Loading...
PC Minutes 4-4-06Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE ND FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3991 WEST 62 STREET, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-12. Public Present: Name Address nd Gary Carlson 3891 West 62 Street nd Maureen & Molly Carlson 3891 West 62 Street nd Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62 Street nd Mara Carlson 3891 West 62 Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from staff? Jerry, any questions? McDonald: Yeah, I have a couple. First of all, do we know when these structures were put in place? When they were built. Metzer: I believe the first one was built in ’96 or ’97 and I don’t know the exact dates of the other two but within… McDonald: Okay, and then on the drawing, it looks as though we did some trading for 5 structures to create the barn structure. Have the other structures been removed yet or are they in the process of doing that? Metzer: We’re going to, we have a date set in the signed agreement with the applicant that those will be removed by a certain date. …off the top of my head but the agreement is signed that the structures will be removed by a certain date. If not the city will use it’s…escrow to hook up. McDonald: Okay. And then when we look at the amount of space that these other buildings take place, and the 5 buildings are pretty much a wash with the barn. You just consolidated all those into kind of one area. But aren’t we still over with structures A, B and C? Don’t they also create a problem that’s there also as far as the amount of square footage detached that’s allowed? Metzer: Well from what records we have, minus the three that were built without permits, those are grandfathered structures basically because they’ve been in existence before current ordinances. McDonald: Right. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Metzer: So by adding the 3 without permits he intensified the non-conformance which the code does not allow. McDonald: Okay. So if we deny his permits for say Building C and B and A, what’s the alternative? Does he have to tear them down in order to be in compliance? Metzer: Correct. McDonald: Okay. Thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? No questions at this point? Alright, with that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward and tell us if you have anything to add to what staff is presenting. What’s in the staff report and so forth. If you want to start with your name and address for the record please. Appreciate that. You might want to pull the microphone a little towards you, yes. Thank you. nd Megan Moore: My name is Megan Moore. I resides at 3891 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota. I live there with my family. My husband and my 2 children. I would like to submit a letter from our neighbors the Keel’s who live directly to the east of us. Just in support of the variances. Sacchet: Okay. Megan Moore: The Keel’s house is. Sacchet: Right there, okay. Megan Moore: So this property represents a legacy which I look forward to passing on to my children. That is to say that the agricultural nature of 3891 requires adequate housing for livestock, feed, implement and machinery. Which one’s are A, B and C? I don’t really know Josh. Sacchet: It’s the green ones. Metzer: Yeah, A, B, and C. Megan Moore: So B and C are machinery and loafing sheds. The residential nature of 3891 requires that safety and aesthetics retain high priority. For me the safety of my children and my sister, Molly Carlson, are paramount. These variances when granted provide the safe environment that Chanhassen, I think Chanhassen has always striven for. At the same time respecting the diversity that my family represents. As Executor I respectfully request that the Board approve the variances as the storage facilities benefit our corner of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time. Your hard work. Appreciate the time, I spend a lot of time on boards myself and I’ll be available for any questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from the applicant? 19 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions following up on all this. When were the structures built? Megan Moore: I think that my dad knows the answer to those questions so he’ll be speaking in a second. McDonald: Okay. The issue of safety on Building A. If that were to be moved the number of feet that it’s talking about, how does that impact safety? Megan Moore: On this corner of the building and sort of along the front by the building, that’s where my kids play. This is my daughter’s playhouse. Their bikes and there’s a giant tree right here. All that space isn’t, it’s not all driveway space. Do you know what I’m saying? And so while I understand that my kids could play in the driveway, I prefer that they don’t. Especially when I know that at any time virtually during the day a UPS truck needs to back in there or whatever, but it’s just, knowing that my kids have that extra buffer of safety when there are big vehicles and it’s difficult to see behind when I have a 5 and a 3 year old. I think those, to me those are the vital safety points that I’m really protective of. So does that answer your question? Jerry, right? McDonald: Yes. Well I guess what I’m not sure of is, the number of feet you’ve got to move to come into compliance is not all that much. You’re at, I think you’re at 22 feet and you need to go to, is it 30 Josh? Metzer: Right. McDonald: So we’re talking about 8 feet and in order to come into compliance at least with where that’s at, I don’t see where giving up 8 feet you’ve lost anything. Megan Moore: I see your argument but between the sort of area between the front of the house and the front corner of that garage, which is like this area right here. I don’t think, I think the 8 feet would be significant. I don’t think the vehicles can safety even pull out of the garage if that were removed. Especially right where the tree is. So it’s hard for me to point it out on this picture but the tree is sort of sticking out, you can see the shadow of it on this picture, but I think 8 feet would be fairly significant to be honest. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, why wasn’t the city consulted as far as building permits? Megan Moore: I didn’t build it so again my dad can address that. McDonald: Because yeah, I’d like an answer to that question and also when these were actually built so I guess when your dad comes back, I do have some ongoing questions that I would like some answers to there. Megan Moore: Sure. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Sacchet: Any other questions for her? Larson: Just a quick one. Megan Moore: Sure. Larson: Is the driveway from the main road leading to the house right there? Megan Moore: The driveway leading from the, I’m sorry. Larson: Yeah, look at this one. Where’s the driveway that leads to the front of the house? Because it’s hard to tell from this. Megan Moore: It comes along the trees here. Comes around. Larson: Oh that way? Here I was thinking it was the other way. Megan Moore: It’s like underneath the shadows of the trees. Larson: Okay. So that’s where the driveway is. I know you’re saying that the kids, it would impact the area where your kids play. I thought it was more behind the house so I’m confused. Megan Moore: Well my kids. Larson: I know kids play everywhere. I have 4, I know. Megan Moore: Okay. Well they definitely don’t play right here where they first come in from the, unless we’re like taking the bikes and going out onto the trail or something. The trail leads right along our property right there. But they do, this is all their play area. This is more like parking and drop off areas so I can’t really use that for play area. My concern is here, between the house and the garage. They play there. Their bikes are stored in that area. Their tric’s. Their little mini type car things. Oh my god, everything. Larson: Okay now, so but what you’re saying is. Megan Moore: Well but the cars do come through here. There’s this place to park extra vehicles here if we have somebody visiting. Larson: On a regular basis? Megan Moore: And UPS guys, which are frequent visitors. Larson: Now why would they go that way when there’s more room the other direction? Obvious to me looking at this. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Megan Moore: Because they like to drop it off at this most northern door, which is my door. I think because mainly they know that I’m home all the time and so they ring my bell because I’ll come and answer the door. Larson: So the one letter that was attached regarding having a van be able to turn around. Where does that, show me the route that that van takes. Megan Moore: The van pulls in and pulls right past this, pulls in the driveway. Pulls right here and has to get up to the ramp which you can actually see the ramp on the picture. It comes out right here. It has to be able to get in and face this way so that the, when the door comes out on the. Larson: Actually the photograph I have is more clear than what I’m seeing there but I can see where you’re pointing now. Megan Moore: But anyways like in blizzard weather like we had this March, Molly’s literally coming down this ramp and able to get right from the ramp onto the, I mean it’s, and really it’s better that way because her wheelchair for some reason doesn’t make it through snow all that well. Larson: Yeah I can imagine. Megan Moore: So it’s handy and it’s handy for her to not be in the cold for too long or the rain. I mean her machine is really sensitive to getting wet. Her power wheelchair. Larson: Well that aside, because just looking at this, it appears that like Jerry McDonald said, if you were to move the building this way, that’s not impacting where the van is coming and the UPS guys, you can put a sign up or something, you can’t go this way. You know what I mean? Megan Moore: Right. Larson: So to me moving the garage, and I know it’s going to be a pain in the neck to do that but the 8 feet, I don’t see how it’s going to really impact that big driveway area very much you know, other than the fact that I know it’s a hassle to do that. But I kind of tend to agree with Jerry on this. Megan Moore: Okay. I just would like to reiterate that I think it’s not safe. That’s pretty much my stance on that. Mainly because I’ve seen them try and pull it in and out. Sacchet: So it’s not safe when there are vehicles going through there. But I think what, where Jerry and Debbie are coming from is that, the vehicles don’t really have to go through there. There’s no requirement. I mean the van pulls up on the other side of the house. There’s plenty of space in the area. I mean there’s no need for the vehicles to go there, is there? Megan Moore: But I think that they do. They do, my sister loads off of this end of the building out of her van. Her van parks in this garage. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Papke: Could the requirement be met, since the infringement is really on the northwest corner at about a 45 degree angle, has the city planners looked if they chopped off the fourth stall, would they be in compliance? Metzer: The diagonal, the 45 degree line is actually considered the side property line, so the setback there is only 10 feet. It’s from the short, it’s the area up here. From this, the setback in here is 22 feet. Papke: Okay, so there’s no way by eliminating a stall that we could get within, the whole building would have to physically be moved. Okay. Sacchet: Okay? Is that it for questions? Thank you very much. Megan Moore: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing and we know your dad is going to say something too so I’d like to open the public hearing and anybody who wants to address this item, please come forward at this time. And if you want to state your name and address for the record, appreciate that. Mara Carlson: Good evening. Pardon me. Good evening, my name is Mara Carlson. I also live nd at 3891 West 62 Street and there’s a couple things that I myself can clear up for you. Number one, the driveway issue does not end here. This is not the end of our driveway. Cars move continuously past this. This is our access area for all the rest of our agricultural needs, which I’ll be addressing shortly. So there is a constant need for vehicles, and large vehicles that carry feed and materials for our barn to get through here, so it’s not just a regular small driveway that a compact car or family van passes through but it’s a large piece of machinery that needs to pass through there. Second of all the, I believe it’s Building, this building here which is Building C was built approximately 12 years ago. Okay, so as I stated my name is Mara Carlson and I am the person responsible for the horse activities that have taken place on this hobby farm for the last 24 years, and I would also like to address the issue of hardship concerning these two buildings, the 23 by 24 loafing shed and the 21 by 22 machine storage shed. Our horses need these two buildings for their safe and proper care. That’s the facts. Our horses need the loafing shed for shelter when they are confined to that section of the pasture, either for nutritional reasons or health reasons. And they need the, excuse me I need the machine shed for storage of my tractor mower and for other horse related care equipment. Again for the safe and proper management of their pasture environment. I need to be able to mow weeds. I need to be able to keep pollutants from their environment so that they don’t contract issues and health issues that can be related to non-proper management. It would be an extreme hardship and certainly a safety risk for me to try and manage our horses without these buildings. I very much want to continue having a safe and healthy horse operation and therefore I support the granting of the variance and the relief. Finally I would like to just ask, request that you keep in mind that by building these two pieces of shelter, that the intention was not to increase the value of the 23 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 property. Of course a new shed is going to be more valuable than an old shed. That’s just the facts of life. But it was built with the intention of preserving a portion of the original intent and use of this property, which was agriculture and was established, as was mentioned, back in 1913. 112 years ago. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address this item. Please come forward at this time. Looks like we meet the whole family this time. nd Molly Carlson: Hello. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62 Street in the handicap addition that you granted the variance for last year. I again I want to thank you for that. It was…allow to keep my garages where my dad built them. By moving them from our front door… The garages need to be where they are so that I can get easily from my… If the garage is on the back side of that, I am not able to…so I’m requesting that you grant the variance. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing is still open. Now we get to dad. Alright. Please state your name and address for the record. Gary Carlson: You’ll have to please excuse me because we’re getting into a grandfathered frame of mind here where we’ve all had to change occupations coming, we probably took care of our families before we came down tonight to make sure the kids were all safe and supper was over. And likewise I’ve been privileged to be in the city of Chanhassen for many, many, many years. My name is Gary Carlson and I’m the third generation in this area and we’ve maintained this hobby farm pretty much the way it was intended. Way we received it from the original developers, I mean original owners. I just want to give a quick overview tonight and then talk about a little bit on each of the variances and then I’ll sit down and be glad to answer any further questions. It’s just going to take a little bit to get up to speed. To get up to where we can be on the same page over this property has been there and pretty much it’s evolving state for 112 years. I had to refer back to the county records. I thought it was 1896, but it was actually 1894 so we got a couple years older. Now the first question I always get when I get on my farm outfit and when I’m out in public is, what is that on your hat? And those in the ag business kind of know what it is. Iwamec is a bull enhancer, similar to Viagra which I might need some of after tonight. Now the property overview to begin with has been covered quite well by Josh from the City of Chanhassen and so we know where it is. It’s up in the very corner of the city and it’s been operating as a unique piece of agricultural property for many, many years. And what we have tonight is we’re here to settle the zoning. To bring these 2 variances up to par. We were in here last year and got a variance for Molly’s addition and this year we’re bringing some variances on line to cover the I guess the accessory structures and also the setback variance. And they kind of came about originally with Molly’s addition and then wanting to bring in a pole barn to replace our old barn. I became aware that there was a couple sheds and one garage that had some questions on, and so we’re here to clear those up. And why we are operating in this unique fashion is in a grandfathered position on one side. We have nothing in the city that we can, there’s no pile of rules and regulations on grandfathering. There’s not a lot of help given in the city’s guidance. Let’s take a quick look at what Carver County, how they govern their initial look at this. The mission statement from Carver County, it’s a very short paragraph. It’s on their web page. We will plan the county’s growth to preserve it’s uniqueness and we will 24 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 encourage rural and urban compatibility. We will further endeavor to protect our historical past. So Carver County is trying right at the onset to get urban and a rural working together and living together. But as far as the laying, you come with to the City of Chanhassen and they have mention of it. Let’s see how positively they mention it and whether rural and urban can compatible with together. I guess our terms are that we referred to is non-conforming. That doesn’t sound good right there. To be non-conforming. Pre-existing. I mean that sounds like prehistorical so we have a little hill to climb there. The city staff has, which I have to commend them. They’re very knowledgeable. They’re very helpful. They get back to you. I’ve got properties in other states and in other counties and I find our city staff to be number one. They’re very, very good. Very helpful, but they only have the zoning laws to work with. They only have the zoning rules and regulations to work with, and when they go to work on something they have to say well is it within that or is it without that? And so their recommendations show that they have to stay within that zoning and they’ve made findings that our property is a little bit unique. So where are we going to get relief and where are we going to get help because there’s no set of rules and regulations for us. Being a non-conforming property. Well, our balance of power comes from you folks. It’d be nice if you had hobby farms or if you lived in a business that you had to run independent of what was maybe the norm in the area but you’re still independent thinking people and you know what’s right and you know what’s the best thing to do. And so you can interpret grandfathering. You can interpret non-conforming use. If it’s unique. If it’s something that should be carried forward into the future, you can support that and you can come up with whatever motion you wish. You don’t have to follow the city’s permission. As I say, they must stay within their zoning and they’re going to recommend things along the zoning line. I watched other Planning Commission meetings and I know that you do support diversity. You very much tried to get the non-conforming, I mean some uniqueness and different buildings that are going on in the city. And so we feel that maybe we’re possibly climbing out of that hole a little bit and, with being before you tonight. Now Mr. Carlson, where are you with city zoning? Do you support city zoning? Or are you this maverick way out here on the edge and we want to just be sure that you don’t get expanded. You don’t change and if you do anything to change anything, and it’s not occurring within a year, then you can’t do it anymore. You’re phased out. Well, on the contrary, Megan I need, or Josh… Will that come up on the overhead? Okay, Gary Carlson and Maureen Carlson, my wife is here tonight. We developed Minnewashta Meadows, right here. A 16 lot development. We came on board. We had no variances whatsoever in that development. We have, it’s developed into a very unique and very neat neighborhood. Those folks sell their homes on a regular basis and they’re happy to have that development. We developed that and my wife named the streets and it was completed with all your zoning and laid out and a perfect neighborhood. I, myself built the home, a second home that we still own. It adds to our acreage. I guess you can see on the survey, it’s this down here. You see all our buildings that we’re talking about are up here. It’s this home right there and that again was all built within the city’s zoning and setback no variances needed on that home. So we support the zoning. And Mr. and Mrs. Carlson and the Carlson family have always supported the new development following these plans but we’re pre-existing on this ag site and we don’t mean to say that we’re above the zoning but we very much recognize what our grandfathered property has done for us, and that we’re hoping to show you what’s it done tonight. So you can see that I do support the variances and I can certainly work within them and I have. The, what has Mr. Carlson done for the City of Chanhassen? Well I’ve done a couple… that I won’t mention right now but the one thing I have done, there’s a new development going 25 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 into the south of us. That’s been going through the Planning Commission. I think it’s pretty well all approved and running. Hidden Creek Addition. I’ve entered into an agreement with that developer to completely come onto my property by 200 or 300 feet. Landscape my property down to meet him in a proper fashion and the city’s approved all that. That grading but it’s giving up my land to let them do it, and what’s better for the city is to have a proper grading from me to the new road, and I’ve allowed that to come on board. What that’s going to allow for those neighbors down there, which there’s some very expensive homes going in there…more homes, you’ll be looking out into what will be a very positive thing for them. A nice horse pasture with the property split rail fence and properly graded down to their development. Now I’m asking the city to do some things for me, and that is to look at these variances very carefully and see if they’re, you’re not opening the flood gates. You’re not saying well we’re going to have every resident in here wanting 5,000 accessory structures. 5,000 feet of accessory roof and we want to change our setbacks all along the front. We’re not going to do that if you grant these variances. In fact you’ll be setting the standard quite high because there’s no other property like our’s. To get a little understanding of the property, we have 4 residences within that home. Four completely separate residences. Separate entrances. Separate washer. Clothes washing facilities. Separate exits and entrances. Besides the ag operation, you know we operate the other businesses. I’ve been fortunate to be my own, I haven’t worked for anyone since I was 41 years old. You couldn’t say I’ve been retired but I’ve been self sufficient. This property has helped with that. And so it’s, we’ve had one of the best realtors in the area try to find us another property because the developer that did this property to the south did want our property to develop, and we looked for 6 months. There’s nothing comparable to this property. It’s not just the land. It’s what’s the investment in the structures. And we certainly don’t care about price. Our intent is not to gain further value. I suppose in 112 years we could have sold it several times. Now I just want to speak carefully or quickly to each of the variances. Thank you for listening to my overview. I’m sure it might have generated a few more questions. The variance nd for setback on West 62 Street would be an additional 8 feet. Well the building is built, but we can, if we moved it back 8 feet it would block the front of the house from having proper fire equipment being able to get around it. I mean I have to really be responsible for the other people that live in this property. We have other tenants that aren’t all family members. I have my daughter who lives in the handicap addition, but the other 2 apartments are complete, I mean they’re just folks that are looking for affordable housing and we provided it. We provided it for years. When it was divided into, I mean I didn’t need 15 bedrooms when I bought the house so it was divided and it’s been maintained. You wouldn’t know that it was built in 1896 if you walked into it. It has 10 foot high ceilings. Has a saloon. It has 3 whirlpools. Has garage. Heated garage. Attached. My garage. Has a sunroom. Has a couple porches. Now it’s a little bit confusing whereas on the survey, which the city has to work off of. When we do a certified survey, anything that isn’t enclosed they don’t show. So they don’t show on this, of the original building, the space between it. They don’t know the entrance back here. It’s a covered entrance but it’s not enclosed entrance. They don’t show Molly’s handicap ramp that comes down here and out into the driveway. Her driveway comes out in the driveway. And I guess there’s a carport actually on this end here. They don’t show it because it’s just a free standing carport. So those aren’t ever shown on a registered survey because they’re not enclosed, but they actually show my daughter, my grand daughter’s playhouse I built for her. It’s just a little playhouse because it’s enclosed, so that’s on this survey. Let’s stay with the variances here Carlson. Okay, I’m trying to. So the setback. Now we’re trying to work on the variance for the setback. As you 26 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 ndnd go down West 62, the next property to us has a structure within 10 feet of West 62. You go to the next property to the east of this and they have a structure that’s within 15 feet of West ndnd 62. We’re 22 feet back from West 62. The additional safety feature of that is that these people come screaming down Cathcart and they used to come zipping and they missed the curve a lot of the times with the new kids that learn to drive, especially towards spring. We a lot of times get them running right up into that curb. And since we built that garage, the full white, because remember it’s white. When they’re coming down the street, you see something, your headlights reflect off it and even in snowstorms, it looks something different. You’re not looking like an open road. You’re seeing a white. Even it’s 22 feet back. We have not had one accident on that curve since we built that garage, so by taking the garage down or moving it, it would cause, will let some more kids, usually it’s kids, up into that. But when you see, roaming around the Dakotas and you see a T intersection, you always see those big white barriers making the T and that’s exactly what that garage does for that corner, so we actually added tremendously to the safety of that corner. And as I said with the responsibility of having other folks living in the property, I am concerned that we can get fire equipment around the front of the building. The side of the building. All sides of the building if needed, so by moving that 8 feet it would just squeeze this area and you’re going to see 8 feet. And remember these are structures come out here. Trees and so forth. And then you have to have places to stack the snow. So the garage, I don’t know if you’ve been out there and looked, it’s exactly in the right place. Yes, it’s not back nd 30 feet but none of the other structures along West 62 are back 30 feet either so we’re hoping you grant that variance. As far as the variance for the excessive structure, what is that called Josh? Metzer: Accessory structure. Gary Carlson: Accessory structure, over 1,000 square feet. We have always been over the 1,000 square feet. Ever since that’s been there so granting a variance…always been added since day one. We’ve been over the 1,000 square foot and you’re not going to, by granting it us you’re not going to have other people coming up, well I want 1,000. You know I want 3,000 square foot. I think the variance, in retro it was a complete surprise when we got the packet. Sorry that that variance request was in there but I did tell the city staff, I said now if there’s any other things that are going to need a variance, let’s do it this year. Again because I was just here last year. And I guess it’s kind of resulting because we’re doing some things. The neighbors are doing some things and it’s just a chance to look at our property and say let’s get the variances that we need in place and Josh was very intelligent. Very smart now. If you approve that variance, he has a condition there of no, do you want to read that Josh. You know what that is. Metzer: Which one? Gary Carlson: The condition that they approve the variance, you’re recommending a condition of, it’s very intelligent. It does say to the Carlson’s, you know fine. You have these buildings. Metzer: Building permits must be obtained? Gary Carlson: No. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Metzer: No new accessory structure or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. Gary Carlson: There you go. So it does say to the Carlson farm operation that, I don’t agree with it. I really don’t want that in there. I mean I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. When I started in sweet corn, it was sold in Mike’s stand. In fact we got calls a year after, when are you going to have some more. Well Mike Wanous quit selling sweet corn but we used to grow it on our property. Then we went to hay and we did hay for some years. Then we had cattle there for a while. Then we had back to hay and now into horses. We had an apple orchard and we sold apples to Lund’s store at one time. So we don’t know in the ag, when you’re ag and you have ag things going on there, you don’t know whether it’s going to be soy beans next year or corn or maybe hogs. I mean I’m not going to be quite into those things but you see what I’m saying is, I have to make sure of that land. I can just sit there and watch it. And the other things if you grant the variances, going forward. …these buildings are going to sit there forever. If I develop, all these buildings are gone and even if the city is contemplating a road to connect into the new addition coming through this property and if that road goes in, this house, it’s going to be facing east. So this becomes a side setback. In the beginning I told Josh, well we face east anyway. Let’s consider this our front and this our side. He said no, I’m sorry. We can’t consider that your front because your front is where your driveway comes in from, but if we get developed and the road goes between you and the neighbor, that will become a viewpoint because it will be our side setback. So I hope I’ve kind of explained on it. Being a surprise and getting the variance for the number of buildings, square foot of accessory structures just as a surprise to us. If the commission is not feeling positive about these two variances we’re requesting, I mean I was just surprised Saturday with this last request. You know I would like to have it tabled and maybe possible…maybe I can take down one of these other accessory structures. Maybe this one will have migrant workers in it at one time. When we bought the property it had a 10 inch casing on the well. I would have supplied water for that end of the city. It’s gone through some changes and we’re certainly willing to listen to whatever comments and questions you might have. Sacchet: Thank you very much Mr. Carlson. Gary Carlson: I hope that’s not taking too much time. It’s over 112 years of. Sacchet: Putting 112 years in 20 minutes. Gary Carlson: …need some help because, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Gary Carlson: Thank you. Sacchet: Well public. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yeah, if you can tell me when these structures were built. I think A was built in 1996. C was probably 1994. When was B built? 28 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Gary Carlson: B is the garage? The four stall garage? McDonald: No B is the loafing shed I believe. Gary Carlson: The loafing shed. That was about, now through this process with building, let’s cover that. I just a little bit give you an understanding on it. City of Chanhassen has a wonderful lady, Carol Dunsmore. She also does the horse inspecting and works in the building department, but she’s the horse inspector. She might do some other cities around the area. Very wonderful lady. She said in one of her notes, because she makes a note each year. You know whether this horse looks a little, needs something or hooves need, you know whatever she notices. And she wanted more shelter for the horses so she came back the next year and there was a shelter. Well Mr. Carlson, I see you have a nice shelter for the horses. That’s very good and that’s the last I heard of it, so I mean, and that’s from the building. I mean she was very kind. I mean she could have run back and said hey, Mr. Carlson built a horse shelter. Now when I say build a horse shelter, it’s, these buildings are all fairly small. They’re 21 by 22. They’re set way back from the property line. They look like they belong there. They look like they’ve been there. They have been there for quite a while. I had a list of each size of all these buildings. There they are. The loafing shed was 22 by 24. I mean that’s just, it looks, nice little building and it fits right there. The machine shed is 21 by 22. And even a garage is only 20 feet deep. It’s not like it’s a 20, nobody wants a 20 foot garage. You won’t build them that way but I did to keep that strip there for the safety of the building. Keep back from our home. Try to keep certain distance back from the road. The garage was built in stages and all during that time, from Mr. Reed at the time was our building inspector but I think I’m on my about my fifth or sixth building inspector in the time I’ve been there but, he came out several times that year. Several times the next year. Several times the next year. He never said where’s your building permit for that garage. I don’t know whether he was, he felt sorry, felt that we were doing the right thing but at the wrong time. Or the wrong time and the right thing. I’m not sure but first, that was always parking area anyway. First I had a slab. The next year it had a carport. The roof trusses went on. The next year we enclosed it. Then the next year put the side next to it. Put a carport over that the next year and the third year we roughed in and closed that, so that garage took 3 to 4 years to build. I didn’t just okay, let’s sneak that in there. No. We took our time. We said okay. If anybody has any objection, you have not gotten one complaint from any of our neighbors in all the time that we’ve been there in the 112 years. The neighbors recognize the uniqueness. They enjoy us being there. They have a wonderful sight of horses. They all feed our horses carrots…enjoy the area too. And that’s kind of the year the garage was built. The machinery shed has been there for a long time. That’s tucked into the other buildings, and as you know, and as you’ve kind of read through here, we’re tearing down 5 structures. Gone. We’re tearing out 5. We’re moving in a new, well it’s only 8 years old. A pole barn from the neighbor when he developed. They were going to tear that pole barn down and we’ve been working to move the pole barn in. But even with the pole barn we still need when you have horses, you can’t have them all together a lot of times. They have a pecking order and the last one will not get a thing to eat so we have to have separate areas for them and separate shelters. We’re going to take down all these old buildings that are kind of really, we knew that was coming. It was really dilapidated. It’s the only building I never really maintained on the site is this barn, and all those are coming down. Any other questions? 29 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, I have one more for you. Gary Carlson: Sure. McDonald: Why didn’t you seek a building permit? Gary Carlson: That’s a very good question and I’ll be glad to answer that very carefully, but that again might take some time. Being in the city and doing things not only within the city’s zoning and I know the rigamaroll. I’m always up against some. I knew from the get go, because I’ve seen these things through the years. I knew I was over the 1,000 square foot from the get go so they wouldn’t approve one stick over what was there. And yet I’m an operating ag farm. You go out and I’ve just driven by them. You count 13, 17, 6, 9 out buildings. And they’re coming and going. They’re using them and not using them. You don’t see them setting them out on the edge of the road for safety. They’re sitting around the person’s house and they need them for their ag business, and I’m not different. As I need these buildings, I put them up. Okay, you’re in the city. Wants you to get a building permits. The one 13 years ago. Another one 4-5 years ago and one over a 6 year period while Molly’s handicap addition was going on. I did not want to deal with the hassle factor. I’m not that, I haven’t been treated that fairly. You want me to go into some of those? I can. When I did my development over there, Gary and Maureen Carlson, we want a strip of land 40 feet wide by 120 feet long. What do you want that for? The City said well we have to have access to the neighboring property in case they ever develop. So I did my part of the bargain. I did everything I was supposed to do. I turned certain responsibilities over to the City of Chanhassen and they were to check all plans as they were submitted by the different builders, and somehow the city allowed one of the homes to sit on that easement. So now… Sacchet: Mr. Carlson, excuse me for interrupting. Let’s stick with the issue at hand please. Gary Carlson: Well, I didn’t get a very fair shake there. I mean so, I have tried to do the right thing when I have to go out and do a proper development. On my property, on the ag property, you do what the farm needs to be done around the farm. Around the property to make it survive and make it viable and that’s where these buildings come in and I guess you’ve heard the other testimony of where and why they’re needed. Sacchet: Thank you. I think you did answer the question. Gary Carlson: I mean the City is being protected. In these permits, these building permits that are raised, I’ve applied for them. A way to see if they will be inspected and looked at just as if they haven’t been built yet. I mean they have to meet state building codes. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Gary Carlson: You’re welcome. 30 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Sacchet: Public hearing is still open. If anybody else wants to address this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. And in this, since it’s kind of a unique case who’d like to go first? And make a few comments specifically to some of the statements from Mr. Carlson that I personally feel are important to make. To recognize the aspect of this being a grandfathered use with the agriculture and that’s certainly very honorable. We want to help preserve that. However, you made a statement of if we don’t feel positive. This has nothing to do with how we feel. We’re not up here to be, we have guidance for what we do are the ordinances and the code of the city. This is not supposed to have anything to do with how we feel. And as such, you also made a statement we can do whatever we wish. Well we can’t. That’s not our role to do whatever we wish. I make that very clear in my opening remarks when we start this evening that our role is to review planning matters that are brought before the city in view of our city ordinances. Our zoning. And determine how do they fly. Okay. We’re not at liberty to do what we wish. And then I’ll have some other comments but I wanted just to take that up front. Now I saw Jerry you wanted to jump in. Go ahead please. McDonald: Well the one thing I wanted to jump in about was, Mr. Carlson brought up was the possibility of tabling this. There is a number of issues within this that maybe there may be another way to work this out, but you know as you said, based upon the statutes of where we’re at now, I think it’s pretty clear what our choices are. But if we could gain something by tabling this and coming to a resolution that would be beneficial to all, I would be more than happy to propose that. Mr. Carlson’s already agreed that that would be okay with him so that waives the time line. Sacchet: So what would you expect from tabling between now and when it comes back Jerry? McDonald: I would expect a work out because I’m looking for something to be given up here. You know Mr. Carlson seems to hint that there may be some possibilities of looking at some things. I would expect some give and take. This is not just an opportunity to give him more time to continue. What it would actually be is a negotiation with the city to again meet the requirements of a non-conforming structure because as the ordinance says, you can’t intensify it and I think that’s what’s happened, so you know if he’s willing to consider some things, let the city look at it and see if we can’t come back with something that would be a little bit more agreeable to everyone. Undestad: I agree with Jerry. I mean it looks like what they’ve worked out with Josh already, they’ve made some, they can put the barn in. Tear some of these down. Maybe the issues of these other buildings weren’t discussed at the time that the rest of this was going through but you know if it makes sense now to jump back and look at that and see if there’s some alternatives for you in there to bring it back. Sacchet: There was one aspect that I thought would deserve some research and maybe staff has the answer to that. Mr. Carlson made a statement that, actually said none of the other structures nd along 62 Street have as much setback as his garage, and another statement he made is that there are others that are only 10 feet away from the road. What’s, do we know what the status is of these other? 31 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Metzer: Well due to the age of the subdivisions up in that neighborhood, there are structures that have non-conforming setbacks and there are others that do meet setback. But many of these don’t have surveys so it’s hard to determine exactly a specific linear number of feet that they’re within the front property line. Or the front property line even lies, in fact that’s something we could look into more definitely. Sacchet: But then on the other hand, it’s my understanding that that doesn’t give somebody rights to build something new that doesn’t conform. Metzer: No, that it show that there’s a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood standards. Sacchet: Debbie, want to add something? Larson: No, I just. nd Metzer: And it’s also worth noting that directly north and opposite of West 62 is the City of Shorewood so. Undestad: There was also a comment made about the city looking at changing the street through there. Was that? Metzer: I believe the Pipewood Curve from Hidden Creek is going to be, it’s intended to be nd connected to West 62. Larson: Can you show us? Undestad: Is that going to change the setbacks on any of that? Metzer: Well I think that the only way that it would be connected is if the subject property here were sold and subdivided. Gary Carlson: And houses were built. Sacchet: Now I hear where you’re coming from Jerry and Mark. I kind of feel differently. I think that this is really not the role of the Planning Commission to get into this give and take part to the extent that Mr. Carlson’s asking for. To some extent yes. I mean we do have, we have some…but I think to the extent that Mr. Carlson is asking for, this is a matter of City Council. And on that basis I think actually in the interest of expediting this, moving this along, I would think that from our role in terms of the ordinances, our role is really not that usually different from staff, and the primary question for us is, does this conform or is staff applying the rules in a way that is not right? Well, if you look at the rules by themselves, there it is. However, you were pointing out that your circumstances are different, and I think you make a pretty strong point that the rules don’t apply to you. I think that we’re out of our league to deal with that. I think that’s a City Council thing and by us accepting the staff’s motion, that would give Mr. Carlson a chance to go to council with it and I think that would be the right place for this to be 32 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 debated and decided upon. Because frankly if we look at the frameworks that are given to the Planning Commission, we’re not supposed to grant variances if it is an intensification of non- conformance. We are pretty strongly bound by that. Now aspect is it self created? Well it is self created. I think that cannot be debated. I mean I can certainly sympathize with the idea that you didn’t want more hassle and you just did it because you’re agriculture and you feel that’s right like that. But on the other hand that just underlines that it’s self created. So with the criteria that we’re given based on the code, city code, I think it’s hard to juggle it. I’m not sure what we would gain by tabling it other than maybe get a little more context to what it is with enabling structures that are closer to the road, but then you could argue that those are grandfathered in. They haven’t been built in the last 10 years, so I have a little problem. By what would we gain by tabling? We would just prolong the pain. I think we’re doing them a better favor by going at it once here and then they can go up to City Council where the City Council has actually the authority to do something about it to the extent that they see fit. Undestad: Yeah I guess you know okay, when does it go to the council? th Metzer: That would be April 24. th Undestad: 24 so that would give them almost 3 weeks to do whatever they could do even if we tabled it and come back to us, so you would have your 3 weeks to work with Josh before you get to the council then so. Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to add something? Papke: Yeah, I have a question for staff. Mr. Carlson stated that in fact there are four independent residences here, and this is zoned residential single family. Is there an issue here? Metzer: No. These were grandfathered in and they also about exactly a year ago from now were granted a variance for use of a single family home as a two family home. Sacchet: Yeah, that was a discussion that we went through not too long ago. Well comments. Discussion. Where do you want to go with this? Or we could venture a motion. I mean at this point. McDonald: I guess Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind I’d like to make a motion to table it, since I did bring it up. And I guess I do feel that there may be something productive to come out of this, or at least to reduce the problem the City Council may have to look at. I probably don’t completely feel that we’re going to get 100% compliance but I think anything to reduce the issue would be beneficial so I would make a motion that we table this. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion to table it. Is there somebody second that? Undestad: Second. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded to table Variance Request #06-12 for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached 33 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 accessory structure restriction in a single family residential (RSF) district at 3891 West nd 62 Street. McDonald and Undestad voted in favor. Sacchet, Papke, Larson and Zorn voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. Sacchet: We have 4 nays and 2 ayes so the motion fails. So do we keep going, right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: We keep going, alright. Somebody else want to make a different motion? Papke: I’ll just make some comments here. This is the best case I have ever seen for building inspections. I mean this is why we have building permits so that we don’t get into this kind of a pickle. If there were permits for this, this would be a completely different deal. And I guess I do disagree with Mr. Carlson that we don’t deal with grandfathering. We deal with this all the time. In particular, how many times have we had people grandfathered in with legal non-conforming lots along Lake Riley with setbacks of various kinds? This is something we deal with routinely and I think we’ve been pretty consistent about that and pretty consistent about not setting precedence and to some extent Mr. Carlson contradicted himself. In one breath he said well, you know if you grant me a variance here, you know no one else is going to ask for more. And then a few sentences later he stated that there’s these other houses up the street that are closer to the street than he is, so you know very inconsistent there so I, this one I agree with Commissioner Sacchet. This is very clear cut. Zorn: I would have to agree along the same lines. The applicant seems very familiar with the development process and a lot of the hoops to jump through and checks and balances and for reasons that he expressed this evening he didn’t feel as though he should go through those. Checks and balances and that building permit would have brought all of those to light and we likely wouldn’t be sitting here today having to make a difficult decision, or at least what has been brought forth. The family has a difficult decision but it really seems like a black and white case to myself. So I would not, I would be in support to deny the request. Sacchet: Any other comments or points of discussion? Thank you Deborah and Kurt. Undestad: I guess, I mean again, I mean it goes to the council. It gives them time to try to do something in the next 3 weeks and. Sacchet: Yeah, and the council has more maneuvering space than we have in terms of what our charter is. It’s very simple. So do we want to venture another motion? Papke: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback from existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory nd structure restriction in the single family residential RSF district at 3891 West 62 Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. And I order the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the 3 storage buildings and. Sacchet: That’s it. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006 Papke: And that’s it. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Zorn: I second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) nd District at 3891 West 62 Street, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: We have 6 voting for this. Nobody voting against it so we are, that would move it forward to City Council. I think that’s where it needs to go. Metzer: We need to get a letter from the applicant stating that they would like to appeal the decision to City Council. Sacchet: Right. You want to express in writing is that Josh? Metzer: Correct. Sacchet: That you want to appeal this decision to City Council and I think that City Council are actually the right people. I also want to point out that you will not need to repeat your whole story. City Council does review our minutes and the public hearings that we have here are to a large extent for City Council to get input so they will hear your story. Not just your’s but also the other family members to understand what it is so that you will not have to repeat everything there. Okay? So we wish you luck with this. Thank you. 35