use from the residential use. Aller: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Is the applicant present and wishing to make a presentation? Sir, please come forward and step up the podium and state your name and address for the record. Chuck Worm: I’m Chuck Worm. Aller: Welcome. Chuck Worm: My proposal for the additional building here is to store more hay, equipment for farm use too and we do have excavating and I have a conditional use permit on a site west of Chaska so we go back and forth with farm equipment and excavating equipment so I just, and to the west of us we, I usually rented farm barns and things like that and while most of the time they get eaten up by development and things like that so it’s hard to find hay storage and things like that. And we’re trying to, we make hay at the Minnesota Arboretum and they want, they want, they’ve got 3 farmers in there right now making hay and they want to narrow that down to one person on the property so I’m making probably 20 acres right now and they got a total of 86 so if I propose or throw, put a bid in to get that, then I add another 66 acres or whatever to my haying business too so it’s hard to keep storage you know when it keeps disappearing so that’s why I’m kind of looking to do it for myself. My own self. Aller: The report indicated that, in the proposed findings that if you took the business equipment and kept it in Chaska it sounds like, at that location, would there be sufficient space then to take the additional hay and put it in there and store it so that you have one place for your agricultural items, the hay and another place for your business equipment, which is preferred by the City anyway and that would be in Chaska? Chuck Worm: I probably wouldn’t have enough storage at the Chaska facility. Aller: For the business equipment. Chuck Worm: For the business equipment too. Yep. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Aller: I guess the other question is what are you going to do about the fact that the business equipment isn’t necessarily supposed to be where it is now? Chuck Worm: I don’t know. I got good neighbors and nobody’s ever complained in 13 years or 14 years that I’m going in and out the driveway. Aller: Okay. Sandy Worm: We use the trucks for hauling shavings. We use it for hauling manure out just for our neighbor last week so a lot of the equipment is. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, it’s just hard for you to hear. For them to get on the microphone. Aller: Yeah I was going to say if you want to come up, that would be great. Just state your name and address for the record, that would be wonderful. Sandy Worm: Sure. Hi, I’m Sandy Worm. His wife and we do use some of the equipment dually. We use the dump trucks for hauling in shavings and we haul, we use the semi for hauling in the round bales so that’s how we transport you know all this stuff in is with the trucks so, just so you know that too. It’s not just you know definitely the agricultural and the excavating. They go hand in hand so. Yeah, so just keep that in mind. Aller: And then how much hay is created because I have no idea when, if you’ve got the 66 and then what is your likelihood of getting the 66 acres? Sandy Worm: Well actually we do make a lot of hay. We make the field alongside of Marty Schutrop. That’s the tight field. We do some of Tim Erhart’s meadow land. We do a field in Chaska. Chuck’s home site so there’s a lot of. Aller: But I mean as far as storing hay on your property. Do you go next door and take his hay and put it on your property and go to the other location, that’s where you get your hay now? Sandy Worm: Yes, exactly. We have another. Aller: And then how much hay do you actually have on your property on a normal year? Chuck Worm: Well between, we’ve got a, since we can’t find like a hay barn to store hay in, we’ve got a, what is it? 50 by 80 foot building right now that was used for farm equipment and combination excavation equipment and right now we can, we fill that up from one end to the other. And another 60, right now I’ve got 66 acres. Another 66 acres would double that so that’s kind of why I’m trying to get the additional storage. It’s hard to find storage. Aller: Okay, it gives me a better idea of how much hay you’re talking about and the size requirements. Chuck Worm: Yeah. Yeah. Aller: And then if you, but if you do that still, we still have to resolve that issue with the mechanical business equipment as opposed to the agricultural equipment, even if you have one or two items that are agricultural. What about the rest of the items? Sandy Worm: What size is Jesse’s shed? There’s a big shed out there. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Chuck Worm: Well yeah, we’ve got another big storage building which is, I think it’s 50 by 120 or something like that and it’s full of combination again you know farm equipment. I keep a lot of farm equipment out there in the winter with my excavating equipment so it kind of, you know my business kind of works together you know so I’m just not, just not excavating. We’re always farming too so it works together. Aller: Okay great. Any other questions of the applicant? Undestad: You keep horses and stuff out there on a regular basis… Chuck Worm: Yep. Sandy Worm: Oh yeah, it’s Bobcat’s moving manure all the time and yeah, we’re feeding hay. We’re using the Bobcat’s all the time. Actually I own my own so. Aller: Okay, anyone else have questions of the applicants? Weick: Is the riding academy, is that an ongoing business today? Sandy Worm: Is it what? Weick: Is it a business ongoing? Sandy Worm: Yep. Yep. Mostly Saturdays now and then when school gets out we’ll do our summer hours and change to the summer. Aller: And that’s permitted on an annual basis as stated in the report, right? Sandy Worm: Yes. Weick: I don’t know anything about hay obviously but is this a seasonal thing? Is it stored just certain parts of the year and then the building would be pretty much vacant, is that correct? Chuck Worm: Yeah, I usually by spring, by May the storage hay shed I’ve got right now, it would be empty and at this time we, you know if we got additional equipment, I don’t like to have it outside so it goes in that shed until we start making hay probably in 4 weeks so then that all starts over again and usually our, the last day is about September-October so yeah. Weick: Is it common to have a structure, you know a fairly substantial structure to store a commodity like hay? Or are there other temporary types of structures that would be useful? Sandy Worm: Not for horses because you don’t want any mold on it so. Some people you’ll see it stored outside but that’s more for cattle because horses get very sick from the mold so. Aller: Thank you very much. Sandy Worm: You bet. Aller: Anyone else wishing to come forward, we’ll open up the public hearing for purposes of comment. Speaking for or against the proposal. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Marty Schutrop: Marty Schutrop again. I live just south of Chuck and you know I guess I’ve never understood this ordinance that the city did in 2005 because I went last year I wanted to build, I have a 2,500 square foot building on my property and I have horses and I wanted to build a 1,000 square foot additional hay thing and I was told that you’re never going to get it through the council and I was basically told you can’t do that anymore because they’re not going to allow any of these buildings anymore so, and I do sympathize with Chuck about storage and running a business and trying to keep it all, and keep the neighbors happy so, but I guess if the council approves buildings in this area, why wouldn’t they approve them half a mile down the road then is what I’m saying. Maybe the council needs to look at people that are actually have acreage that want to just have enclosed stuff instead of putting their stuff outside, that we can put it into some buildings so that’s my comments so. Aller: Thank you. th Gary Benziek: I’m Gary Benziek. I live at 731 West 96. Aller: Welcome sir. Gary Benziek: And I find it kind of comical we’re here again on this same issue. I watch Chuck all summer long drive wagons of hay home. A farmer’s nightmare is a sudden cloud burst and right now he has nowhere to pull those wagons in if that’s the case. This building would give him that opportunity to do that. I grew up on the farm and I know what haying is and I know what is required to keep it dry. If you’re going to have good hay for your animals it must be taken care of properly. I’m in favor of this proposal, more on the line of again the same issue as last year. These are large acre lots in a R-2, A-2 area and I find it hard to imagine that these lots should be lumped into the same restrictions that a city lot of a quarter to maybe a third the size of any of these lots have. That’s why we purchased these lots so that we could have room to have equipment if we needed to. We understand the zoning with businesses. I don’t think it’s staff’s job to say well maybe a business is going to be there. If a business is there it’s staff’s job to do what the ordinance says and eliminate that problem. I don’t think it’s staff’s job to say well we think this might happen. When I moved in I was told there’s going to be a street right next to me so I put two rows of evergreens to shade, or to you know hopefully screen that street area. Two years later when I put up my building I was told there was never going to be a street there so to guess what’s going to happen down the road I don’t think is, you know it’s great and I applaud staff for doing the job they do but yet I don’t think that some of these issues should be decided on what might happen. Again as I stated last fall, this is all very, very wetland. If this was ever changed into the type of dense housing that would be up here, they’d all have to be on poles. It’s swamp. My sump, both sump pumps are running every 10 seconds right now from the rain we’ve had and they’ll continue to run that way all year so the only way this could ever become a denser area is if the whole development was bulldozed down, the soil corrected and that would happen. When I did my building I was told there’s going to be an area in the city, you’re one of them that will never be small residential lots. And again never say never but that’s what I was told and I advised that you know, would wish the council would approve their request for a variance because they have plenty of acreage to meet the criteria and what they’re doing is only going to enhance the property. One last comment in regards to that once this building is up it can never, you know it’s going to be a problem if future development ever did happen. It’s an agricultural building. It’s a pole building. Pole buildings have never been considered anything more than a temporary structure. Most counties you don’t even need to have a permit to build one. If it’s for agricultural because it’s considered temporary so if development ever did proceed that way, this building could be removed with no more work than it was to put it up. Thank you. Aller: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak forward or against? Seeing no one, we’ll close the public hearing. Comments. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Yusuf: Can I ask a question? Aller: Sure. Who would you like to talk to? Yusuf: Martin Schutrop. Right there. I have a question for Martin Schutrop. You had mentioned that you recently requested an addition to your lot and it was denied. Marty Schutrop: Well I was told that don’t even bother applying because we, you, I already had a 2,500 square foot building and I wanted to put up another barn to take the hay out of that and put it, because we have 6, 5 or 6 horses too and it’s a mess in there so we just wanted a little separate building for the hay that was closer to the pasture and they said no. You’ve already got your building and we’re not, we won’t approve anything. You’d have to go through, every one of your neighbors would have to approve it and my neighbors don’t like anything I do so it doesn’t really matter so I didn’t even bother doing it so. Aanenson: Can I just make. Marty Schutrop: And I didn’t know the ordinance had changed. I was never notified as a resident that I couldn’t add additional buildings onto the property. Aanenson: Let me make a clarification. Aller: Well yeah. Aanenson: First of all we don’t, we only recommend. We always tell people before they apply what we’re going to recommend so they go into that knowing that we’re, this is what the ordinance says. We’re going to make the interpretation. Obviously the Planning Commission makes their recommendation. If you don’t get the majority vote, you have a right to appeal it to the City Council so we don’t also poll the neighbors. The neighbors give you input for your information. For additional information for public hearing. We don’t ask you to get your neighbors to buy in on any additional changes… Marty Schutrop: Well and I agree that on smaller lots it makes sense but I have 8 acres and I have one little building out in the middle corner. Aanenson: Yep and. Marty Schutrop: To put another building out there wouldn’t affect anybody really. Aanenson: Well we’re not here to discuss the merits of that application. Yusuf: I had a follow up question please. Aanenson: Okay. Yusuf: The reason why I brought up that first question was to ask you, as we’re all educating ourselves about the hay business and storage of hay, what other options might there be to store the hay if you didn’t get the additional lots, or the additional building? Marty Schutrop: Oh for me or for Chuck? 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Yusuf: I guess for Chuck. Marty Schutrop: Well he has a lot more horses than I do and he cuts hay where we just get it delivered so we only bring as much hay in as we need for probably 2 or 3 months. Yusuf: Okay. Marty Schutrop: We don’t store enough hay for a year so we just get hay every few months and put it into a smaller area so. Yusuf: Well thank you for that. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I guess that was my question too. So was the volume of hay to, for the whole, to make it through the whole year or is there another reason to store the volume? I guess I wasn’t clear on that and we didn’t ask that question but I guess I’m learning about the hay storage. Aller: I guess we should ask. Can you answer that question sir? Chuck Worm: What was the question? Aller: How much, when you’re storing hay, are you doing it for the entire year then? You harvest hay once and then store it at whatever location? Chuck Worm: Yes. Aller: Have you in the past obtained hay and had it delivered as your neighbor has? Chuck Worm: Yeah well we cut, most likely 3 times a year on each field and we do sell some hay to the neighbors and other people that do need it or whatever. We make large round bales. Round bales take up a lot of space so, but yeah we do keep enough storage to feed until you know all the time. We feed dry hay all year round. We don’t pasture them, or not much. Little bit. Aller: Great, thank you. Aanenson: Yeah I guess that was my question is it for their purposes or is it for a larger purpose, yeah. Yeah, that’s what I guess. Hokkanen: So was the hay for your own personal horses only? Is that clarification mostly? Aller: No, he sells some. Chuck Worm: No, we sell some to the neighbors and people… Hokkanen: Okay. Aller: Okay, public hearing has been closed so discussion. Undestad: I have a comment on here. Just you know I think your comment about maybe that their place having the most square footage when this is done, you know that, I don’t disagree with that. They also have the largest site in the whole thing. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Aller: Right. Undestad: But I think what we’re, you know what’s kind of missing on this picture, you know when Degler’s came in for their’s, they’ve got the big farm but Gayle also farms a lot of land around Chanhassen just like the Worm’s do so not only is it you know their little farm area here but they’re farming a lot of acreage around town and need the storage on there too so like the Degler’s they’re using it to feed their livestock so I think it’s, you know it’s a little different again than these other buildings we have looked at on there. Some we approved. Some we didn’t but you know I think this is more of an agricultural use than any of the other ones we’ve seen in there so. Aller: Okay. Anyone else comments? I’m going to be consistent and I’m going to vote against unless someone wants to try to convince me otherwise but I still feel as though there have been findings that there’s a commercial business going on at the property and as it’s been stated, and a request has been made not to think about what might happen, I know what’s there now is a commercial business and until an effort is made to exclude all the commercial business and equipment and see whether or not the hay actually fits in what’s there, then perhaps the request is premature so that we can see. I’m also hearing that there’s an excess of hay that’s being sold and there’s a question as to whether or not that’s running an agricultural business as opposed to an agricultural lot, which might be prohibited as well so the nature of the property isn’t necessarily unique for the storage there. I know it’s, that’s zoned agricultural but I’m going to be consistent with what I’ve been doing all along which is to indicate that the plan has been to restrict these. They didn’t cut them out completely. They reduced the size and said we have to be very, very careful about the structures that are going in. Had there not been a business I think I might have swayed the other way but since there is a current business on the property I think that we have to take a look at that and perhaps move the equipment and make sure that all the equipment and all the businesses are not running at the property. Making a concerted effort to see whether or not the hay can be stored, and sufficient hay can be stored at that point in time. So that’s my feeling on that. Tennyson: I agree with the consistency. I feel that the analysis of how a variance is applied is the same as it’s been in the past and that’s the way I’ve voted in the past. Aller: Your mileage may vary. Anybody have comment? Weick: This is very difficult and I would agree that the one, the amount of equipment that’s being stored in the building that’s there now that is being used for a purpose that’s inconsistent with the zoning, to me that’s you know, that’s the largest circumstance so I would agree. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions before we vote. Would anyone like to make a motion either for or against the request for a variance? Tennyson: I’ll make a motion for denial. Aller: Okay, whatever the motion is. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 7,120 square foot accessory structure and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion, questions or comments? 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Tennyson moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 7,120 square foot accessory structure and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except for Undestad and Hokkanen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Aller: Anyone that’s aggrieved of the decision by this commission serving as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments should file an appeal in writing, and that’s a short period of time. It’s approximately 4 days so sir if you want to appeal the decision go ahead and just request that in writing with the staff. Chuck Worm: Okay. Aller: Thank you sir. Chuck Worm: Yep, thanks. Aller: Anything further? CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Aanenson: So the next item on your agenda for the council. Aller: Yeah I was going to look for the minutes. nd Aanenson: Yep, that would be the apartments that were approved on April 22. So we’re still waiting for the land use amendment to come through on that one so we haven’t put the site plan together on that. Then also in your packet were some new signs that were issued so it’s indicated for us because we don’t have a business license requirement regarding the Chanhassen Wellness Chiropractic and the Massage. Upcoming agendas, just a reminder to you. On next Tuesday, because the council will not be meeting on Monday because of a holiday, is the joint work session so on that you’ll be receiving a packet. That’s been on this, I’m not sure if everybody’s got it on their radar. If you cannot make it, I’ll send out a reminder and I’ll have Kim, if that’s alright, just email you the packet. It’s, what I put in there, those of you that are new didn’t receive this. We do an annual review. It’s part of the City Code that we give you an update so we talk about how many permits were issued. We kind of adjust the population projections. And then we also talked about some things that we’ll be working on this year. We also included in that, those of you that were in attendance on the new normal, kind of put the summary findings in there too so those will be our talking points so you’ll be getting those here probably Thursday. If you are unable to attend will you let me know and so I can let the council know but that would be and the work session is in the Fountain Conference Room. I can’t remember exactly what time you’re on at so, but that’s scheduled. th And then the item that’s on for June 4 is a question mark. There’s still some issues on that that we’re trying to resolve so that issue may not be on and that would be the Preserve at Rice Lake so there may not thth be a meeting on June 4. There will be one on the 18. That item will probably be moved down but we did receive another subdivision last week and that’s on the Jeurissen property which is in that 2005 study area. So that’s single and twins and that’s the piece kind of to the, it’d be south of what Degler has and to the east of the Ryland Pioneer Pass so, so yeah it looks like a really nice subdivision so you’ll be seeing that one. We do have a lot of applications we’re working on now including commercial. Yeah, quite a few commercial projects and a couple of the residential subdivisions. The easy pieces are gone. The rest of this is a little more problematic. There’s another one on Galpin that’s kind of working through some issues there. Trying to get the lot sizes a little bigger to make them work better so we’ll be busy. Right now we’re just kind of working through some design issues on that so, so we anticipate those coming through. And then we haven’t set the joint tour yet with the Environmental Commission and the Planning 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 nd Commission but we’ll do that too so, and again we typically don’t have a meeting on July 2 because of th the 4 of July week. People are traveling and doing other things so that’s on your calendar and then th August 6 is National Night Out so we hope that you’re with your neighborhood doing something fun in your neighborhood so. Aller: Wonderful. Thank you. Aanenson: Up on top you see kind of the things that came in, so the Jeurissen one is one that came in, that we just talked about. And then looks like the City Council is looking at the Sinclair property. That’s across from McDonald’s on Highway 5 so there might be something coming in on that one too. And then we’re still working on the Bluff Creek Cottages. Another senior housing project too so those are just the ones that are public for right now. The other ones are kind of in different stages of getting reviewed so we’ll be busy. We’ll see some changes in town. Aller: Great, thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2013 as presented. Aller: Any comments or announcements from any of the commissioners? Aanenson: Oh, I got feedback from Kim regarding the GTS Planning Service so, the other folks did you find it interesting? Good. Yeah, so it was in, where was it again? Arden Hills? Yusuf: Shoreview. Aanenson: Shoreview, okay. So but you learned something. Yusuf: Yep. Aanenson: I appreciate you taking the time to go and to get that training. It’s always good. We try to provide training. It’s always good to hear from somebody else and then you can kind of keep us in check which is part of your job too to make sure we’re staying on task and. Weick: Are there any other training opportunities coming? Aanenson: You know GTS is really the best one but we have other opportunities. We have programs, I’ll try to include those in your packet but certainly there is a budget for training so we’ll put those in your packet if we see something else that might be of interest for you. I’m a member of the Sensible Land Use Coalition. We have a program over the lunch hour on Wednesday in St. Louis Park and those are always interesting. Some of them are kind of development, try to rotate around engineering, commercial, residential, all different types of property but I’ll include those in your packet too so if anybody’s interested in those. I know for some people it’s kind of hard to take a 2 hour lunch but if you can go to some of those, those are interesting too so. And any other things that are around here. I know the watershed districts have meetings at the Arboretum on certain drainage issues and I think those are a good thing to learn about too. How those all work so I’ll make sure I include more of those but the GTS ones are, I don’t think the next one would come around til almost another year. The Level II so I started you guys off on the Level I so. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2013 Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22