The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-05_7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD - JOHN COLFORDba r-� 1 Ao eo 2� It 2,5C, C,E/Amd Ly I AJ -' 76,3 4�39 Thomas]. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell PoehI Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Samuel J. Edmunds Marguerite M. McCarron 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Associatiou Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222 E-mailAddress. snelson@ck-law.com August 3, 2010 Ms. Kim Meuwissen CCTV OF CHANHASSEN City of Chanhassen RECEIVED 7700 Market Boulevard AUG 0 3 2010 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CHANHASSEN PLM IN1NG DEPT RE: CHANHASSEN—MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS D ZONING LOT DESIGNATION - JOHNIJANE COLFORD PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD (Lots 6&7, Block 1, Sunset View Addition - PID #25.8400050) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find the above referenced original recorded Zoning Lot Designation for the John/Jane Colford property located at 7470 Chanhassen Road. The Zoning Lot Designation was recorded with the County on February 11, 2010 as Abstract Document No. A514984. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BY' Leg 1 Assistant S san R. Nelson, SCANNED Document No. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER A 514983 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fee $46 00 Receipt# Certified Recorded on 2/11/2010 at 0230 ❑ AM PM 4N,. II II ��IIII II �1■I'III Cli CCou R rder r CTPY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ZONING LOT DESIGNATION The fee owners of Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 Sunset View Addition, Carver County Minnesota (collectively "The Lots") have requested that The Lots be combined as a single lot for zoning and building purposes. The two lots have a single tax identification number, 25-8400050. The Lots are hereby designated as a single Zoning Lot pursuant to Chanhassen City Code § 20-903. Interior lot lines within the Zoning Lot shall be disregarded in applying setbacks, other zoning requirements and building code requirements. The Lots may not be conveyed as separate lots. The Zoning Lot may not be subdivided without complying with the City of Chanhassen's subdivision regulations. The Zoning Lot must have a single tax identification number. This Zoning Lot Designation shall be recorded against the title to The Lots. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: 04 &�� Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (Ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l// G4 day of 20AQ, by Kate Aanenson, the Community Development Director of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. N ARY PUBLIC KIM T. MEUWISSE Notary Public -Minnesota My Co ,j iai ExO,w Jon 31, 2016 149207v01 RNK:12/1612009 SCANNED •ke PROPERTY W. Colford Colford STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss. COUNTY OF' '"- ) AI-IzThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -4 day of Ile..L_.. , 20-9-7-, by John W. Colford and Jane M. Colford, husband and wife, property owners. / DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center DOUGLAS E. VELLINE 1380 Corporate Center Curve NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA Eagan, Minnesota 55121 ,,. My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2013 Telephone: 651-452-5000 RNK 149207v01 2 RNK:12/16t2009 City Clerk's Certification Pursuant to M.S.272.162 The undersigned hereby certifies: (Check one of the following:) That City subdivision regulations do not apply to this instrument. That the subdivision of land affected by this instrument has been approved by the governing body of the City of Chanhassen. That municipal restrictions on the filing and recording of this instrument have been waived by a resolution of the governing body of the City of Chanhassen. That this instrument does not comply with municipal subdivision restrictions and the affected land and its assessed valuation should not be divided by the Co my Auditor. Dated: b 12 By De Chanhassen Ci Clerk Printed Name: Q avi e S a-,(z C tYwbt aa' `}ins a e_ ��thgle �1,6 h,tL� r i CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 2/1 /10 09-05 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 1/6/10 09-05 Zoning Lot Designation - 7470 Chanhassen Road Lots 6 & 7, Sunset View Addition - PID 25-8400050 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: John Colford ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED I �oL S 1149 3 i�p-corcccl 4 -11 - 10 ') 49 O CK.rt { ot%h I?d Co lfor-1 C�S -&N C*S v CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ZONING LOT DESIGNATION The fee owners of Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 Sunset View Addition, Carver County Minnesota (collectively "The Lots") have requested that The Lots be combined as a single lot for zoning and building purposes. The two lots have a single tax identification number, 25-8400050. The Lots are hereby designated as a single Zoning Lot pursuant to Chanhassen City Code § 20-903. Interior lot lines within the Zoning Lot shall be disregarded in applying setbacks, other zoning requirements and building code requirements. The Lots may not be conveyed as separate lots. The Zoning Lot may not be subdivided without complying with the City of Chanhassen's subdivision regulations. The Zoning Lot must have a single tax identification number. This Zoning Lot Designation shall be recorded against the title to The Lots. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: k &W)_� Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1o4 day of 20_JO , by Kate Aanenson, the Community Development Director of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. _ T N ARY PUBLIC : KIM T. MEUWISSEN h Notary Public -Minnesota ' �� my co wion Eyes Jan 31, 2015 149207vO1 RNK:12/16I2009 PROPERTY W. Colford M. Colford STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF-e� ) The- foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -3—(— day of 1 , 20-, by John W. Colford and Jane M. Colford, husband and wife, property owners. / DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTsoN Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center. DOUGLAS E. VELLINE 1380 Corporate Center Curve NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA Eagan, Minnesota 55121 My Commission Expres Jan. 31, 2013 Telephone: 651452-5000 RNK 149207v01 2 RNK:12/16r2009 City Clerk's Certification Pursuant to M.S.272.162 The undersigned hereby certifies: -Z (Check one of the following:) That City subdivision regulations do not apply to this instrument. That the subdivision of land affected by this instrument has been approved by the governing body of the City of Chanhassen. That municipal restrictions on the filing and recording of this instrument have been waived by a resolution of the governing body of the City of Chanhassen. That this instrument does not comply with municipal subdivision restrictions and the affected land and its assessed valuation should not be divided by the County Auditor. Dated: C, 177, fay ��- De C ha nhassen G4 Clerk Printed Name: r7y-Aqv /� A-) Q,ivr { pts i3�ryt i f o r W fly o� 1I�1nq�2 �IV-, yv c mbe . d`i- ©S July 2, 2009 CITY OF CHMIMSEN Mr. Fred Oelschlager 7700 Market Boulevard 7410 Chanhassen Road PO Box 147 Chanhassen, NW 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Letter and Petition regarding Setbacks on Lotus Lake A6n6tistration Phone: 952.227.1100 Dear Fred: Fax: 952.227.1110 Your petition requests that all homeowners in the 15 lots sold under the Rdit Insluttorrs subdivision of Sunset Village have a minimum home lakeshore setback of 125 Phone:952.227.1180 feet. I have noted that all of the homes in this location meet the 125-foot setback Fax: 952.227.1190 but one. 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 1t Natural Room Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Put& Works 1591 Park Road Phone:952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Lakeshore Setback 75' minimum r. While these lots are legal nonconforming as far as width, today's lakeshore lot width requirement is 90 feet at the O.H.W. and the building setback line. Upon examining lots at 7480-7500 Chanhassen Road and 10-40 Hill Street (setback area is shown in red on the map), the average lot width is 50 plus feet. The minimum setback for side yards is 10 feet. In order to build a home at the minimum 75-foot lakeshore setback, a house could only be 30 feet wide. Typical lakeshore homes in Chanhassen have a much larger footprint. The widest part of ft Site the lot is closer to Chanhassen Road, which is why the majority of homes have wwauchanhassen.mn.us been constructed there. If someone chooses to build at the minimum setback, the variance process could allow for denial of the request. acuuNIo Chanhassen is a Cammmdq for life - Providing for Today and Planning fa Tomorrow W. Fred Oelschlager July 2, 2009 Page 2 Therefore, based on the number of narrow lots that limits homes that could be built at the minimum 75-foot setback, I believe that the City has a mechanism in place to maintain a greater setback. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1139 or by email at kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.nm.us. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director KRA:ktm gAplan\kabelschalga.dm May 24, 2009 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN. To Whom It May Concern, In reference to a meeting held at City Hall approximately 3 weeks ago about the property at 7470 Chanhassen Road located in the subdivision known as Sunset View. My grandfather owned all the property from 7410 Chanhassen Road to the public access on Lotus Lake. In the early 1950's he had this land plotted out into 15 lots to be sold each having access to Hwy 101 better known as Chanhassen Road and also each with lakeshore frontage. He personally sold all the lots. The only way he considered selling a lot was with a personal guarantee with a "hand shake" to not build a home within 125 feet of the lakeshore. Unfortunately, there is not paperwork to back this up. Everyone that purchased those lots did abide by that rule plus.- also built back further yet from the lakeshore. T l at 741. Cha^ risen Road on Lotus Lake all my have lived .._ o r._ life and still do and respectively would want to abide by my grandfather's wishes. Sincerely Fred M. Oelschalger Carl B.Fitzsimmons, D.D.S. 7480 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Monday, May 25, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Bog 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road House Project —We request to the home to be set back at least 125 feet from the Lotus Lake shoreline Dear Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen: The neighbors of 7470 Chanhassen Road welcome the new owners of this property to the Lotus Lake community; we are looking forward to befriending our new neighbors. We are excited about the beautiful home they plan to build. AND the elimination of the rental property at 7470 is a welcomed event for all of us. We have taken special interest in this project as it affects all of us who share the natural beauty of Lotus Lake. We enjoy the panoramic views we have of the lake from our properties. Our homes are set far enough back from the shore of the lake to witness much wildlife such as migratory birds, fox, deer and other animals which are rarely seen in most metropolitan neighborhoods. We would very much like to maintain and continue to share in the natural beauty of the lake. The proposed home to be built at 7470 Chanhassen Road is planned to be 75 feet from the Lotus Lake shoreline. Under the current statutes of the city this is with in the building guidelines for the property. However, the neighbors of 7470 Chanhassen Road are greatly concerned by the position of the proposed house. The position of the house will have a negative impact on the views from our homes, the value of our property and the natural beauty of the shoreline of Lotus Lake. The neighbors of 7470 Chanhassen Road welcome the building of the new home on this property. However, we request that home be built no closer than 125 feet from the Lotus Lake shore line. Sincerely, Lotus Lake Residents Boned Print Name Address pp L _ /I n e Chao 6asse* ss3.,7_ beof li14MACSCina--, fit 7 Carl B.Fitzsimmons, D.D.S. 7480 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Monday, May 25, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road House Project —We request to the home to be set back at least 125 feet from the Lotus Lake shoreline rIOJ Carl B.Fitzsimmons, D.D.S. 7480 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Monday, May 25, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road House Project —We request to the home to be set back at least 125 feet from the Lotus Lake shoreline /fI fide Ffy1111 NP � 111 S- rt�4 CAAA11it0s5G& 0. -7.11o � Carl B.Fitzsimmons, D.D.S. 7480 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Monday, May 25, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road House Project —We request to the home to be set back at least 125 feet from the Lotus Lake shoreline May 28, 2009 MY l OF CgANHASSEN Mr. John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue North 7700 Market Boulevard Champlin, MN 55316-3367 PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Zoning Appeal of an Administrative Decision Regarding Multiple Dwellings on a Single Lot 7470 Chanhassen Road — Planning Case #09-05 Administration Phom:952.227'1100 Dear Mr. Colford: Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections This letter is to formally notify you that on May 26, 2009, the Chanhassen City Phone:952.227.1180 Council voted to approve the following motion: Fax: 952.227.1190 "The Chanhassen City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staff s Engineering interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order Fines to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot " Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952227.1110 A building and demolition permit must be applied for with the Building Department prior to any demolition and/or construction on the property. In order Park & Recreation to combine the lots into a single zoning lot, please provide the City with a letter of PFax:952.227.1110 Fax: 952.227.1110 request. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Sincerely, Phone: Faz:952.227.1404 52.227.14040 Planning & Angie Kairies Natural Resources Planner I Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax- 952.227.1110 c: Building Permit File PIS Works g:xplanx2009 planning casesx09-05 7470 chmhassm road zoning appmIdetter of decisim.dm 1591 Park Road Pfane:952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Sender Cenw Phone.952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 4 Y 05- C)=, SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 09-o5 ClTYOF C9ANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC 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 Plane: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site wwwachanhassen. mn.us u,R. It WD TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I DATE: May 26, 2009 0k-irl* SUBJ: John Colford -- Zoning Appeal of an Administrative Decision Regarding Multiple Dwellings on a Single Lot 7470 Chanhassen Road — Planning Case #09-05 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staff s interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 Chanhassen Road, in order to replace and expand the northerly dwelling. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 5, 2009. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to approve the motion affirming staffs interpretation for the regulations regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot. As part of the discussion the Planning Commission discussed whether an expansion of the non -conformity of two dwelling units on a single lot is by: a. Increasing the square footage, or b. Adding an additional unit on the site. WANK" Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt 7470 Chanhassen Road Appeal Planning Case #09-05 May 26, 2009 Page 2 It is staff's determination that increasing the square footage of either of the dwellings increases the intensity of the use, thus increasing the non-confomuty. Increased square footage would allow for the opportunity for additional habitable space. Currently, Lots 6 and 7 are under a single PID for tax purposes; however, staff has been unable to locate documentation that the parcels have been combined into a Zoning Lot for zoning purposes. Staff is recommending the applicant provides a written request to combine Lots 6 and 7 into a Zoning Lot as defined by City Code. Several of the residents spoke at the Public Hearing in favor of the removal of the main house and construction of a new house; however, they were primarily concerned with continued rental of the second dwelling. A second concern of the neighbors was the proposed location of the new house. While the proposed location meets the required 75-foot lakeshore setback, it will be located closer to the lake than the neighboring properties and may obstruct their current view of the lake to the side of their properties. The Planning Commission minutes for May 5, 2009 are item la of the May 26, 2009 City Council packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staff's interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot." ATTACHMENT 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 5, 2009. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-05 7470 chanhassen road inning appeaMxecutive summary 5-26-09.doc PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council Plafming Geffuniss affirms the Planning Commission and staffs interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot." PROPOSAL: Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot. LOCATION: 7470 Chanhassen Road Lots 6 & 7, Sunset View APPLICANT: John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue North Champlin, MN 55316-3367 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential, RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .87 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion with an appeal of an administrative decision because the applicant is seeking a deviation from administrative interpretation of established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. REQUEST The applicant is appealing staffs decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 Chanhassen Road, in order to replace and expand the northerly dwelling. John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 2 of 7 The opposing interpretations are: 1. Staffs interpretation: Tear down Building B completely. 2. Applicant's interoretation: Removing an aspect (kitchen appliances) eliminates structure as a second dwelling unit. The applicant's preference is to keep Building B as a separate dwelling unit. However, City Code is very specific stating that one principle dwelling is allowed per lot and a nonconforming use or structure may be maintained through repair, replacement or maintenance, but not expansion. Increasing the size of either of the dwelling units increases the nonconforming use. Sec. 20-28. Board of appeals and adjustments. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of this chapter. BACKGROUND The property is Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, Sunset View Addition and is a riparian lot located on the southeast side of Lotus Lake. The Sunset View Addition was platted in 1954 and the subject site was originally two individual parcels, Lots 6 and 7, each with a single-family dwelling, built circa 1935. After researching Carver County records, the earliest record showing the lots as a single parcel is 1992. Prior to 1992, it is unclear when the parcels were combined into a single parcel or Zoning Lot. A Zoning Lot is when two or more parcels are combined into a single lot. All interior lot lines are disregarded and the parcels must comply with all zoning requirements, including one principle .n .. }s� i 6 4i u, 7 r s John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 3 of 7 structure on a single-family lot. When the parcels were combined, neither of the dwellings was removed. Therefore, the site is currently nonconforming with two principal buildings on a single lot. Both of the dwelling units have been used as rental units under previous ownership. The applicant purchased the property in 2007 with the intent to demolish the larger dwelling (Building A) and build a new larger home closer to the lake, and maintain the smaller dwelling (Building B). In addition to the two dwelling units, there is a detached garage located near Highway 101 (Building Q. According to City Code Section 20-72, nonconforming uses and structures may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including Om ion Increasing the size of either dwelling unit increases the nonconforming use of multiple dwelling units on a single lot. The property owner proposes to remove an aspect (kitchen) from Building B so it does not meet the definition of a single-family dwelling. They contest that removal of the kitchen appliances eliminates the classification of a dwelling unit. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. It is staffs determination that removing the appliances from the kitchen does not negate the fact that the structure is and could be used as a separate dwelling unit. Additionally, there is no John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 4 of 7 guarantee that the appliances will not be replaced in the future without the City's knowledge, and rental or habitation resumed in Building B would again constitute a dwelling unit. Staffs position is, in order to replace either of the dwelling units with a larger dwelling unit, the second dwelling unit must be removed. The applicant is appealing staff s decision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another nonconforming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. Sec. 20-902. Multiple principal buildings on same lot. In any single-family detached residential district not more than one principal building shall be permitted to be erected on a single building lot. Groupings of buildings in other districts may on be permitted by conditional use permit. DISCUSSION The property owner would like to demolish the larger dwelling (Building A) and build a new, larger home closer to the lake and keep the smaller dwelling (Building B). There is also a detached garage located on the site (Building C), which will remain on the site. All of the existing structures are currently nonconforming. Existing Pro osed Building A 1,225 square feet 2,615 square feet new structure Building B 970 square feet 970 s uare feet Building C 730 square feet 730 square feet Hard Surface Coverage 28.7% 24.4% John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Existing Conditions `1 1'1`I \ 1 � 1 � r 1 1 r .� v \ r` 1� 1 ! J '• � 1 � 1 yam. _ Proposed Conditions jCAN CaF�D rbDSE i� IIOUg p „t _l _ 6 As stated in Section 20-72, any nonconformity or lawful use existing at the time of adoption of a more restrictive control, may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not includine expansion. Therefore, construction of a larger dwelling increases the existing nonconformity of the multiple dwellings. John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 6 of 7 The applicant could: a. Maintain Building A through remodeling or repair within the same building envelope (exact location). b. Replace Building A with the exact same square footage (includes all levels of existing structure). That square footage could be relocated within the required setbacks as the current setbacks are nonconforming, bringing that aspect of the structure into compliance with City Code. c. Remove Buildings A and B and build a new single family home in compliance with City Code. Building B is a full functioning dwelling (kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas, furnace, utilities, and laundry facilities) and is currently a rental unit. The applicant proposes to remove an aspect of Building B (kitchen). It is staff s interpretation that removing the appliances and cupboards does not eliminate the fact that it is a dwelling unit, nor does it ensure that the appliances will not be replaced and rental or habitation will resume in the future. It would, in fact, remain a complete separate and independent living quarters. The applicant states that he would like to keep Building B in an acceptable form, with as many features as possible, to maintain its value to counter the low appraisals obtained during construction financing. However, the applicant states that the dwelling will no longer be used as a rental property. Maintaining the value of the structure would be allowing it to remain as a dwelling unit. The City Code is very specific in stating that one principle dwelling is allowed per lot and a nonconforming use or structure may be maintained through repair, replacement or maintenance, but not expansion. Increasing the size of either of the dwelling units increases the nonconforming use of two dwelling units on a single lot. It is staffs interpretation that Building B must be removed from the property. If the Planning Commission's decision is to allow Building B to remain on the property as a detached accessory structure, the combination of Building B and Building C will exceed the 1,000 square -foot limitation. This would decrease the intensity of the existing nonconformity; however, a new nonconformity of less intensity will be created. RECOMMENDATION Staff The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Geffffriss City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council Plaaakt Geffffniss affirms the Planning Commission and staffs interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and John Colford Zoning Appeal May 5, 2009 Page 7 of 7 requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Existing Survey dated received April 3, 2009. 3. Proposed Survey dated received April 3, 2009. 4. Proposed house plans dated received April 3, 2009. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. GAPLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-05 7470 Chanhassen Road Zoning Appeal\CC Staff Report appeal admin decision.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. 39 - 0S CITY OF RECEIVED SEN and Address: Owner Name and Address: SA)v', Contact: Phone: ? �( Fax: Email: c� c�Z?O q L�e APR 0 3 Z009 - 45SENPLANNINGDEFT Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)" Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) 7 Zoning Appeal��' Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) NYC A Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 7,C20 (- O l W ;LC-74/ 2 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/:" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCAMUED PROJECT NAME: ! ' / t! A re LOCATION: b r l (n OLy( !^ a4A- to art 4,a-�c LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 1?*W&, d23 P&A TOTAL ACREAGE: 6, C WETLANDS PRESENT: _ PRESENT ZONING: 0 09-846 Uica YES 7` NO REQUESTED ZONING: ,f"'""r_ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: :7-- L-1001:1:1 t-6Pne, ,XCL a ,vv GCGGei/JT�tYJxe�6✓N� �[ , e V, 12 j6uJrls�cr►J ilia # Z�r g`f o azs Sb ee, 1,5-;,1IXe -4 FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: (it V41vx This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature f Applicant f/ Date 4�,/4 , Z� Z/6� 9 Signature Fee Owner Date G:\PLAN\ForrnslDevelopment Review Application, DOC Rev. 1108 SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: —%-( 76 11lac,zC-7�f , aatitC , �- /yx- �1 �3/6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: LoT (a myp ! 1Z r 16u�t15G r, 114a TOTAL ACREAGE: 0 a g' G \ / WETLANDS PRESENT: YnqES i NO PRESENT ZONING: � a a �i/i� 2�ia� j REQUESTED ZONING: �iM F PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: tV-44� REASON FOR REQUEST: rJVZLl � '1-4 r_ e tv( a n LcGcei4�✓sue u5 �laKy fU/us �54./a%pl{�tk (��ut i FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature f Applicant ��,4 — /�7 Signature Fee Owner Date Z//�&l 9 Date GAPLAN\Forms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 1108 SCANNED BENCHMARK 1 TR SAN MI HOUSE nA II U 111 ELEV 085/0 Imm 114 � I I i . , 1 11 1�1� II � 1 '4,--- — _=]9L ✓ � 1 °''/,'°�` �/ I 1 Irr 17 rl I p ' I�k' 1--1 II 1 ` ry��a�E EXISTING HSLEE; INK II m �r 1 o / / pl I 1 - I .er, -. 1 b� • t.B] allr'•- I lµ 'P" +a� � Q 8 ExisTNc a5 Z d��l HWY NI L 2 W 1n TMI1ABf N" j y o yIQ 0 20 40 80 LOTS6 AND ], BLOCK 1, SUNSET Z Q � VIEW, CARVER CO., W. Q � t SCALE IN FEET ADDRESS - 7470 CNANHASSEN ROAD /jam /W^ LEI . "STING SPOT a VATNM'. PID If CITY OF CHANHASSEN Y(2900) - PROPOSED svoT aEverKKl RECEIVED LOT AREA DIRECTION 35800 SF/ 0.82 AC CTION CE DPAMAX K 25% - 8950 SF HC ALLOWED CON - COTLEVERED OVERHANG UT ON, O NPR 0 3 2009 E¢� - VFPoEAD enY LK i GPE OMAOE RIXW OEVATICN Ep TFE . TOP OF FgWATY_W ELEVA"P" CHANHASSEN PLANNING DE, SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER 4d�b 6E LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATEPN TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION AA`7l Z y VERFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS ;i✓ L]L]j VERFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CRY 6�ai 6:i �E. SCANNED m� r CITY OF CHANHAS5EN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHA VH PIANNING DEP7 so FEET ELEVATION. T ELEVATION ACE DRAINAGE OVERHANG ITY LINE ELEVATION iTION ELEVATION ELEVATION do o r0 cr `I FE.9 B.i y'a ✓d .0 °' (a >0 EI E92 EXISTNO "' "rrnrc� M1a'O A al t, ° _ 7 NOOSE 32d ° 2Q2 J - M16^ �0 99q I i M1 r i WGARAGEJ G 1` ° 80• X, •,,7 _ +C-a — EXISTING- '-' — — — — — — — HOUSE 14, — 24.7 HARDCOVER GARAGE EXISTING PROPOSED HOUSE N-1225 SF DK PTO 800 SF HOUSE 2615 SF PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FUTURE DECK 140 SF(N/C) GARAGE FLOOR- 924.0 - 320 SF DESCRIPTION: LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, SUN: PORCH S 170 SF HOUSE S� SF SCREEN>FWALK TOP OF FOUNDATION - 924.3(VARIES) VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. voncH FWALK 80 SF 0 SF DECK 200 BASEMENT FLOOR - 915.5 DRIVE 3120 SF LOWEST FLOOR-913.0 (SPT CT) CONIC � 120 SF ADDRESS - 7470 CHANHASSEN 7 DRIVE � 5700 SF WALKS 250 SF TOTAL 6775 SF PID N 25,8400050 GARAGE - 730 SF CONIC - 190 SF LOT AREA - 35800 SF/ 0.8, TOTAL -10275 SF/28.7X X 25% - 8950 SF HC ALLON TOTAL EXIST AND PROP. = 8775 SF / 24.4 X EXISTING TO REMAIN > 175 SF HOUSE 970 SF GARAGE - 730 SF TOTAL REDUCTION 1500 SF / 4% WALK 100 SF To EX s HOUSE SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANC CONC 190 SF BEHIND EX GAR TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATI TOTAL - 2000 SF vrn,ry u . nn mun,n.m N „n SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSEN oLAMNNO OEM SCANNED REAR ELEVATIg CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSEN FIANNINC Ur SCANNED 6V "VATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 9 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING GEP' SC NlO ELEVATION c�uw.v 01ry OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSFN FIANNINC OFF RCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVEO APR 0 S 2009 CHANHASSEN PIANNINO DEP' SCANNED ,ay OF CHANHA99EN RECEIVED APR 0 9 Z009 CHANHA98EN PlANNMO DEF" S CANNEO CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 S 2009 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEP* scanned CITY Of CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 9 2009 a SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen I. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 23, 2009, 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 7470 Chanhassen Road Zoning Appeal 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. Subscribed and swom to before me this hday of �I 2009. T . Not Pub�c ;r NotaryP bIEUMISSENnn esota MY Canmasion ,as Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the spends. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision Proposal: regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF Applicant: John Colford Property 7470 Chanhassen Road Location: (Lot 6, Block 1, Sunset View) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-05.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until ' later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision Proposal: regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF Applicant: John Colford Property 7470 Chanhassen Road Location: (Lot 6, Block 1, Sunset View) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: W What Happens 1 • Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-05.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s), • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CARL B FITZSIMMONS & PATRICIA K CHRISTOPHER & TRACEY RUST FITZSIMMONS 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 7480 CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8576 FRED M & ROSIE R OELSCHLAGER 7410 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 PAT HART FITZSIMMONS 7400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 SCOTT J & DENISE B SMITH 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 JOHN W & JANE M COLFORD 11256 JERSEY AVE N CHAMPLIN MN 55316-3367 PAUL R & LISA K LINDER 17287 ROSALLA DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346-4299 STEVEN A & BETH A MCAULEY 20 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLIN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 MARK L & ANN M PAGE 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 ROBERT FLYNN & VALERIE FLYNN 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 STEVEN T JENKS 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9503 THOMAS USHIRLEY E H BARNES THOMAS J KLEIN ROSEMARY SMITH 7593 DEBBIE LA KAREN N KLEIN 7555 192ND AVE W EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 7581 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 ROBERT T & BARBARA A GADBOIS 7488 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 NATHAN M FOX 19135 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 MARGARET L FRANCAZIO 7605 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 KAREN A HOFFROGGE 7485 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JOHN M MILLER 19184 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 J B CLIFFORD 4568 EMMALANI DR PRINCEVILLE HI 96722 DAVID J RYAN 19159 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 BRUCE PETERSON 7484 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 R J NIEMANN & N NIEMANN 7553 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 MICHAEL J WOLL 7517 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 M J ANDERSON & D A SUMPTER 7567 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JULIE A DOVER/DAVID W DOVER 19088 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JOHN M & KAREN C KURVERS 7602 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 DEBORAH R HEDLUND 7480 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 DAVID C & DEBORAH S OLSON 19111 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 P D STANSBURY & C L SEE 114 B VALENCIA RD SANTA FEN M 87505 MARK L & TAMMY L SPERR 7590 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 KEVIN R & BRENDA K GASPERS 19136 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JON A NORBERG 19183 KRISTIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JOHN J & CAROLYN A LEACH 7481 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 DAVID P & KAREN L MILLER 7596 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 BRYAN J STRANBERG KRISTI M SVEE-STRANBERG 7503 DEBBIE LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 09-CS Kairies, Angie From: Generous, Bob Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:23 AM To: Kairies, Angie Subject: FW: Appeal 7470 Chanhassen Road Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message ----- From: colf0004@umn.edu [mailto:colf0004@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:10 AM To: Generous, Bob Subject: Re: Appeal 7470 Chanhassen Road Mr. Generous, I would like to formally appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision affirming staff's determination on May 5, 2009 to the City Council. Thank you, John Colford On May 7 2009, Generous, Bob wrote: >Dr. Colford: > While you verbally stated that you would appeal the decision to the > City Council, the City requires these appeals be in writing and that > they be done within four days. You have until the end of Monday, May > 11, 2009 to make the appeal. Could you please formally appeal the > Board of Appeals and Adjustments' decision affirming staff's > determination on May 5, 2009, in writing. You can respond via email if you like. > If you have any questions or need additional information, please > contact me. >Robert Generous >Senior Planner >City of Chanhassen >7700 Market Boulevard >P. 0. Box 147 >Chanhassen, MN 55317 >(952) 227-1131 >baenerous(dci.chanhassen.mn.us t BCANmeo CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 05/05/2009 12:33 PM Receipt No. 0099439 CLERK: bethany PAYEE: John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue North Champlin MN 55316-3367 Planning Case 09-05 ------- ----------------- GIS List 111.00 Total 111.00 Cash 111.00 Cash 111.00 Change 0.00 SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Uff OF (952) 227-1100 To: John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue North Champlin, MN 55316-3367 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 4/23/09 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 37 Property Owners List within 500' of 7470 Chanhassen Road (37 labels) $3.00 $111.00 TOTAL DUE $111.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for May 5, 2009. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #09-05. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CITY OF CHANHASSEN GARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES State of Minnesota) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 09-05 )SS. thatgOTICE IS the hanhassenPlBnn GIVE County of Carver ) Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly mom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized hearing is to consider a request for agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- a Zoning Appeal of an lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as Chanhassen Road. Applicant: John amended. Cofford. A plan showing the location of (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. the proposal is available for public was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Noticeand sgid review on the City's web site at Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of www ci chanhas n m i i the newspaper specified Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both olAW09-05html or at City Hall inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition during regular business hours. All and publication of the Notice: interested persons are invited to p attend this public hearing and abcdefghijkhnnopq express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I aauseth@ci.cbanhassenEmail .am us, Laurie A. Hartrnann Phone: (Published in the Chanhassen Villageron Thursday, April23, 2009; No. 4199) Subscribed and sworn before me on this Eday of 2009 JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA . .x My Commission Expires 01/31/2013 No P is RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximmn rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.43 per cohunn inch SCANNED C)Q_�5 CIfYOF 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 Phase: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952227.1400 Fax:952,227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fat 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 wword.chanhassen.mn.us March 5, 2009 John Colford 11256 Jersey Ave N Champlin, MN 55316-3367 Re: 7470 Chanhassen Road Agreement Dear Mr. Colford: This letter is to inform you that the City is returning the filing fee, in the amount of $50.00 submitted for the purpose of an Agreement, at your request. The withdrawn submission was to allow habitation of an existing dwelling during construction of a new home and a proposed reduction of a second dwelling to an accessory structure which willexceed the 1,000 square foot limitation, as a detached garage currently exists on property located at 7470 Chanhassen Road. As discussed in our meeting on March 4, 2009, additional information is required in order to process an agreement and recommendation; including but not limited to: 1. A survey showing the existing conditions on the site, this includes current setback, hard surface coverage calculations, etc. 2. A survey showing the proposed site conditions, i.e. house plan and square footage, proposed hard surface coverage, etc. 3. If the new home is to exceed the square footage of the demolished structure; proposed plans for the secondary dwelling (to be converted to an accessory building) shall be submitted. Please contact me with any questions at (952) 227-1132 or aauseth @ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, A " e� Angie Auseth Planner GVtAMw.�C 1e Fsfv®onryype'vleMi hroev\]IMQs�m quT]!/OOW� Mud�mm Nv6 f:As Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Generous, Bob From: colf0004@umn.edu Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:10 AM To: Generous, Bob Subject: Re: Appeal 7470 Chanhassen Road Mr. Generous, I would like to formally appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' decision affirming staff's determination on May 5, 2009 to the City Council. Thank you, John Colford On May 7 2009, Generous, Bob wrote: >Dr. Colford: > While you verbally stated that you would appeal the decision to the > City Council, the City requires these appeals be in writing and that > they be done within four days. You have until the end of Monday, May > 11, 2009 to make the appeal. Could you please formally appeal the > Board of Appeals and Adjustments' decision affirming staff's > determination on May 5, 2009, in writing. You can respond via email if you like. > If you have any questions or need additional information, please > contact me. >Robert Generous >Senior Planner >City of Chanhassen >7700 Market Boulevard >P. 0. Box 147 >Chanhassen, MN 55317 >(952) 227-1131 >bgenerouspci.chanhassen.mn.us i C<i -C CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 5, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Denny Laufenburger MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD: REQUEST FOR A ZONING APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON A SINGLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Wn LOCATED AT 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANVOWNER: JOHN COLFORD, PLANNING CASE 09-05. Public Present: Name Address John Colford Gary Connell Tracey Rust Dave Miller Patty Fitzsimmons Tim McHugh 11256 Jersey Avenue No, Champlin 6201 Murray Hill Road 7500 Chanhassen Road 7596 Debbie Lane, Eden Prairie 7480 Chanhassen Road 7450 Chanhassen Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Kevin. Dillon: How did it, well and maybe I'm asking the question of the wrong person but how did the determination come about by removing kitchen appliances you kind of sort of remove the building? Generous: Well that's his, the applicant under our ordinance it says that the dwelling unit has separate eating, sleeping, sanitary facilities so he thought that if he removed one of those elements he wouldn't have a second dwelling unit on the property. Dillon: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 • Generous: And staff says well you still have a second dwelling unit. That's not sufficient. Dillon: I see. Okay. And then one of your earlier drawings showed the zoning setbacks. Now how did the property first exceed the zoning setbacks like way back in the day? Was that before? Generous: In 1954 the City didn't, wasn't the regulating agency. It was a village. Dillon: Okay. Those are the two questions I had. Laufenburger: Mr. Generous, was there any discussion with the applicant about why the garage is intended to stay? Building C. Generous: We didn't have any really discussion on that. It was always, our discussions were around the two dwelling units on the one parcel. Laufenburger: Okay. And do I understand correctly what you're saying is if the square footage of Building A, if that building is tom down and they were to build within the building setback, within the blue, if they built a new building no larger than that same size, then they'd be able to do that, is that correct? Generous: That's correct. Under our non -conforming ordinance you may replace what you have. You just can't expand it so if it's a two story building, they would be able to come in with that same two story. Laufenburger: So that would fall, that would fall in the category of replacement or improvement? Generous: Right. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. One other question. Under the discussion in the materials that you prepared for us, there was discussion about hard surface coverage. Could you explain the table on the bottom of our page 4 of 7 Bob. Generous: The table just shows that as part of their new proposal they would eliminate one of the non -conformities on thew• property with either option by eliminated some of the driveway space. Laufenburger: I guess what I'm trying to understand is, if the combined A, B and C, existing square footage is 28.7% of the hard surface coverage, how can a larger number of Building A be, add up to a smaller percentage of hard surface coverage? Generous: It's primary through the elimination of hard, driveway space on the lot. Laufenburger: Oh, that makes sense. Okay. 2 Planning Commission Meeting. ay 5, 2009 Aanenson: If I can add something else to that Commissioner Laufenburger. I think on the garage, the C, there are non -conforming structures on there. If you don't do anything to a non- conforming it can remain. Laufenburger: It stays. Aanenson: And the fact that there's two dwelling units, so that's what puts A and B in play. Is the fact that they're dwelling units. If both were accessory structures, as long as it didn't exceed the, you know we also have a cap on that, then it would be that same issue. It's the fact that there are two dwelling units on one lot. Laufenburger: Okay. So I think I understand you correctly that their desire to build the new structure or the new proposed home, they could do that leaving C alone and essentially doing whatever is necessary for Building B to make it non dwelling. Generous: Non -dwelling. Laufenburger: Okay. That's all I have Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Larson: So, you mentioned the word gutting Building B. Does that mean all interior walls, all everything so it's basically like a. Laufenburger: So it's a storage building. Larson: So a storage building. That would be the, what would the, the City would accept. Generous: Add a new, yes. Larson: Okay. That's all I have. Thomas: I think actually all my questions have been asked of Bob so thanks. Undestad: Just one Bob. The reports say you go back to 1992 was as far back as you could find a single lot. Generous: Well we were trying to determine whether or not anyone had established the two part lots as a zoning lot. With a zoning lot you can eliminate the interior lot line setback requirements. We don't have any records before that showed that that actually happened. And that actually when they come in for a building permit, whatever way they go we would make a zoning lot out of this so it's clear from this point forward that it's all one parcel. Undestad: Okay. Papke: I just have one. I think I know the answer to this question but just for clarity for the Planning Commission and the public. What, could city staff comment on what is the rationale Planning Commission 1VII:eting - May 5, 2009 • for stipulating one and only one principle residence on a lot. I mean obviously you want, it makes sense but why does the City... Aanenson: Sure. This came into play when we recently did a variance for someone that wanted to do on a garage and put a dwelling into a garage. I think for those that are separate to do secondary units, separate utilities. In this circumstance, because there was the two homes in place and they both had been rented, I think there's some desire to see that there's permanent residency which is a good thing to kind of manage that. With the existing home too, with the new home it forces that home to the north, instead of centering on the lot, you can see the difference here. Because the existing home is sitting there, in order to make the other lot work, it forces the design of one. And there's also 101 for, if you had two fully living units there, which there was before, it's not the best, desirable place to make turn movements. You know we try to not go onto a collector street so those are some of the rationale. And if you look at, it's an undersized lot for 2 homes, especially a home of that size. Papke: Okay, good. Thank you. Dillon: I have one more question. Papke: Sure, go ahead. Dillon: So if under the proposed scenario up there, if Building B were totally eliminated, would then everything else be in compliance? Except for the non -conforming garage. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Correct. They would come in and comply with the RSF district regulations for setbacks, site coverage and everything like that. Dillon: So have you discussed that solution with the applicant? Generous: Yeah, and he'd like to preserve that second dwelling unit on the property. As we say. Dillon: But it's not a dwelling unit because it doesn't have kitchen appliances right? Generous: Well that's part of his interpretation of it. Our, we're saying that removing the kitchen appliances doesn't, does not make it not a dwelling unit. If you understand. Someone could still use that as a separate independent living area. Aanenson: It still has plumbing. It still has a furnace so it's been used as a rental property so I guess that was our position on it. So herein's the interpretation whether or not it was the two dwellings or not. Laufenburger: But to a certain degree there are those who would find that garage a very proper dwelling unit. Not necessarily in Chanhassen but. 4 Planning Commission Meeting. May 5, 2009 • Papke: Okay. Any other questions for stafl? If not, if the applicant is here, would you please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. John Colford: My name is John Colford and I live at 11256 Jersey Avenue North in Champlin, just south of Anoka and thanks for letting me speak here tonight but. We had, I had gotten a job in the south of the cities after completing training, my medical training and I joined a group that covers Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and now I've got a painful commute from just south of Anoka to Edina and Burnsville and last summer we you know started looking for houses down here and found this nice place and you know we talked to some banks and asked you know will we be able to do this with something like 10% down, because I just finished my training and didn't have a whole lot of money and they were like wow, you can do it for 5% down because you know everything's so great and since then we've had a complete meltdown in our banking industry. My attempted construction financing for this property was about $200,000 short of the cost of construction, which means that now that the banks are saying you need anywhere between 20 and 40 percent down. That's of the assessed value and then you have to come up with everything that they don't believe your project is worth. So in addition to say for instance at TCF they want 40% down, and I have to come up with the extra $200,000 so I'm looking at over 50% of my project here so I need to maintain value on this property to try and offset what the banks are doing in terms of you know appraisals. And that's a, you know that's coming up with over 50% of your project is amazingly difficult for a bank that's accepted TARP funds. All of our tax money but so at any rate, you know I've gone with a less expensive builder. A less you know prestigious builder and I've eliminated things inside the property to try and bring the cost down. I assume the appraisal is largely based on the square footage. You know I'm trying to do that but I think I need to maintain value on my property as much as possible to try to account for that and I guess some arguments I have, the crux of the staffs interpretation is that expanding the square footage of the primary residence, moving it and expanding the square footage of the primary residence is, defines expansion of the non -conformity. Certainly the square footage will be expanded. Expanding the non -conformity, there's really no inherent property of the new proposed primary structure that's non -conforming. It's conforming for setbacks. Nowhere in the code describes any conformity requirements in square footage. The non -conformity is in the second principle building which you know clearly the south structure, the smaller secondary structure, even in the existing confirmation and changing the primary structure which is non -conforming for the setbacks to the north to a conforming structure strikes me as odd that that would increase the non -conformity when nothing about the primary structure could be described as non -conforming so the ascertation that increasing the square footage of the primary structure, one of the two living structures on the property, that that is defining expansion of the non -conformity, and clearly this describes any non -conformity cannot be expanded or intensified. They're describing a non -conformity. They're not describing you know square footage. They're not describing anything in particular specifically. So that's one argument I guess I would put forth. Multiple buildings on the same lot. That doesn't describe square footage at all. That describes the number of buildings so expanding that would be putting a third principle structure on the property not, you know that would expand the number of principle structures and the number of principle structures is the same. You know the hard cover will be improved mostly by removing, or largely by removing the hard cover driveway so that the hard cover will be improved in that it will be conforming. The primary structure will be conforming for the setbacks. The two existing structures, the garage up by the road and the existing south Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 • house will change, you know theoretically could change in no way whatsoever and it would be a continuation of a non -conformity. Now if you know everyone agrees that, except me that increasing the square footage of a conforming primary structure would be increasing the overall non -conformity, you know perhaps that's balanced by you know making the setback of the primary structure conforming and improving, or making the total hard cover non -conforming as well. Maybe in balance the overall non -conformity could be considered improved. I don't know. I've been trying for 6 months to find someone who you know wouldn't, is willing to do construction financing. I mean Citibank will not do construction financing. TCF will not do construction financing. TCF, or I'm sorry, yes it's TCF that will not. Wells Fargo will do it for 40% down. There are a few banks around that will do it for 25% down, and then it's all if you appraise, you know if I appraise a couple hundred thousand dollars short then I'm looking at a huge barrier. I'm looking at, and this is going to be stuck, I'm going to have to rent it to try and support the mortgage payment you know and it's going to be years. You know years in the future and all this deficit spending it's going to drive up long term rates and you know if I've got stagflation, long term mortgage rates in the teens again, I can't afford to build this house. You know it's been a perfect storm no doubt that I've been caught in but I guess you know if one could look at the primary structure as a bigger conforming structure than the two other structures, the south structure and the garage as the non -conformities, those are not changing and the conformity in terms of the position, in terns of setbacks of the primary structure would be improved and the overall square footage would be improved so, I mean that's what I'm hoping for. Undestad: Yeah, just a couple of quick questions. When did you buy the lot? John Colford: Huh? Undestad: When did you purchase the lot? John Colford: Well it was, made the purchase agreement in September. I think September 20d' and we ended up buying it November I e. Undestad: Just 2008. John Colford: Yeah. Or 2007, I'm sorry. Undestad: And you know you kind of talk about the non -conformities but I think one of the issues that the City's dealing with is the dwelling units more so than the non -conforming structures on there. As Bob said if you got the, turned it into a garage or a storage garage or something there's not an issue. Do you think that you need to, or do you want to rent that? Can you keep this house to rent it or? John Colford: Oh I would be happy to, I would be happy to sign something that said I would give all of my worldly possessions to Chanhassen if I rented out that structure. I mean being a slum lord is a complete. Planning Commission Meeting tay 5, 2009 • Undestad: So what do you think the value, have you talked to your lender on what the value of the interior improvements are to that structure? John Colford: Well I mean if it becomes a storage shed the square footage value will be a fraction of the value of a heated, plumbed structure. You know and, I mean taking out the kitchen is going to be a hit. That's going to be a hit no doubt but yeah, turning it into a bam is not going to be worth it. Undestad: So they haven't really given you a value of that structure as it sits right now in your appraisal process? John Colford: Well I mean it would be, I mean there's the construction loan on the front end and then there's an end loan and it's probably going to be more important to the end loan because the end loan's going to look at all the structures on the property and you know I'm going to get, in terms of appraised value, you know I could get $75 a square foot for that. $75 to $100 a square foot for that as a heated, plumbed, you know even as it's existing. It's not in great shape. It's no huge asset to me. Undestad: It's what, 970 square foot? John Colford: Yeah, it's 1,000 square feet. Yeah. 929, 930. Yeah. I mean that's 100 grand. Undestad: The percentage of that for your value on it. John Colford: Yeah, yeah. I mean that's, I mean that's sort of make or break for this project. mean because to try and balance what the banks are doing by totally protecting themselves. Undestad: Yeah, timing is everything isn't it. John Colford: Yeah. Undestad: I have nothing else. Thomas: No, I don't have any questions for you. Larson: Well I'm kind on the same lines as what Mark was asking. So you're kind of relying on your appraised value to include, would it be included as just an extra building or would you be including that as a rental unit to be showing income out of that? John Colford: Oh um, no I don't. I wouldn't look at it as rent. I mean any rental income. I mean my monthly income, I'm golden. I'm golden. It's all about the down payment and it's all about the value so I don't need it for rental income. You know I qualify on my credit score. I qualify on my monthly income. All that's great. It's, the barriers are the down payment and the appraised value which will you know turn the down payment into you know something else so I would not describe it as a rental unit and you know you have to apply for a permit every year. I have no desire whatsoever, whatsoever to rent. bl Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 • Larson: So to follow up on that then, if, if for some reason the City allows you to remove the kitchen appliances, is the mortgage company still going to give you that kind of value that you're looking for out of this in order to help bump up your you know vested value of the property? John Colford: Yeah, it would be an incremental loss of value to lose the kitchen but it wouldn't be as much as you know completely gutting it and un-heating it and taking out the plumbing so you know that would be a hit. I do want to go forward with the project. I would try with, you know I would at least try with you know, as it is now with the kitchen removed, I mean ideally you know I can keep it in it's more valuable form but. Larson: So, so if you were to remove the kitchen, everything out of the kitchen, is there a way the City that would look at this, I mean if they only, and I don't know maybe this is a question for you guys. If he were to remove everything that, you know like gas fixtures and other things that would pertain to a kitchen and have it be more like a bunk house or something, I mean what would that? Aanenson: It wasn't our idea to split hairs on what appliances go in or out. It's either a dwelling unit or it's not because as long as it's got a furnace and it's got plumbing in it, it's a dwelling unit and someone else could put that in. I wouldn't want to pick that. I think the point that we're trying to make is, if it's your interpretation that you're okay with two houses on there, because once this house is approved, the time to get rid of a non -conforming use is when there's a change in use because once a change is in use, and this applicant aside, whoever moves there, their lifestyle changes, that house will be there in perpetuity because once we've looked at that, someone can remodel a non -conforming structure so it's going to be there. So the question is, is this the appropriate time when there's a change in use, that's the non -conformity. It's not about his new houses. It's a lovely home. It's increasing what's up there today. That's all great. It's the fact that that house, if you choose to do it, and I wouldn't say take out the stove. That was the applicant's recommendation. If it's going to be a dwelling unit, then it's going to be, or whether he rents it or not and someone's living in there, it's that's what it is. It's do you feel comfortable in saying someone can use that as a second structure. That's really the crux of the question. If that makes sense. Larson: Well I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to somehow gain value out of that property for the purposes of what he's trying to do. Aanenson: Right, he's, yeah. His request to us was, if I took it out would you be comfortable? That wasn't our's. Our recommendation is to say really, it's the time. John Colford: And that certainly wasn't the ideal situation. Aanenson: Right. Larson: Right, no and I understand... John Colford: That was trying to come up with something you know. Planning Commission Meeting _qay 5, 2009 • Larson: ... to see how you could. Aanenson: Yeah. I think that'd be kind of, if you can leave it as a unit, then I would leave the kitchen in. If you're comfortable with that. So that's really the decision. Larson: Alright, thank you. That's all I have. Denny? Laufenburger: Two questions. I think it was in here Bob but everything about the application for the new construction, the new home, all of that falls within city guidelines in terms of structure. Generous: Yeah, it appears so. We don't have the building plan but yes, it meets setback and the calculation from a zoning standpoint would comply. John Colford: And in fact we're putting in geothermal heating and cooling... technology. I'm sure the carbon and energy and resource footprint of the new primary structure will be smaller than that existing, not insulated 1950's house. I guarantee you that. Laufenburger: Mr. Colford, can you tell us a little bit about your family. John Colford: Well. Laufenburger: I mean who's going to occupy this new dwelling? John Colford: Well me and my wife, Jane. We've got two, we've twin 4 year old, or 4 month old babies. Boy and a girl, and then I've got a 5 year old girl so, and that's why we sort of, you know it's a two story with all the bedrooms on the same, upper level so we have so many small children that we sort of, we could have made a smaller house and put a bedroom in the basement but you know with so many small children, we wanted them all sort of on our same level and once you put 4 bedrooms up there, you've got sort of a minimum footprint and to get at house that's a reasonable size for a lake lot, you know is hard to squeeze it into the existing square footage of 2,400 square feet so. Laufenburger: Do you have pets? John Colford: No. No. Laufenburger: No wild animals or anything like that? John Colford: No, my daughter and my wife are allergic to nearly everything so. Yeah. Laufenburger: That's all I had Mr. Colford, thank you. Dillon: Are either one of the houses there now livable? Planning Commission Acting - May 5, 2009 • John Colford: Well I mean, well the south structure I mean it's, it's not in great shape. Unfortunately the previous renters were all animal people. There was some like people with cats before people with dogs so it's not, I mean it wouldn't be, my wife and my daughter wouldn't be able to live there just because of that. The house to the north, the basement's essentially unfinished and the, I mean the upper floor was subdivided for the purpose of renting so they're all sort of subdivided. There's 3 subdivided bedrooms. One master bedroom. A shared kitchen and then 2 other bedrooms and there's a spiral staircase that wouldn't be any good for small kids SO. Dillon: So prior to you know the economic conditions going south and the terms changing and all of that, what were you contemplating for this lot before all that happened? John Colford: I mean the financing that we sought did not, and really even include the garage or the south house in discussion. That, I had actually called the building department beforehand and I apparently should have talked to the planning commission because the building department told me that all this would be grandfathered in and you can build a new house closer to the lot and there's no problem with anything so I didn't know it was an issue even up until it was too late. So you know we hadn't thought a whole lot about those 2 structures because we had looked at it as a tear down regardless so. Dillon: So it's possible if conditions were to change again, improve, I mean you could be back to that scenario in hopefully the not too distant future. I mean I don't know but, none of us does but. John Colford: Yeah I mean, I mean I understand, I mean I think it'd be very optimistic for banks to stop protecting themselves that quickly and I really think the deficit spending is going to start driving up those long term interest rates. I don't see how that long term interest rates can avoid that sort of inflationary pressures that all the deficit spending that we're doing is going to have on it and, you know this gets up to 9-10 percent, you know I can't do this. Dillon: Those are all the questions I had. Papke: Okay, I have no questions but just a comment for you. Just FYI, the Planning Commission quite regularly has to debate these fine issues of what constitutes that condition that exacerbates the existing non -conforming structure, be it the distance into the setback or the number of lineal feet and the number of square feet so just, I'm sure you're probably aware of that but I just wanted to make sure we were all clear that you know this is something we handle quite frequently so. Undestad: Chairman Papke, I have one more question. Papke: Sure. Undestad: Just to this is kind of based on financial hardships and things here. What is your project, the appraisal, how is it set up? What is the value of your project of putting that house in? 10 Planning Commission Meeting tay 5, 2009 • John Colford: Well I mean the property was acquired for $460 and the new structure, depending on the builder. You know the first builder that we talked to, you know it was going to be just shy of a million dollars into the house and we've eliminated several things to get that down to, and shopped around and gone to a little less, a little less expensive builder and we're getting into the mid to low 800's. You know it's going to be. Undestad: I'm sorry you say the lot was 460? John Colford: 460 yeah. Well I mean the lot and the houses and you know the purchase of the property was for 460. So and we're dropping and dropping it and we've, but you know you drop it, drop it, drop it, say I drop it to you know say I build a $400,000 house. I've got 460 into it so I'm still at 860 and they're going to expect 20% down and then they're going to appraise it at 600 so, or 700 and so I've got to do 20% down plus this extra, you know so still I'm looking at a number. You know the total amount, you know it helps some but it's always this percentage that they expect of the appraised value and then you've got to make up the gap in the appraisal and that's, you know that's been, you know that's what's going to delay this for you know I don't know how long it's going to take me to save up a couple hundred thousand dollars. Undestad: But that second house, house B that you're saying that's worth $75 to $100 a foot so $75,000 to $100,000 based on your overall package of say a million two. John Colford: Right. See I can come up with 20% down by the end of the summer, but if they appraise it at you know $100,000 or $200,000 shy, then I'm a year or two in the future and you know I can build this house at the current interest rate. You know if the interest rates go up then you know, I don't know what I can. Papke: Okay, very good. Thank you. Anything else? Thanks very much Mr. Colford. At this point we'd like to open up the public hearing for the general public. If someone would like to step up to the podium and provide any comments on the matter, we'd like to hear it. Gary Connell: My name's Gary Connell, 6201 Murray Hill Road. I don't know John Colford but I knew of his proposal. I have a similar situation that I've been working with for several months now, but haven't brought this to the you know, to you guys. Or if you'll raise an, but you know some of the comments I guess. One is you know, which you're being asked for the motion is to affirm the city. The planner's you know recommendation to disallow this based on the non -conforming. I think I want, the financial hardship is compelling but really I think what's important here is that, we need a clear understanding of what is the expansion here. I would think the expansion would be from 2 dwellings to 3. As John mentioned the square footage isn't really clearly, it's kind of in a gray area as far as the ordinance goes and I'm hoping that maybe you guys can, you know there can be some discussion down that line as to just how do we split these hairs. You know what is, what is the expansion really? Is it the square footage? I mean in it's, would it qualify as it being an expansion? I'm thinking that John, no it's really if you wanted to go to a third unit it would be. Or if you have a new lot with nothing on it and you want to build 2 dwelling units. Well you can't do that but here you have some of these older properties, of which I have two. My house was built in 1935 and I've got a principle house and then a carriage house up at the garage which we bought and intended to use it as an in-law 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 • apartment. Not a rental unit. I mean we're in a single family neighborhood and we want to keep it that way and enjoy it that way. But we can't, I can't add a bedroom or a family room to the main house. I can't improve my property so in a way I'm looking at a hardship too. I mean I can't, I have a piece of property that I made an investment into but I can't improve it. Whether I have a need to do so for my family or I want to do so for a financial reason. I can't. That's the interpretation that is you know by the code. So down that line what is the ordinance, what are our ordinances really here to do? You know I mentioned earlier that you know the City would like to take advantage of, or take the opportunity when somebody comes in and wants to make a change like this, to bring it back down to within the ordinance. Well that property had value with those 2 units on it and you know probably changed hands several times and everybody participated in buying that and selling that you know, did so according to what was there. And is the ordinance more for development, new expansion and development or are we going to say, in a way is it there to penalize or you know folks who are trying to just you know make better what they've got. Not to try to you know change the flavor of the neighborhood or anything like that. We obviously don't want to do that but you know when we're talking about you know changing square footage, is that going maybe just a little bit too far with respect to pushing the expansion you know proposition so. So I guess what I'm coming up here to do is I guess try to, I wanted to see you guys and you know to see if I should even bother to try to pursue my. Papke: We appreciate that. Gary Connell: But so, I guess those are yeah the kind of... Papke: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Just a comment on that, and city staff please correct my understanding if I misstate this but, one thing the last speaker brought up that I want to make sure we're all clear on that when the city prevents a resident from intensifying a non- conformance, that in itself is not a hardship on the resident. Okay what you have to show is that you are prevented from enjoying using your property as others do without being allowed to intensify that non-conformance. So in your case adding on a new room or so on that, the fact that the city you know prevents you from doing that is not a, is not considered a hardship on you. The hardship is if your house is unusable in it's current state so you can't enjoy your property. Did I misstate that or? Aanenson: Yeah, if you can go back to the, on the interpretation. Correct. Again, the goal is, because these were two smaller lakeshore lots, as Mr. Generous indicated. Very narrow lots built under different standards so to try to bring them in conformance with the new ones, the appropriate time is when there's an application in front of you to try to do that and that's what's informed. So the staffs opinion was is there were 2 homes on the lot. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Square footage aside, that if you're going to expand another one, beyond the, whatever that square footage is, beyond the footprint. The original footprint. Then the other home should be removed. 12 Planning Commission Meeting•ay 5, 2009 • Papke: And that's defining the nature of what it means to intensify the non-conformance but I was trying to get to I think there was some misunderstanding of what is a hardship. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: I wanted to make sure we were... Aanenson: Correct and so what you're deciding then today is, is the staffs appeal, opinion of the two lots. Papke: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Okay, thank you. Okay, other residents like to get up and speak up and test the waters for their own possibilities. Laufenburger: Or just meet us. Papke: We're friendly. Tracey Rust: Tracey Rust, 7500 Chanhassen Road. As much as, excited to see a single family come onto this property, I have to say that my biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental property so I understand the hardship as far as cost for this property but wondering if everything has been looked at with this new house. Just looking at, I guess if you could go to, one more. Let's do that one. Just looking at the grading of the property, does that increase the cost for the loan because it's pushed so much further to the lake. Is there going to be more grading involved at that area? That type of thing. Can the house be pushed forward, you know further up to the road to reduce the cost? Those types of things so again I understand, I understand the whole hardship with loans and things right now. It's unfortunate and wish we were not in that situation. However, again the biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental property. Papke: I have a question for you along those lines. Tracey Rust: Sure. Papke: Did you experience problems in the neighborhood or any nuisances or anything as a result of that use of that as a rental property? Tracey Rust: You know I think it's the fact that it can constantly change hands and you never know necessarily who's going to be there so it's just, you know it's a single family area That's what the lots are intended to be and you know it wasn't, understand that it was existing that way. There was nothing we could do about it until now so you know again really excited to see a single family move in there. I just don't want to see a rental property there anymore so. Again has everything been looked to get the costs down to where it needs to be so that we don't have to have that dwelling there anymore. And then the other I guess if the city decides yes, this is 13 Planning Commission peering - May 5, 2009 • something that you can agree to, the other thing is that you're going to have this nice, big beautiful home and then these two existing buildings. Would anything be done to the exteriors to match the proposed building and that type of thing? Otherwise kind of have two eyesores right in front of a nice, brand new house. I'm assuming that it's going to be pretty attractive and just would think that the owner wouldn't want that either. Two eyesores right in front of the house so. Again my biggest fear is that it just, it stays a rental property and I'd like to see it a single family lot. Papke: Thank you very much. We appreciate you standing up and giving us your perspective. John Colford: So you know when my construction financing, I had no intention to ever be a renter, or a rental unit and when my construction financing that seemed to be going well fell apart at the appraisal, you know the renters asked to stay and I was of course told that they were fabulous people, which was a he but you know, and so a week into renting it I started encouraging them to leave and there's only 2 people left in the main house. The south house has been empty since March I". No intention of re -renting it. I really don't want to be a slum lord at all and I immediately regretted it but you know then again my payment is $2,000 a month for an interest only loan that I had to get at the last second when my construction financing fell through, and that's actually a variable rate, interest only loan to acquire this and that can go anywhere and so I may be forced to move back to renting it but I don't want to, and you know, and I totally understand why somebody doesn't want a rental property. My current house I had a rental property right next to me and I don't like it and I would not want one there, and you know my intention, you know I'm with, I've got a, I'm on a partnership track in a physician group at Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and I intend to live there for 50 years. I swear to God so that's, I foresee myself being there for 50 years and not renting it ever but. And yeah, of course we, we're you know hoping to do stone and hardy board and a standing seam metal roof on the, in the main house and of course I would match the garage and whatever existing properties, we would certainly match the exterior to like you said not have two eyesores and one nice structure so. Papke: Just one comment on good intentions. Unfortunately the Planning Commission has to make our decisions on the basis, assuming that potentially the, you know houses do change hands and the people that buy the house may not have the same intentions as the person that's before us asking for a variance or whatever the situation may be so we do have to take the long term perspective on these things. Okay, any other members of the public? Please. Dave Miller: Hi. My name's Dave Miller. Actually you could probably ignore me. I'm on the Eden Prairie side of this property and got the notice and I came down here with every intention of keeping, I heard multi unit dwelling coming up into a single family neighborhood and that made me nervous is why I came down here and my background is, well we've lived here for 8 years. Again on the Eden Prairie side. We're on the cul-de-sac that backs up to 101 right on the other side of this property, and I also own personally 5 rental properties of single family homes so I can speak to the rental side of things as well as my family living next to a multi -dwelling property and so. If someone, I guess if you want to think of having what's there now and let's say he takes this property and let's say he wants to rent that house out or it sells out and he wants to rent that house out. You think of it long term. There is no investment person that is going to 14 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009 come by a million two brand new home and then try to rent it out. I mean it's just not financially feasible and if you look at having 6 renters on what's there now, if he has to sell this property and it stays as is, you're looking at a much, much de -valued property than what it will be, even if you put a $800,000 home plus a, and it ends up being a rental unit, which doesn't sound like he's having that as his intention. It is still a quality improvement to that piece of land I mean, and I don't know if that's helpful in that but again being a real estate investor, along with owning a personal residence in the area, I just don't see that that's going to ever be a factor. It's still better than what's there now to the lady in the back. I've known some of the people in and out of that property and it's rented usually to single people that are looking for a quick place to live. Not very stable people and I'm not implying anything specifically about them but when you have people kind of coming in and out and that's just not really what I want to see in the neighborhood and I came down here specifically to try to say I do not want anything multi -unit dwelling on there but once I actually see the proposal and all that, it's a definite improvement for the whole area, as well as on the lake so. Dillon: So if you know a lot about real estate and properties and stuff, if you own them, it sounds like you know a little bit anyway. How would, I mean so you've got this extra dwelling on the property but you really can't rent it out because it doesn't have a kitchen, or at least that's what we're being, I mean how does that help you? Dave Miller: Well since I own the properties I'm not a mortgage broker, I guess to comment on that. Every little bit helps on the property but it could get a little shady if you have a mortgage broker that shoos things through that says look, this, and are we going to say to the mortgage company I have a rental unit. I don't have it leased out but it has potential income, you can get a bigger loan because of that, and I don't know if you presented to the bank and say hey, this and that generates income and when I pull other loans in, if I have something I can show I can generate income, I can bigger loans on that property. Not just the square footage on the property, but potential income on the property but again I'm not a mortgage broker and I'm not an appraiser either. Along those lines but that's about all. And then I guess one comment would also be, looking into alternative financing. I mean I don't know if you've looked into just bridge loans. There's alternative financing to get things going until you get. Papke: Perhaps you could have that conversation... Dave Miller: Yeah, I mean so I mean there's other, just as far as the, I'm looking for any business. It is a tough financial time. Papke: Appreciate that perspective. Patty Fitzsimmons: Hello. I'm Patty Fitzsimmons and I live at 7480 Chanhassen Road. We're the next door neighbors on the south side to John... We're super excited to have new neighbors in that are not, no longer a rental property so again with what Tracey said, and I'm starting to kind of get this whole board thing. Like I'm starting to just understand it that what he does today you guys have to make the decision for the future and I really get that and I appreciate that. I don't want a rental property next to me because my intention is to stay in the neighborhood for 50 years as well. One of the things that I am most concerned about when we found out about our 15 Planning Commission Aleting - May 5, 2009 • new neighbors, that we're very excited about, was that they're going to be building closer to the lakeshore, within the variance. We understand that. They're going to block our view. Or our partial view, and everybody on 101, we're all closer to the highway and not closer to the lake. So now this house is going to come along and be up closer to the lake and that concerns our family because when we purchased our dream home that we would love to live at for 50 years, we had a view and now with John coming in, we understand he's building his dream house but we're no longer going to be able to see the full view, so that is my main concern and why I came to the council meeting tonight because I wanted to be able to voice my opinion and also to be heard for you know our children and our neighbors and the community. But again John we're super excited to have you in our neighborhood and also to just get rid of that rental property all together. Thank you. Papke: Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated. John Colford: So if you noticed on the proposed thing we moved the house as far north as we could because we sort of suspected that we would be doing that, so it's as far north as we can possibly move it to try and save that view. Tim McHugh: That's bring up a good point. My name is Tim McHugh. Papke: If you could state your name and address please. Tim McHugh: Yeah, my name's Tim McHugh. I live at 7450 Chanhassen Road which is the property to the north. John just mentioned they moved their, he moved the house as far north as he could to help their view, however it does the direct opposite to me okay. You know that's the way things are I guess but if you go back to the other picture where the 3 dwellings are. Generous: The proposed one. Tim McHugh: Yeah, this one. Okay. If you look, and I understand he's going 75 feet back and that's code and evidently there's no restrictions doing that. Okay. That being said, if the little house wasn't there, which I believe they call B, that could at least be centered or come back farther, like Mrs. Fitzsimmons said, and it helps everybody. All the houses, my house is, oh it's somewhere around 175, maybe 180 feet back from the setback and if you look at the north side of his property, that blue line is the 10 foot setback and if there's like 7 cedar trees or evergreens there, once those footings to in those 7 trees are gone and I'm all for increasing the value of property but it's not doing a lot for me. There's been a lot of talk about rental property and I don't think anybody's put up with more there than I have. I've been there since '87 and I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because it's unbelievable how good it is now, but there was a time where you would actually see the sheriff more often than the postman, it was that bad, but it's not that way anymore but it's always been zoned residential single family and I presented to the City Council 4 times and they could have, we were told they can have 7 unrelated people on the property, and it's just, it was always hard to accept that and nobody wants to see it being not rented anymore than I do. But you know that's the problem I have basically is where it's set and I'd just like to see some compromises. Like I said, if you can get rid of the tittle house I know 16 i 4W Planning Commission Meeting -ay 5, 2009 0 then there's room. There isn't room to move it at all based on the driveway and everything, the way it's currently pictured so if you've got any questions. Papke: Thank you very much for your perspective. I think the point you raise kind of comes back to what Kate said before in response to my question about the reason for having just one principle structure on there. That gives you the most flexibility and in this case that second structure constrains where the new residence has to end up. Okay, anyone else? John Colford: I mean the allegedly my builder says that we can save all the trees to the north, even with that position. Another thing was that, we had actually originally drew it in the center and you know all we have to do is shrink the turn around and my architect said that that, you know having it farther to the north, you know one of the reasons of moving it to the north was that you had more of a yard to the south so it's not a particular, it's not really that constrained as it is, I mean we've got room to center it where it is now but. The other thing, the way the grade is, where the house is not there's a natural hill down. Because this is a walkout, if we move it back we're in a much flatter part of the lot and can't really do a walkout. We can't really do the house as designed in the center of the lot because the lot is, there's a hill toward the lake and then there's a pretty flat part and then there's another hill up towards the road so we're, if you look at the lot lines they really start to spread, well it's not, maybe on the other one all of the lot lines are maintained but you can see the contour lines are closer together towards the lake and then they start to expand where the walkout would be so it's sort of in the least expensive place in terms of re -grading. Papke: Thank you very much. Anyone else want to voice their opinion on this? Okay, seeing none I close the public hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Kevin we'll start with you. Your perspective. Dillon: So well, I mean it just doesn't make sense to me, now of course I don't have to pay the interest loan for the time being, to keep the Building B around. I mean it's, you can't rent it out if it's, if you do want the person says here like removing kitchen appliances. I mean from a practical point of view it's not really worth anything at that point, I wouldn't think. And you know if you've got this extra structure, this thing on your property that no one can really, you know really again practically dwell in, I mean I don't see why a lending institution would really think that that adds much to the overall value of the property. I mean probably some but I mean it certainly diminishes it significantly. Then, I mean if you're going to have a nice house like this and I mean why do you want this extra like appendage on your yard? I meanjust get rid of it is what I would say, so I am tending to support the staffs interpretation that you take Building B down completely and that way it would minimise the eyesore and you know everybody, I think it works best that way. From my view. Papke: Okay, thank you. Denny. Laufenburger: We're the Planning Commission of Chanhassen. We're not the Financing Commission of Chanhassen so while I'm certainly sensitive to Mr. Colford's financial plight as a result of this, our recent economy, the real question for us is, do we accept the staffs interpretation of the ordinances. That's really the decision we have to make on it. I think Ms. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009 • Aanenson made a real good point that this is an opportunity for us to enforce the ordinances based on the desire. I am especially pleased by seeing so many neighbors here. I think this is a real, this is a real testimony to what this community is about to hear what the neighbors are saying and their view of what this is. I think it's important for the neighbors to also understand that though their preference for a greater view or don't build so close, you know not in my backyard, the ordinances make it possible for Mr. Colford to build a house exactly the way he wants it right there and you know grading aside, etc. So I'm pleased with this process and it just leads me to affirm the staff's interpretation. That's my inclination Mr. Chairman. Larson: I'm going to echo both of these guys. As much as I would like to figure out a way that he could get financing for this that's cheaper, that isn't our place. I also agree that somehow I think the existing house B should go away. A's going to go away. B should go away unless there's some use for it. I unfortunately feel like our hands our tied and this is a chance for the city to kind of clean up some of these properties that you know through whatever reason were built as rental properties and dual properties on one. It's time for the change and I tend to support what the city is saying. Papke: Thank you. Thomas: Yeah. Well I do support what they want, what we are trying to do with the city. It makes sense. We try to clean up. I still struggle with how the lot was, just the way it is. I mean you're dealing with a property that was platted back in what, 1952. You know something that has been the way it is for so long, and it's the way the owner buys the property. It just, I can understand that it's a clean-up issue and I understand pretty much our hands are tied that it is what we need to do is say that Lot B, the House B needs to go away. I just still struggle with the aspect that it's, not how it was but just, I can see what he's trying to do and I understand that why would you want to have the second home on the property, but it is how it was when you purchased the lot. You're making the change with the house but I kind of look at it as, it's kind of how it was and how it was platted so I kind of struggle with it but that's my thoughts. Undestad: Yeah I don't really have a lot to add. I mean you summed it all up but I will point out though that I think the last couple people that came up kind of show why we have these rules and regulations and ordinances, things like that. You know don't build your house to the south side. Don't build to the north side. If you stay inside your lines and build it where you want to build it, you can put it anywhere you want inside the lines. The same where from the city standpoint that if it's time to fix something that's you know, doesn't fit in there then that's when we have the opportunity to do that too. Papke: Okay, thanks for your comments Mark. Those are good. I guess the crux of the issue for me is, it seems as if the bank, the dilemma here is the bank seems to agree with city staff. That if that stricture B has value from a mortgage perspective equal to a home, a principle home, then it's a principle home okay and that's in fact what the city code is disallowing so I think the bank is in agreement with city staff on that perspective so. Okay, very good. With that, if someone would like to make a motion one way or the other. IN Planning Commission Meeting lay 5, 2009 • Dillon: I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit. Papke: Is there a second? Laufenburger: Second. Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit. All voted in favor, except Thomas who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Mr. Chair just for the record. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Because this is a decision of, acting as a zoning appeal, anybody aggrieved of this decision, including the applicant has the right to appeal that decision and so they should do so within 10 days. Papke: Okay, thank you very much. The next item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: POWERS CROSSING PROFESSIONAL CENTER: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; SUBDIVISION INTO ONE LOT, OUTLOTS AND DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL (01), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A TWO-PHASE, THREE STORY,160,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL CENTER, UP TO A 731 STAFF, FIVE LEVEL PARKING RAMP AND SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON OUTLOT A BUTTERNUT RIDGE (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 312). APPLICANT: UNITED PROPERTIES LLC/TIMOTHY & DAWNE ERHART, PLANNING CASE 09-06. Public Present: Name Address Bill Katter, United Properties 3500 American Blvd W, Minneapolis 55431 Dan Parks Westwood Professional Services Paul Holmes Pope Associates Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flintlock Trail 19 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms staff s interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit." Planning Commission final decision requires a three -fourths vote of the members present. PROPOSAL: Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot. LOCATION: 7470 Chanhassen Road Lots 6 & 7, Sunset View APPLICANT: John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue North Champlin, MN 55316-3367 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential, RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .87 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion with an appeal of an administrative decision because the applicant is seeking a deviation from administrative interpretation of established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. REQUEST The applicant is appealing staff's decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 Chanhassen Road, in order to replace and expand the northerly dwelling. SCANNED John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 2 of 7 The opposing interpretations are: 1. Staffs interpretation: Tear down Building B completely. 2. Applicant's interpretation: Removing an aspect (kitchen appliances) eliminates structure as a second dwelling unit. The applicant's preference is to keep Building B as a separate dwelling unit. However, City Code is very specific stating that one principle dwelling is allowed per lot and a nonconforming use or structure may be maintained through repair, replacement or maintenance, but not expansion. Increasing the size of either of the dwelling units increases the nonconforming use. Sec. 20-28. Board of appeals and adjustments. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of this chapter. BACKGROUND The property is Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, Sunset View Addition and is a riparian lot located on the southeast side of Lotus Lake. The Sunset View Addition was platted in 1954 and the subject site was originally two individual parcels, Lots 6 and 7, each with a single-family dwelling, built circa 1935. After researching Carver County records, the earliest record showing the lots as a single parcel is 1992. Prior to 1992, it is unclear when the parcels were combined into a single parcel or Zoning Lot. A Zoning Lot is when two or more parcels are combined into a single lot. All interior lot lines are disregarded and the parcels must comply with all zoning requirements, including one principle John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 3 of 7 structure on a single-family lot. When the parcels were combined, neither of the dwellings was removed. Therefore, the site is currently nonconforming with two principal buildings on a single lot. Both of the dwelling units have been used as rental units under previous ownership. The applicant purchased the property in 2007 with the intent to demolish the larger dwelling (Building A) and build a new larger home closer to the lake, and maintain the smaller dwelling (Building B). In addition to the two dwelling units, there is a detached garage located near Highway 101 (Building Q. According to City Code Section 20-72, nonconforming uses and structures maybe continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion Increasing the size of either dwelling unit increases the nonconforming use of multiple dwelling units on a single lot. The property owner proposes to remove an aspect (kitchen) from Building B so it does not meet the definition of a single-family dwelling. They contest that removal of the kitchen appliances eliminates the classification of a dwelling unit. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. It is staffs determination that removing the appliances from the kitchen does not negate the fact that the structure is and could be used as a separate dwelling unit. Additionally, there is no John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 4 of 7 guarantee that the appliances will not be replaced in the future without the City's knowledge, and rental or habitation resumed in Building B would again constitute a dwelling unit. Staffs position is, in order to replace either of the dwelling units with a larger dwelling unit, the second dwelling unit must be removed. The applicant is appealing staffs decision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another nonconforming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. hi all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. Sec. 20-902. Multiple principal buildings on same lot. In any single-family detached residential district not more than one principal building shall be permitted to be erected on a single building lot. Groupings of buildings in other districts may on be permitted by conditional use permit. The property owner would like to demolish the larger dwelling (Building A) and build a new, larger home closer to the lake and keep the smaller dwelling (Building B). There is also a detached garage located on the site (Building C), which will remain on the site. All of the existing structures are currently nonconforming. Existing Proposed Building A 1,225 square feet 2,615 square feet new structure Buildiny B 970 square feet 970 square feet Building C 730 square feet 730 square feet Hard Surface Coverage 28.7% 24.4% John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 5 of 7 1f I •- 11-~ FI r11 li` �1 i �\` Existing Conditions d LO I i I 1VF f� 1 1 1 ,I7dh�, 1 f, Q W iI r Proposed Conditions - ` > 4" y vn^° Cgs�D 3I e 1 erg ARAGF jj� As stated in Section 20-72, any nonconformity or lawful use existing at the time of adoption of a more restrictive control, may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. Therefore, construction of a larger dwelling increases the existing nonconformity of the multiple dwellings. John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 6 of 7 The applicant could: a. Maintain Building A through remodeling or repair within the same building envelope (exact location). b. Replace Building A with the exact same square footage (includes all levels of existing structure). That square footage could be relocated within the required setbacks as the current setbacks are nonconforming, bringing that aspect of the structure into compliance with City Code. c. Remove Buildings A and B and build a new single family home in compliance with City Code. Building B is a full functioning dwelling (kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas, furnace, utilities, and laundry facilities) and is currently a rental unit. The applicant proposes to remove an aspect of Building B (kitchen). It is staff s interpretation that removing the appliances and cupboards does not eliminate the fact that it is a dwelling unit, nor does it ensure that the appliances will not be replaced and rental or habitation will resume in the future. It would, in fact, remain a complete separate and independent living quarters. The applicant states that he would like to keep Building B in an acceptable form, with as many features as possible, to maintain its value to counter the low appraisals obtained during construction financing. However, the applicant states that the dwelling will no longer be used as a rental property. Maintaining the value of the structure would be allowing it to remain as a dwelling unit. The City Code is very specific in stating that one principle dwelling is allowed per lot and a nonconforming use or structure may be maintained through repair, replacement or maintenance, but not expansion. Increasing the size of either of the dwelling units increases the nonconforming use of two dwelling units on a single lot. It is staffs interpretation that Building B must be removed from the property. If the Planning Commission's decision is to allow Building B to remain on the property as a detached accessory structure, the combination of Building B and Building C will exceed the 1,000 square -foot limitation. This would decrease the intensity of the existing nonconformity; however, a new nonconformity of less intensity will be created. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms staff s interpretation of Planning Case #09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit." John Colford Zoning Appeal • • May 5, 2009 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Existing Survey dated received April 3, 2009. 3. Proposed Survey dated received April 3, 2009. 4. Proposed house plans dated received April 3, 2009. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-05 7470 chanhassm road mning appeals report appeal admin decision.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.09-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 Chanhassen Road. Applicant: John Colford. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-05.htmi or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 23, 2009) WANNED 9 ! ♦ ! I nccn� i ��c vaa i icon I xu.c, vase _4 E EYS G PE4 ELEY6 M'AW+IER £LEYS a Tk. 11.1 Pfa 9l'I1i 8!!] PAL 912m.8Y3 W u Z W inl rA OF: CHANHASSEn� RECEIVED O LL APR 0 3 2009 0 u "HANHASSEN PANNING Dr V SCANNED I I S CL `R., ]6 4E-.0 D 5. fiA'.TP M i ij1 MAR ELEVATION 2 erhE� vs•.r-r ELEY6 F REl SQ7lY PFP 6Ev! 3 ITV OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 ,HANHASSEN PLANNING SCANNED 01 FAfTU♦ESIRFET N.M. SSW, P\ W!47iB Vw.m 47= a s 2 2OF8 f6'RKW 2. 4�ycVD-= E9 GR.1. le. m • ` • I LEFT ?3' ELEVATION 3 ., ., w�.re CITY OF CHANHASSF RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANT-- �"IM. 3 SCANNED 3 OF S C 76fl..LLE%i� pE%'N G R rw wrG rfa aEn ma @RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ry. w•.�-v a 6 & W u z w _0 cN Q LL J 0 u 4 4OF8 SCANNED cor.Rew. �aoe..�xewoEe �swv rmz? we e�cnzm� CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING CEP SCANNED �(5 OF 8 tarn¢rs.r xou. a.¢xaaErt oExf+vmam me i CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP' • M-W 0 i y ; 3 f o•e zl II II II II II II II — — — —---------- I �4 •` I I EQM +- y T I QQIZM I I T le II I I Ili it I ww III Se.� Y'4 I I I I le I I� I I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4 b eru:� w•.�s• II I I I � I = 1 Sr==== I II �I I II II II I II 6 II II II I I II II II I II M 6 i APR (I I ----- I I - IInow I II • ;, I I J p o a d VP UPPER L a ` � -- fw`awswm vJ,� s� ur.Jw� I fJ' !V e� •MOJu fi' I III � � III I i, 4 III II II • � Ili I I III s II II II II F � II II II 'I II II L I i II J ____J 35a ��J],� FN[: 953 J]38513 l OF 8 flFrFIGHF]6'LO. DE81[f.l ..R 0 -.ITV OF CHANHASSE, ?ECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 HANHASSEN PLANNING DEP' - COP�"RKNr 3DDl. ALEXYIDER DEB 5/26/2009 Chanhassen Road Lots 6 & 7 Block t, _ .. Sunset View Addition Lnels Lake AppealAdministrative Decision Request to derta one dwelling and construct a larger dwelling and maintain second dwelling: •Staf's intemnetation: Tear down Building A and completely in order to construct a larger dwelling. -Applicants intemretation: Rentoving an aspect (kitchen appliances) eliminates structure as a second dwelling unit. Mn Applicable Regulaions artnlre�Mr rr..r...rtama.,�.m.n•rtmmar.d �4.rn•,.. ^d••Nro.w�mr�^e a,mrrl.,�. a•m Im=w�^d. krttrt...•amert r�^^+.rMarJry«r•r.w tam •m wxaaa.�.. delxnRunirvhl.Fmrylx n^rlvvma FrnldinR vndnnnvininRP'manem.mtiry, eony. xlapinRmd oNery M1nlWalor Neevl�.iwvv.d. myl.lvnnlY �^olouWryaxwraxtld .vo onm�dnnNnf +a.a+ndrm.vrec W �rry non.mF.mvrr.I�vl Wloµ News/ul uva orrcapvri..v Jland.npmmir. �rJ dnrRnlM1u nm.o(rle vdnpJnn n[anaddnoNl mrvmlunSr NrvcHpra., mar M�...nnn..il, l.v �pNuRF rcpLr. m�lnp vm, ,I,r^un.v.I rWa oHvm..m hralM fiw. 6ml 1, N. d1lnam•ri.m. x.ilr.M.w no Mhrartv,N added mXv mnm(mminyn .FrM1. M1w p narF. JJ�¢nmaasawba4 hr Je er.I�.M1wrcd v�weNmNrµlW v.v run 4vFanpdm wYhr n..rt.nr.amuylrw u.,J rinrwp Lev vvbL. in.mr In+Il .navvruarHapp rHsrM Fwd R m4r 4 alw.. wiryl bvJdin[�onurs. br. m vrylvJolm,IrRJ+s.FN n�idmitl d{•nkrp FvJAoe.Hll l.r lnm�imde x.r....d.,.•„.il. x..udmRrw.� vro m w w.rta.r.��m�,r.,. I+^rowd M.rt�r�n Proposed Layout 1 • • 5/26/2009 Remodel Existing Footprint Applicant's Interpretation Staffs Interpretation Recommendation "The Chanhassen City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staffs interpretation of Planning Case N09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot' Staffs Interpretation Recommendation "The Chanhassen City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staffs interpretation of Planning Case N09-05, for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition, for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single-family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit, and combine Lots 6 & 7 into a single zoning lot' • ;;x MEMORANDUM TO: Angie Auseth FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: April 7, 2009 SUBJ: Review of request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential located at 7470 Chanhassen Road Planning Case: 09-05 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment. GAPIAM2009 Planning Cases\09-05 7470 Chanhassen Road Zoning AppeaMuildingotiicialcomments.doc • City of Chanhassen • 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MI OF (952) 227-1100 Date: April 7, 2009 Review Response Deadline: April 24, 2009 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Angie Auseth, Planner I Subject: Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Single Family Residential, RSF located at 7470 Chanhassen Road. Applicant/Owner: John Colford. Planning Case: 09-05 PID: 25-8400050 Lot 6, Block 1, Sunset View The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 3, 2009. The 60-day review period ends June 2, 2009. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on May 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 24, 2009. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintfUnited) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) 7470 Chanhassen Road Zoning Appeal Lot 6, Block 1, Sunset View Planning Case 2009-05 SCANNED 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD ZONING APPEAL - PLANNING CASE 09-05 $100 Zoning Appeal $200 Notification Sign S300 TOTAL $300 Less Check No. 100207918 from TCF $0 BALANCE DUE CITY OF CHANHASSEN • • P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 04/07/2009 11:30 AM Receipt No. 0097309 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Public 7470 Chanhassen Road Zoning Appeal Planning Case 09-05 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 100.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Total Cash Check TCF 100207918 Change 300.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 • JCI.C'jLL\i1 801 Marqunalette Bank 801 Marquette Avenue t Minneapolis, MN 55402-3475 Open 7 Days- ***THRFF HUNWO AND 00/100*** OFFICIAL CHECK* 100207918 56-1551/431 I l,rp II - ,'1_,l r.: 6000555299 DATE Etfi4SS;i00.00***�* ***U$DQiE_AiZ�*** YHF CITY CHANHASSEN ***** a t PAY TO THE ACCOUNT N0, ORDER OF. Draxer. TCF ru.' Bank CUSTOMER COPY NOT NEGOTIABLE MEMO: TCF NaWrn Bank JPMC. NA. Delaware, Ohio 43015 Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the purchaser agrees to provide an appropriate indemnity or declaration of loss affidavit prior to the refund or replacement of this check in the event it a lost, destroyed or stolen. A 90 day waiting period may apply. Auseth, Angie From: John Colford [colfordjohn@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:38 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Re: 7470 Chanhassen Road preliminary proposed reduced to 30 scale Attachments: 7470 Chanhassen Road proposed survey.jpg Angie, This was most helpful, we have made some changes to the proposed survey, and attached it. The 190 sq ft is the concrete slope behind the garage. This appears to be stabilizing the foundation, and it doesn't appear so smart to remove it if we are keeping the garage. 190 sq ft is the surveyer's measurement, which is pretty close to the estimated 218 sq ft. We added a patio for the walkout door in back. The bituminous walk on the slope will be removed. We have no plans to put a path back in its place. If we did a walk it would be something permeable like woodchips. If we did a discontinuous field stone path with woodchips would that count as hardcover? We removed the traditional deck from the hardcover calculation, adding the patio made that a wash. Question though ... the proposed 3 season porch is suspended like a deck, is that counted as hardcover? We counted it as hardcover for the calcuation. The center circle in the driveway will be a landscape feature with plants and a tree. We moved the drive a bit to spare the one tree it would have taken out, now our proposed survey requires no tree removal. 1 stump is all that we will have to move. If the south house goes, we would likely swing the driveway farther south. The deck around the existing house to the south will be removed. Its not in great shape, and if no one lives there, not really serving a purpose anyway. Thanks for looking at it, John On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Auseth, Angie <aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: John, I have had an opportunity to conduct a preliminary review of the survey you sent over, below are my questions and comments: 1. I noticed from your house plan that the proposed house is a walkout. "Sec. 20-905 (6) Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum then feet by then feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such hard surface are must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks: may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements: and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." 2. The proposed hard surface coverage (assuming the second house remains on the site) is shown to be 8852, with the addition of the 10 x 10 future patio the site coverage would be 25%. 3. Will the bituminous walk way remain on9site, will it be replaced? If any future ha9urface for a walkway is a possibility, it should be accounted for or contemplated as part of the plan/hard surface coverage. 4. Traditional decks are excluded from the hard surface coverage calculations. Any hard surface under the deck would be included in the hard surface coverage. 5. Is the center circle of the driveway hard surface or green space? 6. Assuming the secondary house remains: The circular portion of the driveway is positioned over part of the deck. Will the deck be removed either way? 7. In the existing calculations to remain there is a concrete portion of 190 sq ft. What is that referring to? 8. Is the concrete south of the existing garage going to stay or be removed (approx 218 sq ft)? Please contact me with any questions. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: John Colford [mailto:colfordiohn@¢mail.coml Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:16 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: 7470 Chanhassen Road preliminary proposed reduced to 30 scale Angie, Any input you have regarding the appropriateness of our preliminary proposed survey would be appreciated before we finalize. Of course the existing structure on the south side may or may not be there. Thanks, John Notice of Public Hearing Oanhassen Planning Commission hoing Date & Time: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Zoning Appeal of an administrative decision Proposal: regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned Sin le Familv Residential, RSF Applicant: John Colford Property 7470 Chanhassen Road Location: (Lot 6, Block 1, Sunset View) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is tq inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood alioUt this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1 • Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-05.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. RJfty Review Procedure: Planred Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Isubdivisions, - ezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the tanning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent intormabon and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Rem and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaLlindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonvrepresenmtive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 049J82036654* $ 00.420 6 � 04/23/2009 Mailed From 55317 AJS POSTAGE* 7700 Market Boulevard n P.O Box 147 < -9� Chanhassen, Minnesota55317p 0_ www.ci.chanhassen.nnn.us n a Z � � 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 the City anyFORWARD TIMESNEE 1 EXR RTNO4/23J 09 TO SEND in the d SMITH'ROSEMARY contact PO DOX 822 Statutes shall no CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - 0022 defend, RETURN TO SENDER Its empt data pro I; ; ��I�s>>��s��.allaa341113Aini! ., W zz ROSEMARY SMITH 7555 192ND AVE W EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 �LrLlfr,rf,rllL�rlL„IL,r�LI�rLLrrllrr ;;y I 1 i BENCHMARK TR SAN MH EXISTING I I I I I I 1 I ELEV = 885.0 I W HOUSE DI / ITmmq we3��i 1• q,-�' o*`• W 3141 yso M1 q ti O�-„�pt�g1E \ o y� \'\ of \ ,•%c e + pp�� I ! v 1 111 ' fi 11 , (PA 1 1 11 a i 17s � r, I' ' I�I I �'� •` \ , , \ 1 I \ ` \ \\ \ as q \ q�5 III �_I 1 ; \ i 8 e + _ — — �oA y �-- T' oa EXISTIIJG y, _ HOUSE \ a Q l M1O w�l S FFE=9M.5 WAla + x gyp1\ -�1n`�§ A,,M w0 \ _ N 4 I� I I II\I i I I a I ! I 1 ! — — -_- Pq I LFE=928.1" Oyu If I I I I, I i wtOOD� 10lzi `fit Jf NJU V` 1 , �� I ^" ¢pc. _,ti""T _ 1 ' 1 \ �° / I 1 I ya"1 h »NK I M1O I \ I R (mil^lu�a F L-925. —o q •-. ,�-_ 1 I - q >q ,m x v, V6b N EXISTy N LM[ aOc, I qM1 1tl' O Q VOZ \'{ 1 1 ' qt'3 N ms 11 9ti� � J01 .J U I r�` a m o1.4,-�" j�IGARA�he • q�e v �YOv�i ETING HHOOUSEE —•1 � w 04' � V I 9�R. • qyy. Wj W GARAGE IO. Q W 0 20 40 60 DOTSR6 TAND 7, BLOCK 1, SUNSET Z 0) OAS VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. Q SCALE IN FEET ADDRESS — 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD .Fq = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. PID 111 25.8400050 W O X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION -'T OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED LOT AREA = SIF SF/ 0.82 AC = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE X 25% = 8950 SF HC ALLOWED COH = CANTLEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE APR 0 3 2009 GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION i TEE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION=HANHASSENPLANNING DEPT SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER za�k LEE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION: g VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND oa'p v ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY 4 $ w 11! S'-,:A N ED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 3 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP` 60 FEET ELEVATION. T ELEVATION ACE DRAINAGE 3VERHANG fTY LINE ELEVATION >TION ELEVATION ELEVATION J_1 V ON EXISTING PROPOSED HOUSE N=1225 SF HOUSE = 2615 SF DK PTO = B00 SF DECK = 140 SF(N/C) PORCH = 160 SF FUTURE SCREEN'FSCPOR = 320 SF HOUSE S= 970 SF PORCH FWALK = 60 SF DECK 200 SF DRIVE = 3675 SF DRIVE = 5700 SF CONC = 120 SF WALKS = 250 SF TOTAL = 6775 SF GARAGE = 730 SF CONC = 190 SF TOTAL =10275 SF/28.7% EXISTING TO REMAIN HOUSE - 970 SF GARAGE = 730 SF WALK = 100 SF TO Ex S HOUSE CONIC = 190 SF BEHIND Ex GAR TOTAL 2000 SF GARAGE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR= 924.0 TOP OF FOUNDATION = 924.3(VARIES) BASEMENT FLOOR = 915.5 LOWEST FLOOR=913.0 (SPT CT) TOTAL EXIST AND PROP. = 8775 SF / 24.4 % > 175 SF TOTAL REDUCTION = 1500 SF / 4% a w DESCRIPTION: LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, SUNS VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. ADDRESS - 7470 CHANHASSEN PID # 25.8400050 LOT AREA = 35800 SF/ 0.8: X 25% = 8950 SF HC ALLOM SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANC TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATI \IrnlrV Al 1 ma,rA1CInki Akin SCANNED - -_: �� . ` `>' �, �. ti.. '� �� ` _ .. \ ! � .. 4w. � � _ _ � :' 4 '� _ �. i?' � ll t_ .. �. � �!e fT� 1 - �� `z ..� E" _ i � i • _ 1 �� ` ITM tTnl w Se-�t ze, 10 ssix - ` 1 EXISTING HOUSE 1 � •yti F !! i� LK r 71.8 F E=l25. e� EXISTING zy `, HOUSE s.s n, 37.5 nb , h \ zq\ 1 y N_. \ ll %fJJy l EXISTING HOUSE �7 9'C(rra✓,1 e-4w0-kl- ,k L414 x 3o • = 133'I-(vZ x Lo' o _ 1 ln.ob!r 1 Z2— 3-), 5 x Z . to = 1A`12 .5 yr ccxcta � i A i \ I 6.0 9 oa -�-+ EXISTING oP�II "o o HOUSE 2nO vv FFE'=936.5 6.0 nOr� I ,1 N 7 LFE= 928. 1 A� 30.a WOOD DrF£.. CH 1.1 h Fi 326.70- 4 �� 77.5 JC' W ALK: � 9 SFr IF 49 a f1-j N V GARAGEa�' N 141 - GARAGE • 0pk DESCRIPTION: LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. ADDRESS — 7470 CHANHA PID # 25.8400050 • LOT AREA = 35800 SF/ X 25% = 8950 SF HC A SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO C TITLE OR EASEMENT INFOF VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS A ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSF BENCHMARK EXISTING TR SAN MH HOUSE I 'I ELEV I- 885.0 1 1 'IO j I z li II i ",ya1 :III \ W 83 J7t W 3� a tz °d o - •� \ ., i I ""'",` %NI I II '\ \ 11 ..\ . —_ � I� t. uo+imlS^j —L- � � -.._ I• , $V O Ilb'''IIIril`A f k�> O f a - •� o / 0 EXISTING a 1 °HOUSE Q � I 1. \. \. \\ \. \ \ \\ ,4i � M'LJ N -.♦e�� ti // .__ \ __. rv�CARAGE��a I \. •�n? V 8m Bp7i•W ��r,.'14 Y HOUSE '- - - - _ J.761p > �--. <y >_, w � - >• i�11,1 • ••' _ .. EHO SE M ` RI T je Illle'r1ll CARnGE _, dp,*'. DESCRIPTION: 0 20 40 60 LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, SUNSET VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. SCALE IN FEET ADDRESS - 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD dj9 - EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. RID # 25.8400050 X(99E.0) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION LOT AREA = 35800 SF/ 0.82 AC - DRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE X 25% = 8950 SF HC ALLOWED COH - CANTLEVEREO OVERHANG OH. - OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE OFE - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION FIFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER LFE - LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSF PI%ANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY Auseth, Angie From: Roger Knutson [RKnutson@ck-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:32 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road Attachments: image001.jpg Angie, You would be creating a different nonconformity but the city council could approve it per subparagraph "a" below Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (2) Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. (b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The city may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This section does not prohibit the city from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. (c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the city shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be changed to another nonconforming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie[mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:21 AM To: Roger Knutson Subject: 7470 Chanhassen Road Roger, there is a property located on the south east side of Lotus Lake that currently had two dwelling units and a detached 3 car garage located on the site. The property owner would like to demo the Primary Dwelling and rebuild a new larger house closer to the fake (within the setback requirements). It is my understanding that the area of the home may not increase due to the nonconforming Second Dwelling unit on the site. However, the property owner then asked about gutting the Secondary Dwelling and converting it to a shed/workshop to eliminate the Second Dwelling unit. Because there is an existing detached garage and the combination of the two would exa the 1,000 square foot limitation for deed accessory structures, are we creating a different nonconformity? Thank you for your help, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us u Primary Dwe iT -4- g4 2 C r x0 -0> 0 r 0mmi(n 0mmr< rn t) X<zii LQ Wo -ice O NO c)rn� D r- ZZr- mN II oD(f) <ZO m07 DN Oo II O O - J mn � SZ � O�M OJ co tt UiOO mO WZ = 2L -i-( 0 O OCOZ N Z- SO D ZT. C)-q 2 m(n OO _ = TZ 1 0 D K:= DD r\ tr0 06 w (n m U) C iZ Z Z -4 co Om Z rrriN m < 0 D C) x --t 0 � r5 i 6 1 � , K I 24.21 CFI -j `` ` All, w > 4 3 D ! ! N A rb ! 1$ D m ,- q *.,9 T 24.2 I tl 1 ,C CONC i 1 ELKS - t L DE J.-CK OVER i� CONC PADO �1 p'44 m =X O T OC in A V) Z 1' J� S'6t 1. 00 i 30 F SBL s. s. CONIC CURB'k, SOUTH 120.00 CHANHASSEN SIT WALK PROJECT NO. BOCK - BUILDING PERMI T SUR VEY OAT kPT 10, 2008 PAGE REVS Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor I HEREBY CERTFY THAT THIS "VEY WAS PREPARED BY NUNDER OR OER NY DIRECT SVPERVISRNI AMY THAT 1 M+ A DULY REGISTERED COLFORD RESIDENCE LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF AWNESOTA. for 6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE STONEWOODDESIGN EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 FRANK R. CAROARELLE REG. NO. 6508 1 952-94 1 -303 1 i I7 U s� I 1 40 60 IN FEET WG SPOT ELEVATION. )SED SPOT ELEVATION PION SURFACE DRAINAGE _EVERED OVERHANG j GARAGE I 41115� HARDCOVER REV 3/12/09 f EXISTING TO REMAIN PROPOSED PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DESCRIPTION: HOUSE = 970 SF HOUSE 2615 SF GARAGE FLOOR= 924.0 LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOC GARAGE - 730 SF DECK = 140 SF TOP OF FOUNDATION a 924.3(VARIES) VIEW, CARVER CO., f WALK - 100 SF FSCPOR 320 SF BASEMENT FLOOR - 915.5 CONIC - 190 SF FWALK = 60 SF LOWEST FLOOR-913.0 (SPT CT) ADDRESS — 7470 CH TOTAL - 2000 SF DRIVE 3690 SF PID # 25.8400050 CONC = 40 SF TOTAL = 6850 SF LOT AREA — 35800 TOTAL EXIST AND PROP. - 8850 SF / 24.7 R X 25% - 8950 SF > 100 SF Angie • Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: John Colford [mailto:colfordiohn@gmail.coml Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:59 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: 7470 Chanhassen Road Survey Angie, Here is the survey from Stern Survey. My surveyer found 2 sets of property boundary markers, and claims he has the correct ones. My neighbor (who's dock is drawn on my property) believes it is the other set (the one that gives him more shoreline.) They are 5 feet apart. Thanks, John 6 r,I Oar City Councilmembers of Chanhassen, My name is John Colford and I would like to request a variance on my lot at 7470 Chanhassen Road. It currently is nonconforming, with 2 living dwellings on the property. I would like to request a variance to have 2 outbuildings with a square footage that exceeds current limits, after I demolish the main house and build a new one. 1 recently purchased the property at 7470 Chanhassen road with the intent to demolish the main house near the road and build a new one in the middle of the lot. There is a secondary residential building on the south side of the lot, which is the original 1930's cabin on the property. This structure would not be in compliance with a second living dwelling, nor would it be in compliance of the limits on outbuilding square footage. There is a garage near the road we hope to keep as well. 1 would like to receive a variance on the structure on the south side of the lot, to remove the oven and stovetop, so that it is not a living dwelling, but can remain as a second outbuilding. This building and the existing garage would exceed the current limits on outbuilding square footage. I will not rent out this structure. Obtaining construction financing has several challenges. One of these challenges is that appraisals are less than what it costs to build a house. I assume because of what they would get if they turned around and sold it, or to drive up the amount down because I have to come up with the gap. I have already tried appraising my plan and existing property and it has been about $200,000 short of what is needed. Since that time, I have changed to a less expensive builder, and chosen less expensive finishes to try to fill that gap. I also need to maintain value on my lot as much as possible. If its not possible to keep the original 1930's cabin as a secondary living structure, I would like to keep it as an outbuilding, which combined with the existing garage, will be over the allowed square footage of outbuildings on my lot. If it matters, my lot is a combination of 2 lots in the original development, so extra square footage on my lot will appear less prominent than on a lot half its size like my neighbors. Thank you for your consideration of this, Sincerely yours, John Colford, M.D. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 2 � 2009 CHANHASSEN PIANfWNG DEp, Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:24 AM To: 'John Colford' Subject: RE: 7470 Chanhassen Road Survey John, I will return your filing fee to you, as I do agree that we have a misunderstanding. It would be better to meet and go over all of the details prior to your formal request. It is necessary to have all of the information available to the City Council, including the existing and proposed conditions of the property in order for them to be able to make a decision for your request. The original intent that I am referring to is changing that building into storage space. I spoke with one of the builders you were working with. Also, when your request was dropped off I did inform you that staff will have to review the request to determine if it something we can support. Without all of the information we cannot make a recommendation to the City Council. With council approval you can live in the house by the road while the new house is built. If you would like to keep the second dwelling the new house may not exceed the square footage of what is being removed. In that instance you could keep both structures. Plans will have to be provided for the second dwelling as well if you are going to convert it to something other than a dwelling unit. Your $50 refund will be mailed out on Thursday to the address you listed. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: John Colford [mailto:colfordjohn@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:38 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Re: 7470 Chanhassen Road Survey Angie, I think we have a misunderstanding. The leeway I was hoping for was referring to my desire to do the minimum to the guest house to get it to pass the inspection as a NON-habital dwelling, not an intent to have someone live there. I described all of those previous intentions in PAST tense, prior to finding out that that was not allowed. All I intend now is the same intention fthen we began our conversations and* not shifted whatsoever. It is to keep it in whatever form I can, solely to keep value on my property. I hope you are not implying that I am lying, I would not appreciate that. Maintaining value on my lot will affect what house I can afford to build, which is why I'm trying to get assurance that I can keep it. An agreement of what needs to happen to one of the outbuildings to qualify as a non -habitable structure, that is nonconforming for square feet can be contingent on the final plan all included being less than 25% hardcover, can't it? Can't it be contingent on the plan having an acceptable plan for the driveway? I have said that I intend to remove the stove and cooktop so that it is not a habitable dwelling. You aren't saying if that is sufficient or not, or if not, why not. I'm not sure I know what else to say I intend to do that will satisfy you. I have not developed a proposed survey, and am not in a position to develop it. I may not be able to build the house we have designed. Unless we can develop a plan for the structure contingent on final hardcover and driveway acceptability, these new requirements are substantially more than was described prior to filling, and if I knew these were required I would not have filed, I would like my filling fee returned. Please mail it to the following address: 11256 Jersey Ave N Champlin, MN 55316-3367 Prior to purchasing this property, in discussion with the building department, I actually asked if I could live in the existing house by the road during the building of the new house in a different location and size closer to the lake, and they said that this has been done previously on Lotus Lake with permission from the city council with a letter describing the intent to demolish the old house by the road within 100 days of occupancy of the new house in the middle of the lot, and keeping the guest house as a habitable dwelling with the new house. This was described by the building department without a hint of uncertainty that it could be done. That was a major factor in the acquisition and negotiation of this property and I was misled by representatives of the city of Chanhassen, for which I feel like I got a raw deal, and stand to loose a lot of value because of it. I asked the building department this before I was even aware it was a rental property. I had no intention of renting it. I never asked the building department about renting it, I asked them about living there in the main house by the road during construction of a new larger house closer to the lake. When I failed to secure construction financing in conjunction with acquiring the property, the current renters expressed a desire to stay, and I agreed, which I completely regret now. I don't care about renting it now, I don't care about renting it in the future. Renting or not is a non -issue. I will not rent that structure. I described my original intent for someone to live in the guest house when I was under the impression from the building department that that was allowed only to further support that I had no underlying desire to rent it, not to suggest that my intention is to make it a habitable structure moving forward. Again, I can't provide a proposed survey in the near future. Unless we can come to an understanding contingent upon acceptable hardcover and driveway plans, I can't move forward either. I wasn't aware of these requirements prior to filing, and changing the requirements after accepting a filing fee feels like I am being taken advantage of, and I feel that the fee should be returned in that case. Thank you for your attention to this matter, John 0 On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Auseth, Angie <aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: John. I appreciate you getting back to me. I double checked the survey you sent over and I do not see the hard surface coverage calculations. It shows that 25% of the lot area (35800 sq ft) is 8,950 sq feet of allowable hard surface coverage. I am looking for a table listing each structure: house/garage/driveway/sidewalk, etc. and its square footage. The existing driveway appears to encompass a significant amount of area. City ordinance requires all driveways to be constructed of an improved surface i.e. bituminous, concrete, etc. There is not an ordinance that gives credit for permeable material. therefore they are included in the hard surface coverage calculations. Another concern I have is, it appears that there are two access points onto Hwy 101. I will need a proposed survey in order to continue to process this request. With regard to continuing to rent the second dwelling, the building department was right, you can continue to use the property as is. The problem occurs when the size of either of the dwellings increases. In addition, it's not just the "rental" of the second dwelling it's any habitation. We briefly talked about this last week when you dropped off your narrative. The second structure may not be used for temporary or permanent habitation. Therefore, the new home may not increase in size while the second dwelling is still located on the property. It appears that your intent to use the second dwelling has shifted since we first began our conversations. While I understand you would like to focus on the new home, we are unable to do that without addressing the second dwelling unit. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: John Colford [mailto:colfordiohn@amail.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:41 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Re:7470 Chanhassen Road Survey Angie, The existing hardcover is on the survey. The proposed I assume will be adding the hardcover of the planned house, and subtracting the hardcover of the house closest to the road. I hope the hardcover of the new house is included in the plans, but I will have to check that this evening. We shouldn't be anywhere near 25% of 0.86 acres, but we can always redo the driveway in something that doesn't contribute to hardcover if need be. We have developed plans with an architect for a house with an attached garage, but have not been able to obtain adequate financing. It currently doesn't appraise anywhere near what it will cost to build. It may be that we have to go with a smaller cheaper house. I can send the existing house plans this evening when I get home. I haven't thought much about the driveway, it would likely be similar to the existing driveway with a reduction in size in the turnaround by the guest house and the parking lot by the house by the road, with extension to the new house, which we will put 75' from the lake in the center of the lot. To be honest I don't even know what the rules are about a driveway. The plans for converting the existing guest house would include removing the stove and cooktop. I don't plan on doing much else to the guest house immediately, and intend on doing the minimum necessary. I would like to keep expense and effort focused on the new house. I can't even promise I won't get rid of the guest house after my loan closes. Right now I need to try to maintain as much value on the lot as possible. As far as renting, I regretting continuiloo rent out the current houses as is abd4k week into being a slum lord. I am prepared to sign a document giving all my worldly possessions to Chanhassen and/or Carver county if I ever rent out that structure as a living dwelling. Seriously. I called the building department prior to purchasing the property asking if I can keep the guest house as a living dwelling, and without a hint of uncertainty I was told that I could, and was not redirected to the planning department. I didn't get anyones name, I assumed I was talking to the right people and I trusted them, which apparently turned out to be foolish, and I remain disappointed about that. My plan at that time was to put my young adult step child in the guest house who is on pace to be independent in his late 30's, which was a huge selling point for me for this property. I NEVER had plans to continue renting. Also, maintaining living square footage would have helped me maintain value on the lot to counteract the low appraisals that are happening now, which is contributing to how difficult it is to obtain adequate construction financing, and was another consideration prior to purchasing this property, and factored into my negotiation of price. I would hope that this unfortunate situation would contribute to some leeway for me. Thanks, John On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Auseth, Angie <aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: John, Thank you for sending over the survey of the existing conditions. Can you submit the survey of the proposed conditions for the site. I have a few questions: • The hard surface coverage on the site, both existing and proposed. • The layout of the driveway and access onto Hwy 101. The layout of the new home, will there be an attached garage, etc. • The plans for the second dwelling to be converted into an accessory structure. While I understand your desire to utilize the secondary home as a workshop, I have concerns that the building will be converted back or rented in the future. Before I am able to present your request I have to fill in the missing information to make sure it is something staff can support. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, It *BENCHMARK TR SAN MH ELEV = 8 SA14 yll �i 1 75 V t4 'IJ fill tv T NJ/ 0 0 10 SsBL �WALK_ EXISTING HOUSE ), 37.5 OP Ok EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING 0 HOUSE /V 80____� *24' ly � — ____ -1 77 .5 xpt o ZT_ I EXISTING HOUSE 0 i FFE-936.5 LF1=928. JZ6.70 141 GARAGE N 49 GARAGEc4,, DESCRIPTION: LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1 VIEW, CARVER CO., MN. SCALE IN FEET