1h. Gary Carlson Variance Request
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Josh Metzer, Planner~I
August 28, 2006 JJ .
".-
DATE:
SUBJ:
GARY CARLSON - Request for front yard setback Variance and
Intensification of a Nonconforming Use - Planning Case 06-23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After-the-fact Variance requests for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing
four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure
restriction for the intensification of a nonconforming use.
City Council held a hearing on July 10, 2006 and voted totable the variance
requests in order to give the applicant time to remove 7 accessory structures from
the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote
of 4 to O.
Based on direction from City Council, the applicant
buildings. The applicant has also applied for and re
permits (contingent upon approval of variance r
were constructed without permits. These
requirements.
ACTION REQUIRED
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the adoption of the motion a
as specified on the attached recommendation
granted a condition will be attached stating th
subdivided the variance shall become void.
he requested variances
If the variances are
hen, the property is
The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Todd Gerhardt
Gary Carlson Variance - Planning Case 06-23
August 28,2006
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
1. Recommendation.
2. Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 20, 2006.
3. July 10,2006, City Council Minutes.
4. June 20, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes.
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-23 carlson variance\executive summary ii.doc
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following
motion:
"The City Council approves the variance for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing
four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure
restriction in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District to permit 4,917 square feet of
detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the
staff report with the following conditions:
1. Building permits for the four-stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed
must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be
permitted.
3. If, and when, the property is subdivided these variances shall become void."
CC DATE: J1ily lQ August 28,2006
[I]
PC DATE: June 20, 2006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE: Jlllj'12
September 16, 2006
CASE #: 06-23
BY: JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: After-the-fact Variance request for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing four-
stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure
restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District.
LOCATION: 3891 West 62nd Street
Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts
APPLICANT: Gary & Maureen Carlson and
Alan & Megan Moore
3891 West 62nd Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 3.86 acres
DENSITY: NA
-<
~
-<
~
~
~
~
rJJ
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief from 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an
existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction.
Staff and Planning Commission are is recommending denial of the request.
The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request
which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has
agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
~Ttm8 2() ./111,' ]() August 28,2006
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact Variance for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback
requirement for an existing four-stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief
from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 4,917 square
feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891
West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62nd Street.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(6) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, 30 feet.
Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures.
(1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet.
DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES
Sec. 20-71. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is:
(1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but
which no longer meet all ordinance requirements;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use,
building, or structure; and
(3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact
on adjacent properties.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in
1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained
an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the
subject property was given a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential. The agricultural use has not
changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming
use.
In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory
structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square-foot four-stall garage (marked A on
graphic below), a 526 square-foot "loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square-foot "machine storage
shed" (marked C). Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that
have been built without a permit.
The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request
which was denied. The current reQuest is different from the previous reQuest in that the applicant has
Rt!f88tl t8 removed two additional existing accessory structures. The two storage sheds to be removed are
located to the south of the principal structure. They are 216 square feet and 227 square feet in area
respectively for a total of 443 square feet of accessory structure to be removed.
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
.ktl~B 2f} .:Iti13' !f} August 28, 2006
Page 3
There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property, Two of the
neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject
property has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are
currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed, it is intended to connect Pipewood
Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62nd Street via the subject property.
ANAL YSIS
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
~r~ilm8 2(} Jiil;: ! () August 28, 2006
Page 4
1,000 Square-Foot Accessory Structure Restriction
The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square-foot
accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use
and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A2 and RR districts do not have an
accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface
coverage.
The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering
these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the
City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square-foot pole barn on the property.
Approval of the building permit for the pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures
comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five
structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the
square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be
constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole barn since this improves conditions for the
horses on the site.
The applicant has also agreed to remove two storage sheds (pictured below), located south of the principal
structure, contingent upon approval of this variance request.
There are currently thirteen detached accessory structures on the subject property totaling 6,566 square feet.
With the removal of seven of these structures the property will contain six structures totaling 4,917 square
feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square-foot accessory structure restriction by 3,917 square feet
and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By
building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing
nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the
elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses.
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
~}Ul~& 2{} ..,Tul;' 1 (} August 28, 2006
Page 5
Front Yard Setback Variance
The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from the 3D-foot front yard setback requirement for
an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street.
Accessory Structure A (four-stall garage)
The existing right-of-way for West 62nd Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey.
The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62nd Street lies within Shorewood.
Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street.
By providing a 3D-foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage
should a vehicle veer off West 62nd Street. The applicant has a short boulder wall approximately two or
three feet in height on the south side of West 62n Street which provides a physical barrier between the
subject property and passing traffic.
- ':~':;:c~?,-~~~:;;cc''':: ~7_'-~~_
......
.~~_.,.
View of four-stall garage from West 62n Street facing southeast
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
.ltJn8 2() ,/uly !f) August 28, 2006
Page 6
The small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, has been
sketched on the survey by the applicant. Due to these features' proximity to the four-stall garage, it
appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty
maneuvering between the house and the garage ifthe garage met the 30-foot front yard setback
requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30-foot setback there would still be enough space for
the commuter bus to make a three-point turn pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up
and exiting the property.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the
definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable
property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of
variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances
that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these
criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject
property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were
adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow
the continued use of the three accessory structures in question.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single-Family Residential District, however, not to agricultural lands.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential ofthe parcel ofland.
Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit;
this constitutes a self-created hardship.
5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the
garage to the public street.
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
J1.m8 2f1 ~Ttll,' ! () August 28, 2006
Page 7
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances,
or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the Plmmi:n.g C~mmiggi~:n. City Council adopt the
following motion:
"The Plmmiftg Csmmi8si~ul City Council denies the variance for a 22-foot front yard setback for an
existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in
the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the
staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The applicant will be able to continue the nonconforming agricultural use without the three storage
buildings which were constructed without building permits.
The Plaooiag CSmm.i88isll City Council orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the
three storage buildings."
Should the Plallftillg Csmmissisll City Council choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the
Platmillg Csmm.issisll City Council adopt the following motion:
"The Platmillg CSmDlissisll City Council approves the variance for a 22-foot front yard setback for an
existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in
the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at
3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. Building permits for the four-stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained
and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted."
The Plftflftillg CSmmiSSiSll City Council has numerous options for alternatives to either of these
recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not
all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures, staff recommends a condition be
added stating:
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-23
~ftlH8 2() Jul}' ! () August 28, 2006
Page 8
1. Building permits must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter from Luke Melchert to the City ofChanhassen dated May 19,2006.
4. Letter from Gary Carlson to the City ofChanhassen dated May 19,2006.
5. Letter from Dale & Linda Keehl of3841 West 62nd Street to the City ofChanhassen.
6. Letter from Terry Toll of 6250 Cartway Lane to the City of Chanhassen.
7. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson.
8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
9. Lot Survey.
10. Sketched Lot Survey.
11. Aerial Photograph.
12. Accessory Structure Photos.
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-23 carlson variance\cc update. doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
INRE:
Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after-the-fact Variance request
for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four-stall
garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in
the Single Family Residential (RSF) District - Planning Case No. 06-23.
On August 28, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after-the-fact Variance request
for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four-stall garage and relief
from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single-Family Residential
(RSF) District at Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The City Council conducted a public hearing on
the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2.. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density (Net Density
Range 1.2 - 4u/ Acre).
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts.
4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship.
b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other
properties in the Single Family Residential district.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
1
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
5. The planning report #06-23 Variance dated August 28, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et ai,
is incorporated herein.
ACTION
The City Council approves the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot
maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing
accessory structures built without permits.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 28th day of August, 2006.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Tom Furlong, Its Mayor
BY:
Todd Gerhardt, Its City Manager
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-23 carlson variance\city council findings of fact.doc
2
Planning Case No. Cio-- d,--':j
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard -". P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-(952) 227-1100
CITY OF CHANHASSiN
. RF;CE/VEb
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
. ,.. ..... . .. ., . .., CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
MAY 1 9 2006
PLEASE PRINT
Ap- Iicant Name and Addres
0\-
<t-
Owner Name and Address:
'SA",^~
3 Cj. I We.'6+
Contact: 3",,,,,,,, e.
Phone:15..7- ~l '1335'/
Email:
55331
Contact:
Fax:15:2 Y. 71..( 335't.J Phone:
Ernail:
Fax:
NOTE: . Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
+ Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Sign Permits
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
... Rezoning
Subdivision*
Notification Si9n;.;;.$200(<
(City to install and remove)
EscroW for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
.:.$50 CUP/SPR/V ACNAR/WAP/Metes & BOUllds'
-$450Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $
An additional fee of $3.90.p~r address withinth.e public hearing notification ar~a will be invoiced to th~ applicant
prior to the public hearing. .
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans mustbe submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate feeshall be charged for
each application.
8CANNI9J
PROJECT NAME~'"., ,".Q 6- V' ,:> O..A] YY\:c)c:5:)\{""~, '
LOCATION:~><6 <1 \ ' LAJ ~ -;C.N e\ S (,-
:.~() ~ixr\1 ~ ",
.-1-.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
PRESENT ZONING:
YES 2 NO
TOTAL ACREAGE:
4. S~
kSf
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTEDLANP U9E DE;SIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: <!) G T C9.. ~ Y
v C\V'; Q.....;VC ~
, 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 shouldconf~r.with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. '
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
'notice of application deficienci~sshall be mailed to the a~plicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
theCityshouldicontact regarding any matt~r pertaining to this application. I have attache~ a copy of proqf.of qwnership
(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 keepmy~elf informed ,of the deadlines for submission of. materi~I,and the, progress of this appli~ation..lfurther
understand'that additional fees' may be' tharged 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 andcorrett to the best of
my knowledge.
~. · r'1>~"
...... ..... D .~
Signature of Applidant ,', , " ", ,,' ' , ' " ", "
Y'{\r..~ J9 - 0 {,
Oat
5AM..6
SignatlJre of Fe~ Owner
Date
<<mltA~
G:\pLAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev, 12/05
',<~--:-':""_~'''''~-'''".~-~' .~
_ " . n,_._ "~.;., ;'.::.._:;~~7~;.:.<'~>-:' '-:c"'.
" .-:~:::.:.-, '
'~';,:~"';',-;~t~ :,,:-<:.-<"- -~ -- ^.
~ :::--~... .--';~ . .,.~,,, - "."
, .. ' , .- .. ..- .-' . ;~:::'?:':-:':~~-/~:":.:':.;-e~~-,~:;~~!-':~'~i{:,:~<~~:~<..:-~...- -..
",":~:,:,::~'::'Y.r: ~
~~',::-::'::::"~-:!'Y/;r/~ ?:--~:;.;:: ;.",~~~,~<:: ->!-:
. "; ~.' - .. ~ -
Paul" MelcMtt
QaYId P. HubeR
ICeIltl e. 5J!1dln
R. ~ t1.,rls
TlmII'IIY ,. L.OubV
.,..., W. $oIt1eIm.
1. MIdt-' MeId1elt
1blImtS W. U1~ltl
I(elIy C. DOIIRl
'tnllm/IS ... )alm;lotl
t<ent F. SpcII_..
p. D;tvid Mek:helt
Of QIUIm/:
LUke L. Meldtcrt
Mot R. Wl1Iemssel\
C1trllltlne M. $'Nd
Firm~
M'IY l"Ce ReIner
otIHI MWtr S/If;IoIISl
."(lYllrtllll~
WoIC'OM'A oma
1a1 w.t Man ser-. SUllIe ZOO
~ MlIlII\lIllI'aSS3lP
~ (tSa)",z.17OD
~ (9!iZ) 441",66
MELCHBRT · HUBBRT · SJODIN
et~/~"1J~Wi/i'Vt3I>tf~
..1 TOI\NEYS AT lAW
0lAS'" QFfKI!
,12~sa.-WS
1'.0. llVlll7
ChMIat. MI~ ssaJI
'!llkd\OIlII (tS2) ~.77OIl
f'Glift1ll (952) ""W12
WEll PAG6
_,ml\5laW.CllITl
RI!DIY to:
Wac:onlB Qffk;e
May 19, 2006
City of Chanhassen
Re: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore
Case No. 06~12
To Whom It May Concern:
Owing the passage of time since Mr. Carlson and Ms. Moore were in front of the
Planning Commission to consider their request for the granting of a variance from the 30 foot
front yard setback for the existing fout.-staIl garage and relief ftoJIl the 1,000 square root
detached accessory strUcture restriction, we have had additional time to reflect upon the
request and make certain other determ.inations of fact.
In brief, we ~eri1y believe that it is in tbe best interest of the City of Chanhassen, its
citizens and the applicant if their request would be granted. The reasons are: (1) that the
relief requested is relatively insignificant in comparison to the money, effort and harm to the
subject propertY resulting frqm the strict enfon;emeI1t of the zonil\ll regulillions; (2) that it is
to the benefit of the City ofChanhassen and the residents that this property continue to be
used for its present less intense use as opposed to developing fully in accordance with the
subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Chanhassen; and (3) there are ample
reasons for the granting of the requested variances without setting any precedences.
AttaChed please find a copy of a drawing of a portion of the subject property showing
the garage and its proximity to the actual driving surface of 6201 Street West and a draWing
showing other properties and their location relative to 62nd Street,
I would like to speak briefly to each ofthe two requested ~ariances individually.
----.-.-
- ----'
SCANNED
MELCHERT. HUBERT. SJODIN
City of Chanhassen
May 19, 2006
Page 2
Y ARf.t\NCE FROM 1.000 FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING RESTRIC;:rIOIS
A brief description of the facts sUlTounding this request are that the applicant and the
City of Chanhassen have entered into an agreement whereby. the applicant may have 3.372
square feet of accessory structures. on the subject property based upon the agreement to
remove five structures and then adding a new pole bam. The requested variance would be
requesting an additiona11,987 square feet which is the result of the four-stall garage and the
two barns put up for the horses. The two barns for the horses were added by the applicant in
response to an official of the City of Chanhassen who requested that additional shelter be
provided for the horses. The other excess square footage is a result of the garage which was
constructed by the applicant for the reasons set forth in his original application and it should
be noted that the square footage of the garage, 1012 square feet, has existed for ten years.
The 2020 land use plan has the subject property guided for "Residential-Low
Density" giving a density range of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. If the property was zoned in
accordance with the land use plan and developed within the pennitted parameters, there
could be fourteen additional single family houses, each having 1,000 square feet of accessory
structures for a total of 15,000 square feet of additional structures, or 9.641 feet in excess of
what exists today on the subject property.
If the property were developed as permitted by the regulations \of the City of
Chanhassen, there would be a significant increase in intensity of the use of the property than
as it now exists. It should not be forgotten the 5,359 square feet of accessory uses has
existed now for at least two years and some 3,371 square feet thereof bas existed for in
excess of thirty~six years; all without complaint from any of the neighbors.
The above information, together with aU of the facts and information as contained in
the original application for a variance would seem to indicate that the requested variance
under these circumstances is not unreasonable and is in the best interest of the City of
Chanhassen.
v ~~E REOll~EST FROM 30 FOOT FRONT
YARDSETBACKREOUIREME~
As to the request for a variance of 22 feet for the four.stall garage from the right~of-
way of 62nd Street, it would seem that there is an undue hardship if me requested variance is
not granted. The garage was built ten years ago and, admittedly, without obtaining a
building permit. It seems that after ten ye~ of existence it would be irrelevant for purposes
of this discussion whether or not a building permit had been issued. The fact is that the
garage has existed for at least ten years without complaint from the neighbors and without
having any indication of displeasure from the City of Chanhassen at any time until now.
SCANNED
. ~,. -,?/ .',.;" ::~. ,~~.-:-.~~:~.>.~.::..;:, :'~~:~".:.~ "j;-:.: ,~ "......:::..:. '.,:;:.:;: ., .
.. ~. -'.- "- '.-".. '- .."
....-- '.-.. ,'.' -.. '." ~',' "' ~ . '.. ~.~, ,. ,~'. ,",' .
. .- ,- ~_"--' .,. .~. .','.. _'. ,,~ _.' "'>0 ~ _ .
""." -,' - '-- .
.. '. ~ " '. ' ,. ,
. ~ . -- '..'" .. .. '.' - - .. ,'" ~
.. ~ -,~....;:--- ";';';---="-:..
. .~,-." -." '..' "..- ,"--.
.>....'.. .'.
... '.,..,' '.,__ ~"'_' '..,,, ,..N.
, , . ,,,.. ,---- ~, ,.. .,
MELCHERT. HUBERT. SJODIN
City of Chanhassen
May 19, 2006
Page 3
There appears.to be little harm to anyone if this condition was allowed to continue to
exist. I would suspect that without, the fact that a survey was submitted, no one would have
questioned whether Or not this garage was within the setback requirements. There had to be
numerous City officials to observe this garage over the last ten years and at no time did
anyone question whether or not it met any setback requirements. The building sits behind a
three foot high earthen benn and a stand of trees. To the best of our knowledge, at no time
since the garage has been built has there been any accident in this area. Ten years of
experience would indicate that it is not a hazard or safety concern.
The requested variance is only eight feet for a building which was constructed behind
a stand of trees that existed for years prior thereto and an earthen berm and was undetected
by City officials for an excess often years. It has not received one registered complaint from
any of the neighbors of which we are aware. The actual driven surface of 62Qd Street to the
building which is 22 feet from the right-of-way is 59 feet from the structure, (See attached
drawing)
To require this structure to be removed would cost literally thousands of dollars and
move the structure so close to an existing tree that it would be extremely difficult for
emergency vehicles and/or the handicapped vehicle necessary to transport applicant's
daughter to negotiate in the area. It is only twenty feet .from the garage to the large tree. (See
attached drawing) If the garage is required to be moved eight feet, this would put the garage
only twelve feet from this large tree. There is not sufficient room between the large tree and
the house for an emergency vehicle to safely negotiate between the tree and the house. If the
garage was moved to within twelve feet of the tree, it would not be safe for an emergency
vehicle; i.e., an ambulance or especially a fll'e apparatus, to negotiate between the 8"dl'age and
the tree.
It should be noted that there are numerous existing structures along 6200 Street,
including the hockey fence in the City park just easterly of the subject property, within the
thirty foot setback requirement. We would submit that if the applicant was making the
request now for a variance to build the garage, and given all the facts surrounding this
request, it would not be unreasonable for the City of Chanhassen to grant the requested
variance from this setback requirement.
.
There is little or no harm to the general public and, to the City of Chanhassen for the
granting of this variance. The cost to the applicant to move the garage is extremely high in
comparison to the evil perceived by allowing the structure to remain.
SCANNED
MELCHERT. HUBERT. SJODIN
City of Chanhassen
May 19, 2006
Page 4
The reasons given in the initial application, and the information found subsequent
thereto and more to be articulated at the hearing, give amble reasons for the granting of the
requested variance.
Very trUt yours,
~~..
Luke Melcnert
LMIIle
Enclosures
SCANNED
Carlson Variance
Planning Case #06-12
Whereas the elapsed time from the first submitted to the present has allowed more time to
consider and compromise the issues at hand.
The Carlson's and Moore's resubmit their request to consider granting their unique and
unduplicated property a variance to the front set back from 30' to 22' and a variance to
the accessory structure to an area of 4854 sq. ft.
Whereas Gary and Maureen Carlson and Megan and Alan Moore have agreed to remove
an additional preexisting sheds form their property by November 1,2006. This was
negotiated between the city and applicant. The applicant remains committed to any other
appropriate negotiations as plannlng or council may suggest. In the interest of improving
this part of our city, Mr. Carlson has already entered into agreement with the developer to
the south of our property to come on to the property by 300' to regrade and correct the
drainage from our property to the new development. We will jointly be erecting a very
nice fence for the horse pasture along our common border. This will be a further
improvement to our common view of each others property.
The agricultural use has ~n in existence for a long time and it needs improvement to its
buildings. This is not an expansion but is a variance to allow their grandfathered use to
improve itself and provide shelter and storage for our equipment. We need to be able to
Separate and house the horses which have been permitted to be on our property . We are
taking down seven sheds and are only asking to keep the newer buildings as they were
built 13, 10 and 4 years ago.
If you would simply look at the front of our property as far as set back is concerned, you
would find that the road is turning away from our property over the entire front width of
our property and at the 22' set back the road is actually the furthest from the property. So
don't look at the survey because it is misleading, the road is not parallel to the front line.
There is no way for traffic to reach our garage as there are trees and a four foot berm
between the road and the garage. Further, in looking atthe lay of the lot, the placementof
the garage is where it should be. It is safely back from the road and it leaves just enough
room between the garage and the house to drive through with a hay wagon and other
trucks, Molly's handicap bus, and fire saving equipment. Furthermore, if it were back 8
feet more you could not drive in and out of the garage doors.
We are supported by our neighbors. We are not a detriment to our community. We are
improving our property for our continued agricultural use. We can never meet RI zoning
as much as we both try. In one breath you seek accommodation with existing uses while
at the same time limiting and trying to zone us out of existence. Please let us see if there
is room to compromise and move forward.
~
~ - 1,- Db
_~., I
.~
/
~ ~/J '-
/Tlt, ). Ictri IOVL 15
nJe;d +0 ~'-Q; ~J.sV\\ a-n
,~ ~J- sl'd~)
r HcWQ.... No Aro~~$
I:, [} 'lh (
tVX;I-l)(M dJ ^6's l't
~~ y~
. C 75).- V7Y - L/?~ S-
uJ;~
,-
"
AGREEMENT
. . AGREEMENT made this 11/"- day of 1i~, 2006, by and between the
;CITY OF 'CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corpora' on ("City") and GARY
-CARLSON ("Carlson").
WHEREAS; Carlson owns a home on certain real property (the "Subject Property")
~ocated in the City, the legal description of which is set forth on Exhibit A, attached
beretoand hereby made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS; Carlson's desire to construct a pole barn ("Pole Barn") on the Subject
Property and demolish the five existing structures denoted to be removed on the survey
dated January 26, 2006 ("Existing Structures") upon completing the construction of the
Pole Barn, and
WHEREAS; The City is not required to issue a building permit for the Pole Barn until
the Existing Structures have been demolished; -
WHEREAS; The City is willing to issue Carlson a building permit and allows him to
begin construction on the Pole Barn without firstdemolishing the Existing Structures;
NOW, THEREFORE; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Issuance of a Buildin2 Permit:
Provided the Pole Barn proposed by Carlson meets all of the conditions for
issuance of abuilding permit, as determined by the City, and complies with the terms of
this Agreement, the City agrees to issue to Carlson a building permit for the Pole Barn to
be located on the Subject Property.
2. :DemoUtion:
Carlson shall demolish the Existing Structures before the City will issue a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Pole Barn. Carlson shall demolish and remove the
Existing Structures no later than August 1, 2006.
3. ,'Costs:
The costs of the demolition Shall be borne entirely by Carlson. In the event
Carlson does not demolish the Existing Structures within the above described time frame,
Carlson consents to the City arranging for the demolition of the Existing Home as soon as
reasonably practical. Carlson has given the City a $5,000 security escrow for the
demolition of the Existing Structures. Carlson shall pay for all of the City's expenses,
beyond $5;000, incurred in the demolition of the Existing Structures; provided, however,
that if any portion of said costs be outstanding more than thirty (30) days after mailing of
.an itemized statement for the costs t6 Carlson, the defiCiency shall be certified by the City
Clerk to the County Auditor for the entry on the tax rolls of the County as a special
assessment against the Subject Property. Carlson hereby agrees to waive any and all
procedural or substantive objections to any assessments against the Subject Property
concerning the costs of demolition, including but not limited to the Notice and Hearing
requirements, and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject
:Property.,Carlson waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to law or
equity. Upon completion of the demolition and removal of demolished material, the City
shaiI release the escrowed security after written request of the property owner,
verification of said demolition and removal, and subject to the City not having
.performed,or having contracted to perform, said demolition and removal of the Existing
Structures.
4. Release:
Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby forever extinguish,
release and discharge the City and any of its elected or appointed officials, employees,
. attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, of and from any and
all claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which
arise from the City's issuance of the building permit as stated in this Agreement or from
the construction .of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute,
common law or otherwise, arid for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature,
and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses.
5.ilndemnification:
Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby agree to defend,
indemnify, keep and hold the City and any of its elected and appointed officials,
employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns,
harmless from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or
causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building
permit or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising
by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or
nature,and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:~
../Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTYOFC ..D:nJ~1
)
)ss.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \ <.0 +h day of
~b'(u ecf i ,2006 by Todd Gerhardt, the City Manager respective of the City of
Chanhassen, Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010
~YCARLSON
(Notary Seal)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF L CJ,..(\fe T
)
)ss.
)
, 'The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Itp+h day of
~-e..b'("uD.~~. ,2006, by Gary Carlson.
(Notary Seal)
~'
\.. ~
N ary fublic re
KIM T. MEUWISSEN ,
Not~ p'Ublic-Minnesota .
My Comm~ expires Jan 31, 2010
EXHmIT"A"
That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East
of the Northwest comer of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16!h
feet South of the North line of said section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the
Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49022' West along said right of way
line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of
48020'adistanceof 391.8 feet along the West line ofLot6, Schmid's Acre Tracts,
. according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest comer of said Lot 6, thence East
along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast comer of said
Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the
northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a
distance of287.6 feet to the point of beginning. Except the North 217.75 feet of the East
200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts; ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of
the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts according to the
recorded plat thereof.
ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200;00 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre
Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies
South of the North 435.5 feet.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
June 8, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Gary Carlson Variance - Planning Case 06-23 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A",
by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscri.bed and sworn to before me
this ~t'h day of ~LtV\e. ,2006.
~~o~
I
10 KIM T. MEUWISSEN I
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commission expires Jan 31. 2010
o
::r
S!)
::J
::r
S!)
en
mz
::J 0
....
"tJ -.
-()
S!) CD
::J 0
::J_
:i" "tJ
(QI:
C'
0=
o ()
3:J:
3 CD
-.S!)
en '"
en -.
-.::J
O(Q
::J
s:
CD
~
::J
(Q
. .. ..0 00 !!.:e r-"tI ~ "tI r- C
~~ro~~~~~~~Qom~g~~~~~~~ o c o ... ... 0 Q)
3~~i.:i~@~'~~~8~~m~~~ffiK~ 3 (1) _::r o 0 0 0 -
::rQ) Q)'C '0 Q) (1)
~a~n~~oog~mg~.3m~m~2~'a~:~ 3~ (1)- =:(1) 0' 0 - Ro
=;' CD (I) ~ 0 ~ ~ :E s: a c: ~ ~ ::1.0 @ CD gO(Q 6 2? CD" (1) 0 s::I: 0::\ Q) UI o'
:C~ s: s;~ Q a.(jr(j)"D.l 5.cr5.~ ;-g~:J o.!" g :e :J :J (1) l>> :J'< :J e!. :J -I
So(l)~~~~~~~-~D.lu:J~ms'~o~~ S'UI (1)'0 :'! 3'
cr:J~:J(I)o~:J~D.lCD~=~a.mm 0 a _'0
(I)~~~a.a.&~~s~@ggD.l~D.l~.~3~n "Ro -'(1) ~
S':J:JS'smcO~m~n_mm(l)m=m~:J[ ::I :J
~i~~3~~~~&~~~~8~~~~~i~ ~en
a.@(Q(I)m~(Q~ C~3l~3~~ ~CDa.~
~ <0 () *' ~~ O':E g> CD 0 ~ ()::T 3 iii" 0 5" () ~ c .. f"!J.'!'J:-""O ll) ll)-l
_.~oa.~CD~D.l3~~'a.~(I)(I)g:J~=~'a ~ 0 Oll) 0"0 -::E-::;: )>c.J G) !e.ll)(j)< 0 C:-l
:Ja.3u=@::T:Jm~:JD.l~():J(I)g-'~CD- "'::1 a.0::Tll) ::T C 0""0 ::T -(Xl ll) ....:J.oll) ~ ;aC
g~~~~o(l)iD.l~~goo~cr(l)iQ~~ _._0 < 3 O;;;:~ (1)'< _ 0"0"0(1) Oeo C a. C :J. =(1)
CD<Omm::T~()3U~D.l:Jo3g~m~a.iii"< 0-'3ll):J 00 ::T"U0-l(J)=c:= g..... <: U (j) ::;' ~ ![~
~S:~O(l)~= ~~:J' C3 @CCDS":JCD :;3:J3(1)oo;:+c (1)CO::TS'o......o"O I
~ CD g ~ i ~ ?, ~ ff ~ ~ JJ 5. gf ? -@ ~ * ~ >.g 5-::2: 0 C_(1)o ~ !gll)
o _.0 (1) ll) UI ~.,< ::E Ig 2:3 (1) ~::Tg.~ ~ (j) m: 3 (1)
&~::T~~.mog~E.~~~~~iga.o33 _ 0 ~ (1) ;a. - 0 0 UI- ll) :::ICll ll) -.,<
.... ('5'3 ll)::E (1) (ii'_"O .... :3.
~~~ &ro5~g@ag~~ro~~~m~ro ::r :J -, 0 UI eo 3::T :J o "0 ll) UI-O 3!e. (jj ~.....,,([)~ 0 -c....
-5'i o~g.~wwc-.i~~ ~~~a~ (1)_0_- 01 ll)"O- ~. ::T (1)"0 = ~."O UI {I 0> 0 m 0 ;a.~ 0 ~c
roa_ ~e-ga~w~ =ro~~~ro3~ ::r :J - -, I\:) (1) :J 0 - o(1);a.i5"cC:JO(j)Cll
~_.~ g~3roc=rowOo3_o-'~roro :J - 3-c c: CD:J
~gro omro~rom~~~ff~ia~.~~~ "tI (1)' ::T:::. 0 ::T~. 0 :-+ ~ UI ll) _.co ~..o 0 _.1\:) :J. 0 (1) :J
- -I(1)UlI\:):Jll)(1)UI en ::> 0_.... Q. <(1)
o~~ a-,~~s~3~ 00-. B'~mwro l>>'C::r3 ::T1\:)(1) UI 0 (1) -. < - (1) C - a. =:J"'r-+CI> gJl\:)
g~~ @:~'~gg~&9!~~~~~~~ :J~;a.(1)~U(1)- g(J) 0(1)::T-
SO(1)(1)~-;-Jll)~Cii(1) CO(1) ll)O' UI:!. 0 ::i'0
~crB' ~~. w~.~~~~iro~~a~a~ -- :J.....(1)0' rp",
o~~ ~o w~o wo o~e_~o _.-' (1)"O""'O":J::E- -. ::E:J C - UI ;-(j) O'o8~ ::T
- _. ro 9: c w (") ~ CD m =:~ 'U :5" _.0 0 0 :D :J(1)UI......_.....O, ::T UI(j)= coOll)-o ll)
g5~ ~Si3 gowa~35-~(Q~~~a~ ~ 51 at 5' !;. c.J S- 3 ~ (1) Q..o"O ~::T~:J C (1) C!.o
~r-+ ....0:J(1) 3 @o
CDE~ <Cco c3aw~~~CDOE=~CD- O:e =cP - !'J =. :J "0 "2- o ~. .... (1) ...... -, a. 0" g.OUl=
'1J Q.(Q :T CD -~ =t' '< 0 a 0 a CD ~ )> CD UI<(1)<::T:J_= (1)UI~m. 0" CD 0>
~&~ m.~ ~fi~~@i~~m~~.~J 0(1)'" 0_3cll)ll) (1)(1)UI (1) co 0 0 (1) Cll all)
.. JJ.g ~ ~
~s'i ~o i~'U~ro~~~_.~g~~o (1) ::T-CllUl :J a. a. (1) (i5'--O::T en ..... ~.;
5' ~~ 0 aCD~~~~~=CD~ao 3 C" '0 (J) ll) '< i'i en- <g UI ll)-;a.::EQ.::TO"Cll (1) (J) ll) !::!: ~ UI
~9Q ~a ~3o~3~(QCD~'~3m3~ 3U10S'<OCll(1) 0" en
~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~8a~ _.~ -(1) c.... ll) (1) :J 0"0 0'(1) S'll) c: 'Tl....0 -..J 00
-. ... -+to ...." r-+ (1):J...... -..J
g:(1)~::Eoo@~"o a. 3 ii) 8. ::E 3 5'~. :30
~{g ~ e,m ~6.lCD d".a.3;ag3 ~ ~CD'~ 0 (1) g<3'8.~ 0 3--0
~.oc . ~ -Aa.~3~a.oCDCD~m~~ _. = 0 -, :J ::T 0 Q: ..... - :J - -, (1) :J 0 0
~~ (J)O iCD:E::::CD3cn'-m.~<P-Z- o UI ... = (1) 0 ~. ii) (1) ::T - ::T :J (1) -.co - ~sa.ll)c.J CD.
(1) ~ UI Cll co !::!: -5 (ii' - s: Q3
~5& sg '1J~~~iQg~~~ ~~.~ :J - -"0 0 0 O:J - :::r -. :J 0
o_a. :=s- iii"Cii5'0_3~"O- Q ~IDa. (1)::r....OUl::T...... ::T 0-0 g "Q !e. t3 S- - iii' ~g.(1)-4. l)) C!. .
30.-'0 (1)ll)0 (1) ~-l
~ffi~ wu 5Si3m3~0-m~3 CDm~ UI<"O_:JO> OC_O(1)- _0 :::I ......xo ....
"
~ 0 ~ e, - 5' - 0 3 CD 9: ffi A.~ Pl ~ 'U CD m l>> -. 0:'< 0 ::T I 3 3 0" ::T -0 -0 - .... -, 0 ~ !e:sa. Cll g.2:
3~~ !~ co~i~~~~~:Eg ~5-~ _C"(D(1)OUlll)1\:) (1) 3=CllOUl~~a - - _<n
(;. :::J'" _0....."
<D ,.... llJ "" 0:::>,< -'!!!.~ <D 0 =:::> <D =3 -.03 CUI c.J (1) -, P"'C UI .. 0 Cll :J .... OJ :::r:::r
ao <CD CDgW~3~3~~Pl UOe ~~ 8g.0"~~ g: UI ....(1) 0-3 !D a.co 0 <' CD CD
gg~ ~g. iW~~~~~9~& ~.i~ UI oa. ::T::T _:J ~ ~.
. s::5. "Q. ~ ~, ? 3 !P o. (j)."O ll) (1) '< ll)0- a.
g~.~ ~~ ~omg.(1)oa.CDm~ CD~.sn g~'Q3 CD :3
CD~CD ro CD(")~~~~3~~@ a~~ -(1) - - :J Uo ::;.:JO :3 co
~::+;(I) 8"g ~~ :;:65'o'i~.g di g cr~m. (1);;:UI(1)::E3:..... "'C a. .~. ::E (1) C (1) I .... C!.3
"0 :J- - UI!e.a. !l' ~
~~ ~ ti ~ @ "2. CD :- ~ a CD g i 3 CD m.. i>> -1(1) Oll) ac'< m (ii. (1) =<O.ll)
o U -::TO" ~ ~~ '<
5'c_ <a. ~~~ ~~~~-3 8Q& g-l>>-~(1)UlO UI :3
~~~ I~ ~~~ ~i i~~ ~~~ C . -0"0 -.<! co - S.
...<::T3:JoC (1) UI (1)OC
;:J~~ g:~ ~'~g ~~ ~~i ~i~ UI !!!. (1) (1) ....::E ~, UI ll).......... ll)0" III
go iii" ;a. 0" (ii' ~. (1) a.::T_ ....~ lil'
o ~ CD ~ ~'< a :: ~ i~' g a ~ UI -O::T ~" ::+
~a. @ ~ ~5' ~o? ~ g '< l:T -, '<::T - ::TO (1) (1)
_:J _ (1)a.
di ~ 9,- ~W (1) 0
o
::r
S!)
::J
:r
S!)
en
~z
::J 0
....
"tJ -.
-()
S!) CD
::J 0
::J_
:i' "tJ
(QI:
O~
o ()
3::J:
3 CD
-.S!)
en ...
en -.
-.::J
O(Q
::J
s:
CD
~
::J
(Q
. .. ..0 00 !!.:e r-"tI f "tI r- C
~llJroUllJ>~U~~OOm~~~UI~~~UI~ o C 0'" ... 0 l>>
3~~~~~e~~5'~~8CDCDiS-~S~5-~ _::r nO 0 n -
3 (1) ::rl>> l>>'C '0 l>> (1)
~8~~g~'i!di~033i~~:~~g~~ 3~ (1)- =:(1) n' 0 - Ro
~~cn-n~m~~~O-3~~ ~~~_.-s 3::I: o'
5'@CD~oa~~9aC~CD~0~mg~~~~ (1)0 0::\ l>> UI
cC~ 9 ~s g a.cn'cn'~ ~.B'~cS ;-g~ ~ o~w g :s :J :J (1) l>> :J'< :J e!. :J -I
aOmPl~~~~~~;~~~&i~~~o~! S'UI (1)'0 :'! 3'
i~~~~~ffi~~*~@gg~~Pl~3~~g _'0
"Ro -'(1) ~
5' ~ ~ ~ 0" ~ ~ ~ g. cn{g 8 - m @ ro ro ~ gr~ ~ & :J :J
~2~~30S'~ag;3~~8~~~5'~~C ~UI
5.~(C CD (1) ~(C o' c CD 3 ffi -13 ~.::J. ? CD a.CiJ
m ~ 0 ~ ~ W ~ ~ en CD ~ <D ~ 3 i>> 0)> :J c..
~~o!:E~~PlOma~QCDCD~~~Q~'a ~OOll)O"O-::E-::;: -i:l- c.J I\:) ""'"0 ll) ll) -l )>c.J G) !e.ll)(j)< 0 c-l
~ 9: 3 ~ ~ @ ~::. ~ <0 <5 a~ (') 5. CD :T ::r'< CD ~ ... a.0::Tll)::T , . , . C 0""0 ::T -(Xl ll) ....:J.oll) ~ ;ac
9:3~._O<DB~~IIl~O~a~@Bg~@ _.:'0 < 3 o;;;:~ (1)'< O"O"Oro 0(,0 <: c 0.. c: :::::!, =ro
CD(Q~cn~~03uID~~o3~~00~a.m< o -,3 ll) ::E 0 g.....
...:J 3:J0'Oc g."UO-lS!?i5"S-i5""O U.... -,ll) I ![~
~g-.O<Dro~ ~ ~. c ~roCCD~~CD _(1)3:J (1) 0;:+ 5-::2: 0 C ~ (j) :J
~ CD g ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~:D 5. ~" .g ~ ~ ~ >.g o _.0 CD ll) UI :-.'<;., ::E (1)co::Tll) -ll)C com:32 ~ !gll)
OllJ,,"--<DoOac~<D~-~<Do~o33 _O~(1);a.-OOUlll) [Q g3 (1) ~~:!.;a.-a :::1(1) ll) -.,<
~~~'~~~~~'~&~~gffi~;imgCD .... :3 _
::r :J -. 0 UI eo 3:::T :J 003~::E~UlUI-0 3!e. (jj """"'.....,,([)~ 0 -c....
~5'i gag.~ooooc2.~~~ 'U~~a.a (1)_0-- 01 ll)"O...... -:" ::T (1)"0 = -,"0 .... UI {I 0> 0 m <3 ;a.~ 0 ~c
CDPl_ ~~_~a.~cn~CD=:CD)>~~m3w ::r:J - -, I\:) (1) :J 0 -
~gffi ~~~CD~::~Q~3;~~'~.~~ (1)(1):J--:J....(1)(1) :J -3-c C CD:J
"tI (1)' ::T::: I 0 ::T~, 0 U ll) Cii (,5"co co 02,.0 0 -,I\:) ~, 0 (1) :J
CD ~"O 8.~. ~ ~ _~ 3 Di"~ ~ ~. CD g 5' ro en CD - -I(1)UlI\:):Jll)(1)UI en ::> 0...... .... Q. <(1)
l>>'C::r3 ::T1\:)(1) UI 0 (1) ..... ll) <'- Cll C- a. g::Tg.!e. gJl\:)
8~.c ~~S'g~~CD~OCD=~~~~Pl~ :J'" -..J UI-(1) 5' ll) :J (1) ::T 0 (1) - g(J) g',p
a~~ ~~~m$ga~g9g~~~;a~ :J.5!.(1)(1)~1 ~(1)UI_ co""- O:-+UI:!. :J(1)(1)- 0
Cll::Ell)c -UI 9~ ..... 0
~CD~ ~8 w~'g3cn~CD02.a_~O~ -'(1) UI (1)-o""'o:J::E::T O'o8~ ::T -I\:)
- -. CD 9: cwo ~ CD CD =="0 ~ ~ _. o.g 0 :D c.Sn_!::!:-""'c' (1)Cll (ii'.... = :J co 0 ll) "0 (1)(1) ll) C!.o
95Pl ~Si3 5owa~35-~co5~CDa.~ O~-O::Tc:Jc (1)
_l>>:J!;.U)_30" ir-+ ....0:J(1) 3 ~O
~~~. ;~ s.~a~&~g~b>~5f~~ro' O::E =cP - !'J =. :J -0 "2- a (1)"0 < _ :J. a. 0" g.0!e.(5' 0" CD 0>
i>>CD~ (Da. a.rocr08~~-3CDa:E3~ 0(1)'" 0_3cll)ll) UI-'(j) (1)::T:J_= (1) CllUl....- (1) all)
:Ja.~ :;'0 g.~.CD3o.~~Q3w_;:::;:CD~ (1) ::T-(1) :J (1)<UI<CllCOOO ... :0.0 ~ ~ .....
3 l:T'C (J) ll) '< i'i ~~ UI a. ~ (1) -. - - 0 ::T en g<::i
~5'm ~~ ~~~~:~~.gl~i~ag (1) C _ 0 .UI
3cnOS'<OCll 0" :J(1)O::TO"Cll (J) ll) -, 3
59Q ~a ~3nR31~<D5u3m3~ ll)--::E=(1)-ll) en 'Tl.....o -..J 00
-'::\-(1) c.... (1) ll) (1) 0:
sa~~ g 5: ~~ i ~~~ ~-g ~ ~.~ ga~ -. ........" ...." r-+ :J 0 "0 0 ~ 3 ~.:J, (1):J_ -..J :30
e,.g g ~ro ~WCD aa.~a.g3::s :'(j)cn 0 g:(1)~::Eoo@~"o a. 3 ii) - _. (1) :J :J (1) g<3'Q.~ 0 3-"0
-OC . Pl -A~~3~a.omCD~(1)~~ -. = 0 -. :J i5 0 Q: (j) 0 0
g. _ :J g. :J (1) 5' CO - ~sa.ll)c.J CD.
-g~:J roo iC1>:E;::;CD3cn'a9ta~-~- o UI ... = (1) ~' ii) (1) ::T UI (1) CO !:t."O (ii' - s: Q3
~ag ~g '1J~~~iQgoo~'~ 9,5.~ :J--"Oooo:J - :::r -, :J 0
o~a. :=s- iii"C55'O_3~16~ Q gao. (1)::r....OUl::T...... ::T 0(1)0 UI:JC_ iii' ~g.(1)-4. l)) C!. .
30.-'0 (1)ll)0 (1) "O:J1:l -co-o .... !g-l
~mg cnu 5Si3m3~0-m~3 ro~~ UI<"O_:JO> o .... Cll - _ :::I ......xo "
~Qoo ~~ ~-o~CDgi~~~ ~~~ (1) l>>-.o:'<O::TI 3 3 C - 0"0 - .... -, 0 ll) -'0 $!a. g.2:
3~g o~ co~~a~'<~cr~o ~~~. !!.l:T(D(1)-Ulll)1\:) (1) 0" ::T"O UI ::T 0 :J - (')~r-+ _Ill
3 i5" Cll 0 ., (1) 3 0' (;. ::T -. -
CD ~ I))~ O::J,,<_.!:Q.:ECDO:::J CD-. -.03 OCUlc.J (1) (1) :J .... OJ :::r;:T
~o <<D <D-~~3,,"3S~llJ UOc ~< Og.O"UI~ !::!: -. "0 UI 0 .... !D a.co 0 <' CD CD
gg~ ~~ i~~~~~~9~'& ~.i~ UI . (1) - 3 _:J ~ ~.
CD:e0(1)3Cll- :J UI oa. ::T::T ll)0...... P.
:f 5 ~ ~~ ~ 0" CD g. CD 0 ~ CD CD Pl CD ~ ~ '_ "O:J3 CO -'~, ll) (1) '< g~~ CD :3
::r -. -, a. -. . - o (1) "0 -. :J 0 :3 co
CD~~ ~o ~B~~~~'3~~~ g~'~ -Cll - -
(1)-UlCll::E3:..... -0 :J Uo ....(1)C m*-a. C!.3
~ :;: 8" ~ a 3 ~ ~o' Q) ~"O ~ 8 g c:r ~ -IO"_"O....:J- (j) a. .~, ::E-, !l' ~
~'< ~ ~ ~ (1)"0 (D. 3:;:+ CD 0 0"3 CD Q) (1) 0 ll) -.' '< -, (1) =<0 ll) Ulll)UI '<
gg CD ~ (C $[Pl '<-<Pl ~ ~3 ~ ~~ ::r :::::c ll) UI 0 -::TO" 0=(1) :3
e~~ 5.g ~~"O <g -Om a@a. Cl>>-~(1)UlO UI g :-+ (j)0"0 -.<!co- S.
-. ~ ~< 0. 12. !a<D llJ<:::> -. > ...<::T3:Joc Cll UI ll)QS- ll)0"
O~CD CD -'>5' CD WIDa. CD:f~ UI l>> (1) (1) ....::E < III
?::r~ =ro c5::J~ oJ;! ~<Sl) a.CD~ UI a.::T_ .... ll) lil'
-Pl m"O ,<.~ _Pl "Om'd". 0 Q) g. i ;a. 0" (ii. ~: Cll -O::T ll) 0
~& ~ ~ - g~. !~~ ~ g CO" ::+
'< C" -, '<::T - UI ::TO (1) (1)
~ ~ CD~ oa CD ~ _:J _ Clla.
<D -- (1) 0
.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only,
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features, If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd, 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use~s access or use of
data provided,
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Ge09raphic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107,
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466,03, Subd, 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of
data provided.
JOHN RABY
26960 62ND ST W
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
GEORGE R & LESLIE C GLEASON
6130 CATHCART DR
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
RITA A DETRUDE
26620 62ND ST W
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
CAROLE D WESTBY
27020 62ND ST W
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
ANDREW J & DOROTHY A MELDAHL
6180 CATHCART DR
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
MINNEWASHTA CHURCH
ROBERT CASTELLANO TREASURER
26715 W 62ND ST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
GARY R ANDERSON
26940 62ND ST W
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
STEVE KORIN/JANE SMITH
6135 CATHCART DR
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
MARK JOHNSON HOMES LLC
PO BOX 21327
EAGAN, MN 55121 -0327
STEVEN L & SUZANNE M BRADLEY
6175 STRAWBERRY LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8956
MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER
2711062NDSTW
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8907
LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG
3884 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
BOYER BUILDING CORP
3435 CO RD 101
MINNETONKA, MN 55345 -1017
DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP
3870 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
JEFFREY R BERGE &
DENISE E ZOELLMER
3856 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN
3801 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
MEGAN J CARLSON
CIO GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON
3891 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803
ROBIN S O'MEARA
3814 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839
RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON
3800 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
WILLIAM J & KARl L MCREAVY
3790 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840
TERRANCE LANE TOLL
6250 CARTWAY LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7846
DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL
3841 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927
HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER
300 6TH ST S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 -1308
JEFFREY F JEWISON &
LISA J WECKWERTH
3842 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839
BRIAN R CARLSON
3828 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Carlson Variance Request
3891 West 62nd Street
Planning Case No. 06-23
Lake Minnewashta
~Tv/l. \ 9O""I/~ .a\5 I.f ",-. ·
~ O.\- G';;t ,.j d <;l
>,;s~
')..';~/';be,
~
.x-
~8J.9
rMJO)
LJ~
"l-
Shed ~.
, {)o. ~ \(.~ rJ,~
4.9
985,1
30.1
33.5
Iv)
r-..:
C\;
House
C\;
<0
"')
I
1'0-.
<0
"*
30.0
984.3
. Born
42.5
D"')11.8...
~ .
, '
Shed 982. 1
x 981,8
"981.7
~.
""% .
(l, 19.2 :.~i
.~, ..,~., (()
SCANNED
Aerial Photograph
Accessory Structure B ("Loafing Shed")
Accessory Structure C ("Machine Storage Shed")
Nonconforming Accessory Structures
Sheds South of the House (to be removed)
Barn West of the House
Shed West of the House
City Council Meeting - July 10,2006
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table Planning Case 06-22, Variance request at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
GARY CARLSON. 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF
FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQillREMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR-STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM
THE 1.000 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE
RSF DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dale Keehl
Gary Carlson
Luke Melchert
Maureen and Molly Carlson
Megan Moore
3841 West 62nd Street
3891 West 62nd Street
112 2nd Street W, Chaska
3891 West 62nd Street
3891 West 62nd Street
Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon
from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson's variance request is located on 3991 West 62nd
Street.
Megan Moore: 3891.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Yeah, I believe that's what I said.
Megan Moore: You said 39.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please.
Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62nd Street. Located on the northern end of the city, north of
Highway 7. This is the subject site. You can back out a little bit Nann. This photo is a little bit
outdated. I'll go through the current site plan here in a second. Request is for the variance of the
garage. This garage located right here. A 20 foot front yard setback for 1,000 square foot
garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 20th, 2006 to review the
variance and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny this. In the staff report there's a
background. This did appear before the Planning Commission, in the background, and that date
in, let's see. Oh, on April 4th and they had 10 days to appeal that variance and that did not occur
so it, they had to start the process back over, and that's the same application that you're seeing
before you. This property, in the background, this property is zoned residential, although it's
been, has non-conforming agricultural rights. It also has a non-conforming as far as additional a
51
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
rental unit in the building itself, although it's guided single family residential. Again it's non-
conforming. There are horses on the property. So the request for this garage located on the
northern end of the property, for the setback. There are existing garages on the property, on the
house and the additional out buildings. One of the requests that the Planning Commission had,
because it's over the number of accessories for the zoning district, is to remove some of those
accessory structures. They were given until August 1st to get that done. To date those are not
removed yet. This is a.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, which ones on the picture there? The red ones?
Kate Aanenson: The red ones here were asked to be removed, and they concurred too. There's
the blue areas that they would like to see additional storage and the structures removed. If I can
go back to maybe this plan. This doesn't show the new horse barn. That was an issue that the
city had that we have horses, that they be in a shed. The buildings that were out there had
storage in them, so they weren't being used for that. So if you look at what's around the area.
Single family, single family. This is the most recently approved, coming off of Pipewood Curve
subdivision that was approved in this area for lower density, single family, so this is the subject
site. So there is a significant amount of outdoor storage, so that was the request, is to get it more
into compliance with the amount of square footage that's required. The reason it got denied is
that they felt that for the variance that it, they want to see it pushed back. The applicant in his
most recent picture that you saw, or what was handed out to you, and I'll go through those in a
second, felt that it compromised the access to the driveway. The third garage and getting
accessible vans in there. So I'll start, this is, these are the green buildings I've shown in here.
There's two smaller green storage sheds here. This is the most recent garage that's close to West
62nd.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that the one you want?
Kate Aanenson: No, that's the one that's too close to the street, and then this is the additional
blue one that Planning Commission also asked to see removed to get it into compliance. With
the additional storage. So the pictures that you saw.. .is the concern that they had of Planning
Commission asked if they could move their garage further to the, towards the house, and they
felt that that was because they have accessible access, that that may be difficult to get in by
pushing the garage closer to the house, it'd make it difficult for the accessible.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Kate if it was, they want that garage pushed closer?
Kate Aanenson: Planning Commission did because it's too close to the street. But the applicant
is saying that that doesn't work for handicap accessible.
Councilman Peterson: How much closer do we need to be? I can't remember.
Kate Aanenson: Well, it's pretty close to the property line. It needs to be, it's only 8 feet from
the property line. So they need to be 22 feet back. I'm not sure ifthe van needs to come all the
way back in there but.
52
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, is it, what is it currently set back from the property line?
Kate Aanenson: 8 feet. It was built without a permit. All those structures were. Except for
the.. .
Mayor Furlong: So it would, to comply we need to come back 22 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So we go back to the, in the background of the staff report.
In January, 2004 it came to the attention of the city that the attached accessory garages were built
without a permit. The permits that we just pointed out. The green, and so they came to get the
permit.. . and they're over the amount of square footage you can have and the one was too close
so, here's where we are today. Trying to get this resolved. We've been working, working,
working. Did go to Planning Commission once. They denied it. Didn't meet the deadline for
the appeal so kicked back through the process. So with that the Planning Commission did
recommend, on a vote in the staff report. Planning Commission did recommend denial. We did
put other motions in there for you. Find some compromise. Some other alternatives. So if you
wanted to deviate from that, but it's their recommendation of denial. It got appealed from the
Planning Commission up to you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? I'm a little confused on the timing
of everything. Once more with regard to kind of the, it first came through Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Let's go back to background on page 2. The Schmitz Acre Tracts. The
applicant has been on the property a long time. This zoning has been residential single family
for a long time, although it has legal non-conforming agricultural uses on it. So in January of
2004 when we found out, the building inspectors found out, and also at the same time we were
trying to license the rental property on the, it came to the attention that there was other structures
out there without building permits. And that became apparent to the zoning and we proceeded to
send them letters to get them to come through, so that took a little while to work through those
issues. Ultimately, in January, 2000, April 2006, it did go to the Planning Commission. It didn't
meet the timeline to appeal it. If they're aggrieved at the decision of the Planning Commission,
they have so many days to appeal that to the City Council. They did not make that deadline.
They chose to come back through the process. The Planning Commission still recommended
denial and that's where we are today.
Councilman Lundquist: So Kate, this letter that you put in front of us today talks about taking
down 7. Put the colored picture back up again.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: What are those 7?
Kate Aanenson: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.
Councilman Lundquist: And is that what the Planning Commission asked for?
53
City Council Meeting - July 10,2006
Kate Aanenson: Yes, but they still didn't want to support the variance on.
Councilman Lundquist: On the garage.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And the applicant agreed to take down all 7 buildings?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. To date none of that activity has occurred. And the deadline was August
1 st.
Mayor Furlong: August 1 st of '06?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. With that I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Alright, now I'm confused. What's the blue color?
Kate Aanenson: That's the existing house and kind of, and main garage.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Is there a rental property on this?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Where is that?
Kate Aanenson: Within the house. It's, on numerous appendages that, so also legal non-
conforming on that, which we gave... variance process for that too so it's kind of a, so there's
some, a lot of the garages for some of the renters too and some storage.
Councilman Peterson: So the blue building has got the extra.
Kate Aanenson: Let's go back and look at the house itself. Here's the original house. If you can
zoom in on that. Garages.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And the rental property is in that also?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And then this is the area that there's some that they need to
make sure they have enough clear space to get in, in order to get their accessible van in. And this
is the new garage that was built without a permit.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And you want the garage to come closer to the home?
54
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Kate Aanenson: That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that's why
they provided those pictures that say we can't make that access work for us. If we moved it
closer.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And do you agree with that or? You don't agree with that? Because
I mean I don't know.
Councilman Peterson: Well the distance between the house and the garage isn't going to affect
the turn around radius. Because your van is going to turn around in this area.
Kate Aanenson: Or you put the, yeah. This is where it's coming, the accessible driveway.
That'd be loaded on the other side of the garage possibility.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm sorry, unloading where?
Kate Aanenson: This is where you're unloading between the garage and here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Kate Aanenson: .. . over here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This looks like it's hard, like it's gravel or it's, what is this right
here?
Kate Aanenson: It's all, if you look at the air photo, there's a lot of hard surface through that
whole area.
Councilman Lundquist: It's Class V gravel.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: I mean what the van will most likely do is go this van and back up and go
in. The distance there isn't the relevant. It's if you have enough turning radius in backing your
van. But Kate going back to another question. Going back to the colored thing again. The blue
building is X'd out. Why is that.. .
Kate Aanenson: These are additional sheds that are on the back there, that they're willing to take
out. Sheds in the back. This, a little bit.. .not come out.
Councilman Peterson: But my point being, why is there are blue buildings and red buildings
with X's through them.
Mayor Furlong: The legend? The blue buildings were grandfathered?
Councilman Peterson: That was my point. Grandfathered but we're still.
55
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: But they're taking them. They're taking some of the grandfathered buildings
out.
Kate Aanenson: In order to get the new buildings, correct. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
Mayor Furlong: And the green are the built without permits.
Kate Aanenson: Right, right. And this is the new pole barn and that may be a better place to
keep the horses.. . city code requirement that they provide adequate shelter. And this isn't the
depth of the whole property. It goes down.
Councilman Lundquist: When was that garage built Kate? The one that's closer to the road.
Kate Aanenson: This one? That's what I say, in 2004 is when it was discovered. I'm not sure
of the date when it was actually constructed.
Todd Gerhardt: 1996.
Councilman Lundquist: If you take out those 7 buildings, does that put them under the total
whatever that, I forget what the number was in the report that. The square foot of.
Kate Aanenson: No, I think the goal is to get, to show good faith that they're moving towards
the requirement.
Councilman Lundquist: Right, but do they get them there?
Kate Aanenson: You need to remove, if you look at the second condition or the third, fourth
condition. If you grant the variance for the 22 foot, 20 foot front yard setback, and relief from
the 1,000 square foot detached accessory, and so they're 4,917 square feet roughly over.
Councilman Lundquist: So Kate is that with those 7 buildings out?
Kate Aanenson: No. That would be leaving everything in.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: So you're saying what would the number be with the 7 out?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Do we know that number?
Kate Aanenson: No, I do not. Not off the top of my head. I'm sure they know it. I'll recheck
on that. I've had a lot of facts on the top of my head tonight.
56
City Council Meeting - July 10,2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions right now for staff? If not, Carlson's or
representative like to address the council.
Luke Melchert: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Luke Melchert: My name is Luke Melchert. A family, an old member of our firm, they asked
me to speak on their behalf. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to request this
variance, and I think this is a classic example of where you've got the square peg of the law,
which is the single family zoning regulations, trying to pound down a round agricultural use.
And the reason why variances are provided for in the ordinances. I think Ms. Aanenson, I'm not
sure that the building, the garage that was built in 1996, has been there over a decade, or over 10
years, is 22 feet from the right-of-way.
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry.
Luke Melchert: So we'd be requesting an 8 foot variance from the setback. A variance of only 8
feet from 30 feet down to 22 feet there. And on this, that's on the west end over here. On the
east end it's about 24 feet from the right-of-way. So it's 6 feet there, so the variance, it should be
noted that between the right-of-way and the building, there's a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of
trees, if you look at the pictures. And does that make it? If you can see the road comes from the
north and makes almost a 90 degree turn and it's not that gentle of a turn, and right back in here
is the building and the trees and the berm. And I'm speaking for that first because that seems to
be the major sticking point. Someone on the city staff or that had said the building back there
created a hazard and we would like to think that the building doesn't create the hazard. The
curve in the road creates the hazard, and prior to the building being built there, there were
accidents there. Since the building has been built, there was a white building, there hasn't been
an accident at that corner. And so, and also when they came for the request in 19, to planning to
request the addition of Molly's caretaker to allow that, a survey was requested and it wasn't until
the surveyor, the surveyor hadn't put 22.4 feet on there, nobody would, we wouldn't be here
arguing this because nobody knew that it was only 8 feet from the right-of-way until the survey
showed it. And so it would seem to us that there is no harm by having the building remain there.
There's no harm because anybody not making that turn is going to hit berm first and then the
trees, and if there is a hazard there now, all of a sudden that we find out 10 years later that there's
a hazard that the public has to be protected, and it would seem to us a guardrail is the proper
protection as opposed to removing this building. And again, I think it should be noted that that
building has sat there for 10 years and nothing, there has been no problem. The requested
variance is, so it seems to us that there is no harm from the garage sitting there, at least from the
setback requirement. And if you look, and this is a rather crude drawing. This is where the 22
feet is, and it's only 22 feet from the right-of-way. It is 59 feet from the driven surface, and over
here a little bit to the east, Chanhassen has a hockey rink where their fence or the, whatever they
call them in hockey, is within the setback requirement too and not guarded by a stand of trees or
a berm. So it seems to me if there's any hazard to the public, it's a result of the curve and not a
result of the berm that encroaches in the setback. As far as the requirements to reduce the
number of square footage of accessory buildings, this property, if it was developed in accordance
57
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
with your ordinances, could be developed into 14 more single family homes, each having 1,000
square foot of accessory buildings. So that means there could be 15, if they developed within
your ordinance, could have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. Here they're only asking
for 5. Earlier this year the City of Chanhassen and the property owner entered into a written
agreement where they could bring in a 1,200 square foot pole building for the horses by taking
about 1,199, or 1,200 square feet out. Even with that agreement it's over the requirements not of
1,000 accessory feet. So it's all we're asking for us 1,900 square feet more. If this was
agricultural property, it could have hard surface of over 32,000 square feet. We're down in the
6,000 square foot range on 161,000 square feet of property. So it seems to me that even if we, if
these buildings weren't built before, if we came in and requested a variance now, it does not
seem an unreasonable request, given the circumstances. This property's been in the family for
over, since the 1800's. It's always been agricultural. The neighbors have requested, signed
petitions or a statement and it's on there tonight. They would prefer to have some semblance of
this existing lifestyle in their neighborhood than have it developed and sell it to a greedy attorney
and let them build single family homes there and 15,000 square feet of accessory building. It
seems to us that it's not unreasonable. This is what the neighborhood would like. This is what,
it's in a very remote area of the city. It's on the west end of the city and like I said personally I
would suspect that 99% of the people in Chanhassen don't know where this property is. Don't
care where this property is. The people who do care, the neighbors would like to see it remain as
it is. And it seems to us that there really is no harm by granting either of the variance, and it
certainly does not seem any harm from the setback request variance. Because the harm again I
think is the curve in the road and if there should be something done to protect the public, it
would be a guardrail as opposed to removal of the building. That's existed for 10 years. A
couple of people would like to, or let me ask you one more thing regarding the barn or the
garage. Inbetween the garage and the house there is a mature tree there, and to move the
building 8 feet closer, it just makes it very difficult. Yes it can be done. There's no question, it
can be done, but most of the time with emergency vehicles coming in there, or even with the van
for Molly who is handicapped and with the handicap van, it is just much more difficult to
negotiate. And again we would agree that it should be moved if there was any harm to the
public, but there doesn't appear that there should be any harm to the public by allowing that
building to remain there, especially after 10 years. So Molly would like to make a statement, and
I think Mr. Carlson would too, and perhaps some of the neighbors, if you want more statements
than this. But one last thing. I suppose that the Planning Commission was concerned, I made
the statement that it seems to me there are enough differences in this and the set of facts is such
that granting this variance would not be setting a precedence for granting variances in other
situations. I think Mr. Knutson wouldn't even have to be that creative in order to set of facts to
not make this a precedent for a future variance request. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Will you stand for a couple questions and then we'll be happy to listen to at
least a couple more. Any questions at this point from any council members? And maybe this is
a question for you and for staff with regard to the pole barn, or the new barn. I don't want to
refer to it. Was a permit drawn for that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, with a letter of credit for $5,000 that by August 1 st the buildings marked in
red would come down.
58
City Council Meeting - July 10,2006
Luke Melchert: There's two of the buildings already down. The third one is in the process of
being taken down.
Kate Aanenson: We checked today. We couldn't tell that they were in the process.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, so at some point there's going to have to be some verification of
that.
Luke Melchert: Mr. Carlson did not get building permits for a couple of these, two of these
barns, two of them sheds here were put up at the request of, you got a horse lady here. And she
said that he should build some additional.
Mayor Furlong: Was that an official...
Luke Melchert: ... but somebody from the city came out and said, you've got to provide better
shelter for your horses so he built this, assuming, thinking he's agricultural use and this is not
human habitation there so he just put the structures up.
Kate Aanenson: Well unfortunately it became filled with storage and the horses weren't in there.
The storage was and that was kind of some of the issue that we had.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Luke Melchert: Thank you.
Molly Carlson: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891
West 62nd Street. I come tonight to say that I very much need this variance for the garage that
protects my equipment. My equipment is very expensive and takes a lot of space. It would be
inaccessible to me if it was someplace else. This garage for my equipment has been.. . for 10
years. It would be a great hardship for me to be without it... Please don't take this away.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Carlson. I don't want a repeat of everything at the
Planning Commission.
Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street and I don't know if there's
a picture but when I, his driveway goes right down along my back yard, so whenever I, it would
be, yeah it would be this lot right here. So when I walk out my, into my back yard, I'm looking
right into their yard and right at the garages and stuff, and I don't see any reason. The garages
aren't, you can't see them from the road. They don't bother me at all. I like that type of area. I
live out there to be where it's quiet and not a lot of houses around and Mr. Carlson is a very good
neighbor. I just don't see any reason why you shouldn't grant this variance for the garages. And
I know he's going to be getting those sheds down but he has to have a place to put the stuff there
before he can get some of them tore down. He just doesn't want to put it out in the yard, but I
think you should grant it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Mr. Keehl. Okay?
59
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Luke Melchert: There's no question this is going to be, it's single family zoned. It's going to be
developed at some point in the future but because of, for the benefits of the citizens of
Chanhassen and the neighbors, please let this semblance of days gone past survive for a little
while longer. Everybody in the neighborhood likes it and there doesn't have to be any harm to
the health and welfare of the general public. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick question. I'm looking at the picture in the staff report, page
5. At the bottom which is, I think it's the back of the garage. Are there, none of the garage
doors open to the street, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: No, that's correct.
Mayor Furlong: They open to the driveway area which is somewhat to the east. And do they
use, is that a boat or something stored behind the garage in this picture?
Kate Aanenson: That's a carport.
Mayor Furlong: I'm looking at between the light pole and the two yellow turn signs. Down.
Bottom picture on the page. There you go.
Kate Aanenson: This one?
Mayor Furlong: Yep. If you move your pencil to the left. Right in the middle. Is that a boat or
something stored back there?
Kate Aanenson: That was one ofthe issues. There's a lot of outdoor storage.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Luke Melchert: We have no problem getting rid of outdoor storage. I mean you won't let us
build some of these buildings to put it in.
Mayor Furlong: A function of too much stuff. Okay. Any other questions, thoughts or
comments? And as I say I'm going to have a question. Well, let's start with that and then I may
have follow up questions. Thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: Start with a question or?
Mayor Furlong: Let me start with a question because maybe this may get us somewhere or not.
Mr. Knutson.
Gary Carlson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
60
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson. I want to make a comment. Again this wasn't Kate's issue. This
was Josh Metzer's issue and I appreciate Kate did a very good job of presenting it. I've been
negotiating a lot with Josh trying to take down 5 buildings. Then okay what would you do next
Mr. Carlson? Take down 2 more so, the thing to keep in mind is I'm taking down all 7 of the
structures that were grandfathered and replacing that with the small machine storage shed and the
animal loafing shed, which the animals are, the animals and I are using every day. Which are
interior to the property. They're small buildings. 22 by 20. They're not huge. They've got a lot
of space around us and if you look at those pictures you can see where we're not here to crowd.
We're a 5 acre hobby farm with building only the necessary structures to keep functioning as a
hobby farm. And I'm agreeing to take down 7 old structures. Really just.. . over the neighbors
and for our new development coming in south of us. I've worked out an agreement with that
developer to replace and put a really nice horse fence all along the south end of my property so
I'm not trying to be a drug dealer in a nice area. I continue to keep it improved.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
Gary Carlson: Yeah, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, in terms of the zoning. Currently it is residential low density, is
that the correct zoning?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, and this is a variance request. Could there be
a condition with regard to timing if a subdivision occurred then the variance, does the variance
stay with the property permanently or ifthere's subdivision, would then the variance have to be
reviewed in terms of the. Could that be a condition I guess is my question.
Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition.
Mayor Furlong: At some future.
Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition, if you chose to, that if any part of this
property were subdivided or sold off or any property line adjustments or the property shrunk in
size, that the variances would terminate. It just flows to the entire property and if it's further
divided, the variances are gone. You'd have to work on the wording but you can get that. If
that's what you want to do.
Councilman Lundquist: That's the creativity thing Mr. Melchert was talking about.
Roger Knutson: We've faced this issue before...but not with Mr. Melchert.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. He raised the issue about precedent setting as well, as he went forward
with something here. Do you see those, is there as much a concern here as sometimes we do
see?
61
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Roger Knutson: Legally I don't see it as a concern. I'm just stumbling here trying to find that
case. I didn't bring this case for this application but for a different one. It would basically, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals said that notions of precedence and.. . have no legal application in
the zoning process. The only thing that applies in the zoning process is, is there a rational basis?
Are you acting reasonably on this application? You have equal protection of other things, but
they rarely come in, so generally speaking you have a political precedent if you will, but there's
not a legal precedent.
Mayor Furlong: Those were my couple questions. I don't know if they helped you. I'm not
even sure they helped me but.
Councilman Peterson: They didn't help me.
Mayor Furlong: Thoughts and comments. Discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: I think reasonable trade off, if we can get the, I understand what the
Planning Commission and respect that either they're looking at the ordinance in a vacuum with
blinders so to speak. It's sort of what we asked them to do anyway. For them to interpret the
ordinances and to act accordingly. We get to make the fun decisions so, but I think I'm
comfortable given the removal of the 7 buildings, much like the previous one we just had. Get
those permits. Get those inspections. Verify that all of this stuff is happening. Make it a
reasonable amount of time and you know we'll leave that up to Kate and Todd to determine
what's reasonable. Somewhere between next week and 6 months from now. Something like
that. That they would get all that stuff done. I'm comfortable and again stressing that we get
that wording around the variances expiring on whatever happens here, subdivision slash you
know some modification of property rights. And again that no more structures get built on the
property, so essentially what's, Kate what you provided for alternate motion if you want to call it
that or, alternate recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I too. I think the applicant has given it a good shot at saying that he
will remove 7 buildings from the property and I just think that making him move a building 8
feet to comply, it seems tedious in some ways to me. But for me it doesn't make any common
sense. It's been there for 10 years. It obviously, I look at the pictures and looking to see about
space and vehicles, and there is a tree there so are we going to ask you to move the garage and
then cut the tree down so you have room for your vehicles? There comes a time and a place
where you just have to sit down and say, is it logical? Does it make sense or are we just being
tedious with the ordinance all along, and so I would like to see those buildings gone by August
1 st. .. . garage to say where it is and let them get back to their lives.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Well I'm in the mood to table tonight.
Mayor Furlong: We haven't done that yet tonight have we?
62
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Councilman Peterson: You know I think that if the structures that have been discussed to be
removed are removed and although I don't necessarily agree with the applicant's rational for not
moving the building, I think it's more reasonable... So to that end I would offer that we should
move to table until the buildings are gone and then come back and once we're assured of that and
then we'll grant the variance for the garage setbacks.
Mayor Furlong: And I think that's reasonable. I think since we are as close as we are to that
deadline, I think the applicant is making an effort in terms of identifying those 7 buildings and
we appreciate that, and seeing that those get done. I think we're 20 days away from that
deadline, and certainly hope that they will be able to adhere to that. But I would like to see some
language, as we discussed Councilman Lundquist also indicated, based on my question from,
with regards to the duration ofthe variance, especially if there's a subdivision there may, I
wouldn't want this to come back and create. something that has to be approved if there's a change
so, in terms of, it's been described to us as a need based upon the current use. So if that use
changes, then I would think that it would at least need to be revisited by a future council, so I
guess I'd like to see that as a part of the findings and also perhaps a condition that we'll look at.
Councilman Lundquist: So conditions around a motion to table, or does that become a strong
recommendation?
Mayor Furlong: No it's, I guess it's something for staff to investigate to look at, and the other
thing I heard was the issue of there's already an agreement between the City and the property
owner to have 5 buildings there removed I think by August 1st.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so I think we're 20 days away from that, which would give staff some time
to draft some language.
Kate Aanenson: We're going to take our extra 60 days.
Councilman Peterson: There you go.
Mayor Furlong: We've done that before tonight I think.
Kate Aanenson: I think so.
Councilman Peterson: Add to the 5 buildings, and add the 2,other ones, so you've get.
Kate Aanenson: 7 buildings.
Councilman Lundquist: As a strong recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
63
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Can we just be clear so that the applicant understands that condition. They're
tabling it and, until such time as the buildings are removed. . .
Luke Melchert: We understand that. I suppose before you...
Kate Aanenson: Right, they added the 2 additional buildings.
Luke Melchert: Right.
Mayor Furlong: We don't want, obviously we don't want to get to that. An agreement was
reached and we assume that the agreement's.
Luke Melchert: ...if the buildings are down by August 1 st, the applicant can probably assume
they.
Kate Aanenson: Put it back on the agenda, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Luke Melchert: And we'll get...
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: I try not to predict votes but.
Gary Carlson: 5 I can easily. 2 are already down and then for the third one we've got hay put in
it. But the barn is empty and I started taking that down today with a machine, but the 2
additional buildings, Josh and I had. First of all I don't know if I'm going to be able to keep the
machine storage shed and the animal loafing shed, and if I have to make more room in the
machine shed for taking down 2 more to 7. I can't do the 7 by August 1 st. I can do the 5 by
August 1 st.
Kate Aanenson: They gave you an extra 60 days so we'd be happy to work with you.
Mayor Furlong: I think staff can work with you.
Gary Carlson: Okay, yeah I know...I think it's a very good idea.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: .. .$5,000. Because it was for 5 buildings and now we're going to 7
so.
Gary Carlson: ...1' d be perfectly willing to show what I can do. Appreciate working.
Kate Aanenson: What the intent is to show good faith effort to move towards the goal.
64
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: On everyone's side.
Kate Aanenson: On everyone's side.
Mayor Furlong: Excellent. That would be fine. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table.
Mayor Furlong: Motion to table. Second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: We did accomplish a lot tonight, even though I shouldn't be discussing a
motion to table.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Planning Case 06-
23 for a variance and intensification of a non-conforming use for the property at 3891 West
62nd Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: As the Mayor said, I think we had an excellent 4th of July.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was a beautiful day both days. Very successful I thought. Record
numbers of people and wonderful weather and it was a good.
Mayor Furlong: It was a great time. Thank you Councilwoman Tjornhom. I appreciate you
saying that. Our city staff did a wonderful job, both the park department, public works. The
sheriff's department.
Todd Gerhardt: Fire department.
Mayor Furlong: Administration. Fire department. I mean just about all the departments. It was
a city wide effort. I think there were also a number of organizations, the Chamber. The Rotary
Club. Lions. Others that were intimately involved at various levels and we need to recognize all
their efforts too. This is not the type of project I know Mr. Hoffman said this before, the city and
the government can't put these on. It takes a lot of people and most of all, it takes the 6,000 or
so, or whatever the number was. Don't quote me on that please Mr. Jansen because in terms of
the people that showed up on the 3rd for the street dance.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install
wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations.
McDonald: Can I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot
variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot
patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant's hardship is self created in nature.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to
other property within the same zoning classification.
In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within
the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city
code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits
and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs
provided by the City at the monument locations.
All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 2.
McDonald: And again, what I would encourage the applicant to do is that between now and the
City Council meeting, offer city staff some of the plans that you brought up. If those would be
acceptable, I'm sure that they will propose that to City Council when you plead your case before
them. They have the power to actually make adjustments to the city code. Thank you.
Thomas Schwartz: Thank you for your time.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING
FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1.000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS
LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891
WEST 62ND STREET. PLANNING CASE 06-23.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Papke: This is obviously, as you stated, the second time we've seen this one and you're still
recommending denial. Can you give us a little bit of context as to how this came before us again
tonight.
Metzer: Originally the intention was to take this request with the compromise of taking the two
additional structures up to City Council, but the deadline for appeal to the recommendation of
denial was missed. And so by law we have to take it back through the process over again.
Larson: Just in the findings you have does not cause undue hardship to, or to take down, I'm
tired. The garages that they want to take down, but I'm thinking you know wasn't this one
where they need the van to get in there for their daughter?
Metzer: Right.
Larson: And to me that's kind of a hardship. If that van can't access to get in there and so.
Metzer: But it was a garage that was built without a permit.
Larson: Bad people, no permit. Alright, okay. Thanks.
McDonald: Kevin?
Dillon: No questions right now.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah a couple. .. . coming back as a trade off then to eliminate two more structures?
Metzer: Say it again.
Undestad: This is coming back now, the difference in this plan...
Metzer: Right.
Undestad: They're trying to do a trade off. Two more structures...
Metzer: .. . structures that were built without permits... where the last time it was here where the
three in question, they're still in question. The only difference is, he is agreeing to remove these.
I think it was more for a convenience on one of these.
Undestad: Now he's agreed to take the two small ones out.
Metzer: Right. And that's these that are pictured here on the top.
Larson: So Band C would be gone?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20,2006
Metzer: No. Well Band C are still up for applying for the variance for the intensification of the
non-conforming square footage of accessory structure.
Larson: Okay.
Metzer: Bu the applicant is proposing, in agreeance with being granted the two variances to the
setback and the three structures, intensifying the square footage, he would remove these as well
as these other 5. . . agreement.
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: Josh, I have a question for you. Are the building that he's talking about removing, are
they in use? Are they, I mean are they.
Metzer: To my knowledge they are. Maybe the applicant could shed a little more light on that
but.
Keefe: And in terms of their physical repair, are they useable from that standpoint?
Metzer: Well I mean from what I know, they're quite old. As far as their structural soundness, I
really have no idea.
Keefe: Okay. Yeah, I'm just I'm kind of scratching my head on, I mean they'll build a new
building and then I'll see if I can trade by tearing down some buildings that are older and get, so
when do the buildings come down? You know I guess only when he gets an agreement is when
they come down or?
Metzer: I mean part of the, if you were to grant a variance, part of the, one of the conditions is
that those two buildings are removed.
Keefe: Alright.
McDonald: Kevin. Or did you already pass?
Larson; I've got actually one more.
McDonald: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: So like if they had gotten a permit to do Building A, Band C, would A have not been
allowed?
Metzer: None of them would have been allowed.
Larson: None of them.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Metzer: No. Because city code states that this zoning district, RSF, maximum detached
accessory structure is 1,000 square feet. They already exceed that before these three buildings
were built.
McDonald: I have no questions of staff. Is the applicant present?
Luke Melchert: Yes, your honor, or Mr. Chairman the applicant is present. My name is Luke
Melchert. I'm going to talk on behalf of the applicant and he will talk also in a minute. It seems
to me that I hope you would look at this the same way that we look at it, and seems to me that
it's a case where, we've got the round pegs of the ordinance that are being trying to be pounded
into the square piece of property, and it just doesn't always fit sometimes. This is an RSF
zoning, which allows only 1,000 square feet of accessory structures. The RSF zoning allows for
anywhere from 1.4 to 4 units per acre. This is 3.85 acres. So if, assuming that the property
could be developed to a maximum density allowed in the ordinance, there could be 15 single
family homes here, plus 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. And we're looking at only
5,000 square feet. So if we would like to think that you would agree with what I think the
neighbors agree are looking for is that, to allow some semblance of an existing lifestyle that's
been in existence for 100 years out here. It's always been some type of a hobby farm. I suspect
that 98 to 99 percent of the people in Chanhassen have no idea where 3891 62nd Street is. Have
never been past it and really don't care what goes on here. The only people that really care are
the neighbors and they've all agreed that they would prefer this type of activity be on the
property as opposed to Mr. Carlson selling it to his greedy lawyer and he go out and developing
it to the maximum of it's potential where you can have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings
on there. There's no question it violates the letter of the law, but I don't think it's violates the
spirit of the law. And if you look at, let me get these other pictures up here first. Sticking more
to the 30 foot setback requirement. If you look at the picture down here in the left hand comer,
right here is where the 22 setback requirement is. It's the least. The 30 foot setback is required.
There's only 22 feet from the building, comer of the building here to the right-of-way. The
comer of the building is 59 feet from the driven surface of the roadway. And the building sits
behind a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees that existed for years. I would think that if this
building had not been built and were coming in for the variance now, given the fact of the
disabled child where a large tree, if you look at this picture, sits only 12 feet from the garage.
You see some of these pictures of where vehicles try to get between the garage and the tree. And
now you're looking at an emergency vehicle, a fire truck is going to be very difficult. It seems to
me that's a, if not an existing hardship, certainly a potential hardship. If you take everything into
consideration, this plus the fact that it costs over $17,000 for him just to remove it, it seems to us
that the perceived evil from this 22 foot setback is insignificant in comparison to what could be
potentially go wrong there. And the cost of removing the building. It would seem to me that if
we had requested that variance now, it would be not unreasonable to grant it now because there
is existing structures along the highway and Josh, is the hockey rink not in violation of this
setback? According to. . .
Metzer: It's within the front yard setback but it's you know, it's a hockey rink. You know it
could almost function as a fence rather than a garage.
( 53
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Luke Melchert: But I would think if I'm building a private hockey rink, that you're going to
look at that as fence. You're going to look at it as a structure. So it seems to me that the evil
perceived here is not very great in comparison to what the potential hardship would be. And it
should not be forgotten either that this condition's existed for over 10 years. And so it seems to
me if there is such an evil, it should have been stopped before you know, so again, I would like
to think that again it's the letter of the law's been violated, we don't think the spirit ofthe law's
been violated. And as far as the square footage, there's an existing agreement, written agreement
between the City of Chanhassen and the Carlson family that allows over 3,000 square feet of
accessory structures. The other stuff is this garage which we think is necessary for the child. It's
necessary for, you know it's not unreasonable where the building is situated. And again we think
you know the letter of law has been violated but the spirit of the law certainly hasn't been
violated, and I think as the neighbors are requesting, that they would rather see this type of
activity on the property as opposed to what could be on the property. Thank you.
McDonald: Any, well before you sit down, does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
Luke Melchert: I am not the applicant. I'm speaking.
McDonald: But you're speaking for the applicant so you just became the applicant.
Luke Melchert: Okay.
Larson: I've got one. You just mentioned a letter from Chan allowing 3,000 square feet of
accessory structures.
Luke Melchert: There's an existing agreement between the City of Chanhassen when Mr.
Carlson was putting in his pole barn and the removing ofthese other five buildings. It's kind of
a comparable removal of and then, so under that written agreement, that building plus the other
structures exceed the 3,000 square feet.
Larson: Right.
Luke Melchert: And so all we're asking for is the difference between 3,000 and 5,000 on 3.9
acres. Again, yes it violates the letter of the law. There's no question about it, 3,000 or 5,000
but you all have to remember that you are treating this property exactly the same way you are
treating a what, three-quarter, 1,500 or 5,000 square foot on 15,000 square foot lot. And this is
3.8 acres. Almost 4 acres. And again the only people who really see this property are the
neighbors and they all would prefer it to remain as it is, and Mr. Carlson continue the activity
there.
McDonald: Kevin, do you have any questions?
Dillon: Are there any neighbors here that will attest to that?
Luke Melchert: We have some written document. Mr. Carlson, do you have those letters?
54
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Metzer: They should have been in the report.
Keefe: Let me just ask, why weren't the buildings permitted?
Luke Melchert: I have no idea. They were not. There's no question they weren't but again, that
garage has been there for 10 years. And so I don't even remember some of the things I've done
9 months ago.
Keefe: So it's been in the family for a hundred years and you put up some buildings? Okay.
Luke Melchert: And now the types of uses have changed. You know it's always been a hobby
farm. He's had an apple orchard there and now he's doing horses.
McDonald: I have a question for staff first of all. You said a couple of things about the 3,300
square foot, the agreement between the city. If my memory serves me correctly, part of that was
a compromise because isn't this a non-conforming use?
Metzer: Right, they have an existing accessory structures are out there are like 3,000 something.
Of you know legally built, long before our current ordinance existed. What they wanted to do,
they have a dilapidated barn where the horses were staying which they needed to improve so
they brought in a pole barn and in exchange removed an equal amount of existing structures.
McDonald: And so we actually.
Metzer: Consolidated from 5 into 1.
McDonald: Consolidated 5 buildings down to 1 which made it simpler as far as the building,
that was part of the compromise.
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: Okay. You say that if we were to look at this as being divided up into 15 single
family units, there'd be 15,000 square feet of additional structure space that would be allowed if
these were individual lots. Isn't that a little apples and oranges?
Luke Melchert: .. . factual? I mean under the ordinance it can be subdivided into 1.4 to 4 units
per acre. And now I'm just assuming that whoever bought it would seek to subdivide and
develop it to it's maximum potential.
McDonald: But wouldn't those be individual units?
Luke Melchert: Right, but it's on the same 3.87 acres, there'd be 15,000 square feet of accessory
structures.
McDonald: But at that point you're looking at 15 individual pieces of land versus one piece of
land.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Luke Melchert: Absolutely. But it's 15 that are maybe quarter acre area of lots as opposed to
one 3.85 acres.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else does. Okay. Thank you
very much. This is a public meeting and what I would invite is anyone that wishes to come
forward and speak, please do so.
Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62ud Street. I'd like to say a few words on my behalf. I
have one additional letter from the neighbor. Well just quickly, the letters from the only
neighbors involved with this property, because the rest of thousands of feet away, are the two
that are already in the statement. They're very short. Dale and Linda Keehl who live directly
east of the Carlson property have no concerns or problems with the placement of their out
buildings or the number of them. That's my neighbors directly to my east. We visit, you
know.. . all the time. The next neighbor is directly east to my property, Terry Toll. Next to the
Carlson's on the east side. I have no problems with their buildings. Exclamation point. And
they would gladly come here tonight. And then this new letter, we are Sue and Steve Bradley.
We live in the first home directly to the west ofthe Carlson property. We find the position of
agricultural buildings on their premises benefits the surrounding neighborhood. We believe it
increases the safety of the citizens of the area and the livestock on the property. Neighbors,
including ourselves, enjoy their rural influence on our children and the agricultural nature of the
property provides endless entertainment and education. Protecting the legacy of rural life in
Chanhassen should be considered for the healthy and happy development for future generations
in and around Chanhassen. We all need to do more to support this type of diversity in our
neighborhoods and help promote a connection to the land. This is from Sue and Steve Bradley.
Our neighbors to the west. Big picture is here. I don't have RSF zoning, and I never will and we
can never get our zoning to match my home. If I do redevelop, which I have developed 21 lots
in our city. Very beautiful lots. All with no variances, I'll bring in a development that you'll be
pleased to approve. Which if I keep my hobby farm for 20 to 30 years, I can very easily see a
light rail train station on my site because everything else is getting burned up with homes
because I have the full light rail goes right by my property and there's enough place for a trail
station there because there's no other property, so I'm thinking way out in the future but getting
back to what's at hand. The big picture is I have an agricultural farm. The City is doing the best
they can to get me into the RSF, and if you read carefully their whole program is, their whole
packet it's very well put together. Very well worded and they worked hard on it now the second
time because I didn't know I had to sign a paper for appeal within 4 days. I didn't get it signed
in 4 days, and during the interim it's given me a chance to work out some more changes in the
older buildings. It's giving me a chance to hire some, advice of to guide me. It's not a person
that would be strange to these type of city operations. He's, I really appreciate him being on the
end and guiding me through this, Mr. Luke Melchert. He's the city attorney from the City of
Chaska and they're such small variances. The City has already you know gone with let a pole
barn come onto, an RSF-l that's over the 1,000 square foot. The City has already varianced me
for adding an apartment to my house in RSF-1. Both ofthese were non, it's a non-conforming
home. It's already gone over and said well we're not even going to allow, trying to improve.
The City has already allowed me two different occasions to change and non-conform. And if we
can't get some positive reaction, get you folks to understand what we're doing here, we just need
56
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
these minor variances to keep it in line with the city's zoning. It's not a precedent. There's no
other home like this. No large property like this. Not going to change things in the rest of the
residents. It doesn't affect anyone really or otherwise. I guess I just want to get these pictures
shown briefly. This is the old barn that's coming down. Can we blow that up? Little bit. Yeah,
that's good and I'll just move the picture up. This is the old barn that's coming down. And this
is already in. This is the pole barn that's replacing it. Now do you see encroachment oftoo many
structures on this property? We've got space everywhere and there's room all around it. There's
not too much surface structure area. The next picture over is the machine shed that was put in 13
years ago and that's where all the equipment for the horses are kept. This little building there to
the right of it is coming down, and of course you can see the pole barn again. It's already in
place. It's already been set and we're starting to move things into it so I can take down the old
barn. And not a big problem with, I mean it's not a big, it's not building to everyone... you read
the report it says I have 13 out structures. I do. We're taking down 7 ofthem. Let's look at this
next picture quickly. I think we have time on that. This is the machine, you know this is the,
you can see the horse. This is their, when they're in that part of the pasture this is, as the horse
inspector said, you need something better than the barn and I put this in 4 years ago. You can
see the size of the pick-up besides this. Not a very big building. 22 by 20. This is another
picture of it down the side of it, and out into the rest of my property. All the way to those trees is
my property. Now I think it looks big because I'm standing right beside it. Nice structure.
That's 4 years old. That's a new structure. And we move over again and there's that machine,
machinery storage. And there's that little old shed that's coming down. And I've got to show
my wife out in the garden there working. That kind of shows, you know I have to improve my
buildings and the city is recognizing that. They're glad to see these old buildings go, and yes
I've had some without permit. I thought I was ag use. I am ag use. The city has mentioned in
here I'm an ag use. You can drive by any time you want and they've got 13,9,7 out buildings.
They've got silos. I mean I didn't know you've got to take a permit for every, as they changed
uses of that.. ,farmer and the next thing you know you're in dairy or, I don't know what that
zoning permit is required but I'm no different. I've had to improve these utility buildings and
I'm taking down 7 of them. Just to cover a little bit, I guess you went over all the setback and
how we showed on these pictures the uses up there. The only thing I want to cover is that the
Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot front yard setback, which was 8 foot. I
mean there's a plan in here that shows how far the road is actually from my property because the
road doesn't come anywhere near the property line. You've got the railroad right-of-way.
You've got a comer right-of-way and you've got 3 streets coming together so there's a lot of
right-of-way. There's a lot of space between me and any traffic. Ijust want to state what we're
here for and if we can't have a positive outcome of course I will get everything signed and get it
appealed to the council in time this time. Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22
foot setback, and just what the staff has said on the approval. With the following conditions.
The building permits have been submitted for almost a year now. Since last August. So the
whole prints, all the drawings of these new buildings are all there waiting at the building
department. When you approve this, we're just talking about the variance tonight. You approve
the variance, the building department then kicks in and they're not going to issue building
permits. They're going to write them and they're going to be called printed, but not issued
because it was an after the fact building permit. They'll print them but they won't issue them
until they look at the building. Make sure it meets all the codes and setbacks, whatever. So
when you say well we gave them the variance and then he gets the building permits. No. That's
57
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
a whole separate process. I've submitted that. If those buildings have anything that's not
approved, they'll be coming down. And not based on your variance. These are based on the fact
that they're not, they don't meet building codes.
Luke Melchert: I just wanted to, if I may, just one last comment here. Staff has written that you
do have a great deal of latitude in determining variances and it seems to me there is enough here
that this property is so unique and if you do grant these variances you're not going to be setting a
precedent for any other variances...
Gary Carlson: Thanks. You guys do a great job. We love being in Chanhassen. We love the
fact that you have a city center. I see Victoria has really improved their's I think because
Chanhassen was such a great city. And thank you for being here. I know it's ajob sometimes
but thanks for being here.
McDonald: Thank you Mr. Carlson. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make
comment and ask questions? Okay seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting
and I'll bring it back up to the commissioners. Dan, I'll let you go first.
Keefe: I guess I'm just, you know I'm torn by the garage was built without a permit and not
only was it built without a permit, it's built not at the setback. I'm just kind of troubled by that.
I think that does, despite what they say about you know we just can't have that. I mean you've
got to get permits and adhere to the setbacks. I mean we have granted him some other things,
you know. But on this one I'm just troubled by them.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah, it does sound like the City has given, met on some of these issues and helped
out along the way here. You know and again, I mean they're building structures without
permits, and we all know you can't be doing that. This is what happens here. The comment was
made as far as you know, the letter of the law versus the spirit here and I think as a commission
again we kind of have, we're kind of back in that path of the letter of the law is what we kind of
have to look at here so. I think that's what we've got to base it on.
McDonald: Thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, I'd like to add I'm a little bit troubled by the lack of attention to detail to process
and missing the last chance for appeal and doing the buildings without getting not only the right
approvals beforehand. There seems to be just a little bit of a pattern of not really caring and so
that troubles me a little bit. As well as just like you know, the aesthetic nature of what we're
approving is not what I would like to see.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie.
Larson: What I'm wondering is if this were in agricultural versus residential property, would we
be running into the same problems.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Metzer: No.
Larson: So would it make sense to try and change the zoning on that property because it's.
Metzer: No. It's land use designation is for low density residentiaL..
Larson: So there's no way to change that? Okay. That's all I have.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Yeah I think Deb touched on the zoning issue. I mean if we're guiding this for 2020 low
density residential, that's very different than if it was being guided for ag or rural residential in
that timeframe so I think it's clear what the city's intentions are. The property to the south is
being developed. When I drove by last weekend, I noticed just on the other side of the light rail
trail there's a new development of four big homes going in there, so that area is developing. It is
becoming more residential, and I think we have to be sensitive to the surroundings. Also as you
come south on the roadway there, that impinges on the garage, the picture shows the big signs
directing people to you know turn left here. I don't think the picture does justice to it. I mean
they're pretty obvious. They're pretty blatant. It's pretty clear that the traffic engineers were
justifiably concerned that somebody doesn't miss that corner, so I think this you know, if the
setback was in an area where it didn't make any difference, you know I think there might be
some reason for latitude but in this particular case it seems pretty obvious that the traffic
engineers had cause for concern, and being that safety should always be upper most in our
minds, I think we have to take that into consideration too so, that's it.
McDonald: As I said before, these are always the toughest ones to I think deal with because you
hate to tell someone what he can and cannot do on his property. To say that it doesn't set a
precedent is dead wrong, and I think everyone knows that. The man that was in here before us
suffering $47,000-$50,000 worth of effort. I don't see where his problem is any different from
this, and I see us, we're bound by the same rules. Ijust don't see where we have the latitude that
everyone believes that we do. And if we can grant variances under certain conditions, we've
been through this before. We found that the conditions to grant a variance have not been met. I
don't see where anything has really changed. It's just at this point you will have the opportunity
to go before City Council. Plead your case at that point, and you know if they wish to redo
something considering the zoning or something along those lines, they have that power within
the city charter to do all that. And as I said before, I don't like doing these and I'm sorry when
they always come before us but we did swear and oath to enforce the laws of the city. I see
where we have no choice here either.
Luke Melchert: May I respond to a couple of things that were brought up?
McDonald: Well I've been bitten pretty bad tonight by letting people respond after we have
made comments. I would suggest at this point to save the comments for City Council. Again as
I've explained, we are very limited as to what we can do and I don't think there's anything you
can tell us so what I would do is ask for a motion from the council. Or actually from the
commission, I'm sorry...
59
Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006
Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read?
Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing
four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a
single family residential district at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff
report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish
and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22
foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square
foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF)
District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following:
1'. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the
three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits.
The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three
storage buildings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O.
McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't
forget this time... and good luck. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOREN VEL TKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQillREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF
HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES
WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS
LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724
LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25.
60