Loading...
PC Minutes 3-15-05 05-0C¡ Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1 '-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside ofthe right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to none. Good luck with this. Thanks again to all the residents for your input. This will go as a recommendation to City Council. City Council will look at it on April 11 tho I don't know whether they will take further comments from residents or not. That's up to their discretion, but you certainly can follow it through that way. I don't think we need to summarize for council. I think it's pretty clear with the comments we made and amendments so do we want to take a 5 minute recess before we continue? Let's take 5 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET. APPLICANT GARY AND MAUREEN CARLSON. PLANNING CASE 05-09. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Jerry. McDonald: I have a question that concerns property. Seem to remember from 2 weeks ago, isn't there a plan that at one point this becomes one ofthe outlet properties to put a street through to get up to West 62nd Street? Al-Jaff: If at the time this property comes in for development, we will definitely research that. I apologize, I don't have. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 McDonald: You don't understand? Al-Jaff: No, I know exactly what you're talking about. You did review the subdivision immediately north of Highway 7. I don't recall the exactly layout for future development of the Carlson's property. McDonald: Okay it was one of my, I think understanding there that that was going to be near term development as far as that property and everything because I know we talked extensively about those 3 lots that face onto County Lane and there was a lot of discussion about that road and you know the fact that it would be going away at some point. I'm just trying to put this in a frame of reference. That's fine, you answered the question. The next one I've got is, and this is a question to staff and as far as finding a variance, do we have to find for all 5 of these or is it anyone to grant. I'm on page, it looks like 6. No, page 6. It's not labeled 6.. . and it's actually the only place I could find anything about what you have to demonstrate to get a variance. Sacchet: The findings of fact? McDonald: Findings of fact. It lists, in order to grant a variance there's 5 factors there and my question is, do we have to find them for all 5 of them or will anyone of them do to grant a variance? Sacchet: Basically you need them all. Al-Jaff: You need them all. Metzer: And I believe there's 4 ofthem. Al-Jaff: Under number 4. A through D. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Sacchet: Alright. Any questions from staff? Larson: Yes. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: I read some conflicting things, and maybe this could be just clarified. It sounded like they're trying to get 3 units but there's 5 units or 5 kitchens. Which is it? I'm confused as to what. Metzer: There is the main dwelling unit which the applicant occupies. There are 2 separate rental units that have existed since before current code, which are grandfathered in. Larson: Okay, so there's 3. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Metzer: There's 3 there. This new addition that was made. Larson: There's 2 more. Metzer: There's 3 levels. The main level, the applicant's daughter occupies as part ofthe main dwelling unit that the applicant occupies. The upper and lower are separate. Considered separate. They have separate cooking, eating, sleeping, sanitary facilities. Larson: So we have 5 units in one building? Or is it 2 buildings? Metzer: Right, where this variance is for to allow the upper level dwelling unit of the new addition to be granted. Larson: Okay. So the old dwelling doesn't matter? Metzer: Right. That's grandfathered in. Larson: Okay, that's all I need. Yeah. Keefe: And I just have a quick question. How do we, if we grant a variance on this, it says one of the conditions, shall not be rented to a non-family member other than a live in. How do we, is that enforceable in any way or what do we do? Metzer: Well because. Keefe: Why do we put that in? Metzer: Part of the basis for recommending approval of this is a need for a second dwelling unit based on disability. If the person not living in that dwelling unit, the purpose for this dwelling unit is for the care ofthe applicant's daughter. If that personal care attendant isn't the one living there, then there should be no need for the second dwelling unit. Keefe: So we're just putting it in as if we're going to grant the... the only way that the variance can be approved is if.. . specific use. Okay. Larson: Okay, one more question now that you've brought that up. If the property's sold, do you have a rental property with 5 units? Amongst a neighborhood of single family houses. No? Al-Jaff: No. The two existing rental properties, they're grandfathered in. Larson: Correct. Al-Jaff: Those run with the property but they won't remain in that. As far as the 3 remaining or. Larson: The 2 remaining. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Al-Jaff: The 2 remaining units, those would, for as long as the applicant is living there, and the family members, that variance would carry. If they're not the ones in those units then. Larson: Does it revert back then or how does it? Keefe: The variance expires or how does that? Al-Jaff: ...technically it would expire. Keefe: Okay. Larson: So then the new people wouldn't be able to go in and rent that out, you know say hey. I'm buying a duplex here and I can live in half and rent out the other half, or whatever. So it can only. Al-Jaff: We're talking about the new units? Larson: Correct. The 2. The upstairs/downstairs, right? Al-Jaff: The upstairs/downstairs. Well they will no longer be rental. They will be rental as far as the family member that's the care giver. Larson: Right, I understand that. Al-Jaff: Specifically for that purpose. If that is no longer, let's assume that they choose to move or sell. Larson: Right. Sacchet: Then it doesn't apply. Al-Jaff: They lose that. Larson: Alright. Sacchet: Well technically. Larson: So parents and child could still live separately in a house. Keefe: This is, I'm knowledgeable in regards to some ofthese things. Why wouldn't we go, what's the difference between a variance in this case and a conditional use permit? In regards to that. Why wouldn't we grant a conditional use on something like that? Because that is we can stipulate time frames better on conditional use, could we not? Sacchet: Or the conditions of the use, yeah. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Keefe: I'm curious to know, or does it matter? Just gone with the variance in this. Al-Jaff: It's always been done through the variance process and it's something that we could investigate should you direct us to. Sacchet: Okay. Any comments Steve from your end? Lillehaug: Yes. Do you have a map of the site that you can put up and actually point to where the, where all the units are. I mean are the 3 in the main. Metzer: Maybe Gary you should help me with this. Lillehaug: And I can ask the applicant too. Is it the separate building to the west where those two? Metzer: The new addition is this area here. And... Sacchet: We can ask the applicant. Lillehaug: No other questions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, because it was a little confusing to me. I think I do understand but I want to make real sure. Currently there are 5 units on this property. Two I would think are in a separate building the way I understand it, that are the grandfathered in, that can be rented because they have been renting and that's the way it was before we came up with our zoning framework. Then we have the main building, which was one unit so far. It was expanded and now it's technically considered 3 units. We're saying that we're granting potentially what's in front of us to make recommendation about or a decision in this case, that we would allow 2 units, one for the caretaker. The other one for the family. What happens with the third one? Metzer: It would have to either be made, as it is right now, as far as what we have for information at the city, is it's completely separated. You cannot access the main dwelling unit from inside. It has a separate entrance. Separate cooking facilities. So it either has to be totally taken out or it has to be made, in the staff report it says integral part of the main. Sacchet: Define integral part. Put a door in? Metzer: It would have to use the same main entrance. I believe the cooking facilities would have to be removed. Sacchet: So there would have to be some removal not, just making a door connection would not be enough. Metzer: Right. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: And there has been discussion between city staff and the applicant to understand what that means? Metzer: The building official. Sacchet: We can address the applicant about that too, thank you. That's my only question. With that, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and tell us what you want to tell us about this. Gary Carlson: Good evening fellow citizens and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Gary Carlson and I live in the main section ofthe residence at 3891 West 62nd Street. It's, I can go into a really long detail or I can keep it. Sacchet: We'll take the condensed version, if you don't mind. Gary Carlson: There's no other property like this in the seven county area until you go into the City of Minneapolis. We got zoned into an Rl district and it should remain an Rl, and the city basically has it's zoning ordinances to work with. I've been on this hobby farm for the last 30 plus years. It was the original Cathcart home and so it has some things in it that would never be allowed in the R 1 district. It does have some things that are different than a normal residential lot because we're on about 4 acres. And I'm in the corner ofthe city. I have 2 neighbors and I don't think they're here tonight. And you know the city doesn't have any letters of any complaints of my residence being there all these years. An addition was started in '96. You know I took out permits and actually as we got into the addition, my daughter's here tonight, the one who we put the addition on for. Why didn't the attendant just live in one of my other apartments? Good question. That was probably never even brought up but you've got to start there because I already had apartments in this building. She needed an expanded one level, we changed the dimensions of her bathroom, even during construction. And she can't have any stairways out. I mean I'll bring that up later and that will show why couldn't connect her room to the lower level that's underneath here, so I live on the main level. Molly's addition went straight out from the main level. And it gives you a huge handicap bathroom, and her separate bedroom, computer room and a large play area to run, living area to run around in. What do you do with the second floor over that? It's entrance is right at her bedroom so that was occupied by, always been her aide and right now it's a family, one of her sisters and their family. They live above Molly in that addition. As part of the addition of the second floor. The basement level, what do you do with that? Molly can't use the basement. I don't need any more space. I can't connect it. McDonald: Excuse me, can I interrupt you just a second? Gary Carlson: It's a very involved home. I've had the best realtors in the area trying to find me the similar situation because we could have. . . McDonald: Okay, as you're explaining this, my question is, can you go through this with the drawings to kind of put this... 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Gary Carlson: ... the drawings, sure. McDonald: Because I'm having trouble discerning upper level, lower levels and everything like that and if you could just kind of refer to those. Gary Carlson: Well the whole print of the homes aren't in the packet. Just the addition. McDonald: Okay, that's all I really care about is the addition right now. Gary Carlson: Is that right there for projection? Sacchet: Yep. Gary Carlson: Let's move to the main level, which is on the back ofthat page there. This is Molly's floor. Move that down a little bit. And so where the existing kitchen, existing bedroom, that's where she's serviced for eating and our bedroom, and then a whole addition out from that is her's. And he had to have a handicap entrance put on. That was, I think I made 3 alterations to the original building permit. Because, put yourself in my shoes and I'd be glad to be in your shoes. Any time a parent, a child, can come back home, or can, and so you make a provision for that. Well, geez dad, it's working out great and how do you like the basement, or how do you like the second floor of our home? Fine. Do you need a stove? We put in a stove. I mean let's put a stove, and there's already, or it can happen to any of us. We need to have some flexibility in our homes. We have children that can come back sometimes bringing what parents my age call baggage. Or due to injury or anything, and so in Molly's case I had to adapt and develop this addition as she grew and as we saw her capabilities. We did the addition, put the second floor above it. This was all done in, starting in '95 with plans. '96 was the first permit issue. '97 we changed it. '98 we changed it again. '99 it was completed with all of the, you know by the building inspector. Slagle: Mr. Carlson, if I can ask. If I may. Gary Carlson: ... call me into a halt and, but I just. Slagle: I'm looking for the cliff notes in may but specifically, you've had a chance to look at the recommendations from the staff. Are there any ofthose recommendations that you're not willing to adhere to? Gary Carlson: No, I am, in all ofthe, in all of the people that live in our building are very appreciative of the City of Chanhassen. We love being here, and the staff is doing, the city staff is doing what they are available and what they can do. They only have zoning ordinances and building codes to work with. Slagle: Okay so let me. Gary Carlson: Come up against a building such as mine, they were a little bit, well you're out of code. Okay, this is what we can do to get you in code. You're out of violation. This is what we 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 do, so I've made, taken out permits. I've had two building inspectors and a fire inspector. All my apartments are licensed. Meet building codes and this addition was put on with you know full plans they looked at. Slagle: Sure, I'm with you but let me ask you this. Are you okay with making the lower dwelling an integral part of the house? Gary Carlson: The 6 conditions are. Slagle: It's on page 5. The reason I'm asking Mr. Carlson is because, because I think in sense there's an agreement, we probably could speed this up a bit. Gary Carlson: Sure. If possible, a couple of the conditions are interesting because see again, planning and zoning through, or through the planning department is doing this variance. It' s separate from the building inspection which they have certain concerns and that's where the recommendations, the 5 or 6. The conditions apply. Now some of them are, I was going to quickly go through them, if you want me to. Lower, let's look at that plan ofthe building again. I mean, and the staff knows I've worked with them all that I can. I'm trying to stay within the building codes, within the zones but you know, I only have... Slagle: Let me be more specific. Gary Carlson: It's hard to put the basement, like the basement for instance into an integral part of the home. If I were to open the basement into the rest of the home, it would open into my other apartment. So why would the other apartment want to go into this basement under Molly? The only other way to make it an integral part of the house is to drop a door out of Molly's addition. Molly's, it's just a basement under Molly's addition. It's very easy to take a stove out of it so we can do that. This was built in. . .lived in that for a couple of years because I was able to keep him at home, so I had my dad, had my daughter and above her an aide. Every one of you folks should be very fortunate to be able to have a building like I have to be able to take care of your in-laws and out-laws and so forth. It's something that's worked out since 90, since the building was completed. The only thing we're trying to do here, and I just bring it a little closer to, the city can't you know it's hard for them, the staffto work with this one, I'm out oflot variance. I'm out of code, so I brought a lot of the building parts up to code and because a couple other points here. You know I've already, when I took out the permit for finishing the basement they came out and approved a final but then they printed, it's called printing. It's on my paperwork. They print the permit but not issued. So you have a permit. You pay for it. You can go and do the work but they are still concerned whether they're actually going to issue it. So the building department said no, we can't issue it because you're out of code with the RS 1. You know you've got a 2 family dwelling here so we can't issue a building permit for you to build it when you're not even in so, and we go back to the process of what we're doing tonight is get it closer to code. But that's. Sacchet: Yeah, I think Commissioner Slagle had a very good, Mr. Carlson. Gary Carlson: Most of these conditions. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: Yeah, that's very important. How do you feel about, like the first one. To eliminate the separateness of the lower level. Gary Carlson: Yeah, we could take out a stove. That's something that we can do. Slagle: Okay, we've got that. Gary Carlson: Okay the next one. That's perfectly fine, number 2. Number 3, those are pretty much, will have to go over the building inspection but mine all show they're not final on all. Now ifthey, the proposed, the number for the proposed building must be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Slagle: I'm sure that's okay then. Staff? Gary Carlson: I'm sure of that because I built it according to most codes... Metzer: Steve in the building department will work with him on that. Gary Carlson: I mean if they rezone me, reclassify me as an apartment building. Sacchet: Well we're not doing that. Gary Carlson: There's some more codes there. Sacchet: We're not doing that Mr. Carlson. Don't worry about that. Gary Carlson: The rental license I already have, and I'll be glad to just add this unit that's above Molly to the license and when they come out for their annual review. Now they have an annual review of apartment licenses and they've already been through and look at but they can certainly come and look at it again. The applicant, property owner must obtain permits for accessory structures constructed without, I'm not, I guess I can throw that up as something here. And being on a farm, there's 8 ofthem illustrated on there now. There's one more right.. . that's a play house for my grand daughter. There's a structure there that has the hay in it. Slagle: I just want to know who put point 6. Gary Carlson: .. .there's another construction there... Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, I have a real specific question and hopefully. Gary Carlson: I hope I'm not, I'm not making light of this but it is a farm and I have structures coming down, going up. As soon as that hay one blows down, it won't go back up. Lillehaug: I need to understand. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Gary Carlson: If they need me to get a building permit for all those 8 little things, I don't know what. Slagle: Mr. Carlson, I think you have a fair amount of support here and the quicker we can get through this I think the better. Gary Carlson: You ready for Molly's statement? Sacchet: Sure. Gary Carlson: I'll be available for helping. Sacchet: Yeah, appreciate your input. So basically you're, you don't have an issue with the conditions. To be summary. I mean. Gary Carlson: No. I see some day development going on this and like I said, the best of realtors in the 5 county area looking to find me a similar structure with the same, my family does not want to move out of Chanhassen. Sacchet: Nobody says you have to move Mr. Carlson. We're trying to find the balance that accommodates what you need to do and we're trying to work together here. That's really what it boils down to, okay. Gary Carlson: Yep. Molly, my wife Maureen and Molly has a statement that she'll make. I guess she can get to that mic there. Sacchet: Do you want to use this mic? Might be a little better in terms of the height for her. Do you want to hold it for her or is it going to work like that? Okay. Molly Carlson: My name is Molly Carlson. My address is 3891 West 62nd Street in Chanhassen. Council members, please pass this variance for me. Thank you. If you've got any more questions, ask my dad please. Sacchet: Thank you Molly. Appreciate-it. Well, this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody else who likes to make a statement to this, to come forward at this time. Yes, we have somebody there if you want to, yeah you're coming up there. Okay. If you want to state your name and your address, you can move the microphone down to you a little bit. Margaret Carlson: My name is Margaret Carlson and I am a sister and. .. This is not a sad occasion but emotional. . . Sacchet: I understand. I'm with you. Margaret Carlson: I provide what I guess you would call it, I'm kind of an on call services trained for Molly and due to her physical condition limitations she needs to have immediate access for whatever rotations and massaging she may need due to muscle cramping during the 40 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 night and, and that's part of my responsibility when she needs that. In continuing strength as she ages and just having a safe and secure dwelling place for whoever provides that services is an integral part of her well being and obviously I fully support this variance, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Appreciate it. Anybody else wants to address this. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Is there any comments? Any discussion? Keefe: In full support of it. Sacchet: Steve? Lillehaug: I do have a comment. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: Yes, yes it is grandfathered in that there's 2 other dwellings that are being rented in this house, but a variance there's always a trade off. I absolutely support this addition, or the variance for this addition but the trade off to me would be taking away the non-conforming rental units. The legal non-conforming rental units, so for me to support the variance there would have to be a trade off, and that's what it would take in my mind. This is comparable. Mr. Carlson's right. There is no other property in Chanhassen like this where we, in the Rl District and residential district that we allow 5 rental units on the property, or 5 separate units, and simply put there has to be a trade off on this for me to support it. Sacchet: Okay. Good comment. Any response to that Jerry? Or other comment. McDonald: Yeah, the one thing he brings up I guess, as I understand it this is strictly for family. I guess maybe a conditional use might cover that but I think we've got to look at that a little bit too. I mean this is not a commercial venture, at which point I think I would maybe agree with you more and I'd have more reluctance as far as getting involved by setting some precedence and everything but again, this is a family compound. They were here long before us. I really don't see where, and again we just went through this whole property a couple weeks ago so I realize all the problems that are in there. I mean this is key to a lot of other things but at this point, we just went through whether a variance or conditional use and I guess the city uses variances so I don't want to set new ground here as far as doing that, but I do tend to agree that maybe this would fit better under that, to make sure that it is limited to family use but, I trust what Mr. Carlson says. He's got a history of doing things on this. I don't have any problems supporting this at this point. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. It's a tricky thing you're bringing up Steve because generally we do want to decrease any non-conformance when we allow something extra. I personally would be willing however in this case to consider it two separate items. Since they are, I mean they're not that closely intertwined. I mean physically it's even two separate structures, in understand this correctly, and. Is it? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: .. .haven't really had it explained to me, I don't know. Sacchet: It is two physical, separate physical structures isn't it? Gary Carlson: Yeah, with that question that you asked, her addition went out from me. And the other apartments wouldn't be around by her, you know the other apartment space wouldn't be around by her bathroom or her bedroom. Whereas the attendant care person, which right now is my daughter and we would still be within the city's codes probably as long as it stays my family members because it's one family. Only thing there is you know the two stoves. Well again the City doesn't really run out and look to see if you have two stoves. But the reason we're asking for the variance is my daughter can take a position with another school district and her family can move away. Well then I have to bring in an attendant that might not be family. And also, I mean I'm looking way down the way. I mean I'm not going to be always available and retirement is there around the horizon. I can see my daughter moving down into my level. For instance, if I can have one of my daughters, maybe not. I may have an aide live there and another aide live above Molly. Again, not family members. Whereas they would trade off. They'd get living, very inexpensive living. Slagle: But I think if I can, we have that covered. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't think that's an issue Mr. Carlson. Slagle: It's just a question of, is the two, in can ask, the two apartments or rental units, are they in one of the separate structures and I think the answer is yes. Sacchet: They're adjacent. Gary Carlson: The whole home is one solid building, it's just that you, it's 70 by, almost 70 by 70. Sacchet: It is all the same building. Gary Carlson: I mean I can open the building. . . upper part and now the upper care attendant now.. . Slagle: Mr. Carlson, if I can ask. You have your main house here and then you have this separate structure over here that staff. Gary Carlson: Oh, that's mistaken a lot. That's a two story pole barn. Slagle: Okay, so there's no rental units in there? Gary Carlson: No. It looks, I've had people come down the street and say well why don't... Sacchet: So there goes my argument about that one Steve. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Are all 5 units family? Gary Carlson: No. No, the two grandfathered, I provide economical rentals for, I have for years. My ex-tenants are, one's a VP at Super Valu. One owns his own nursery. I mean I provide low cost housing which the city's in need of. In the other two apartments. And the only reason I have those is the house was so big and if we were to discontinue one ofthem, my wife and I can barely use the floor we're on, let alone then have another whole apartment. Sacchet: Alright. Slagle: 5 are in the big house. Sacchet: Thank you Mr. Carlson. I think you answered the question. Basically do, and actually it clarified where I stand with this too Steve in terms of giving you the response, at least from my vantage point to your comment. I do believe there is a mitigating factor in that we're actually asking it to be reduced by one unit. We do ask, condition number 1 says to eliminate one of the units. One ofthe three new ones and the other two new ones are justified because they're family occupied in the context ofthe care, of the personal care that's needed. So I do believe there's a balancing and mitigating factor in there that within the framework I think is reasonable and since this is a very complex situation, I would really defer to the time that staff put into this and I think this is a pretty balanced proposal in view of that. Lillehaug: Can I ask you a question? Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: Is your interpretation of this right now there's 5, with the conditions in here there will be4? Sacchet: Yes. But nevertheless, I mean units. With 2 having grandfathered in to be rental and the other 2 being family use and it makes it very clear that the upper dwelling unit shall not be rented to a non-family member, other than a live in personal care. So it is tied into a specific use, which to some extent accommodates what the condition use element would have. Keefe: Two that were grandfathered and then one. Slagle: So you're not including the main residence of Mr. Carlson? I mean his area, right? Sacchet: Is one of them. McDonald: It is 10fthe 4. Lillehaug: It's 1 ofthe 5 and it's 1 ofthe 4. Sacchet: Right. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Metzer: We consider Molly and the applicant, Mr. Carlson to be the same dwelling unit. Slagle: Oh okay. I got you. Sacchet: As one unit. Okay. Okay. So that's how I would respond to your. Al-Jaff: Also the variance that you're approving is temporary in nature. That's what staffis recommending with this. Sacchet: Where is the temporariness? Slagle: Yeah, where does it show that? That it ends with them selling the property. Lillehaug: They've been non-conforming since 1988. I mean it's a variance that isn't temporary. Sacchet: Not the non-conforming part. I think staff made that clear, that carries forward. The non-conforming. Al-Jaff: Correct, but number 2. The upper level dwelling unit shall not be rented to a non- family member other than a live in person care attendant. Sacchet: So in other words, the Carlson's wouldn't use and somebody else in a similar situation would use it, they could use it in this same way. So it's not expiring with the Carlson's but the specific use is defined. Is that what you're saying? Larson: So if somebody else had a similar need? Sacchet: Right. Larson: Right. Al-Jaff: It is tied to, I mean if you. Keefe: It's not tied to the Carlson family. It's tied to the use. Sacchet: The use. It's tied to the use. Keefe: Yeah. Sacchet: It's tied to the use which is viewed I think. Keefe: .. . Carlson family make that expire. Sacchet: Would that accommodate the concern? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Can we do that? Sacchet: I'm a little concerned whether that's possible. Larson: I mean my opinion is, if you had another situation where another family would need that and these guys are willing to sell it, it's a perfect fit. Why not? You know. I don't think it has to be strictly just for them. But what I don't want to see is that to turn into a rental unit of 5 separate anybody's you know, but in this case I think it's a wonderful situation what he's put together and this house is just, like he said, it's a very unique property and wow. McDonald: I guess what I'd feel more comfortable with, I'd like staff to research to put the conditions on there that it's strictly for the Carlson's because getting back to the original point about non-conforming property. If one ofthe things the city is trying to do is as possible to you know have that become conforming, at the sale, when it's no longer of use to the Carlson's, that use should go away and it should then have to become conforming. So I would like to see it tied to the Carlson's if at all possible. Sacchet: I don't know whether that's legally feasible, is it? McDonald: I don't know but that's my question to staff. I don't know. Keefe: Can you do it upon the sale? Sacchet: So you feel very strongly it should be specific to this applicant? McDonald: Well I think Steve brings up a good point, and if that's one ofthe things that we're supposed to look at as far as when does non-conforming become conforming, I think at the expiration of the use, that's when it should be re-looked at. It should not just go on in perpetuity that way. Al-Jaff: We have done it on mother-in-law apartments. We have specifically stated the name of. Sacchet: We have done it. Al-Jaff: Of the parent. Sacchet: Yep. Al-Jaff: For as long as they are living in this unit. Sacchet: So we have a precedent. Al-Jaff: And ifthey are not living in that unit, then that use would cease. Sacchet: So we can do it. That's a clear answer for that. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Can I make a comment on that? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: We did...maybe within a year ago, or year or two ago. Slagle: Right behind the Weather Station. Lillehaug: And as a commission and staff, I think we made it look, or we made it that these were, that this would be a unit of one if it were ever sold. I mean just the way things were built in the house and constructed. This is absolutely not the case in this case. I mean it's very different and it's totally holding people to different standards. Absolutely it is in my mind. It really is. Sacchet: Ifwe make it specific to the Carlson's, would that mitigate your concern there? Lillehaug: We were going to do that on the last one and that totally got thrown out. Totally went away from that. It was going to be a condition, the commission as a whole totally threw out making it specific to this family. It was an approval of a variance. Sacchet: Now Sharmeen seems to remember that we did make it. Slagle: I thought we made it. Sacchet: I don't remember. Al-Jaff: What I'm saying is we have done it in the past. We have. Slagle: It's the Graves. Keefe: Well there's support for it here isn't there? Sacchet: The one you remember we didn't want the name. Lillehaug: That's my, that's my. Sacchet: I don't remember the detail. I remember the case but. Well if we have a precedent that we added it, made it specific, I think that would mitigate some of the concerns that are voiced here in terms, because we have to be careful that we're fair to the rest of the city. I mean that's one ofthe things we're trying to do is that we try to treat everybody with some similarity. That's our attempt to be fair to everybody, okay. So in that case I think that would be a balance point if you would make it specific to the Carlson. Add that element in there with the variance, which would tie it into what the use is at this point, and as such would not carry forward. Which is I believe a fair position to take. Any other aspects here? Otherwise I'd like to have a motion. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Keefe: I'll make a motion Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in a single family residential RSF District at 3891 West 62nd Street based upon the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions, 1 through 6 and I'd like to add one additional condition. That this variance will expire upon the sale of the property to a non-Carlson family owner. Sacchet: Let's do a second, just on 1 through 6 and then deal with the amendment. Do we have a second? McDonald: I'll second 1 through 6. Sacchet: Now your addition Dan is to, is that it would expire upon the sale to somebody not Carlson. Not ofthe same family. Is that? McDonald: I'm sure we can wordsmith and massage that but that is the general. Sacchet: That's the idea, and maybe that this variance is specific to the Gary Carlson family or something. McDonald: Well the thing to say is this variance would expire upon the sale of the property by the Carlson's. Sacchet: Yes. That's basically. Slagle: To a non-Carlson. McDonald: Well upon the sale by the Carlson's means ifthey sell it to another Carlson, it expIres. Sacchet: By the Carlson family, something like that? McDonald: Yeah. Sacchet: Alright. You're fine with that? Okay. Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1. The lower level dwelling unit must be eliminated or made an integral part of the home. 2. The upper level dwelling unit shall not be rented to a non-family member other than a live in personal care attendant. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 3. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 4. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. 5. Rental licenses must be obtained in accordance with Chanhassen City Code. 6. The applicant/property owner must obtain permits for accessory structures constructed without the required permits. 7. The variance shall expire upon the sale of the property by the Carlson family. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: The motion carries 5 to 1, which is enough for it to carry right? Sharmeen and Jason? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: So this does, is considered approved unless somebody complains about it to the City Council. If it has to go to City Council, it can go to City Council on the 11 th of April, according to staff report so I wish you luck with this and thank,s for coming in. It was nice to meet Molly. Slagle: Thank you Mr. Carlson. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LAKE SHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10. Public Present: Name Address Michael Sharratt Lissa Tenuta Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Jason. Any questions? McDonald: I had some questions for staff. On that sentence where you say that you would support the variance to allow the applicant to maintain, at that point what kind of a home are they 48