Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
5 Variance 960 Carver Beach Roa
CITY OF PC DATE: 01/16/01 CC DATE: 2/12/01 REVIEW DEADLINE: 02/15/01 CASE #: 00-3 VAR Bv: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a variance to the lot size, lot width, and lot coverage requirements to permit the construction of a single family home on an existing parcel 6f record. 960 Carver Beach Road (Lots 998, 999, and 1000, Carver Beach) Anita Benson 125 N. 3rd Street, Apt. 2 Marshall, MN 56258 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: 6,000 sq. ft. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: WATER AND SEWER: RSF, Single Family Residential DENSITY: N/A N.' S: E: W: RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential RSF, Single Family Residential Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: A vacant lot. Houses are built on either side of the parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property mvners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning.Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion 25-8710040 ' e, 25-8710170 ~m \ ~ e. 2~-8710180 ~ ~ . ~ ; . RoBd BEACH ESTATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~ . ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ ...% %- ~ ~ ~,. W~tern Drive o o ~ . .... _ ... ~ ' w~ ..... Hiawatha Road w 921 Beach Road C~ .. 14 25~ 0 - · 2~114 Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 2 with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant needs relief, in the form of a variance, from the zoning ordinance to build on an existing lot of record. Lot area and lot width variances from the district regulations are necessary since the lot is less than the minimum. However, even with these variances, the site cannot be developed and comply with code due to requirements for a minimum house size, a two car garage, and an improved driveway. Staff believes approving the impervious surface variance is the least intrusive of the variance options. Staff has estimated that the minimum impervious surface requirement to comply with these requirements is 30 percent for a two-story design and 36 percent for a rambler. The Planning Commission denied the variance request. The applicant has appealed that decision to City Council. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 20-29, Variance and appeals procedures. Requires 3/4th vote of members present. 20-56 through 20-60, Variances. 20-73, Non-conforming lots of record. 20-615 (1), requires a minimum 15,000 sq. ft. lot area. 20-615 (2), requires a minimum 90 feet of lot frontage. 20-615 (4), permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. 20-615 (5), requires a 30 foot rear yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback. BACKGROUND The property is located in Carver Beach and consists of three lots, which are each 20 feet wide by 100 feet deep. The subject property is 6,000 square feet in area. It is 60 feet in width (90 feet required) and 100 feet in depth (125 feet required). No variance is required for development on lots that meet at least 75 percent of the minimum requirements of the ordinance (in this instance lot depth). The table displays the setbacks proposed for the home. TABLE 1 Setbacks For 960 Carver Beach Road Setback Distance Required Distance Requested Front/Carver Beach Road 30 feet 30 feet * Side 10 feet 10 feet Rear 30 feet 30 feet Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 3 * Decks may project a distance of five (5) feet into the required setback. Carver Beach is an area that was platted in 1927 into 20 by 100 foot.lots. The first record of this parcel was of two lots. In the 1934, a third lot was added to this parcel. Since that time, there have been no further additions to the parcel. As part of Sanitary Sewer and Water Project #75-2 for Carver Beach Road, no water or sanitary sewer stubs were extended to the property and only the area charges were paid. Sanitary sewer lateral connection and watermain lateral connection charges would need to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, truck sanitary sewer hookup and trunk watermain hookup charges would be payable as part of the building permit fee. The year 2000 sanitary sewer lateral and watermain lateral charges are $4,075.00 each. The year 2000 sanitary sewer hookup fee is $1,300.00 and trunk watermain hookup fee is $1,694.00. These fees are subject to change January 1,2001. The properties on either side of these lots are developed xvith single-family homes. The house to the west xvas built in 1956. The house to the east was built in 1966. Note that the fence for the property to the east encroaches on the lot from 1.2 to 2.3 feet. There are no incentives for the properties on either side of this parcel to purchase these lots, since they are currently developed. They have enjoyed this private open space for the last 34 to 44 years. On December 5, 2000, this property was reviewed for the following variances: a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot; a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement; a ! 5% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 40%; a seven (7) foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback; and a three (3) foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setbacks for the construction of a single family home. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance requested. They felt that the proposed variances were too much. Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 4 ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, and a 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36%. These variances are necessary for the construction of a single-family home centered on the property. The proposed house plan, a two story with a tuck under garage, is located within the building setback lines. Carver Beach is an area that was platted in 1927 into 20 by 100 foot lots. Over time, lots have been assembled into larger parcels. In 1934, a third lot was added to this parcel. Since that time, there have been no further additions to the parcel. The Carver Beach subdivision was approved in 1927. Homes were constructed on lots shortly thereafter. At that time, the city had not been incorporated and the 15,000 square foot and 90 feet of street frontage did not apply. Many properties that do not comply with current city code have developed in Carver Beach. City code requires that a two story residential design have a minimum of 600 square feet on the first floor. The proposed house has an area of approximately 1,400 square feet on the first floor. The house pad is 38 feet by 40 feet with a seven-foot deck off the front. Decks 'may project five feet into the required setback. City code also requires a two car garage which is tucked under in this design. The proposed house and driveway constitute an impervious surface of 2,200 square feet. The building footprint is approximately 1,522 square feet and the driveway is approximately 576 square feet. This equates to 36 percent lot coverage. However, this same 2,200 square feet would only represent only 15 percent impervious surface on a standard lot. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes from a high elevation of 1030 at the rear (northern) property line to a low of 1024 at the front (southern) property line. City sewer and water are available in Carver Beach Road. While the site appears to be easily built upon, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. Trees are scattered on the site. As part of the proposed house plan, a group of trees will be removed in the northwest comer of the garage, a tree will be removed for the northeast comer of the house, and a tree will be removed as part of the driveway. The trees along the northern property line are to be saved. The larger tree will need to be pruned and have branches removed to permit the construction of the home. Three trees should be replanted on the property at least two of which should be located in the front yard. Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 5 Permitted Use This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home with a two car garage can be legally constructed on the site. Reasonable Use The buildable area (1,600 sq. ft. or 40 feet by 40 feet) is constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. However, the maximum impervious surface permitted by code is 1,500 square feet that represents 25 percent of 6,000 square feet. The required setbacks limit the buildable area, limiting house and garage design. The property owner does not have the opportunity to make a reasonable use of the site without variances from the lot size, lot width, and lot coverage. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, an:anged or intended, or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is o single family home with a two-stall garage. A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site without relief from the ordinance. In this instance, the owner cam~ot construct a house and two car garage without variances from the ordinance. Neiffhborhood Standards Staff surveyed city records to determine if lot area, lot frontage, side yard and rear yard setback variances had been granted in the area. There are many variances approved in the Carver Beach subdivision including area, width and setbacks, so staff limited its search to within 500 feet of the parcel. This survey turned up two cases. Variance #94-9, 921 Hiawatha Road, Lots 977, 1002 - 1006, Carver Beach, a 5,000 square foot lot area variance and a 20 foot front setback variance for the construction of a single-family home. Variance #85-5,895 Carver Beach Road, Lots 1348 - 1352, Carver Beach, a 17 foot rear yard setback variance. It should be noted that the lot area of the parcel is 8,000 square feet. However, at the time of the variance, if the lot met 50 percent of the lot area requirements, a variance was not needed. In addition, the property immediately to the east of the site is 10,000 square feet. However, since it was built prior to the adoption of the city's ordinances, no variance was required. Though no surveys of the setbacks for the adjacent properties are available due to the dates of construction for these homes, staff has estimated from aerial photography that the home to the east is approximately 10 feet from the side property line, the fence intrudes approximately two Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 6 feet onto the property, and the home to the west is approximately 30 feet from the side property line abutting this site. The property to the west includes the land to .the north of this site on Which a storage building is located. The storage building is estimated at approximately five feet from the property line. Within the area, there are a wide variety of housing types including ramblers, tuck-under, split entry, and two stow design. The housing immediately adjacent to the site are a rambler and a 1½ stow house. Along Carver Beach Road there are tuck-under and split entry homes. Elsewhere in the neighborhood are two story houses. The proposed house plan appears to fit into the character of the area. Even given the relief from the lot area and lot width requirements, the site cannot be developed in compliance with ordinance requirements without relief from either impervious-surface restrictions (Section 20-215 (4)), house size requirements (Section 20-905 (2)), or the requirement for a two car garage (Section 20-905 (2) (d.). The ordinance permits 25 percent lot coverage. This permits lot coverage of 1,500 square feet on the property. To meet setbacks, the optimum house design is a two story unit. The ordinance requires a minimum first floor area of 600 square feet. The ordinance also requires a two car garage. A standard size garage is 24' x 24', or 576 square feet. The city also requires that driveways be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material (Section 20-118 (d)). A 20' x 30' driveway represents 600 square feet of impervious surface. Adding these requirements together, we come to a total impervious area of 1,776 square feet, which exceeds the lot coverage requirement by 276 square feet and represents site coverage of 30 percent. The applicant's proposal is for 2,160 square feet of lot coverage. If the city were to require a one stow rambler design, the minimum house size is 960 square feet. With a 24' x 24' garage and a 20' x 30' driveway, the impervious surface coverage would be 2,136 square feet or 36 percent. Slightly less coverage (74 square feet) than requested by the applicant. The city could approve a variance from the house size, but this would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and could lead to a reduction in property valuation since the type of housing that would be smaller than ordinance would not be very marketable. The city could Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6,2001 Page 7 grant a variance from the two-car garage requirement. But this is counter to the idea that garages are necessary for the Minnesota climate. It would also reduce the storage space in the structure and may lead to outside storage issues. The city could grant relief fr. om the impervious surface coverage. This option would be least noticeable to the neighbors, would not significantly alter drainage patterns or increase stormwater runoff, will not negatively impact health, safety or welfare, and should not devalue property. Of the variance alternatives, staff believes that impervious surface relief is the most appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to pern~it the construction of a single-family home on an existing lot of record. FINDINGS The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardstSp. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majorit3, of comparable propert3, within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the propm~y for a single-family home on the lot cannot be developed without a variance. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site for a house plan completely within the building envelope. bo The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. However, the subdivision in the Carver Beach area was done in 1927 prior to the adoption of the current standards and many properties do not comply with code requirements. Other properties of two and three lots have developed in Carver Beach. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The ability to develop the site will increase the value of the property. However, the use of the parcel for a single-family home is reasonable. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 8 Finding: The lots were platted in 1927 prior to the ordinance, so the hardship is not self- created. The homes on either side of the site were developed with single-family homes in 1956 and 1966. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. At least five properties within 500 feet of the site are 10,000 square feet or less in lot area and are developed with single-family homes. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Building setbacks are being maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Plamfing Commission held a public hearing on January 16, 2001, to review the variance request. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested variances. While denying the variance, the Planning Commission did express a preference for limiting the height of the structure, rather than the plan as submitted by the applicant. They believed that such a design would better blend into the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, and an 11 percent variance from the 25 percent site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36 percent for the construction of a single family home based upon the staff report and the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. Benson Variance #2000-14 January 16, 2001 Revised February 6, 2001 Page 9 , Sanitary sewer lateral connection charges, watermain lateral connection charges, truck sanitary sewer hookup and trunk watermain hookup charges shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. . The trees along the northern property line are to be saved. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. Three trees shall be replanted on the property, at least two of which shall be located in the front yard." ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Application and Letter Proposed House Elevations and Floor Plans Letter from Helen & Richard Roe to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 11/25/00 Parcel Map Arial Photograph overlaid with parcel lines Arial topographic map Sanitary Sewer and Water Project #75-2 as built plans Reduced Copy of Lot Survey Section 20-56 through 20-73, Variances and nonconforming lots Section 20-611 through 20-616, RSF District Requirements Planning Commission Minutes of 12/5/00 Public hearing notice and property owners list Letter from Roger N. Knutson to Robert Generous dated 1/11/01 Petition Opposing Granting Variance Planning Connnission Minutes of January 16, 2001 Letter from Robert Generous to Anita Benson dated 1/17/01 Appeal letter from Anita L. Benson to Robert Generous Letter to Residents from Robert Generous dated 2/5/01 and Mailing List g:\plan\bg\Var. 2000-14 Benson.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TELEPHONE (Day time) OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Subdivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPRNAC/VARANAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ -~ ~ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2.. X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT Gooo YES X NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Al This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions,are approved by the applicant. Signatur~f Applicant ,,9 ~ Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on /f .- 0 Date //- Date Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Mr. Robert Generous PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Variance Application for 960 Carver Beach Road I have prepared another building concept plan for the construction of a single family home at 960 Carver Beach Road. Please refer to the attached bu. ilding pad drawing. This building concept requires the following variances: 1. Lot area variance of 9000 SF to permit a 6000 SF lot 2. Impervious surface coverage variance of 11% to permit 36% impervious surface coverage. 3. Lot width variance of 30 feet to permit a 60 foot wide lot. This concept is submitted for consideration to allow a reasonable use of the property. A reasonable use of the property is a single family home with a two-stall garage. Without a variance from the lot area, impervious surface coverage, and lot width a reasonable use cannot be constructed on this property. Furthermore, Carver Beach is a unique area of Chanhassen and many variances have been granted. The house pad fits within the buildable area. A two story home is proposed to limit the impervious surface and still construct a home with most modern amenities. bo The conditions upon which the variances are requested are applicable to Carver Beach, Red Cedar Point and Shore Acres. These lots were platted prior to the City being incorporated and most lots do not meet existing zoning requirements. c. The purpose of the variation is to construct a reasonable use on the property. d. The hardship is not self-created as the lots were platted in 1927. e. The variances will not create a detrimental situation for adjacent parcels. The variances will not impair lot supply, increase the congestion of the streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or diminish/impair property values within the neighborhood. The previous proposal reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commision was to be constructed by Habitat for Humanity. The current proposal is for the house I intended to build for my primary residence at the time I purchased the lot in 1998. I believe this house fits well in the neighborhood with minimal variances required.~?.~.:~.,.,:~. ~,. The letter submitted by Helen and Richard Roe dated November 25, 2000 contains statements which I find disturbing. Specifically, I disagree with the entire second paragraph. The Roe's have never spoken with me in regards to this lot. When Mr. Hempel, former Assistant City Engineer, was inspecting sidewalk damaged in conjunction with the Roe's garage addition; Mr. Roe indicated that he would be interested in purchasing the lot if I was ever interested in selling it. He indicated to Mr. Hempel that he would like to build a home for his daughter/son.on the lot. Please feel free to contact Mr. Hempel to confirm this conversation. This intent to build a home on the lot if they were to purchase it completely contradicts the entire first paragraph of said letter. I appreciate your review of this variance request based on its merits. Please contact me if you require further information. Anita L. Benson BG9509 - Dapper D e s i o-n ( ~ ills }louse not only accommodates a nan-ow lot, but it also fits a -.-... sit)ping site. Tile two-car :.4'arage is tucked under tl'~c home's first level. The angled, comer entp:, gwes way to a two-story living room with a tiled hearth. The dining room enjoys easy service from the efficient kitchen, and a large pantry, and an angled comer sink add character. The fa. mily room offers double doors to a refreshing balcony. A powder room and a laundr'; room compiete the main level. Upstairs. three bedrooms include a vaulted master suite with a private bath. The secondary bedrooms share a ~11 bath. and a hall,.vav sec'es as a balconv overlooking the living room. Design bv .Alan Mascord Desigm Associates. Inc. See page 158 for ordering instructions, or call 800/848-2S50. DININC '"'-5' : ,~'~'1 °"f ~';' Z X "'Q~'~-'. ---:727---- ..... ~ ..... o.,, FAMILY ,,e~. :"~;7-- ~LIVING -4'- - ;'.. - .~ ., ~X.'G'-;; '"'-q BR. 3 ~ ............ ~ q , ~' r~ HO.",IE PLAN IDEAS WINTER 1994 J-o~-~ qq~ ,c/~ 4- I000 o ¢, G© 2(! I 10' iX, Ac.,,.. LL V) '11 Ii (N DR! V,,-_ 2516ob85d, : . B:ACH H! 1020' ' ' iNV. i.'IiO'[211S8 .. . CARVER BEACH. ·. REVISIONS ~ ASBUILT . - APRIL, 1977 . .. CITY OF CHANHA MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER & WATER .PF MAPLE ROAD & Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COi PANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER TH~ LA~S OF STATE OF 7801 73rd ~enue North Fax Ho, 5~0-3522 ~nn~pol[~, ~nn~oL~ FLOYD OSHUNDSON. INVOICE NO, 51607 F.B.NO, 8t8-21 SCALE: 1" = 20' O Denotes kc~ t~or~m~nt for excavot[~ oily , xO00. O O~tes Exl.tlng Devotion ~ O~te~ ~f~e Oroi~ Lots 998, 999 and 1000.. Carver Beach ... Proposed build;n9 information must b¢ checked with cpprovcd bulidlng p!an before excavation and construction. ~'hc on!y casements shown or~ from plots of record or information pray;Ced by ct~ent. W¢ hereby c~rlJ[y that ~hls ;s o Iru~ and correct representation of o survey al the bot~ndaries of the above described lend and the location ci c~l bu~:d~ng~ ~d v~s~b!e encroachments, If any, from or on · ,aid land. S~rv~yed by us Ih"s 22bd day ,o~ DeCa~ Ig ~. Gregory R. Pr&~'ch/Mn g ' 24092 ZONING § 20-57 Sec. 20.44. Planning commission action. Following conclusion of the public hearing held by the planning commission, the commission shall report its findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment to this chapter, i~cluding the zoning map to the council. If no report of recommendation is transmitted by the planning commission within sixty (60) days following referral of the amendment to the commission, the council may take action on the amendment without axvaiting such recom- mendation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 3(3-3-4), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-45. Council action. Following planning commission consideration of an amendment to this chapter including the zoning map, or upon the expiration of its review period, the council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable, reject the amendment, or refer it to the planning commission for further consideration. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 3(3-5-5), 12-15-$6) Secs. 20-46--20-55. Reserved. DIVISION 3. VARIANCES Sec. 20-56. Generally. A variance from this chapter ,nay be requested only by the owner of the property or the owner's approved representative to which the variance would apply. A variance may not be granted which would allow the use of property in a manner not permitted within the applicable zoning district. A variance ma); hoxvever, be granted for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. In granting any variance, conditions may be prescribed to ensure substantial compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-1(1)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 131, § 4, 7-9-90) Sec. 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse. The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance, except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1) year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner .in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(1)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 196, § 1, 11-22-93) Supp. No. 12 , 1162.3 ZONING § 20.59 Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods' pre-existing standards exist. VarianCes that blend with these pre-ex/sting standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. (2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. (4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. (5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubhc welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. (6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fLre, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. (Ord. No. $0, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 131, § 3, 7-9-90) Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two.family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one (1) driveway and one (1) main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(2)), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 4 1163 § 20-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-60. Denial. Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(6)), 12-15-86) Sees. 20-61--20-70. Reserved. DMSION 4. NONCONFORMING USES*' Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet ali ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any noncon- forming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relo- cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Co) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. · (c) No nonconforming use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. *Editor's note-Sect-ion 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20-73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§ 20-71-20-78, which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp. No. 4 - 1164 ZONING § 20.73 (d) Full use of a nonconforming land use shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner diminished for a period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the nonconforming land use was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter.. Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, the nonconforming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes of this section, intensity of use shall be mea- sured by hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, odors, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. (e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruc- tion of a nonconforming struck~re to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to con- tinue the nonconforming structure. (f) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another noncon- forming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. (g) If a nonconforming land use is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the non- conforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this section shall terminate. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2.10-92) Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming lots of record. (a) No_variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single.family dwelling located on a nonconforming lot of record or which is a nonconforming use if it is destroyed by natural disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that of the destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years of the date of the destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the new dwelling and the new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all other city codes and regulations. (b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at lest seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter. (c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, 'there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot. (d) If two (2) or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots do not meet the width smd area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the Supp. No. 4 1165 § 20-73 CHANI-IASSEN CITY CODE contiguous lots shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter. If part of the parcel is sold, the sale shall constitute a self-created hardship under the variance provisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) Secs. 20.74-20-90. Reserved. DIVISION 5. BUILDING PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, ETC. Sec. 20-91. Building permits. (a) No person shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move or remove, any building or structure or part thereof without first securing a building permit. (b) An application for a building permit' shall be made to the city on a form furnished by the city. All building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of the lot to be built upon and the size and location of any existing structures and the building to be erected, off-street parking and loading facilities and such other information as may be deemed necessary by the city to determine compliance with this chapter and other land use ordinances. No building perCh, it shall be issued for activity in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. The city shall issue a building permit only after determining that the application and plans comply with the provisions of this chapter, the uniform building code as adopted and amended by the city and other applicable laws and ordinances. (c) If the work described in any building permit is not begun wfthin ninety (90) days or substantially completed within one (1) year following the date of the issuance thereof, said permit may become void at the discretion of the zoning administrator upon submission of documented evidence. Written notice thereof shall be transmitted by the city to permit holder, stating that activity authorized by the expired permit shall cease unless and until a new building permit has been obtained. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 4(3-1-4), 12-15-86) Cross reference--Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Sec. 20-92. Certificates of occupancy. (a) In accordance with the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city, a certificate of occupancy shall be obtained before: (1) Any nonagricultural building, except an accessory building, hereafter erected or structurally altered is occupied or used; and (2) The use of any existing nonagricultural building, except an accessory building, is changed. (b) Application for a certificate of occupancy shall be made to the city as part of the application for a building permit. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the city Supp. No. 4 1166 § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fiRy (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90i Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note--Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE XII. '~SlW' SINGLE.FA&IHJY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to pro~dde for single-family residential subdiwisions. (Ord. No._80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-hcensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) See. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING § 20-615 (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference--Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Whore Frontage le Measured At $oibaok Mno (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Neck / FI~I;; lots Lot Llflo 100/Lot (4) ~he maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, b, venty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617--20-630. Reserved. ARTICI,E XIII. '[lt.4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2000 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. · ~/IEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, UIi Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE, LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD. ANITA BENSON, TWIN CITIES HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. Public Present: Name Address Nancy Hall Dennis Schilling Matt Jacobs Wallace R. Christensen Robert B. Nelson Kermit Austad Keith Peterson Wally & Cheri Schwab 941 Western Drive 941 Western Drive 921 Western Drive 1001 Western Drive 970 Carver Beach Road 980 Carver Beach Road 921 Hiawatha Drive 950 Carver Beach Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair. Bob, can you talk to us a little bit about the front setbacks for tile two neighboring properties, both on tile east and on the west. Generous: I tried to look in the building permit data. The houses are too old so we don't have a Certificate of Survey so I had to base my calculations off of an aerial topo. And the one to the east is approximately 30 feet and the one to tile west would, is significantly more than that. It's 50 or 60 feet back. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: And then from the side lot line the property to the east is about, approximately 10 feet. It's hard to tell because I don't have the exact lot line configuration and the property to the west is approximately 30 feet off the side lot line. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay. And then a second question. Were any other styles of homes explored for this small a lot or are we just looking at the standard Habitat home at this point? Generous: It was specific to this request for the Habitat home. I.imagine that you could go with a two story and have a smaller pad. Blackowiak: Okay, thankyou. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. You state there have been many problems with non standard lot size developed there. And you state there have been several that were 10,000 or below. I'm actually curious, was there any significant number of that small a size? I mean 6,000 is more or less half of 10,000 and you make a statement, many properties that do not comply with the current city code have been developed in Carver Beach area. My question is xvell, how many were as severe, because we're looking at a very severe variance request here. Generous: I tried to look at some of that but I tried to also limit my search. I did go to GIS training today and learned to make some maps up and I did a queD, to determine lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in the general area. I don't know if it shows up very well. I just did this quickly before staff meeting but they show up as the highlighted spaces on the map and that is, the property in question is right in the middle of that. It's where tile road is. Sacchet: So in other words there is a significant number? ' Generous: Yes. Sacchet: So that would lead to a second question then. How many of those little ones have been developed recently? Generous: The one just katty comer was developed within tile last 4 years? 3 years? Audience: '94. Sacchet: So like 6 years, okay. Yeah, I have more questions but for now I think xvill suffice. Burton: Any other questions for staff'?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob? If the applicant had a 1,000 foot footprint, would it fit on tile lot without setback variances? Generous: I was trying to figure out ifa 960 square foot... Kind: Well 960. I was just rounding up but yeah, 960. Generous: It'd be tough with tile garage addition. Because that's what kicks it over on the one, at least the one side. Kind: So it's 3'our opinion that a variance is required for this? Plmming Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 Generous: Yeah. There's a variance necessary, well minimum for tile lot area, lot width and impervious surface. Kind: But the house size. Generous: tt could be, possibly it could be shrunk down. But then the livhlg area gets smaller, then you need a separate variance for that. Kind: But a p, vo story with a smaller footprint would get you enough square footage for a living area. Generous: That sounds ,,,er5, feasible, yeah. Kind: Okay. That's all. Burton' Ally other questions for staff?. Conrad' Yeah, the code dictates the size ora house. How do we do that? There's a code that does say that huh? Generous: In tile supplemental regulations. Conrad: No kidding. And what's tile point of that? I've never heard that before. Aanenson: \\-'e haven't had too really problems with that. Actually housing in Chanhassen tends to run well in excess of that. But we do have a minimum that was put ill a number of years ago with tile original ordinance and that's to protect, and we do require two car garages. Conrad: Yeah, I know that. Aanenson: Right, and that was the same, part of that. Conrad: Code is dictating tile size of the house? Aanenson: Yes. Depending on style. There's a different square footage for rambler, two stol'>'. Conrad: Second question. How does this fit into the neighborhood, regardless of setbacks and whatever. How does this fit into the neighborhood? Does it look right? Generous: I think so. It's oriented differently from tile neighbors homes. They have ramble styles that are long, lengthwise in their lots. This one is diagonal within it's lot. They've tried to, I call it a split entry but really it's not. It's a ramble xvith a basement because they have, they don't have the entrs, where it splits in at the foyer. The sizing's about right. Unfortunately again there's not a lot of data for the older Carver Beach neighborhood to look at. Conrad: Does it look odd or does it fit? Generous: \Vell I believe it fits in. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Burton: Other questions? Okay, does tile applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission. Could you please state your name and address please? Ryan Carras: Yes, I'm Ryan Carras. The land development manager for Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity and I can speak very briefly to a couple of the concerns. We're co-applicant with Ms. Benson, the current owner of the property. The need for the variance occurs having only 40 feet of buildable area and the requirement for a two car garage. Minimum size for a two car garage would be 20 to 22 feet wide, and on the width then you're left with only 20 feet ofa buildable area. Minimum, even on the two story would be about 24 foot wide house, therefore we would still have side yard variance necessary, even if we xvere to manipulate some of the other dimensions of the proposed structure. We did propose in this case a house that has been built by Habitat in several Twin Cities suburban communities again to meet the requirement of the minimum square foot of living space and the two car garage requirement and virtually any configuration will require a variance, side or front, back setback. As has been stated in the staff report we feel that this proposed style of house and structure that we are planning to build will fit in tile neighborhood, which is predominantly rambler and split entry style houses. Again looking at achieving the finished square foot space, you could go to a two story that is not the dominant Style ill the neighborhood. We would prefer to stay with what's in the neighborhood and go with the split entry. And because of that we fed that this is a reasonable use and consistent with the style of housing in the neighborhood. Burton: Any questions for the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah. Do you have houses with smaller footprint that you build? Ryan Carras: Tile house that we are proposing, the 1Mng space is 26 Wide by 44 long. \Ve do have one model that's 24 feet wide, but again added to the required garage that is not limited, it does notchange the need for a side yard variance in that particular configuration. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Call I have a motion to opel! tile public hearing? Kind moved, Saccbet seconded to open the public hearing. Tile public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address tile Planning Commission on this matter may approach the microphone. Go ahead. Can you please state 3'our name and address? Wally Schxvab: Good evening. My name is Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Can, er Beach Road, directly east of this proposed anomaly. Needless to say I'm the one probably most directly impacted by this proposal. We would like to state that when the property went for sale I inquired in the Chanhassen Planning Commission whether or not it was a buildable lot. After doing a little bit of background work I reported back to the Planning Commission, the person who's name I can't remember. I was told by this person that it was not a buildable lot. In conversation with the seller, Floyd D. Osmundson, the previous owner, he was also told by the Chanhassen Planning Commission that it was not a buildable lot. I referred to the proposal earlier as an anomaly. That is what I feel it is. A deviation from the normal. If you look into tile plot size of the upper end of Carver Beach Road, the planning people initially set out there to make spacious lots with reasonable setbacks. The entire area is laid out that way. This proposal would be a disruption to tile continuity of the neighborhood. The one version of the layout that I saw shows my garage being 25 feet by scale from my property line. In actuality it is 10 feet. That means I Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 will have this property 17 feet from my garage. To put a house, of any size for that matter, in such a small lot smacks of stuffing them in wherever xve can, ala Minneapolis. Have we in Chanhassen come to that point? Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address tile commission? Keith Peterson: Hi. My name is Keith Peterson and I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive, Chanhassen. I'm just kind of kitty comer to this lot. Basically xvhat I was going to approach tonight is variances are approved because of undue hardship, if I'm not mistaken. That's what Bob told me yesterday. And basically that means a property cannot be put into reasonable use because of it's size. I was reading through city code oil another one that was denied back in '96 and city code, Section 20 through 58 provides that a variance may not be granted if all of the following criteria are met. And number 4 that was listed there is that the alleged difficulty or hardship is not self, a self created hardship. And Anita Benson, I've never met her but she knew before she bought this lot. She was a City Engineer from what I understand. She knew before she bought this Iot that this lot was too small. So I would presume that would be a self inflicted, or a self created hardship. The way I look at it. And then number 3 in that same tiling is, that tile purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land. She bought this property for $4,200 in Chanhassen. The person that sold it is a realtor. If he thought it was buildable, do you think he would have sold it for $4,200 in Chanhassen? And I understand that right now she has an offer from them for $27,200. So to me that looks like an income and she's not living there herself so to me that looks like potential for income. So I would think number 3 and number 4 are not met. And I didn't have time to get detailed any others and I know on \Vestern, which is, or I could throw a rock from this lot to tile lot where it was denied because of income. The variance and that was a 14,000 square foot lot that was denied because it was 1,000 feet too small so. And then another thing. You know the profit here, it's over a 2 3,ear period and the city employee never once mowed that lawn. The neighbors had to take care of that property so we should havejust let it go and let the city come in and do it but so. And then another question on this map that you had here. \Vhat was the qualifications for those lots? \Vas it under 10,000? Generous: Equal to or less than 10,000. Keith Peterson' Equal to or less to, okay. So ans',vay, that's what I have to say. Burton: Thank you. Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Please state your name and address. Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road. I have the property that is directly west and directly north of this property. My property line to the west is 124 by 200. I also own tile property directly behind this which is 60 by 100, exactly the same size lot. My question is with inte~ity. Two parts. Integrity of the neighborhood with the size of lots that we have. Wally's lot and Keith's lot are both at least 10,000. Actually they're both 12,000 now. All the lots behind me are in the 15 to 20,000 square foot. I have about 26. So the integrity of that area, and all the lots to my west also are at least 100 by 200 foot so I disagree with Mr. Generous' assumption that this fits right into the neighborhood. It does not fit into tile neighborhood. It's a small, small lot. 6,000 square feet when eveFybody else is at 12 to 20,000. And the second part of my integrity question is with the information that we received by inquiring with tile City of Chanhassen. In a chronological timeline, Wally had questioned the buildable, or buildability on this lot and we xvere told no, it's not buildable. The lot went up for sale, we questioned it and tile realtor who owned the property bought it evidently for some speculation or whatever, decided to sell it at much less than what the current offer is on the property. So Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 my question is, we have somebody that's employed by the City purchasing this lot. We were told it's not buildable. Now after this person has purchased it, it goes up for sale and now we find out it's a buildable lot. So I do question integrity, both of the neighborhood. The continuity of the neighborhood and I also question the integrity ofwhoever's giving these answers. I was told it was a commission. I don't ~know if it was people before me here, but somebody is telling the wrong thing at the right time so to speak. So I'd like to take that into consideration. I knoxv this is just a preliminary action here but I can promise that we are going to continue our discussion on this. I'd like to get a show of hands of all the neighbors that are here that disagree with this proposal. Any neighbors on this side? No? That's a different story there. Well there is a considerable number of people here that disagree with what tile City is finding or what the Planning Commission so we are asking that this is denied, not only the variances. We do not want anything period built there. I don't know if anything can be done about that but that is our quest. Not just to deny variances. We want nothing built there at all. Thank you. Burton: Thanks. \Vally Schwab: Ma), I re-address the commission? Burton: Very briefly. We've got a lot. \Vally Schwab: Very briefly. May I ask if any of you or some of you have actually seen the site in question? Okay. For those who haven't, may I submit some pictures that I took of my lot, Bob's lot, the lot that is in question and the general area in regards to the setbacks, the existing setbacks. Burton: \Vhy don't you just give them up here and we'll pass them around and then we'll move on. \Vally Schwab: Then also may I inquire, have you all need the absentee letter from one, Mr. Dick Roe? Burton: It was in our packet. Wally Schwab: Alright. Then I would just submit my pictures and be done with that. Burton: Okay. Anybody else like to address the commission on this matter? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Commissioners comlnents oil this? \Vant me to pick someone? Sacchet: I can start. Burton: Okay. Sacchet: Bob, I have a question for staff. I mean there is this letter in the packet that states that the City has at one point declared that this lot is unbuildable and we have heard it from somebody different now that it \vas actually knoxvn at tile time this was purchased that this was unbuildable. Do we have any information about that from the City side? Generous: I don't. Aanenson: No. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Sacchet: We don't? Okay. In all respect to Habitat for Humanity, I do have a problem with this variance and I think it's important for me to separate it into two types of variances. One is the variance for some setback variances, which is one thing. But the big thing to deal with is the variance for the lot size and the frontage. And I'm well aware that there have been lots of variances in the Carver Beach area, but the examples that are given in the report at least are for lots that are 10,000 feet. I mean there's no example that is that severe as we are looking at here. And to me it looks like we're trying to shoe horn something in there and I personally am opposed to that. That's my comment. Burton: Okay, thankyou. Ladd. Conrad: I didn't raise my hand. Two quick questions. Tile:>, may have a right to build, but I guess I would have, I'll start at a different place. Variances are severe and it doesn't look like it really fits. And the neighbors, and a variance you listen to neighbors. I think if the neighbors said that this is comfortable, then I'd pay attention. In this particular case they're obviously not thrilled with this. The owner may have a legal right to do this but I guess I'd force them to exercise that proof, whatever legal matter, methods they have. Right now, so that may go with the properb, and probably does but at this point in time, I think the variances are too severe for the lot. I would turn it down. Burton: Alison. Blackowiak: I had a discussion with Kate yesterday I believe about lots of record or was it today? I'm not even sure. And according to what Kate said, any lot of record is a buildable lot, and that kind of surprised me a little bit. So regardless of how small a lot it is, I guess legally you have a right to build something on it as long as the zoning is consistent with what you want to buiId. Having said that, I do not like the variances on this lot. I think that there might be a'possibility if it were a different style house. If' it were tuck under garage or something so the variances wouldn't be quite so severe, but it does look like it's shoe horned itl. That was part of my reason for asking the question in regards to tile setbacks for the two neighboring homes because I was wondering if we could do something in terms of splitting tile difference on tile setbacks of the homes or son~ething and that doesn't even seem possible. So based on a lot of things, I just don't think it really fits as presented to us. And like Ladd said, whether or not they have a right to build is really not my questions right now. The plan before me I don't think fits and I think that something different may change m:)' mind in tile future but I'm not convinced that the plan we have tonight is appropriate for this lot. Burton: Thank you. Deb. Kind: I don't really have anything to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners. Burton: Okay. And I agree also. I like going through the variance analysis and looking at the different elements. I question whether there's an undue hardship and I don't 't,mow what other reasonable uses there could be to this properb, but perhaps there are other reasonable uses and I don't think that's been fully explored. I question whether this is a project designed to increase the income value of the property, and I also question whether this was a self created hardship and I think that also this ma:), be injurious to the other land in the neighborhood, so for those reasons I agree with tile comments of my fellow commissioners. So with that can I have a motion? Sacchet: Yeah, I can make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and so on. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Blackowiak: Second. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a %000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, a 15 percent variance from the 25 percent site coverage to permit site coverage up to 40 percent, a seven (7) foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback and a three (3) foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setbacks for the construction of a single family home at 960 Carver Beach Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: This matter does not pass and the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing an appeal, my notes say with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the Board's, our decision, and it will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Which may be when? Aanenson: Probably January. Burton: Probably in January. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED IN AN OFFICE/~VAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT 8170-8190 MALLORY COURT, ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions. Bob, parking. Are you happy with the day to day traffic parking requirements? I realize they're taking ahnost half the building so I'm assuming what's there will suffice, but. Generous: ...their peak hour usage is complimentary to the other uses... Blackowiak: For the worship services but for the other uses, they sound like they're fairly 9:00 to 5:00. I mean I could be wrong but. Generous: Yeah. It's a minimal part of their actual occupancy. Blackowiak: Okay. It just, there was a fairly long list. I just wanted to make sure you're okay with that. And secondly, the applicant is, I'm assuming okay with the limit to worship sen, ices evenings and weekends? Michelle Underdahl: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, those are my questions. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Variance for the Construction of a Single Family Residence APPLICANT: Anita Benson LOCATION: 960 Carver Beach Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Anita Benson, is requesting a variance for lot size and lot coverage to permit construction of a single family home located on Lots 998-1000, Carver Beach, 960 Carver Beach Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public headng is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. Dudng the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 4, 2001. LJ ... Smooth Feed SheetsTM :EONARD A & MARLENE M DUSOSK RUSTEES OF TRUST 000 WESTERN DR HANHASSEN MN 55317 AULA MALM-AUSTIN 90 WESTERN DR 'HANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W SCHILLING & NANCY J HALL 941 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATHIAS & JUDITH JACOBS 921 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160® THOMAS JR & HILDA REDWING 990 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KERMIT & ADELINE M AUSTAD 980 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I, REGORY & BARBARA J PEPPERSAC ~I0 WESTERN DR ~IANHASSEN MN 55317 LINELL BRECHT SANTELLA 881 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT B NELSEN & DORIS ANN PUTNAM NELSEN 970 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ONALD W & CAROL M ZALUSKY WESTERN DR -tANHASSEN MN 55317 'EVEN & GLORIA RAY 0 \VESTERN DR tANHASSEN MN 55317 WALLACE & M CHRISTENSEN 1001 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERNST & LOIS HERRMANN 991 \VESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANITA BENSON ~125 North 3rd Street. Aot.2 Mamhfield, ~N 58258 ' KEITH J & JULIE L PETERSON 921 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 kYLE J ODETTE 3 \VESTERN DR IANHASSEN MN 55317 MARY KAY HOGUE 6690 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN - PO BOX 33q MN 55317 WAL'FORD SCHWAB 950 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 iLLARD & NORMA S SHOBERG WESTERN DR ANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY J & JACQUELINE A HOFFMAN 860 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH M & LORi L HARRINGTON 901 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .NDY M & LITA M CANTIN ;)4 NEZ PERCE DR [ANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA R SKJERVOLD 900 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO 895 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~'Y OF CHANHASSEN SCOTT BOTCHER CITY CE..~aRT~ PO BOX 14 A~' HA'S-~E N MN 55317 ,NrRy C & IRENE A DIMLER ~72 LESLEY LN iEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 LARRY E SCHROERS 1020 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH H & SUSAN S SWANSON 1000 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES J & SUSAN E Z~ 895 CARV~ C..~bU4-A'SSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHE~..P.P.R...~ 690 CITY C~E-'R-DR PO BOX 14 C~SSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® JOSEPH M & LORI L HARRINGTON 901 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VUTHY SATH & NATALIE P SATH 6780 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD L & HELEN I ROE 6771 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A HJEP,&4STAD JR 6790 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAY E & MARY L MIKKONEN 6781 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTTIE L & ANN M BERG 6800 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 M KEITH & JAYNE M MOODY 960 PENAMINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GENE B & DEBORAH S ZIMMERLEY 6820 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IVAN LUKE S MADJOS & LEIMOMI LEA S/AURORA S NqADJOS 950 PENAMINT CT CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE A & ANGELA M ELLEFSO 6801 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 \ViLLIAM SHANE &MAP, Y L MURPH 940 PENAMINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J REMINGTON 6791 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M & TAMARA ENGESETHER 930 PENAMINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARNOLD E & LORNA LEMKE & MARIA A LEMKE 6781 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEVON K & JO ANNE M EKLUND 920 PENAMINT CT CHANHASSEN I542'4 55317 RONALD JAMES & LAURA M CLARK 1021 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEROY & WANDA BITELER 910 PENAMINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY A & KATHY L CLEM 1011 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY D & CHARLOTTE SAVALO 6770 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARLEEN & JEAN M MUELLER 1001 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Sc~tt Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law (651 ) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 Dh'eot Dial: (651) 234-6213 E-mail Address: rkm~tson~¢l,'-law.¢om ;\n,_Irea Mc[')owcll l"oeMer Matthew K. Brokl* John F. Kelly Matthew J. Fall Mar.,.z'ucritc NJ. McC:',rr, m Oma M. Brandt January 11,2001 Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: ANITA BENSON VARIANCE REQUEST- 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD (LOTS 998, 999, AND 1000, Carver Beach) Dear Bob: You asked me to review Benson's application for lot size, lot width, and lot coverage variances. Without lhe lot width and lot size variance the lot would be unbuildable. This is a classic "hardship" under state law and City ordinance qualifying for a variance. Failure to approve the minimum variance needed to build would also raise the. "taking" question. Generally, when regulations prevent all reasonable use of property a "taking" results that requires that the owner be compensated. ?~nn C~ntral Transportation Co. ~,. ]Very Yorlt' CIO.,, 438 US 104 (1978); Lucas ~,. South Carolina Coaxtal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). Deprivation of all reasonable use of property is not a taking, however, if the proposed use would constitute a nuisance. Although lot width and size variances are necessary to construct a house, a lot coverage variance may not be necessary. The City could determine that it is preferable to grant variances to garage or minimum house size requirements. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Roger N. Knutson ~ RNK:srn St:itc.31 7 ° E~gandalc Oi'ficc Cunt-er · 1380 Ct~rporate Center Curve ', EaZnn, N1N 55121 k~eicjhOori':ooO opposition to !_-!ran'tinrj wariar, ces for above iis',_'ecj.' property. Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Burton: Yeah, it will be first on the agenda on that meeting and, but instead of making people wait around until later in the evening, we want to let everybody know now. Now that we can see where we're at. And we apologize. It's hard to knoxv where you're heading. Well okay, we can move on then. REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON. Public Present: Name Address Wally & Cheryl Schwab Matt Jacobs Dennis Schilling Keith Peterson Bob Nelson Kermit Austad Joe & Lori Harrington Jerry & Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd 950 Carver Beach Road 921 Western Drive 941 Western Drive 921 Hiawatha Drive 970 Carver Beach Road 980 Carver Beach Road 901 Carver Beach Road 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Any questions for staff'?. Conrad: Bob, Mr. Chairnian. Bob, if we did not put any sewer stubs of water connections to this property, what was our thinking back then? What were we thinking oP. It was a lot of record so why didn't we do that? Generous: I don't know. I looked. Theyjust thought it would never develop. No one would want that small a lot. Of course other areas of Carver Beach we have 2 lot sites and 3 lot sites that have developed. However they did make them pay the area charge for those improvements but not the lateral charges. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify a few things. One thing is, it's a lot of record. That means the owner has the right to build on it? Generous: The City has to permit a reasonable use of the property. Sacchet: A reasonable use. So that's the right. Now in terms of how this proposed house fits into the neighborhood, I mean it fits on the lot somewhat. But considering it's a tuck under garage and then a txvo story, actually almost a 3 story house. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Most houses in that neighborhood are ramblers. So how do you conclude it fits into the neighborhood? Could you elaborate on that a little bit. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Generous: Well I went out to the neighborhood and just on that street I tried to take some pictures of the different house styles that are there and up the street to the east there was a split entry home and several to the west. Down the hill there are tuck under homes that were, well they looked like one story because they had more hill but they are a tuck under which is similar to this design. Property immediately to the northeast was a story and a half. So while it may be a little higher than the other houses in the immediate vicinity. You have a mix you know. Sacchet: Okay. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. On page 6 of the staff report there is discussion on the second paragraph about granting the imper~,ious surface relief would not significantly alter drainage patterns or increase storm xvater runoff. And that would be tile 36% impervious. Ifxve go with the minimum which is 30% impervious, would there be any benefit in that 6%? Are we really gaining much by holding the house size down to the absolute minimum that could be on this small lot? Saam: Not very much. 6% impervious area, you're not going to see much additional runoff in 6% or much less. Kind: Okay. The house pad size could, we could compel the applicant to make it smaller to meet that 600 square foot plus the garage size which makes it 384 square feet-smaller and then that would be the 30% coverage. I guess I'll have to think about that and discuss it a little bit more with you all later. What else? I guess that's it. Burton: Okay, any other questions for staff2. Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Last page of the staff report includes this letter fi'om Roger Knutson. I'm wondering if you could summarize that and simply the last two sentences there. Generous: Basically the lot area and lot width variances aren't enough. We have to provide additional relief to pernlit development of this property. Then the options lie gave were for her to construct a smaller house or to grant a coverage variance. And tie says you can, it's up to the City which they ,,,,,ant to do. Grant the variance for a smaller house, a one car garage or the impervious surface. Which would be the least impact to the neighborhood, to the community. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Okay. If not, would the applicant or their designee like to address the commission? Is there somebody here? Generous: I haven't seen them, no. Burton: Okay. Let's have a motion to open the public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. Tile public hearing was opened. Bulton: If anybody would like to address tile commission please approach the podium and state your name and address. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Wally Schwab: Good evening. I'm Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road. Directly adjacent to the proposed site. Last hearing you heard me talk about what I and others have been told about the buildability or non-buildability of the property. We won't go into that again considering the time. I would like to address a little bit of a proportionate error on the plan view of the proposed site. IfI may. I have here the submitted drawing showing a large area between the property line and my house when in reality it is a 10 foot and I do have the 20 foot setback as opposed to the lesser setback that the original drawing shows. Given the proximity I'm sure that you can understand thfit I'm not real excited about having a skyscraper 20 feet from my house. The entire upper Carver Beadh area has been, as I alluded to last time, laid out with spacious lots. This right here is my lot and this is ~ny neighbor's lot right here who does own the property. This is the mini lot that is in question. When you look at that area of Carver Beach Road you are aware that the houses are, as was alluded to, basically rather tight. Some of them do have a lower garage area but they're basically all wrapper types. I don't believe that the proposed structure fits into that area. What we are doing is disrupting the continuity of that area of Carver Beach Road, in my opinion. Part of the paperwork here involving this refers to the fact that there are no incentives for the properties on either side of this parcel to be purchased these lots. I take exception to that. It says since they are currently developed. They have enjoyed this private open space for at least 34 to 44 years. I have lived in my place for 19 years. In those 19 years my enjoyment of that property has been mowing it. When the property was sold as a result of my getting tired of mowing it, and not doing so, and this is fact, and the City called the original owner, Mr. Osmundson, and he at that time was no longer interested in keeping it. That led to the property getting sold. After it was sold in 1997-98, the first year after it had been sold it turned back into a weed lot. Last summer about midway through the summer I once again got tired of it being a weed lot and started mowing it. Which I didn't mind doing. What I'm getting at here is, there are no incentives for the properties on either side of the parcel to purchase these lots. That is incorrect. Myself, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Peterson would be very interested in purchasing these lots, incorporating them into our properties and thereby preserve the continuity of Carver Beach Road. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. State your name and address please. Keith Peterson: Keith Peterson, 921 Hiaxvatha Drive. Some of the stuffI stated last time but I feel like it needs to be brought up again so I apologize because you probably 'know what I'm going to say but anyway. Section 20-58 of the general conditions of granting. A variance may be granted only if the following are met. The purpose of this variation is not based upon the desire to increase the value or income potential of a parcel of land. In the findings of Mr. Generous' report it does say the ability to develop the site will increase the value of the property. Anita Benson is not building this house to live in so the only purpose is to create a profit. She bought this property for $4,200 and at the last meeting if the variances would have been approved, her selling price for just the lot would have been $27,200. What concerns us is the lot. The seller of this lot, who was a realtor and Mr. Schwab, were told that, by the City of Chanhassen that it was a non-buildable lot. When the City Engineer of Chanhassen buys it and then it's a buildable lot. So we see a little problem with that. And then number 4 alleges difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. Anita Benson was the City Engineer of Chanhassen and she was well aware of the codes before she bought this lot. Therefore we agree that it is a self created hardship. Then I was reading the zoning. To a division of for the non-conforming uses part and I forget, to me I understood this to mean you guys are supposed to kind of do. And number 3 says the purpose of this division is to encourage and eliminate a non-conforming uses, lots and structures or reduce or impact on adjacent properties. If the code states to encourage elimination ora non-conforming lot, should the City Engineer of Chanhassen purchase it and try to develop a lot that needs a 9,000 square foot variance, variance for lot size and variance for lot width and variance for lot coverage. Then in Mr. Generous' report too he states there is two lots within 500 feet that needed a variance. The first one, number 94-9 43 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 required a 5,000 square foot lot size variance and a 20 foot front setback variance on the east side of the house. Because of a rule that was in the plat book that was never built and had 20 year old trees on it, it required that 20 foot setback. And the road is now vacated which actually makes this lot and Mr. Schwab's lot 12,000 square feet so. And I'd also like to note that even though this house needed a variance, it's still 80 feet from Mr. Schwab's house, 114 feet from Mr. Nelson's house and 510 feet from the closest house to the east. Then the other variance, number 85-5 required a 17 foot rear yard setback variance and the nearest house to the rear yard is 380 feet so I don't think'they mind it too much. But then the last thing is, I look at the picture of this house. Take away the tail trees and imagine a rambler sitting 20 feet next to it. This house will be way over 2 times taller and it 'doesn't look like any of the houses in the neighborhood so thank you very much. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Sir. Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road, which is the property that is directly west and north of this mini lot as WaIIy called it, and I guess we all call it that. I just wanted to point a couple of things out. With tile staff report that we received, it xvas dated 1/11 which was last Thursday. We received it on 1/12 which was last Friday. That's only 5 days and part of it's a weekend so we haven't had a lot of time to prepare, even though we've been here before and I'm sure you guys received it probably after we did. So that doesn't give us a lot of time to prepare and as you'll see down the road, I may be a little short on some of the support that I've garnered here but actually the Vikings helped me out a little bit. I had some time on Sunday to get out and do that. But as Ladd brought up, tile non stubbing of the water and sewer. That's got to indicate something with a small lot like that. I'm not sure what that is. To me it indicates that it's really not a buildable lot. There was another reference to we've had the enjoyment of the 34 to 44 years of the open space that that provides. Well maybe that's in our favor because all the other lots are very open and spacious. Now since we didn't buy this lot we didn't realize it was buildable. And in regard to the setbacks, or I'm sorry, to the variances that were denied before. It stated that they were denied because they were too much. Actually they were denied because this really, the house didn't fit there. This one doesn't fit there either. Not in that neighborhood. I've got 30,000 square foot lot. They've got t2,000 square foot lots now and those are the small ones. There v,'as a reference to 2 or 3 lots that are in the neighborhood that only have the same amount of space. I'd like to know where those are. I can't find them. If there are, there's an 8,000 square foot lot xvhich is close but it's still not 6,000 square feet. The variances are, you know you want a 60% reduction in the lot size. You want a 33% reduction of frontage and you're looking for an additional 11% lot coverage. That's quite a bit for a 6,000 square foot lot I think. Another thing, there was no purchase incentives that Wally brought up. We've made numerous inquiries via telephone with Ms. Benson. We receive only answering machine which is fine. We can leave a message but never a call back. Actually I even broke down and called her work today. She's not available. She's out of town for the entire week so we have no way of doing it. We would be interested at a reasonable price to purchase that lot and divide it up like Wally had mentioned. They also mentioned the critical differences in the scale that was presented in a report versus what actually is. I think that's a concern for us. And that brings me to what I talked about before and that was ethics. Both with us and with the report that we have. There's many different stories that were told to different citizens that called in to inquire about this lot. We did not realize it was a buildable lot until basically after it went up for sale and when we inquired it was already sold. We see a very active role in the staff in getting the variances passed here, both on the previous proposal and this proposal. That concerns me. Why is that happening? I'm not sure. The majority of the neighbors that I canvassed and I was only able to get to about 20 of them on Sunday, are all against this. I do have, it's my only copy but since we had such a short time I've got a number of signatures with their addresses that they oppose this proposal. I also in questioning that last item, we questioned the 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 $4,200 that it was purchased for and the potential $27,200 that it could be sold for. That might ansxver all those why's that we have on our other questions. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission? Kermit Austad: I'm Kermit Austad. I live 980 Carver Beach Road. Just west of that there. What I can't understand is how these, when the sewer went in and went from 18-20,000 feet. Now they're trying to get it on 6,000 feet which at that plan it was a non-buildable lot. Now if it would have been buildable, I think a lot of local people here would have taken advantage of that a long time ago. Also you put a house, I seen a drawing out at, looked like a 3 story from the front and you place that in an area where it's ramblers and stuff, you know what it does to your resale value for that house and the ones around it. Because I've built houses for 40 years and we never did this because of the fact if you build supposedly a $400,000 house and you've got a $125,000 rambler to it, you know what it does to that $400,000 house. Right down. The house just don't fit there. That's all I can think of. Thank you. Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission on this one. Debbie Lloyd: Hello, my name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I was here at the last meeting when we addressed this property. And I want to say to the neighbors, forgive me ifI misunderstood you but did not a number of you approach the city staff and ask if this were a buildable lot? Audience: So we can buy it so it wouldn't be built on. Debbie Lloyd: Correct. And you xvere told they have no report of that question being asked. And I want to tell you that you're not the only ones in this community that have had that response from the planning department. And I think it's time we start holding the planning department accountable for what they tell the citizens of this community. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Okay, motion to end public hearing. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close tile public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Breton: Comments. Sacchet: Dear oh dear. Conrad: I don't know where we go Mr. Commissioner. It's real uncomfortable. It's real uncomfortable. I don't like it and there's a lot of hearsay that we, I just don't like it. So on the one hand I think we should, if it is, legally it's buildable regardless of who said what to who. Legally it's buildable. But legally I have no need to allow a huge house, even in a. Burton: Is it buildable without a variance? Conrad: You've got to let them build. Burton: Well I'II wait. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Conrad: And there will be variances but you've got to let them build so, so you know, on the one hand I think we should say well the house can have 600 square feet and we can let them have a garage. That's it. Now they just might do that and that would, I'm not sure if that's smart to do or not. IfI owned property that was fairly cheap. But we could just let them build the minimum and hope that they may sell. Burton: Comments Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, just to expand on that a little more. What you brought ou;t. From the letter from the city attorney it's my understanding that we do need to grant the two parts, the size variance and the lot width variance because it's a reasonable use to build a house on it, okay. But that by itself is not enough. To build something they need either relief on the impervious surface coverage, or on the minimum house size and/or that 2 car or is it 3 car, 2 car garage requirement. So one of those 3 is necessary to make it buildable. So it appears that from a legal viewpoint we have to give them 1 of those 3. Now if we restrict what's being built there further, and I think that's where you were getting at, we are bringing down the value ultimately of that structure. By bringing down the value of that structure, it also impacts the value of the surrounding...I mean out of context, I don't believe it fits into the context. But out of context it's definitely a nice house. And it's very nice how it fits on that lot with the front and side setbacks and back setback and that really has to be noticed. So if we restrict it, we say well we don't give them the impervious surface variance but we give them a variance on one of the other ones to make it somewhat workable, we decrease the value of the structure xvhich then in turn has a decreasing value effect on the neighborhood. So that's what I'm saying, it's Catch-22. Now we can say it doesn't fit into the neighborhood now. Well, is there a potential that maybe as there's turn over and you guys build new houses and 3'our kids want a second story on top of your rambler, that all ora sudden it starts fitting better? I don't know. But I thin we have to be open minded here a little bit and I'm really torn because on one hand it doesn't fit. There seems to be some funny business. I mean I feel uncomfortable about the fact that somebody builds a lot that may or ina), not be buildable. Happens to be somebody that . knows supposedly ordinances very well and all of a sudden it becomes buildable. Yeah, well that's my comments. ! don't think it helps much but. Burton: Okay, thanks. Do you want to? Go ahead Alison. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah I agree. I do like this house plan. Much better than tile last plan. However, like the last plan I don't think it fits into the neighborhood. I just don't, I can't see why she wants to build this house on this lot. I just, it's and it's Habitat for Humanity is no longer involved. I don't understand. I guess maybe I don't even need to understand. I won't even go there. I don't like the house oil the lot. I think that if there is the possibility for the neighbors to make some kind of an offer to the present property owner, that maybe should be explored before we go on and start granting variances. But then again I don't want to run afoul of the law in terms of not granting the proper variances because indeed it is a lot of record. Whether or not it was ever mentioned to be built on is another question but it is a lot of record so we don't want to run into that problem I don't think. But I think if there's a possibility that the neighbors would be interested in purchasing it and a possibility that if the present owner is, it doesn't look like going to be living there personally, then maybe that option should be explored before we move forward with granting variances for a lot that I really don't think should be built on in the first place. Burton: Other comments? 46 Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I think Ladd stated things correctly, at least in my opinion that I think in this case we're dealing with a proposal that has a huge house on a small lot. We really don't want that. It just doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. So I think we should start the applicant off at the smallest house possible and work up if that's necessary. But you know realizing that you have to have reasonable use but it still has to fit into the character of the neighborhood. It's just too big for the surrounding property. Nice house though. Burton: Deb. Kind: I'll go next. You probably could tell from my questions of Matt about the impervious surface that I have a quandary similar to Uli's and that is, it's a nice looking house and if6%, 36% of 30%, what difference does it make? It's pretty similar as far as runoff goes but we could limit it to, it's a puny lot. What are we calling it, a mini lot? I kind of like puny. That's what my daughter would say. So we should put the smallest, mini house on that lot and how would the neighbors feel about that as far as the bringing down the prices of homes in the neighborhood so, Uli already touched on that and I agree with that so that's my quandary. And also the aspect about reasonable use not departing downward from the neighborhood, pre-existing standards. Variances that blend xvith pre-existing standards without departing doxvnward meet the criteria. I think that we could put a condition that says the building height should not exceed 2 stories including the garage level, which 'knocks offa story of the house and we could approve the minimum surface coverage which is 30% and then approve the necessary setbacks for, or necessary variances for the lot size and the what else. And the lot frontage. And limit the height and that can fit the smallest house possible. I think we could do that tonight. I would be willing to do that tonight. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair before we go further. I read that the site coverage is 25%. Bob I heard you say something about 30%. If we're going to even be considering lowering percentages, what's the percentage we should be looking at? Generous: Well 25 is the ordinance requirement. Blackowiak: Correct. Generous' 30% is based on that analysis of the 600 square foot per square 1Mng area. A 25 by 24, or 24 by 24 garage and a 20 by 30 foot driveway. Blackowiak: Okay. The driveway plan that was submitted was less than 20, whatever you just said. Sorry. It was kind ora Y shape almost and so the surface area of the driveway was, let me see. Generous: 576. Blackoxviak: I'~n sorry? Generous: 576. Blackowiak: 576. And what was what you were saying? Generous: 600. Blackowiak: Okay. So we're not gaining that much, okay. So it's 30% then is what your take is would be the bare minimum? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Generous: Yes. On the 2 story home meeting the criteria for single family home. Blackowiak: So 2 story above and beyond the garage? So 3 story looking at it? Generous: No, no. No, you could call that, it would be a tuck under. So you could have part of the first floor adjacent to the garage and the second floor. Blackowiak: On top of, okay. Generous: And above the other living area. Kind: That's what I xvould propose that xve could do tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Burton: Well my comments also are that I really don't like this issue and like Ladd, I kind of sunk when I kind of thought, here we go again but I do think that this one needs the extra scrutiny. Normally I'm pretty forgiving on variances but there's some factors here that mandate that we look at this one a lot harder. One is the lot size and I think the applicant's relationship with, in history with the city merits us looking at it a little tougher. And then neighborhood opposition and I also think it's pretty apparent that all the neighbors thought this was a non-buildable lot or one of them would be the owner of it. You look at the standards for granting a variance and one of the main one is a reasonable use. And I look at the language in our report and from what I 'know of land law and real estate law, that a reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of the comparable property but there are other uses which could be reasonable uses. I don't think it'd have to be, that this has to be a house or it's not a reasonable use. And I don't know enough as to whether or not there are other reasonable uses of this property which would past mustard. For instance, could renting the property just as a vacant lot to the neighbors be a reasonable use? It might be. Could it be used for storage within the zoning? I don't ~know. I haven't studied that but perhaps there are other reasonable uses that can be made of the property and at this point I'm not entirely convinced. I do think that the house is an obvious reasonable use but I think that there could be other reasonable uses. And then if we determine that there are other reasonable uses, it does seem that I just don't believe that this would ever, the chances of this being litigated are pretty slim. Just for the amount that. Blackowiak: From the attorney. Burton: I think there's not enough at stake on the owner's end to warrant a lot war on this one. I question whether the purpose of the variance is to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Don't know but it sure does seem to be and as to whether or not the hardship is self created or not, it's kind of interesting because I don't know the law on that. When you acquire an existing condition, is that self created? And it'd be one thing if you owned it since it was platted but when you acquire it at a later date, is that self created? I don't 'know the answer so I can't say that that one passes. Granting the variance will not be detrimental for the public welfare or injurious to the other land. It does seem that it would be injurious to the other land so I'm not sure I could pass that requirement. And it makes me wonder, xvhat if this lot was even smaller than it is? You 'know, what if this was 2? Are they still going to, will we still have to shoe horn a house in there because it could fit with? I don't think we would have to. So I have problems with it and I'm inclined to vote against it. So does somebody want to make a motion? 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Conrad: Well let's talk about this. The intent, obviously the city didn't think this was going to be a lot. That's why it wasn't stubbed in. We didn't think it was going to be built on. We thought somebody would buy it. Merge it with, never happened. Somebody's got it right now so we can do a couple things. Matt, we can test the law saying they don't qualify for the variances. That's one alternative. The other alternative is for us to allow the owner to put a minimal size, because it is a very substandard lot, we will allow a very small house on this which means 600 square feet of living space, 720 feet of garage space, and a driveway that accounts for 600 feet. That is what they can do. Tw6 stories high max. Now that could be bad. That's one of those, they could do it and I don't want that ts happen. I would think that would discourage it. Kind: That was helpful. Sacchet: Basically what you're saying is, if you give the lot size variance and the frontage variance, that's what they can do. 600. Conrad: I don't care about tile variances to tell you tile truth. They can build the minimum. If they, if it's a lot of record, they can build the minimum that the law requires and that's 600 square feet of living space, a 2 car garage and a driveway that gets there and they can't build more. Burton: To me the burden is on the applicant and the applicant hasn't met the burden. That doesn't ~nean that by denying it that we're saying that they couldn't come up with something. But they haven't given us something that carries that burden. They can come back. Conrad: And deny that because, what's your rationale for denying it? Burton: \\fell they haven't explored, they haven't articulated their analysis of other reasonable uses and why they may or may not work. Conrad: Yeah, we could do that Matt but I, I really can't think of one reasonable use other than a house or selling it. You know it's not crop land. I just can't imagine what it would be. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair but ifI look at the findings for variances and specifically (c) and (d) regarding the desire to increase the value or income potential and alleged difficulty is not a self created hardship, I don't know that this application meets those two criteria. And if'you don't meet all the criteria, you don't have to grant a variance. So for me it's a fairly cut and dry. Burton: You can say right there. The applicant hasn't met their burden on those txvo items. Blackowiak: Right. Burton: They have given us no evidence. Conrad: What are the items again? Blackowiak: (c). The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. And (d), the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. Now just because the lots were platted in 1927 doesn't mean that the present purchaser didn't know the condition when the purchase was inade. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Kind: In fact you could argue she knew. Conrad: Okay. That's probably reasonable that we could deny it. Sacchet: And we can also include (e) if you. Burton: I think all of them you could make an argument with. Sacchet: The granting of the variance xvould be detrimental to the neighborhood. Burton: Well it would. If we give them the bare minimum, that's a loser for the neighbors and if you let them do it it's a loser. Conrad' There's enough ofthein that maybe that's enough to pursue. Burton: So does somebody want to make a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll do this one. I'll move the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement and an 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36% for the construction ora single family home based on the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated Findings C and D as outlined in tile staff report. Page 7. Burton' Is there a second? Kind: I'I1 second it. Burton: Any discussion? Well I'I1 wait. I'm going to vote £or it but I also think tile applicant hasn't met their burden on any of the conditions, not just those. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement and an 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36% for the construction of a single family home based on the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated Findings C and D as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A 50 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE CENTER OF THE CREEK TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOT 11~ BLOCK 1, SHADOWMERE, 500 BIGHORN DRIVE, DEAN AND SUE STANTON. Public Present: Name Address 50 CITYOF CHANHASSEN January 17, 2001 ~ Ci0, Ce, terDriL,e, PO aox 147 7/_,a,hasse,, Mi,,esota 55317 Pho,e 6IZ937.1900 Ge,eM Fax 612. 93Z 5739 'gi, ee~q~g Fax 612.93Z 9152 }~b/ic S,~O. E~.v 612.93&2W4 Ms. Anita Benson 125 North 3rd Street, Apartment 2 Marshall, MN 56258 Re: Variance Request 2000-14 Dear Anita: 1 am writing this letter to confirm that on January 16, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission denied your variance request for a 6,000 square foot lot, a 60 fbot lot width, and 36 percent impervious surface coverage of your property at 960 Carver Beach Road, Lots 998,999, and 1000, Carver Beach Addition. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the request. The Planning Commission found that you did not meet the burden of proof for approving a variance. Specifically, they determined that the purpose of the variation was based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Im~d and that the alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship since you kmew zoning ordinance requirements prior to your purchase of the property. They also expressed their sense that you have not fully explored alternate reasonable use of the property. Unfortunately, you were not present at the meeting to present your case or to answer questions. You or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the city within four (4) days after the Commission's decision (by Monday, January 22, 2001). The neighbors at the hearing expressed an interest in purchasing the property if a reasonable price could be agreed upon. You may wish to pursue selling the property to the neighbors. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 937-1900 extension 141. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Jan-22-O1 lO:31A LYON CO. HIGHWAY DEPT. 507 537 6087 P. Mr. Robert Generous PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Variance Application for 960 Carver Beach Road Please consider this letter my formal request to appeal the Jan.uary 16,2001, Planning Comn-~ission decision to deny the variance request for 960 Carver Beach Road. I appreciate the City Council's review of the variance request based ot~ its merits. Please contact mc if you require £urther information, Sincerely, .,~.~/~._ '----'"'2" "2.""' 4 __. Anita L. Bcnson CITYOF 690 Cio, Center Drive ?0 £ox I47 7h,mhamn, Mimmota 55317 Pholle 952.937.1900 Oneml Fa.v 952.937.5739 :%gineeri,g Depm'tme, t Fax 952.937.~152 Buildi,g Depart.tent Fax 952.~34.2524 lt3b Site 'u'u'. ti. cha,hassc;L m;t. us February 5,2001 Dear Resident: This letter is to inform you that Anita Benson, the applicant, has requested an appeal of the Planning Conm~ission's denial of the variance application for 960 Carver Beach Road. Pursuant to Section 20-29(d), any aggrieved person may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council upon filing of a written request appealing such decision. The appeal is scheduled on the City Council agenda for Monday, February 12, 2001. The City Council meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the lower level of City Hall. Sincere!y5 Robert Generous Senior Planner LEONARD A & MARLENE M DUSOSK TRUSTEES OF TRUST 1000 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W SCHILLING & NANCY J HALL 941 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS JR & HILDA REDWING 990 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAULA MALM-AUSTIN 990 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATHIAS & JUDITH JACOBS 921 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KERMIT & ADELINE M AUSTAD 980 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY & BARBARA J PEPPERSAC 940 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LINELL BRECHT SANTELLA 881 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT B NELSEN & DORIS ANN PUTNAM NELSEN 970 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD W 8,: CAROL M ZALUSKY 960 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALLACE & M CHRISTENSEN 1001 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANITA BENSON 7701 CHANHASSEN RD #332 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN 8:, GLORIA RAY 920 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERNST & LOIS HERRMANN 991 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH J & JULIE L PETERSON 921 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GAYLE J ODETTE 900 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARY KAY HOGUE 6690 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN PO BOX 337 MN 55317 WALFORD SCHWAB 950 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLARD & NORMA S SHOBERG 980 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY J &. JACQUELINE A HOFFMAN 860 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH M & LORI L HARRINGTON 901 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDY M & LITA M CANTIN 6694 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA R SKJERVOLD 900 HIAWATHA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO 895 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY E SCHROERS 1020 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES J & SUSAN E ZECCO 895 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HENRY C & IRENE A DIMLER 15372 LESLEY LN EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 RALPH H & SUSAN S SWANSON 1000 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ;EPH M & LORI L HARRINGTON CARVER BEACH RD ANHASSEN MN 55317 VUTHY SATH & NATALIE P SATH 6780 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ;HARD L & HELEN I ROE '1 PENAMINT LN ANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A HJERMSTAD JR 6790 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ¥ E & MARY L MIKKONEN ;1 PENAMINT LN ANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTTIE L & ANN M BERG 6800 PENAM1NT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 lEITH & JAYNE M MOODY PENAMINT CT ANHASSEN MN 55317 GENE B & DEBORAH S ZIMMERLEY 6820 PENAMINT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 tN LUKE S MADJOS & MOMI LEA S/AURORA S MADJOS PENAMINT CT ANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE A & ANGELA M ELLEFSO 6801 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~LIAM SHANE & MARY L MURPH PENAMINT CT {NHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J REMINGTON 6791 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,lES M & TAMARA ENGESETHER PENAMINT CT ~kNHASSEN MN 55317 ARNOLD E & LORNA LEMKE & MARIA A LEMKE 6781 REDWING LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CON K & JO ANNE M EKLUND PENAMINT CT kNHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD JAMES & LAURA M CLARK 1021 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~.OY & WANDA BITELER PENAMINT CT ~NHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY A & KATHY L CLEM 1011 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IOTHY D & CHARLOTTE SAVALO 0 PENAMINT LN {NHASSEN MN 55317 ARLEEN & JEAN M MUELLER 1001 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Date: February 4, 2001 To: Chanhassen City Council From: Carver Beach Road Neighborhood Residents Subject: Variance Proposal Case # 00-3 VAR Anita Benson / Applicant ~2000-14 We are requesting a denial of variances and building permits at the requested location on Carver Beach Road. This refers to lots ..x~398,999, 1000 currently owned by 'Anita Benson of Marshall MN. Anita was a city employee at the time she purchased this property. We offer the following points to support our position. Me.a_suvab!e and Doemnented Facts A.) The lot size is 6,000 sq, ft, All adjacent, or nearby lots are !.0,000 sq. ft. or larger. Proposal does not fit the continuity of lot. size and building style of the neighborhood. Code requires minimum 15,000 sq. ft.. This request represents a 60°4 reduction in lot size . B.) Lot fl'ontage, from 90 ft. minimum t.o 60 ft. A 33% reduction. Lot depth, fi'om 125 ft. to 100 ft. Impervious coverage, fi'om 25% to 36%. No Yard Space! Squeezed onto the lot and will stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the neighborhood. C.) Long standing trees are on the small lot and will need to be removed and it is ~,,~,re~foA that new trees should be planted to replace D,) If variances are granted, the value of property in question will increase and if a house is built the value of adjacent property will decrease. E.) Owner does not reside in city and indicated no plans of moving back to Chanhassen. Owner was conspicuously absent from first two hearings. Money appears to be the only motive! F.) Planning Commission has unanimously turned do;vn all variance requests at prior hearings. G.) Carver Beach Road area residents are opposed to granting of these variances. A petition signed by many of the residents was submitted at the last hearing and additional signatures will be submitted at any new hearings scheduled. Ethics A.) A number of requests fo~.' info}.'mation on the property were submitted to the city when property was first offered for sale. Different answers were issued to those who requested information. The general consensus to us was that the lot was too small to build a home. Chanhassen City Council P. 2 2/04/01 B.) Information became more detailed after the property was purchased by Ms. Benson, a city employee, including that it was certain to be built on and there was little we could do to change that fact. C.) Even though we feel that the Planning Staff members are very qualified for their job, we find it difficult to understand what their motives are for pursuing this project with as much vigor as they have to this point. Since Ms. Benson was formerly employed by the City of Chanhassen, we hope that they are not influenced by this fact. Ms. Benson's long distance persistence seems to be supported by the staff's labor. Do all applicants get this same vigorous support? We all would be very disappointed in the ,granting of variances and building permits for this property in question. The Planning Commission has shown its support and we are very grateful for their foresight. ~Sre hope that the City Council is able to show that same foresight and restore some confidence in the governing entities in this city. Respectfully submitted, cc: Chanhassen Planning Commission February 3, 2001 Ms. Anita Benson 125 North Third Street Apartment Marshall, MN. 56258 Ms. Benson; It is our understanding that you are not planning to live at the proposed buildir site on Carver Beach Road (Lots # 998~ 999, 1000). You are seeking major variances' to approve this land for building but have been unanimously turned do~vn by the Chanhassen Planning Commission twice. It is our belief that building a home on this property (6,000 square feet) would interrupt the continuity of the current homes and sizes that now exist and would significantly reduce property values surrounding the proposed site while increasing the value of the property in question. Since you do not plan on living in this area, the residents directly adjacent to your property would like make an offer to you to purchase this property with intent of splitting your 6,000 squa feet and the same size parcel behind you to allow the two lots to the east enough area put both lots @ 15,000 square feet and to square off the property to the west. The offer would be $6,000.00. You would recover your initial investment of $4,200.00 and cover additional expenses that you may have incurred. We are dedicated to the task of preventing any type of building on this property and already have the support of the Chanhassen Planning Commission and we hope t get the support of the Chanhassen City Council. Your proposal just does not fit in the area and appears to be solely an investment opportunity which violates city building ~ codes as currently written. Our offer is a clear way to put closure to this situation with no one losing on the deal. Please feel free to contact any one of us with any questions or response you have to our ideas. Our numbers are in the last report put out by the Chanhassen Planning Staff. Sincerel~ Keith &4/~alie Peterson W~2'all y &?hervl ~qehwab Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission