Loading...
CC Minutes 7-10-06 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-22, Variance request at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. ND GARY CARLSON, 3891 WEST 62 STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR-STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address nd Dale Keehl 3841 West 62 Street nd Gary Carlson 3891 West 62 Street nd Luke Melchert 112 2 Street W, Chaska nd Maureen and Molly Carlson 3891 West 62 Street nd Megan Moore 3891 West 62 Street Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon nd from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson’s variance request is located on 3991 West 62 Street. Megan Moore: 3891. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Yeah, I believe that’s what I said. Megan Moore: You said 39. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please. nd Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62 Street. Located on the northern end of the city, north of Highway 7. This is the subject site. You can back out a little bit Nann. This photo is a little bit outdated. I’ll go through the current site plan here in a second. Request is for the variance of the garage. This garage located right here. A 20 foot front yard setback for 1,000 square foot th garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 20, 2006 to review the variance and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny this. In the staff report there’s a background. This did appear before the Planning Commission, in the background, and that date th in, let’s see. Oh, on April 4 and they had 10 days to appeal that variance and that did not occur so it, they had to start the process back over, and that’s the same application that you’re seeing before you. This property, in the background, this property is zoned residential, although it’s been, has non-conforming agricultural rights. It also has a non-conforming as far as additional a 51 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 rental unit in the building itself, although it’s guided single family residential. Again it’s non- conforming. There are horses on the property. So the request for this garage located on the northern end of the property, for the setback. There are existing garages on the property, on the house and the additional out buildings. One of the requests that the Planning Commission had, because it’s over the number of accessories for the zoning district, is to remove some of those st accessory structures. They were given until August 1 to get that done. To date those are not removed yet. This is a. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, which ones on the picture there? The red ones? Kate Aanenson: The red ones here were asked to be removed, and they concurred too. There’s the blue areas that they would like to see additional storage and the structures removed. If I can go back to maybe this plan. This doesn’t show the new horse barn. That was an issue that the city had that we have horses, that they be in a shed. The buildings that were out there had storage in them, so they weren’t being used for that. So if you look at what’s around the area. Single family, single family. This is the most recently approved, coming off of Pipewood Curve subdivision that was approved in this area for lower density, single family, so this is the subject site. So there is a significant amount of outdoor storage, so that was the request, is to get it more into compliance with the amount of square footage that’s required. The reason it got denied is that they felt that for the variance that it, they want to see it pushed back. The applicant in his most recent picture that you saw, or what was handed out to you, and I’ll go through those in a second, felt that it compromised the access to the driveway. The third garage and getting accessible vans in there. So I’ll start, this is, these are the green buildings I’ve shown in here. There’s two smaller green storage sheds here. This is the most recent garage that’s close to West nd 62. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that the one you want? Kate Aanenson: No, that’s the one that’s too close to the street, and then this is the additional blue one that Planning Commission also asked to see removed to get it into compliance. With the additional storage. So the pictures that you saw…is the concern that they had of Planning Commission asked if they could move their garage further to the, towards the house, and they felt that that was because they have accessible access, that that may be difficult to get in by pushing the garage closer to the house, it’d make it difficult for the accessible. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Kate if it was, they want that garage pushed closer? Kate Aanenson: Planning Commission did because it’s too close to the street. But the applicant is saying that that doesn’t work for handicap accessible. Councilman Peterson: How much closer do we need to be? I can’t remember. Kate Aanenson: Well, it’s pretty close to the property line. It needs to be, it’s only 8 feet from the property line. So they need to be 22 feet back. I’m not sure if the van needs to come all the way back in there but. 52 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, is it, what is it currently set back from the property line? Kate Aanenson: 8 feet. It was built without a permit. All those structures were. Except for the… Mayor Furlong: So it would, to comply we need to come back 22 feet? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So we go back to the, in the background of the staff report. In January, 2004 it came to the attention of the city that the attached accessory garages were built without a permit. The permits that we just pointed out. The green, and so they came to get the permit…and they’re over the amount of square footage you can have and the one was too close so, here’s where we are today. Trying to get this resolved. We’ve been working, working, working. Did go to Planning Commission once. They denied it. Didn’t meet the deadline for the appeal so kicked back through the process. So with that the Planning Commission did recommend, on a vote in the staff report. Planning Commission did recommend denial. We did put other motions in there for you. Find some compromise. Some other alternatives. So if you wanted to deviate from that, but it’s their recommendation of denial. It got appealed from the Planning Commission up to you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? I’m a little confused on the timing of everything. Once more with regard to kind of the, it first came through Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Let’s go back to background on page 2. The Schmitz Acre Tracts. The applicant has been on the property a long time. This zoning has been residential single family for a long time, although it has legal non-conforming agricultural uses on it. So in January of 2004 when we found out, the building inspectors found out, and also at the same time we were trying to license the rental property on the, it came to the attention that there was other structures out there without building permits. And that became apparent to the zoning and we proceeded to send them letters to get them to come through, so that took a little while to work through those issues. Ultimately, in January, 2000, April 2006, it did go to the Planning Commission. It didn’t meet the timeline to appeal it. If they’re aggrieved at the decision of the Planning Commission, they have so many days to appeal that to the City Council. They did not make that deadline. They chose to come back through the process. The Planning Commission still recommended denial and that’s where we are today. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate, this letter that you put in front of us today talks about taking down 7. Put the colored picture back up again. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: What are those 7? Kate Aanenson: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Councilman Lundquist: And is that what the Planning Commission asked for? 53 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yes, but they still didn’t want to support the variance on. Councilman Lundquist: On the garage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the applicant agreed to take down all 7 buildings? Kate Aanenson: Yes. To date none of that activity has occurred. And the deadline was August st 1. st Mayor Furlong: August 1 of ’06? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. With that I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: Alright, now I’m confused. What’s the blue color? Kate Aanenson: That’s the existing house and kind of, and main garage. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is there a rental property on this? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where is that? Kate Aanenson: Within the house. It’s, on numerous appendages that, so also legal non- conforming on that, which we gave…variance process for that too so it’s kind of a, so there’s some, a lot of the garages for some of the renters too and some storage. Councilman Peterson: So the blue building has got the extra. Kate Aanenson: Let’s go back and look at the house itself. Here’s the original house. If you can zoom in on that. Garages. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the rental property is in that also? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And then this is the area that there’s some that they need to make sure they have enough clear space to get in, in order to get their accessible van in. And this is the new garage that was built without a permit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And you want the garage to come closer to the home? 54 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that’s why they provided those pictures that say we can’t make that access work for us. If we moved it closer. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And do you agree with that or? You don’t agree with that? Because I mean I don’t know. Councilman Peterson: Well the distance between the house and the garage isn’t going to affect the turn around radius. Because your van is going to turn around in this area. Kate Aanenson: Or you put the, yeah. This is where it’s coming, the accessible driveway. That’d be loaded on the other side of the garage possibility. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, unloading where? Kate Aanenson: This is where you’re unloading between the garage and here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: …over here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: This looks like it’s hard, like it’s gravel or it’s, what is this right here? Kate Aanenson: It’s all, if you look at the air photo, there’s a lot of hard surface through that whole area. Councilman Lundquist: It’s Class V gravel. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: I mean what the van will most likely do is go this van and back up and go in. The distance there isn’t the relevant. It’s if you have enough turning radius in backing your van. But Kate going back to another question. Going back to the colored thing again. The blue building is X’d out. Why is that… Kate Aanenson: These are additional sheds that are on the back there, that they’re willing to take out. Sheds in the back. This, a little bit…not come out. Councilman Peterson: But my point being, why is there are blue buildings and red buildings with X’s through them. Mayor Furlong: The legend? The blue buildings were grandfathered? Councilman Peterson: That was my point. Grandfathered but we’re still. 55 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: But they’re taking them. They’re taking some of the grandfathered buildings out. Kate Aanenson: In order to get the new buildings, correct. I’m sorry. I misunderstood. Mayor Furlong: And the green are the built without permits. Kate Aanenson: Right, right. And this is the new pole barn and that may be a better place to keep the horses…city code requirement that they provide adequate shelter. And this isn’t the depth of the whole property. It goes down. Councilman Lundquist: When was that garage built Kate? The one that’s closer to the road. Kate Aanenson: This one? That’s what I say, in 2004 is when it was discovered. I’m not sure of the date when it was actually constructed. Todd Gerhardt: 1996. Councilman Lundquist: If you take out those 7 buildings, does that put them under the total whatever that, I forget what the number was in the report that. The square foot of. Kate Aanenson: No, I think the goal is to get, to show good faith that they’re moving towards the requirement. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but do they get them there? Kate Aanenson: You need to remove, if you look at the second condition or the third, fourth condition. If you grant the variance for the 22 foot, 20 foot front yard setback, and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory, and so they’re 4,917 square feet roughly over. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate is that with those 7 buildings out? Kate Aanenson: No. That would be leaving everything in. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying what would the number be with the 7 out? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Do we know that number? Kate Aanenson: No, I do not. Not off the top of my head. I’m sure they know it. I’ll recheck on that. I’ve had a lot of facts on the top of my head tonight. 56 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions right now for staff? If not, Carlson’s or representative like to address the council. Luke Melchert: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Luke Melchert: My name is Luke Melchert. A family, an old member of our firm, they asked me to speak on their behalf. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to request this variance, and I think this is a classic example of where you’ve got the square peg of the law, which is the single family zoning regulations, trying to pound down a round agricultural use. And the reason why variances are provided for in the ordinances. I think Ms. Aanenson, I’m not sure that the building, the garage that was built in 1996, has been there over a decade, or over 10 years, is 22 feet from the right-of-way. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. Luke Melchert: So we’d be requesting an 8 foot variance from the setback. A variance of only 8 feet from 30 feet down to 22 feet there. And on this, that’s on the west end over here. On the east end it’s about 24 feet from the right-of-way. So it’s 6 feet there, so the variance, it should be noted that between the right-of-way and the building, there’s a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees, if you look at the pictures. And does that make it? If you can see the road comes from the north and makes almost a 90 degree turn and it’s not that gentle of a turn, and right back in here is the building and the trees and the berm. And I’m speaking for that first because that seems to be the major sticking point. Someone on the city staff or that had said the building back there created a hazard and we would like to think that the building doesn’t create the hazard. The curve in the road creates the hazard, and prior to the building being built there, there were accidents there. Since the building has been built, there was a white building, there hasn’t been an accident at that corner. And so, and also when they came for the request in 19, to planning to request the addition of Molly’s caretaker to allow that, a survey was requested and it wasn’t until the surveyor, the surveyor hadn’t put 22.4 feet on there, nobody would, we wouldn’t be here arguing this because nobody knew that it was only 8 feet from the right-of-way until the survey showed it. And so it would seem to us that there is no harm by having the building remain there. There’s no harm because anybody not making that turn is going to hit berm first and then the trees, and if there is a hazard there now, all of a sudden that we find out 10 years later that there’s a hazard that the public has to be protected, and it would seem to us a guardrail is the proper protection as opposed to removing this building. And again, I think it should be noted that that building has sat there for 10 years and nothing, there has been no problem. The requested variance is, so it seems to us that there is no harm from the garage sitting there, at least from the setback requirement. And if you look, and this is a rather crude drawing. This is where the 22 feet is, and it’s only 22 feet from the right-of-way. It is 59 feet from the driven surface, and over here a little bit to the east, Chanhassen has a hockey rink where their fence or the, whatever they call them in hockey, is within the setback requirement too and not guarded by a stand of trees or a berm. So it seems to me if there’s any hazard to the public, it’s a result of the curve and not a result of the berm that encroaches in the setback. As far as the requirements to reduce the number of square footage of accessory buildings, this property, if it was developed in accordance 57 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 with your ordinances, could be developed into 14 more single family homes, each having 1,000 square foot of accessory buildings. So that means there could be 15, if they developed within your ordinance, could have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. Here they’re only asking for 5. Earlier this year the City of Chanhassen and the property owner entered into a written agreement where they could bring in a 1,200 square foot pole building for the horses by taking about 1,199, or 1,200 square feet out. Even with that agreement it’s over the requirements not of 1,000 accessory feet. So it’s all we’re asking for us 1,900 square feet more. If this was agricultural property, it could have hard surface of over 32,000 square feet. We’re down in the 6,000 square foot range on 161,000 square feet of property. So it seems to me that even if we, if these buildings weren’t built before, if we came in and requested a variance now, it does not seem an unreasonable request, given the circumstances. This property’s been in the family for over, since the 1800’s. It’s always been agricultural. The neighbors have requested, signed petitions or a statement and it’s on there tonight. They would prefer to have some semblance of this existing lifestyle in their neighborhood than have it developed and sell it to a greedy attorney and let them build single family homes there and 15,000 square feet of accessory building. It seems to us that it’s not unreasonable. This is what the neighborhood would like. This is what, it’s in a very remote area of the city. It’s on the west end of the city and like I said personally I would suspect that 99% of the people in Chanhassen don’t know where this property is. Don’t care where this property is. The people who do care, the neighbors would like to see it remain as it is. And it seems to us that there really is no harm by granting either of the variance, and it certainly does not seem any harm from the setback request variance. Because the harm again I think is the curve in the road and if there should be something done to protect the public, it would be a guardrail as opposed to removal of the building. That’s existed for 10 years. A couple of people would like to, or let me ask you one more thing regarding the barn or the garage. Inbetween the garage and the house there is a mature tree there, and to move the building 8 feet closer, it just makes it very difficult. Yes it can be done. There’s no question, it can be done, but most of the time with emergency vehicles coming in there, or even with the van for Molly who is handicapped and with the handicap van, it is just much more difficult to negotiate. And again we would agree that it should be moved if there was any harm to the public, but there doesn’t appear that there should be any harm to the public by allowing that building to remain there, especially after 10 years. So Molly would like to make a statement, and I think Mr. Carlson would too, and perhaps some of the neighbors, if you want more statements than this. But one last thing. I suppose that the Planning Commission was concerned, I made the statement that it seems to me there are enough differences in this and the set of facts is such that granting this variance would not be setting a precedence for granting variances in other situations. I think Mr. Knutson wouldn’t even have to be that creative in order to set of facts to not make this a precedent for a future variance request. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Will you stand for a couple questions and then we’ll be happy to listen to at least a couple more. Any questions at this point from any council members? And maybe this is a question for you and for staff with regard to the pole barn, or the new barn. I don’t want to refer to it. Was a permit drawn for that? st Kate Aanenson: Yes, with a letter of credit for $5,000 that by August 1 the buildings marked in red would come down. 58 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Luke Melchert: There’s two of the buildings already down. The third one is in the process of being taken down. Kate Aanenson: We checked today. We couldn’t tell that they were in the process. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, so at some point there’s going to have to be some verification of that. Luke Melchert: Mr. Carlson did not get building permits for a couple of these, two of these barns, two of them sheds here were put up at the request of, you got a horse lady here. And she said that he should build some additional. Mayor Furlong: Was that an official… Luke Melchert: …but somebody from the city came out and said, you’ve got to provide better shelter for your horses so he built this, assuming, thinking he’s agricultural use and this is not human habitation there so he just put the structures up. Kate Aanenson: Well unfortunately it became filled with storage and the horses weren’t in there. The storage was and that was kind of some of the issue that we had. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Luke Melchert: Thank you. Molly Carlson: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 nd West 62 Street. I come tonight to say that I very much need this variance for the garage that protects my equipment. My equipment is very expensive and takes a lot of space. It would be inaccessible to me if it was someplace else. This garage for my equipment has been…for 10 years. It would be a great hardship for me to be without it… Please don’t take this away. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Carlson. I don’t want a repeat of everything at the Planning Commission. nd Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62 Street and I don’t know if there’s a picture but when I, his driveway goes right down along my back yard, so whenever I, it would be, yeah it would be this lot right here. So when I walk out my, into my back yard, I’m looking right into their yard and right at the garages and stuff, and I don’t see any reason. The garages aren’t, you can’t see them from the road. They don’t bother me at all. I like that type of area. I live out there to be where it’s quiet and not a lot of houses around and Mr. Carlson is a very good neighbor. I just don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t grant this variance for the garages. And I know he’s going to be getting those sheds down but he has to have a place to put the stuff there before he can get some of them tore down. He just doesn’t want to put it out in the yard, but I think you should grant it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Mr. Keehl. Okay? 59 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Luke Melchert: There’s no question this is going to be, it’s single family zoned. It’s going to be developed at some point in the future but because of, for the benefits of the citizens of Chanhassen and the neighbors, please let this semblance of days gone past survive for a little while longer. Everybody in the neighborhood likes it and there doesn’t have to be any harm to the health and welfare of the general public. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick question. I’m looking at the picture in the staff report, page 5. At the bottom which is, I think it’s the back of the garage. Are there, none of the garage doors open to the street, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: No, that’s correct. Mayor Furlong: They open to the driveway area which is somewhat to the east. And do they use, is that a boat or something stored behind the garage in this picture? Kate Aanenson: That’s a carport. Mayor Furlong: I’m looking at between the light pole and the two yellow turn signs. Down. Bottom picture on the page. There you go. Kate Aanenson: This one? Mayor Furlong: Yep. If you move your pencil to the left. Right in the middle. Is that a boat or something stored back there? Kate Aanenson: That was one of the issues. There’s a lot of outdoor storage. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Luke Melchert: We have no problem getting rid of outdoor storage. I mean you won’t let us build some of these buildings to put it in. Mayor Furlong: A function of too much stuff. Okay. Any other questions, thoughts or comments? And as I say I’m going to have a question. Well, let’s start with that and then I may have follow up questions. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Start with a question or? Mayor Furlong: Let me start with a question because maybe this may get us somewhere or not. Mr. Knutson. Gary Carlson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. 60 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson. I want to make a comment. Again this wasn’t Kate’s issue. This was Josh Metzer’s issue and I appreciate Kate did a very good job of presenting it. I’ve been negotiating a lot with Josh trying to take down 5 buildings. Then okay what would you do next Mr. Carlson? Take down 2 more so, the thing to keep in mind is I’m taking down all 7 of the structures that were grandfathered and replacing that with the small machine storage shed and the animal loafing shed, which the animals are, the animals and I are using every day. Which are interior to the property. They’re small buildings. 22 by 20. They’re not huge. They’ve got a lot of space around us and if you look at those pictures you can see where we’re not here to crowd. We’re a 5 acre hobby farm with building only the necessary structures to keep functioning as a hobby farm. And I’m agreeing to take down 7 old structures. Really just…over the neighbors and for our new development coming in south of us. I’ve worked out an agreement with that developer to replace and put a really nice horse fence all along the south end of my property so I’m not trying to be a drug dealer in a nice area. I continue to keep it improved. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Gary Carlson: Yeah, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, in terms of the zoning. Currently it is residential low density, is that the correct zoning? Roger Knutson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, and this is a variance request. Could there be a condition with regard to timing if a subdivision occurred then the variance, does the variance stay with the property permanently or if there’s subdivision, would then the variance have to be reviewed in terms of the. Could that be a condition I guess is my question. Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition. Mayor Furlong: At some future. Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition, if you chose to, that if any part of this property were subdivided or sold off or any property line adjustments or the property shrunk in size, that the variances would terminate. It just flows to the entire property and if it’s further divided, the variances are gone. You’d have to work on the wording but you can get that. If that’s what you want to do. Councilman Lundquist: That’s the creativity thing Mr. Melchert was talking about. Roger Knutson: We’ve faced this issue before…but not with Mr. Melchert. Mayor Furlong: Okay. He raised the issue about precedent setting as well, as he went forward with something here. Do you see those, is there as much a concern here as sometimes we do see? 61 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Roger Knutson: Legally I don’t see it as a concern. I’m just stumbling here trying to find that case. I didn’t bring this case for this application but for a different one. It would basically, the Minnesota Court of Appeals said that notions of precedence and…have no legal application in the zoning process. The only thing that applies in the zoning process is, is there a rational basis? Are you acting reasonably on this application? You have equal protection of other things, but they rarely come in, so generally speaking you have a political precedent if you will, but there’s not a legal precedent. Mayor Furlong: Those were my couple questions. I don’t know if they helped you. I’m not even sure they helped me but. Councilman Peterson: They didn’t help me. Mayor Furlong: Thoughts and comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I think reasonable trade off, if we can get the, I understand what the Planning Commission and respect that either they’re looking at the ordinance in a vacuum with blinders so to speak. It’s sort of what we asked them to do anyway. For them to interpret the ordinances and to act accordingly. We get to make the fun decisions so, but I think I’m comfortable given the removal of the 7 buildings, much like the previous one we just had. Get those permits. Get those inspections. Verify that all of this stuff is happening. Make it a reasonable amount of time and you know we’ll leave that up to Kate and Todd to determine what’s reasonable. Somewhere between next week and 6 months from now. Something like that. That they would get all that stuff done. I’m comfortable and again stressing that we get that wording around the variances expiring on whatever happens here, subdivision slash you know some modification of property rights. And again that no more structures get built on the property, so essentially what’s, Kate what you provided for alternate motion if you want to call it that or, alternate recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I too. I think the applicant has given it a good shot at saying that he will remove 7 buildings from the property and I just think that making him move a building 8 feet to comply, it seems tedious in some ways to me. But for me it doesn’t make any common sense. It’s been there for 10 years. It obviously, I look at the pictures and looking to see about space and vehicles, and there is a tree there so are we going to ask you to move the garage and then cut the tree down so you have room for your vehicles? There comes a time and a place where you just have to sit down and say, is it logical? Does it make sense or are we just being tedious with the ordinance all along, and so I would like to see those buildings gone by August st 1. …garage to say where it is and let them get back to their lives. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Well I’m in the mood to table tonight. Mayor Furlong: We haven’t done that yet tonight have we? 62 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Councilman Peterson: You know I think that if the structures that have been discussed to be removed are removed and although I don’t necessarily agree with the applicant’s rational for not moving the building, I think it’s more reasonable… So to that end I would offer that we should move to table until the buildings are gone and then come back and once we’re assured of that and then we’ll grant the variance for the garage setbacks. Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s reasonable. I think since we are as close as we are to that deadline, I think the applicant is making an effort in terms of identifying those 7 buildings and we appreciate that, and seeing that those get done. I think we’re 20 days away from that deadline, and certainly hope that they will be able to adhere to that. But I would like to see some language, as we discussed Councilman Lundquist also indicated, based on my question from, with regards to the duration of the variance, especially if there’s a subdivision there may, I wouldn’t want this to come back and create something that has to be approved if there’s a change so, in terms of, it’s been described to us as a need based upon the current use. So if that use changes, then I would think that it would at least need to be revisited by a future council, so I guess I’d like to see that as a part of the findings and also perhaps a condition that we’ll look at. Councilman Lundquist: So conditions around a motion to table, or does that become a strong recommendation? Mayor Furlong: No it’s, I guess it’s something for staff to investigate to look at, and the other thing I heard was the issue of there’s already an agreement between the City and the property st owner to have 5 buildings there removed I think by August 1. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: And so I think we’re 20 days away from that, which would give staff some time to draft some language. Kate Aanenson: We’re going to take our extra 60 days. Councilman Peterson: There you go. Mayor Furlong: We’ve done that before tonight I think. Kate Aanenson: I think so. Councilman Peterson: Add to the 5 buildings, and add the 2 other ones, so you’ve get. Kate Aanenson: 7 buildings. Councilman Lundquist: As a strong recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Yep. 63 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Can we just be clear so that the applicant understands that condition. They’re tabling it and, until such time as the buildings are removed… Luke Melchert: We understand that. I suppose before you… Kate Aanenson: Right, they added the 2 additional buildings. Luke Melchert: Right. Mayor Furlong: We don’t want, obviously we don’t want to get to that. An agreement was reached and we assume that the agreement’s. st Luke Melchert: …if the buildings are down by August 1, the applicant can probably assume they. Kate Aanenson: Put it back on the agenda, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Luke Melchert: And we’ll get… Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: I try not to predict votes but. Gary Carlson: 5 I can easily. 2 are already down and then for the third one we’ve got hay put in it. But the barn is empty and I started taking that down today with a machine, but the 2 additional buildings, Josh and I had. First of all I don’t know if I’m going to be able to keep the machine storage shed and the animal loafing shed, and if I have to make more room in the st machine shed for taking down 2 more to 7. I can’t do the 7 by August 1. I can do the 5 by st August 1. Kate Aanenson: They gave you an extra 60 days so we’d be happy to work with you. Mayor Furlong: I think staff can work with you. Gary Carlson: Okay, yeah I know…I think it’s a very good idea. Councilwoman Tjornhom: …$5,000. Because it was for 5 buildings and now we’re going to 7 so. Gary Carlson: …I’d be perfectly willing to show what I can do. Appreciate working. Kate Aanenson: What the intent is to show good faith effort to move towards the goal. 64 City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: On everyone’s side. Kate Aanenson: On everyone’s side. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. That would be fine. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table. Second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: We did accomplish a lot tonight, even though I shouldn’t be discussing a motion to table. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Planning Case 06- 23 for a variance and intensification of a non-conforming use for the property at 3891 West nd 62 Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? th Councilwoman Tjornhom: As the Mayor said, I think we had an excellent 4 of July. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was a beautiful day both days. Very successful I thought. Record numbers of people and wonderful weather and it was a good. Mayor Furlong: It was a great time. Thank you Councilwoman Tjornhom. I appreciate you saying that. Our city staff did a wonderful job, both the park department, public works. The sheriff’s department. Todd Gerhardt: Fire department. Mayor Furlong: Administration. Fire department. I mean just about all the departments. It was a city wide effort. I think there were also a number of organizations, the Chamber. The Rotary Club. Lions. Others that were intimately involved at various levels and we need to recognize all their efforts too. This is not the type of project I know Mr. Hoffman said this before, the city and the government can’t put these on. It takes a lot of people and most of all, it takes the 6,000 or so, or whatever the number was. Don’t quote me on that please Mr. Jansen because in terms of rd the people that showed up on the 3 for the street dance. 65