Loading...
4. Tom Byrne, 6726 Lotus Trail: House Moving Permit.i u n 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF 4 0-HANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 * FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Ac', io^ by Ci"! A(W.istrator Rejected,, pat ! - ( - We Submitted to Commission FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official l�. Date Su`):oitted to Council DATE: November2l, 1996 �� c� 4'' SUBJECT: Update on Council Consideration of House Moving Permit, 6726 Lotus Trail, Tom Byrne File No. PW -366 Background: On November 12, 1996, the City Council considered an application for a house moving permit for Mr. Tom Byrne. The Council had several questions regarding the General Standards provided under Section 17 -31 of the City Code. Analysis: Section 17 -31(3) states that all buildings (to be moved into the City) must comply with chapter 20, the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department reviewed the house moving permit and grading plan and found them to be in compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, including setback requirements. The proposed home also meets the conditions of approval for Subdivision #91 -4, which included this lot and the existing home located at 6724 Lotus Trail. The proposed home is a one and a half story single family home with a tuck -under garage. The home is well situated on the lot given the steep topography and mature trees. If a "modern" home was constructed on this lot with an attached two or three car garage, the site would have to be substantially altered resulting in significant tree removal. Further, when the Council approved the subdivision in 1991, with lot area variances, it was known that the reduced lot size would result in the construction/placement of a smaller home. The conditions of approval for the subdivision required tree preservation, drainage easements, shared driveway, and limited grading. All these factors further limit the size of any future home on the property. Section 17 -31(4) states that, "The building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values." (Note: This standard is also a requirement of all conditional uses and variance applications.) Whereas, a change in the use of property often results in a "perceived" depreciation in value by neighbors, a "material" or irrefutable depreciation generally does not occur when locating a single family home next to other single family homes. Property values vary drastically in Carver Beach. Staff obtained estimated Don Ashworth, City Manager ' November 21, 1996 Page 2 market values (EMV) from the Carver County Assessor's Office for properties located on Lotus Trail and the two streets located to the west, Mohawk Drive and Carver Beach Rd (Attachment #1). the , average estimated market value in 1996 for these properties was $87,483. Typically, properties are assessed approximately ten percent below actual market value. Adding ten percent to #87,483 would result in an actual average market value of $96,231. The appraisal of the subject property with the ' proposed home is $129,900 (Attachment #2). The ordinance states that, "the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values ", and not only the properties immediately adjacent. Based on these figures, it appears that the subject property is of comparable value, if not higher, than surrounding ' properties located in Carver Beach. I have also attached a copy of Results of petition and survey that staff received from Mr. Loren Veltkamp and a copy of THE 2 DOLLAR HOUSE, and unsigned letter received by staff. Recommendations: , Based on information received since the November 12, 1996 Council meeting, staff recommendations remain unchanged. 1. The applicant shall notify the Public Safety Director at least 48 hours in advance of the anticipated moving date. 2. The applicant shall reimburse the City for inspection of and monitoring of the moving operation. The applicant shall escrow $500 with the City to guarantee reimbursement of monitoring or inspection fees. A $2,000 surety bond shall also be provided to the City by the applicant and/or contractor to guarantee any street repairs resulting from the moving operation. ' 3. The applicant shall conform with local street weight restrictions. A weight distribution diagram shall be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval or the City may also weigh the apparatus to ensure weight restrictions are being maintained. , Attachments: #I - 1996 Estimated Market Value of Properties Located Near 6726 Lotus Trail #2 - Town & Country Appraisal #3 - Results of petition and survey #4 - THE 2 DOLLAR HOUSE #5 - November 4, 1996 staff report GAsafety\sak\memos\cc \bymel ' 1 *I ' 1996 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE (EMV) OF PROPERTIES I LOCATED NEAR 6726 LOTUS TRAIL ' Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department & Carver County Assessor's Office Manager's Comments: The above list was sent to the County Assessor, including pictures of the home prior to it being cut in half. A follow up conversation with Mr. Shafer disclosed that his position would be that, assuming that the full $129,000 was used to remodel the existing home, no decrease would occur in the county's market value for any of the surrounding properties. DWA (11- 21 -96) PROPERTY ADDRESS P.I.N. # EMV i 6724 Lotus Trail 6728 Lotus Trail 25.1601110 25.1601560 $123,200 $139,300 6680 Lotus Trail 25.1600650 $144,700 ' 25.1600640 $22,100 6660 Lotus Trail 25.1600620 $40 ' 6650 Lotus Trail 6640 Lotus Trail . 25.1600610 25.1600590 $90,100 $51,800 6630 Lotus Trail 25.1600580 $87,100 1 6860 Lotus Trail 25.1601620 $68 6870 Lotus Trail 25.1601680 $79,200 710 Carver Beach Rd. 740 Carver 25.1601660 $85,700 Beach Rd. 25.1601650 $86,000 730 Carver Beach Rd. 25.1601610 $91,000 746 Carver Beach Rd. 25.1601601 $110,300 760 Carver Beach Rd. 25.1601550 $113,800 r 751 Carver Beach Rd. 745 Carver 25.1601470 $99,600 Beach Rd. 25.1601480 $61,600 739 Carver Beach Rd. 25.1601490 $11000 741 Carver Beach Rd. 25.1601500 $45,600 6650 Mohawk Drive 25.1600470 $45 1 500 ' 6670 Mohawk Drive 6680 Mohawk 25.1600490 $88,200 Drive 25.1600500 $121,300 6640 Mohawk Drive 25.1600530 $61 6701 Mohawk Drive 25.1601070 $63,100 6711 Mohawk Drive 25.1601060 $69,700 ' Total: 24 Properties Avg. Value: $87,483 ' Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department & Carver County Assessor's Office Manager's Comments: The above list was sent to the County Assessor, including pictures of the home prior to it being cut in half. A follow up conversation with Mr. Shafer disclosed that his position would be that, assuming that the full $129,000 was used to remodel the existing home, no decrease would occur in the county's market value for any of the surrounding properties. DWA (11- 21 -96) 0 M Town & Country Appraisal Network Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants i2w 10/10/96 Dave 11111 First American Bank Metro 633 South Concord South St. Paul, MN 55075 File Number: 610006EII In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at: 6726 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as improved. The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of Octobcr 9th, 1996, is: Oiie llunrh•ed , rwenty -Nitre Thousand Dollars ($129,1100) The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Eric ti. Flom 4001323 1741) IU- sl NNII), ST. I':ud, NIN. 55113, l, r2 AH7 7517 h" 612 •197 -7519 L t Results of petition and surve I went around to all the houses, on both sides of the street, of the block that encompasses Lotus Trail. This includes the homes on Lotus Trail, Napa rd., Mohawk st., Violet rd., part of Carver Beach rd., and part of Ponderosa (as dry - marked). This took quite a long time, as people love to talk around here. Some homes we spent almost an hour in. Pin Of the 36 homes visited, approximately: • 9 weren't home, (good thing or we'd never gotten done) • 5 wouldn't sign the petition because they wanted to come to the meeting and get more information. • 3 couldn't sign because they worked for the city. • 1 older couple wouldn't sign because they knew Tommy when he was young. • 1 man didn't sign because he had no time to look at it. • 1 older person wouldn't sign because she apparently thought we wanted to make Tommy's house a log cabin. But she did say she would sign if we just wanted it a certain color ( ? ? ?). After hearing her talk for 1 /2 hour, we really couldn't tell why she didn't sign. Of the 24 people who did sign, approximately: • 8 disliked the house and didn't want it in the neighborhood. • 7 felt sorry for Bret and Betsy Discher. • 5 seemed afraid someone might move a house like this near them. • 4 question Tommy as a neighbor, this due to wild parties, storing old motor - cycles and totaled cars down here, and/or the trashing of a rental p property u on Nez Perce. , • some of the people appeared to sign for all of the above reasons • A few others, that we could not get the petition to, agreed to sign at the ' meeting on Tuesday. So, maybe b more should be included in this. So then this writing and analysis does not represent all the opositition. OTHER: • Into one refused to sign because they were in favor of the house moving. • No one said they liked the house that was being moved in or wanted the mover as a neighbor. ' RELATED ISSUES: A lot of people mentioned that the city did not respect their wishes on housing and seemed to throw just anything into their neighborhood. They greatly resented this. Especially the funny looking homes on substandard lots. • A lot people complained about the trouble the city had put them through ' trying to fix up their houses and thought it was "terrible unbelievable, insane," that the same city would let this house moving thing in. • Many people, a but still a minority, expressed interest in forming an association to conform the "messy people" that have bothered them for years. Almost every person we talked to mentioned a "bad" neighbor who was not "moving" in step with the rest of the neighborhood. Groups of neighbors were in agreement about who these few bad apples were. • Many neighbors are still sore with the city for moving in a couple of newer homes on substandard lots on Carver Beach and Navaho. These homes look a lot nicer than Tommy's and people still resent this for years, even forever. This kind of development is very, very unpopular. • Most of the people we met wanted to move beyond the old days and have a neighborhood like everyone else on the lake. They didn't want to be the "old, back - woods" section anymore. But one older woman said she specifically liked it that way. Conclusion: People in our neighborhood are generally against this house moving. They don't like the house, some don't trust the occupant, and they fl don't like the way the city has handled this move and other moves like it. They certainly don't want anymore moves like it. Most think Carver beach area has turned the corner on the old days and can become like the rest of the lake. Many people have a laundry list of all the dumb things the city has done and who did them. I also think Carver Beach Association will be revived because of this and take steps to improve our neighborhood and resist the city on issues like this. The abc Loren is true to the best of my knowledge, 1 Petition to Deny House Moving Permit We the undersigned agree that: L Moving the 1940's ' jack" house into Chanhassen is not a good idea 2. Moving old houses into Chanhassen hurts neighborhoods and sets bad precedents for Chanhassen. 3. Residents' rights outweigh outsider's rights on these matters. d. Bringing in a heavy house could further damage fragile Lotus Trail and increase runoff into Loans Lake. 5. Excavation, moving and building permits for any imported houses must have neighborhood acceptance, FIRST! before any permits are given out. Also, new house move -ins need: accessible plans, perspective drawings, solid finanaang, a timetable for completion, performance bonds, toxicity evaluation. environmental impact statements, complimentary architecture, and neighborhood damage assessment by a certified appraiser. All this BEFORE any permits are given out, according to the spirit of the ordinance. City council meeting to decide on granting moving permit is November 12 at 7:30 in Chanhassen City Han Council Chambers. We need you there! Name Sii nature Address/Phone Number • . .� zt , r 7-y - Z E �Z oy8 y 33 o� 1 1 L 1 1 11!12196 7:54 PM THE 2 DOLLAR HOUSE I Dear City Council: Thanks for hearing our plea. And thanks in advance for doing the right thing for our neighborhood, Chanhassen and Tommy. This document gives many sound reasons why bringing in the old house is not a good idea for our city or our neighborhood. It is a work in progress as vanous estimates need to be developed and nailed down: But it does contain the essential issues that affect the majority of residents in our city, and any city for that matter. It will help you in your rather easy decision. J There are only 6 reasons, that I know of, why Tommy's "cracker-jack-house" should come into our neighborhood. None of these reasons are compelling. 1. Bringing it in will save Tommy Byrne a little bit of money on his building costs. But this is suspect. This house will not last as long as a new house and will not be worth nearly as much. Remodeling is much more expensive and difficult than building fresh. Will he really save anything after all is said and done and the place is sold? Even if he does save a little, he will have saved it at someone else's expense, which is still wrong. No study has been done that demonstrates that dragging this house in is even cost effective for the new owner! By the time expensive retaining walls are in, bigger code windows installed, difficult landscaping, new wiring, code compliance, roof rebuilt and house remodeled, professional labor, owner's labor, etc. Where is the gain? What is the new property to be assessed at? I say as low as $75,000. The owner dreams about $130,000. Let's work it out: "comparable- older" homes in Carver Beach have recently sold for between $57 and $85,000. Now the lot had an offer of $47,000, of which ($17,000) was lost profit. The new owner will likely spend ($15,000) moving the house in, ), bring in utilities and pay park and rec. fees ($20,000), excavation (10,000), build new foundation, ($18,000 "knitting" the house together again ($2,000), new roof ($3,000), rebuild chimney ($3,000), engineer and build a retaining wall ($6,000), replace non -code and older windows ($3,000), buy tools and materials ($8,000), loss of trees ($10,000), new driveway ($5,000), restore landscaping ($6,000) owner's labor value ($15,000). All this comes to around $141,000 for a $75,000 house. This project could be humiliating for the owner. Either that or he realizes his mistake and refuses to put any more money into the project. It should be stopped simply for Tommy's sake. Nobody will benefit from moving this house in. 2. That sa.Ong "no" to the new owner will be cruel and heartless. The land has two offers which will reimburse the owner. The owner can also build on it properly, and come out ahead. The house only cost $2 so he can afford to lose that in return for a priceless lesson in etiquette. House jacking costs can be recouped when the house is resold and moved to a proper location. The excavating, permit and surveying costs can be recouped when a proper house is built on the Lotus Trail site. 3. Another possible reason to let it in would be: so Tommy can exercise his right of freedom of expression or in this case freedom of architecture. But this makes no sense 11/17/96 7:" PM e or us back the architectural ' because we are not talking about art her pushing ground, we are just talking about a house. So this is not important. Besides, no one is telling Tommy what to build here, they are only saving please don't damage our ' neighborhood. 4. Another dumb argument would be: So Tommy won't lose any money. The only cost of changing Tommy's plan is the small expense of redoing his plans. Everything else he can reuse or recoup. This is nothing compared to what Discher's and V eltkamp's have to lose. It is a little hard for me to feel sympathy for Tommy. 5. Another dumb argument would be: Tommy has a lawsuit if you don't let him develop his land. This is nonsense. Tommy only has a lawsuit if you deny him reasonable use of his land; not unreasonable use. If you deny him unreasonable use, you have done ' him a favor for which you can bill him someday. 6. That there is no legal way to stop him for the city. why must we suffer because the city has no foresight? They must find a way or be sued for not protecting property values, which is their job. On the other hand, there are many good reasons to deny this moving permit: , 1) Tommy and his family would be much better off in a 30x40 ranch. With the walk out basement, this would give his wife and kids 1680 sq. ft! A good and proper amount to raise a family in. This home would look just like Steve's on the south side of Discher's home. And if he made it a log home it would fit in well and not damage his neighbors. Even if Tommy had to borrow from Dad or save for another year, it would be worth it for him. 2) It has already damaged real estate value as evidenced from Discher's disappearing buyer. And Loren's appraiser's estimates. , 3) The majority of neighbors do not want this house coming in. 4) People fear that crummy housing attracts crummy people and they are often right about this. It is much more likely to find bad people in bad housing than in good housing. So it is then logical to say that good housing is a barrier from bad people. Good people like this barrier and want to preserve it. 5) My original offer for the land at 47,000 plus any improvements like survey, tree , removal, and excavation still stands, provided the city lets me put a decent 30x40 ft. house on it. 6) The Discher's and Veltkamp's have far more to lose than Tommy has to gain. , 7) This move sets bad precedent for Chanhassen, more junk homes will come here. 8) Allowing dilapidated housing in is a very bad political move that Veltkamp's promise to publicize throughout Chanhassen. If people think you disrespect their neighborhoods; ' you are probably finished as a political force. 9) And allowing this in does show incredible disrespect for our neighborhood and our remodeling efforts. , 10) Allowing it in shows disrespect for ALL neighborhoods by precedent and principal. 11) It is unfair to residents, if after charging us exorbitant, and ever - increasing, taxes on our properties, the city turns right around and brings in a $2, junked -house that , diminishes the tax base, hurts our equity, diminishes the resale value and ruins our day to day appreciation of our own property. This amounts to "billing us for lulling us". ' Page 2 of 10 1 11112/96 7:44 PM This is counter - productive, illogical, and not to be tolerated. The city needs a growing ' tax base, not a shrinking one. Residents need property appreciation that out -paces inflation, not imported urban blight. 12) That the rights of the established residents of this neighborhood to have a secure, 71 �J profitable, and well managed real estate investment in Carver beach were ignored in order to give one young man a "slightly better deal" on a living arrangement. Home owners are the shareholders of the residential wealth of the city. They directly pay the salaries of building officials who have tacitly approved this move without due process. The residents directly elect their representatives who are pledged to serve the majority's wishes and uphold due process. These residents have defined rights and implied rights that should never be ignored for some outsider's right to try and save a couple of bucks. Also, tax - payers rights should far outweigh newcomer's rights. 13) Thoughtful planning and neighborhood consensus was not gathered for this environmentally destructive, remarkably obtrusive, and permanent development. Due process was not followed in alerting the planning department, city council and neighbors up front about this FIRST, but only after the excavation was done and the project had a huge momentum! An excavation permit was issued, and acted upon, before a building permit and a house moving permit were even approved! The up- coming meeting was an after thought decided after the city attorney informed the city council of existing ordinances that require any `budding moves' to be reviewed by the city council and effected neighbors, FIRST. These ordinances have been around for 70 years and somebody still didn't know them. The junked -house got a "site restoration permit" (whatever that is) on Friday at 4:00 PM and on Saturday morning the chain -saws arrived. It's a sad, sad mess of bureaucratic bungling. Planning department and city council were apparently unaware of this house moving. Now after excavation and moving has already begun, the city council claims they can stiff represent the people's will about this... We shall see about that.... It is beginning to look like the building officials are telling the council what to do instead of the other way around. And neither group cares a hoot about the tax- payers. 14) Such inconsiderate action (and possibly even illegal) by the building officials may have almost certainly cost one neighbor a valuable and critically needed house sale worth a quarter million. And may eliminate all near future sales, and potentially all other future sales at the original asking price. That other neighbor's resale value will obviously also be affected proportionately. Up coming appraisals will tell us approximately how much. But the total negative impact on the neighborhood will likely exceed the entire value of the developed property - somewhere in the range of 93,000 dollars (this estimate based on all houses within 500 feet). The tax base will eventually be adjusted downwards accordingly. And all this to save one man a couple of thousand dollars on lumber costs. It is a ridiculous trade -off, legal or not. It is exactly the kind of trade -off that city council needs to stand up and STOP! Discher's property will be significantly devalued, in my opinion, and in the opinion of real estate agents and most appraisers. The problem here is that they can't admit it because the deal is still in progress. I hope you can be sensitive to this and get a real appraisal done before you make a decision on this. Just ask any appraiser to do this for you. Furthermore, Betsy is now being accused of "Non - disclosure" so she could even lose her license. She is also going through a divorce and needs to sell this house to make a clean break. I Page 3 of 10 3 Page 4 of 10 11/12/96 7:44 PM can only pray you guys are sensitive to their plight here. There has to be a reasonable limit on damages from Tommy here. Just make him build a decent house, please' 15) The prevailing desire of our neighborhood to upgrade residences has been ' ignored in favor of satisfying a few dumb building codes. This amounts to putting building codes before people. Most people here, take your own poll, want to upgrade from the days and lose the reputation of being "Channytown ". There are currently , old 3 major remodeling projects on Lotus Trail. All of which are first rate professional jobs. How is this fair to these tax- payers? 16) The lot is perfect for a really nice house. Why waste it? 17) Major tree damage has already happened The original development plan called for a supposedly very strict tree preservation plan. This was never brought in time ' and enforced the way they told me it would be. Now they are back peddling. This mad rush to develop resulted in a half acre of mature oak woods worth many thousands being decimated to make room for the 30 x 30 foot house. Six different neighbors enjoyed the natural beauty of this ravine everyday, dozens of others walked their dogs by it. All will be affected adversely by this development. They have lost a beautiful woods and may gain an ugly tower. The original building survey, approved by ' the planning department years ago, stipulated that every possible tree must be saved and this was not followed at all. But most trees could probably have been saved with a dry well or small holding pond to slow the run -o$: This matter should have been given more thoughtful consideration. 18) That the lot in question had numerous, profitable offers, before being given to the owner's son for - -at least— $30,000 less than the original asking price. This lot, one of ' the last lots "on" Lotus Lake, did not sell at the high price after 5 years on the market. Neighbors were put in the position where if they did not pay what they felt was an unreasonably high price for this lot; then the owner would give it to his son who would ' build something cheap on it. Either way they lose. Either they were gouged or freeloaded. It's like a gangster coming to town and saying: `pay me extra for protection or I guarantee you'll need it ". It's 100% legal. ' 19) The city did not explain this lot accurately to me when I asked for information to buy it with a) they told me that it was `flag lot" with a 20 foot setback all around, and a 30 foot set back along the plane that faced the street. I specifically asked about this because that is the plane that borders my property. Now they say the set back is 20 feet where the erosion zone is, 30 feet against the street only, and 10 feet along my property. Had I known this, I would have bid higher on the land as this enlarges the , buildable foot print. Also I was misinformed about the importance and strictness of the tree preservation plan. I was told that I had to leave every single possible tree even if it , was right against the house and even if the tree block access to the back of the lot by truck. This obviously adds building expenses to this lot and diminishes it's value. Had it not been for this misinformation, by John Rask, I could have bid higher for the ' property and all this could have been avoided. I am more than a little pissed about this. And I will sue the city on this if I can prove it. 20) The argument that a land owner is free to do whatever he wants with his own land , is both dangerous and false. First, there are many codes, laws and ordinances already that have to be met so no one is `free" to begin with. Secondly, the historical trend throughout the world has been to regulate development more and more, especially in , Page 4 of 10 11112/96 7:44 PM residential areas. This is, unfortunate, expensive, and troublesome, but absoluteh ' necessary to preserve natural environments, residential ambiance, investor profits, wildlife, historical nuances, privacy, and many other important quality of life issues. The only viable question now is how much regulation is appropriate. Existing laws, in all areas of life, frown on anyone's freedom to hurt others and do more damage than good. People cannot move trailers, or double- wides, in and live in them, they shouldn't be allowed to trailer pieces of houses in and live in those, either. �J I 1 21) This development attacks the intangibles of the properties around it. And this is far worse than attacking tangibles. Intangibles are aspects of a property's worth that cannot quantified like: privacy, quietness, or natural beauty. For example: if you put a gas station next to a residence, it is difficult to put a dollar value on the damage to that residence. Everyone knows that there is damage, but then lawyers argue that if you can't exactly quantify that damage, and strictly prove every dollar of damage, no settlement can be obtained. This is why cigarettes are never banned. Everyone knows they're bad, but proving how much it is another matter. This is why the city council has to save us here. Because they do not require the absurdly, exacting proof that a court would require. If the city council does not do its job, then the issue goes to court at even greater expense to the already victimized tax payer. And the tax payer may not even win even though he is right! This happens all the time these days. Most people think this happened with the O.J. case. Intangibles can shave many thousands of dollars off the value of your house when you need to sell it. They can diminish your enjoyment of your property for as long as you own it" Or if you need a t mortgage, the appraiser will notch you down without ever saying why. 22) That the 1940's cracker jack architecture of this house runs contrary to the rest of the street which is more modern, middle -class log and cedar homes, with horizontal orientation rather than vertical. It is also half the size of what's beside it. The codes, to be more fair, should say no less than 80% of the neighborhood value, without a variance. These kinds of parity codes do not exist because they are difficult to define and enforce. 23) That simple building code compliance was the sole criteria relied upon to ascertain the over all suitability of this house for our neighborhood None of the much more important human factors which actually determine the value of real estate were considered at all, like how the thing fits in with the stuff around It, or what kind of people will it attract to the neighborhood. Building codes saying nothing -and know nothing - about protecting neighbors' property values and are not an adequate basis for moving in an old house. Nor do the inspectors/engineers have any personal stake in the development of our neighborhoods. 24) That by allowing the site to be prematurely excavated, the city has opened itself to a lawsuit from the man if he cannot build. This is probably false because he has no grounds for a suit. The city never told him to buy the house, jack it up, or excavate. They never guaranteed the necessary permits. The developer rushed ahead of his own freewill before getting all the necessary permits. But, nevertheless, because the building officials allowed this, instead of following proper procedure, the city council can perhaps no longer be open minded about refusing the house moving permit at the council meeting. In this event, the upcoming meeting could be an exercise in futility, and yet another drain on our resources by the city. And it forces the residence to Page 5 of 10 Page 6 of 10 1 11/12196 7:44 PM , develop an even more damaging lawsuit in order to se cure justice. All this because building officials did not follow the law and released permits out of sequence. If Betsy has a case to sue, I will piggy back on it, or bring my own. ' 25) The original variance for this property (since the lot is too small) required action within the year; otherwise the variance would lapse. The original variance was issued in 1992 making it 4 years old now, and yet it seems it was pushed through without ' being re- issued properly. 26) That a possibly toxic, lead - painted house can be considered for a site at the bottom of a huge ravine just 150 feet from Lotus Lake. The 1940's designed house will likely be gutted to replace old wiring which spreads paint chips everywhere and into the air. There are documented cases of children becoming toxic from these kinds of renovation. Asbestos and other contaminates may be issues. Every single toxin that ' hits the ground will end up in the lake. 27) That a 13 foot high non - standard foundation was approved is further evidence that ' building officiaWinspectorslengineers are not sensitive to the aesthetics of our neighborhoods. This results in "a junky, old- fashioned, house on a pedestal" look. Not only do they let it in, they make sure it sticks out like a sore thumb, too! ' 28) That the house is placed in a notorious erosion zone is not an understatement. City engineers have not fixed other erosion problems and now they want to design this one. These erosion problems are filling up a shallow bay of Lotus Lake that is currently only ' about 14 feet deep. If it gets a few feet lower, mitfoil can grow in the middle and clog the entire north bay. Residents are understandably wary about this. There was not even a silt fence around this excavation six rainy days after the excavation. John Rask said ' there must be a silt fence. And there is still none 3 weeks later. Tommy's excavator said he needed one, but Tommy said he asked about it and was told he didn't. Is Tommy lying here and will it be hard to hold him to his word and to codes and ' conditions? Better by far to not let the ugly house in. 29) That there seems to be inadequate "quality codes" or "property parity codes" or "beauty laws" to prevent "$2 crack - houses" from being dropped into established ' neighborhoods over the weekend! This could happen almost anywhere in Chanhassen. 30) DEVALUATION: There is a school of thought among Realtors and their attorneys which claims a home cannot be devalued by what goes on around it. They say this is , so because the house is appraised on it's "own intrinsic merits" or solely on what the owner controls, like his immediate house and yard. Surely this is one method of appraising a house, that is used in poor neighborhoods, but on the whole, and certainly ' with professional appraisers, this is not the way appraisals are done and therefore the argument is false. Professional appraisers take all environmental factors into account: views, noise, clutter, dangers to children and pets, tree count, tree health, ' future road expansion, other houses in the vicinity, etc. We all know that people pay extra for lake views. Indeed 10's of thousands of dollars extra. We all know the three rules of real estate which are: location, location, location. Now what is location if not ' environment? And what is environment if not the exact opposite of the "intrinsic merit" of the home? So you can see the rather glaring contradiction here. It is clearly , an argument designed to obscure the deficits of environmental problems. The bottom line is that Realtors just want to make money. They use one argument in failing neighborhoods and the other in flowering neighborhoods. Their attorneys' are simply Page 6 of 10 1 �I I I 1 11/12!96 7:44 PM paid to face off with each other and argue, as hired guns. If an attorney says anything, all it means is that another attorney is saying the opposite somewhere else. An article in the Tribune last year developed our argument further. They reported how two identical condos sold for different prices: one had a view of a busy street; and the other had a view of the entire Mississippi river valley and the city at night. Which one do you think sold for $50,000 more? The article was called "Million Dollar Views" and it quoted Realtors from all over the twin cities describing how their clients paid more for views of lakes, golf courses, ravines, rivers, and even expensive houses. The article failed to mention anyone paying more for a view of substandard housing. 31) That building officials, and perhaps even city council members, may not be adequately empowered and pledged to protect our property values, nature views, and neighborhood aesthetics, but limited to enforcing too marry safety codes and probably too few environmental codes. We want representatives and officials who will treat our neighborhoods like their own and have the power, will, and experience to enforce safe, inexpensive, functional and elegant solutions. This should be their number one responsibility. And if they fail at this they deserve to be fired. 32) That moving and building permits be permitted for any such "junk - house" imports, without neighborhood acceptance, accessible plans, solid financing to complete the job, a timetable for completion, toxicity evaluation, performance bond, environmental impact statement, and complimentary architecture that enhances the well established direction of the neighborhood instead of dragging it back into the old days of crummy cabins. Let's start with this one. 33) Some people think arguments against poor housing are either elitist or politically incorrect. Not so fast, please. All responsible people care about their real estate investments. They need these investments in order to put kids through college, retire properly, and even to survive on when they're old. So it is not just a money issue and not even a simple quality of life issue. There are people in our neighborhood right now who will mostly likely need every bit of wealth they can squeeze out their homes just to afford medicine, period. So we might be talking about eventual life and death issues, here. If we really were elite we wouldn't have to care about the money. Carver Beach is not an elite suburb. It's a wide variety of ordinary folks. This petition is not politically incorrect either because it does not discriminate by class, religion, sex, age or race. The new owner makes enough money to build a decent house here, he just doesn't want to spend the money in our neighborhood. And why should he if the council lets him freeload? There's a couple of empty lots down by council member Mike Mason's place, let's pop a couple of crack houses in there and rent them out, see how he likes it. 34) My neighbors and I have agreed to discover all who allowed this to happen and to hold them responsible. We agree to help stop this from happening again by pushing for more equitable regulations or forming an association, whatever proves necessary. We have agreed to oppose elected officials who refuse to protect our real estate investments and oppose those who wrongfully side with city officials who did not follow the letter or the spirit of existing ordinances, and now just want to cover that up and avoid a lawsuit. This issue will never go away unless the house is kept out. That's my promise. Page 7 of 10 7 111121% 7:44 PM 35) This issue is related to the "affordable housing issue ", but is different in one area: The affordable housing issue does seem to discriminate on the basis of income -class ' while this situation doesn't. Our "house mover" can afford to build properV, he just chooses not to. Nevertheless, in all other respects the $2 house deal is a microcosm of the larger affordable housing issue and deserves its support. Either way, though, it is ' still an issue that touches everyone and requires a broad community decision. 36) Bottom Iine: Our homes and neighborhoods are our biggest and most personal irvestment of time and money. We don't want outsiders determining what we have to ' look at and live next to. We don't want building officials determining what we have to look at and live next to. We don't want the Federal government guidelines determining what we have to look at and live next to. We want to determine our own ' neighborhoods. Elected city council member must respect our wishes; not the bungling code -heads at city hall. And both of these groups need to respect social and investment issues and stop over exalting building codes. ' Summary: Here then are 35 good reasons why the 2 -dollar house should not be moved in verses 5 silly ones why it should. It is unsightly by itself. It doesn't fit into the traditional ' city plans for this area as a natural haven and park. It does not fit into the neighborhood plans to up -grade all the old cabins with middle class `natural ranch style" homes. Due process was not followed requiring that neighbors, planning department and city council ' are alerted up front. A tree plan was never submitted, never followed, and now many have been needlessly cut down. The year long variance from 1992 has long since lapsed and it was not replaced. This house could do an estimated $90,0400 dollars property damage to , the surrounding neighborhood. The 2 dollar house is jeopardizing a much - needed sale of the house next door. The House is probably toxic with lead. House will cost the owner ' more than it will be worth. The house is actually a detriment to the city's tax base when neighboring devaluation is factored in. It is illogical and immoral for the city to raise our taxes while at the same time de- basing us with substandard housing. The new owner has ' no real estate experience, no architectural experience, no estimating, appraisal or remodeling experience. Immediate neighbors have grounds for a lawsuit against the city and intend to bring one if this house is permitted to come in. Need I say more? I Page 8 of 10 1 I MEMORANDUM CITY OF �S CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ' Steve Kirchman, Building Official ' DATE: November 4, 1996 SUBJ: Consider House Moving Permit, 6726 Lotus Trail, Tom Byrne File No. PW -366 ' BACKGROUND On June 24, 1991, the City Council approved the subdivision (91 -4), vacation of Willow Road, ' and a variance to create this lot (see attached conditions of approval). The subdivision consisted of assembling three substandard lots, and replatting them into two lots. The lots were described as Parcels A and B. Parcel A, the subject parcel, is a 13,550 square foot lot and was approved for the future placement of a single family home. Parcel B is 11,326 square feet in size and contains an exiting home located at 6724 Lotus Trail, which is currently owned by Loren and Paula Veltkamp. The conditions of approval for the subdivision require tree preservation, grading and ' drainage and erosion control plans with the building permit application for Parcel A. In addition, a structural engineer must design the foundation due to the steep slopes. ' On October 15, 1996, the applicant, Mr. Tom Byrne, completed the application for a moving permit (attached). Due to time constraints on moving the home from Excelsior, the applicant ' also requested an earthwork permit to prepare the site for the home. Staff issued a grading permit for Mr. Byrne on October 15, 1996 (attached). Staff has inspected the site for tree preservation, building setbacks and erosion control measures and found the site to be in ' conformance. Staff has just recently performed another inspection on the site (Monday, November 4, 1996) and found no evidence of erosion problems. Staff has reviewed the certificate of survey and site plan which addresses the neighborhood ' drainage pattern by providing driveway culverts and erosion control measures with rock construction entrances. A survey showing tree preservation areas has been reviewed and , approved by City Staff. All applicable setbacks and zoning regulations are being met with the proposed home. The City has already received a certificate of insurance from the applicant. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve a moving permit for Tom Byrne to move ' in a 1' /z -story, 920 square foot dwelling onto 6726 Lotus Trail conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall notify the Public Safety Director at least 48 hours in advance of the anticipated moving date. 2. The applicant shall reimburse the City for inspection of and monitoring of the moving , operation. The applicant shall escrow $500 with the City to guarantee reimbursement of monitoring or inspection fees. A $2,000 surety bond shall also be provided to the City by 1 ' Don Ashworth November 4, 1996 PROPOSAL ' The applicant has requested to move a house onto 6726 Lotus Trail, which is a vacant lot, from Excelsior, Minnesota. Pursuant to City Code, Section 17 -41, "No one may move a used building into or within the City except upon issuance of a permit issued by the City Council." Staff has ' mailed a public hearing notice to residents within 350 feet and the notice was also published in the local newspaper pursuant to code requirements. ANALYSIS Staff has performed the inspection on the proposed structure to be moved. The structure is a 920 ' square footprint 1 %2 -story house. City Code states that the minimum floor area shall be 600 square feet on the first floor, and be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation which meets building code requirements. For the most part the house meets building codes with the ' exception of a few minor corrections (please see inspection reports dated September 16, 1996). "shall Building Code. The 1994 Uniform Building Code, Section 101.3 states the code, apply to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building within this jurisdiction,..." The Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 7670.0100 Subp. 4B , exempts "relocated residential buildings" from compliance with the energy code. The Inspections Division inspected the dwelling on 9/16/96 to determine alterations necessary to the dwelling to comply with the code. The owner was given the enclosed inspection reports. It was , also determined that the building foundation would have to be engineered due to steep slopes at the proposed location of the dwelling. This was also a condition of approval of SUB 91 -4. The building permit application is currently being reviewed, and the building permit will not be issued until all applicable building code requirements are included on the approved plans. Staff has reviewed the certificate of survey and site plan which addresses the neighborhood ' drainage pattern by providing driveway culverts and erosion control measures with rock construction entrances. A survey showing tree preservation areas has been reviewed and , approved by City Staff. All applicable setbacks and zoning regulations are being met with the proposed home. The City has already received a certificate of insurance from the applicant. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve a moving permit for Tom Byrne to move ' in a 1' /z -story, 920 square foot dwelling onto 6726 Lotus Trail conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall notify the Public Safety Director at least 48 hours in advance of the anticipated moving date. 2. The applicant shall reimburse the City for inspection of and monitoring of the moving , operation. The applicant shall escrow $500 with the City to guarantee reimbursement of monitoring or inspection fees. A $2,000 surety bond shall also be provided to the City by 1 Don Ashworth November 4, 1996 the applicant and/or contractor to guarantee any street repairs resulting from the moving operation. 3. The applicant shall conform with local street weight restrictions. A weight distribution diagram shall be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval or the City may also weigh the apparatus to ensure weight restrictions are being maintained. ktrn Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. c: Tom Byrne g:\eng\dave \cc \tom byme.doc City Code Section 17 -41. Letter dated July 9, 1991 to Mr. and Mrs. Byrne. Copy of Grading Permit No. 96 -7. Copy of certificate of insurance. Copy of inspection reports dated September 16, 1996. Application for moving permit. Copy of certificate of survey for Andrea Reeves. § 17 -23 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (h) After all construction and clean -up has been completed, the permittee shall notify the city within twenty -four (24) hours to this effect and shall request inspection and preliminary acceptance of the work. Proper "As built" plans shall be submitted prior to acceptance. (Ord. No. 27, § 10, 4- 29 -68) Secs. 17.24- 17-30. Reserved. ARTICLE III. MOVING BUILDINGS• DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 17 -31. General standards. All used buildings moved into or within the city shall comply with the following. (1) The Uniform Building Code. - (2) The building is well maintained and in a good state of repair. (3) Chapter 20. (4) The building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 19(6-19-4),12-15-86) Secs. 17- 32- 17-40. Reserved. 0 DIVISION 2. PERMIT Sec. 1741. Required. No one may move a used building into or within the city except upon issuance of a permit issued by the city council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 19(6- 19 -1), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 1742. Application. (a) A person required to obtain a permit by this division shall file an application with the city, accompanied by a fee in the amount established by resolution. (b) The application shall be referred to the city building inspector for the inspector's recommendation. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 19(6- 19 -2), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 17-43. Hearing. The city council shall conduct a hearing on the application for a permit under this division preceded by at least ten (10) days' mailed notice to all property owners within three 'State law reference — Moving buildings, M.S. § 221.81. 946 u j 1 r I STREETS AND SIDEWALKS § 17 -44 hundred fifty (350) feet of the site where it is proposed to relocate the building. Failure to send the notice shall not, however, invalidate the proceeding. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 19(6- 19 -3), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 17-44. Issuance. The city council shall approve a permit pursuant to this division subject to such reason. able conditions as may be appropriate if the standards set forth above are met. If the building does not satisfy the requirements for a permit, the city council may issue a permit on condition that the building is brought into compliance within a reasonable period of time as determined by the city council. The city council may further condition approval upon the applicant furnishing a letter of credit satisfactory to the city sufficient to cover the necessary 1 work to bring the building into compliance. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 19(6- 19 -5), 12.15 -86) 1 1 f 1 t [The next page is 9971 947 r July 9, 1991 CITY.OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Mr. and Mrs. Roger Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Byrnes This letter is to confirm that on June 24,. 1991, the City Council approved your subdivision request #91 -4 for preliminary and final' plat, Variance #91 -6 and vacation of Willow Road #86 -2 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reflect all of the typical drainage and utility easements on Parcel A (Lots 1164 -1169 and Lots 1178- 1179) and on Parcel B (Lots 1170- 1177). 2. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of land dedication. Fees will be paid when a building permit is requested for Parcel A. 3. The applicant shall supply grading and drainage and tree preservation plans along with the building permit for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. A structural engineer must design the foundation for the future home on Parcel A (Lots 1164 -1169 and Lots 1178 -1179) due to the nature of this lot. Soils information must be provided. 5. A common curb cut shall be utilized to serve Parcel A and the home located to the south that is currently served by a gravel driveway located in the right -of -way. When a home is built on Parcel A, the common section of the driveway shall be paved to a width determined by the City Engineer to minimize grading and tree loss, the remaining sections serving Parcel A shall be paved to minimize erosion and maintain drainage. Driveway plans, incorporating appropriate d- rainage provisions, shall be prepared for approval by the City Engineer. � J F-, Mr. and Mrs. Byrne July 9, 1991 Page 2 6. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements. b. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the former Willow Road right -of -way. C. A common driveway easement in favor of Parcel A and adjoining lotto the south over common sections of the driveway. d. A 15 foot temporary access easement over former right-of- way to serve 3 lots located west of Parcel A. Easement may be vacated if lots are acquired by the applicant and combined with Parcel A. 7. Prior to any excavation, the applicant must identify and stake all utility easements on the property. A new survey of your subdivision and a legal description vacating Willow Road must be submitted to our office for review and approval. An escrow fee of $200 is required for City Attorney fees and recording fees. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sharmin Al -Jaff Planner I SA:v pc: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Tech. Steve Kirchman, Building Official n i GRADING PERMIT NO. 96 -7 PERMIT dated October 15, 1996, issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), to TOM BYRNE, P.O. Box 162, Excelsior, MN 55331 ( "Applicant "). 1. Request for Approval. The Applicant has asked the City to approve a grading permit for excavation and removal for house foundation (referred to in this permit as the "property "). The land is legally described as: Lots 1164 through 1169 and 1178 through 1179, Carver Beach Addition 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and furnish the security required by it. I 3. Plans. The property shall be graded in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control 4. Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the grading and erosion control by November 30, 1996. The Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast - growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Applicant's and City's rights or obligations 1 mder. If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any _. st the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter'of credit to pay any costs. 6. Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Applicant, its agents or assigns. 7. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ( "security ") for $100.00. The bank and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending December 31, 1996. r t 1 1 8. Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the grading and erosion control, including but not limited to inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit. B. The Applicant shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Applicant shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering and attorney's fees. D. The Applicant shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9. Applicant's Default. In the event of default by the Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This permit is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. WA 10. Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in 11 writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction. AM 11. watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of the attached watershed District permit, especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative cover. 13. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. 14. Site Specific Conditions. A. This permit is being issued for grading/ excavation for the purpose of digging a house foundation only. All material is to be hauled off site and out of the Chanhassen city limits. B. The applicant shall install a rock construction entrance as shown on Plan "A" for erosion control measures. C. The applicant shall install construction fencing around the perimeter of the excavation for safety reasons. I D. All disturbed areas around the perimeter of the excavation shall be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of completion unless a building permit has been issued. E. Neighborhood drainage patterns are to be maintained. F. The applicant shall be responsible for cleaning affected streets and any dust control which may be needed. G. Call the City Engineering Department at 937 -1900, extension 143 for the rock construction entrance and construction fence inspection prior to excavation. 3 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA } { ss. COUNTY OF CARVER } BY: BY: APP BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor Don Ashworth, City Manager NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF C { ss. } i 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of -G- CA - : )2r 1996, by 1 - �\c ;V C�E EVkN Jan NOTARY P LIC r•� KIM T. MEUWMEN J! NOTARY PUBUC- MINNESOTA DRAFTED BY: CARVER COUNTY City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day o by Don Ashworth, 1 1996, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and City Manager, of the City Chanhassen, of a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF C { ss. } i 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of -G- CA - : )2r 1996, by 1 - �\c ;V C�E EVkN Jan NOTARY P LIC r•� KIM T. MEUWMEN J! NOTARY PUBUC- MINNESOTA DRAFTED BY: CARVER COUNTY City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 4 OCT -22 -96 TUE 08:34 1 FAX NO. 6126389762 P.01 PRODUCER The Maguire Agency 1935 West County Road B -2, #241 Roseville MN 55113 Matthew A. Sundeen P%on.No 612-638-9100 Fa :No.612 -6 38. -976 INSURED I .iIV RJ"\U09 PR .1. D ATE 10/2 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A Federal Insurance Company COMPANY B COMPANY C Doepke Building Movers, Inc. 8505 East 221st Street ; ; COMPANY { { Lakeville MN 55044 D D I I BELOW HAVE BEEN LSSUEO TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR TFIE POLICY PERIOD THIS 13 TO CERTIFY THAT TI IE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED B INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM O EXC LUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS TYPE OF INSURANCE , , POLICY NUMBER I DATE (MMIDONY) DATE (MMMDA'Y) I GEN — RAL AGGREGATE $ $ Soo 1 0 0 0 i GENERAL LIABILITY i I ' 500, 000 A ;{ COf .jERCIALGENERALLIABILITY 79395984 0 $ 500,000 � ?: :.i J CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR EACH O CCURRENCE S � _ ( j j FI RE DAMAGE (Any ono fire) I I $ 50,000 T _ _ ( MED EXP (Any One ptr.,pn) 5 5 51000 A AUTOMOBILE UA21UTY j COMBINED SINCLE LIMIT $ $500,000 A A ' X ANY AUTO 79395983 06/01/96 06/41/97 , ALL D:mEO AtlTOs BODILY INJURY � (Per p erso n) L _ SCHEDULED AUTOS X i HIRED AUTOS x NUN- V4VN AUTOS GARAGE LIABILITY t ANY AUTO i I EXC ESS LIABILITY L_ LIPABRELtA FORM I OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY TFIE PROPRIETOR/ I - INCL I PARTNERSIEXECUTNE OFFICERS ARE: ; EXCL • ! I • DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVEHICLF- VSPECIAL ITEMS CERTIFICATE HOLDER - I ANCl LLAT[CEN i XCFIANHA SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE TH E EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL City of Chanba ra nan 10 OAYSM MTTF w rme TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LE�r, Att7l = Stave A. xirc hman BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY Building Official OF ANY KING UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR R RES'cNTAT S• AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE -� j 1 A BODILY INJURY $ 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE I AUTO ONLY • EA ACCIDEN $ C OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: _ EA CH ACCIDENT S AGGREGATE $ J E ACH OCCURRENCE $ — . - - + WC STATU- OTH ER r . _. �� yi4rr o' I _. T EL EACH ACCIDENT 5 EL DISE - POLICY LIMIT EL DISEASE - EA EMPL I u 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESO 937 -1900 INSPECTION FO C \)4Cn DATE TIME TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED ADDRESS e_ 'mss' LfrqCC4r1;$ ERMIT NO CONTRACTOR A &4 &V /eN TAKEN BY:, WATER METER NO. REMOTE NO. LOCATION CORRECTIONS U e OZO o V • o't- PA ! OWT - Tt lr L /a T a If no corrections are listed above, approval is hereby given to proceed. You will '_ n violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper i spec . ons and make cor- rectio as cal d for. ate Tim Inspecto 11 LV 1 &Vim 9 4 VI V I G CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 937 -1900 INSPECTION FOR AQU kig afC DATE TIME TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED ADDRESS Zec r — PERMIT NO. CONTRACTOR TAKEN BY: WATER METER NO. REMOTE NO. LOCATION J r. r _ Z ��%l 3 c� CORRECTIONS ce7` o...)_skowP� 'ZI-1e/11 4� 1 1 1 1 1 G approval is hereby If no corrections are listed above, app Y 9 iven to proceed. You will be violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the er ins ections and make cor- rection as called for. 1 + C Date Ti 1 nspector t APPLICATION CITY OF COH PERMIT ANHASS 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 APPLICANT: A / , -17 � ADDRESS: 1 21 37 % TELEPHONE (Daytime): 279- 6GE4Z `� 3 4- 1 -5`� C- ) U7 PROPERTY OWNER (Where Building is to be moved): J NAME: ADDRESS: �v9m ■ TELEPHONE (Daytime): PRESENT LOCATION OF BUILDING TO BE MOVED (Address): PROPOSED NEW LOCATION (Address): (..F 1 Z`t LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary): (,075 SIZE OF PROPERTY: &E - PRESENT ZONING: DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING (Floor Area. Number of Stories, Type of Construction, Age. Condition. Etc.): ��- 4;7-, / r'g-> , &,./, • r• --� R 'w LA ^^ V v I M q } I V t e.0 • CLX [k wt isti1� I (over) City of Chanhassen , Application for Moving Permit Page 2 ROUTE WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO BE USED DURING MOVE: C oy r v e G- �- vS r l' FILING INSTRUCTIONS This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by a site plan, photographs of the building, and a list of property owners within 350 feet of the site where the building is proposed to be moved. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Building Official to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION a The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable C' Ordinances. Signed by 'A Date The undersigned here v certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed by , Applicant Date Date Application Received Application Fee Paid 55.50 City Receipt-No. z: .satetyi form movixrmt r , �llb� Carver Beach tN Park' Gree ' � � �urr�' ourr� , ., I I I aio I 1 .77 - S Sal i o 00 L rt 170 0 Cirninb(� V iS 2t 4Z, a M. ef 4 JIM; XAAk I -11ko I ;tear INI iv" V all � 5cfz:) L R,00 L o tu. �-- L� I ---- -- - ---- U 14 Cr 42 U 14 Cr 42 V, 6W ----------- 5- w V CL City Hall � 1 Coulter Dt ------ 0 1 r1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. , Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would move to approve the certification of the bills to the County. Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me? Councilwoman Dockendorf Don't we need to adopt the certification to the County as well? Mayor Chmiel: Well that just automatically goes with as it's shown on our information. Is that right? Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, I think there should be a motion to that effect though. Just to make sure the record is clear. Councilman Berquist: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Resolution #96 -100: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adopt the certification of sewer /water utility bills to the County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER HOUSE MOVING PERMIT 6726 LOTUS TRAIL TOM BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address John Raymond 450 William Street, Excelsior Chris Anderson 6680 Lotus Trail Kurt & Mary Ellen Anderson 6870 Lotus Trail Joan & Steven J. Cronson 801 Cree Drive Larry Barnett 6741 Hopi Road Greg Carlson 760 Carver Beach Road Jerry Riley 764 Lake Point Betsy Discher 6728 Lotus Trail Loran & Paula Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Andrea Reeves 8820 Lake Riley Blvd., 8102 Martin & Paula W. 6630 Mohawk Drive Kate & Michael Reeves 5917 Quebec Avenue No, Crystal Ken Reeves Maple Grove, MN Todd Frostad Bloomington Donald & Andrewa Senner 6680 Mohawk Drive Steve Kirchman: Mayor, Council members. Scott Harr was unable to attend tonight's meeting as the staff report... On June of '91 the Council approved a subdivision, vacation of Willow Road and a variance. The subdivision consisted of three substandard lots and replatted them into two lots, described as Parcel A and B. The subject parcel is 13,550 square foot lot and was approved for future placement of a single family dwelling. The conditions of approval for the subdivision required tree preservation, grading, drainage and erosion control plans with the building permit application. In addition a structural engineer must design the foundation due to the steep slopes. On October 15` of '96 Mr. Tom Byrne completed the applicant for a moving permit. Due to time constraints on moving the proposed house, the applicant also requested that an earthwork permit to prepare the site for the home. Staff issued the permit on October 15` Staff has inspected the site for tree preservation, building setbacks, and erosion control measures and found the site to be in conformance. Just recently I performed another inspection on November 4th and found no evidence of any erosion problems. The applicant has requested to move a house onto 6726 Lotus Trail, City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 which was a vacant lot earlier... The City Code states that no may move a building into or within the city unless ' issued a permit by City Council. Staff mailed a public hearing notice to all the residents within 350 feet and the notice was also published in the newspaper. Staff performed an inspection of the proposed structure to be moved. It's a 920 square foot story and a half home. City Code states a minimum floor area shall be 600 square feet on the first floor and be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation which meets the building code requirements. ' For the most part the house meets the building codes except for minor corrections which we pointed out to the homeowner during our inspection on September 16` of '96. The building code states that all buildings moved shall meet all requirements of the building code with the exception of the energy code. In addition to this, there is a requirement for the foundation to be engineered. The applicant has applied for the building permit and it's currently being reviewed but the building permit for the foundation has not been issued yet. Staff has reviewed the Certificate of Survey and the site plan which addresses the neighborhood drainage pattern by providing driveway culverts and erosion control measures with rock construction measures. A survey showed a tree preservation areas has been reviewed and approved by City staff. All applicable setbacks and zoning regulations... proposed home. The City has received a Certificate of Insurance required for moving the home from the applicant. It is therefore recommended the City Council approve a moving permit for Tom Byrne to move a 1 %z story, 920 square foot dwelling onto 6726 Lotus Trail conditioned upon the following conditions. The applicant shall notify Public Safety Director at least 48 hours in advance of the move. The applicant shall reimburse the city for inspection of and monitoring of the moving operation. The applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee reimbursement of monitoring or inspection fees. A $2,000.00 surety bond shall also be provided by the City by the applicant and/or contractor to guarantee any street repaids resulting from the moving operation. And last, the applicant shall conform with street weight restrictions. A weight distribution diagram shall be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval or the City may also weigh the apparatus to ensure weight restrictions are being maintained. That concludes the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Steve. Are there any questions for Steve at this time? Councilman Berquist: Steve, you mentioned, I thought I heard you say that a mailing went out to residents within 350 feet of the property. When was that sent? Steve Kirchman: I don't know the date but it was sent 10 days prior to the. Audience: That's wrong. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. ' Councilman Berquist: That's the only one I had right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf Steve, you said that you'll do a final inspection of the move. Does that include a final inspection to make sure that the home meets, I mean I'm inferring from all the issues surrounding this that the house is in a little bit of disrepair. Is the final inspection predicated on the fact that the house meets all building code requirements, etc? And will we be doing a final inspection? Steve Kirchman: The moving permit is completely separate from the building permit. Engineering staff will make a final inspection to check the streets and everything after the building's actually moved. And then the inspection staff will make all the required inspections on the dwelling while the foundation's being built. While all the repairs are made and all the changes are made so that it goes through an inspection quite similar to a new house except some areas will be closed up because the wall's already finished off, but all the plumbing has to be replaced. Windows have to be replaced. Anything else, the roofing is replaced, will have to be inspected just like it's a new dwelling. Councilwoman Dockendorf. So everything needs to be taken care of before a CO is issued? Steve Kirchman: That's correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's it. City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Steve, do we have a time frame on that from the applicant? As far as when this is all going to be done. I Steve Kirchman: No we don't. The building code states that a building permit expires if there's no work done in an 180 day period. But as long as a person keeps working, they could conceivable work forever and I don't know whether we can put a time permit on a building permit. I'd have to find... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger? Roger Knutson: You can't confine a permit on, UBC pre -empts us on building permits and... It says you have to keep working, otherwise you lose it if you stop for 6 months. Other than that, UBC handles it. But you possibly could put a reasonable condition on this permit. Complete the work. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mike. Councilman Mason: Not now, no. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: Steve can you, just for the benefit of the people I think in the neighborhood. You know I got the phone call and that's why I asked that this be put on the Council and that a hearing be scheduled and that's not the process that was being followed. Can you kind of just tell the Council now, rather than the fact that they're going to hear it later, why it was happening that way. Steve Kirchman: I can't say why except that's the way we've done it since I worked here. When I started here in '87, 1 was told that the Council didn't care to look at this. It was an old ordinance and I was instructed as inspector at that time to issue them after they met all the requirements of the building code and zoning ordinances and we just continued to do it that way as a matter of habit over the years. Councilman Senn: And so even though the ordinance is still on the book, that instruction came from basically a previous City Council or whatever? Steve Kirchman: I couldn't say that. It came from my previous boss. Councilman Senn: In terms of the ordinance itself, the ordinance itself requires all used buildings moved into, or within the city shall comply with the following and then it outlines the Uniform Building Code. The building is well maintained and in good state of repair. Chapter 20. And the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values, okay. Could you go through a brief explanation please as to how each of those have been evaluated, and maybe to put it in context before you do. Would you please differentiate in the definition of this ordinance all used buildings moved into need to comply with these because on face value you read this. These things need to be complied with before it's moved. Okay, and I think there's a lot of questions surrounding whether they do comply or not with these before they move. And then I guess a follow -up question to that becomes, if you move them in without these being met, what assures us that they will be met and complied with and this doesn't somehow become abandoned or left or whatever, for one reason or another in the state that it is in now. Because I think there's some legitimate questions on ... the Code, etc. Don Ashworth: At least part of that question Mr. Mayor I think the City Attorney can respond to. Roger Knutson: If you look at this Section 1744 of the Code. It says the City Council may issue a permit on condition that the building is brought into compliance within a reasonable period of time as determined by City Council. Councilman Senn: Okay, so effectively it is not a pre - condition or requirement then? 1 L_1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Roger Knutson: No. Steve Kirchman: Okay, so you would then like me to go through items 1 through 4 and explain how they will meet the requirement? Councilman Senn: Yes, please. Steve Kirchman: The Uniform Building Code, item number 1, does state that it has to be brought into compliance with all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code with the exception of the energy code. In order to make those determinations, staff first goes out and examines the building ... and let's the applicant know what we observe on our inspection. We have a mechanical inspector and a building inspector and give them a list of items that we see that need to be corrected. We also make it very clear to them that if we ... the house is repaired or remodeled during the process that they will have to bring it up to the requirements of the Building Code. Because we can't see everything when we're looking at a house that's completely finished off and sitting up on blocks. But quite often we ... things that have to be fixed and... Item number 2. In our opinion as we've currently looked at the house, it's a well maintained building in it's state of repair. I understand that in order to move it down the street it has been cut up into a number of sections and I don't know how to respond to that other than to say it will have to be fixed and meet the requirements of the building code. I have seen how they sectioned it off. Hopefully they did it in a way to make it easy to put back together or they're going to incur a lot of extra expenses. As far as the Chapter 20, those are zoning regulations and we pass it around to other staff. Planning Department and Engineering staff to give their opinion on it and they have signed off on the building permit so to me that means it meets all the regulations of Chapter 20, which are basically setbacks and tree removal and erosion control as required in the previous variance. If you have any addition questions on that you could ask John's been involved in that. As far as item number 4. I don't think I'm qualified to judge whether it's going to depreciate or appreciate surrounding property values. That's not my job so I wouldn't know where to begin with that. Councilman Senn: Roger, in the context of number 4. How would we judge that? Since it's part of the ordinance. Roger Knutson: It depends on the permit... 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not complied with. The only way you can prove number 4_- -would be an appraisal... You'd have to have a real appraisal... Councilman Senn: That's it on questions... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Tom Byrne: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to step forward. If there's anything that Steve has said that sounds as though most things have been met. Is there anything that you'd like to state about the particular project? Tom Byrne: Well I plan on finishing... other than that, not really. I'm just here for my permit. If you have any other questions, fire away. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Do you have any? Councilman Berquist: You were issued a permit, a building permit or have you been? Tom Byrne: No, I was issued the permit to dig for the basement and I started that and I stopped because of the neighbor issues so. Councilman Berquist: So you've been issued an excavation permit. You've been, you've applied for a moving permit Tom Byrne: I've applied for the permit I'm asking you for now and also the building permit to finish the house. rl I I City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Have you received the permit yet to move the house? Tom Byrne: No. Councilman Berquist: No, that's what you, okay. And then there's a building permit will have to be done as well? Tom Byrne: Right. I need that before I can put any concrete in there. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf. What's your time frame? Tom Byrne: I'd like to be done as soon as possible. Preferably by April at the very latest. It's kind of, winter projects take longer. I do underground work and it takes longer to dig in the frost but we plan on having it done by then at the latest. Councilwoman Dockendorf So you'll be doing the work yourself? Tom Byrne: Somewhat. I've hired contractors for all the important things but I'm going to try to do some myself too. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Not right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I mentioned, it is a public hearing and we listen to both sides of the proposal. Is there anyone from that neighborhood or do you have a specific individual that would like to speak for the group? Or would you like to approach it. Yes ma'am. Would you please come up to the microphone. Please state your name and address. Betsy Discher: My name's Betsy Discher. My address is 6728 Lotus Trail. We are the property directly adjacent to the south of 6726... My husband and I are owners of the property next door and we've had our property for sale for quite some time and entered into an agreement to sell that property on October the 6` for which transaction I acted as owner /agent because I'm a real estate agent as well. We were set to close on December 13` It came to quite, it was quite a surprise to us when the activity next door started on the weekend of October 19` and 20` The gentleman over here stated that proper notification was made to the neighbors. That was not the case. We never received any notification ... of this nature. Nor did we receive any notification with respect to the pending permit to move the building into Chanhassen until after the fact... So as I said, it came as quite a surprise to us when the tree removal and excavation... as well as it was quite a surprise, as you can imagine, to our potential buyer. He wound up initiating a request to cancel the purchase agreement on our house because of this activity and the fact that it wasn't resolved. Just to give you a little history on the subdivision process. That process really was done in conjunction with the street vacation of Willow Road and was done by our neighbors, Mr. Byrne's parents in 1991, with our approval. It resulted in your File Variance #91 -4 which Mayor Chmiel signed on July 9th of 1992. There was a confirming letter sent to Mr. And Mrs. Byrne, Tom's parents at that time which we also got a copy. There were comprehensive requirements with respect to that subdivision and street vacation and abandonment process simply because this is a very fragile site with extremely steep topography and ... and also soil conditions. We've got anywhere between Class III or Class IV soils there and when it gets wet, there's extreme hydrostatic pressure that is created and due to the steepness of the slope, a lot of the neighbors have had foundation problems, including us with our garage that was engineered for the city's specifications. We actually experienced a failure on that wall and had to go through extreme measures to correct that. With that in mind there was a considerable amount of work done with Mr. And Mrs. Byrne and the Planning Commission and the ... this gentleman outlined were made pursuant to 1 � I I I i u 1 r] City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 that variance. There were supposed to be grading and drainage and tree preservation plans that also specific structural calculations were to be submitted and a structural engineer must design any type of foundation. Also soil information must be provided according to that document. Not may as I was told by the City Engineer when I questioned him about that. And a geotechnical engineer must approve the soil. Prior to the excavation also all utility easements should be staked. It is significant that this particular subdivision #914 has a one year lapse provision and it was signed by you in 1992. The lapse implies that re- application would be necessary unless the conditions are met and construction substantially completed within a time period of time year on that document. It is also significant, that was confirmed in a letter that the city staff wrote to Mr. And Mrs. Byrne who make no mention of that lapse. So it's quite possible that they were unaware of that and also that Mr. Byrne was unaware that it had in fact lapsed. There's a history of concern over this particular slope and it's soil and site problems because runoff directly affects Lotus Lake. I think some of you may have gotten a packet of information including some pictures that I note here and you can see from the top of that, you can see the drainage pattern. And how ... to the lake. This was confirmed in the Planning Commission Minutes and also that in discussions that I had with the Watershed Engineer who is advising to the Bluff Creek -Riley Watershed District. Our concerns as neighbors adjacent are as follows. There seems to be a clear failure to observe due process here with respect to the lapse, and also with respect to notification of hearing requirements. The lack of the application for subdivision variances is a major concern because it impacts revisiting the whole area and also impacts any disclosures that I might have made to a potential buyer. The allegations that were made with respect to his request to cancel our purchase agreement implies that I had prior knowledge of these conditions and failed to disclose them. Obviously that puts a cloud on my professional ethics. If I had had prior knowledge of these conditions, I surely would have disclosed them to my buyer. However, I did not due to the failure to observe due process. There are some other environmental and safety concerns with respect to the proximity to Lotus Lake. There's a runoff problem. The condition of this building is in disarray. It's been cut apart. There are shingles missing. The interior walls are exposed and because of the age of the building there is a big concern with respect to the hazardous materials that it may contain including, but not limited to asbestos and lead. Since it's a prior to the 1978 building we all know what the ... federal requirements are with respect to lead and the concerns thereof. There's also the fragility of the soil itself. There's great potential for a wash out. I have a lot of concern about something going in on a temporary foundation while a permanent one is engineered ex post facto. I don't think that that is implicit in all these plans that were made by the Planning Commission. Also you'll notice in your pictures that there currently is no silt fencing with respect to the lake side of the property and yet excavation has al ready been done. Obviously we're getting into the colder season but when spring thaw occurs or when there is heavy downpours and you're standing out there, there is a significant amount of water that comes from the entire Carver Beach neighborhood down that ravine and into the lake. I also have concern about the possibility of drainage easement encroachment with respect to our property as did my potential buyer. I was assured by Mr. Hempel of the engineering department here that that should not be a concern of mine after he went out and re- inspected the property. With respect to the aesthetic considerations, how can one really gauge that? You know this is a municipality that has a lot of purple dwellings and other things as well, and this is an eclectic neighborhood obviously. So seeing as how there are no aesthetic covenants or restrictions in this neighborhood, I don't know how one would arbitrarily decide what is the feelings of the neighborhood and what is not. ... it's like art. We all know what we like and what we don't like. However, the ramifications to myself and my husband are threefold actually. There's personal ramifications obviously in that our transaction may fail. The timing for the future sale of the property, market conditions and the lack of closure on the project next door would certainly cause any future buyer to take pause, assuming this one decides to breach our contract. So in that respect we may incur a monetary loss in that regard, and also I'll incur a loss of income because I'm the agent. The professional ramifications for me with respect to the lack of notification and the allegations regarding disclosure I've already discussed. It's not very much fun to be accused of something that you have no prior knowledge of. I think probably the most significant ramification however is the damage that this has done to personal relationships in the neighborhood and once again, this is kind of a ripple effect. Obviously it's not the city's responsibility to insure that those relationships stay good. However I feel, and I know many of the neighbors do as well, no matter what their overall feeling is, a lot of this could have been avoided with proper communication and notification. So all of those neighborhood relationships in one way, shape or another are affected in a negative way because of this. And obviously that's something that you guys probably can't solve but nonetheless it will exist now. With respect to remedies for the situation that the Council could take. I would ask that you strongly consider denying the permit to move pending further review. The logistics of Lotus Trail itself as well as the access to this particular site are extremely steep and it's going to be quite a show to see that thing coming down the street and up into that ravine and plunked on a temporary foundation to say the very least. Safety concerns obviously are implicit in that. So I would 10 11 I City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 view. If you,, ask that you deny the permit to move pending further re y ,, all of the overwhelming sentiment and p concerns raised tonight, decide to allow this permit to move, then I would ask that you strongly consider requiring re- application for this subdivision and also a performance bond by the contractor and/or owners to ensure that this work ' is done in compliance with all regulations implicit in this variance and with the zoning code and also within a certain period of time. A reasonable period of time. My concern is, and we all know the economic reality is when you try to bring something existing up to snuff, often times it becomes more costly than new construction itself and so therefore there is the very likely possibility that economically it might not be feasible to finish this project in a short , period of time. Or the inclination all of a sudden might be gone as well. I think that's a real concern that you can address by requiring a performance bond. With respect to recovery of any damages that we might incur as a result of this failure to observe notification and due process. I can't say at this time. Obviously you know there are a lot of aspects to this particular situation. I hope that you will give it your utmost care and consideration when you make a decision tonight. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Please come forward and state your name and your address ' please. Loran Veltcamp: My name is Loran Veltcamp. I'm the neighbor to the north. Betsy is the neighbor to the south. First of all I'd like to concur with everything that Betsy says. I've talked with her a number of times about this and ' agree with it... I wan: to emphasize the property depreciation that I think will occur from this, and not just in our neighborhood but in any neighborhood that something like this would happen. We bought our house 3 years ago. I've been working on it pretty much non stop since I bought it and it has appreciated in value and I'm currently just getting the list, final calculations from my engineer before I engage in about a $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 addition to my house, which is going to put it up there I think. I don't know what yet but it's going to be up there and we've worked hard on our land and we take a great deal of pride in our property but our property is not anywhere near as nice as Brad and Betsy's property and I hope before you rule on this you will certainly go through their property. I think they've spent a lot of money here. They're not getting all their money out of their house as it is. And they've been very meticulous and very artistic in the way they have developed that property and it's a beautiful property and ... and it does not deserve to be I think devastated by this other property coming in virtually overnight in the way that it has, and I don't think due process has been followed. I think the city's been incredibly insensitive to what we're trying to do down here specifically, and what our whole neighborhood is trying to do. But the Carver Beach area over the last 20 years has been developing itself as best it can. You know there are some old cabins down there and people are trying to preserve what's good and move on. You know we recently had a house that a person lived in, in a very small two room house down there for 8 years so he could buy the land. He had to wait for this piece of land to come up in back taxes and now there's a $300,000.00 house and this is what's happening over and over again in the Carver Beach area. We are trying to move in good houses and I think that the majority of the citizens feel this way about it. It's an up and coming neighborhood. It's growing in value. People are making very substantial investments. They are paying very substantial taxes and for these taxes they want consideration, they want respect, and they want property protection and by golly they deserve it. You know they're doing a pretty good job. To bring in an old house like this, I can only speak my opinion here but this house is really ugly and they're putting it on a foundation that makes it even uglier. And to me, I just can't believe anybody would do this. First of all I don't think that Tommy's going to make any money on this. By the time he gets done with this project he's got as much money as , the place is worth. So he makes no money. He doesn't win. And we are definitely going to lose. Now I called my appraiser when this started to happen and I went and I took a look at Tommy's house and I thought wow. How can this be happening and I just didn't know what to do. I called my appraiser and I told him, you know I said you know my house and there's this house up in Excelsior by the church up there and he knew the house because he, you know ' he gets around. He knew this house. I said what's this going to cost me? He said well I can't come out and give you an appraisal before you know the City Council meeting but he said I'd say 5% to 10 %. You know just off the top. I mean he didn't hesitate. And I believe him. You know I think we need to have appraisers come out there and appraise all these properties that surround this. There's six properties that surround it. And I think they're all going to be depreciated and by the time you factor in the depreciation, the tax base will go down as much as this little house is going to appreciate taxes. So then the City doesn't win. You know you're not helping your tax base by this. It's depreciating the neighborhood and it certainly will I think. It needs to be done by a professional appraiser to be ' sure. But to make a long story short here, I think that Tommy's going to lose because of this. I think the City's going to lose because other people are going to bring in crack houses from who knows where, you know and start sticking them around. You know this can happen. I can do it myself. It costs $15,000.00 to move a house in. I can 11 I 7 III J I� I City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 buy a lot and move a house in. Other people aren't going to like this so, it's bad for the City. I think it's bad for our neighborhood. It's bad for me and it's very, very bad for Brad and Betsy. I hope that's taken into consideration. I took the liberty to go around the neighborhood and have people sign a petition, which I have here. The rest of my thoughts I put on paper here. I came up with about 30 to 35 reasons why I don't think this house should go in. And there's too many to list here but I'll submit this document. I'll submit the petition. The petition shows that a majority of people in our immediate neighborhood are not for this and they're not for it for different reasons. So I wrote a little bit about that. So I will submit the petition and I think that may be all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We'll take that. Loran Veltcamp: I think that will be it. Mayor Chmiel: We'll take that information that you have there. Loran Veltcamp: Yeah, I would like permission to submit a formal appraisal from a certified appraiser, if you have time to do that. I'll get these documents together. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Andrea: My name is Andrea and I've been together with Tom for about 7 years and I just wanted to clarify some questions. We did have a geotechnical engineer evaluate the soils and his recommendation reads, the compact brown sand encountered in the borings below the soft soil is suitable for the support of the proposed structure. It is our opinion that these soils are capable of supporting... pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Other soft soils that are on top... So that has been passed and it has been approved. I just wanted to let you know that. The basement has been engineered, and in fact from the basement contractor it's been over engineered but better over than under. We'd rather not have it fall... This house has been appraised already with what we're going to do to it and actually is missing quite a few things we're going to do to it. It's appraisal value is in keeping with the area. No, it's not as much as Brad and Betsy's home. Loran, it's probably not going to be as much as yours... $3 00,000.00 but it is in keeping. There's a house behind us that sold for $34,000.00. That house down the road that's about over $80,000.00. There's one that sold for $80,000.00. That's an older neighborhood. It's got cute little houses. It's got some older houses. It's got some new ... and this house has been evaluated by the City and appraisers and it fits in with that neighborhood. Maybe you don't like the aesthetics of it. It's not going to look now like it does then because... it's going to be a lot better. And I just wanted to let you know about that and clarify some things that it is appraised at a value in keeping with the neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Andrea. Is there anyone else? Dr. Steven Cronson: I'm Dr. Steven Cronson. Formerly a dentist. I live on 801 Cree Drive in Chanhassen. I'm a new resident to the city. I've lived in my home for about a year. I do not live near ... but I have walked by there many times enjoying Lotus Lake and the neighborhood. I live in a, what I would consider a moderate income house in that neighborhood. The reason I say that, it's not based upon statistical data but based upon looking at it as Tom's wife mentioned, $34,000.00 to $80,000.00 houses. To talking to realtors about houses that are recently sold near where I live in the $175,000.00 range. Very unique structures. My house I bought in the 130's. When I moved in there, I didn't know much about my neighborhood but I liked the neighborhood. I saw that the neighborhood north of me was brand new houses that were in the $200 to probably $300,000.00 range. I wondered why they moved there. I looked at the lake and saw a pretty lake there. Anyway the point of my story is, I came to that neighborhood to enjoy it. When I bought that house I saw a house in the $130 to $140,000.00 range was a lot of money for me. I had to change careers. I've gone through troubles and I thought what Tom wants to do is a very smart thing to do. To go in and get a low cost, way to get a house and get it into a neighborhood and try to live there. But at any time when I wanted to improve my property, I wanted to put a four season or three season or two season porch in my back yard so I investigated it and talked to realtors that handled sales in my neighborhood. I talked to one who handled a sale on Carver Beach Road where the sale fell through. The realtor said, I'll never want to take another property in Carver Beach. These people want to improve their lot with a three season or four season porch. That persuaded me and sadden me very much about the neighborhood that was spending money on improvements for a home, a homestead, would never get me back any return for that investment... into my property because of what's happening 12 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 , to this neighborhood. I fee putting 1 that uttin this house, I haven't seen a picture of this house. I know it's a one and a half story house. I do have concerns about what is happening to this neighborhood. Does it improve or does it not be built going to improve other things like in relation to code. In terms of what can be built there. And what can't ' there. And so I have a lot of questions and that's all I want to say tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? If not, is there a motion to close ' the public hearing. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Councilman Berquist: Yes. Someone, I think Ms. Discher mentioned the temporary foundation. Is the plan to move , the building in on post and beam and then construct the foundation underneath the home? Is that the intent? Tom Byrne: Yes sir. Andrea: ...we should do it that way because, in moving... things aren't perfect... so if we make an error on the foundation, on a wall, and then move the house on in, that's his fear... ' Councilman Berquist: All right. Well I've got a lot of concerns on this. It is an eclectic neighborhood. In a neighborhood like Carver Beach, I think anyone doing any appraisals would have a very difficult time trying to figure out what would negatively or positively impact any of the properties in there simply because of the variations ' in values and types of structures that are there. I'm going to be jumping around here because I wrote things down in a jumbled manner. One of the qualifications within the subdivision approval back in '91 was that soil samples or soil results be provided to the City. Now did I hear someone say that had been done? Tom Byrne: Yes. All the, everything on that has been done. Councilman Berquist: And those have been reviewed from an engineering point of view? ' Steve Kirchman: The foundation has been engineered but review is underway. We haven't completed the review and we're not prepared to issue the building permit at this time until that's reviewed. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Again, the only thing that's really been done is administratively issuing an excavation permit. , Steve Kirchman: That's correct. As far as the action by us. Councilman Berquist: And any other action is contingent upon getting your approval. So in essence when they came in and applied for their building permit they, it was made clear to them that risk of approval is on their heads. , Steve Kirchman: As far as the building permit. Councilman Berquist: All right. Back in 1991 when the property was subdivided, I can find nothing within the Minutes of the meeting that referenced the intent to move in a house. I'm sure that it was subdivided as a lot of record for purposes of sale and construction as opposed to bringing in an existing home. ' Tom Byrne: ...thought that it would be worth more that way. Having two lots as opposed to the one when they sold the house. Councilman Berquist: What is the lot worth? Or better I should ask, what was the lot on the market for? Tom Byrne: It was on the market for, between $15 and $16. 1 13 1 7 L Ij !1 'J City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: And how long was it on the market? Tom Byrne: About two years. Councilman Berquist: Since '91? Or since the subdivision was approved? Tom Byrne: No. It wasn't right away. It was a little bit after that. Right after they sold the house to the Veltcamps. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Let's see. Let me just take a quick look here before I give up my floor. Regarding appraisals. What was the tax valuation of that house prior to it being sold? What was the land value versus the structure value? It was on the tax rolls. On the tax rolls you get a tax statement every year that says land value and structure value. Tom Byrne: The structure value was ... it wasn't very much. It was low. I think it was around 40. Just the land itself here in Chanhassen. Councilman Berquist: No. The house that you're intending to move on. Tom Byrne: Oh, I don't know. The church owned it and as far as I know they weren't paying taxes on it. They owned it for a while. I don't know what the value was of it originally. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I'm going to be equally troubled. Kate, I'm not certain if it was you or Sharmin who worked on the original subdivision. Kate Aanenson: That was before my time with the City. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. Ms. Discher mentioned that there was a one year time limit on that building. Can you address that at all? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think, you can check with the City Attorney on that. That's standard language. I mean the subdivision was recorded and the variance goes with it. You can't rescind a subdivision once it's been recorded. That's standard language and ... two different things that went out in the letter that wasn't mentioned. Or was mentioned in the letter that went out ... so obviously it was kind of a generic form that went out. But once it's a lot of record, you can't... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Basically what Kate said huh? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Roger Knutson: I can expand on it a little bit. This is a generic form in that the reason that it will work well, it doesn't work for a lot area variance if you've created a lot. You use a lot area variance by creating the lot as opposed to a setback variance which you use when you put up the structure. Then you can appropriately say, well if you don't build the house within one year, it lapses. But in this, you use the variance by creating the lot. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Steve, could you speak to, and I know you ... the history on this in terms of we received a request for a moving permit. You started that process. At some point we said time out. We need to, why do the neighbors feel that due process wasn't followed? Steve Kirchman: I don't know. We received a request for a moving permit. We processed that and when we heard concerns from neighbors we stopped the process and put it on the Council agenda and now two weeks later we're 14 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 a , before Council. We have on a different track gone ahead and accepted a building p ermit application, , but that's not unusual. We often have dual track projects, more often than not it seems like. We haven't issued any building permits. A grading permit was issued. It was based on the engineered grading plans. We had information about the soils. We had information about erosion control and slopes and they set construction limits on that and the building permit application that we received, everything's happening within those construction limits that were set with the previous grading permit. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So typically, I mean we're talking about three different items that are occurring, as you say, in the same time frame. That wouldn't be a dual track. That would be a tri track. Whatever that is. Wouldn't it ' make sense, or wouldn't it be standard operating that we would deal with all these permits at the same time, given that if the moving permit didn't go through, why bother excavating? Why bother issuing a building permit? Steve Kirchman: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Is it just that these happen so infrequently? Is that one of the issues that we're dealing with here? ' Steve Kirchman: Well, I think probably when the grading permit was issued we thought at that time that the house moving permit would probably be issued very shortly. that Is that Councilwoman Dockendorf: Typically we get a listing of who's been notified and a copy of notification. available? Steve Kirchman: I don't know. I didn't handle it. The publication was handled through the engineering department and I was told that it went out and apparently there's some question to that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, do you know anything about that? Charles Folch: I'm not ... specific notification but I'm certain that that's on file. I did talk with Dave Hempel when the notification did go out and put together so that information can be provided. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. If I could just, my current train of thought is, when it was, when the subdivision went through in '91, all the neighbors were informed of that city process and knew the intent was to build a home there. It appears to me the issue this evening is they don't like the home that's been chosen to put there. Now, not true to form we have some ordinances here that are open for interpretation and these are pretty cut and dry and we've got a couple issues where it says the building is well maintained and in a good state of repair. Again, that's open for interpretation and the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values. Again, that's open for interpretation and that's one of the jobs of the City Council. In respect to the building being well maintained, I can only take the work of our Building Inspector saying that when he looked at it in it's current site prior to being prepared for the move, it was well maintained. I've seen pictures with shingles missing, you know I question that. In terms of the building not materially depreciating surrounding property values. This is a unique neighborhood and I ' wouldn't have a clue as to how the assessor goes around assessing property values in a neighborhood such as this. Although I would think that it's based on, not so much surrounding property values but the home's independent value. The land. The views, etc. as opposed to how they standardly assess properties. But again, I'm not an assessor. So I'm fence sitting as it is. I think we might need some additional information before we decide to act on ' this. I don't know. What do you think Mike? Councilman Mason: I assume you're passing it to me? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I sure am. Councilman Mason: Thank you so much. I'd like to know legal. I'm not quite sure what due process has been ' violated here. I know when the lot next to me was being built on, I did not get a notification saying that somebody is going to be coming in and excavating. I don't believe that needs to be done when you're building a house in this city. I'm curious to know Roger if you know what due process has been violated here. , 15 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Roger Knutson: I'm not aware of any. The due process required by this ordinance, the hearing exceeded by 10 days... Don Ashworth: Charles is upstairs looking for that notice put together by. It was put together by Vicky with Dave Hempel and. Betsy Discher: The notice of what? The hearing tonight? Don Ashworth: Yes. Betsy Discher. Yes, we did. Before we raised a stink about it did we get a notice...? No. Councilman Mason: Is this in order here? Don Ashworth: I don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll bring it back to the Council please. Finish our discussions here. Roger Knutson: The only notice that's required in the hearing that's required that's being conducted now, I can't independently tell you whether the mailed notice has gone out... Councilman Mason: And that may in fact be another issue. I'm certainly not going to dispute that. What I want to make clear here is that the only due process that may in fact have been violated was whether people were notified about this hearing for the 12` of November. To your knowledge, as far as ordinances go, any of the other stuff that Mr. Byrne is looking for has not in any way violated due process? Roger Knutson: No. For example getting a building permit. People get building permits, I assume, on pretty much a daily basis and there's no hearing process. Councilman Mason: Okay. All right. Now the notification of this hearing may in fact be a separate issue but I'm hearing due process being flung around pretty loosely and I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what's going on. I also live in Carver Beach, just so everybody knows. I live on the other end of Carver Beach but I too live in Carver Beach. I know for a fact when I purchased the lot next to my older home, that was not worth a whole lot of money. I then went to sell my older home so I could build a nicer home. My realtor had a heck of a time finding comparables. That's the word I'm looking for. Comparable appraisals for that area. There are $30,000.00 homes. There are $300,000.00 homes right next door to each other in Carver Beach. Make no mistake. It's an extremely eclectic area and I think that's probably why most people live in Carver Beach quite honestly. I'm hearing a lot about the ramifications to everybody on this issue. The only thing I haven't heard yet is the ramifications to Mr. Byrne and I'm concerned about the ramifications to Mr. Byrne on this. It seems to me that if W. Byrne has dotted his I's and crossed his T's and is following the ordinances that are set up by the city, we have an obligation to follow that through. Now if, there are a whole lot of emotional issues here and I think as a Council we need to be very careful that we separate those emotional issues out of this. This notification issue about this hearing is something that needs to be looked into. It seems to me that if Mr. Byrne is following the rules that are set out by the City of Chanhassen, I'm not sure how we can deny him the opportunity to live in Carver Beach. I continue to be concerned by the attitude of people that live, I'm going to stop. I'm going to stop. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess first, three quick questions that I had missed before. I had them on a separate page. Kate, basically there was a tree preservation plan and everything submitted? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's all been done. 16 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Kate Aanenson: Jill had inspected the site for compliance so the only part that the Planning Department... make sure it was in compliance. We did sign off on it as far as the house met setbacks... ' Councilman Senn: And Steve, you do have the, I mean prior to the excavation permit being issued, you did have a grading and drainage plan and all that? , Steve Kirchman: Yes. It was issued based on a grading and drainage plan that we received from Mr. Byrne's engineer. ' Councilman Senn: Okay. One question I had as it relates to the survey that we were given which is dated October 24, 1996. In the stipulations on the approval it requires effectively a 20 foot grading and drainage easement in place where the previous Willow Road was. Yet I don't see that reflected on the survey. Is there a reason for that? ' Steve Kirchman: Could you repeat the question please Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Okay. If you go to the conditions by which the subdivision was approved in the first place, okay. One of the conditions is a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the former Willow Road right -of -way. Okay. I look at the survey and I do not see that 20 foot. I see the standard easement around. You know I see the 10 foot mark. I see the 5 foot mark. I do not see a 20 foot grading and drainage easement, or I mean not grading. I do not see a 20 drainage and utility easement where Willow Road was, which puts the survey in error. Steve Kirchman: Okay. What I see is a 10 foot easement where Willow Road was and I'm assuming the other 10 foot falls on the adjoining property to the south. , Councilman Senn: Okay. So there is a 20 foot there in the subdivision related to both those parcels then? t Steve Kirchman: I said I was making an assumption. Councilman Senn: Assumption. ' Steve Kirchman: I see 10 foot on Mr. Byrne's property and typically they're divided half and half. Councilman Senn: Well I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, does the former Willow Road also was put on ' the property to the south then? Steve Kirchman: I can't answer that question. I don't know what the alignment of Willow Road was previously to the subdivision. Councilman Senn: All right. Aside from questions then, I guess comments. First to address this issue I guess of what's being labeled as due process that's being thrown around. I think due process is a very poor choice of words ' for what we're talking about here but I believe the neighbors concerns were effectively, I'm not sure how to say this. But I mean the neighbors were basically put in a bad position. This property was issued a grading permit and was going to be administratively issued a moving permit without following provisions of our ordinance. Okay. Now I'm ' not finding fault with anybody for that. It's very simply a mistake. Maybe a procedure that was established in '87 or something that I'm not sure who was established by but that's kind of hard to figure out at this point and it's really ininaterial but we do have an ordinance on the books which requires a hearing before the City Council and the Council to issue that permit and that is not the procedure which was being followed. That is the concern. That was ' the concern of the neighborhood and I think a legitimate concern of the neighborhood. The ordinance gave them an opportunity. They should have had that opportunity. They were not going to be given that opportunity until they raised issue with it and by raising issue with it, they've been given that opportunity which is the way it should be, so I ' don't think they should be faulted for it. You know looking through all the issues on this, you know I'm concerned about what the neighbors. I guess I'm concerned about the neighbors concerns that I'm not going to just make light of them. I'm also concerned about the ramifications to Mr. Byrne but I guess the way I look at this is, we do have an ordinance here and I look back at the ordinance and I say are we following the ordinance. I think in terms of where 17 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 we are in the ordinance, given what the City Attorney has said, most of the stipulations effectively are stipulations which effectively, well I mean other than Chapter 20. The other stipulations 1 and 2, which relate to the Building Code and the maintenance and repair of the structure are effectively conditions that are put off or effectively can be remedied after the movement of the house, but before a CO. Okay, so you know I think those you look at in terms of being things that can be handled administratively. The thing I don't feel at all comfortable with in this current ' ordinance, which we are supposed to act by, is condition number 4 which says the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values. I'm not comfortable with that purely from the reason that I've got absolutely no information in front of me which would help me evaluate that one way or the other and if this Council is being ' asked to act on and approve this permit, they are in effect finding that there has been no material depreciation to surrounding properties. If my fellow members on the City Council would like to do that, I guess that's fine. I don't plan to. I think this matter needs to be tabled. I think sufficient time needs to be given to get that professional information because this ordinance appears to me binds us to make a finding as it relates to that and I don't know how we can make the finding without the professional information. So I know that's probably going to cause some concern or hardship to Mr. Byrne and I'm not even going to say I think it's fair to Mr. Byrne but it is what's in the ordinance and we have these things. We're supposed to be following them. If we don't like them, we should change them. But as it sits right now, it's the rule we've got and I think that's the way we should approach it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's it Mark? ' Councilman Senn: Yes. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: If I may. Charles did find the mailed notice affidavit on top. Map that went out to each of the ' neighbors and the names and addresses of all of the owners it went to. There's about 30 of them on there. Councilwoman Dockendorf. What's the date? ' Don Ashworth: October 30` Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's all here. Plus the affidavit of mailing. Well some of the comments basically that I have ' is it sure doesn't give the property owner a chance to even build his own home, and there are variations. There are variations within my own neighborhood. You can get them anywhere from $280,000.00 on down to $102,000.00. And yet when they review, and as home continually sell, the appraisals are taken from the highest home that is being ' sold. And they consider that in, if I'm not mistaken, in their estimate to come up with what the value of that home is to be sold for. He does own property the property. At any given time, did anyone have an opportunity to buy that piece of property? Yes. Would you come up to the microphone. ' Loran Veltcamp: I made an offer on this property through the realtor maybe 3 weeks before Tommy decided to start this thing. I offered $47,000.00 for it. The reason I offered $47,000.00 for this is because when I talked to John Rask about the tree preservation, I wanted to know all about that because that's something that can be interpreted and ' I specifically asked him. I said, what does this mean ... can only take out just enough trees to build on, you know. I mean what does it mean you know. He said, you can only take out the minimum number of trees that you need to take out. And I said what if there's a tree next to my house and I have to get around my house with a truck while I'm building the house. He said you may not be able to take that out. You know not for sure but you may have to leave that tree. And I said so there's a possibility that I have to leave enough trees so I can't get to the back of the house with a truck while I'm building it. You know which means I'd have to bring in a crane and lift it over the house or break the thing down and carry it around the house. These are all important considerations when you're trying to ' build on a lot. And I was also informed that there was a 30 foot setback. John thinks that maybe I got confused here but you know when you're buying the land you've got to be sure, you know. You're very careful in what questions you ask. I asked what the setbacks were and my understanding was that this was a flat lot. Okay, I didn't know that term before I talked to John, but this is a flag lot and as such, it has a 30 foot setback from the street, 30 foot setback from my property which wraps around the back of my property, and 20 feet everywhere else. It's a fairly small, 1 18 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' buildable footprint on this articular lot. And because of the slope and we share a drive and there's other factors, I tP P said this lot cannot be worth... And the proof of that is also that it's been on the market for about 5 years and it didn't sell. So I was confident that I had made the highest offer and very reasonable offer. Their realtor told me it , was a very respectable offer. I wanted to ... because I knew that if somebody didn't buy it, Tommy was going to come in and build something small. And I said I don't want that. I'm going to buy the land. I'm going to give fair value for it... And the way we poised our offer was that, you know if you can show me that it's worth more I'll pay more. Show me some comparables because I can't find any and that's the way we left it but ... and Rocky Byrne had ' been out of town. We couldn't find him. So that offer, and there have been other offers too but I mean I think they've all been in the 40's, which I think were reasonable. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, I can comment on item number 4. The building will not depreciate. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yeah, would you please Roger. Roger Knutson: You find something in our CUP provisions and... Audience: Sir, can you speak up please? We can't hear you. Roger Knutson: Excuse me. I'll try to speak louder. I found about 25 cases that discuss this issue and what the , Courts have said uniformly is that unless the City has material evidence that it will depreciate, there's no basis for turning down the permit. So the City has to ... have that evidence that it will materially depreciate or that's not a basis for turning it down. And the Courts have said that lay evidence on this subject is not acceptable, or simple statements from realtors, one or two liners, I've seen a lot of those that say in my opinion it will do this. You need a real appraisal and if there is a real appraisal that shows it, then of course you can rely upon that information. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And who's responsible typically for providing that appraisal? Is it a 50/50 split ' between the applicant and the City or does the City have to prove that it won't materially depreciate or is it the responsibility ...? , Roger Knutson: To turn this down you have, the City has to have material evidence. If there's no evidence, then there's no basis for turning down the permit on that basis. So the evidence has to come forth from some sort. Whether that is from an appraiser hired by whoever. It doesn't matter who's doing the hiring as long as it's a legitimate appraisal and it proves that that depreciation materially. Material depreciation. Councilman Senn: Okay Roger when I raised that point I said let's use legitimate professional, okay. How do you do that in 10 days? ' Roger Knutson: I can only tell you my experience. I've never gotten an appraisal that fast. Maybe someone can. Councilman Senn: I never have either. So I mean the question is, how do you do it other than effectively create a ' window or some time to allow somebody to do that. Roger Knutson: You don't. You can't do it in 10 days. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that's almost, yeah really almost next to impossible. find is that he it done in 2 days... ' Roger Knutson: If you that ... someone so under employed can get Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure I want that appraisal. Yeah, did you want to say something. Would you come up to the mic so we can get it recorded. ' Tom Byrne: Well, I got an appraisal in 3 days and it was written up for me to get the money from the loan company who actually is the one who paid for the appraisal and they appraised it at about $130, and that was not counting all ' 19 1 I J City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 the extra work I was doing to make it nicer than it was originally in Excelsior. Or counting the fact that it's got lake view, which after climbing up to the top of the hill and looking out about where the windows would be, I figured out hey, I can see the lake from here. So I get the feeling that it may even be worth a little more than that. That's not really that big of a concern to me. I want to break even on the deal. I grew up here and I want my house there. I own the land now. I got it from my parents. You know it's an investment for my future, but I plan on spending the rest of my life there. I spent most it there already. Or next door ... I don't want to blow it. I don't want to make any of my neighbors mad. I never planned on hurting any of them either. But I feel like I've done everything that you've asked me to do. Everything that the City's ever required of me. We've been researching this for years. How long do I have to wait? How long do I have to call my parents in Florida to say, well Betsy's got another person to look at the lot. She'll be calling you pretty soon. And I let all that slide. I tried to help them and I knew if that happened, there's no way I was ever going to put a house there and it kept sitting and sitting and sitting. Finally I came up with a way to do it. I got the ambition to do it and I work hard. Make good money. Own the land now. All I'm looking for is a place to live man. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Well, I think it's. Betsy Discher. Can I say something? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think you had your opportunity before. Betsy Discher. I just want to say that I agree. I think Tommy should be allowed to live there. That's never really been an issue with us. We've known him for 12 years and when he lived ... we were very happy to do so. It's not my intention to keep Tommy from building on property that he owns. I do have some concerns with respect to the safety of the neighborhood and environmental issues. As a realtor I think it's very dangerous to assign value to a subject property ... in eclectic neighborhoods like that. You know as far as your comment with respect to ... I totally concur. My question is really though as to do with whether or not proper notification as to the move was made. That's my question. Every time that we've had, that we've made improvements to our property we've gone through a sequential, lengthy process. And it appeared to me that this type of process was extremely compressed. That the proper notification with respect to the move, not the hearing, were made. When you decided to contact people in attempts to place this matter for a hearing, it was then that notification for this hearing was made. There was no hearing planned on this permit to move and it was going to go through until we questioned the process. I really, you know if I wind up staying in the house, and it's very possible that I might because my sale might not go through, I look forward to having Tommy as a neighbor. You know there's no question to us that he shouldn't be allowed to build on the property. What we're questioning is, the... feasibility of the plan to move something in rather than construct something from the ground up in the sequence that the initial variance was granted. So thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to tell you that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we've belabored our point here for some time. Is there any other discussion by Council? Councilman Berquist: I have a quick question for someone. Subdivision, the property owner after getting a subdivision has a year to file it, otherwise it falls off. Was the subdivision properly filed within that year's period of time? John Rask: To the best of my knowledge. Councilman Berquist: All right, that's all... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to ask for a motion. Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm still hung up on the depreciation of surrounding property values. Generally when you build a home, or when you seek to build a home, a very broad rule of thumb is that you're going to spend anymore from 3 to 4 times your lot value on the construction of your residence. So if I were to use a sale price on the lot of $40,000.00, that would mean that we'd end up with roughly a $120,000.00 to $160,000.00 cost of construction on the structure that we're building. So we fly in the face of conventional construction wisdom, such as W1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 it is, by moving the house of small value onto a lot of relatively higher value. The neighborhood is eclectic. Carver Beach is a charming neighborhood in many different ways. I am however not convinced that we will not materially depreciate the surrounding property values. Although Roger says that we must have proof. Mr. Byrne mentions that ' it's been years that he's been contemplating and working on this. I see nothing wrong with a few more weeks enabling time to pass and appraisals to be forth coming. it be ' Tom Byrne: There's a big bulldozer sitting right next to my house and if I don't get moved soon, it's going to trashed. I have a problem. Councilman Berquist: A big what? , Tom Byrne: A big bulldozer is parked next to it and if I don't have it moved, the church has to level it to work on their project in Excelsior... ' Councilman Senn: Wait now, wait now, wait now. The church project was not approved in Excelsior. Tom Byrne: No, it's not approved yet but ... there are ways of working on it now. They guy said I have a week, at ' the most. I have a week for sure. After that it's all up in the air. Councilman Berquist: Well if my motion passes I would urge you to contact him and ask his understanding. ' Tom Byrne: Well if gets tabled, I've been advised that... construction is not illegal here. If I have to, I'll take my sawzall and I'll chop it up into little squares and bring in on a flat bed and then I don't even need this permit. The reason I'm here is because I'm trying to do this the right way and I want everybody to know that. I want you to know ' that I plan on having something to be proud of and there's other ways around it. There's more than one way to do this. I sure want to do it right. But at the same time I don't want my house to get ran over by the bulldozer either so. I don't have time. ' Councilman Berquist: Then you should have applied earlier. I'm going to move to table until I'm convinced that we're not going to materially affect the neighborhood. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf Well you know what, I'm hearing a couple different things from the neighborhood and I don't know if there's a representative per se but I'm hearing one person saying they're concerned about the depreciation and I'm hearing another person say they're just concerned that it's going to hurt the environment and , safety, etc. So they're not so much opposed to the building and the construction of the home as they're concerned about the environmental affects so. Councilman Senn: Well, I'm going to second Steve's motion. , Mayor Chmiel: I didn't call for the second as yet. Councilman Senn: Well it doesn't make any difference. You can second it anyway. That takes precedence. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I guess my point was going to be that we need a little CYA here on the Council. ' It is my intent to move this house to this property. I think we need to protect ourselves from potential litigation to make sure that we are not materially depreciating anyone else's property value now. And I believe that's the onus of the City in terms of getting that done and the City paying for it and if we can, and we'll need to meet our 2 week time frame. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: Further discussion. While what Councilman Berquist said I think is absolutely true about cost of land and cost of housing, I don't know that he's aware how eclectic Carver Beach is. There clearly are lots that do not concur with the 4 times or 3 times the price of the lot in Carver Beach. I mean that's the reality of that situation. 21 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 I certainly hope this Council does not choose to table this action tonight. I think with the information that we have from the City Attorney, we have more than enough to vote on it tonight. Mayor Chmiel: All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor say aye? Councilman Berquist, Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in favor. Councilman Mason: Would you restate the motion please? Mayor Chmiel: As Steve had indicated previously. Councilman Berquist: Was moving to table. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, to get the additional information. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would request that our City Manager makes a phone call to the City Manager or Mayor of the City of Excelsior explaining the situation and ask for some leniency. Mayor Chmiel: Being that I'm the lame duck, maybe we should have the Manager have discussions and find that out. Councilman Mason: Where's the motion to table this right now? I've heard. Mayor Chmiel: Well what Steve has indicated. That he would like to see appraisals done on this particular property and determine, Steve, is that correct? Councilman Berquist: Yes. The motion that I made was to table it until such time as the applicant could bring back an appraisal that solidifies his claim that the property that he's intending to use will not adversely affect the adjoining properties. Tom Byrne: We have that. Mayor Chmiel: You have that? Tom Byrne: I'm not sure if we have it with but we do have it. Andrea: I can get it up here... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Is it an independent appraisal or is it a realtor's appraisal? Tom Byrne: Yeah, it was paid for by the mortgage company. Councilman Senn: I'd like clarification on your motion. Your motion when you originally stated it said you wanted to effectively table this until such times as appraisals can be provided. Councilman Berquist: That is correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. At least when I seconded your motion and took that at it's face, I assumed that gave both parties the time to get an appraisal or whatever they wanted to do to come in and make their case. With professional results. Councilman Berquist: However many appraisals that it took to convince me that... Councilman Senn: Correct, you want to have more information. That's all. 22 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 PP Mayor Chmiel: The applicant has a time restriction as well in what he can do with his property. If he can't get this ' Y accomplished within a week, I don't think that's a reasonable proposal. Councilman Senn: Well Mayor I'd like to understand that because my understanding is the project in Excelsior has been turned down by the Excelsior City Council and it's not going forward and it's my understanding that the church has taken steps to initiate legal action against the City or whatever as a result of that and there's going to be ' absolutely no immediate, or even medium term resolution, at least as far as I understand it from either party on it. At least in the near offing so I don't think this one, I guess what I would like then is I would also like some information pertaining to that. Is it real? Not real? What are the real particulars of the timing concerning that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Regardless I'd like to see a two week tabling. I don't want it to go any further. This gentleman's entitled to a determination of this issue. Roger Knutson: Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger Knutson: So I can understand. Is the City staff supposed to have someone prepare an appraisal? Councilman Senn: No. I Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well that, I didn't understand the motion when I voted in the affirmative because I ' don't agree with that. I think it's the responsibility of the City to prove that it's going to materially depreciate it. Tom Byrne: ...this is November in Minnesota and we're going to get snowed on. In two weeks if the snow's too , deep, the house ain't going to come in until spring except for on a flatbed and chopped up by my sawzall or, either way I'm losing money that I could be putting in to make the house nicer so even two weeks. Even if they don't run it over with the bulldozer, if the snowplow gets it instead, it's one or the other. I'm in a time crunch and I can provide , fair representation of the cost of the house in about 10 minutes. I didn't pay for it. It wasn't done by me or for me. It was done for the mortgage company so... Councilman Berquist: But what it fails to address is the impact on the surrounding properties. , Tom Byrne: Probably. But it shows the value that's similar to, it's actually more than what Mr. Veltcamp paid for my old house so take that at face value. It's not a cheap house. It's not small. My lot is larger than Mr. Veltcamp's. I can't speak for the Discher's. It might be larger than their's too. My intent is to keep it as private as possible and considering all the things that are going for it, it will probably be worth quite a bit and if I can assume some of that. Councilman Berquist: Should we just pass a motion to table this contingent on appraisals and contingent on him calling Carl Zinn to talk about delaying the construction of the property? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I would challenge that because I didn't understand the motion when I voted in ' favor of it. Councilman Berquist: I think one of the other two have to challenge it. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No, I do. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, she was in the affirmative. We don't have any say. , Councilman Senn; You want to see a time constraint? Councilwoman Dockendorf I want to see a time constraint and I want to see the City pay for this appraisal. 23 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' Councilman Senn: I don't think that we. Colleen, I don't want to speak for Roger but I don't think we should be in the position of commissioning any appraisal on this matter. That's not our job. Our job is to evaluate the information independent. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well then I want to see the neighbors paying for this... Councilman Senn: If they come back in here in the period and don't have an appraisal and the applicant walks in ' with an appraisal it seems to me we've got our information. Okay. Councilman Mason: And then the problem is, the neighbors get somebody that will appraise it their way and Mr. Byrne gets somebody that will appraise it his way. I mean this is worst case scenario now. So we need, the decision is still going to be in our lap. Councilman Senn: Any professional registered appraiser isn't going to ... because that's where they want to see. He ' could lose his license. Tom Byrne: It wasn't appraised for me at all. It was appraised for... ' Mayor Chmiel: No, we understand that. Councilman Senn: Bank appraisals aren't even always by certified appraisers though either. Mayor Chmiel: With the motion as is, and were you withdrawing your affirmative motion on that? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes, Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll recall the question. All those in favor say aye? Councilman Berquist: Are we talking about the original motion that I made? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, before we go back to his, are you asking for a new motion Colleen or are you asking for an amendment on the two weeks? I'm just trying to understand where we're at this point. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm asking for clarification as to who's going to pay for it and I'm asking for an amendment on the time period. And I'm also struggling with the fact that we're, I'm trying to find a delicate word. We're screwing two parties here by not having, by the City not having it's act together. ' Councilman Mason: Well, I disagree with that. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well we're putting time constraints when Mr. Byrne has been following everything to ' the best of his knowledge to get this accomplished by the time the snow flies and that's where we've failed him. Councilman Mason: Well, then we approve the moving permit tonight and that's taken care of. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well the remedy for that is not necessarily approval of the request. Councilman Senn: You know Colleen, I'll agree with part of your statement, and I'll paraphrase, I think it's ' absolutely ridiculous that we're sitting here tonight having to, and consider having to, and consider cutting the proverbial baby in a sense because you have people who have absolutely no dialogue and didn't know what was going on and that's not the way our processes are supposed to work, okay. When a house is being moved into this community, we have an ordinance on the books. Whether it's good or bad, it should have sent a red flag up and we shouldn't be here at the eleventh hour deciding this issue in this fashion. And you know I mean that's just the reality, 1 24 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 but we are but that's not a fair way to cram it through simply because we are here at the eleventh hour. I think we've got to follow the ordinance. Councilman Mason: I agree with everything that's being said here and we are following the ordinance now. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're comfortable in your mind making a determination that this project will not, in any way, shape or form, affect the values of the other properties in the negative? Councilman Mason: Based on the information I have from the City Attorney, and what I've heard tonight, yes I am. Based on what our City Attorney said the research that he's done on it and based on what I know about Carver Beach, yes. I am comfortable with that. Councilman Senn: Well our attorney's made no evaluation that we have. Councilman Mason: You asked if I was comfortable moving this tonight and yes I am. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We're going to recall that question. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the House Moving Permit for Tom Byrne until appraisals can be brought in showing there will be no adverse affect on the neighboring property values. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Chmiel: The motion fails. Is there another motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would respectfully request that we wait 15 minutes to see this appraisal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All right, and that appraisal if forth coming? Tom Byrne: Yep. It's on the way. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call a recess for. Councilman Senn: Can't we just table this item and go on with the other agenda items? Mayor Chmiel: Well we can. Councilwoman Dockendorf The other items are going to take a while. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do that then.... What I'm going to do is ask that we table this for a short period of time and move on to the next public hearing that we have. We won't sit here and wait to see what happens but I think it's crucial to get that information that can be provided to us. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALE OF LOTS 5 & 6. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5 ADDITION TO THE CHASKA/CHANHASSEN HOCKEY ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ICE ARENA. Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing on this item. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Under Minnesota Statute the City Council must consider holding a public hearing when considering disposing of public lands. Staff did publish a notice in the Chanhassen Villager on October 31 regarding the proposed sale of land to the Chaska/Chanhassen Hockey Association for the construction of an ice arena on Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 5 Addition. Included in your packet was the staff report regarding this item, which was on your City Council agenda in September 23, 1996 regarding the Hockey Association's request for a land transfer. Manager's comments in the packet highlight concerns that staff had 25