Loading...
PC Minutes 11-18-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 3.The exterior material for the trash enclosure must be of the same exterior material as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 4.A photometrics plan shall be prepared for the site. Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. 5.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of rezoning the property to Planned Unit Development. A.Rezoning 1.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 610 WEST 96 STREET: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 4.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT TH 610 WEST 96 STREET. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROBERT AND CHRISTIN BOECKER, PLANNING CASE 2014-33. Aanenson: Before he starts I did want to point out that we did receive some additional information that was handed out to all the commissioners so, the applicant may address it but otherwise if there’s questions to staff we’d be happy to answer that at the end of the presentation. Aller: Great and for those watching at home I did look at the update and it’s been on the website since this afternoon as well so it’s there for your use and your perusal. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. That was my first material we did hand out the material that was included today. It contains a petition, a letter and an alternative design for this project. I would point out that I showed our stable person the alternative design and they said that that would not work because it’s, for a stable you need to have an enclosed structure so just for informational purposes. The applicant are Robert and Christin Boecker. The property is th located at 610 West 96 Street. This is just north of Pioneer Trail and west of the Great Plains th Boulevard, Highway 101. It’s the second property on the south side of West 96 Street as you come into this development. This property is guided in the city’s Comprehensive Plan for residential low density uses. That means densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre or in suburban standards about third acre lots. Currently it’s, depending on the number, 4.28 to 4.49 acres in size. The property is in the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Service Area so it could receive urban services at any time. However it is dependent on the development of the property to the northwest to serve this with additional sewer and water services. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District. In this City’s parlance that’s really a holding category. It preserves rural character but it doesn’t, it limits the types of uses that can be there and the minimum lot 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 size is at 2 ½ acres per lot. The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate preserving agricultural uses within the community in the long term. However we do support in greater Carver County the preservation of agricultural uses in western Carver County. The south half of this property is in an existing wetland. The property owner’s requesting a variance to construct a 38.5 foot by 48 foot horse shelter adjacent, expansion on an existing building as well as a 11 by 24 foot day shelter to the south of the second existing building on the property. This would be a total of 14,818 square feet of accessory structures on the property. I should point out on the first page the property, the 13,818 square feet is the variance request from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure so. Section 20-904 of the City Code limits accessory structures to 1,000 square feet in the A2, RR, RSF, RLM and R-4 Districts. This ordinance was adopted in May, 2007. The City amended the accessory structures to limit the 1,000 square foot city wide so it applies to all these properties throughout the community, not to just this area. This was, an amendment was in response to contractor’s purchasing these large lots with accessory structures or large lots and building accessory structures to run contracting businesses out of them and turning the accessory structures into business operations. However city code does not permit the use of accessory structures for a business use. It’s for personal and private uses only. Agricultural buildings existing on property that are about 12,760 square foot of accessory buildings. Agricultural buildings and uses are limited to those uses directly related to agricultural businesses. Under State Statute agricultural buildings are designed, constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock or agricultural produce or products. They’re not for any other use so if you want an Ag designation you have to meet that criteria. Additionally you have to have at least 10 acres of contiguous land use for agricultural purposes which is cultivation, raising of livestock, things, a fruit farm, things like that. And finally if you have less than 10 acres it has to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes and intensely used for agricultural purposes so it should be cultivated. And that’s the only way that you’re able to maintain or receive the agricultural exemption for agricultural buildings. On this property there are 4 existing accessory buildings. The first one permitted in 1986 was a 24 by 40 square foot garage next to the building. That shows up on this map as 1. Number 2 is a 48 by 72 foot building that the applicant is proposing to expand as part of this application. The third one is a 48 by 100 square foot steel arch building. That’s on the south end of the property. And the fourth building is a building that was constructed and we cannot find a building permit on file for that structure. This area has had a history of properties coming in for requests to variances to the 1,000 square foot requirement. The existing property, the property immediately to the west received a variance for a 2,560 square foot accessory structure and then there’s 1,800 square foot a little way down the road from that. There was a small one off of Homestead Lane approved and then there was one that was denied and then the property owner actually withdrew his th request for the variance at the end of West 96 Street. Part of staff’s concern with approval of this variance application is with the kind, the character of the neighborhood that would be created and maintained out here. While this property is guided for redevelopment in the future at suburban densities, the continuation of these large buildings would provide an impetus to not make that change possible or feasible in the future. The concern originates from the possibility that large accessory structures are used in conjunction with home occupations. Home occupations are intended to be conducted out of a residence and maintain a residential appearance. When the operations are moved into accessory structures they become common causes of complaints by neighbors. They often create excess parking, traffic and noise. Staff is concerned that the property would be sold in the future. It may be purchased by a person with 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 the intentions of operating a home occupation out of the accessory structure. Staff further believes that the use is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. And then basically the architecture would continue the use of the materials that are on the existing structure. Here’s a picture, they did begin the building of this expansion in the future. The City issued a stop work order and told them they needed to come in through the variance process to construct that building. Here’s a close up on the expansion area. And this is the existing storage building on the south end of the property. This is the quote, agricultural building that was built without a permit. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request and directing to the applicant to demolish the expansion area and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Aller: Anyone have any questions at this point? Weick: I do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Thanks. Just a clarification on this 20-904. The accessory structure. It said they’re not to exceed 1,000 square feet. Does it say anything about the number of 1,000 square foot? Generous: No, it would be cumulative so they could have four 250 square foot accessory. Weick: But not four 1,000 square foot. Generous: Correct. Weick: Okay. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Aller: Okay, would the, hearing no other questions. Oh, Commissioner Campion. Campion: One question…so prior to 2007 was there any requirement on the accessory structure sizes? Generous: Only, Mr. Chairman. Only as far as you could only have 20 percent site coverage and you had to meet setbacks. Campion: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll go ahead and hear from the applicant. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that’d be great. Robert Boecker: I am Robert Boecker. The applicant. I don’t even know where to begin. This process, it just seems that it’s so geared to not help the resident that you guys all represent. Myself. There’s nothing we’re trying to pull over. We’ve got a very well laid out plan for what we want to do. We think we’ve articulated it through there that what the structure will be used for and I guess I just the whole process of dealing with staff on this. I don’t feel that in any way 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 the City would like to help approve or do any type of project like this because I happen to own a property that’s guided differently than, I’m going to say it. There’s an agenda for my property other than what I have. And when I bought the property in 1997 it was so that I could have storage structures for my classic cars. My snowmobiles. My motorcycles and to be able to have animals. All right here in Chanhassen. It’s kind of the dream to be able to do that but I feel that since we’re being guided differently that we’re being pushed out and not allowed to do these things. Saying that what we’re doing will not fit the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. How would this building existing on my property affect that plan? Bob says it because then no one would want to buy it because there’s a building already there. What if I wanted to just take the structure and turn it into a house? When we can so do so. When the utilities are there. Maybe that’s a use for it so then there’s no reason that the building can’t be there and have use in the future in the way that our land is being guided. So there’s so many options that are not even talked about here. And as to the businesses, staff has never once asked me what I do for a living. Never once did you ask me that. But the report says I own a landscape company. I haven’t landscaped in 8 years but yet that’s what the staff says that I do for a living. Never once did we get an interview where you asked me any of the questions to any of the points that are in here and I think that’s sad. And I just feel like this is all geared against us, the landowners so. One thing that the staff didn’t put out was the, or talk anything about was the alternative option. Do you all have that in front of you? Because part of the issue is that they feel that they won’t be able to control what the structure’s used for so my wife and I talked. We changed the plan so that the building itself is totally transparent. You can see directly through the building any side that you were standing on by simply removing portions of the siding. Leaving the structure intact so does that all make sense when you look at those plans? Okay. Now you’re saying that Carol Dunsmore says that that then cannot be used as a stable? Is that what you said Bob? Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if you could have the applicant address the Chair and then direct the staff with the questions I’d, I think that’d be helpful. Aller: Why don’t we go ahead, that’d be great. Robert Boecker: So if I have a question of staff. Aller: You should address me and then we’ll get it answered. Robert Boecker: Okay. Alright. Andrew. Aanenson: If you want to put this over here… Robert Boecker: Oh, okay. Oh I thought you said they were all going to get a copy. Aanenson: They do… Aller: But anybody. Robert Boecker: Okay, so I can point at it and then you can see. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Aanenson: Yeah. Robert Boecker: Okay. Alright. As we talked about you can see that here, this façade would be Highway 101 would be right here. So without any doors on this side you can see directly into the structure. On the reverse side of that structure would be the west. This one here. By removing this whole section here you would be able to stand here, or from Highway 101 look directly through the building and know exactly what’s in the building. So the use of the structure is totally transparent. That’s why we’re proposing this to kind of put that issue to rest. As far as putting horses in there, could I have Andrew clarify whether or not the City inspector, Carol Dunsmore said that horses could not be stabled in a structure. Aller: That’s what I believe was stated, is that correct? Generous: Yes. When I showed her this plan she said that the structure must be enclosed for the shelter for the horses. Robert Boecker: So inside of this structure, can the two horse stalls themselves be enclosed? Aller: If you know Bob, I don’t know. Generous: I’m not sure. Aller: I wouldn’t know without asking her. Robert Boecker: So as a requirement when Carol would do the inspection, part of the requirement would be that the horse stalls themselves would need to be enclosed which would not be an issue to enclose them within the structure. Aller: Although wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having it open? If you have enclosures. Robert Boecker: No because the horses will have their own structure to keep them from the elements. The biggest issue is that you want this structure, the canopy structure so that you can put your hay and your tack and all your feed in there and keep that dry. The biggest issue with staff says well you’ve got other buildings. Why don’t you just go ahead and put the horses in the other buildings. My other buildings have classic cars in them. Classic motorcycles in them. I am not going to bring feed, hay, things that are going to bring rodents next to those cars. There’s a reason I have them in there so. Just look at my notes here. At the time in the ordinance amendment it was decided that the discussions, after the discussions the request for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. I believe this is a legitimate agricultural use to house our horses, hay, tack and one other thing we would also like to store in there is our horse trailer. We’re planning on getting a 4 place trailer with a bunk. That’s a lot of money for a trailer that I don’t want sitting outside but I was informed by staff that I could not store that trailer inside of this building because it’s personal property. Are my horses not personal property? Can they go in the structure? So these are the types of what I’m getting from staff when I’m trying to work through this and it’s just, it’s very frustrating. The overhead door sizes were in question in here. First of all they were designed 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 that way to match the other doors so that the building was uniform. Second, I asked staff what the average height of a horse trailer was with a hay rack on top. They didn’t know. My doors are 11 feet on this. They are not super tall doors but it will be 10 feet to the top of the hay rack so it will fit. Personal property. Just for the City’s record I will address the hoop house. The hoop house was constructed in 2006. It’s a non-permanent structure. We didn’t actually realize at the time that we would need a permit for the hoop house so that’s why there is no application for it. The hoop house. Complaints. Staff said that there would be, this type of property and these buildings will bring up more complaints and I was wondering if staff has an actual complaint that was directed towards my property or caused by my property in any, because of any of my buildings or anything that I have. Aller: There is none in the report right now. Let me ask Bob, are we aware of any right now? Generous: Not that I’m aware of. Not for this specific property. We’ve had it for other properties. Aller: In general, okay. Robert Boecker: Okay. The 10 acre exemption. The other thing that I wanted, I had a supplement that I had put in there was the City’s, that top one right there. If you guys have this. This is the zoning permit. You guys all have a copy of this? If you read through this, what does it take to get a zoning permit and what do you need a zoning permit for? Very last item on the list is agricultural buildings so when we looked at this to build our agricultural horse shed we assumed that we would be able to, and reading through this it makes it sound very easy to go in and we’ll get a zoning permit because it’s an ag building. So that’s what we assumed. Nowhere on here, which I would think this would be a great place to put, that you must have 10 acres to have an agricultural building. None of us knew that as homeowners that we needed 10 acres. That we live on agricultural land but cannot own an agricultural building. I don’t get that and that’s really something that should have been on this page if this is where I’m going to to find out what I can and cannot do. All variance requests are automatically denied by staff. So from the first day I went in to start working on this I was informed that no matter what, it doesn’t matter what the findings are, it will be denied. Or that’s what the request will be, to be denied. Once again it’s, there’s a frustration there that the city I live in doesn’t feel like they want to help us in any way to do this other than to figure out how can we not let this happen. That’s the only feeling you get and that’s once again frustrating. And along those lines if I have to come in, in front of a committee that also views the same guide, guided plan for my property, how is that not a conflict of interest for that party to be able to decide what I do on my land. It’s out there. It’s guided. My land is guided differently than it was when I bought the land and in 2007 we know that changed. That’s going to be the last issue that I’m going to bring up is that in 2007 these changes were made. How was I informed that that was going to happen? Does the council know how that happened? Aller: I’m sure there were noticed hearings. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Robert Boecker: There was a public notice in the Chan Villager to tell us about it. Does everybody agree that is the best way to contact? How many homeowners are there that are affected by this? Are there 500? 100? Just a guess. Let’s just throw a guess out there. Aanenson: Well it’d be pretty much the whole southern part of the city. It’s every, anything that’s zoned residential. This applies to anybody that has residentially zoned property so it’s, which we have almost 9,000 homes in the city. Those are ones that have properties on them so it’s the entire city that is residentially guided. Robert Boecker: And something like this that affects, we all agree this affects the value of our property immensely. The 2007 decision affects our property value immensely. Do we agree on that? Aller: I don’t have enough facts to say I agree or not. Robert Boecker: Well, I’m going to put it out there that it affects us immensely and if we’re not people that read the Chan Villager then we miss something that obviously affects a lot of us and I would venture to say if we sent out that, if we did do a mailer that in 2007 and put it out to vote, that should be changed. Should it stay as what it was voted on in 2007 or should it go back to what it was? I’m going to guess I’m going to know what that vote will come back as because people, it’s getting to the point where the, we’re all being cookie cuttered and you can’t look at every single property the same and that’s basically what’s being done here and so that’s why we’re up here. We’re asking, look at our property. It is special. We are bordered by wetlands on both sides. The only way our property is going to change when the sewer and water come in, is if a developer comes in and buys us all out and grazes us all and the chances of that happening, that’s not actually for the City to decide. That’s the market. The market’s going to decide because if it’s there. If it’s worth it then it will happen but otherwise us having an addition like this is not going to change that at all. And like I said if I wanted to decide to develop it, I’ll just take this structure and turn it into a home and there should be no issue with that. So with that, do you have any questions? Aller: I do. Robert Boecker: Yep. Aller: I mean you said you read this thing about agricultural buildings and the zoning permits. Why didn’t you go in and get a permit? Robert Boecker: Why didn’t I go in and talk to them about a zoning permit? Aller: Any permit. Robert Boecker: Our plan was to go in and talk to them about it but we had already started the process of trying to get all the numbers together of what this was going to mean for us to do this project and we had a window to get in. We took it and we thought this would be no big deal and it’s obviously a big deal. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Aller: Okay. And then you said nobody asked you. I’ll ask you, what do you do for a living? Robert Boecker: I am actually a reclaimed wood broker. I buy reclaimed lumber. Salvaged lumber and I ship it all over the United States and I resale so I’m basically a wholesaler. Aller: Is it your intention to store that lumber on this property? Robert Boecker: No. We ship directly from our site. Wherever I source it at, we pay another company to do the actual removal. It gets prepped and then it gets shipped to the site. So I do have an in-home office that I work out of and that’s where I do all my business. Aller: And then these other businesses, Boecker Properties, LLC. Robert Boecker: That is, when my wife used to be in mortgages and we owned multiple investment properties and we put all our investment properties under our LLC so that LLC is actually still sitting there. When the market tanked we sold those properties but it’s sitting there in case we ever decide to jump back. Back into that. Aller: And then Devaan-Sellers. Robert Boecker: Devaan-Sellers and. Aller: And Cheap Thrills. Robert Boecker: Cheap Thrills is I collect motorcycles. I have multiple motorcycles and I have two friends that actually have motorcycles and equipment at my house and we actually set those up so that we could purchase parts because we can’t just go in and get special pricing. So they’re basically shell companies set up so that we can get the pricing that we want on the parts. Aller: So you’re buying and selling parts out of your residence? Robert Boecker: No, we restore bikes. So but that’s not to say that parts don’t get sold. When I restore a bike I’ll sell it, everything off of it that I don’t re-use so whether, if you look at that as a business that I’m doing that for business purposes. It’s the same as if I’m working on truck. Take a fender off. Put a new one on and put that fender on Craig’s List. Am I running a business? So. Aller: I would think so. Robert Boecker: If I sell an old fender off of a truck that I fixed and I put it on Craig’s List and sold it? Aller: It depends on how many you’re selling. Robert Boecker: I’m doing that one truck so it’s. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Aller: Okay, so for that one part you’re incorporating? I mean that’s what I’m having a hard time. Robert Boecker: No, no, no, no, no. Aller: Is that the Secretary of State lists these as working LLC’s at your residence. Robert Boecker: As LLC’s. Correct and you need. Aller: With the place of business listed as your residence and with a manager by the name of Eric Devaan. Robert Boecker: Yes, who is my friend who races and the whole, what I just said was that in order to purchase parts at wholesale prices you need that entity set up. Otherwise they will not set you up. Those are set up for that reason so that we can purchase those parts. Aller: And the bikes that the parts go on are in your shed. Robert Boecker: A collection and raced, yes. Aller: Okay. Robert Boecker: And crashed and replaced again. Aller: Alright. Any other questions from anyone else at this point? Undestad: Just one here. Aller: Sure. Undestad: Yeah, the four buildings, the out buildings you have, two of them are. Robert Boecker: The first building that they talked about, we don’t have a garage attached to our house so the first one is a detached, three car garage so as far as I’m concerned that’s all, that’s our everyday driver cars. Undestad: So that’s number 1 up there? Robert Boecker: Yeah. Yeah, so that’d be number 1. Undestad: Okay. Robert Boecker: Yep. Well we’re doing the numbers so if you put up the other one with the numbers that will be, there. So the number 1. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Undestad: Is your garage. Robert Boecker: That’s our regular garage and we park our cars in every day. Number 2 is the one that we are proposing to add onto and that’s where you saw the pictures of the bigger doors and the alone door is where I work on whatever equipment breaks down. Whatever I’m working on at the time. The other bay next to it is where I store all motorcycles. Everything that has to do with that is in that spot. The hoop house has my unrestored cars. Unrestored snowmobiles. No. That’s the hoop house. That’s all the unrestored items that and extra stuff that I may need because if that, you know if it collapses or whatever. And then the next structure, if Bob goes to that, that’s where my nice products are. My nice cars and my motor coach too. Undestad: So you don’t use any of these for agricultural right now? Four buildings. Robert Boecker: No. No, I can’t grow on my land. I can’t do anything like that so, and when they were permitted they were permitted for personal storage. Not as agricultural buildings. This is the only one that we’ve applied for as an agricultural building. Undestad: Okay. Robert Boecker: Anything else? Aller: Questions? Hokkanen: Can you clarify the 10 acres zoning? What was that? Aanenson: That’s for agricultural purposes. That’s the farming component. I mean you can have a horse stable on less than that. Hokkanen: That’s what I thought. Aanenson: So we do allow certain animals to be housed so for 10 acres would be if you had something more, if you wanted sheep or something like that but to have a horse stable you can have less than the 10 acres. Hokkanen: That’s what I thought. Robert Boecker: I had just one more thing then. Along with Mark asking about the different sheds. Let’s just take the property right next door to me. Riegert who did get a variance approved. Let’s say I bought their house. It does have an attached two car garage and I decide I want to have horses. So I put up a 1,000 square foot structure. No big deal. That all goes through. Now my wife and I and my 2 kids are into snowmobiling. We all go out and buy brand new sleds. Put them on our four place trailer. I cannot build a building to put that in. I cannot put them in my horse structure. My horses. My horse trailer. My feed is taking up that 1,000 square feet so I would live on 5 acres where I can have those 2 horses but I can’t have anywhere to put anything, if I have any type of hobby, there’s nowhere for those items to go. Where does staff suggest I put those? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Undestad: Can’t that be in an attached though? Right I mean you can. Aanenson: Absolutely, if it’s attached to the principle structure then it’s not considered an accessory structure. Some people do have 5 car garages that are attached… Robert Boecker: Well we’re looking at the property right next door to me with, we’re only 155 feet wide. There would be no room to add that on. That wouldn’t work. So if I attach this structure instead of to the pole barn, if I attach it to my house, this would have been acceptable? Aller: What are the setbacks? Generous: If it’s not an accessory structure, if it’s part of the principle structure. And then the setbacks are 50 feet on the front… Robert Boecker: That’s interesting. Obviously I’m not going to put horses attached to my house but. Aanenson: And I’m not sure what the building code would be on that then too. I’m assuming it would be different standards for construction if it’s attached to the principle structure. Robert Boecker: But do you see how this is, obviously we’re unique. Our area is unique. It should be treated unique. It shouldn’t just be cookie cutter 1,000 square feet so. Any other questions? Aller: No. Thank you. Robert Boecker: Thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward speaking for or against this item can do so at this time. No one wishing to come forward? No one coming forward, we’re going to close the public hearing portion. Oh. Sir come on up. State your name and address for the record. th Greg Falkner: Greg Falkner, 720 West 96 Street. Right down the road from the Boeckers. Aller: Welcome Mr. Falkner. Greg Falkner: Yes. I have been here before you. You may remember my case and you know it is frustrating and stuff and I see where Bob’s going with this. I would like to say one thing and that is, a lot of have been here before 2007 and these rules didn’t apply at that time so it’s really hard for us to swallow it now and if you just understand that, it is different. I mean if I had known what I know now back then I may have made some different choices but you know we’re dealing with the 2007 as much as we can. I’d like to say we are grandfathered in but clearly we’re not but I mean we did have different opinions of our property until this 2007 so you know I understand where you’re coming and I understand where Bob’s coming but if you guys could 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 just give that a little bit of thought you know because it is real unique property. When I found it in ’96, I mean I was ecstatic and I’m still ecstatic about it. I love it. It’s a way of life for us you know and I treat it well and everybody else on the street does too and we all get along very well and I don’t think that anybody has really made too many complaints in our neighborhood against anybody in the neighborhood because I’ve never heard of anything and it is a dead end street but you know I just don’t know if what Bob’s proposing is really going to make a difference at this point. If it is going to be turned into something different in the future where somebody buys us all out, which would be extremely difficult since I mean I just built my house 4 years ago. I have a hard time believing that somebody’s going to come in and give me what I want for it at this point so. And there is swamp on both sides. There is swamp. They’re going to have to deal with swamp because that is what’s on both sides of the street so thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak either for or against the item? Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. I’ll open it for commissioner comments. Discussion. Aanenson: Chair can I just add one thing? Aller: Yes. Aanenson: This isn’t Bob’s position paper. Bob wrote the staff report. This is the staff’s recommendation so as a planning Community Development Director, I read this. The City Manager reads the staff report so this is coming up through the staff’s recommendation. Aller: I think we all understand that. Aanenson: Okay. Aller: Thank you for pointing that out though for the public because they may not have realized it at this point so with that we’ll open it up for discussion. Comments. My first blush reaction quite frankly was he didn’t ask for permission. He didn’t ask for a permit. Take it down. I think he made some valid arguments. I think the community is interested in knowing where it goes so I’d like to hear some discussion on those other factors to determine whether or not a variance would be appropriate under these circumstances. Weick: When in doubt I tend to, and I am in doubt, but I do tend to go to the Findings of Fact as a guide and to see are there any conditions of the variance that are met or are not met and they, the Findings of Fact list 6 of those one doesn’t apply. One is met and in my opinion four are not under this, even with all the considerations and everything we’ve heard today and so that, I mean that tends to guide my thinking when there’s 4 of 6 that are not, that don’t appear in my opinion to be met for a variance. Aller: Any other comments? Hokkanen: I do want to point out, these are very unique properties and I do feel, I understand their frustration. I understand the whole 2007 change. I wasn’t here at that time so I can’t 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 comment on that but if you purchase your home or your property with certain expectations you think that’s going to go through for the whole time that you own your property no matter what that case may be so I understand that frustration on that part. How it applies in this particular situation I kind of agree we’re missing some components here. Just my but I do understand their frustration and it is a very unique area. Aller: I agree. Hokkanen: Of the city. I mean it’s, that’s part of what makes Chanhassen a great place to live. Aller: And this isn’t the first one in this area that we’ve had to deal with. Hokkanen: No. No. Aller: Just on a much smaller scale where people were looking just to expand by a couple hundred feet here and there. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: And to expand an already existing use as opposed to creating a new use. Hokkanen: I agree with that, yeah. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions. Concerns. Undestad: Yeah I don’t know. I’m kind of in the same boat is how do you pick and choose? You know I mean yeah, it’s tough because again it’s, if you’ve got acreage you want to do that kind of stuff but you know, I don’t know how we can pluck one out here and say yes and one here and say no and you know at what point does, and again we talked about this before. Getting all these buildings going up at the same time so, you know and I think that if we had somebody here that didn’t have any buildings on there and everybody else did, well then we look at the one in there. Four buildings, he’s got a lot of square footage on there and none of them are for agricultural right now but I guess I’d have to agree with the Findings of Fact on this too. Campion: I had one question. That building number 4. The one where we, there wasn’t a history of the permit. When was that built? Robert Boecker: 2006. And it does meet setbacks. Aller: Further? Yusuf: I just have one question. Aller: Sure. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Yusuf: We understand your hardship and the situation that you’re faced with. I’m just wondering whether staff has made any recommendations or alternate proposals that might help to fit the need or is there a way to maximize the use of the existing structure so you could accomplish your goal without the add on? Generous: Commissioner. No, we didn’t recommend any alternatives if you will. We did ask if he could use the existing structures for his stable. Yusuf: And the response was? Generous: Was no, he wanted to keep it separate with the hay and other critters possibly getting into it and so he has a separate unit if you will for that operation. Aller: Which is I think what his testimony was and I think it’s a very understandable one. If you’re rebuilding and creating things then you don’t necessarily want mice and other things going into your component so I think the big question is, does it meet the requirements of the variance and does it fulfill any of the exemptions for purposes of agricultural use. Tennyson: It doesn’t meet the requirements of a variance in general. That’s the problem. Robert Boecker: Could you read those out? Tennyson: I’m referring to the same, same information that Commissioner Weick was talking about. The six things in the Findings of Fact starting on page 1 of Findings of Fact and going (a) through (f). Those are the legal requirements. Trying to find a Finding that meets those legal requirements of a variance including practical difficulties which is sometimes called a hardship. And the one that didn’t apply was related to earth sheltered construction. These Findings are what we need to go to when we try to look at a variance. Does it meet the requirements of the variance because a variance is a really unique thing itself. Even though the property is unique, so is a variance and that’s the problem for us. Robert Boecker: Can I just, I guess I’d have to say the uniqueness as we talk to the property I believe also makes it that much tougher for Findings to support you know doing what we’re looking to do in our area. I don’t want to be on your side either. Trying to figure out a why. As residents purchasing in 1997, purchased under a certain assumption that this is where I’m going to grow up. This is probably where I’ll retire and when I sell this house I’m probably going to Florida and that’s changed now and really I had no way to not let, it happened. 2007 happened. Even if you had mailed each one of us, I don’t know for sure you know what the outcome. I guess none of us would have known but I think it’s to the point now where too many things. As you say there’s more and more of this coming up and this happening where it should be pointing out that you know, this is actually a problem. What was done in 2007, maybe we shouldn’t have cookie cuttered everything and just treat, and just say everything has to match this because we are Chanhassen. We are unique and there’s a reason that we want to keep and have all these areas. I believe having us looking the same in 2030 and our neighborhood look the way it does now, the way we keep it would be great. But I don’t think staff agrees. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Aller: Any additional comments? Undestad: Well I mean just to comment on that. You know I think part of the, when we go through rezoning and then we look at these comp plans and things like that. Now as the city grows it does change and it does need to have changes made and the only way that we can put those out is in the newspaper. Public notifications and things and that’s when we need everybody to come back in and say, wait a minute. I’m not sure I like that. If everybody, if they don’t read the paper they don’t get the notice. Maybe the neighbors don’t tell them but it’s really our only way of getting that out there. And that’s why we do the publications so changes have to be made. We send them out and you know when we adjust a zoning it gets adjusted and that’s what we’ve got to live with for a while here so. Aller: Anything further? I’ll entertain a motion. Weick: I will. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The Planning Commission denies the variance request. Direct the applicant to demolish the horse shelter, quote unquote, expansion and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 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? Weick moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the accessory structure variance request, directs the demolition of the “horse shelter” expansion and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aller: Moving on to item 3. We have a request. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if I may. Just for clarification for the applicant or anybody else following. Anybody can appeal this decision. Aller: Yes, that’s correct. Aanenson: Within 4 days. Aller: Within 4 days in writing. th Aanenson: And if it is appealed it would be set for the December 8 City Council meeting. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014 Aller: December 8, 2014. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Okay, so now we’re moving onto item number 3. PUBLIC HEARING: MEDICAL ARTS BUILDINGS SIGNAGE: REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT ON .90 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS TH DISTRICT (CBD) AND LOCATED AT 470 AND 480 WEST 78 STREET. APPLICANT: JONATHAN ADAM, SILVERSTONE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, LLC. OWNER: KEN TALLE, CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS, LP/CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS II, LLC. PLANNING CASE 2014-34: Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The subject site is located at th the northwest corner of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 78 Street. Brief background on the buildings that we have out there. In 1989 the City Council approved the preliminary plat and site plan application for the Medical Arts Building. It was approved in two phases. Phases 1 and 2 and Phase 1 was completed in 1990. And Phase 2 in ’92. Part of the site plan approval for those two buildings was a sign plan for the overall site. The City wanted to ensure that there was a detailed plan in place. This is, this was a fairly large building for Chanhassen at the time and they just needed to ensure that things didn’t get out of hand and signs weren’t all over the building. The one thing that we need to point out is at the time when those buildings were built the main occupant was Ridgeview Medical and there were a couple of other large users within the building. The developer at the time requested that the sign band facing th 78 as well as the parking lot be limited in how many signs it would include. Since then Ridgeview, as you know built their own building and moved to the corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. This building, these spaces started to get occupied by smaller businesses but quite a few more within the building and we’re often faced with a request to put up a sign along the building and within the sign band. Unfortunately when we look at the criteria that was approved for the Medical Arts Building, our answer always has to be no. And we got to a point where we picked up the phone and contacted the management company and said please request an amendment to this criteria. This is not something that you find anywhere else in the city. All of the buildings usually you will see a sign band and this is where you will have your signage so what staff is recommending is we remove the limit on the number of signs. One of them is currently the Phase 1 building is limited to 10 signs. Five on each side and the second one is limited to 14, 7 on each side. Instead what we have is a sign band that is limited to 2 feet 2 inches and it doesn’t matter how many signs you can fit within that band as long as it meets the criteria set in the, in this application then that’s fine. And just on another topic, I did do the math for the overall area of the façade of the building and the percentage that will be occupied by signage and it is way below what is permitted by ordinance so with that staff is recommending that we remove the language limiting the number of signs on each face. Everything else within that development will remain as is. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aller: How many tenants are we expecting to be in the facility? 21