1l. Adopt Finding of Fact, Steven Schmieg, 900 Hiawatha Dr.I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: John Rask, Planner I
DATE: September 18, 1996
SUBJ: Findings of Fact Denying Subdivision #96 -16, Steve Schmeig and Anne
Myskevitz, Lots 805 -811 and Lots 853 -859, Carver Beach
On September 9, 1996, the City Council voted to deny the subdivision and variance request of
Steven Schmeig and Anne Myskevitz for the above mentioned subdivision, and requested that
the City Attorney's office prepare findings of fact. Attached are the findings of fact prepared by
the City Attorney's office.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of fact
2. City Council minutes dated September 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM
09/17;96 117E 15:12 FAX 612 452 5550 C B S & F
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1
d
IN RE:
Application of Steven Sc6meig and
Anne Myskevitz for subdivision
approval and lot size variance.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
DENYING VARIANCE
AND SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION
On September 6, 1996, the Chanhassen City Council met to consider a subdivision and lot size
variance request to allow the creation of two 14,000 square foot residential lots. The subject property
is located at 900 Hiawatha Drive. Having considered all relevant information including testimony from
and submissions by the Applicant and based upon the Council's knowledge of the community and
familiarity with the area in which the Subject Property is located, the Council now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Subject Property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The minimum lot size
in this district is 15,000 square feet.
2. The Subject Property is 28,000 square feet in size improved with one (1) single family
detached dwelling. Applicants are requesting the City to approve a subdivision and variance which
results in two (2) 14,000 square foot lots, one occupied by the existing dwelling and the other for the
construction of a new dwelling.
1
I
3. Section 18-39 (f)(1) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the proposed '
subdivision must be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance.
4. In order to obtain a lot size variance, Applicants must meet the variance criteria under
both the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the City's zoning ordinance. '
5. The City Subdivision Ordinance, City Code Section 18 -22 provides that a variance may '
Q 002'
' 09.17-:16 TUE 15:11 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S K F ID 001
' be granted if all the following conditions exist:
(1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
' (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land;
' (3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property;
(4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare
and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
' comprehensive plan.
6. The City zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20 -58, provides that a variance may be
granted if all the following criteria are met:
'
(1)
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue
hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
'
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of
'
this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in
developed neighborhoods pre - existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these
'
pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria;
(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;
(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;
(4)
That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not 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.
'
(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
'
increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
2
09-17.96 TLE 15:14 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F 0 004 '
7. Additionally, Minn. Stat. §462.357 Subd. 6(2) provides that economic considerations '
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists.
S. There is no undue hardship caused by a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance '
provision requiring minimum 15,000 square foot lots. The property is and can continue to be put to '
a reasonable use. There is an existing single family home on this lot which was built in 1958. The
Subject Property can continue to be used for this and all accessory uses permitted in the zoning district. '
9. There are forty -seven (47) property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property. The '
vast majority of the lots are 15,000 square feet or larger.
10. The purpose of the variance is solely to increase the value or income potential of the
parcel. The current owner is selling the Subject Property. The variance request is based solely on the '
desire to separately market the existing home and the additional buildable lot.
11. There is no hardship caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the land. The cost of owning an maintaining the larger lot is not an undue
hardship.
12. The subdivision application must be denied because the resulting 14,000 square foot lots
would not be consistent with the zoning ordinance.
]DECISION
Applicants request for subdivision approval and variance to create two (2) 14,000 square foot
lots is hereby denied.
Dated: , 1996 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
La
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3
I
1
1
1
0
1
1
7
7
C
11
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I would move approval that the City Council affirm the action taken by
the Park and Rec Commission as outlined in the staff report regarding Roundhouse Park master
plan.
Councilman Mason: I will second that motion.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council authorize
final authoring of the Roundhouse Park's master plan as outlined by the Park and
Recreation Commission in their motion on August 27,1996, and commencement of a public
improvement project to construct the entry road, parking lot and hard surfaced trails.
These improvements to be funded by the balance remaining in the $70,000.00 1996 Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) account established for this park (approximately $62,000.00
remains on account). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REOUEST OF LOTS 805 -811 AND LOTS 853 -859.,
CARVER BEACH INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. AND LOT AREA AND,
DEPTH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 900 HIAWATHA,
DRIVE. STEVEN SCHMIEG.
Public Present:
Name
Donald & Carol Zalusky
Judy & Mathias Jacobs
Gayle Odette
Steve Schmieg
Address
960 Western Drive
921 Western Drive
900 Western Drive
487 Ridge Lane, Chaska
Kate Aanenson: As you indicated, this is a two lot subdivision. What we're doing is a way of
conveying one parcel into two so you have two separate PID numbers. Both lots have public
street frontage. One off of Hiawatha and the other off ...lot. It can be subdivided. The two lots
that are 14,000 square feet. That's the variance request to be under the minimum of 15,000
square feet. In addition, the lots would need variances from the lot depth, the street frontage
requirement. Both lots will meet the setback requirements. Some of the concerns of the
neighbors, which there was neighbors at the Planning Commission was consistency with the
neighborhood. We did survey lots in the Carver Beach area and find out the number that were
under 15,000 square feet and in the immediate area how many lots could be further subdivided.
Both lots would have to have frontage on, any lot would have to have frontage on a public street.
The only other potential one would be this one here, which is a larger lot. In looking at the home
placement, this home would not meet, would not meet the setback requirements of 30 foot front
and rear yard. As the existing home here would have to take off the deck but that home can meet
the setbacks requirements. I guess that's what we were looking at. Can they provide that. In
looking at the larger area... Chaparral area ... are under the 15,000 square footage requirements.
Again we believe that it was consistent with the density requirements of the comprehensive plan
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
and consistent with some of the neighborhood lot sizes. We did recommend approval with the
conditions of the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd have.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's it? Thank you. I thought you were looking for something. Okay. Is
there any questions of Kate?
Councilman Berquist: Do you want to go on down the line?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: This is part of the subdivision. This thing was originally recorded as one
lot? When that area was originally platted.
Kate Aanenson: Those are very narrow lots. They were assembled. There's several lots that
make up the one taxing parcel. What the applicant's proposing to do is create two tax parcel
numbers, which what's happening, those are under the 15,000 requirement but those lots are all
very, very narrow. 25 foot width so it's already a combination of several lots.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, so the original plat has already been.
Kate Aanenson: Right. If you look at how narrow these lots in the Carver Beach area. They
were all platted a long time ago so they've been assembled differently over time.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. There's a, in looking at the property, there's a, I think that
triangular lot that is directly across the street from Hiawatha and Nez Perce, that's currently for
sale. That's also a lot according to this little chart. That does not meet the under 15,000 square
foot. It is under a 15,000 square foot lot. Yeah. Yeah, that one. It's got a for sale sign on it.
That's just a, that is a lot. Now I think I'm looking at the right piece when I was over there. That
little black thin triangle, is a non - conforming lot now. Apparently it has been subdivided or it's
being sold.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It's a lot of record, right.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Alright, let's see. No, I don't have any others at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf Kate, your main rationale for recommending approval is that there
are so many other lots under 15,000 square feet?
Kate Aanenson: No, the ordinance does allow it if you meet the 75% of those...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the 75 %?
I
11
I
1
0
C
■
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Kate Aanenson: 75% of the ... and we did ... survey the area, that was consistent. I know some of
the neighbors were concerned that some people had been buying homes and adding to and
refurbishing and certainly that's an issue but we've come across the situation, people may want
to put up a three car garage on and it doesn't fit and sometimes people in order to move up, do
have to move out of their property. That sometimes happens. Not all properties can pass the
threshold to enlarge. That was certainly felt like, it does meet all the setback requirements and a
home that would be equal in value and size would be on the property.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions, no.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't have any either. At this time. Is the applicant here? Would you like
to come forward and present your position and please give us your name and your address.
Steve Schmieg: Steve Schmieg. I live at 487 Ridge Lane in Chaska. I know there are some
concerns of the neighbors regarding how it will affect their home and their values and so on. I do
intend to put a very nice home on the property that I think will be of comparable value or greater.
There was a concern mentioned that a $130,000.00 home on a small lot and there will not be
opportunity to improve that. You know improve that home in value or size, whatever. That will
possibly be a detriment to the area. I think it's important that you realize that the 130 is for a
split entry home with only the main level finished and that area's about 1,100 square feet. By
finishing the lower level there would be over 2,000 feet fmished and I think a very reasonable
value with that lower level finished is $145,000.00 to $150,000.00. And there have been many
homes that have sold in the area and in the neighborhood that have been far less than that. There
was one at $101.4. $101.7. One at $114. One at $118. And there on up of course. I think it
does, you know it does fit in to the neighborhood well and not even at the low end even. I think
it would be one of the nicer homes in the area. Another thing I think that's very important is that
when you are able to meet all the setbacks, Chanhassen has a side setback ordinance of 10 feet.
The home that I'm proposing to put on that lot as it is stated, has a 25 foot side setback on one
side and a 48 side setback on the other, and the reason it's off to one side is to preserve as many
trees as possible. Another thing that I think is important is the fact that the lot is 140 feet wide,
which is wider than many of the lots in the area. It is shallower but it is quite a lot wider than
most of the lots so from the front, from the street it's going to appear to be very roomy on the lot.
There's going to be a lot of side room. It will not look cramped at all from the street. And the
other thing is too, there is a lot of trees and vegetation on both lot lines that will provide excellent
screening to the neighbors that already exist so they're already mature. It does not have to
mature. The existing home on the property right now was built on the southerly half of that. The
property is 140 x 200. The existing home is on the southerly 100 feet, seeming to be the
intention of one day building another home on the northerly half of the lot so I think it's pretty
much always... intended for that. For that lot. I do intend to make this a very, I think it will be a
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
very positive addition to the neighborhood and quite a nice home for somebody in a nice
neighborhood. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone here from the particular neighborhood that would like
to address some of those issues. If you'd just state your name and your address and your
concern. And if I could ask you to try to summarize that to 5 minutes.
Carol Zalusky: My name is Carol Zalusky. I'm at 960 Western Drive and many of us in the
neighborhood have been concerned, and I have 22 of the nearest neighbors that say, by my
signature I hereby indicate that I am opposed to the subdivision of any lot requiring variances,
and particularly the property at 900 Hiawatha Drive. The biggest concern is the deck. It's only
100 foot. They're taking off the deck on the rambler to meet the setbacks on the back. So that
would be another variance besides the depth and square footage, because you know that
eventually they're going to want to put a deck back on and then at a separate time to get a
variance for the deck. And because there have been past variances doesn't justify making future
variances. And also a majority of the lots from that point forward are all about a half acre. Most
of the lots are at least 100 x 200, 100 x 220, depending on which side of the street you're on. So
from that point on they're all larger lots, including that one. You have ... where the smaller lots
where, which they referred to in the report here so that's basically our concerns. I would like to
see the large lots stay there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can we also have the signatures of the people who were.
Carol Zalusky: Would you like any additional copies? That one is the original.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, okay thank you. Okay, is there anyone else?
Matt Jacobs: I'm Matt Jacobs and I live at 921 Western Drive. The lot just to the west of it, and
at the time I built out there in '69, moved in '70. At that time we needed 15,000 square feet and
at that time I wound up buying about 3 or 4 additional lots so that I'd have a nice size lot, which
would accommodate the rest of the area. And now we're going to start dividing all these lots up.
You've got a lot of older people that are going to be leaving the neighborhood in a matter of a
few years, either moving into townhouses or they're getting up to the age where they may not be
I
11
1
1
J
1
J
I
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
around much longer. And what's going to happen? Are we going to be dividing all of these lots
up and make it a crowded area again? I know the lots to the east and some of the other lots
around there are only 100 x 100 and the reason why they were that way is because they plotted
way back in the early 1920's or whenever that big land sale was at the time. And they were
recorded over at the courthouse and stuff as parcels of land and people got their variances and
stuff to build on those kinds of lots, and I can see giving that kind of variance but ... don't want a
problem neighborhood just like on the other side on Nez Perce. That was kind of the ... years ago
when it was 15,000 square feet... smaller lots on the other side...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Are you the gentleman with the garden?
Matt Jacobs: What garden?
Councilman Berquist: Do you have a large garden behind your home?
Matt Jacobs: I'm just adjacent to the west of him ... get some tomatoes? That's to the south of
him. That garden is to the south of him and east of the flower garden...
Councilman Berquist: Alright. I came in on Hiawatha and ... on Western. So alright, I've got it
backwards. Yeah, I'd like some tomatoes. The reason I, oh I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Gayle Odette: My name is Gayle Odette. I live at 900 Western Drive. I live in the house that's
right adjacent to the lot that you are talking about this evening. ...various concerns and ... took
them seriously. When I was here last time... concerned with aesthetics and I hope this isn't just
about aesthetics because we have much more... Also about street access ... I mean it's very, very
close. And if you have truly gone around our neighborhood, it is a neighborhood that is spacious.
It's a neighborhood I think that does spend a lot of time in improving it... I'm wondering if the
reason that Mr. Schmieg wanted to do this to provide affordable housing. Well I want to know at
who's expense... affordable housing is placed there. Is it, to me as neighbors that are close to
this. I have to suffer the consequences of having it. I would agree with the statement about...
people that really worked hard at improving their homes, as I have. Some of the dollar figures
that he has just told about the price of those homes there. You have to look at the few that are to
the east of where that lot is. They are small homes. Yes, they're... I worked long and hard to
remodel that home and there is no way I would sell it for the price that I purchased it for in April.
My recommendation is, if you want to make something that is going to be aesthetic... looking at,
why don't we tear down that little dinky house that's there right now and put in a house, put a
nice home on that lot and use the lot for what it's... I think that would work best for everybody
involved... thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, we'll bring it back to Council.
Steve, would you like to give your opinon?
Councilman Berquist: No. Let somebody else go first on this one.
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf Well, whenever we look at variances it's an exception to the norm,
and I understand that this lot, there's a lot of good reasons why on the face of it we should
approve it without a second thought. I mean in terms of it has two street frontages... natural
dividing line with the tree line. But whenever I look at a variance I look at what the neighbors
think is reasonable... We always have to look at what the neighbors... I mean there's an
overriding concern here by the neighbors. Not so much that this plat is going to change the
current situation but also in the fact that the person proposing, the applicant doesn't live there,
and I think that's an important consideration so I guess that's where I stand.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, as you all know I live in Carver Beach. When I first moved to Carver
Beach I lived in a house on a 12,000 square foot lot. I still live in Carver Beach but it's not in a
12,000 square foot lot. What does that have to do with all of this? If I were the neighbors right
next to the subdivision I would be unalterable opposed. Carver Beach is anomaly. There are lots
there, I believe what's the smallest lot in Carver Beach? 6,000 square feet? Maybe even
smaller? Smaller than that I believe. I look at this map and I know I've had more than one
Planning Commissioner say they wish that Carver Beach and Red Cedar Point would go away.
And eventually it will because it will all be platted out. I'm hard, because of knowing Carver
Beach as well as I know it, whereas I, believe me, when I first moved in there, there were two
homes on Woodhill. There are a lot more there now. I didn't like it when it got built but it did. I
don't like the idea but I'm a little hard pressed to deny a 14,000 square foot lot in Carver Beach.
So that's my opinion at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: The easiest way for me to describe it is, when I drove over into the immediate
neighborhood my first reaction was kind of, you've got to be kidding. But given the
recommendations we had before us, and I went and drove around and came back again to look
again. Just to see if I felt the same way about it, and I guess I came back. Looked at it a while
longer and still felt the same way about it. You know I know we can use the rationale that
there's a lot of substandard lots in Carver Beach so what's one more going to matter. I think if
you look at this immediate area, I think there, well the map shows it. There's hardly any. And I
think when you drive into this area, the area very much sets the tone and character of this unusual
from other parts of Carver Beach. And for that reason... there's no way that I'm going to support
creating two more substandard lots to accomplish this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I was surprised by the varying opinions. First supplied by Mike, I
thought in your opening remarks that you would be against it and then you turn around and are in
favor of it. Mark's right. If you look at the immediate neighbors, there are, they all are greater
H
I1
l
n
0
I
Il
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
than 15,000 square feet. I tried to make some notes recently when I looked at this and I started
out by typing one variance does not necessarily have to beget another. And then I backed that out
and began to address the mind set consistent with approval. However, after hearing what I've
heard tonight and after listening to the rationale presented by the other Council members, I am
more of the mind to deny the variance than approve.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think much of what's been said, all except for the ending portion of it. I
find that that piece of property's been there for probably some time. And the adjacent property
owners who had an opportunity to buy that piece of property, who have not and then in course
coming back and saying that this is going to disturb the balance of what is there. ...that the only
way that any of this is going to be developed is if we lower our total amount of square feet per
respective residential on it, and I'm not too much in favor of doing that either. I think for what
we have is probably fairly decent because we tried at one time for 20,000 square feet, that would
have made ... to even accept. But because some of those lots within Carver Beach, that then did
move to Council to 15,000 square feet to negotiate something that would be more acceptable.
...1,000 foot less and as Mike said, 14,000 square feet really gives me the feeling that I would
probably concur with staff recommendation. And that the lot area and depth variance is based on
findings that are presented by the staff report. It seems to me that it would be acceptable. So
with that I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Senn: I'll move that we deny the variance, but I guess what we're doing is we're
denying the subdivision and resulting variances and I assume ask Roger to prepare the
appropriate Findings of Fact.
Councilwoman Dockendor£ I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council deny
Subdivision #96 -16 and lot area and depth variances and direct the City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel
who abstained, and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: You know, Colleen asked why I abstained. And just because I think it is a
tough issue. I do live in the neighborhood. It was evident that my vote was not going to make
any difference one way or the other... I quite honestly could have lived with the decision with
either way.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REOUEST TO REPLAT THREE LOTS AND,
THREE OUTLOTS INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND PHASING,
CONSTRUCTION/RE MODELING OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INTO,
TWO PHASES. IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD�
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS„