Loading...
PC Minutes 6-20-06 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, U ndestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant's hardship is self created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. McDonald: And again, what I would encourage the applicant to do is that between now and the City Council meeting, offer city staff some of the plans that you brought up. If those would be acceptable, I'm sure that they will propose that to City Council when you plead your case before them. They have the power to actually make adjustments to the city code. Thank you. Thomas Schwartz: Thank you for your time. PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 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 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET. PLANNING CASE 06-23. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: This is obviously, as you stated, the second time we've seen this one and you're still recommending denial. Can you give us a little bit of context as to how this came before us again tonight. Metzer: Originally the intention was to take this request with the compromise of taking the two additional structures up to City Council, but the deadline for appeal to the recommendation of denial was missed. And so by law we have to take it back through the process over again. Larson: Just in the findings you have does not cause undue hardship to, or to take down, I'm tired. The garages that they want to take down, but I'm thinking you know wasn't this one where they need the van to get in there for their daughter? Metzer: Right. Larson: And to me that's kind ofa hardship. If that van can't access to get in there and so. Metzer: But it was a garage that was built without a permit. Larson: Bad people, no permit. Alright, okay. Thanks. McDonald: Kevin? Dillon: No questions right now. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah a couple. ... coming back as a trade off then to eliminate two more structures? Metzer: Say it again. Undestad: This is coming back now, the difference in this plan. . . Metzer: Right. Undestad: They're trying to do a trade off. Two more structures... Metzer: ... structures that were built without permits... where the last time it was here where the three in question, they're still in question. The only difference is, he is agreeing to remove these. I think it was more for a convenience on one of these. Undestad: Now he's agreed to take the two small ones out. Metzer: Right. And that's these that are pictured here on the top. Larson: So Band C would be gone? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Well Band C are still up for applying for the variance for the intensification of the non-conforming square footage of accessory structure. Larson: Okay. Metzer: Bu the applicant is proposing, in agreeance with being granted the two variances to the setback and the three structures, intensifying the square footage, he would remove these as well as these other 5. . . agreement. Larson: Okay. Keefe: Josh, I have a question for you. Are the building that he's talking about removing, are they in use? Are they, I mean are they. Metzer: To my knowledge they are. Maybe the applicant could shed a little more light on that but. Keefe: And in terms of their physical repair, are they useable from that standpoint? Metzer: Well I mean from what I know, they're quite old. As far as their structural soundness, I really have no idea. Keefe: Okay. Yeah, I'm just I'm kind of scratching my head on, I mean they'll build a new building and then I'll see if! can trade by tearing down some buildings that are older and get, so when do the buildings come down? You know I guess only when he gets an agreement is when they come down or? Metzer: I mean part of the, if you were to grant a variance, part of the, one of the conditions is that those two buildings are removed. Keefe: Alright. McDonald: Kevin. Or did you already pass? Larson; I've got actually one more. McDonald: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So like if they had gotten a permit to do Building A, Band C, would A have not been allowed? Metzer: None of them would have been allowed. Larson: None of them. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Because city code states that this zoning district, RSF, maximum detached accessory structure is 1,000 square feet. They already exceed that before these three buildings were built. McDonald: I have no questions of staff. Is the applicant present? Luke Melchert: Yes, your honor, or Mr. Chairman the applicant is present. My name is Luke Melchert. I'm going to talk on behalf of the applicant and he will talk also in a minute. It seems to me that I hope you would look at this the same way that we look at it, and seems to me that it's a case where, we've got the round pegs of the ordinance that are being trying to be pounded into the square piece of property, and it just doesn't always fit sometimes. This is an RSF zoning, which allows only 1,000 square feet of accessory structures. The RSF zoning allows for anywhere from 1.4 to 4 units per acre. This is 3.85 acres. So if, assuming that the property could be developed to a maximum density allowed in the ordinance, there could be 15 single family homes here, plus 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. And we're looking at only 5,000 square feet. So if we would like to think that you would agree with what I think the neighbors agree are looking for is that, to allow some semblance of an existing lifestyle that's been in existence for 100 years out here. It's always been some type of a hobby farm. I suspect that 98 to 99 percent of the people in Chanhassen have no idea where 3891 62nd Street is. Have never been past it and really don't care what goes on here. The only people that really care are the neighbors and they've all agreed that they would prefer this type of activity be on the property as opposed to Mr. Carlson selling it to his greedy lawyer and he go out and developing it to the maximum of it' s potential where you can have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings on there. There's no question it violates the letter of the law, but I don't think it's violates the spirit of the law. And if you look at, let me get these other pictures up here first. Sticking more to the 30 foot setback requirement. If you look at the picture down here in the left hand corner, right here is where the 22 setback requirement is. It's the least. The 30 foot setback is required. There's only 22 feet from the building, corner of the building here to the right-of-way. The corner of the building is 59 feet from the driven surface of the roadway. And the building sits behind a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees that existed for years. I would think that if this building had not been built and were coming in for the variance now, given the fact of the disabled child where a large tree, if you look at this picture, sits only 12 feet from the garage. You see some of these pictures of where vehicles try to get between the garage and the tree. And now you're looking at an emergency vehicle, a fire truck is going to be very difficult. It seems to me that's a, if not an existing hardship, certainly a potential hardship. If you take everything into consideration, this plus the fact that it costs over $17,000 for him just to remove it, it seems to us that the perceived evil from this 22 foot setback is insignificant in comparison to what could be potentially go wrong there. And the cost of removing the building. It would seem to me that if we had requested that variance now, it would be not unreasonable to grant it now because there is existing structures along the highway and Josh, is the hockey rink not in violation of this setback? According to. . . Metzer: It's within the front yard setback but it's you know, it's a hockey rink. You know it could almost function as a fence rather than a garage. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Luke Melchert: But I would think ifI'm building a private hockey rink, that you're going to look at that as fence. You're going to look at it as a structure. So it seems to me that the evil perceived here is not very great in comparison to what the potential hardship would be. And it should not be forgotten either that this condition's existed for over 10 years. And so it seems to me if there is such an evil, it should have been stopped before you know, so again, I would like to think that again it's the letter of the law's been violated, we don't think the spirit of the law's been violated. And as far as the square footage, there's an existing agreement, written agreement between the City ofChanhassen and the Carlson family that allows over 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. The other stuff is this garage which we think is necessary for the child. It's necessary for, you know it's not unreasonable where the building is situated. And again we think you know the letter oflaw has been violated but the spirit of the law certainly hasn't been violated, and I think as the neighbors are requesting, that they would rather see this type of activity on the property as opposed to what could be on the property. Thank you. McDonald: Any, well before you sit down, does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Luke Melchert: I am not the applicant. I'm speaking. McDonald: But you're speaking for the applicant so you just became the applicant. Luke Melchert: Okay. Larson: I've got one. You just mentioned a letter from Chan allowing 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. Luke Melchert: There's an existing agreement between the City of Chanhassen when Mr. Carlson was putting in his pole barn and the removing of these other five buildings. It's kind of a comparable removal of and then, so under that written agreement, that building plus the other structures exceed the 3,000 square feet. Larson: Right. Luke Melchert: And so all we're asking for is the difference between 3,000 and 5,000 on 3.9 acres. Again, yes it violates the letter of the law. There's no question about it, 3,000 or 5,000 but you all have to remember that you are treating this property exactly the same way you are treating a what, three-quarter, 1,500 or 5,000 square foot on 15,000 square foot lot. And this is 3.8 acres. Almost 4 acres. And again the only people who really see this property are the neighbors and they all would prefer it to remain as it is, and Mr. Carlson continue the activity there. McDonald: Kevin, do you have any questions? Dillon: Are there any neighbors here that will attest to that? Luke Melchert: We have some written document. Mr. Carlson, do you have those letters? 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: They should have been in the report. Keefe: Let me just ask, why weren't the buildings permitted? Luke Melchert: I have no idea. They were not. There's no question they weren't but again, that garage has been there for 10 years. And so I don't even remember some of the things I've done 9 months ago. Keefe: So it's been in the family for a hundred years and you put up some buildings? Okay. Luke Melchert: And now the types of uses have changed. You know it's always been a hobby farm. He's had an apple orchard there and now he's doing horses. McDonald: I have a question for staff first of all. You said a couple of things about the 3,300 square foot, the agreement between the city. If my memory serves me correctly, part of that was a compromise because isn't this a non-conforming use? Metzer: Right, they have an existing accessory structures are out there are like 3,000 something. Of you know legally built, long before our current ordinance existed. What they wanted to do, they have a dilapidated barn where the horses were staying which they needed to improve so they brought in a pole barn and in exchange removed an equal amount of existing structures. McDonald: And so we actually. Metzer: Consolidated from 5 into 1. McDonald: Consolidated 5 buildings down to 1 which made it simpler as far as the building, that was part of the compromise. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. You say that if we were to look at this as being divided up into 15 single family units, there'd be 15,000 square feet of additional structure space that would be allowed if these were individual lots. Isn't that a little apples and oranges? Luke Melchert: ... factual? I mean under the ordinance it can be subdivided into 1.4 to 4 units per acre. And now I'm just assuming that whoever bought it would seek to subdivide and develop it to it's maximum potential. McDonald: But wouldn't those be individual units? Luke Melchert: Right, but it's on the same 3.87 acres, there'd be 15,000 square feet of accessory structures. McDonald: But at that point you're looking at 15 individual pieces ofland versus one piece of land. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Luke Melchert: Absolutely. But it's 15 that are maybe quarter acre area of lots as opposed to one 3.85 acres. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else does. Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public meeting and what I would invite is anyone that wishes to come forward and speak, please do so. Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. I'd like to say a few words on my behalf. I have one additional letter from the neighbor. Well just quickly, the letters from the only neighbors involved with this property, because the rest of thousands of feet away, are the two that are already in the statement. They're very short. Dale and Linda Keehl who live directly east of the Carlson property have no concerns or problems with the placement of their out buildings or the number of them. That's my neighbors directly to my east. We visit, you know... all the time. The next neighbor is directly east to my property, Terry Toll. Next to the Carlson's on the east side. I have no problems with their buildings. Exclamation point. And they would gladly come here tonight. And then this new letter, we are Sue and Steve Bradley. We live in the first home directly to the west of the Carlson property. We find the position of agricultural buildings on their premises benefits the surrounding neighborhood. We believe it increases the safety of the citizens of the area and the livestock on the property. Neighbors, including ourselves, enjoy their rural influence on our children and the agricultural nature of the property provides endless entertainment and education. Protecting the legacy of rural life in Chanhassen should be considered for the healthy and happy development for future generations in and around Chanhassen. We all need to do more to support this type of diversity in our neighborhoods and help promote a connection to the land. This is from Sue and Steve Bradley. Our neighbors to the west. Big picture is here. I don't have RSF zoning, and I never will and we can never get our zoning to match my home. If I do redevelop, which I have developed 21 lots in our city. Very beautiful lots. All with no variances, I'll bring in a development that you'll be pleased to approve. Which if! keep my hobby farm for 20 to 30 years, I can very easily see a light rail train station on my site because everything else is getting burned up with homes because I have the full light rail goes right by my property and there's enough place for a trail station there because there's no other property, so I'm thinking way out in the future but getting back to what's at hand. The big picture is I have an agricultural farm. The City is doing the best they can to get me into the RSF, and if you read carefully their whole program is, their whole packet it's very well put together. Very well worded and they worked hard on it now the second time because I didn't know I had to sign a paper for appeal within 4 days. I didn't get it signed in 4 days, and during the interim it's given me a chance to work out some more changes in the older buildings. It's giving me a chance to hire some, advice of to guide me. It's not a person that would be strange to these type of city operations. He's, I really appreciate him being on the end and guiding me through this, Mr. Luke Melchert. He's the city attorney from the City of Chaska and they're such small variances. The City has already you know gone with let a pole barn come onto an RSF -1 that's over the 1,000 square foot. The City has already varianced me for adding an apartment to my house in RSF -1. Both of these were non, it's a non-conforming home. It's already gone over and said well we're not even going to allow, trying to improve. The City has already allowed me two different occasions to change and non-conform. And if we can't get some positive reaction, get you folks to understand what we're doing here, we just need 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 these minor variances to keep it in line with the city's zoning. It's not a precedent. There's no other home like this. No large property like this. Not going to change things in the rest of the residents. It doesn't affect anyone really or otherwise. I guess I just want to get these pictures shown briefly. This is the old barn that's coming down. Can we blow that up? Little bit. Yeah, that's good and I'll just move the picture up. This is the old barn that's coming down. And this is already in. This is the pole barn that's replacing it. Now do you see encroachment of too many structures on this property? We've got space everywhere and there's room all around it. There's not too much surface structure area. The next picture over is the machine shed that was put in 13 years ago and that's where all the equipment for the horses are kept. This little building there to the right of it is coming down, and of course you can see the pole barn again. It's already in place. It's already been set and we're starting to move things into it so I can take down the old barn. And not a big problem with, I mean it's not a big, it's not building to everyone. . . you read the report it says I have 13 out structures. I do. We're taking down 7 of them. Let's look at this next picture quickly. I think we have time on that. This is the machine, you know this is the, you can see the horse. This is their, when they're in that part of the pasture this is, as the horse inspector said, you need something better than the barn and I put this in 4 years ago. You can see the size of the pick-up besides this. Not a very big building. 22 by 20. This is another picture of it down the side of it, and out into the rest of my property. All the way to those trees is my property. Now I think it looks big because I'm standing right beside it. Nice structure. That's 4 years old. That's a new structure. And we move over again and there's that machine, machinery storage. And there's that little old shed that's coming down. And I've got to show my wife out in the garden there working. That kind of shows, you know I have to improve my buildings and the city is recognizing that. They're glad to see these old buildings go, and yes I've had some without permit. I thought I was ag use. I am ag use. The city has mentioned in here I'm an ag use. You can drive by any time you want and they've got 13, 9, 7 out buildings. They've got silos. I mean I didn't know you've got to take a permit for every, as they changed uses of that. . . farmer and the next thing you know you're in dairy or, I don't know what that zoning permit is required but I'm no different. I've had to improve these utility buildings and I'm taking down 7 of them. Just to cover a little bit, I guess you went over all the setback and how we showed on these pictures the uses up there. The only thing I want to cover is that the Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot front yard setback, which was 8 foot. I mean there's a plan in here that shows how far the road is actually from my property because the road doesn't come anywhere near the property line. You've got the railroad right-of-way. You've got a corner right-of-way and you've got 3 streets coming together so there's a lot of right-of-way. There's a lot of space between me and any traffic. I just want to state what we're here for and if we can't have a positive outcome of course I will get everything signed and get it appealed to the council in time this time. Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot setback, and just what the staff has said on the approval. With the following conditions. The building permits have been submitted for almost a year now. Since last August. So the whole prints, all the drawings of these new buildings are all there waiting at the building department. When you approve this, we're just talking about the variance tonight. You approve the variance, the building department then kicks in and they're not going to issue building permits. They're going to write them and they're going to be called printed, but not issued because it was an after the fact building permit. They'll print them but they won't issue them until they look at the building. Make sure it meets all the codes and setbacks, whatever. So when you say well we gave them the variance and then he gets the building permits. No. That's 57 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 a whole separate process. I've submitted that. If those buildings have anything that's not approved, they'll be coming down. And not based on your variance. These are based on the fact that they're not, they don't meet building codes. Luke Melchert: I just wanted to, if! may, just one last comment here. Staff has written that you do have a great deal of latitude in determining variances and it seems to me there is enough here that this property is so unique and if you do grant these variances you're not going to be setting a precedent for any other variances. . . Gary Carlson: Thanks. You guys do a great job. We love being in Chanhassen. We love the fact that you have a city center. I see Victoria has really improved their's I think because Chanhassen was such a great city. And thank you for being here. I know it's a job sometimes but thanks for being here. McDonald: Thank you Mr. Carlson. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment and ask questions? Okay seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up to the commissioners. Dan, I'll let you go first. Keefe: I guess I'm just, you know I'm torn by the garage was built without a permit and not only was it built without a permit, it's built not at the setback. I'm just kind of troubled by that. I think that does, despite what they say about you know we just can't have that. I mean you've got to get permits and adhere to the setbacks. I mean we have granted him some other things, you know. But on this one I'm just troubled by them. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, it does sound like the City has given, met on some of these issues and helped out along the way here. You know and again, I mean they're building structures without permits, and we all know you can't be doing that. This is what happens here. The comment was made as far as you know, the letter of the law versus the spirit here and I think as a commission again we kind of have, we're kind of back in that path of the letter of the law is what we kind of have to look at here so. I think that's what we've got to base it on. McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I'd like to add I'm a little bit troubled by the lack of attention to detail to process and missing the last chance for appeal and doing the buildings without getting not only the right approvals beforehand. There seems to be just a little bit of a pattern of not really caring and so that troubles me a little bit. As well as just like you know, the aesthetic nature of what we're approving is not what I would like to see. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: What I'm wondering is if this were in agricultural versus residential property, would we be running into the same problems. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Larson: So would it make sense to try and change the zoning on that property because it's. Metzer: No. It's land use designation is for low density residentiaL.. Larson: So there's no way to change that? Okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: Yeah I think Deb touched on the zoning issue. I mean if we're guiding this for 2020 low density residential, that's very different than if it was being guided for ag or rural residential in that timeframe so I think it's clear what the city's intentions are. The property to the south is being developed. When I drove by last weekend, I noticed just on the other side of the light rail trail there's a new development of four big homes going in there, so that area is developing. It is becoming more residential, and I think we have to be sensitive to the surroundings. Also as you come south on the roadway there, that impinges on the garage, the picture shows the big signs directing people to you know turn left here. I don't think the picture does justice to it. I mean they're pretty obvious. They're pretty blatant. It's pretty clear that the traffic engineers were justifiably concerned that somebody doesn't miss that corner, so I think this you know, if the setback was in an area where it didn't make any difference, you know I think there might be some reason for latitude but in this particular case it seems pretty obvious that the traffic engineers had cause for concern, and being that safety should always be upper most in our minds, I think we have to take that into consideration too so, that's it. McDonald: As I said before, these are always the toughest ones to I think deal with because you hate to tell someone what he can and cannot do on his property. To say that it doesn't set a precedent is dead wrong, and I think everyone knows that. The man that was in here before us suffering $47,000-$50,000 worth of effort. I don't see where his problem is any different from this, and I see us, we're bound by the same rules. Ijust don't see where we have the latitude that everyone believes that we do. And if we can grant variances under certain conditions, we've been through this before. We found that the conditions to grant a variance have not been met. I don't see where anything has really changed. It's just at this point you will have the opportunity to go before City Council. Plead your case at that point, and you know if they wish to redo something considering the zoning or something along those lines, they have that power within the city charter to do all that. And as I said before, I don't like doing these and I'm sorry when they always come before us but we did swear and oath to enforce the laws of the city. I see where we have no choice here either. Luke Melchert: May I respond to a couple of things that were brought up? McDonald: Well I've been bitten pretty bad tonight by letting people respond after we have made comments. I would suggest at this point to save the comments for City Council. Again as I've explained, we are very limited as to what we can do and I don't think there's anything you can tell us so what I would do is ask for a motion from the council. Or actually from the commission, I'm sorry. . . 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3 891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe 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) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on 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 which were constructed without building permits. 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 O. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't forget this time... and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. 60