The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-23_CARLSON, GARY & MAUREENThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew R. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Craig R. McDowell Marguerite M. McCarron Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Eagan, AIN 55121 651-152-5000 I" 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial. (651) 234-6222 E-mailAddress: snelson@ck-law.com January 2, 2007 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECEIVED JAN 4 - 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RE: CHANHASSEN —MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS ➢ Variance #06-23 — Gary Carlson Property at 3891 West 62nd Street (Part of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts — ODC #29118) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #06-23 which was filed with Carver County on December 5, 2006 as Torrens Document No. T 161022. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 4;Srsan. Nelson, Lega Assistant SCANNED Document No. OFFICE OF THE T 161022 REGISTRAR OF TITLES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CARVER Che ##29COUNTY,5MINNESOTA E 40 OD Certified Recorded on 12-05-2006 at 11:00 [�gAM ❑ PM 2006-12-05 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III Registrar of Hanson, Jr. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 06-23 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62°d Street. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described on the attached Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void. 4. Lam. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: August 28, 2006 SCANNED (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A. Furlong, J� AND:401 _..J-�- 1rhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this eday of . 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 2 �cilnne Nooa My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 P '• Y That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest comer of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16-1/2 feet South of the North line of said Section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49 degrees 22 minutes West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of 48 degrees 20 minutes a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6 Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6, a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING: The North 217.75 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, "Schmid's Acre Tracts", ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, "Schmid's Acre Tracts" according to the recorded plat thereof, ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the hereinafter described tract lying West of a line drawn parallel to and distant 125 feet East of the West line of said tract, which tract is described as follows: That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest corner of Section 5 in Township 116, North of Range 23 West, and 16-1/2 feet South of the North line of said Section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49 degrees 22 minutes West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line 48 degrees 20 minutes a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lotti Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof, to the Southwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.05 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.50 feet. Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Craig R. McDowell Marguerite M. McCarron • Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Cur Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 551, 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial. (651) 234-6222 E-mail Address: snelson a()ck-law.com November 7, 2006 Ms. Kim Meuwissen Chanhassen City Hall 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: CHANHASSEN RECORDINGS REC Ci F -SD NOV 0 8 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN - Variance #06-23 — Gary Carlson Property at 3891 West 62nd Street (Part of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts) Dear Kim: The enclosed variance was sent to me for review and recording. The variance was rejected by the Carver County Registrar's office stating that the Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts has been split and that they must have the complete and accurate legal of the portion that the variance is pertaining to. Your transmittal letter to me dated 10/11/06 describes Variance #06-23 as pertaining to 3891 West 62nd Street and you have the letter copies to Gary Carlson. I researched the County land title and property records for Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts and determined that Gary and Maureen Carlson own two of the parcels as shown on the enclosed map (PID #25.7700070 is highlighted in yellow and PID #7700110 is highlighted in pink); although Megan Carlson has a contract for deed on PID #7700110. I have enclosed copies of the deeds for these two parcels as well as the contract for deed with Megan Carlson for your information. Also enclosed are the County property records for the two parcels owned by Gary and Maureen Carlson which show the property address for PID #25.7700070 as 3891 62nd Street West and for PID #25.7700110 as 6280.282 Cartway Lane. This leads me to believe that the variance is for the larger Gary Carlson parcel (PID #25.7700070) since the property address for that parcel is the same one that you referenced in your transmittal letter. If I am correct, then I believe legal description on the variance should be the same as the legal on the quit claim deed dated December 5, 1988 from Gary and Maureen Carlson to themselves. Just for your info, the remaining two parcels of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts are owned by Dale and Linda Keehl (PID #25.7700090 highlighted in orange on the enclosed map) and by Terrance Lane Toll (PID #25-7700100 highlighted in green on the map). Please call me if you have any questions or if you want to discuss this in detail. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Sy an R. Nelson, Legal Assistant SRN:ms Enclosures rc S N112SEC. 5 HENNEPIN COUNTY \\ T. 117. R. 23 p 5�ryn�msid bH Trod+ A.W9 L A K E Carver County Page 1 of 1 COUNTY'A?EBSITE 1 PROPERTY SEARCH I FAQ's 1 GLOSSAF Parcel Number 25.7700070 PROPERTY SEARCH Property Address FREQUENT QUESTIONS 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR GLOSSARY COUNTY WEBSITE Identification Information Primary Taxpayer/Owner GARY CARLSON CONTACT CARVER 3891 62ND ST W COUNTY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8803 Legal Description P/O LOT 6 DESC AS: BEG AT A PT 648' E OF NW CORN SECT 5 & 16.5' OF N LINE OF SECTION & ON THE ELY R -O -W LINE OF RR TH S49'W ALONG SAID Payable Year: 2006 Tax Roll Type: REAL ESTATE Jurisdiction: CHANHASSEN CITl School District: SCHOOL DISTRICT Section: 05 Township: 116 Range: 023 Lot: 006 Plat Name: 25770 SCHMID'S ACRE TRACTS Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes are determined using the previous year assi Mobile Home Taxes are determined using the current year assessment value. Property Classification: FULL HOMESTEAD RESIDENTIAL Assessment Year 2005 Payable Year 2006 Est. Market Value - Building $282,500.00 Total Tax Est. Market Value - Land $197,300.00 Special Assessments: Est. Market Value - Total $479,800.00 RECYCLE MGT Taxable Market Total $471,700.00 Total Tax/Asmts. Paid To Date Installments Due Date Taxes/Assessments 1st Half 5/15/2006 Taxes/Assessments 2nd Half 10/16/2006 "Additional reductions in taxable value may apply due to special tax deferrals, This Old House, Plat Laws, etc. Y iew Printable Tax Statement https://www.co.carver.mn.us/carvercountyrecapIRecapBill.aspx?TaxYear--2006&RollTy... 10/24/2006 �T No delinquent taxes Rad tinder entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( 0 not required Cart) of R Estate Value No 19� a, a County Auditor STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ 1.65 Date: December 5 19 88 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Gary Duane Carlson and Maureen G. Carlson, husband and vi , Grantor (8). hereby conway(s) and quitWdm(s) to Gary Cuane Carlson and Maureen G. Carlson . Grantee (a), red proparty in Carver County, Mumesote, described Be follows: See attached Exhibit A Total consideration given for this deed is less than $500.00 rII� Dollar T,' -F mIANDAT�D tag Fee Paid la nen Vie M eeeeee. N„dI Maew together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thep¢o, Alfm Deed Tax Stamp Here STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Hennepin es. The by _ before msthis SthS eh _ Y of December ,18 88 NOTAM" STAW Oa saAL los OTtlaR TrTLe OR RANK) �PAMELAJ. IICTApY PUBLIC — MWME WA HENN EPIN COBRAYISEfTBUNTY MY Cpmm,SflOn FaP.ee b� 1a. rtp Gary Duane Carlson 3831 West 62nd St. Excelsior, MH 55331 UNIVERSAL TITLE INSURANCE CO 14031 BURNHAVEN DRIVE BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 Cwvy D�.or%e CCtVI-0O)1 TYlO'LAre-e t 6 Cnrl-�cxT 3831 w LPA rd -4 Ex C.e IS1arI rntJ SS311 Page C. _ PCOM vAl, 1 Qom\ 4 EXHIBIT A That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a pnlnt 648 Iran Fast of tlw Northwest corner of Sect lm 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16 1/2 last South or the North line o7 said Section; and m the Easterly right of way Tina of the Minneapolis and St. Louls Rai Iroad, tllance South 49 degrees 22 lninutas Wast along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; timhce Smith at an angle to the left of as id right of way Ilse o1 48 degram 20 Iminutes a distance of 391.8 feat along the West IIna of Lot 6 Sohnld's Acre Tracts, according to tie recorded plat thereof to tie Southwest coh•ner of said Lot 5, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6, a distance of 524.5 test to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6, thence North a lonq the East IIna of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the nortaeast corner at sold Lot 6, end thence West along We North IIna of Bald Lot 0 a distance of 207.6 teat to the point of bagiming. EXCEPTING: The North 217.75 lest of the East- 200 teat of Lot 6, 'Sohirid'a Acre Tracts", ALSO EXCEPTING, Ile South 217.75 test of the North 435.5 feet at the East 200 feat of Lot U. "Sclnrld'B Acrs Tracts' according to tie reca•ded plat thereof, ALSO EXCEPfINGr that pert of tie hereinafter described tract lying Want of a line drawn pial lal to and distant 125 teat East of the West lino of said bract, winlch bract Is described as follows, Tlwt certain tract bounded and described as f011nwe, Beginning at a point 548 teat East o1 the Northwest comer of Section 5 in Twshp. 118, North of Range 23 West, and 16 1/2 teat South of the Morth line o1 said Sou Lia,; arid an the Easterly right o1 way Ifne of tlw Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49 degrees 22 minutes West along sold right of.way Ifne a distance of 307 toot, thence South at an angle to tie Irlt of anid right of way line 48 degrees 20 inlnutes a distance of 391.8 teat along tM West Ifne of Lot 6 SNtnid's Acres Tracts, accord Ing to tlw recorded plat fhvreor, to the Scutixwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 0 a distance of 524.05 teat to de Southeast comer of said Lot 6, thence North along the East Ifne at sou Id Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to tie Northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along tie North Ilna of Raid Lot 8 a dintenoe of 287.6 feet Lo the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING: flat port of the East 200.00 feet of Lot 5, Selmid's Ac,r. tracts, (ewer CcuhLy, Milnssota, according to the recorded plat dereoi, which Iles Smith of to Nor-th 435.50 feat. HC 1901 Affidavit of Purchaser of Registered Land STATE OF MINNESOTA ty .a Counof xnrp:n Gary Duane Carlson bei.g f of dvty rtuorn on oath rnyr Met he m.h.r Mu .�idava en Carver Wel/ .f the purehun(iJ of REGISTERED LAND r:trmted in I(x q,Cauntyr hfinnrr.la. Th. nam. of •".n.N(fleh• p.r.hurr(r) L Gary Doane Carlson Excelsior Thr purehu.r rrridu at 3831 W. 62nd Street qty .1 AIyyypKyp C...ly of YAKKNIft Carver 51.9, of Ninn.ral. of aer L und.r no Gd.I du.bJity end , Xt5 so ¢here rni de. ,, i,.r above ret forth above mho ir— a;e and rvh. Ir Rader no 1,1.1 duabduy SRburibed and runrn 1. b.f.re m. thv S�I, Cary Duanatl9on o/ I9 88 NOWY P.br" Hennepin Co.nyr Minn, My Commiu:on "p:r.r PAMELA J. BRAY ISETTS erpTMY fLaIIC — MWMF90TA HENNEPIN COUNTY uy rAmn.non FavaRR alit 10.1{110 Carver County Page 1 of 1 COUNTY '.^JEBSrTE PROPERTY SEARCH! FAQ's I GLOSSAF PROPERTY SEARCH FREQUENT QUESTIONS GLOSSARY COUNTY WEBSITE CONTACT CARVER COUNTY Parcel Number 25.7700110 Property Address 6280.282 CARTWAY LN EXCELSIOR Payable Year: 2006 Identification Information Primary Taxpayer/Owner MEGAN J CARLSON C/O GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8803 Legal Description P/O E 200' OF LOT 6 LYING S OF N 435.50' & INCLUDES AN UNDIVIDED COMMON INTEREST IN TRACT LABELED AS RESERVE ON PLAT OF SCHMID'S Tax Roll Type: REAL ESTATE Jurisdiction: CHANHASSEN CIT\ School District: SCHOOL DISTRICT Section: 05 Township: 116 Range: 023 Lot: 006 Plat Name: 25770 SCHMID'S ACRE TRACTS Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes are determined using the previous year asst Mobile Home Taxes are determined using the current year assessment value. Property Classification: FULL HOMESTEAD RES DUPLEX/TRIPLEX Assessment Year 2005 Payable Year 2006 Est. Market Value - Building $136,900.00 Total Tax Est. Market Value - Land $75,700.00 Special Assessments: Est, Market Value - Total $212,600.00 RECYCLE MGT Taxable Market Total $194,900.00 Total Tax/Asmts. Paid To Date Installments Due Date Taxes/Assessments 1st Half 5/15/2006 Taxes/Assessments 2nd Half 10/16/2006 "Additional reductions in taxable value may apply due to special tax deferrals, This Old House, Plat Laws, etc. https://www.co.carver.rnn. uslcarvercountyrecapIRecapB ill.aspx?TaxYear=2006&RollTy... 10/24/2006 ON O 0 Fw,P No. 29-M —QUITCLAIM DEED wnmwu UNfo. _. I,Mivijwllsl w Joint TPmnts No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( v-1 not required Certific to of Re§J Estate Value No. 19�— �011ssa .r1'f i (` County Auditor by z z STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ 1.65 Date: .T„n. 19 '19 88 0976) ums,.o.:. Co.. unrwoaa FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Keith A Carlson And Cyn him Carlson Hushand and Wife , Grantor (s), (maiui suu,sl hereby conveys) and quitclaim (s) to Gary D. Carlson and Maureen G. Carlson, Husband and Wife ,Grantees as joint tenants, real property in Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.50 feet. Subject to easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions of record, if any. The total consideration for this deed is $500.00 or less. (if mon Wp Is n W. conllnw on batl,l together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. Five Dollar Keith A. Carlson STAT111 MAN(M7HDmr, I I, m 4 - Ag Fee Palo STATE OF MINNESOTA ®. COUNTY OF 6- ca� The by 1 was NOTARIAL aTAlO OR SEAL 10¢ OTtlaE TITLa OR tANq JUDEE C. eYDBERG Nblaty Pabii :. Daauia Co.. MN Mr C9mmest,Mtxpaes Avg. 11, 1990 THIa IAET¢UtlxNT NAB DM iTED BY (NAME AND ADDEIa61�li i Bradley W. Solheim ��Attorney at Law 1GLAESER, SOLHEIM & ROWLAND 1 133 West First Street 'Waconia, MN 55387 j j (612) 448-5535 or 442-2045 . 191��II�lrS�la A LJ x,4I _, o Iain P3.4iT1 Cynthia Carlson ,19 iL. Q�I (1 04S 8i fATURE OP PIEaON C[NOWLIDOY e T s S io .ts Za uma ..d MP drag ct„Hw ftY �Wkl Gary D. Carlson and Maureen G. Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Retum To sr County Title Gaz;>e,:v 13'3 'West First ST,',. Wacvnia. Minnesota :..;..,j pop of ' Pages Page 1 of 4 Certificate of Title Certificate No: 29324.0 TRANSFER FROM NO. 9430 registered 05/17/1947 Volume 7 Page 203.0 State of Minnesota, County of Carver This is to certify that GARY DUANE CARLSON & MAUREEN G. CARLSON, husband and wife, joint tenants Residing at 3891 62nd Street West in the City of Excelsior County of Carver, State of MN 55331. Owner(s) of the following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.50 feet. Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the following rights, or encumbrances subsisting, as provied in M.S. Section 508.25 namely; 1. Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or Constitution of the United States, which this state cannot require to appear of record; 2. The lien of any real property tax or special assessment; 3. Any lease for a period not exceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the premises thereunder; 4. All rights in public highways upon the land; 5. The right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application, as is allowed by the chapter; 6. The rights of any person in posssession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title; 7. Any outstanding mechanics lien rights which may exist under sections 514.01 to 514.17; That the said: Gary Duane Carlson is of the age of 16 years or older, is under no legal incapacity and is married to Maureen G. Carlson, who is of the age of 18 years or older and is under no legal incapacity. In Witness Whereof, I have subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office this 1st day of May, 2002. Carl W. Hanson, Jr. Registrar of Titles In and for the County of Carver State of Minnesota http://Iandshark.co.carver.mn.us/LandShark/getcert.jsp?CertNum=29324 10/19/2006 Page 2 of 4 By http://Iandshark.co.carver.mn.us/LandShark/getcert.jsp?CertNum=29324 10/19/2006 Pagc 3 ol'4 Certificate No: 29324.0 Document #:T17910 Amount: .00 Dated: OB -28-1972 In favor of: CHANHASSEN VILLAGE OF Comments: /s/ CARL W.HANSON by DB Document #:T17911 Amount: .00 Dated: 09-13-1972 In favor of: CHANHASSEN VILLAGE OF Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON by DB Document #:T17912 Amount: .00 Dated: 09-21-1972 In favor of: CHANHASSEN VILLAGE OF Comments: /s/ CARL W.HANSON by DB Memorials Instr: EASEMENT Ref: filed: 01-02-1973 at 09:00 AM Instr:EASEMENT Ref: filed: 01-02-1973 at 09:00 AM Instr:EASEMENT Ref: filed: 01-02-1973 at 09:00 AM Document #:T21574 Ins tr: UNDERGROUND EASEMENT Amount: .00 Ref: Dated: 05-23-1975 filed: 05-27-1975 at 01:00 PM In favor of: NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON by DB Document #:T21599 Amount: .00 Dated: 06-02-1975 In favor of: CHANHASSEN CITY OF Comments: /s/ CARL W.HANSON by DB Instr:EASEMENT Ref: filed: 06-04-1975 at 09:00 AM Document #:T22419 Instr:MORTGAGE Amount: 35700.00 Ref: Dated: 12-24-1975 filed: 12-30-1975 at 11:00 AM In favor of: TWIN CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS S LOAN ASSOCIATION Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON by DB Document #:T112184 Instr:ASGMT OF MORTGAGE Amount: .00 Ref:ASSIGNS MTGE DOC #T22419 Dated: 02-01-1999 filed: 12-30-1999 at 09:00 AM In favor of: FIDELITY BANK http://landshark.co.carver.mn.us/LandShark/getcert.jsp?CertNum=29324 10/19/2006 Page 4 of 4 Comments: /s/ CARL W. RANSON, JR. by JS Document #:T126745 Instr:SATIS OF MORTGAGE Amount: .00 Ref:SATISFIES MTGE DOC #22419 Dated: 04-11-2002 filed: 05-01-2002 at 09:00 AM In favor of: CARLSON GARY DUANE CARLSON MARUEEN G Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON,JR. by DB Document #:T130019 Instr:CONTRACT FOR DEED Amount: 87000.00 Ref: Dated: 01-10-1996 filed: 09-30-2002 at 09:00 AM In favor of: CARLSON MEGAN J Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON,JR. by DB Document #:T130571 Instr:CONTRACT FOR DEED Amount: 87000.00 Ref: Dated: 01-10-1996 filed: 10-21-2002 at 10:00 AM In favor of: CARLSON MEGAN J Comments: /s/ CARL W. HANSON,JR. by DB * * * * * * * * * * * Last Memorial shown above * * * * * * * * * * * http://Iandshark.co.carver.mn.us/LandShark/getcert.jsp?CertNum=29324 10/19/2006 DOCUMENT COVER PAGE (Reserved for County Recorder) DOCUfllent N0. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES T130571 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Che111111111111111111111111 Cert. ## 29324 Vol. 0 Page 93 Certified and filed on 10.21.2002 at 10:00 AMC] PM 20`07-10-21 III II�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CRregstra of Titles DOCUMENT TITLE: DOCUMENT DATE: /—/eq— � NABS: CARVER COUNTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES • 1` '+., '.in••'�'.:. ,.. t..�vi4;:., .:.Foan '` G' worst rmPeea "�" w t; erNNAUI Ye:dor No . $¢M ar .r,m. Uva•,rm Genre>an�esvj al.ih: Brad 191F1's�+lei>.R.1;�� ijts %reemellt. +nada and entered into ihis__tellth____.._..day of...aalluftCy......_..—..—.^ by and balusters ..Ga-D.:husband •'}F ` t part?e9_ of the ¢ret part. and .Pkga4. dt_Cia[15D[l_..__.._._....--.'----.___�._.—_._.___.,` i •. -- f ._..__............ _. _...._... .. .. .... __.__... �-_.-._.._. ... .-. _. .. _., part_._... of the second part, i d, :l x8� '.r.. •i 40itne86t1IJ. That the said parllag- of the ffrab part in consideration of Elea covenants and afr 2� . • r.. punto of mid party........ of the eaond part, hersinaftor contained, hereby mIL_.. and agree_... to convey :•::3 twnW said .arty._..... of the second part. ...hee...heaLs...And assafns, by a-47arcenE ';y ? Duct accompanied by an abstract swideneing food tithe in part. ies of flea firs{ part at the date hereof, i a or an ormar's des {scats aurtifidate of tatio• mPon the prompt and tall ormanea b said b4 P � P f Psf N Part.?....._ yrs of the second part, */.her- __—,p.^. -E of this afreemant, Elea tract...... of hand, lying and Ivfn f in the County of Cads ----... _.__.. _.end stats of Altnnowla, described as follows, to -aft: 1 x, f r" That part of the Fast 200.0 feet of Lot Silt (6), Sctgsid's ' Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the i recorded plat thereof, which lies South or the North 435.50 feet. }g�- S• e _ :r,i _ E - s Seller certifies that there are no wells on the above described Property..:'. I .lnd mid party... of the anp d part, in consideration of the'Pr nsiess, hereby agree&._ to pay go" Parties. of the fa•d tmrd. at .:sych_p7ar•o .tis_.0hey.shalLdesisnate..._....---.'-- ar and-- for the purahaea pylae of mid pronoun, the Barrs of_1:1gF}ty .-----7.--------- -------------le".. . _---- {f G.E.• .: .*' In nnawser and at times folhopinf, t�{^__..--- _ - _ N u �s $87 OW.00 in monthly installments of 708.07 a Y $ per month or more at ' the option of purchaser, with interest upon the deferred balance - t at 9% per annus, said monthly payments to apply first to the . `s'r�'" k•'? ', payment of interest and the balance to the reduction of principal. r..,;..„_,. First monthly payment shall be made on or before the 1st day of February, 1996 and on the lift day of each i •^^i '"� "'• t month thereafter until .Sea. - the full has. ice has been id with interest as herein port pr pa- provided. 1 :'S••�l `•< :. ` .1 .� ryiy Y ( h , H= i 41 Said put_y._ of the second part further covenama_ and ,gr es.. se follows: to par. before penalty attaches thorn., I r all tarn due and payable in the year B%and in subac > � Vuent Years. and all special vssnsmrnb heretofore or hemft.r is {cried. _—_--� ______�—• _ alsc that any buildings and improrerl:ents now m said land, or orldh shall hereafter be eretted, plued, or made thereon, " shelf nm be removed thuretom, but shall be and terrain the property of rhe put_iQg. of the first part until this cos- ' a:•{tn:7 y':> ones be fully .own to keep the build. by the putt' _ of she second part) and at_apory r ir.a are ., all a. to b, Ings said premum at an rimes insured In some reliable insuronue company a ompanim, to be aoorwed by the or c e Part�ea =v� a �4 Stifficif'lotla a P�thl~YEnderaa int,r st,�,__ , ,e j3 and against loss by windstorm for at least the sacs of se payable m acid pa.iea_ of the fist .art, .beim or assigns, and, in care of kvs, shwlJ lbtte be any any_ plus ora and alwve the arronnt than owing said a... Ius. n1 the first pan, .filei!_—.heirs, or assize:; the bat.,, • ,... shall be paid over to the said party.._ of the wcond part as._......_�la[. : tape shall appear, and to m ! deposit with the Pardee._, of she first part politics of xaiJ ipso e, ant ahoulJ the sermsd pnrLit_. fait m Day any item to be paid by said paridc__- under the ter— hereof. earn. map be paid by fist Parl_lea_ nod shall be forthwith Day- i -' aMe. with interest Iberevn, ax m additional amount due first parties.. under this covlract i i el the llual Form No. 54-M '- • al,aan+ u s t a,s Two Agreement, 3fade and cratered into this _...._. tenth .._........ _...... Any of _.last,fart'.__.............. ___-.s 19.96 ., by and battpeen, _Gary..p,...biron..and..Maureen -G.-Gerisonj. husband.. and.. wifey ------ .....--- part ies _. parties of the fire part, and Megan..J,_.Garlson.. _._ _. ..... _ .... ...-_............. .I .......... ...... .. _.., part y. _ of the aeeond pare, WjtUeSgetll, That the said part jaS_ of the fire part ist, consideration of the eaosnaats and agree- a.ents of avid party.... . of the second part, hereinafter contained, hereby sell...... and agree_.. to convey unto said party of the second part, --her- heirs._ ..and assigns, by a _Warra t ......... _-.--____ Deed, accompanied by an abstract erideneing good title in part ies of the first part at the date hereof, or by art omaer's duplicate. mrtif Bate of !ilia, upon the prompt and full performance by said part- y.... of the second part, of...}e,r- .--__-.part of this agreement, the tract...... of land, lying and being in the Country of Carvel'._. _ . _....___ .. and State of .dfinnesota, described as foliates, to -TV": That part of the East 200.0 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.50 feet. Seller certifies that there are no wells on the above described property. And said part. y... _. of the asoont part, in nomiiora.tton of the pra neia-a, hereby agrees... to pay acid part ies. of the fire part, at _...such..place.As...they..shall_designate..... ...... .... ...... _ _. as and for the purchase price of paid premisea, the men of._Eighty...$.eY8n..111otISa[Id-.------..--- 1000_00)=" ------------------a-c --.Dollars, in manner and at tures follmaing, to-Icit:._...... .._.. _.... _. ._ _.. _. ................ $87,000.00 in monthly installments of $708.07 per month or More at the option of purchaser, with interest upon the deferred balance at 9% per anntm, said monthly payments to apply first to the payment of interest and the balance to the reduction of principal. _ First monthly payment shall be made on or before the 1st day of February, 1996 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the full purchase price has been paid with interest as herein provided. Said part_y__ of the second part further covenants__ and agrees_ as follows: to pay, before penalty attaches thereto, all rosea due and payable in the year 1736., and in subsequent years, and all special assessments heretofore or hereafter levie4-.__._..___.__...—..._.....__._____........ _.__-__..___.. also that any buildings and improvements now on said land, or which shall hereafter be erected, placed, or made thereon, shall r+¢ be restored therefroas, but shall be and rewin the property ci the part3,W_ of the first part until this cp.- tract shall be fully performed by the party-_.._ of the second part; and at_b=___own expense, to keep the build. ings an aid premises at all timesm insured in some reliable insurance company or companies, to be approved by the p.IieS of the first part, against loss by fire lot at least the sem of.—_._ ............................... _...._..._.__._..._._._._._.__ __Suffi.cientta_protect` the_veudana'_. interest....__ .................. -............ _........... .............. _......_._...... __agnaex and against loss by windstorm for a least the sum _IIttyaGlj payable to said pargefi_., of the first part, -their.--_-_.heirs or assigns, and, in case of loss, should these be soy sur- plus over and above the amount then on ing said past.les.. of the fust psr-,..thPni X _.heirs, or assigns, the balance shall he paid mer to the said party.—. of the sccmd part as.___..]IPS.___.._.._---------- ..interest shall appeaq and to deposit pith the parties__ of the first pert policies of said insurance. But should the second part j[_ fall to pay any item to be paid by said part -y..__ under the terms hereof, same map be paid by first part_jes- and shall be foahnilh pay- able with interest thereon, as an additional amount due first DaraieS... under this contract. But should default be trade in the payment of principal or interest due hereunder, or of any part thaws, to be by second part_.JI— paid, or should -_,^139__. -fail to pay the Use, re assessments upon said land ,premiums upon said iniarance, or to perform any or'sither of th• covenants, agreements, toms or conditions herein contained, to be by said •crond party ...... kept or performed, the said perlisa... of the first part may, al_._.th21i..___option. by written notice declare this contract cancelled and terminated, and all rights, title and interest acquired thereunder by said second Pmt -y-- shalt thereupon erase and terminate, sad all improvements made upon the premises, and all payments made hereunder -hall belong to said paK1fS of the first part as liquidated damage, for breach of this contract by said second par' y----, said notice to be in accordance with the statute in each case made and provided. Neither the e -tension of the time of payment of any sum r.r sums of money to be paid hereunder, nor any waiver by the partes_ of the first part _theiT__rights to declare this contract forfeited by teas.. of any brach thereof, 511211 it, any matmm affect the right of said porta..=$_ to cancel this contract hera.w of dcfanits subsequently maturing, and no aneasi.n of time shall be valid unless evidenced by duly signed instrument. Further, after service of notice and failure to remove, within the period allon-ed 1, law, the default therein specified, said party.... of the second part hereby specifically agree.S., upon demand of said pam.iefi.. of the first party quiet], and praceably to surrender aion of said premises, and [eery part tlrrcof, it being understood that until such default, said part -,L._ of the second ➢art_�____.___to have possession of said premises. R f5 ¢lahtaRp %greeb, By and bamteera the partdes hereto, that the time of pahcozent shall be an eaaea.tfal part of this contract; and th¢t ail the covenants amt ¢greeme>Je herein contained shall run with IU land and bind the heirs, e.peoutore, adminfstwelors, successors and assigns of the respective partles hereto. DIT 9 WITI nq WW Wt. The parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and yeas' jlret .bore Witton. Otate of Af—innegata, Thr forrgoing inxtrtunnnt nva o.•karru•lrAarrl befnr.. nr this NatlAArs�AR/lArsnv+a Yc„a gaY rp(piL f Im Y •c_ y }. .L E}SS��jjyo } I Y L-, ..tA'adpn.. vJ.nweWMW..MAwu.,.n.M1UW W wYJ )THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY 3891 y 62nd St. «rel Chanhassen, MiTm. 1 � AIM Gary D. Carlson and Maureen G.Carldon hll ., husband and wife and Megan J. Carlson , 144M.12paE rY r /Slk f INe Ar [Ur- �Mus.sr, rI. N."Al tirLF M FANLI i Cap-Tu s�lwZ e+.w e.aZ S la Lf -1 Car1T u yL/ YCP fS1a N Z) tls nl= CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 11/13/06 2006-23 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording_ ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 8/28/06 06-23 Gary Carlson Variance 06-23 3891 West 62 noStreet ❑ FOR BIDS DUE For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints REMARKS Sue - Attached is Variance 06-23 for recording showing the CORRECTED legal description. COPY TO: SIGNED: M enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, WNNESOTA VARIANCE 06-23 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West Wd Street. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described on the attached Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: August 28, 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'c�,L, kS BY: (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, 04 -A, M AND: odd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this eday of )e'r 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. n DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 2 KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota �= My Cammissbn Expires Jen 31, 2010 10.4:11:30r:1 That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest corner of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16-1/2 feet South of the North fine of said Section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49 degrees 22 minutes West along said tight of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of 48 degrees 20 minutes a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6 Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6, a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. 1� Jam' 151 The North 217.75 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, "Schmid's Acre Tracts", ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, "Schmid's Acre Tracts" according to the recorded plat thereof, ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the hereinafter described tract lying West of a line drawn parallel to and distant 125 feet East of the West line of said tract, which tract is described as follows: That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest comer of Section 5 in Township 116, North of Range 23 West, and 16-1/2 feet South of the North line of said Section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49 degrees 22 minutes West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line 48 degrees 20 minutes a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6 Schmid's Acres Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof, to the Southwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.05 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.50 feet. CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 10/11/06 Sue Nelson Document ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 8/28/06 06-23 Variance - 3891 West 62" Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts 1 9/25/06 06-29 Variance - 6221 Greenbriar Avenue (Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Hei hts 1 10/3/06 06-31 Variance - 3735 Hickory Road (Lot 5, Block 2, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ® For Recording ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Gary Carlson (06-23) Marvin & Patricia Onken (06-29) Edward & Cheryl Bixby (06-31) SIGNED.< U�4 -Ve JLA SA R4-�� Kim Meuwisse , (952) 227-1107 SCANNED If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. k CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 06-23 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62nd Street. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: August 28, 2006 v CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: '(�—'L' A' . (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, 04 AND: _. J–�1 odd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 2 :MVISS EN Npry ublic-Minnesota mission Expires Jan 31, poip Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Based on direction from City Council, the applicant has removed the 7 accessory Fax: 952.227.1110 buildings. The applicant has also applied for and received approval for building Recreation Center permits (contingent upon approval of variance requests) on the three structures that 2310 Coulter Boulevard were constructed without permits. These three structures meet building code Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 requirements. Planning & MEMORANDUM Natural Resources TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager MY OF FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I Fax: 952 227.1110 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. CI1�]Hl1I1HJSF11u DATE: August 28, 2006 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 147 SUBJ: GARY CARLSON — Request for front yard setback Variance and Chanhassen, MN 55317 Intensification of a Nonconforming Use — Planning Case 06-23 Administration Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the proposed variance and intensification of a Phone: 952.227.1100 nonconforming use. The Planning Commission minutes are attached to this report Fax: 952.227.1110 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 After -the -fact Variance requests for a 22 -foot front yard setback for an existing Fax: 952.227.1190 four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure Engineering restriction for the intensification of a nonconforming use. Phone. 952227.1150 Fax 952.227 1170 City Council held a hearing on July 10, 2006 and voted to table the variance Finance requests in order to give the applicant time to remove 7 accessory structures from Phone: 952.227.1140 the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote Fax: 952.227.1110 of 4 to 0. Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Based on direction from City Council, the applicant has removed the 7 accessory Fax: 952.227.1110 buildings. The applicant has also applied for and received approval for building Recreation Center permits (contingent upon approval of variance requests) on the three structures that 2310 Coulter Boulevard were constructed without permits. These three structures meet building code Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 requirements. Planning & ACTION REQUIRED Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952 227.1110 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Public works 1591 Park Road PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 20, 2006, to review the proposed variance and intensification of a nonconforming use. The Planning Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the proposed variance and intensification of a Fax 952227.1110 nonconforming use. The Planning Commission minutes are attached to this report as item la. website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the adoption of the motion approving the requested variances as specified on the attached recommendation document. If the variances are granted a condition will be attached stating that if, and when, the property is subdivided the variance shall become void. 1� The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt Gary Carlson Variance — Planning Case 06-23 August 28, 2006 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1. Recommendation. 2. Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 20, 2006. 3. July 10, 2006, City Council Minutes. 4. June 20, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes. gA,plan\2006 planning cues\06-23 carlso variance\c=mive summary ii_doc RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62°d Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void." CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 20, 2006 [4] CC DATE: iW5- i 9 August 28, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: i?Ay i 8 CASE #: 06-23 BY: JM September 16, 2006 PROPOSAL: After -the -fact Variance request 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. LOCATION: 3891 West 62nd Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary & Maureen Carlson and Alan & Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief 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. Staff and Planning Commission are is recommending denial of the request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 dune 39 a6i -j August 28, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact Variance for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 4,917 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West 62°d Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62°d Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20.904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. BACKGROUND The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single -Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square -foot four -stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square -foot "loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square -foot "machine storage shed" (marked Q. Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has eweed-to removed two additional existing accessory structures. The two storage sheds to be removed are located to the south of the principal structure. They are 216 square feet and 227 square feet in area respectively for a total of 443 square feet of accessory structure to be removed. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 Alow go August 28, 2006 Page 3 There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed, it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62°d Street via the subject property. ANALYSIS Built w/o permit _.. Grandfathered r++ Pole Barn _4. Io be removed 4tie51` B r"ry (T Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 dwNeg 9 August 28, 2006 Page 4 1,000 Square -Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square -foot pole bam on the property. Approval of the building permit for the pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole barn since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The applicant has also agreed to remove two storage sheds (pictured below), located south of the principal structure, contingent upon approval of this variance request. There are currently thirteen detached accessory structures on the subject property totaling 6,566 square feet. With the removal of seven of these structures the property will contain six structures totaling 4,917 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction by 3,917 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 A~ JQ Ai6o 49 August 28, 2006 Page 5 Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street. Accessory Structure A The existing right-of-way for West 62nd Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey. The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62"d Street lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street. By providing a 30 -foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62nd Street. The a�plicant has a short boulder wall approximately two or three feet in height on the south side of West 62n Street which provides a physical barrier between the subject property and passing traffic. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 8 a4a4- 4 August 28, 2006 Page 6 The small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, has been sketched on the survey by the applicant. Due to these features' proximity to the four -stall garage, it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30 -foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point tum pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. I I I The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that he within the Single -Family Residential District, however, not to agricultural lands. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the garage to the public street. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 dw++o@ AAugust 28, 2006 Page 7 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the Pimning Gammis City Council adopt the following motion: "The Pimming GewAniss City Council 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 nonconforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The PlsamiRg GawAmiss City Council orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings." Should the City Council choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plammog Gemmiss City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62d Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted." The City Council has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures, staff recommends a condition be added stating: Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 shone 70 aho4i FA August 28, 2006 Page 8 1. Building permits must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Luke Melchert to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 4. Letter from Gary Carlson to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 5. Letter from Dale & Linda Keehl of 3841 West 62nd Street to the City of Chanhassen. 6. Letter from Terry Toll of 6250 Cartway Lane to the City of Chanhassen. 7. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9. Lot Survey. 10. Sketched Lot Survey. 11. Aerial Photograph. 12. Accessory Structure Photos. gAplan\2006 p6nudng cases\06-23 cadwn vmri e\cc update.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 — Planning Case No. 06-23. On August 28, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood 5. The planning report #06-23 Variance dated August 28, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The City Council approves the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot maximum accessory stricture restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without permits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 28m day of August, 2006. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M Tom Furlong, Its Mayor Todd Gerhardt, Its City Manager g1plan\2006 planning cases\06-23 mison vanaa=Ndty council findings of fact.doc ■ �" yin] � CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Email: Planning Case No. O__ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: S r9 vv" e Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTALFEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: 3 O 9\ ('Aj G A(� S LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: 9, S h WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: b 6T c, >✓ 0 0. ,j- 10. N C '12�- This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are We and correct to the best of my knowledge. Z" -D ca-t�� Signature of Appli nt SAK- Signature of Fee GaAHA1 4 G:tptAMforms0evelopment Review Application.DOC mg -(D Dat Date Rev. 12/05 Paw A. meleMl paved P. RuEER xelo E. S7Rdln R. (aw,ena MMus AL Tn"thy 7. L -OW erWkr W. SelhWn' ;ieh et~ MBLCHERT • HUBERT • SJODI Reny C M" u8.>ViPd�li(9' �nMarc.clbr gnaw el bhn:tPn PQ Al TO iNE P, F. Rellma^" Al iORNEYS Al LAW P. w•d Mel�rt Of Cd Ste: Luke L. Mei&Me Mac R. wAla sen ChM. 5v May 19, 2006 MB�Y Lee 0.elner •'PeY P�aOMY SPNK'u "0+' TN' iOldwHf City of Chanhassen Re; Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore Case No. 06-12 To Whom It May Concern: WaCWA owa til �M-bR3P TeNpivne (952)aa2.17p9 penned (95=7 M2elee p,As,p, Office lu second PspeetWeA u»,m. Wenasa0 sale rd.phau (952) s+2-7od Wo PAGE rww.mM2«.mm Reply W W...18 O(rK in front of the During the passage of time since Mr. Carlson and Ms. ore were Mo Planning Commission to consider their request for they foot T lief from theng of a c1,000 quarfrom the e foot front yard setback for the existing four -stall garage structuredetached accessory erderens of fac restriction' had additional time to reflect upon the request and make certain In brief, we verily believe that it is in the best interest of h ere City of Chasons are; h that the citizens and the applicant if their request would be granto the relief requested is relatively insignificant in comparison to the money, effort and ham at is subject property resulting from the strict enforcement of the zoning regulationsontinue to be to the benefit of the City of Chanhassen and the residents that 1 Pn ac( ordan used for its present less intense use ace with the ., opposed to developing Y there are ample subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Chanhassen; and recedences. reasons for the granting of the requested variances without setting any p Attached please find a copy of a drawing of a portion of the subject property showing the garage and its proximity to the actual driving surface of 62 n1 Street West and a drawing showing other properties and their location relative to 62nd Street. I would like to speak briefly to each of the two requested variances individually. SCANNED MELCHERT • HUBERT • SJODIN City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 2 VARIANCE FROM 1.000 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING RESTRICTION A brief description of the facts surrounding this request are that the applicant and the City of Chanhassen have entered into an agreement whereby the applicant may have 3,372 square feet of accessory structures on the subject property based upon the agreement to remove five structures and then adding a new pole barn. The requested variance would be requesting an additional 1,987 square feet which is the result of the four -stall garage and the two barns put up for the horses. The two barns for the horses were added by the applicant in response to an official of the City of Chanhassen who requested that additional shelter be provided for the horses. The other excess square footage is a result of the garage which was constructed by the applicant for the reasons set forth in his original application and it should be noted that the square footage of the garage, 1012 square feet, has existed for ten years. The 2020 land use plan has the subject property guided for "Residential -Low Density" giving a density range of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. if the property was zoned in accordance with the land use plan and developed within the permitted parameters, there could be fourteen additional single family houses, each having 1,000 square feet of accessory structures for a total of 15,000 square feet of additional structures, or 9,641 feet in excess of what exists today on the subject property. If the property were developed as permitted by the regulations of the City of Chanhassen, there would be a significant increase in intensity of the use of the property than as it now exists. It should not be forgotten the 5,359 square feet of accessory uses has existed now for at least two years and some 3,371 square feet thereof has existed for in excess of thirty-six years, all without complaint from any of the neighbors. The above information, together with all of the facts and information as contained in the original application for a variance would seem to indicate that the requested variance under these circumstances is not unreasonable and is in the best interest of the City of Chanhassen. VARIANCE REQUEST FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT As to the request for a variance of 22 feet for the four -stall garage from the right-of- way of 62nd Street, it would seem that there is an undue hardship if the requested variance is not granted. The garage was built ten years ago and, admittedly, without obtaining a building permit. It seems that after ten years of existence it would be irrelevant for purposes of this discussion whether or not a building permit had been issued. The fact is that the garage has existed for at least ten years without complaint from the neighbors and without having any indication of displeasure from the City of Chanhassen at any time until now. SCANNED MELCHERT • HUBERT • SJODLN City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 3 There appears to be little harm to anyone if this condition was allowed to continue to exist. I would suspect that without the fact that a survey was submitted, no one would have questioned whether or not this garage was within the setback requirements. There had to be numerous City officials to observe this garage over the last ten years and at no time did anyone question whether or not it met any setback requirements. The building sits behind a three foot high earthen berm and a stand of trees. To the best of our knowledge, at no time since the garage has been built has there been any accident in this area. Ten years of experience would indicate that it is not a hazard or safety concern. The requested variance is only eight feet for a building which was constructed behind a stand of trees that existed for years prior thereto and an earthen berm and was undetected by City officials for an excess of ten years. It has not received one registered complaint from any of the neighbors of which we are aware. The actual driven surface of 62"" Street to the building which is 22 feet from the right-of-way is 59 feet from the structure. (See attached drawing) To require this structure to be removed would cost literally thousands of dollars and move the structure so close to an existing tree that it would be extremely difficult for emergency vehicles and/or the handicapped vehicle necessary to transport applicant's daughter to negotiate in the area. It is only twenty feet from the garage to the large tree. (See attached drawing) If the garage is required to be moved eight feet, this would put the garage only twelve feet from this large tree. There is not sufficient room between the large tree and the house for an emergency vehicle to safely negotiate between the tree and the house. If the garage was moved to within twelve feet of the tree, it would not be safe for an emergency vehicle; i.e., an ambulance or especially a fine apparatus, to negotiate between the garage and the tree. It should be noted that there are numerous existing structures along 62'"1 Street, including the hockey fence in the City park just easterly of the subject property, within the thirty foot setback requirement. We would submit that if the applicant was making the request now for a variance to build the garage, and given all the facts surrounding this request, it would not be unreasonable for the City of Chanhassen to grant the requested variance from this setback requirement. There is little or no harm to the general public and to the City of Chanhassen for the granting of this variance. The cost to the applicant to move the garage is extremely high in comparison to the evil perceived by allowing the structure to remain. SCANNED MMELCRERT • HUBERT • SJODIN City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 4 The reasons given in the initial application, and the information found subsequent thereto and more to be articulated at the hearing, give amble reasons for the granting of the requested variance. Very trul yours, n Luke Melchert LM/lle Enclosures SCANNED Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 Whereas the elapsed time from the first submitted to the present has allowed more time to consider and compromise the issues at hand. The Carlson's and Moore's resubmit their request to consider granting their unique and unduplicated property a variance to the front set back from 30' to 22' and a variance to the accessory structure to an area of 4854 sq. ft. Whereas Gary and Maureen Carlson and Megan and Alan Moore have agreed to remove an additional preexisting sheds form their property by November 1, 2006. This was negotiated between the city and applicant. The applicant remains committed to any other appropriate negotiations as planning or council may suggest. In the interest of improving this part of our city, Mr. Carlson has already entered into agreement with the developer to the south of our property to come on to the property by 300' to regrade and correct the drainage from our property to the new development. We will jointly be erecting a very nice fence for the horse pasture along our common border. This will be a further improvement to our common view of each others property. The agricultural use has been in existence for a long time and it needs improvement to its buildings. This is not an expansion but is a variance to allow their grandfathered use to improve itself and provide shelter and storage for our equipment. We need to be able to separate and house the horses which have been permitted to be on our property. We are taking down seven sheds and are only asking to keep the newer buildings as they were built 13, 10 and 4 years ago. If you would simply look at the front of our property as far as set back is concerned, you would find that the road is turning away from our property over the entire front width of our property and at the 22' set back the road is actually the furthest from the property. So don't look at the survey because it is misleading, the road is not parallel to the front line. There is no way for traffic to reach our garage as there are trees and a four foot berm between the road and the garage. Further, in looking at the lay of the lot, the placementof the garage is where it should be. It is safely back from the road and it leaves just enough room between the garage and the house to drive through with a hay wagon and other trucks, Molly's handicap bus, and fire saving equipment. Furthermore, if it were back 8 feet more you could not drive in and out of the garage doors. We are supported by our neighbors. We are not a detriment to our community. We are improving our property for our continued agricultural use. We can never meet RI zoning as much as we both try. In one breath you seek accommodation with existing uses while at the same time limiting and trying to zone us out of existence. Please let us see if there is room to compromise and move forward. _�.�1' iii/�� I/�/��. ��,,. I �i me, r�l Iv I LL rs niG,cf 4-o Owls end on k- Un Ud l nS S I AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this W4 -day of'` , 2006, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and GARY CARLSON ("Carlson"). WHEREAS; Carlson owns a home on certain real property (the "Subject Property") located in the City, the legal description of which is set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and WHEREAS; Carlson's desire to construct a pole barn ("Pole Barn") on the Subject Property and demolish the five existing structures denoted to be removed on the survey dated January 26, 2006 ("Existing Structures") upon completing the construction of the Pole Barn, and WHEREAS; The City is not required to issue a building permit for the Pole Barn until the Existing Structures have been demolished; WHEREAS; The City is willing to issue Carlson a building permit and allows him to begin construction on the Pole Barn without first demolishing the Existing Structures; NOW, THEREFORE; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Issuance of a Building Permit: Provided the Pole Barn proposed by Carlson meets all of the conditions for issuance of a building permit, as determined by the City, and complies with the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees to issue to Carlson a building permit for the Pole Barn to be located on the Subject Property. 2. Demolition: Carlson shall demolish the Existing Structures before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Pole Barn. Carlson shall demolish and remove the Existing Structures no later than August 1, 2006. 3. Costs: The costs of the demolition shall be borne entirely by Carlson. In the event Carlson does not demolish the Existing Structures within the above described time frame, Carlson consents to the City arranging for the demolition of the Existing Home as soon as reasonably practical. Carlson has given the City a $5,000 security escrow for the demolition of the Existing Structures. Carlson shall pay for all of the City's expenses, beyond $5,000, incurred in the demolition of the Existing Structures; provided, however, that if any portion of said costs be outstanding more than thirty (30) days after mailing of an itemized statement for the costs to Carlson, the deficiency shall be certified by the City Clerk to the County Auditor for the entry on the tax rolls of the County as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Carlson hereby agrees to waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to any assessments against the Subject Property concerning the costs of demolition, including but not limited to the Notice and Hearing requirements, and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. Carlson waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to law or equity. Upon completion of the demolition and removal of demolished material, the City shall release the escrowed security after written request of the property owner, verification of said demolition and removal, and subject to the City not having performed, or having contracted to perform, said demolition and removal of the Existing Structures. 4. Release: Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby forever extinguish, release and discharge the City and any of its elected or appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, of and from any and all claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit as stated in this Agreement or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. 5. Indemnification: Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby agree to defend, indemnify, keep and hold the City and any of its elected and appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, harmless from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year fust above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: ,. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) �_ �� )ss. COUNTY OF r ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this k (o+h day of i e , 2006 by Todd Gerhardt, the City Manager respective of the City of Chanhassen, d Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. (Notary Seal) lwKIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota �• My Commission EV. Jen 31,2010 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF 0 CA(Vr ) "t I N tary Public t GA Y CARLSON The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thislai"h day of 2006, by Gary Carlson. No ary Public (Notary Seal) KIM T. MEUMSSEN Notary public -Minnesota �' Canmesbn E'Rtkee Jen 31,2(170 EXHIBIT "A" That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest corner of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16 1/z feet South of the North line of said section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49°22' West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of 48°20' a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. Except the North 217.75 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts; ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts according to the recorded plat thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.5 feet. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on June 8, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Gary Carlson Variance — Planning Case 06-23 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subgfib d and sworn to before me this i_ day of _)�LAh2 12006. Notary P Wie-/ Ka J. Eng Ih dt, De ty Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Cwmissbn Expire9 Jen 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start ' until later in the evening, depending on the order of the a enda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Hall Council Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback Proposal: requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory Proposal: structure restriction for the RSF District. Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62nd Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. Location: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the W What Happens Wthe public hearing through the following steps: at Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. What Happens 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. at the Meeting: 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/06-23.html. If you wish to talk to someone about imetzer�ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in Comments: advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethino to be included in the report. please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start ' until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage Proposal: and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District. Applicant: Ga Carlson Property 3891 West 62ndStreet Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/06-23.html. If you wish to talk to someone about imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the PI Inning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vole of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciavindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to ba used as one. This map is a completion of records, intonation and data located in yadous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarc ng the oma sbown, and is b be used for reference purposes only. The City does not vxrrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map am error thee, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depicbon of geographic features. If mors or discrepancies am found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding dsclainrer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §6156.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map aommiledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all clans, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harness Me City from any and all chins brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mid partes wAich arise out of the usees access or use of data provided. This nap is nether a legally recorded nap nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This nap is a comolabon of records, Information and data located In various city, county, state and federal Offices and other sources regarcing the area shown, and is to the used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Inforhation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this MOP am error free, and the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting rteasurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If mors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding dsclairner is provided punwant to Mimaeota Statutes §666.03, Suli 21 (200(l), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shell not be liable for any damages, and etrpressly waives ah darts, and agrees to defend, inderr ity, and hold harmless the City from any and ell chums brought by User, its employees or agenls, or thiel partes which arise ort of this user's accass or use of dam provided. JOHN BABY CAROLE D WESTBY GARY R ANDERSON 26960 62ND ST W 27020 62ND ST W 26940 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE R & LESLIE C GLEASON 6130 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW J & DOROTHY A MELDAHL 6180 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RITA A DETRUDE MINNEWASHTA CHURCH 26620 62ND ST W ROBERT CASTELLANO TREASURER SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26715 W 62ND ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEVE KORIN/JANE SMITH 6135 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK JOHNSON HOMES LLC STEVEN L & SUZANNE M BRADLEY MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER PO BOX 21327 6175 STRAWBERRY LN 2711062ND ST W EAGAN , MN 55121 -0327 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8956 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8907 LAUREANA VOUNG 13OUALOUANG 3884 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840 JEFFREY R BERGE & DENISE E ZOELLMER 3856 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 ROBIN S O'MEARA 3814 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR, MN 56331 -7839 TERRANCE LANE TOLL 6250 CARTWAY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7846 BOYER BUILDING CORP 3435 CO RD 101 MINNETONKA , MN 55345 -1017 PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 3801 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840 RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON 3800 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840 DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL 3841 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP 3870 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840 MEGAN J CARLSON C/O GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY 3790 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8927 HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY JEFFREY FJEWISON & BRIAN R CARLSON HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER LISA J WECKWERTH 3828 MEADOW CT 300 6TH ST S 3842 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 -1308 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-23 ■ Subject Property Lake Minnewashta xB, %..... . . . . . A. .......... Lot Survey Pok JTja\ y 848 h np n/� t >eclion 5, -' 985.2, m� SU•7�5/ry L '% 23 West T y moa North �0� �Q �: 985.3 48.6 1 N Garage 985.2 162231$ N 24.3 , J�O�• _983.9 ,_ w !� J 985.5 26.3 ` Shed a g 6. AA(�' 988.8 l C^ 5.4 982.70 - 24.2 983.2 8.2 8.0 N House I`O 74.1 10.371371. Barn o X74.0 0 0 h v V I10.2 42.5 I7.8 H 982.1 Shed 979.0 - 777- eof Lot 6 985.2 &C N°'' s i,ecr 984.9 6 G 985.1 4.9 30. 1 i ' 981.8 ,954.7 981.7 SCANNED 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. GARY CARLSON, 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Dale Keehl Gary Carlson Luke Melchert Maureen and Molly Carlson Megan Moore 3841 West 62nd Street 3891 West 62nd Street 112 2nd Street W, Chaska 3891 West 62nd Street 3891 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson's variance request is located on 3991 West 62nd 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. Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62°d 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 garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 2&, 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 in, let's see. Oh, on April 4d' 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 accessory structures. They were given until August 1S` 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 62°d. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 Tjomhom: 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? F7t3 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 Tjomhom: 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 Is` Mayor Furlong: August 0 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? GYI 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 Tjomhom: 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 tum 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 Tjomhom: I'm sorry, unloading where? Kate Aanenson: This is where you're unloading between the garage and here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: ...over here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 fum, 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 comer. 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 tum 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? Kate Aanenson: Yes, with a letter of credit for $5,000 that by August I' the buildings marked in red would come down. 92 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 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. Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62°d 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 Melchett: 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. 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 Tjomhom: 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 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 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. G1c1 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. Luke Melchert: ...if the buildings are down by August 155, the applicant can probably assume they. Kate Aanenson: Fut 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 machine shed for taking down 2 more to 7. I can't do the 7 by August I". I can do the 5 by August 15`. 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 Tjomhom: ...$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. 0 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 62nd Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. None. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Councilwoman Tjomhom: As the Mayor said, I think we had an excellent 4d' of July. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 Tjomhom. I appreciate you saying that. Our city staff did a wonderful job, both the park department, public works. The sheriffs 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 the people that showed up on the 3'd for the street dance. 65 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, Undestad 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. 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 of a 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 B and C would be gone? 6V Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Well B and 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 I 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, B and 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 62°d 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 if I'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 of Chanhassen 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 of law 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 bam 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 of land 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 62°d 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 I 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 comer 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 I 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 tom 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. 99 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 tum 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 comer, 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. I just 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 3891 West 62°d 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 62°d Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 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 0. 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: HOME WITH NON -CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. I' f 1.. u A 7L City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 o(�_a 3 d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain Interconnect. f. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing. g. Thomas Schwartz, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Approval of a Variance to Allow Structures within the 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback. h. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62°d Street: Approval of 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 square foot Detached Accessory Structure Restriction for the RSF District. Approve Quote for Recreation Center Hockey Rink Resurfacing. j. Set Special Meeting Date, September 14, Joint meeting with Commissions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Item 1(e), Approval of Conservation Easement for Wetland Mitigation Site OF -5, MnDot was tabled per staffs request. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Another month has gone by. Pleasure to see everybody again. Sheriffs report, monthly statistics for the month of July, 2006. There were 160 criminal calls for service last month, consisting of 80 Part I crimes and 80 Part U crimes. Part I offenses for the month of July were broken down into the following. We had 5 burglaries reported in July, which is an error from what was reported on the monthly crime stat packet. The packet given out a report of 6 when again there was only 5. Of those 5, 2 were burglaries of garages and 3 were from businesses. One of the business burglaries was just an attempt. Nothing was actually taken and an entry was not gained into that business. The biggest increase that we saw in July was in theft reports with 68 reported in July, compared to 50 in June. Upon looking at the yearly stats for theft reports, I saw that there were 27 incidents reported last July. Because of the rather large increase I did speak with our Crime Prevention Specialist and was informed that last summer was an unusually slow summer crime wise. This year was more standard in relation to calls, whether they be theft, damage to property, etc.. However, because they were a little high I did do a little bit more research and found out the thefts were broken down into the following. There were 14 gas drive offs. 9 of the reported thefts were unfounded, meaning that there was no basis for the actual theft. It was an unfounded report, and there were 45 actual incidents of theft last month. There were also 6 vehicle thefts reported last month. However through the course of research I learned that of the 6, only 2 were actual vehicle thefts. The remaining 4 consisted of vehicles being repossessed, family members using vehicles without the permission of the owners, so on and so forth. So again there were SCANNED August 31, 2006 TYl OF Gary & Maureen Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street CgANgASSEN Excelsior, MN 55331 7700 Market Boulevard PO Chanhassenx 14 55317 Re: Variance, 3891 West Wd Street — Planning Case #06-23 Administration Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carlson: Phone: 952.227.1100 , Fax. 952.227 1110 This letter is to formally notify you that on August 28, 2006, the Chanhassen City Building Inspections Council approved the following motion: Phone: 952.227.1180 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void." Fax: 952.227.1190 "Ibe City Council approves the variance for a 22 -foot front yard setback for an Engineering existing four --stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory Phone: 952.227.1160 structure restriction in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District to permit 4,917 Fax: 952227.1170 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the Finance findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage Park a Recreation shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Phone: 952227.1120 Code. Fax: 952227.1110 Recreation center 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall 2310 Coulter Boulevard be permitted. Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 - - - 3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void." Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at Fax: 952.227.1110 imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works 1591 Park Road Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 osh Metzer Fax: 952.227.1110 planner I web SRO wwwei.chanhaw.mn.us g:kplank2006 planning cases\06-23 cazlson variance\approval lefla.doc o(�-Z3 SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gaat place to live, work, and play. 0 CITY OF CHANAASsEII 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone. 952 2271100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952 227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227 1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952 227.1140 Fax: 952.227.11 IG Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www ci.chanhassen.mnos MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I u DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJ: GARY CARLSON — Request for front yard setback Variance and Intensification of a Nonconforming Use Planning Case 06-23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After -the -fact Variance requests 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 for the intensification of a nonconforming use. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 20, 2006, to review the proposed variance and intensification of a nonconforming use. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the proposed variance and intensification of a nonconforming use. The Planning Commission minutes are attached to this report as item la. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend the adoption of the motion denying the requested variances as specified beginning at the bottom of page 7 in the staff report dated June 20, 2006. ATTACHMENT Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 20, 2006. gAplanx2006 planning cases\06-23 carlson vanancerexecutive summary.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools. a charming downtown, thriving businesses. winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 20, 2006 CC DATE: July 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 18, 2006 CASE #: 06-23 BY: JM PROPOSAL: After -the -fact Variance request 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. LOCATION: 3891 West 62nd Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary & Maureen Carlson and Alan & Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres DENSITY: NA ❑4 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief 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. Staff is recommending denial of the request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request Much was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 ahms July 10, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact Variance for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 4,917 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West 62"d Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62"d Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. BACKGROUND The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the fust Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single -Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square -foot four -stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square -foot `loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square -foot "machine storage shed" (marked Q. Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has Weed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. The two storage sheds to be removed are located to the south of the principal structure. They are 216 square feet and 227 square feet in area respectively for a total of 443 square feet of accessory structure to be removed. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 dere -3A July 10, 2006 Page 3 There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed, it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62nd Street via the subject property. ANALYSIS Built w/o permit Grandfathered New Pole Barn Io be removed F f Vii%. r<r J l vnx S Jg'+-_' r -k orf PF f 4 F f Vii%. r<r J l vnx S Jg'+-_' r -k orf PF f Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 9 July 10, 2006 Page 4 1,000 Square -Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square -foot pole bam on the property. Approval of the building permit for the pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five strictures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of strictures being removed equals that of the new pole bam the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole bam since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The applicant has also agreed to remove two storage sheds (pictured below), located south of the principal structure, contingent upon approval of this variance request. There are currently thirteen detached accessory structures on the subject property totaling 6,566 square feet. With the removal of seven of these structures the property will contain six structures totaling 4,917 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction by 3,917 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 Aepee-39 July 10, 2006 Page S Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street. Accessory Structure A (four -stall garage) The existing right-of-way for West 62nd Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey. The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62nd Street lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street. By providing a 30 -foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62' Street. The yplicant has a short boulder wall approximately two or three feet in height on the south side of West 62 Street which provides a physical barrier between the subject property and passing traffic. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 Aiple m79 July 10, 2006 Page 6 The small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, has been sketched on the survey by the applicant. Due to these features' proximity to the four -stall garage, it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30 -foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point turn pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single -Family Residential District, however, not to agricultural lands. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the garage to the public street. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 Axe 39 July 10, 2006 Page 7 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the Pimming G@fffflliss City Council adopt the following motion: "The Ylamiftg Gommiss City Council 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 nonconforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The City Council orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings." Should the City Council choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plspmift GowAniss City Council approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62°d Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted." The City Council has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures, staff recommends a condition be added stating: Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 areal July 10, 2006 Page 8 1. Building permits must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Luke Melchert to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 4. Letter from Gary Carlson to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 5. Letter from Dale & Linda Keehl of 3841 West 62' Street to the City of Chanhassen. 6. Letter from Terry Toll of 6250 Cartway Lane to the City of Chanhassen. 7. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9. Lot Survey. 10. Sketched Lot Survey. 11. Aerial Photograph. 12. Accessory Structure Photos. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-23 cadson variance\cc update.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 — Planning Case No. 06-23. On June 20, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-23 Variance dated June 20, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without permits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 2& day of June, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION I•" Its Chairman gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-23 cadson variancedindings of fact.doc 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. GARY CARLSON, 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Dale Keehl Gary Carlson Luke Melchert Maureen and Molly Carlson Megan Moore 3841 West 62°d Street 3891 West 62°d Street 1122 d Street W, Chaska 3891 West 62nd Street 3891 West 628d Street Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson's variance request is located on 3991 West 62°d 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. Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62nd 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 garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 20's, 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 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 SCANNED 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 accessory structures. They were given until August I" 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 62°d. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 Tjomhom: 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? bm 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 Tjomhom: 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 1st Mayor Furlong: August ls` 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 Tjomhom: Is there a rental property on this? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 Tjomhom: 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 Tjomhom: And you want the garage to come closer to the home? U1 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 Tjomhom: 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 tum 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 Tjomhom: I'm sorry, unloading where? Kate Aanenson: This is where you're unloading between the garage and here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: ...over here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 comer. 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 bam, or the new barn. I don't want to refer to it. Was a permit drawn for that? Kate Aanenson: Yes, with a letter of credit for $5,000 that by August 0 the buildings marked in red would come down. 6f3 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: Ahight. Luke Melchert: Thank you. Molly Carlson: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd 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. Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street and I don't know if there's a picture but when 1, 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. M-1 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 Tjomhom: 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 IS`. ...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 owner to have 5 buildings there removed I think by August 0 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. Luke Melchert: ... if the buildings are down by August 15`, 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 machine shed for taking down 2 more to 7. I can't do the 7 by August 1'. I can do the 5 by August Pt. 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. G,1 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 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? Councilwoman Tjornhom: As the Mayor said, I think we had an excellent 0 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 Tjomhom. 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 the people that showed up on the 3'a for the street dance. CKI -6cc -a3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 — Planning Case No. 06-23. On June 20, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. neo L The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-23 Variance dated June 20, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without permits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 20`s day of June, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING IM gAp1an0006 planning cases\06-23 Carlson varianceUindings of fact.doc 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 05/23/2006 11:49:53 AM Receipt No. 0011447 CLERK: katie PAYEE: GARY CARLSON 3891 WEST 62ND STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARLSON, GARY- PLANNING CASE 06-23 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Total Cash Check 16351 Change 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 SCANNO J 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, Undestad 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: 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. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. 50 SCANNED 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 of a 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 B and C would be gone? 51 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Well B and 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 anew building and then I'll see if I 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: Ahight. 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, B and 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 389162°d Sheet 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 fust. 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 buck 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 if I'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 of Chanhassen 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 of law 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? FZl 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 of land 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 I 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-l. 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 1' 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 I 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. M 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. I just 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 3891 West 6fd 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 62°d 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 0. 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 LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25. G1l7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 06-23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a 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 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. Applicant: Gary Carlson. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sere/plan/06-23.htm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 8, 2006) SCANNEO CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 06-23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GI V EN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage andmlieffromthe 1,000square- 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. Applicant: Gary Carlson. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at wwwxiwchanhassvm,mn.us/serv/ t)Lan/iMiM.titinioratCityHaUdwing regularbusinesshouts. ARinterested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: jmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publishedinthe Chanhassen V' on Thursday, June 6, 2006; No. 96 4) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. // (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. y� was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghllklmnopCgrstuvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and swom before me on this (J qday of , 2006 7 Notary Public GWEN M. RADUENZ < NOTARY PUSOC- MINNESOTA My Canmmw Expires Jaa 31, 2010 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch te"N" 0 CITY of CAANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.2271140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.rnn.us I,b - a3 July 17, 2006 Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Variance Request - Planning Case #06-23 Dear Mr. Carlson: This letter is to notify you that the City will be unable to complete the review of your variance request within the 60 -day review period that ends July 18, 2006 due to the tabling of your request by City Council. Therefore, I am notifying you that the City is extending its review period for up to an additional 60 days, through September 16, 2006. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1132 or imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-23 Carlson variance\extension notice.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 20, 2006 CC DATE: July 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 18, 2006 CASE #: 06-23 BY: JM PROPOSAL: After -the -fact Variance request 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. LOCATION: 3891 West 62°d Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary & Maureen Carlson and Alan & Megan Moore 61f(G. 3891 West 62"d Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres DENSITY: NA IE! SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief 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. Staff is recommending denial of the request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-23 Subject Property Lake Minn SCANNED Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact Variance for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 4,917 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62°d Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single -Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square -foot four -stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square -foot "loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square -foot ` machine storage shed" (marked Q. Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. The two storage sheds to be removed are located to the south of the principal structure. They are 216 square feet and 227 square feet in area respectively for a total of 443 square feet of accessory structure to be removed. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 3 There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed, it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62nd Street via the subject property. ANALYSIS Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 4 1,000 Square -Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square -foot pole barn on the property. Approval of the building permit for the pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole barn since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The applicant has also agreed to remove two storage sheds (pictured below), located south of the principal structure, contingent upon approval of this variance request. There are currently thirteen detached accessory structures on the subject property totaling 6,566 square feet. With the removal of seven of these structures the property will contain six structures totaling 4,917 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square -foot accessory structure restriction by 3,917 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 6 The small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, has been sketched on the survey by the applicant. Due to these features' proximity to the four -stall garage, it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30 -foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point turn pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single -Family Residential District, however, not to agricultural lands. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 7 Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the garage to the public street. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "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 nonconforming 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." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves 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 to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted." Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20, 2006 Page 8 The Planning Commission has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures, staff recommends a condition be added stating: 1. Building permits must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Luke Melchert to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006- 4. Letter from Gary Carlson to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 5. Letter from Dale & Linda Keehl of 3841 West 62nd Street to the City of Chanhassen. 6. Letter from Terry Toll of 6250 Cartway Lane to the City of Chanhassen. 7. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9. Lot Survey. 10. Sketched Lot Survey. 11. Aerial Photograph. 12. Accessory Structure Photos. gAplan12006 planning oass\06-23 carlson varianc6staff mWrt.doc Location Map Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-23 Subject Property St. Lake Minn SCA 71512006 1:17PM Admin Page 2 of 3 Planning case #06-23 Dear City Council Members, We respectfully request that you consider granting these variances. As stated in the staff report, this property has pre-existing agricultural use predating RSFI zoning. This property currently has thirteen outbuildings and each building has a specific use. We are willing to compromise toward settling this matter by demolishing seven of our outbuildings. We applied for the building permits for the three unpermitted buildings over a year ago. The buildings we need to keep will meet building code. The seven buildings we would be taking down do not meet building codes. Despite their deteriorated state these outbuildings are allowed through grandfathering. If these variances could be passed along with our agreed upon concessions the city would be in a much better position. All five remaining outbuildings would have been inspected by building officials to code. The exception is the grandchildren's little 5'x 6'x 6' playhouse which is portable. To further discuss these buildings... The first, a machine shed is a 22' x 22' (please see enclosed picture) that houses our agricultural equipment. The equipment is better stored inside and protected from elements rather that left sitting outside especially with new homes going in to our west. This building has been there for thirteen years. The second accessory structure is a 22' x 20' loafing/shelter shed for our horses which they may shelter in while they are in the northwestern paddock of the pasture. It was constructed 4 years ago after more shelter was requested by the stable inspections department. The third building is a 22' x 46' shallow garage. It was built ten years ago in 1996 during the construction of Molly Carlson's handicap addition to the main house, which was inspected many times during the summer by Mr. Reed of the building department. The shallow garage is set back 22 feet from the property line and is in line with other structures on West 62nd Street which is the border between Shorewood and Chanhassen. At the 22 foot point this structure is 59 feet from the driving surface as the road turns away from our property along the entire its length as shown in the enclosed pictures and illustrated in the enclosed drawings. The variance for this setback does no harm to anyone as the building is 59 feet from any passing car and there is both a wooded area and three foot berm between the street and the building. Please see the enclosed pictures for this detail. Whereas, the Shorewood side of the road has mature trees growing 1.5 ft from the driving surface. Further, were the garage set back an additional eight feet, the area in front our home would be rendered impassable and unusable. This garage, constructed ten years ago, houses Gary Carlson's (Megan Moore's sister's) handicap daughter's vans, specially adapted golf cart, adaptive bicycle and her two different types of specially adapted strollers. Without this garage she would have to store them outside or somewhere inconvenient and inaccessible to her. This variance of an eight foot difference in setback poses no hardship to anyone as it looks fine and has no objection from any neighbors. This hobby farm has been in existence for a long time (100+ years) garnering several grandfather clauses for agricultural usage. It consists of three separate deeded lots. For simplicity we will call them lots 1, 2 and 3. Lot 1 consists of 7/81hs of an acre with no accessory structures on it. Lot 2 consists of 3.56 acres, the main house and most 7/512006 1:17PM Admin Page 3 o1 3 of the thirteen outbuildings. Lot 3 consists of one acre, the old barn and the 22'x 24' loafing shed. According to RSFI zoning, it seems each of these lots would have an individualized accessory structure requirement. Whereas, permission was granted to disassemble the old barn on Lot 3 to build a new pole barn on Lot 2 without having to obtain a variance for this additional 1200 sq It of accessory structure. Now, these three lots have a combined square footage of over 180,000 sq ft (that is ahnost 5 acres) with only 4,900 sq ft of accessory structures. When considering this large of an area, there is comparatively little space being used for accessory structures (please see enclosed pictures). If we were to develop these five acres into building sites (which none of the neighbors want me to do at this time) there would be 10,800 sq ft of accessory structures on this property according to RSFI. Thank you for looking at the enclosed pictures and for reading my three neighbors' comments. These are the true findings of what the neighborhood wants. Most of the other gathered findings are incorrect and do not reflect the true neighborhood consensus. The present setback is consistent with the neighborhood, but requires a variance. The variance for accessory structures is far less than what could be constructed here. It allows for a big improvement on our and our neighbor's properties pending the removal of conceded old accessory structures. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Gary and Maureen Carlson, Megan and Alan Moore I Y. ffA N ft v N 2 10 a I vl- r971, p 41' E Oil �., • -iii • �1 p" I \ x 77L� j' `r 3B .I , -OR K" 4 1 r l Iii 4r ti q .�+ r 1 r l Iii 4r ti q kv 4%.k x *♦'rAr w f `• '�-;y . +"rte' - �iD� - •-a i►"'��.?'�-�/ �; ....�.-.rr. - f .'moi lw i Elk.. 9N. w.�W ;W'MI 17 .. .... I_ gw LAM . ZZA At Fl. LAM E F M I w , Y m Z u; M Y m Z .41 c1 Si y 6� M.N�'9B lection 5, — f, 985.2, I S$9057'17' 23 West gay �� ,A> b j l•c �0 � lye C � 7.1,0 � 1 rf ► '--8 I o —North TeofLt6 985.3 46. s 985.2 0" 985.2 ao 985.5 26.3 y� 6. o �Shed 982.7 ,r^-- e--;- 1983.2 r8727 8.0 T b Barn 22.1 1N3979.0 Shed Garage N N 22.3 $4 N N 24.3 5 984.9 �A�.ye jr�c jc 985 5 RFl mP 1 b h a 6.8 0 5.4 4.9 House 1� 11.8 m 982. 7 Shed 10.2 19.1; w X981.8 985.7 ,, 5 30.0 984.3 '981.7 SCANNED �L STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: After -the -fact Variance request 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. LOCATION: 3891 West 62nd Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary Carlson & Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief 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. Staff is recommending denial of the request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAIQNG: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. sc/ Location Map Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-12 Subject Property Minn Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact Variance for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 5,359 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West 62°d Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62nd Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. BACKGROUND The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square foot four -stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square foot `loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square foot "machine storage shed" (marked Q. Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property is has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62°d Street via the subject property. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 3 ANALYSIS 1,000 Square Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 4 and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A-2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square foot pole barn on the property. Approval of the building permit for pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole barn since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The nine detached accessory structures on the subject property total 3,371 square feet. With the removal of five of these structures and the addition of the new pole bam, the property will contain five structures totaling 3,372 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square foot accessory structure restriction by 2,372 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street. Accessory Structure A The existing right-of-way for West 62"d Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey. The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62nd Street lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 5 By providing a 30 -foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62°d Street. The 2plicant has a short boulder wall, approximately two or three feet in height on the south side of West 62 Street which provides a physical barrier between the subject property and passing traffic. View of four -stall garage from West 62' Street facing southeast Staff observed a small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, neither of which are identified on the survey. Due to these features' proximity to the four -stall garage it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30 -foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point tum pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 6 Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District, however not to agricultural lands. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the garage to the public street. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "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: Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 7 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 nonconforming 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." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission approves 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 to permit 5,359 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted." The Planning Commission has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures staff recommends a condition be added stating: 1. Building permits for must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Megan Moore dated February 15, 2006. 4. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 6. Lot Survey. 7. Aerial Photograph. 8. Accessory Structure Photos. g.Nplan\2006 planning case \06-12 =Ism variancOstaff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 — Planning Case No. 06-12. On April 4, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-12 Variance dated April 4, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without permits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 0 day of April, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M gdplan\2006 planning cases\06-12 carlson variance\findings of fact.doc 2 Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MIN 1 it Name�n� Address: lit( IVltior-0-- Email: Planning Case No. d/O — Q` Owner Name and Address: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) �- Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAOEAR/ AP/Metes 8 Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ �S� ?8�v 2-I�bl I Ic k2e- An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. WAMED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: 0 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. job Signatur of p icant ate Signature of Fee Owner Date G `%+i'"1A14 SCANNED GApLAMforrns\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen Mrs. Megan J. Moore 3891 W. 6T' Street Chanhassen, MN 55331 February 15`s, 2006 Petition for Variance on Setback for Front Detached Garage The following are the Hardships which should be considered for this petition. In the process of removing 5 building from this property and obtaining a permit for a pole barn, it was determined that 3 of the 13 buildings on this property did not have building permits issued when they were built. During the permit application process it was noted that the front garage did not meet setback requirements. Therefore, I seek a variance. This home and property has existed in its current location since the founding of the County of Carver. It is among the first farms to be homesteaded in the Schmid Acre Tracts. I am the 4d' generation to live and farm in this area. The main home was built in 1896 and its location preexisted setback standards. This home faces East towards the park and towards a proposed road the city will put in should the surrounding properties sell to developers. Consequently, the garage would be well within city setback requirements. The from garage was built in 1996 with a setback from 22 to 24 feet for 3 important reasons. 1. To create a safe, enclosed front yard for my children. 2. To conserve enough space between the house and garage for a vehicle to maneuver between. 3. To minimize the impact of increased traffic on the often dangerous curve at the comer of W 62°d Street and Cathcart. Decreasing the space between the home and the garage (thusly increasing the front setback) would create an additional important hardship. My sister's special needs commuter bus would not be able to pull all the way into the yard up to her handicap ramp so that she may embark/disembark and then tum all the way around and exit the driveway onto a busy street safely. The driveway as it is now allows for greater safety for her and her coworkers as well as those drivers which routinely use West V Street in their commutes. Finally, I respectfully submit that the existence of the this garage contributes to the aesthetics of the neighborhood because it stores the accessible vehicles and specially enabled chairs, bikes, strollers and supports which give my sister a more positive adult experience (but take up a lot of space). I would like to note here that this variance request is, for my part, willingly brought forward with no complaints or questions from neighbors or from personnel who visit yearly. Please grant this variance as there seems no detrimental effects on anyone or anything in my area. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated by my family and me. Thank you. Sincerely, SCANNED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this /& J41 day ofa, 2006, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corpo on ("City") and GARY CARISON ("Carlson"). WHEREAS; Carlson owns a home on certain real property (the "Subject Property") located in the City, the legal description of which is set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and WHEREAS; Carlson's desire to construct a pole bam ("Pole Barn") on the Subject Property and demolish the five existing structures denoted to be removed on the survey dated January 26, 2006 (`Existing Structures") upon completing the construction of the Pole Barn, and WHEREAS; The City is not required to issue a building permit for the Pole Barn until the Existing Structures have been demolished; WHEREAS; The City is willing to issue Carlson a building permit and allows him to begin construction on the Pole Barn without first demolishing the Existing Structures; NOW, THEREFORE; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Issuance of a Building Permit: Provided the Pole Barn proposed by Carlson meets all of the conditions for issuance of a building permit, as determined by the City, and complies with the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees to issue to Carlson a building permit for the Pole Barn to be located on the Subject Property. 2. Demolition: Carlson shall demolish the Existing Structures before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Pole Barn. Carlson shall demolish and remove the Existing Structures no later than August 1, 2006. 3. Costs: The costs of the demolition shall be borne entirely by Carlson. In the event Carlson does not demolish the Existing Structures within the above described time frame, Carlson consents to the City arranging for the demolition of the Existing Home as soon as reasonably practical. Carlson has given the City a $5,000 security escrow for the demolition of the Existing Structures. Carlson shall pay for all of the City's expenses, beyond $5,000, incurred in the demolition of the Existing Structures; provided, however, that if any portion of said costs be outstanding more than thirty (30) days after mailing of an itemized statement for the costs to Carlson, the deficiency shall be certified by the City Clerk to the County Auditor for the entry on the tax rolls of the County as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Carlson hereby agrees to waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to any assessments against the Subject Property concerning the costs of demolition, including but not limited to the Notice and Hearing requirements, and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. Carlson waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to law or equity. Upon completion of the demolition and removal of demolished material, the City shall release the escrowed security after written request of the property owner, verification of said demolition and removal, and subject to the City not having performed, or having contracted to perform, said demolition and removal of the Existing Structures. 4. Release: Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby forever extinguish, release and discharge the City and any of its elected or appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, of and from any and all claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit as stated in this Agreement or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. 5. Indemnification: Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby agree to defend, indemnify, keep and hold the City and any of its elected and appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, harmless from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. C4TO1-M)ZO "MUMOTTY.S-M BY: Todd Gerhardt, City Mana er STATE OF MINNESOTA ) n )ss. COUNTY OF l-Ctruer ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this k(.O+k day of i e t k I 2006 by Todd Gerhardt, the City Manager respective of the City of Chanhassen, JNiinnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. (Notary Seal) i— KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Commissbn Expires Jen 31, 2010 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF 0 GYVe✓ ) N tary Public G Y CARLSON The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Llo+h day of �2br rq 2006, by Gary Carlson. No ary Public (Notary Seal) N KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary P!11C-Minnesota My Cmmms Expires Jan 31, 2010 EXHIBIT "A" That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest comer of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16'h feet South of the North line of said section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49°22' West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of 48°20' a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. Except the North 217.75 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts; ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts according to the recorded plat thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.5 feet. w.mew raw �o 11-5 'OVA Lot Survey CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 23, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Gary Carlson Variance — Planning Case No. 06-12 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karan/J. Engel t, DepufyiClerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this�yd day of (1la,-cit , 2006. 4'Not KIM T. MEl1WISSEN ary P lic Notary Public -Minnesota My Ca n*s Ei pires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for Proposal: the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62"d Street Location: I A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/Dian/06-12.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Questions & Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Comments: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 50 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persori • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for Proposal: the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62nd Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/olan/06-12.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Questions & Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Watland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 51x1 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested pemon(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public healing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff pawn named on the notification. IrZ1 ,^:-1 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This MP is a corryilation of records, infomiabon and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding me area shown, and is to DB used for reference W inoses only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this nwo are error tree, arw the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigabonal, tr sckng or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of dislarice or draction or predsion in the depiction of geographic features. d errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The precedng dsclaimer is provided Wrsuant to Minnesota Stables §066.03, Subtt. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, will expressly waives all chinos, and agrees to defend, indenniy, and hold hanHess the City from any and all chinos brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mid pales which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. lela Mtxawxielaa This map is neither a legally recorded rrep nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a corrodahm of records, inlormalion wid data located in an. city, county, state mal federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference Wiposea only. The City does rat warrant Mat the Geographic Informaion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does mut represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational. Im ckrg or any other purpose requiring exacting hw a urement of distance or direction or preasion in the depiction of geographic features. g errors or discrepancies are found pease comae 952-227-1107. The practicing disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 066.03, SuW. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not Da liable for any damages, and expressly waives all darns. and agrees to defard, irxfennity, and hold hamiess the City from any and all darts brought by User, its enPloyees or agents, or Mid partes which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON HOMES LLC HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER 27110 62ND ST W PO BOX 21327 300 6TH ST S EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8907 EAGAN , MN 55121 -0327 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 -1308 STEVEN L & SUZANNE M BRADLEY D&G OF CHANHASSEN LLC RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER 6175 STRAWBERRY LN 7820 TERREY PINE CT 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8956 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1126 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REG SYST C/O CITIMORTGAGE INC PAUL V & ALYSSA S NESS JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 1000 TECHNOLOGY DR 3732 LANDINGS DR 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR MS 314 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 ST CHARLES, MO 63304 -2239 STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY JOSHUA E & HEATHER M HAYES BLAKE L BOGEMA 6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 3861 LINDEN CIR 3841 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7724 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7728 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7728 VICTOR 0 & DIANE T MORAVEC KEVIN T & MAUREEN S FARRELL LARRY L & LISA M NELSON TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6541 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3860 LINDEN CIR 3821 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9655 EXCELSIOR, MN 56331 -7727 EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7728 VINCENT & JANICE FEUERSTEIN MICHAEL J BARNES & DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 3880 LINDEN CIR TAMARA A DEVOS 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 3840 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8057 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON DAVID W & JULIE ANN TERPSTRA MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS 3820 LINDEN CIR 6581 JOSHUA CIR C/O NANCY NARR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7726 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7703 BRICK HOLDINGS LLC CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING THOMAS & MARY ALLENBURG 117 WILDWOOD AVE 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKY BIRCHWOOD , MN 55110 -1624 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 MARY LYNN KNUTSON-ROGERS KEVIN R & MARY E HOFFMAN MARK W & JULIE W MCARTHUR 3851 LESLEE CRV 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3765 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9631 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9712 KENNETH C DURR MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE KEVIN R & JULIA E PROHASKA 4830 WESTGATE RD 7250 HILLSDALE CT 6424 LANDINGS CT HOPKINS , MN 55345 -3931 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7548 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713 THOMAS R & KAREN C LONDO R KENMORE & ELOUISE M JOHNSON WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN 3764 LANDINGS DR 3748 LANDINGS DR 3780 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON ROBIN S O'MEARA 3790 MEADOW LN 3800 MEADOW LN 3814 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 BRIAN R CARLSON JEFFREY F JEWISON & JEFFREY R BERGE & 3828 MEADOW CT LISA J W ECKW ERTH DENISE E ZOELLMER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 3842 MEADOW CT 3856 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840 DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG JOSE E GARCIA-MUNOZ & 3870 MEADOW LN 3884 MEADOW LN ALMA GARCIA EXCELSIOR, MN 56331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 3891 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7940 PATRICIA B CHARNEY RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 3861 MEADOW LN 3831 MEADOW LN 3801 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC & KEITH R KORINKE WAYNE M HARTUNG & SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC TONT R JOHNSON 3771 MEADOW LN 6310 CHURCH 2306 RUSSELL AVE N EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR , MNN 55331 -8837 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55411 -2443 CRAIG C MILLER CITY OF SHOREWOOD GARY CARLSON 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9652 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8603 DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL TERRANCE LANE TOLL MEGAN J CARLSON 3841 62ND ST W 6250 CARTWAY LN C/O GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7846 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 JOHN BABY CAROLE D WESTBY GARY R ANDERSON 26960 62ND ST W 27020 62ND ST W 26940 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE R & LESLIE C GLEASON 6130 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW J & DOROTHY A MELDAHL 6180 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RITA A DETRUDE MINNEWASHTA CHURCH 26620 62ND ST W ROBERT CASTELLANO TREASURER SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26715 W 62ND ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEVE KORIN/JANE SMITH 6135 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Aerial Photograph 777= AlWi J[� -&INM AIW -49 P- vp _4�a�-Vuujso /3 yup, m�, �e� r/ IvtL r s W+•, f �►� ✓ I u-t:�1 2311 West / 985.2. l� �1� eea 5 tip ea y S89057'17' North 985.31 46. 7. e of Lot 6 985.2 4f ry Garage N 985.2 223 N 24.3 h 984.9085 �� S O� •_963.9 5 � 985.5 26.3 13�0 �jK �� I Shed J 6.8 9� po A 966.8 985.1 �S 9827 N5.4 4.9 30.1 House Barn ""'' �' :14. o N p I 4Z5 11.8 10.: h m 982. 1 Shed z2. Shed �� 979.0 981.8 984.3 "981.7 SCANNED L, f�redco Supply Corp. Distributors of Commercial & Residential Roofing • Siding • Windows • D ...and m http://www.bradcosupply.com PLEASE PRINT Planning Case No. _v, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MAY 1 9 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Email: S Ft vv1 ?- Phone: Phone: Email: Address: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARNVAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. scmh" PROJECT NAME: co _,,f i� oc� �J 0' \(- " 0.n LOCATION: ✓ y q 1 W r., A 8 S f LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: 9, S L WETLANDS PRESENT: YES _ NO PRESENT ZONING: S REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: b 6T a 1 "✓ V g V-1 0. v C This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the speck ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _ /�j Z Signature of Appli nt 5Ap�e Signature of Fee Owner l GApLAM�m15l8\ f Development Review Application.DOC -orz�' Datp Date Rev. 12105 City of Chanhassen Re; Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore Case No. 06-12 To Whom It May Concern; During the passage of time since Mr. Carlson and Ms. Moore were in front of the planning Commission to consider their request for the agd relief from ng of a variance the from she 30 foot foot front yard setback for the existing four -stall garage e detached accessory structure restriction, we have had additional time to reflect upon the request and make certain other determinations of fact. In brief, we verily believe that it is in the best interest of the City of Chanhassenthat the citizens and the applicant if their request would be granted. The reasons are: (1) relief requested is relatively insignificant in comparison to the money. effort and harm to the subject property resulting from the strict enforcement of the zoning regulations; (2) that it iue s b to the benefit of the City of Chanhassen and the residents that this property used for its present less intense use as opposed to developing fully in accordance with the e are ample subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Chanhassen; and recedenres. reasons for the granting of the requested variances without setting any p Attached please find a copy of a drawing of a portion of the subject property showing the garage and its proximity to the actual driving surface of 62nd Street West and a drawing showing other properties and their location relative to 6Yd Street, I would like to speak briefly to each of the two requested variances individually. WA OMI �a 131 Wet Wn sUe451,n200 5 397 ¢7W no A. mt c&grt 1W yeltyl�pM (952 vma P. HuhM AA='6$)A c.aenpt (561) 136 KeO E, SJedln 0. lDwrt Hews TIMOMY ) l Op y DMS" uma &,61" W. el&eA "�'-""""` MELCHERT • HUBERT • SJODIN „= ^ps,0" 67 °°°° 0 M�� 5531d C. W. uA1n t,mb, TBIepRpn9 (9s=) w=- oc Neey F D9Mn Kew Ttnmes M. b°nsMn f �n✓wrcrivr m2 e7��+�:a..f.�:w:v8.�iaGu:o/ 32 E,p64Rpe t9n) A,ealt3 Kent F. Sptllma" Al TORNEY5 AT LAW C. oe ;d Mel&trt AU PAGE .,.vw.ml�5tdw.rom of [p nseC Luise L. MeiChO ReGb m! Mae R. Wlllemssen wamNa of}ke May 19, 2006 FirmU Mpry e dne�er Lee 0.,It W W l,adptY sUeo" ••°W rnN.^pbe w City of Chanhassen Re; Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore Case No. 06-12 To Whom It May Concern; During the passage of time since Mr. Carlson and Ms. Moore were in front of the planning Commission to consider their request for the agd relief from ng of a variance the from she 30 foot foot front yard setback for the existing four -stall garage e detached accessory structure restriction, we have had additional time to reflect upon the request and make certain other determinations of fact. In brief, we verily believe that it is in the best interest of the City of Chanhassenthat the citizens and the applicant if their request would be granted. The reasons are: (1) relief requested is relatively insignificant in comparison to the money. effort and harm to the subject property resulting from the strict enforcement of the zoning regulations; (2) that it iue s b to the benefit of the City of Chanhassen and the residents that this property used for its present less intense use as opposed to developing fully in accordance with the e are ample subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Chanhassen; and recedenres. reasons for the granting of the requested variances without setting any p Attached please find a copy of a drawing of a portion of the subject property showing the garage and its proximity to the actual driving surface of 62nd Street West and a drawing showing other properties and their location relative to 6Yd Street, I would like to speak briefly to each of the two requested variances individually. MELCHERT - HUBERT • SJODIN City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 2 VARIANCE FROM 1,000 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING RESTRICTION A brief description of the facts surrounding this request are that the applicant and the City of Chanhassen have entered into an agreement whereby the applicant may have 3,372 square feet of accessory structures on the subject property based upon the agreement to remove five structures and then adding a new pole barn. The requested variance would be requesting an additional 1,987 square feet which is the result of the four -stall garage and the two barns put up for the horses. The two barns for the horses were added by the applicant in response to an official of the City of Chanhassen who requested that additional shelter be provided for the horses. The other excess square footage is a result of the garage which was constructed by the applicant for the reasons set forth in his original application and it should be noted that the square footage of the garage, 1012 square feet, has existed for ten years. The 2020 land use plan has the subject property guided for "Residential -Low Density" giving a density range of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. If the property was zoned in accordance with the land use plan and developed within the permitted parameters, there could be fourteen additional single family houses, each having 1,000 square feet of accessory structures for a total of 15,000 square feet of additional structures, or 9,641 feet in excess of what exists today on the subject property. If the property were developed as permitted by the regulations of the City of Chanhassen, there would be a significant increase in intensity of the use of the property than as it now exists. It should not be forgotten the 5,359 square feet of accessory uses has existed now for at least two years and some 3,371 square feet thereof has existed for in excess of thirty-six years, all without complaint from any of the neighbors. The above information, together with all of the facts and information as contained in the original application for a variance would seem to indicate that the requested variance under these circumstances is not unreasonable and is in the best interest of the City of Chanhassen. VARIANCE REQUEST FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT As to the request for a variance of 22 feet for the four -stall garage from the right-of- way of 62nd Street, it would seem that there is an undue hardship if the requested variance is not granted. The garage was built ten years ago and, admittedly, without obtaining a building permit. It seems that after ten years of existence it would be irrelevant for purposes of this discussion whether or not a building permit had been issued. The fact is that the garage has existed for at least ten years without complaint from the neighbors and without having any indication of displeasure from the City of Chanhassen at any time until now. MEI,CHERT • HUBERT • SJODI\ City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 3 There appears to be little harm to anyone if this condition was allowed to continue to exist. I would suspect that without the fact that a survey was submitted, no one would have questioned whether or not this garage was within the setback requirements. There had to be numerous City officials to observe this garage over the last ten years and at no time did anyone question whether or not it met any setback requirements. The building sits behind a three foot high earthen berm and a stand of trees. To the best of our knowledge, at no time since the garage has been built has there been any accident in this area. Ten years of experience would indicate that it is not a hazard or safety concern. The requested variance is only eight feet for a building which was constructed behind a stand of trees that existed for years prior thereto and an earthen berm and was undetected by City officials for an excess of ten years. It has not received one registered complaint from any of the neighbors of which we are aware. The actual driven surface of 62" Street to the building which is 22 feet from the right-of-way is 59 feet from the structure. (See attached drawing) To require this structure to be removed would cost literally thousands of dollars and move the structure so close to an existing tree that it would be extremely difficult for emergency vehicles and/or the handicapped vehicle necessary to transport applicants daughter to negotiate in the area. It is only twenty feet from the garage to the large tree. (See attached drawing) If the garage is required to be moved eight feet, this would put the garage only twelve feet from this large tree. There is not sufficient room between the large tree and the house for an emergency vehicle to safely negotiate between the tree and the house. If the garage was moved to within twelve feet of the tree, it would not be safe for an emergency vehicle; i.e., an ambulance or especially a fire apparatus, to negotiate between the garage and the tree. It should be noted that there are numerous existing stnuctures along 62'"' Street, including the hockey fence in the City park just easterly of the subject property, within the thirty foot setback requirement. We would submit that if the applicant was making the request now for a variance to build the garage, and given all the facts surrounding this request, it would not be unreasonable for the City of Chanhassen to grant the requested variance from this setback requirement. There is little or no harm to the general public and to the City of Chanhassen for the granting of this variance. The cost to the applicant to move the garage is extremely high in comparison to the evil perceived by allowing the structure to remain. MELCHERT • HUBERT • SJODIN City of Chanhassen May 19, 2006 Page 4 The reasons given in the initial application, and the information found subsequent thereto and more to be articulated at the hearing, give amble reasons for the granting of the requested variance. Very trul yours, L.��Oi��/�C Luke Melchert MUI%A Enclosures Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 Whereas the elapsed time from the fust submitted to the present has allowed more time to consider and compromise the issues at hand. The Carlson's and Moore's resubmit their request to consider granting their unique and unduplicated property a variance to the front set back from 30' to 22' and a variance to the accessory structure to an area of 4854 sq. ft. Whereas Gary and Maureen Carlson and Megan and Alan Moore have agreed to remove an additional preexisting sheds form their property by November 1, 2006. This was negotiated between the city and applicant. The applicant remains committed to any other appropriate negotiations as planning or council may suggest. In the interest of improving this part of our city, Mr. Carlson has already entered into agreement with the developer to the south of our property to come on to the property by 300' to regrade and correct the drainage from our property to the new development. We will jointly be erecting a very nice fence for the horse pasture along our common border. This will be a further improvement to our common view of each others property. The agricultural use has been in existence for a long time and it needs improvement to its buildings. This is not an expansion but is a variance to allow their grandfathered use to improve itself and provide shelter and storage for our equipment. We need to be able to separate and house the horses which have been permitted to be on our property. We are taking down seven sheds and are only asking to keep the newer buildings as they were built 13, 10 and 4 years ago. If you would simply look at the front of our property as far as set back is concerned, you would find that the road is turning away from our property over the entire front width of our property and at the 22' set back the road is actually the furthest from the property. So don't look at the survey because it is misleading, the road is not parallel to the front line. There is no way for traffic to reach our garage as there are trees and a four foot berm between the road and the garage. Further, in looking at the lay of the lot, the placementof the garage is where it should be. It is safely back from the road and it leaves just enough room between the garage and the house to drive through with a hay wagon and other trucks, Molly's handicap bus, and fire saving equipment. Furthermore, if it were back 8 feet more you could not drive in and out of the garage doors. We are supported by our neighbors. We are not a detriment to our community. We are improving our property for our continued agricultural use. We can never meet RI zoning as much as we both try. In one breath you seek accommodation with existing uses while at the same time limiting and trying to zone us out of existence. Please let us see if there is room to compromise and move forward. '-`n - l �-j- oG CARLSON, GARY - PLANNING CASE 06-23 $200 Variance $50 Recording Escrow $250 $200 Gary Carlson - Check 16351 *Recording Escrow paid with previous application 06-12 which was denied Date: May 22, 2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: GARY CARLSON: Variance request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement 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 62' Street — Planning Case 06-23 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 19, 2006. The 60 -day review period ends July 18, 2006. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than June 9, 2006. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. City of Shorewood 14. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority iI A< �- V w z• V z lu UiNNV3S 46 s 0 n J � I � L U 9 0 • Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum ram allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CITY OF CHANHASSEN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE E (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal GIVENN that theNOTICE IS HEREBYY GIVO. hold newspaper, as provided b Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as (u Y will a puenPhaing on Tuisdiy, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, amended. April 4, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council L Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, A (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. C// 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said hearing is to consider a request for Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of relief from front yard setbackreq the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both tfortt existing -stall garage and ofan existing four -stall garage and relief inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as beim the kind and size of used in the composition Y B g tYI� Po from the 1,000 square -foot detached and publication of the Notice: accessory structure restrictionfor the RSF District. The site is located in the abcdefghUklmnopgrstuvwxyz Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62"d Street. Applicant: Gary Carlson.- Aplan showing the location ofthe Br www proposal is available for public review Laurie A. Hartmann at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstleiropinionswitrrespect Subscribed and sworn before me on to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I ,� Email: lIDeiZeC(a),CL.ehanhaccen-mrt.nS thiaay Of 2006 �Mr.+ri+++vMnw Phone: 952-227- GWEN M. RADUENZ 1132 (PublishedintleChanhassen Villager NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA on Thursday, March 23,2006; No. 4636) Ay CemmLsIw Expires Jaa 31, 2010 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum ram allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED 0�p 9854 { ,I 1194?.;,., `;neo LA r N ) 3 079.0 >5 r! ,,Shed f752 974.71 - � a 973.& ft ire enre 476.4 9 72 0 ...� 974.J PWOPOSET fILAPI''lVC = t' f Al i0 "'Oem- "714 1374? --0. y7410 f ('575.01 'J7q.n - Wrre , Pnce s' (914.7; k 9 84.3 '981.7 , L£.rlr�,ES a}rC7lf3�; f@ t38 �Lar77f3VFfd PROPERTY ERTY L),1I, �t RJ 7J0N '. +riot certain tr/.ar:t hou',I ed ono d6sc" t)edy as f0/iows; , c-ginfyirq, at (I point 648. teet taut at. the A1orMi+6st Comer of -. SPrtiors 5 7c,vnsh,p 116 North a' k. age 2-3 Akest, and 16 7r2 feet South of the North line of said seatioh; and ori ;h, Easterly right u( ,y i;r e :f the ti,',n ;eoE cr,_s orici Sft Louts f�aiira3n'; tnenee South 4972' West along _5aiV right of ;vaf ;, r stance of ' Jt)' feB.,' tl'Pf ve '�7Lt?' '7t tin G!?r�ie tri. tl'e ,Bft of said right of. Vfgy line of 46,20, a df'00n CG' of 197.e "rre 74r-+9 the 14'est offiof C _;ch Acre 7raciS, otcora'ihe to the recorded plat thereof to the S'outhwK+st cornF:r , i`,d �C3t �+ i17en !- raS( •+ nr�' the (:th rle of sr,d rJt f`, 0 dlStarce of ,5>4.> fent to the Southeast rrner. r'1 rc (_u+ thence Pro fr o o rr r 5;xnr f so,r{ io' r r dinr,ce of 591.,35 feet to the nodAodst corner , t v ,no' `henee (test c!(,, r* r i e a lr. ,ire 4f s,iro . of F' c ©ctorce of t 37 6' feet to the pornf of beginrtrng. Yd J" 'nA ,v rih r , f _ _77,i*5 feet p,Yy'1r>v i-a.st .c UJ ..€*Gat [wr Lt,�f{ h. S'C%7rY7id'3,ACtE ,r0%`t5; ALSO EXGEPl/P1G: The S©uth 27,7.75;fe£t Cif'tH,B tJt7;r>?' 4-35,5 feet of tl>e rust 200 feet rnr :.ot 6, Schm•d s /acre ; racls according to the recorded' plat thereof. "<.i6,; ()3 Sy. Ft ar.,fa EAVfpI/A(;,P7ot part of the Ea=t 200.0 feet of Lot S.x; 6%, Schmla's Arre tracts, CCsrve snunt�, f?rnesotra, 3.83 f acCordinra, to fhe recorded foroi therer,f, w h -i h lies South c?f the +b'orth 4J5�5 feet. I f� Q) if i I U7 �j I i M r r w ws i € Y � J { t , s Survey rnoy be sr)bje t iC) ony facts w° disclosed hi, o full rind cc(. iar'ote title search. e, i u, -"-, s �ba r , a % �y 1� t , L£.rlr�,ES a}rC7lf3�; f@ t38 �Lar77f3VFfd ,' ,. , .a.1 "<.i6,; ()3 Sy. Ft an 3.83 Acres y,r 11r 8905%' I ' 324, 4� 5nuth6csf< cC�mer of 10i i - A .mow.,.,o...v..,�..o..,.....�.,..�». - .'..�.�.,..,a,........-:,:...:....,..m.-.W.,..4,.,..,.....-W.,,:.:.:...,.... «: v ttktA tj,e_ ., ;:rrr,;a super ,,,,, 4r ?i , .70' FteZ.tsto'edLanrt I. .._uta. .. _ v. i - :,... ,. Ft s 1{ . I� , , . � r ,- rC, fr L�.L , , .. t.. ..,ev 'f 4fi. .>.o .. ct ,. ,...,..... � �, sr�.....a .. s o e � 1r �-� 4 3 _,d Y 1' f '1 "T 1 1` 7 _T 1 � Y _ 1 _ - ._ T ars„ .,r ',,•: -` I k ,,, r Y5�xU ... a �.uis... e..wm+.,.rnwe,-.n-_sx.:a..r.ssm.,-...,.,.evew�:..�.�r<.:.,,a.�,m-+a�++.rv�,.+�+a•�...«.a_ma....=...s unnry,.e�a.4.m.Y.vr..r-�_.i....xm .. - . x ... .. _. , . .. .. ...� , .. ... �. ,. � , .,_.....-a, .._ � _ _ _ _ w F: