Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CAS-12_FALCONER, GREG & TAMMY - 720 WEST 96TH STREET
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: November 20, 2012 ( I 1 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: December 21, 2012 CASE #: 2012-12 BY: RG, TJ, JS, JS (f1�, PROPOSED MOTION: ) K "The Chanhassen Board of Appeal's and Adjustments denies theaed square-foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation and adopts theFindings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a 4,940 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand the original non -conforming shed. LOCATION: 720 West 96i' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Greg and Tammy Falconer 720 West 96'h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)850-6856 mgmfinc@mninter.net PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 4.77 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for accessory structures to reconstruct and expand the original 1,280 square -foot non -conforming structure. A second 4,140 square -foot accessory structure was constructed in 2000. With the proposed expansion, accessory structures would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 November 20, 2012 Page 2 of 6 " rnrnnm f .J E•' r'y�G. +e t i � t The property had a single-family home with an attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140 square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1,280 square feet). Due to snow damage to the roof, the smaller building has been demolished. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 720 West 96`h Street. The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96`h Street to the north of the property. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming use, Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming uses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued, through repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement, but not expansion. Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures, of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied a variance request for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to expand the accessory structure (39' 9 '/4" x 40' plus a 5' 23/4" x 40' covered walkway/lean-to area). On December 5, 1984, the City Council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a contractor's yard for the subject property. This application was in response to the August 20, 1984 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing contractor's yards as a conditional use in the R -la, Agricultural Residence District. When the CUP was approved, the site contained two parcels for approximately 10 acres and included two pole bams. The easterly lot was sold and in 1985 a house was constructed on 710 West 96`h Street. That lot required a variance because it did not meet the standards of the R-1 a district. With the variance approval for 710 West 90h Street, the city council affirmed the CUP for the contractor's yard. As part of the Board of Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 November 20, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Appeals and Adjustments hearing on September 18, 2012, the property owner was notified that the conditional use permit for the contractor's yard was null and void. The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of the accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. At the time of the ordinance amendment, there were discussions regarding requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for legitimate agricultural uses. Minnesota State Statute 17.81 — Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural uses as "use of land for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairyproducts, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under Chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary products. " As part of the discussion, it was determined that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use and that the variance process provided an appropriate mechanism for addressing the request. The accessory structure to be located on the subject property is intended to be used as a storage structure to house antiques. Location of the proposed expansion Variance 2012-10, to allow for a 2,560 square foot storage building— APPROVED October 9, 2012. Structure constructed after 2005, no permit on file. If a subject property meets the criteria in Minnesota State Statute 1613.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. However, city code would still require a zoning permit for its construction. The property located at 720 West 96th Street does not qualify as agricultural land Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 November 20, 2012 Page 4 of 6 because the property has 4.77 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure requires a building permit. Minnesota State Statute 1613.60 — Definitions defines agricultural buildings to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in Section 273, 13, Subdivision 23, designed, constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub lessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23, Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. " ANALYSIS The applicant desires to reconstruct and expand a storage structure on site. The previous building was 1,280 square feet (32' x 40'). The proposed building is 1,800 square feet (37' x 40' plus an 8' x 40' covered walkway/lean-to area). The walkway/lean-to area is included in the area of the building since it exceeds the 2.5 feet eave or architectural detail exclusion. Additionally, it could be enclosed in the future with a minimal of alterations. Proposed expanded building envelope Original Structure (32' x 40') First Expansion 90.3' x 45.7' [4,140 square feet]. August 2000. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 November 20, 2012 Page 5 of 6 • On October 8, 2012 the City Council approved a 1,560 square -foot variance to the square -foot maximum accessory limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building. The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitian Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban -type development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached residential units. The remaining 15 percent of development of residential low-density land is some other type of low density residential use, e.g., twin homes, town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. City staff met the applicant on site on November 7, 2012 to review the applicant's proposal and evaluate site drainage issues. Staff advised the applicant that he could revise his plans and still comply with the ordinance. The applicant stated that he was concerned that a smaller building footprint would lead to snow storage issues and water problems that he is trying to address. City code permits the applicant to replace the 32' x 40', 1,280 square -foot building. This building would not have to sit in the exact location of the existing building, but could be shifted on site to Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 November 20, 2012 Page 6 of 6 address the owner's drainage concerns, subject to compliance with the A-2 district requirements. Additionally, the applicant could include eaves of up to 2'/: feet to provide additional roof area to direct snow to appropriate locations, which would allow a 40' s 32' building with the same roof width as the applicant proposes (45 feet). Or, the building could be shortened from 40 feet to 28' 5 1/3" by 45 feet. "SMft^ .li RECOMMENDATION 40' x 32' 2.5' Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals and Adjustment deny the variance and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Site Survey. 4. Reduced Copy Aerial View Building Plan. 5. Reduced Copy Aerial View Building Plan Previous Submittal. 6. Reduced Copy Building Elevation. 7. Reduced Copy Building Elevation Previous Submittal. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. g^plan\2012 planning cases\2012-12 720 west 96th street variance-falconer\resubmittal\stan report 720 w 96th resub.doe CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-12. On November 20, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: P/O SW 1/4 NW/4E 155' OF W 310' Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 4. Variance Findines — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the . granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for agricultural uses. Therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. This area is guided for residential low-density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a permitted accessory use; however, the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria- foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations; however, it does not permit its enlargement. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the winter of 2011. The homeowner intends to replace and expand the existing structure by 520 square feet. The City Code states "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 expansion." This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could be replaced. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The total square footage of accessory structures on this lot is the second largest in the neighborhood and exceeds the square footages of accessory structures of seven properties in the neighborhood. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities_ However, this area is guided for residential low-density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The request is also inconsistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. I JLtlell CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: G c 5 r 7—A � . �., X 7A w %f -k r& Cfna, IA-5se,yY�✓V s 53I% Contact: Coves Phone: Fax: Email: Qv..gin� Phone: Email: Planning Case No. iN.¢q,(fel IaL- CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: S.t w, c 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) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes 8 Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 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. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-12, November 20, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board or Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 squarefoot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20"' day of November, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman t.. PROJECT NAME: ] (/\ e LOCATION: _ 7A 0 IJ sf- S- T7 / 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 12 TOTAL ACREAGE: -'/- ;;, 7 WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: X YES C r ( --u v PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 16i eSi REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: h REASON FOR REQUEST: A e/0 U i (A C 0 NO D . 4Fo ( )-Jw , e, !V; e- GLC=hey brie e r c (necL von �' TIS e- GQac lFcovrcti( r 0 0 tj (ID(jei- ✓y e vvt S (.✓ i �(-. V'�; � e S In o t,�.� ec 1.. d i � e ijt (l E- �✓ �e e kpvve Cal,. \ rti t,,,, a� P fO (�(,�v- St.^i.cc �c ✓�S 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. 9 \plwlort Wevelopment review apphi Wn.dm Opt- 3� cora Date (',_i Z)7 . ;2al Date SCANNED RECEIVED we i>tme �xwwsstx x�,p� l ixEsr asm wrtn Y R.� CITY ff COPY 1. "bVl ncc- M�i61M_ py .01<T Fka a- -720 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED scANN® SEP 2 is 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEFT falconer 120 West 961h Street CITYOF RECEIVEDSSEN Chanhassen, MN 21" x B" side wall footings AUG 2 4 2012 15 14' M narawcDEPT! 24 enEer footings, 33" 12" 62 Ergreeral s RPaxtq q per inaufxtrfftrer �' x9' r�verhead ;door 4 �"�" Pakxgs » » » » » » » » » » . » . CITU OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2012 CBANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT SCANNED West 96th Street North Ncvation SCANNED Chanhassen, North Nevarion .;ITS OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED A:'J ! 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 8, 2012, 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 720 West 96th Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-012 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. *Ken J. 4Enl Dq&y Clerk Subscribed and sw� Pmto before me this day of NDIAnho r , 2012. A An w - Notary P blic %. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda, Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on p perty zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gr e & Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96 Street Location: 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bcenerousi ANDREW T RIEGERT BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC BRADLEY C WORM 620 96TH ST W PO BOX 1060 750 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1060 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM 760 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 GARY J & MARY LANE BENDZICK 731 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES R & SHARON M HEDBERG 750 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 721 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CONRAD L KERBER 9850 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAXON D & ALLISON L LANG 9870 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & BETTY WOLD 730 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK 810 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8673 VIVEK KAUL 9875 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROBERT A & ELIZABETH K HAAK 770 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE 730 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 lickU [.1�y CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-12. On November 20, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: P/O SW 1/4 NW '/< E 155' OF W 310' Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for agricultural uses. Therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. This area is guided for residential low-density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. scmmu Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a permitted accessory use; however, the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria- foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations; however, it does not permit its enlargement. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the winter of 2011. The homeowner intends to replace and expand the existing structure by 520 square feet. The City Code states "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 expansion." This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could be replaced. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The total square footage of accessory structures on this lot is the second largest in the neighborhood and exceeds the square footages of accessory structures of seven properties in the neighborhood. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low-density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The request is also inconsistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-12, November 20, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. "The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board or Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20`h day of November, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman Agenda Chanhassen Planning Commission Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Call to Order —0 ' New Business Unfinished Business Public Hearings n _ ME 720 WEST 96' STREET VARIANCE: Request for Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) located at 720 West 96th Street. Applicant/Owner: Greg & Tammy Falconer — Planning Case 2012-12. Approval of Minutes 2. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated October 16, 2012. Commission Presentations � j City Council Action Update LOlik.t/-�i est Correspondence Discussion •��ie �{-,.t4/!u� � �'[�f' �r Adjournment 1 — U _ ��ff �j✓YX� rvV Open Discussion NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus ulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Comm' si eeting. 1 ct<Z"%"C ' ^- D \�' 000 ✓�..� � v v eQ 19 �'4 4 : I /,;L - / �- CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Wes Dunmore Gary Bendzick 730 West 96'" Street 731 West 9e Street OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN TAMMY FALCONER, PLANNING CASE 2012-12. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request. It's Planning Case #2012-12. It's actually a re -submittal. They came in previously for a variance request. Greg and Tammy Falconer at 720 West 96'" Street are the applicant. The property is located in the central portion of the city. It's the northwest comer of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101. 960' Street is a local city street. These are larger lots. Areas approximately 5 acres in size. There's a big wetland complex that covers everything on Pioneer Trail but stuff off of 96'" Street is upland. The property owners currently have, the applicant is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand by 520 square feet the original 1,280 square foot nonconforming shed. We're calculating the total area of the proposed shed at 1,800 square feet. They were previously denied a variance on September 18, 2012 and rather than appeal that decision to City Council they revised their building by reducing the structure width to 37 feet with an 8 foot overhang area and are resubmitting this for your review. That 8 foot overhang area became important because the city attorney directed that we look at that as part of the building area under our previous review of a barn which had a large overhang that they could use for storage and for horse shelter and so to be consistent that's why we've included it as part of their request. City ordinance Section 20-74 states that non -conforming uses and structures allows for the non -conformity be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not through expansion and therefore that's why they are, they would be able to build the same square footage building on site. They just requesting that it be allowed to be expanded. Section 20- 904 of the ordinance limits accessory structures in this zoning category and several others to 1,000 square feet so. Again they're proposing to reconstruct the shed, which is shown here in yellow but expand it all the way over so basically they're squaring up the building roof area if you will. Expansion is 520 square feet. Again 200 square feet of that would be for building and 320 square feet of that is for that overhang area which is 8 by 40 feet long. In 2000 the southerly accessory building was built and that was 4,140 square feet. Both structures would total 5,940 square feet if approved and again that's in excess of what city ordinance requirements are. And this is an aerial view of what they propose. The dashed line would represents the expansion of the building envelope on the site. It should be noted that this is the second, these two accessory structures together are the second largest on West 96th Street immediately for accessory structures. Here's a picture. This outlines the roof area of what they're proposing to do. Again SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 they want to sort of square up the roof area and Greg will explain further what they're problems and concerns were. And it was mostly regarding snow storage and the shadowing that's created on there. The subject property is guided in our comprehensive plan for residential low density uses. This permits future densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre which is our suburban style density that we have. Agricultural uses are not anticipated or proposed to be preserved in the community. We don't want to, we're not going to force anyone out through our development process but it's something that will, we see continuing in western Carver County which is in the Carver County plan and so eventually we see our whole community developing. And the goal for residential low density is the standard RSF zoning permits 15,000 square foot lots and these larger accessory structures aren't conducive to that type of use. We did look at providing some alternatives that would meet some of the criteria that the applicant advised us that they're looking. On the left is the applicant's proposal. What we looked at is if we did a building that was that wide that could be 28 and 5 and a third feet deep and then it's 45 feet wide and they get the same, at least roof effect of it. Their concern is that it's not as long as they'd like it and I'll let him get into it. The other option would be to go with a 40 by 32 foot wide building and that would be basically taking the existing building and turning it 90 degrees and then add 2 1/2 foot overhangs which are permitted under our ordinance and not count it against the obstruction ordinance and then they would have a 40 foot wide roof area and again they would be able to get the snow to come off outside of the sheltered area on the southerly building. We believe that the, during the 2007 ordinance amendment discussion as indicated that requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on agricultural uses and council also seemed to agree that that was the best way, mechanism for us to allow those increasing in intensity and doing it through a variance process. The property owners currently have a reasonable use of the property and are allowed to replace the 1,280 square foot nonconforming accessory structure without coming through the variance process. This area is guided for residential low density uses and we believe eventually it will redevelop and it is again consistent with the land use in that this area is guided for residential low density uses. Staff is recommending denial of the variance application and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Thanks Bob. Colopoulos: Bob is, you mentioned two alternative plans there. Were those the City's recommendations? Or alternatives. Generous: Yes. Those are things that we came up with. Colopoulos: That you would consider to be acceptable. Generous: Right. Colopoulos: Okay. Aller: I don't have any questions. Okay. Applicant, Mr. Falconer and Mrs. Falconer. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Greg Falconer: Greg and Tammy Falconer, 720 West 96'" Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Greg Falconer. Welcome. I won't take as much time as I did last time. I appreciate you all being here tonight. I'm sure we can all get through this much quicker than last time. The one thing I did want to Point out and I did talk to Kate Aanenson about this is at the top of this sheet, and you did change that on 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 there but at the top of this sheet it does say 4,940 square foot variance. She did change that. She said she was going to change it on here so I don't know, that doesn't coincide with what you have but you have it right on there Bob. In the beginning so you know as far as we were concerned the variance was for like 520 square foot is what I was saying. Yeah, right. But it was kind of misleading. Inst time we were here somebody mentioned you're asking for a 4,940 square foot and. Tammy Falconer. Variance. Greg Falconer: Variance and it just raised some questions so I did bring that up with Kate Aanenson. So basically what we're asking for is an extended shed roof onto our plan. I did change the plan. I brought the interior wall into another 3 feet so basically we're looking at an 8 foot overhang which is on one of the sheets there. You can see in the plan right here. So anyhow this is 8 foot right now so basically from my old existing building to here is 13 feet so there's 200 square feet of additional interior space in here and the reason being was the plan right here, this is the old previous submittal. This is the new one I believe right here. This footing right here which also is a column in the building is right in front of the entrance door. There is a small garage door right here and then there's an entrance door right here. The only reason why I moved the wall out a little bit was so that the door would impede for people walking in right here. If it's in the old place this wall would be right here. You'd open up the door and run right into the one supporting column so that was my reason for just bringing it out a little bit further than the old building. So basically what we're asking for is 200 square feet of interior space, which is a very small portion all things considered. The rest of this would all be open air. You would see this from the outside. This would just be a long shed roof right here as depicted in that last picture right here. So you would literally see all this so it's open air. The reason why we're trying to do this is because obviously in the original picture that you saw up there the roof had collapsed, which is this picture right here. This is the area where it collapsed. The snow builds up heavily in this area. This faces north right here so this never sees any sun as you can see the amount of snow that collects you know here and here so on a regular basis I have to try to get the snow off of here. Now in the new plan we would be doing a metal roof which is just like this one and the metal roof would shed snow off in front of the buildings which collects similar to what you see here but also in front of my other building and it can be a real, real serious problem with metal roofs. That being said I did have an engineer look at these plans. Last time we didn't have any supporting documentation to what we were talking about and I know some of you had expressed concerns in your discussion after I had sat down and said you know that we really don't have anything to base this on so I did hire an engineer firm and I would be glad, Tammy will hand you a copy for each of you to look at. It's fairly simple. I told him not to write anything lengthy on there because I know that this, this is pretty self explanatory and what he had to say in there was that my building, the way that I proposed it is in a favorable, it's favorable for shedding off the snow and the water to an area that is manageable and I have another picture here and the reason why I took this picture today was to show you, without being on our property it's very hard for you all to tell where our water goes and where it drains to so I took this picture today. As you can see this is our retaining wall right here that I built in 1996. Half my water goes down this side inbetween my neighbor's building and mine. The other portion comes down here and flows out through my parking lot back this direction so what I am trying to do is get my water and snow over into this area right here so that it can properly drain away from my building. We have had issues with this water collecting in here and soaking the ground which is clay soil. The clay soil is not conducive for footings. This original building was going up and down by 4 or 5 inches and in the winter time this door basically doesn't work because my frost footings aren't even deep enough in the existing building which were built to code and the building is going up and down. So if I can get my water and my snow away from this area I'm not going to have those issues. One other thing. Tammy Falconer: It's a safety issue. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: One other thing I need to mention and Greg Havlik put that in there, is there is an egress issue with the snow runoff of the existing building. It does impede the entrance into this door and can be a safety issue and he brought that up when be was out at my property. So, let me see where I'm at here. The City did come out, Bob was out with a, was that a city engineer? Generous: It was Alyson Fauske. Greg Falconer: Okay, and Alyson came out. I met her and Bob had presented his proposal for maybe some options for me. Tammy Falconer. You want to talk about each option and how it won't work? Greg Falconer: Yeah. The option, and I took pictures of this too. This would be the front of the building right here where we, my old building used to come right to here. As you can see this was filled up with drainage rock and a pretty extensive drainage system that I had in the front and I put draintile that came around and dumped out over on this side over here. The interesting thing about it is, if we pull the building back to here, which this is about where the building would be 13 feet back, and we went with one of the options. This entire area is open to filling up with water and has no place to go and once again I say we're in clay soil. It does not drain properly. This fills up with enough water. It's actually 988 cubic feet of area that could fill up with 7,410 gallons of water and I just did that math you know by the area of this right here. The option of removing the retaining wall and pulling it back to here would cost me about $6,000. There are footings underneath here. The entire area of this retaining wall at any one area could be as much as 3 feet deep down into the soil. Another view of that as well from the other angle. This is where the proposed building, the option was. You can see this area here is completely contained and water could not drain out and I'd have a bigger issue here than I had before with standing water and building basically an ice rink or whatever else that little deal. Another view of that. Put the camera on the ground. This is where the building floor would be. This is how high my retaining wall is. I'm not sure how this can be a viable option when it obviously has, the water has no place to go. One other issue, my electrical line which is dead right now is in this corner right here. I'd have to relocate my underground electrical lines again which are in the corner of the building right there. So I guess you know that's the evidence that I have for our water issue and our snow problems and Greg Havlik is, has also verified that in his letter there. One other thing I want to say about the comprehensive plan, and I know that you know we need to work off of some basis but you know the comprehensive plan is an open ended document that needs to be revisited on a regular basis and I understand that we have to have a motivation to go someplace and I respect that and I do. In our situation this street has been here a long time. Three doors down from me they have over 20,000 square feet of building. Pole barns which is never mentioned on here because they do have 10 acres but there's over 20,000 square feet of building 3 doors down from me. There's 3 homes with steel structures like mine on there and I would like to somehow, some way build this building again which I am going to build it one way or another I'm going to build the structure. I would like to do it correctly if I could and I would like to do that with the overhang on there and get my water and snow to shed to the proper area and not have a safety egress issue which the engineer has defined. So that being said I would like to take some questions if you have some so that I can answer anything that you might have. Aller: Mr. Falconer, did HavTek get an opportunity to, I mean you presented your option to HavTek, did you present the other options to HavTek or did he, why didn't he send us something saying that they wouldn't work? Greg Falconer: It was, when Greg was at the house I told him the option of this and that and he looked at me and he says you've got to be kidding me. Those were his exact words. You've got to be kidding me. And the reason why he said that was, where does this water go? It's self explanatory. He literally looked 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 at me and said you've got to be kidding me. I'm just telling you what he said. I'm not trying to you know ... I'm just saying that he just said you've got to be kidding. It's not an option. It just simply isn't an option. I mean anybody can see, if I have a, if I have a wall right here which is in front of my structure, where is this water going? It's undeniable. Aller: And this structure was there originally, correct? The one that has collapsed and come down. Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And that was the result of the snow piling up on top? Greg Falconer. Correct. Aller: Did your building, the second building cause a lot of that snow to pile up? That was built afterwards by you. Greg Falconer: Yeah, correct but that building also, this building also before I put this retaining wall had water flowing through this door and out the other side and that obviously was an issue so it was taking a beating as it was and so I put up this retaining wall and the, you know the structure itself has been going up and down regardless of whether this building was here or not. The structure's been going up and down because this area over here is very, very, very wet. Aller: And you put in the retaining wall? Greg Falconer. Yes, in 1996. Undestad: Can you put that picture of that? Greg Falconer: Yeah, which one do you want? Undestad: There. So where did all the water go that went between the building and the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: This, you can see this is drainage rock right there. Before this, I've got a drainage trough in here. Well it was made out of rubber and it went up the side walls and then I had a piece of draintile that started off at a high point over here, came around and as it got over to this side over here it exited out the side between this wall and the existing and so I collected all of that water and exited out this side, which is the reason why you see it's free standing right now. Once I took my building down we took all the drainage rock out of here and put it on the parking lot. Undestad: So wouldn't it actually help if you eliminated some of that slab and add more rock in there to move that water around? Greg Falconer: Well where's. Undestad: Instead of having it all into just a little 3 or 4 foot area. If you had that slab out of there and put one of the city options on here you'd have more area in there that you put your rock in there and get your water to draintile around the other sides and things. It's what comes off your roof on that building, off the rain, you know it'd be the same. Yeah. Greg Falconer: Well here's the height of my retaining wall and the building would be back here. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Undestad: Right. And if you took that slab out of there, now you've just got more dirt in there and you can do more in the landscaping. Greg Falconer. This is 13 feet from here to here. This is this high and has to be because you can see this, yeah I don't know if you're seeing the elevations here. Undestad: Sure. Greg Falconer. This is my elevation right here in the yard. Undestad: Could you do something on the foundation on that north side and just bring the masonry walls up higher to create another retaining wall in there? Greg Falconer: Like I said you know, this retaining wall here, you know if like I said in a perfect world yeah it'd be great. Remove the whole thing and put it all over back in here and get rid of it all together. You're talking about many, many tons of dirt or rock or whatever else and rebuilding it. Like I say you're looking at about $6,000. Undestad: I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm just saying your north wall of your new barn, your new shed, if that was masonry up to an elevation the same height as your retaining wall, you could fill that whole thing in with dirt. Landscaping. Greg Falconer: I don't want to fill this in with dirt. I'm just saying. I don't see, I don't see why I would have this 13 feet from here to here all dirt. I mean people are going to look at it and say what is that? Undestad: Landscaping. Greg Falconer. I've been a landscaper 16 years, I've never seen anything like that. Ever. Undestad: I'm just talking out loud see what some options are. Greg Falconer: I know. Undestad: And then that 13 feet, is that just looking at this first option. Greg Falconer: Yeah well basically both of them pull it back. Undestad: Well it looks like the 40 by 32 with the 2 1/2 foot overhang doesn't come back that far. Greg Falconer: Yeah, can you put that other one up Bob? Undestad: So the 40 by 32 doesn't come back the 13 feet like the other one. Generous: There's an 8 foot difference between that 32 foot option and their 40 foot option. So that's the first part of it and then it's a separation to the north of that. Undestad: Right, I'm just assuming that the picture he showed me was the middle option of how much of your old slab would disappear. Am I right? Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yeah. Well this is just, this is. This is the 13 foot mark right here. On the other option, Bob on the other one if you could show that on there. The 40 by 32. The right one. What is the setback on that one? Generous: That would be 8 feet short of the existing building. Greg Falconer: 8 feet short, yeah so 13 and 8 foot. Undestad: Then one more question on your door. If that 200 square feet, you said you kind of pulled it out because of that door. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Undestad: Could you just shift that door over a little bit? Greg Falconer: Yes. That certainly is an option. Undestad: Okay, I have no more questions. Aller. Okay, anything further? Hokkanen: Well I have a question back to moving the door over. If you move the door over 3 feet, is that an option? 3 feet to the left on this diagram. Greg Falconer: Yes. Hokkanen: And you could still be within the number, I'm confused with which one we're looking at now. Back to the proposed city's, would that work on the 40 by 32? Undestad: Well I think you're, moving the door is. Hokkanen: On their's, okay. Undestad: Their applicant's proposal but I was adding 200 square feet to the interior space. Hokkanen: ...okay. Undestad: If they move the door then maybe they can go back to the regular square footage... Hokkanen: Regular square footage, right. Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Okay. Colopoulos: Mr. Falconer, Mrs. Falconer, would you characterize your engineer's recommendation as one that was designed to optimize water mitigation? Greg Falconer: Yes. Colopoulos: Which is really what you hired them for? To try to come up with a plan. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That is what I'm hiring ... my water problems. I'm not here to build a bigger pole barn. I want to be done with the water and snow issues and obviously 1, you know by pulling my wall back even further I'm demonstrating that I really don't care about 200 square feet. 200 square Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 feet is, isn't even what you see inside of here. You know I can rebuild this building but I don't want to build it with the same issues, especially with the metal roof that I have. The metal roof is going to cause an incredible amount of problems if I rebuild it just the way it is. And you know like he says in there, there's an egress issue with the snow dumping off into the door that is right here. Tammy Falconer: Well you can already see, when this gets icy it's not a lot of fun. We're out there everyday and falling on your tailbone and what not, it's not for just oh we didn't get out there and shovel. This is happening on a consistent basis. Greg Falconer. But this is relatively relaxed. I'm talking about snow from here to here after a major snowstorm and up to here to the peak of this roof. It's not just a little bit of snow and my neighbors deal with the same, with the same issues. You know like I say, all I'm trying to do is get the snow and water over to the manageable area over here so it can evacuate properly. Keep this drier and stop my frost footings from going up and down. Like I say this building would go up and down by 5 inches. This would go up enough to cause this door not to work again. Aller: Do you expect to use the same footings for the new structure? Greg Falconer. No. Aller: So you'll be putting in new footings? Greg Falconer: Yeah, got to put in deeper footings. Aller: And what have you been told with regard to the metal roof and a regular roof, why you would have a different amount of water or moisture at the end of the day? I mean whether it slides off early or whether it melts off, you're going to have the same amount of snowfall. Greg Falconer. Yeah. As my neighbor is probably going to attest to, does anybody here own a steel building? I just want to ask that, okay. So you know what I'm talking about. Once it dumps off, if you don't get onto that right away this is already snow that is probably half melted or whatever else and that's the reason why it's coming off but once it hits the ground and you don't get to it right away, it freezes to complete ice snow. You can't take a regular shovel into it. You don't remove it like that. That's why once it starts piling up here and keeps coming off the roof, half of it will go this direction. Half of it will go that direction and it's almost impossible to get rid of at that point. Aller: And you built the larger structure, which is to my understanding is the second largest in the area, with a metal roof too? Greg Falconer: Yes. Aller: And what are you doing now with that snow? That's been happening all along. Greg Falconer. That is correct and I get on that as far as we can and I have a skid steer that I put on a tooth bucket and on many, many occasions you sit there and bang on it and bang on it until you can get back into your building. Aller: And you'd have to do that regardless of what structure you've got coming in. You're going to have to continue to do that. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: I'm going to have to continue to do that over here so I don't have the ice build up that we've been having over here on this side. Aller: Well what would change with the other, the green root? Greg Falconer: Get everything over here to a manageable area where I can, in one of these pictures, I don't know if, I don't know if I have it but in one of these pictures my sidewalk right now ends right here and it's a paver sidewalk going from the house all the way down to this area right here. Once I get my pavers down to this area here where all the snow and water dumps off I can scoop it up and push it right on down and get rid of it. That's basically what I do here. I run along side of the building and chisel and chisel and chisel until I can get back in my building doors. Aller: Is there a reason you can't do that now? Say the building wasn't there, what's stopping you from putting your pavers in and running down there to clean up whatever snow falls there? Greg Falconer: Well this is grass down into here right now and there's edging right over to here and I stopped the pavers right here because I just did this in the last 3 weeks. Because I don't want to put my pavers down here if I'm going to be building this building and ripping out the footings and stuff. I'll just damage all my pavers right now but yeah, if I can get it to dump out on my sidewalk over here, manageable. Aller: Anything else? Any questions? Alright. Undestad: Just one more. So back to your, how you've got that laid out. If you move that door, you'd be okay with pushing the wall back in so you're back to the same square footage? Greg Falconer: Same square footage, as long as I can get my overhang on there. Undestad: And that would put the overhang. Greg Falconer: At 13 feet. Undestad: If you eliminate the 200 square feet. Greg Falconer: That's correct. Aller: How large would the overhang be? Undestad: 13. Greg Falconer: 13 feet overhang. Right now I have it at 8 foot. Aller: And the purpose of the overhang is to still square off the building, correct? The roof. Greg Falconer: No. It's to mitigate the water and ice and snow. Aller: By taking away that angle perception... Greg Falconer: Yes, that is correct. Aller: So we're on the same page. I'm just. Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer: Yep. Aller: You want the same roof line. Greg Falconer. Yes. Yep. Aller: And it doesn't matter for roofline purposes whether or not it's open or closed. Greg Falconer: No it doesn't and the reason why you know I pulled this wall, you know in my original plan I had this wall out over here. I pulled this back closer and talked with the City about that and they said well unfortunately your roof overhang constitutes square footage of a building so a carport in other words would constitute square footage of a building. So thus the problem we're having. It's unfortunate that this, I mean constitutes square footage because really. Aller: Well when you look at, when you're looking at water though I can certainly understand it because it's not a tree canopy which is going to absorb water. Whether it's, whether it's a carport or a closed in section you're still block. Greg Falconer: Shedding water. Aller: And shedding water and collecting water so. Greg Falconer: Yeah and you know, and you know the hard surface of this piece of property, well I have, there's basically 5 acres here so it's not like we have a hard surface issue going on. Undestad: Can I ask one more question here while we're looking at that plan and this plan. We're kind of just always stayed away from the east side of the building over there but. Greg Falconer: The east side? Yes because that area here on that side over here, I take all her water. I take all her water from this side and my water runs right next to the building right here. Undestad: So you know if you moved the building to the west then you've got more grass. More... Greg Falconer: Yeah it's not possible over there to do it because the building blocks that off and just, if I pull the building over here I don't have any way of pushing the water away from this building right here. It runs right along side that edge which is along here. Undestad: Only on the other side of the retaining wall. Greg Falconer: Yeah, well no. Well yeah, on the other side of the retaining wall, yes. Undestad: Yeah. Greg Falconer: Yeah it's not feasible to move the building over because that's a drainage, it's a, it's already almost too low over there. Undestad: That retaining wall goes all the way back to the bigger building? Greg Falconer: No, this retaining wall actually stops, there's a picture of it right here. Stops right here so it comes around and wraps back into the building right here. So right now the water comes down here 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 and hits this retaining wall just a tiny bit and then it drains in a drainage trough all the way back by the existing building. That can be an issue over there already. I've had water infiltrate into the large building in heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy rains. No matter what you do it comes in. On the large side. It only happens probably once every 2 years but I have had water inside of that building. Aller: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Greg Falconer: Alright, thank you. Tammy Falconer: Thank you. Aller: Okay, we're going to open up the public portion of the hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak for or behalf please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record sir. Wes Dunmore: Wes Dunmore, 730 West 96`h Street. I live just to the west of Greg and Tammy. Aller: Welcome. Wes Dunmore: And thank you for having us here. One thing I don't know if Greg pointed out, if you guys saw where his old building was, that's in the northwest corner. There is absolutely no sunlight in there so nothing gets a chance to melt but if he got to extend that roofline that snow would all be out further and water seems to be the main issue here_ Some years ago the City of Chanhassen applied and received a grant and they put in city drain field on that street because the soils are so bad. Every single house we have a city drain field for liquids only. That's the kind of soil we're in that clay. It goes nowhere's. Winter before last with all that snow, I have a 40 by 63 pole barn. The north side of my building raised by 4 inches and as I stand here it's still 4 inches taller and the trees aren't growing on it. It's just one of those things that happen. It is just all clay. You have to get rid of that water. I have snow coming off of my buildings but they come off on the side just like on Greg's big one. It melts a little bit but in that comer that he's talking about, the reason he wants to cover that, again you can't get that and that stuff gets hard. During the day you might be able to move some of the other but I too use a skidster to get rid of all of that snow. It's a lot of work. Couple years ago I made a mistake of leaving my truck alongside the pole barn. I was out of town for a day or two. The snow came down. 2 days hand digging that out. Just between the building and my truck 3 feet away so I think what they're looking for would make that place look a lot better. It would make a lot of sense. You've got to get that water out of there. It's just heavy ground on there so I'm in favor of him with a variance. I have no problems with that. I think it would be better. I think what he's trying to do is to build it right the first time rather than go back again. It's a lot cheaper to do it right the first time then to go back and try and put a band aid on it and that's just kind of a waste I think of everybody's time on there but I understand where you're coming from but I just want to voice my opinion on that. I think what he's trying to do is get that water out of there and just improve the neighborhood so I think that's all I need to say. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Okay, please state your name and address for the record sir GaryBendzick: Gary Bendzick, 731 West 96th. I just would like to reiterate a couple of things. Obviously the water is a huge issue. The last meeting a comment was made after the public was closed that said we'll just up a gutter. Unfortunately we don't live in Arizona. Unless a gutter faces straight south in Minnesota it does not work in the winter. I think the water issue in the summer is minor in their situation. It's not a fun thing to deal with but the ice build-up in there, to be able to remove the snow in the winter, once there's a base of ice there his equipment isn't going to remove that without any problems. I've been in the building business for 40 years. There's one sure fire method of solving a problem and that's eliminate the problem. If that roof is extended so that everything dumps outside his big building 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 and he can push it straight to the south, it's going to be much easier situation to clean up. It's going to be safer and just an all around better situation. I have a little bit of a hard, you know disagreement with the hard surface issue. My lot, I could have a roof over my entire lot, it wouldn't make one bit of difference with my ground water. When I did my addition, first addition 20 years ago I believe when we moved in, or 18 years ago, whatever, we were in a normal or above normal wet year. The top of my footings was level with water. Inside the structure. I had to hold the plumbing pipes down with 2 by 4's for inspection and until I put in two additional sump pumps I couldn't even control it. I love droughts. My grass is green as can be this year and I don't water it. Maybe once, we watered it twice this year because of fertilizing and it was supposed to rain but we have such a high water problem in our area, as Wes stated with our city drain field, it's just a tough situation to handle water. If we were in a soil that allowed that easier, there'd be other solutions but like I said before the sure fire way to eliminate the problem, or to get rid of the problem is to eliminate it. By extending this roof out and getting everything to dump out where he has some positive flow for drainage is only going to make it a lot better situation. And the other thing I just want to comment on, on the comprehensive plan. When I did my remodel 5 years ago when I did my final renovation I was told that we're in an area, you know this was by planning and I don't remember which, whether it was Sharmeen or Alyson or who told me that but we're an area that will always be large lots. There's really nothing else that can be done with it. The last meeting Kate had said that you know the plan calls for medium density housing in there. I'd like to know where it would ever be. The only way you could ever increase the number of houses in there would be to bulldoze the entire street down and possibly put a U in there. We're bordered on both sides by wetlands which you know they say you can remove them but I don't know how you would. Again the water issue with where I'm in, not in wetlands is I could consider wetland so the idea that this is going to be medium density housing someday, I just don't buy that I can't see that ever happening. I don't know what developer would want to come in and buy the whole street, all you know 15 or 18 properties and then bulldoze them all down and try to maybe get 3 or 4 more houses in there because I just don't, I just don't see economically that that would make any sense so to me the 1,000 square foot thing in a city lot in town, it's wonderful. It should have always been that way. Where you're in a large acreage lots, R2, A2, 1,000 square foot structure to me is ridiculous because it just doesn't make any sense for the area. So I am in favor oftheir being granted a variance to build their structure correctly and I feel that if they do that it only blends in with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Aller: Thanks. Any further comments any individual wishes to come forward. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time seeing no one come forward. Comments_ Questions. Colopoulos: Well the last time the Falconer's came before the Planning Commission I made a motion to grant their variance on the assumption that they knew better than we did at that time the measures that needed to be taken to mitigate their water issue and the reconstruction of this building. And since that time they've come back and modified the plan and an engineer certification that also agrees with their plan to optimize their water problem. Situation. So if anything I'm more encouraged than I was before that this, that my original decision to support a motion to grant them the variance was a correct one. Now since that time I've also gone to read the, read the comprehensive plan and you know I have to say, I haven't read all 489 pages of it but I have, but there was one quote, one section that leaped out at me in the introduction. It says encourage low density, low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a matter that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods with similar quality. That's a pretty wide, broad statement. You know so the interpretation that we're all moving in the direction of medium density housing, you know smaller unit parcels, etc, I don't think the comprehensive plan is quite that set in that direction. I mean it seems to have, it seems to bounce around from you know different definitions depending upon whether you're talking about the need for, that the community has for high density housing, medium density housing and low density housing. I mean the comprehensive plan tries to make a go of addressing all 3 of those needs in it's own manner so I don't see the comprehensive plan 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 being an immoveable force that's trying to eventually bulldoze your neighborhood and crush into smaller sections. I don't think that's an issue here. And so what is? You know what is the purpose going forward here? I've also taken a closer look at 2058 which, section of the code with conditions variances are granted and gee that language is, is well subjective shall we say in several areas to say the least. I mean it can be interpreted a number of ways. You could read that to say that for example it says, yeah I'll have to put on my glasses for this one. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met and then it lists 6 things. Now if you read that one way you'd think well, then you've got to meet all of those requirements before your variance could be granted. But if it meant that wouldn't it say a variance may be granted only if all of the following conditions or criteria are met. So I take that to read something different. That if you meet any one of those you might have grounds for the variance being granted and in your case, in the case of the Falconer's rather I think that you've probably met 3 of the 6. The only reason why I'm not granting more, or seeing more of that is because I'm not sure reading 1 and 2, you know such wide, subjective statements as in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter in one variance, well. You know that could mean a lot of different things. And then the same thing, practical difficulties. Again that could be subject to interpretations. But the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Boy if that isn't a water problem situation I don't know what is so from my humble opinion, I don't know how the rest of the commission, I'm sure I'll find in a minute how some of them think I'm dead wrong, but from my perspective number 4 is good enough for me to grant the variance. Subject to this plan. Before I make a motion I want to make sure that it has a fair chance of being seconded anyway so I'll let the others speak their minds fust. Undestad: I think the only comment I have to your, to what you've just said there was, you know the water problem not caused by the landowner. I think in this instance that larger building plopped up behind everything else is the water problem right there. I mean before that was there I'm sure the water all just took off and kept on going. Greg Falconer. It didn't though. Undestad: I'm not, and I'm not saying that that's a reason. The other thing that I think I'm looking at here is that, you know it looks like the City provided a couple of you know what I think good options in there that neither one of those were really talked about in there so I'm kind of leaning the other way. I think there were a couple of good options and even if the City came in and did the 1,280 square feet with the 200, or 2 1/2 foot overhangs, that gets all the water and snow away from the building and gives them the same square footage they have in there. And looking at any of these designs it looks like a bunch of the retaining wall's going to come out anyway so, I don't know. I'm guessing there'll be a lot of grading done around that new structure when it's put in. Aller: Comments. Questions. Tennyson: Yeah, the problem I have with the proposal is that in general a variance isn't used when there are alternatives. That's where I'm stuck. That there are other things that can be done and it seems like the applicant is chasing a variance in order to get exactly what they were trying to do. They want their building with the retaining wall, with the other building, with no change to the landscaping, the grading. It's just, it's not changing anything. It's a replacement. I don't know if it fixes the problem. I don't think it's to me it's not exactly about the water. It's about the Findings of Fact and what a variance is for and when there are alternatives we don't usually use a variance. Thomas: Yep, I guess I appreciate the findings from Greg over, your engineer and what not. I guess I would say I wish that I appreciate that you said that he said that you know the proposals, the actions from the City are you know a joke or not going to be what could help your property out. It just sort of would have been nice to have seen it as opposed to just, you know hearsay is harder to interpret than an actual 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 20, 2012 like here's the proposal that we have that you guys proposed. Here's what the City has proposed. Here is why each of these options aren't going to work for your property. It would have been just a little bit you know, especially when the city engineer went out there and I know Alyson does a good job of finding out where water moves and the engineering process so you know I'm surprised that the other options that we have aren't going to work. Greg Falconer: Well let it be noted that Alyson had no comment. Thomas: No comment. Greg Falconer: No comment when she was there. Thomas: On? Greg Falconer: The city engineer. Thomas: No I know Alyson. Yeah, I'm well aware. Bob, what does that mean? Greg Falconer: If you don't have a comment, why don't you have a comment? Tammy Falconer: You have no opinion either way. Greg Falconer: No opinion. You can't offer an opinion. Why? Thomas: I don't think the City's trying to hide something but I mean you know I mean, I'm just trying to understand. I mean you're saying like she just didn't have an. Greg Falconer: She didn't have an opinion for the option. Tammy Falconer: Right. Greg Falconer: Because when she looked at the property she realized the option wasn't a viable option. Aller: Well I'm not sure that that's the case but I'm also not sure that it's the City's job to go out and do your engineering work. Greg Falconer: That is correct. That's why 1 never invited them out in the first place. Aller: So my problem with the engineering work is that you were given options and HavTek I'm sure is familiar with going through options and taking a look at them and it looks to me in reading this that he's using your re -build and saying it will work. It's not that he created this to fix a water problem. Greg Falconer: Can I say one thing to that? HavTek never had these options because I didn't have those options. Tammy Falconer: Right, we're just seeing this for the first time. Greg Falconer: We're just seeing this for the first time. Tammy Falconer: These options right here. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Greg Falconer. These options weren't given to me. Bob just came up and said what do you think about pulling the building back. That's all he said. I never had these drawings. Tammy Falconer. We never had these drawings_ Hokkanen: Well if it gets to me. Thomas: Go ahead Lisa. Hokkanen: I'm on the fence on this one. I could go either way because one I don't, I haven't seen enough about these alternatives that that will solve their problem. It's staff I'm sure did that but I haven't seen anything saying that they're not going to solve your problem. I'm also, there was one other thing. Now I've got, I didn't know you just didn't see these. That you just got these options. Oh, the HavTek I would have liked to have seen them say these won't work. I mean we don't really. Tammy Falconer. We didn't have these. Hokkanen: I know. Greg Falconer: Like I say we didn't have them so I couldn't give them to Greg. HavTek. Hokkanen: Because I understand, coming from my, from a real estate point of view with your home and your land and all that and with the comprehensive plan, I agree with Bill on that part of it but I also want to make sure if there's another option versus the variance that is viable, and also you've said you're a landscaper by business for, and Mark kept saying you know fill that in with dirt. I mean you could landscape. I mean I know what Mark was meaning from a, but look you could fill it in. I mean we do it with houses. Grading so the water comes off and goes down, you know with draintile, with whatever, I think that's what he was getting at and if there was a way I'm sure you would try and do it that way but I haven't seen a proposal to see if that's possible from a landscaping point of view if that is, you know if we did one of the alternatives and some landscaping and some draintile, I guess I feel like we're still missing parts of this in order to get me off the fence. Oops, sorry. But do you see what I'm saying? So I just feel like we need a little bit more, either from the City or the no continent, I don't understand that if that's, I don't understand Alyson on that but. Colopoulos: I think your explanation may have, Mr. Chair may have indicated that it's not the City's purview to offer engineering plan which in that case defers to the only expert testimony that's been provided which is my position. I mean what is the harm in granting this variance on the basis of that report? It wouldn't compromise the variance rules if we yielded to that recommendation being the optimization plan for water mitigation. Look at 20-58, Subsection 4, there you go. You know that would be the clean interpretation and it would let us move on to other things. Aller: Well I don't read this the same way. I don't read this as saying it's going to cure anything. It's got load requirements for snow so the roof won't collapse again. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: I also see it as a professional landscaper who's built a retaining wall which channels water as well as a building which is the second largest building in the area and obviously the water was there when he built it so how can we say in looking at this that it wasn't caused by the homeowner. We're allowing. Colopoulos: The other building? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Aller: We're allowing under the code for a rebuild so he's actually ending up with more than he would have had if we didn't have that in the code. And now he's asking for a variance from that, which is an addition so I would strictly construe things when we're saying we want more, and I think that's what a variance is for. It's to say do we not have a reasonable use of our property and here he's got more use of his property than others so it's more than reasonable and the question is why should we give him extra? Especially when there are other options. Tennyson: And I think as far as those other options it doesn't necessarily mean it's exactly what was proposed by the City. The two that were in the packet. It's just that there may be other alternatives in general. Greg Falconer: But then I have to go through a variance again because of that? I mean how many times am I going to have to do this? See what I'm saying? Aller: Sir, this was before us once and there could have been an appeal to the City Council already. Greg Falconer: I can still appeal to the City Council and the reason why I didn't was because I would prefer your, I would prefer your signature on this than the City Council because I really think that we could get this right in this area here. You know and I have, I have done everything I possibly can do. I've hired an engineer who said, you can read it, Greg's roofiine is favorable to obviously what he's trying to do here. I mean. Aller. But what I'm not hearing is I've looked at every option and this is the option. Greg Falconer. Right. Aller: Which is what I would expect an engineer to do. To say this is the best option. Here's my, here are your options. 1, 2. What this says to me is I've looked at Mr. Falconer's option and it will, it will work but it doesn't mean that it's not one of many which will work. Greg Falconer: Okay, so he comes up with another option and then I have to come back for a variance again? Hokkanen: Maybe if you come up with one that's within. Aller. If it's within that square footage. Greg Falconer: When does common sense take over with the situation here? What other option is there? I mean let's just look at this for what it is. There is no option. I mean I saw this option here from somebody who doesn't even know anything about it and he says here's an option for you. Why is Bob a person to give options? What's his background? Is he a landscaper? A hydrologist? You see what I'm saying? You guys just throw stuff out but you won't listen tome. I'm just trying to do what's right for my building. You keep saying well geez we can't do this. Can't do that. There's got to be some more options. What is wrong with the option that I gave you? What's wrong with it? Aller: It doesn't in my opinion fit the requirements for a variance. Undestad: What Bob has done, with all his years of experience out here is to try to help you get some more ideas and go for other options that would come through here and have a better chance of saying okay, that fits. That works. We're not here just to say no Greg, Tammy. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Aller: And that's only if you're asking for a variance. You have the absolute right to rebuild what was there. Greg Falconer: Yeah but I rebuild the building and I've have the same problems that I had with the building. Aller: Well and then we'll differ because my opinion is, and I'm not a hydrologist either but my common sense look at it is that that second building and the retaining wall and a lot of the other things that were done to the property created that problem. Greg Falconer: So the fact that our buildings are going up and down from our moisture problems that we're having, that doesn't say anything? Aller: It says that you have a water problem. Greg Falconer: Yeah. Isn't that what I'm trying to avoid? Water problems. Aller: Maybe you want to jack it up and put hydraulic vehicles in there and they won't go up and down. I don't know. Greg Falconer: Well I do know. I've got a certification from an engineer that says this is favorable. This will work. Aller: It says your roof collapsed due to, probably due to excessive snow load. Your proposed rebuild will alter the roof, favorable alter the roof slopes and snow loadings. So that to me means your roof is not going to collapse. Thomas: But it doesn't talk about water, does it? It just talks about snow load. Aller: Then it shows that the configuration will provide safety egress function of the pedestrian door but there's no requirement that you have a door there. Greg Falconer: Wait a minute, they're talking about my existing door into my existing building. It's an egress issue. It's a safety violation as far as I'm concerned. I build it so it ends up in front of the door? It's an egress issue. Aller: But that could be corrected with snow removal. Greg Falconer: Pardon me? Aller: That's correctable with snow removal. It's not an issue if you shovel. Greg Falconer: Can I hire you to come out and make sure that the snow is gone? Aller: I didn't build the building. Greg Falconer: I'm saying that, it doesn't even make sense what you're saying. He just testified that we have major snow problems on steel roofs. I'm telling you the same thing. I have the snow come off the roof and it ends up in front of that door. Ices up. I can't get in the door. I can't get out the door. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Undestad: We're not here to, you know we're not telling you that it's right or wrong, your snow slides off a metal roof. Greg Falconer: So you're going to tell me to build it and I'm going to have an egress problem. Undestad: No. Greg Falconer: I'm going to build the building just the way it is right now and I'll have an egress problem. A safety issue. Originally you know before the variance I never had any options for the first variance hearing. They never offered me any options back then. Never even came out to my property to take a look at what I was getting. Just kind of said well I'll see you there. I guess that was it. Aller: Anything further? Undestad: No. Aller: Anybody want to make a motion? Undestad: I'll make the motion. Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I'll second. Aller: Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except Colopoulos and Hokkanen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Aller: Again any person who is aggrieved of a decision may appeal a variance decision in writing within 4 days of the decision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 16, 2012. COMMISSION PRSENTATIONS. Chairman Aller: Commission Kelsey Nelson has moved from Chanhassen to Chaska. Is no longer a resident of Chanhassen and she therefore will be unable to complete her term and has submitted her resignation to this commission. Her contributions will be missed and we wish her well. Those individuals out there who wish to apply for a position with the Planning Commission should look to do so in the spring when those positions become available and notice will be provided in the Chan Villager and elsewhere. Anything further? Any motions to adjourn? Thomas moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 20, 2012 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director M Prepared by Nann Opheim Variance Request Planning Case x2oi2 — 12 Resubmittal -20 West 96z'- Street Summary of Request = The applicant is requesting variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand by 520 square feet the original 1,280 square foot non- conforming shed. The total area of the proposed shed is 1,800 square feet. The applicant previously was denied a variance on September 18, 2012. Rather than appeal that decision to Citv Council, they revised their building by reducing the structure to 37 feet wide with an 8 feet overhang and resubmitting for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 11/20/2012 1 11/20/2012 -Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforminguses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued tbrougb repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement but not expansion. -Section 20-904 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessorystructurelimits detached acees ory structures to t,000 square feet. Reconstruction of the original shed (r,28o sq. ft.) with a rebuilding of an additional expansion of 520 sq. R (200 sq, ft. building and 320 square feet overhang) for a total of 1,800 sq. ft In 2000, a 4,140 square feet (9o' x 46') building was constructed. Both structures would total 5,940 square feet. Comprehensive Pian The subject propperty is guided by the Comp Plan for residential low dent use and is included in the 2oio MUSA. This area wilt redevelop in the future as a more suburban type of development. Accessory structures in excess Of t,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of developments. 4w�M �m'�vNfevuv e"d0e['n.. Meru u�.'., 4.uuauilum lM�rcaarw. ivr� �W�� +�wle�u� We1�YWM palm TheCa�Mrm �,eh, uo:. .:roucit. 61. ePpli:nnfs Yrqo a 1— a9 ' -;o) 28 5;/3'x45 #o's 4e e,th a.$ea.es i � x Tc��4 11/20/2012 3 11/20/2012 During the zoo? ordinance amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accecrory structures in excess of i,000 square feet would be reasonable ifbased on a legitimate agricultural usc. The purpose of this request is hobby storage, which is not considered a legivmateagriculmreluse. The property owners currently haw reasonable use of the property and are allowed to rept.. the t,zao square -foot nonconforming accessary structure in.mplian. with City Code. Areaguidedfor residential lowdensity land use.Timing does not permh auxssory structures N exo-ss of r,000 square f.t. The request is inconsistent with the ON Iand Use section of the City's 20 0 Comprehensive Plan. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 2012-12 for a variance to the l,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Meuwissen, Kim From: Generous, Bob Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:19 AM To: Greg Falconer Cc: Aanenson, Kate, Meuwissen, Kim Subject: 720 W 96th St Variance Greg: Because the Planning Commission decision regarding your variance was less than three-fourths of the members present, their decision serves as a recommendation to City Council. (Sec. 20-29 (c) of the Chanhassen City Code). Your item is scheduled for City Council review on December 10, 2012 during the regular city council meeting. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1131 bgenerousCZ)ci.chanhassen mn us SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MI OF (952) 227-1100 To: Greg & Tammy Falconer 720 West 96" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice RE: 720 West 96'" Street Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 9/6/12 upon receipt QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 24I 1h Owners List within 500' of 720 West 96'" Street (24 labels) $3.00 $72.00 TOTAL DUE $72.00 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 September 18. 2012. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2012-12. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CM OF (952) 227-1100 To: Greg & Tammy Falconer 720 West 961" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice RE: 720 West 96'" Street Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 9/6/12 upon receipt 24 I Property Owners List within 500' of 720 West 96" Street (24 labels) TOTAL DUE $3.00 1 $72.00 $72.00 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 September 18. 2012. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2012-12. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Meuwissen, Kim From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:17 AM To: 'gmfinc@mninter.net Cc: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Outstanding Invoice Attachments: 12-12 invoice-GIS.doc Mr. Falconer, As of today's mail, we have not yet received payment of the attached invoice in the amount of $72, which is required to be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for this evening, September 18, 2012. Feel free to contact me today to pay by credit card, or bring a check to Community Development Director Kate Aanenson at tonight's meeting. Please let me know how you would like to pay. Thanks for your attention to this matter. KIM MEUMSSEN *CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING SECRETARY 952-227-1107 rdAILTO:Kt,IEUiYISSEN@CI.CHANHASSEN.MN.L'S - ©Find Its on _. Facebook' SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers Villager on Thursday September 6, 2012: No. 4713) this 0_dy of 2012 JYMME JEANNETfE BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA N blic MY COMMISSION EXPIRES01131I13 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch SCANNED State of Minnesota) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN )SS. COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' County of Carvel' ) PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-12 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN I that the CbanhassenPlanningCom- mission will hold a public hearing Laurie A. Hartmann, being duty sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, at agent of the publisher of the newspapers (mown as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to considerarequestfor Variance A These news have complied with the cements constituting qualification as a legal ( ) PeP� P� �N 84� eg from Section 2P904 of the Chanhas- newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as sen City Code to allow an accessory amended structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. � Estate District (A2) located was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said w er. GregWest & T Street. Applicant/Owner. Greg &Tammy Falconer. Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of A plan showing the location the new specified. Printed below is a of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both P is the proposal is available for public is inclusive and hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of used in the composition Y S g type Po review on the City's web site at and publication of the Notice: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12 or at City Hall during regular busi- abcdefghijkbnnopgrs ness hours. All interested persons n are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Laurie A. Hartmann Email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassehanhasscn. mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Published in the Chanhassen Subscribed and sworn before me on Villager on Thursday September 6, 2012: No. 4713) this 0_dy of 2012 JYMME JEANNETfE BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA N blic MY COMMISSION EXPIRES01131I13 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 18, 2012 121 CC DATE. O Lobe 20L2- REVIEW DEADLINE: October 16, 2012 CASE #: 2012-12 BY: KA, AM, JM, JS, TJ L 1�Vl VULY 1�1V llVl�• V "The Chanhassen Planning Com ission,tatip/rY(/a/s Boatd of Appeatsand A2djusts, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for 4 9� -ry structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." 1700-t- i SUMMARY OFR ST: 4 hr app c=Lis.=; 1,000 square of accessory structure area *11mita to co t shed with a second expansion uar Estate Di trict (A2). LOCATION: 720 West 960' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 P/O SW 1/4 NW '/a E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 \' \ PID: 25-0253210 PPLICANTS: Greg and Tammy Falconer 720 West 96'" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)850-6856 M\ mg fnc(a),mninter.net SENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) syuet me ongrnat tegat non - on property zoned Agricultural V r tG 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.77 acres (207,781.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96'h Street to the north of the property. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high evel of 4 �� k � Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 9 discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for accessory structures to reconstruct the original square foot legal non -conforming structure. The first expansion of 4,140 square feet was constructed in 2000. With the proposed expansion the accessory structure would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet. The site has an area of 4.77 acres and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has a single-family home with an attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140 square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1280 square feet). Section 20-904 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 720 West 96th Street. Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming uses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued, through repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement, but not expansion. • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances • Chapter 20, Article Il, Division 4, Nonconforming uses • Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 2, Conditional Uses • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 9 BACKGROUND On December 5, 1984, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard for the subject property. This application was in response to the August 20, 1984 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as a conditional use in the R -la, Agricultural Residence District. When the CUP was approved the site contained two parcels for approximately 10 acres and included two pole barns. The easterly lot was sold and in 1985 a house was constructed on 710 West 96th Street. That lot required a variance because it did not meet the standards of the R -la district. With the variance approval for 710 West 96th Street the city council affirmed the CUP for the contractor's yard. The conditional use permit request for the continuation of the contractor's yard located at 710 and 720 West 96th Street was approved subject to two conditions: i. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in the application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing at least six feet in height. The operation of the contractor's yard was represented as the use of two 2 -ton trucks, one 1 -ton truck, one bobcat, one backhoe, one crawler, and two mixers, traveling in and out once a day. None of the work activity was going to occur on the property. In 2009 the city amended the CUP ordinance to state: 20-233 (c) It is a condition of every conditional use permit that the property for which the permit is issued not be subdivided or the lot lines of the property altered. While this CUP predated the new language it should be noted that the CUP was granted for a larger parcel. The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yards. In a letter dated October 2, 2000 the applicant, Greg Falconer, was advised that the City had received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's yard. The letter reiterated the conditional use permit condition "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit." The letter further advised that the building permit issued for the 4,040 square -foot shed was not to be used in conjunction with a home occupation or the matter would be forwarded to the City Attorney's office. Sec. 20-236. - Expiration. If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discontinued for six months, the conditional use permit shall become void. It appears that the current contactor's yard is no longer operating as stipulated in the conditions of CUP# 83-17. Therefore, the contractor's yard is void. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 9 The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of the accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. At the time of the ordinance amendment there were discussions regarding reasonable requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for legitimate agricultural uses. Minnesota State Statute 17.81 — Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural uses as "use of land for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under Chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary products. " It was decided after the discussions that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. The accessory structure to be located on the subject property is intended to be used as a hobby structure to house antiques; therefore, it would not be considered a legitimate agricultural use. Location of the proposed expansion Location of Planning Case #2012-10 Structure constructed after 2005, no permit on file If a subject property meets the criteria as listed below or found in Minnesota State Statute I613.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 720 West 96th Street does not qualify as agricultural land because the property has 4.77 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure would require a building permit. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Minnesota State Statute 166.60 — Definitions defines agricultural buildings to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in Section 273.13, Subdivision 23, designed, constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub lessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " • Minnesota Statute 273.13 —Classification of property, Subdivision 23, Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance to expand a nonconforming accessory structure. The original 1,280 square -foot structure suffered a partial snow load collapse during the winter of 2011. The applicant may replace the existing 1,280 square -foot accessory structure without variance but may not expand it per Section 20-72 — Nonconforming uses and structures. The original structure, first expansion and proposed expansion will have a total area of 5,940 square feet. This would exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure maximum allowable area by 4,940 square feet. Based on the drawing submitted it appears the addition is a ii Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 9 reconstruction of the original wood frame building (attached proposed building plans) The applicant is intending to use the additional space as a hobby structure and intends to store antiques. Staff is concerned with the overall large size of the structure. This concern originates from the possibility that large accessory structures are used in conjunction with home occupations. Home occupations are intended to be conducted out of a residence and maintain a residential appearance. When the operations are moved into an accessory structure they become a common cause of complaints by neighbors. They often create excess parking, traffic and noise. Staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it may be purchased by a person with the intentions of operating a home occupation out of the accessory structure. Staff further believes the use is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2030 Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban type of development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached residential units. The remaining 15 percent of development is some other type of low density residential use e.g., twin homes, and town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by replacing the original 32' x 40' (1,280 square -foot) nonconforming structure. The replacement of the nonconforming structure is already exceeding the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation. The original structure combined with the 90' x 46' (4,140 square -foot) first expansion exceeds the maximum allowable accessory structure limitation by 4,420 square feet. The 520 square -foot proposed expansion would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure by 4,940 square feet. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing house and attached garage, 90' x 43' accessory structure and 40' x 32' accessory structure. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 9 SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southernmost portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. The applicant believes the accessory structure would benefit the character of the neighborhood. Staff did confirm that there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square feet in accessory structure area. These properties are illustrated in the image below. These structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet at the time of the ordinance amendment are considered to be legal nonconforming. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 8 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 fbr-v*,94W:gquare-foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Development Review Application. I Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 4. Building Plans. 5. Conditional Use Permit #87-14. 6. Letter to Greg Falconer dated October 2, 2000 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9 1pim\2012 planning caz Q012-12 720 west 96th street variance-falcorter\staR repos 720 wcst 96th street.doca CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-12. On September 18, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I . The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: P/O SW 1/4 NW '/4 E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for agricultural uses. Therefore it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this A Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a permitted accessory use however, the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. City Code would permit the replacement of the 1,280 square foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the winter of 2011. The homeowner is intending to replace the existing structure with rebuild with an expansion of 520 square feet. The City Code states "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 expansion." This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could be replaced. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The request is also insistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in `A PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: 0 p,9Gt-1, Sf �keess�. vrrN/ s3 i 7 Contact: Phone: G/a &S b G Fax:gS0--S 5'-.2&3-2 Email: rir'✓L�ii�lc �ynniat�v�_v.�f v Planning Case No.o�Ola� fa CITY OF CHANHASSM RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and 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 Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment _Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) X w for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" Site Plan Review (SPR)* $5 UP/SPRNA NA AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ 'L S2s0`' An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be inv ' ed to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "'Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shadtieDsbaAge UAR each application. RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 SCANNED CHANHASSEN greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report 42012-12, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board or Adjustments and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square - foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of September, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 3 Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Z5 0i, 3 2 1 V TOTAL ACREAGE: � / WETLANDS PRESENT: I_ YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: tlt 1 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. g:IPI-Woms\&-elopm treview appliwtimAm to of ;2 Da SCANNED F-� RECENED I �s 1 •� AIMDV® Cmc COPY I. Y IL I �s 1 •� AIMDV® Cmc COPY I. Y I' I I I �s 1 •� AIMDV® Cmc COPY !99� pK.j N o 0 N Z TW z Z> Z =W n UU z UIT w � ` a F. x z x ('alcow 120 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 21" x 811 5& wall fonthg5 AUG 2 4 2012 5116 - I' --- „___________ _______n____ _______°___________ _______ : _________ °^A�erv74NNINGDERT ender footings, 33" 1211 �� rq p- r , '7' x9' ©Verhead doorAl 67 1 5 2� 9p& ------------------- ----------'•-----------"-----------"------------°------------"-----------"---------- ° I usumm OSOM loom 50001 West Nevatlon Falconer 720 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN /VII - I1 NAIrp 13utld nq �a5t NMion AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th 5Veet Chanhassen, MN 1/4" - I' i 6"r6" b0 Green treated T -611 Emgw red busses 6' 1-3/ 4" K 14" M header irrgneered trusses 4' 12' 616 1 33"x12" WN I "r6" 6O6reentreated 211,X8" frotaq op. car stall F"m ad kfitt 211dO" heads j r16r8" fooGra AUG 2 4 7012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Contractor's yard activities for Ronald and Linda Landin. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: East 155 feet of the West 310 feet of the SW} of NW}, and the East 155 feet of the west 465 feet of the SW} of NW}, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 (710 and 720 West 96th Street). 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in Conditional Use Permit #84-18 must approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with ade- quate fencing at least six feet in height. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: CITY OF CHANHASSEN `L Ry: _ It i yor By: ,Q, LU. -TY -1 Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AM day of _ A,�.. , 191f, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. ��h No ary 1' KAREN J. NOTA: ..• y�+�` Gy Cgmnc. ENGELHARDT .. - •!INNESOTA _.s Cry 11 198 ��h �i�,PS 1 Gl f J-+ i 7aD '7/0 }/1 07e, U' i wt C, c iItI puff dS F� I Rmml Ui �5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City GnmrAive, PO Box 147 Chonhmm, Minnesota 55317 Phony 612937.1900 General Fax 612937.5739 Engineering Fax 612937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612934.1524 Web wwmci.chonhassen.maus October 2, 2000 Mr. Gregory Falconer 720 West 9e Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Falconer: The City has received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's business on your property. Our records indicate that a conditional use permit (#84-17) was issued on December 3, 1984, to operate a contractor's yard on the site. A condition of this permit was that the "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit (CUP)." The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yard as home occupations. Therefore, your contractor's business is legal nonconforming. You cannot expand beyond what was approved in 1984. Our records also indicate that you have been issued a building permit to construct a 4,050 sq. ft. shed. It was noted on your permit by staff that this structure shall not be used for a home occupation, including contractor's yard. This letter is to officially inform you that the shed may not be used for an expansion of a contractor's yard. The City will periodically perform inspections to ensure conformance to the original conditional use permit. I have enclosed a copy of the approved CUP for your records. Use of the shed for the contractor's operation or expansion of the contractor's yard, will result in this matter being forwarded to the City Attorney's office for enforcement Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900, ext. 141. Sincerely, � Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures c: v Building File, 720 W. 96'" Street Scott Botcher, City Manager Elliot Knetsch, Campbell Knutson Community Service Officer The City of Chanhassen.Agrowing community withcleanlakes,qua& rebook, achrcminadm.mm..n rhr;.d„oF..d ..... ,,.,dh—,tXd.—h. a...... -1- —I:........4 ..,.t -I_. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 6, 2012, 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 720 West 96th Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-012 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 sworn to before me this (o�day of& kM T . 2012. 1 ,Notary Pu _ _ ^ \1 ' . M' ..De;fy Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN <, Notary Public -Minnesota �..... ''s� My canm's Expires Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gre &Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96" Street Location: 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerous(Mci.chanhassen.mmus or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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, Welland 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 spokespersontrepresentative 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 persone). • 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 somethingto be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stan person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time- ' Tuesday, September 18, 2012 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 Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gre & Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96" Street Location: 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerousCrDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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, Welland 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. Al 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 Slate 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 spokespersonlrepres rotative 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 Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC BRADLEY C WORM 620 96TH ST W PO BOX 1060 750 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1060 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM 760 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 GARY J & MARY LANE BENDZICK 731 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES R & SHARON M HEDBERG 750 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 721 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CONRAD L KERBER 9850 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAXON D & ALLISON L LANG 9870 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & BETTY WOLD 730 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK 810 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8673 VIVEK KAUL 9875 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROBERT A & ELIZABETH K HAAK 770 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE 730 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 PROPOSED MOTION: 6f -<,P "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4,940 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct the original legal non- conforming shed with a second expansion of 520 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). LOCATION: 720 West 96'" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 P/O SW 1/4 NW '/4 E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 PID: 25-0253210 APPLICANTS: Greg and Tammy Falconer 720 West 96's Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)850-6856 gmfincnamninter.net PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.77 acres (207,781.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96'" Street to the north of the property. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 9 discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for accessory structures to reconstruct the original square foot legal non -conforming structure. The first expansion of 4,140 square feet was constructed in 2000. With the proposed expansion the accessory structure would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet. The site has an area of 4.77 acres and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has a single-family home with an attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140 square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1280 square feet). Section 20-904 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 720 West 96th Street. Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming uses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued, through repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement, but not expansion. • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances • Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming uses • Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 2, Conditional Uses • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures . vFarlultn i I II APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for accessory structures to reconstruct the original square foot legal non -conforming structure. The first expansion of 4,140 square feet was constructed in 2000. With the proposed expansion the accessory structure would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet. The site has an area of 4.77 acres and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has a single-family home with an attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140 square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1280 square feet). Section 20-904 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 720 West 96th Street. Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming uses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued, through repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement, but not expansion. • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances • Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming uses • Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 2, Conditional Uses • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 9 BACKGROUND On December 5, 1984, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard for the subject property. This application was in response to the August 20, 1984 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as a conditional use in the R -la, Agricultural Residence District. When the CUP was approved the site contained two parcels for approximately 10 acres and included two pole barns. The easterly lot was sold and in 1985 a house was constructed on 710 West 96th Street. That lot required a variance because it did not meet the standards of the R-1 a district. With the variance approval for 710 West 96th Street the city council affirmed the CUP for the contractor's yard. The conditional use permit request for the continuation of the contractor's yard located at 710 and 720 West 96th Street was approved subject to two conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in the application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing at least six feet in height. The operation of the contractor's yard was represented as the use of two 2 -ton trucks, one 1 -ton truck, one bobcat, one backhoe, one crawler, and two mixers, traveling in and out once a day. None of the work activity was going to occur on the property. In 2009 the city amended the CUP ordinance to state: 20-233 (c) It is a condition of every conditional use permit that the property for which the permit is issued not be subdivided or the lot lines of the property altered. While this CUP predated the new language it should be noted that the CUP was granted for a larger parcel. The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yards. In a letter dated October 2, 2000 the applicant, Greg Falconer, was advised that the City had received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's yard. The letter reiterated the conditional use permit condition "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit." The letter further advised that the building permit issued for the 4,040 square -foot shed was not to be used in conjunction with a home occupation or the matter would be forwarded to the City Attorney's office. Sec. 20-236. - Expiration. If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discontinued for six months, the conditional use permit shall become void. It appears that the current contactor's yard is no longer operating as stipulated in the conditions of CUP# 83-17. Therefore, the contractor's yard is void. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 9 The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of the accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. At the time of the ordinance amendment there were discussions regarding reasonable requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for legitimate agricultural uses. Minnesota State Statute 17.81 — Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural uses as "use of land for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under Chapter 1811, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary products. - It was decided after the discussions that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. The accessory structure to be located on the subject property is intended to be used as a hobby structure to house antiques; therefore, it would not be considered a legitimate agricultural use. If a subject property meets the criteria as listed below or found in Minnesota State Statute 1613.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 720 West 960' Street does not qualify as agricultural land because the property has 4.77 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure would require a building permit. 17 1 Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Minnesota State Statute 16B.60 — Definitions defines agricultural buildings to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in Section 273.13, Subdivision 23, designed, constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub lessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " • Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23, Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. " ANALYSIS; The applicant is requesting a variance to expand a nonconforming accessory structure. The original 1,280 square -foot structure suffered a partial snow load collapse during the winter of 2011. The applicant may replace the existing 1,280 square -foot accessory structure without a variance but may not expand it per Section 20-72 — Nonconforming uses and The original structure, first expansion and proposed expansion will have a total area of 5,940 square feet. This would exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure maximum allowable area by 4,940 square feet. Based on the drawing submitted it appears the addition is a Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 9 reconstruction of the original wood frame building (attached proposed building plans) The applicant is intending to use the additional space as a hobby structure and intends to store antiques. Staff is concerned with the overall large size of the structure. This concern originates from the possibility that large accessory structures are used in conjunction with home occupations. Home occupations are intended to be conducted out of a residence and maintain a residential appearance. When the operations are moved into an accessory structure they become a common cause of complaints by neighbors. They often create excess parking, traffic and noise. Staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it may be purchased by a person with the intentions of operating a home occupation out of the accessory structure. Staff further believes the use is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2030 Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban type of development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached residential units. The remaining 15 percent of development is some other type of low density residential use e.g., twin homes, and town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by replacing the original 32' x 40' (1,280 square -foot) nonconforming structure. The replacement of the nonconforming structure is already exceeding the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation. The original structure combined with the 90' x 46' (4,140 square -foot) first expansion exceeds the maximum allowable accessory structure limitation by 4,420 square feet. The 520 square -foot proposed expansion would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure by 4,940 square feet. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing house and attached garage, 90' x 43' accessory structure and 40' x 32' accessory structure. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 9 SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southernmost portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. The applicant believes the accessory structure would benefit the character of the neighborhood. Staff did confirm that there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square feet in accessory structure area. These properties are illustrated in the image below. These structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet at the time of the ordinance amendment are considered to be legal nonconforming. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 8 of 8 SF 4,433 SF 4,19ii SP d., t +a0 SF r i j00 SF fM J M RECOMMENDATION r I Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 4. Building Plans. 5. Conditional Use Permit #87-14. 6. Letter to Greg Falconer dated October 2, 2000 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9:\p1an\2012 planning cncs\2012-12 720 west %th street variance-falconer\stalT report 720 west 96th street.docv CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-12. On September 18, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: P/O SW 1/4 NW/4E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony .urth the g n ral n �rn„�es and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for agricultural uses. Therefore it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to ttse the property in a EpU, Rble manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. City Code would permit the replacement of the 1,280 square foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure cture suffered a snow load collapse in the winter of 2011. The homeowner is intending to replace the existing structure with rebuild with an expansion of 520 square feet. The City Code states "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 expansion." This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could be replaced. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The request is also insistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in 2 greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. _ 5. The planning report #2012-12, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board or Adjustments and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square - foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18a' day of September, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: C'loa1nGr.assEr, � evl6il 5131 7 Contact: n - , =c/co � r ,,. Phone: 61,A Fax:".2-$2S-2c,3a Email:�rin�'iirc �N1nic.tLr_v��f Property Owner Name Planning Case No.o?D!dl� /cam CITY OF CHANHASSM RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PUNNING OM 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) (Additional recording fees may apply) _ X Variance (VAR) J� Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) X w for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** $5 UP/SPR/VAC/VA VAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be prior to the public hearing. the annlicant *Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shatlibeoshav®eehtien each application. RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: zian� &2 L TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: �X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST:. k)I l bjh( LM fT 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. g \planlfonwWevelopwnt review application dm CI.2 to SCANNED Reason for request: My wife and 1 have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITv OF RECEIVED SSEN AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 5 RECEIVED wy i • rar x(Sr 96 •. •i % _ 1 , r I Cmc COPY ,j I h.�• 82�5/r t I 4x 1 I I . I I Cmc COPY ,j I h.�• 82�5/r t I 4x 1 I I . I i n. u CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Chanhassen, North Nevatlon .;IT" OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED { i.0 14 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 21" x 6" side wall footangs AUG 2 4 2012 3116 - I' x___________ _______D__________ _ ________•___________ __ _______x_________ AJyCflYL"NTNG DERE 4' Mier fcntings, 14' 6 1'x9' 13 1 averhead:door 5._4..; ----------------- ---------------------- . „ J\y A •_O _ A A D West Nevatlon Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 1/8"-1' fast �IMIon AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN V l!I6" xb" h06reentre*ed G ingwered Tnneee 6' I-3/ 4"x 14" tW Ergheered truesee 4' �33"x 12" fwtrq _4 6"0" bOGreentreaked 2711011 fwtrq q& car eked faecw ad kfilt 211x10" header AUG 2 4 Z01Z CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERM 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Contractor's yard activities for Ronald and Linda Landin. sF_ 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: East 155 feet of the West 310 feet of the SW} of NW}, and the East 155 feet of the west 465 feet of the SW} of NW}, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 (710 and 720 West 96th Street). 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in Conditional Use Permit #84-18 must approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with ade- quate fencing at least six feet in height. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: r11� .:,« 19py CITY OF CHANHASSEN By :` It L ayor By: Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AM day of . , 19, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Not /ar vµ� KAREN J. ENGELHARDT ��Z FOIA'^NNESOTh =A1F��"� C: :UNT`! ffffff 'aD Ir71�011� 4- �r4°fit r 9Gt�S-t F- C' E 7/o RM(MO *5 CITY OF CNANI1ASsEN 690 City GnterAiar, PO Box 147 Chanhaaem Minnesota 55317 Phone 612937.1900 General Far 612937.5739 Engineering Far 612.937.9152 Public Safety Far 612.934 2524 Web wwtudsbanbosen.matu October 2. 2000 Mr. goal 720 West 96`h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Falconer: The City has received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's business on your property. Our records indicate that a conditional use permit (#84-17) was issued on December 3, 1984, to operate a contractor's yard on the site. A condition of this permit was that the "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit (CUP)." The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yard as home occupations. Therefore, your contractor's business is legal nonconforming. You cannot expand beyond what was approved in 1984. Our records also indicate that you have been issued a building permit to construct a 4,050 sq. ft. shed. It was noted on your permit by staff that this structure shall not be used for a home occupation, including contractor's yard. This letter is to officially inform you that the shed may not be used for an expansion of a contractor's yard. The City will periodically perform inspections to ensure conformance to the original conditional use permit. I have enclosed a copy of the approved CUP for your records. Use of the shed for the contractor's operation or expansion of the contractor's yard, will result in this matter being forwarded to the City Attorney's office for enforcement Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900, ext. 141. Sin Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures c: v Building File, 720 W. 96'h Street Scott Botcher, City Manager Elliot Knetsch, Campbell Knutson Community Service Officer The City of C rnbassen. Agrowing community with a&an lakes, quality sehoo6, a ehmminoannmtnnm, th';,»„01,,„ , , AI ,..:F,l. r. a ...t..... r. ...._c CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 6, 2012, 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 720 West 961h Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-012 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 sworn to before me this(iL day ofZb 1— 2012. i Notary Pu J'WKM T. MEUWISSEN otary Public-Minnesotaommissiui E.P. Jen 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time. • Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gre&Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96 Street Location: 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 What Happens 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerousO-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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 of 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 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, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gre&Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96� Street Location: 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at baenerousOci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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: • Subdivislons, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland 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. Al 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 commerciavindustrial. • Minnesota Stale 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 somethingto be Included in the report, lease contact the PlanningStaff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC BRADLEY C WORM 620 96TH ST W PO BOX 1060 750 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1060 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM 760 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 GARY J & MARY LANE BENDZICK 731 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES R & SHARON M HEDBERG 750 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 721 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CONRAD L KERBER 9850 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAXON D & ALLISON L LANG 9870 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 71096THSTW CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & BETTY WOLD 730 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK 810 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8673 VIVEK KAUL 9875 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 f JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROBERT A & ELIZABETH K HAAK 770 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE 730 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 �C PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4,940 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct the original legal non- conforming shed with a second expansion of 520 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). LOCATION: 720 West 96' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 P/O SW 1/4 NW h/4 E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 PID: 25-0253210 APPLICANTS: Greg and Tammy Falconer 720 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)850-6856 mufmc@Mninter.net PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.77 acres (207,781.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96th Street to the north of the property. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of SCANNED Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 9 discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY . tlnsrnsrnEt f_ r "iia !. G r�•• '� r I 1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for accessory structures to reconstruct the original square foot legal non -conforming structure. The first expansion of 4,140 square feet was constructed in 2000. With the proposed expansion the accessory structure would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet. The site has an area of 4.77 acres and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has a single-family home with an attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140 square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1280 square feet). Section 20-904 of the zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 720 West 96d' Street. Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming uses and structures allows for the nonconformity to be continued, through repair, replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement, but not expansion. • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances • Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming uses • Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 2, Conditional Uses • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article X H, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 9 BACKGROUND On December 5, 1984, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard for the subject property. This application was in response to the August 20, 1984 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as a conditional use in the R -la, Agricultural Residence District. When the CUP was approved the site contained two parcels for approximately 10 acres and included two pole barns. The easterly lot was sold and in 1985 a house was constructed on 710 West 96t Street. That lot required a variance because it did not meet the standards of the R -la district. With the variance approval for 710 West 96th Street the city council affirmed the CUP for the contractor's yard. The conditional use permit request for the continuation of the contractor's yard located at 710 and 720 West 96th Street was approved subject to two conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in the application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing at least six feet in height. The operation of the contractor's yard was represented as the use of two 2 -ton trucks, one 1 -ton truck, one bobcat, one backhoe, one crawler, and two mixers, traveling in and out once a day. None of the work activity was going to occur on the property. In 2009 the city amended the CUP ordinance to state: 20-233 (c) It is a condition of every conditional use permit that the property for which the permit is issued not be subdivided or the lot lines of the property altered. While this CUP predated the new language it should be noted that the CUP was granted for a larger parcel. The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yards. In a letter dated October 2, 2000 the applicant, Greg Falconer, was advised that the City had received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's yard. The letter reiterated the conditional use permit condition "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit." The letter further advised that the building permit issued for the 4,040 square -foot shed was not to be used in conjunction with a home occupation or the matter would be forwarded to the City Attorney's office. Sec. 20-236. - Expiration. If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discontinued for six months, the conditional use permit shall become void. It appears that the current contactor's yard is no longer operating as stipulated in the conditions of CUP# 83-17. Therefore, the contractor's yard is void. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 9 The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of the accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. At the time of the ordinance amendment there were discussions regarding reasonable requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for legitimate agricultural uses. Minnesota State Statute 17.81— Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural uses as "use of land for the production of livestock dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under Chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary products. " It was decided after the discussions that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. The accessory structure to be located on the subject property is intended to be used as a hobby structure to house antiques; therefore, it would not be considered a legitimate agricultural use. If a subject property meets the criteria as listed below or found in Minnesota State Statute 1613.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 720 West 96th Street does not qualify as agricultural land because the property has 4.77 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure would require a building permit. 17 7 f Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Minnesota State Statute 16B.60 — Definitions defines agricultural buildings to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in Section 273.13, Subdivision 23, designed constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub lessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " • Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23, Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage often acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. " The original structure, first expansion and proposed expansion will have a total area of 5,940 square feet. This would exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure maximum allowable area by 4,940 square feet. Based on the drawing submitted it appears the addition is a Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 9 reconstruction of the original wood frame building (attached proposed building plans) The applicant is intending to use the additional space as a hobby structure and intends to store antiques. Staff is concerned with the overall large size of the structure. This concern originates from the possibility that large accessory structures are used in conjunction with home occupations. Home occupations are intended to be conducted out of a residence and maintain a residential appearance. When the operations are moved into an accessory structure they become a common cause of complaints by neighbors. They often create excess parking, traffic and noise. Staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it may be purchased by a person with the intentions of operating a home occupation out of the accessory structure. Staff further believes the use is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2030 Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban type of development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached residential units. The remaining 15 percent of development is some other type of low density residential use e.g., twin homes, and town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by replacing the original 32' x 40' (1,280 square -foot) nonconforming structure. The replacement of the nonconforming structure is already exceeding the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation. The original structure combined with the 90' x 46' (4,140 square -foot) fust expansion exceeds the maximum allowable accessory structure limitation by 4,420 square feet. The 520 square -foot proposed expansion would exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure by 4,940 square feet. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing house and attached garage, 90' x 43' accessory structure and 40' x 32' accessory structure. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 9 SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southernmost portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. The applicant believes the accessory structure would benefit the character of the neighborhood. Staff did confirm that there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square feet in accessory structure area. These properties are illustrated in the image below. These structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet at the time of the ordinance amendment are considered to be legal nonconforming. Falconer Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 September 18, 2012 Page 8 of 8 4A ' 3 Y a.I .10 of RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 4. Building Plans. 5. Conditional Use Permit #87-14. 6. Letter to Greg Falconer dated October 2, 2000 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplao\2012 planning cam\2012-12 720 west 96th sheet variance-falconeAstaff report 720 west 96th streetdocx i -C •t3tOs > d al l Y G 41LPI lI ,, .r NfM1M ir Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 4. Building Plans. 5. Conditional Use Permit #87-14. 6. Letter to Greg Falconer dated October 2, 2000 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplao\2012 planning cam\2012-12 720 west 96th sheet variance-falconeAstaff report 720 west 96th streetdocx CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-12. On September 18, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: P/O SW 1/4 NW %4 E 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for agricultural uses. Therefore it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. City Code would permit the replacement of the 1,280 square foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the winter of 2011. The homeowner is intending to replace the existing structure with rebuild with an expansion of 520 square feet. The City Code states "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 expansion." This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could be replaced. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The request is also insistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in PA greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm. There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time as are services are available and requested. 2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of commercial and industrial facilities in this area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-12, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board or Adjustments and Appeals, denies Planning Case 42012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square - foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18a day of September, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN UN Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: uc, ILG ti -5f- 1-041 r Contact: ( . Phone: &Ae5) i56sC Fax: ysl s25 -.2o34 Email: G f -ex -p i v%c d N1vLi �ttv _ v�c� J Planning Case No.-o�C/d-l— /cam CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUU 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DWT Property Owner Name and Address: Phone: 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) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) .7 L` Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) X w for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $5 UP/SPR/VA NA AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ `tSo Ct--* 0 5 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be prior to the public hearing. the annlicant 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" 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 shatllb"hatgechtaer each application. RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 2 222 r�% 10 TOTAL ACREAGE: �� / 7 WETLANDS PRESENT: //�_ YES NO n PRESENT ZONING: _ A,5-7 / , c (+-L& r• <tL n2 REQUESTED ZONING: `I1 II.A J f , PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: T PSI I�t°A�li-! a I � r I K1 �P aC I/ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:Sc REASON FOR REQUEST: ,, 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. g:\pI=\fon \developwnt review application.doe I iy Y6t SCANNED Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. GTS OF RECEIVED SSEN AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 6 wr 9TH. illF y �71..,. y y* � A� .,3 •FI I n � RECEIVED ciwwxscxu�rnoxs j 1 `'--�• 8g4F l •� �rveovrn ICITY COPY, scat•. 1' _ :m' 1 `'--�• 8g4F l •� �rveovrn ICITY COPY, scat•. 1' _ :m' 1 . iilElt� ��/ �� •Y0.1 yh v� 11 rsA ig I' n4: if 1p �ilill9iNa. E A. P �i r i e: �� • ^e: ig! � Wpal yh 11 rsA ig I' n4: if 1p �ilill9iNa. E A. P �i r i e: �� • ^e: � Wpal West 96th Chanhassen, North Nevation .;l rl OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED &J?42012 JHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 720 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 2711 x 811 side wall footings AUG 2 4 2012 3116 - I' �.. ._ ---- '--�r--------------- ------' 21s- Lp 15' 44 ender foot ngs, 33" ry 1211 141 6 Fadaq FMWe ed frusees ch - q per maifx4rer 1 ________ ____ 7'x9' overhead eloor i „ „ West Nevatlon Falconer X20 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN I/8" -I' fast �Ievtion AUG 2 4 7017 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Fal caner 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 'K6" bO Green treated `A 12' -6�" Engheered Two B' 1-3/ 4"x 14" LVL 6mckr ErgFieered }n»xa 4' 33"x 12" &uFAq 6"rb" b0 (.Leen 7 efatN qa, arr PW faxta"5v t. �8"x8" faothq AUG 2 4 701I CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Contractor's yard activities for Ronald and Linda Landin. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: East 155 feet of the West 310 feet of the SWi of NWi, and the East 155 feet of the west 465 feet of the SWi of NWi, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 (710 and 720 West 96th Street). 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in Conditional Use Permit #84-18 must approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with ade- quate fencing at least six feet in height. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. !;. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: ,U.c,e�. 1gpy CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: l ' It6 Aij-or By: 6-, �Q- Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) �pt�S The feregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19�, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. No Ary71' .............. KAREN J. E�IGELHARDT �f _ NUTAf �'�NNESOTA �tH C,....- UNTO Oom RMI*OF�015 CITY OF CAMSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Bax 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612937.190# General Fax 612937.5739 Engineering Fax 612 937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612 934,2524 Web wwwn.chanboxen.mn.us October 2, 2000 Mr. Gregory Falconer 720 West 961h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Falconer: The City has received complaints regarding the operation of a contractor's business on your property. Our records indicate that a conditional use permit (#84-17) was issued on December 3, 1984, to operate a contractor's yard on the site. A condition of this permit was that the "expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit (CUP)." The current zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor's yard as home occupations. Therefore, your contractor's business is legal nonconforming. You cannot expand beyond what was approved in 1984. Our records also indicate that you have been issued a building permit to construct a 4,050 sq. ft. shed. It was noted on your permit by staff that this structure shall not be used for a home occupation, including contractor's yard. This letter is to officially inform you that the shed may not be used for an expansion of a contractor's yard. The City will periodically perform inspections to ensure conformance to the original conditional use permit. I have enclosed a copy of the approved CUP for your records. Use of the shed for the contractor's operation or expansion of the contractor's yard, will result in this matter being forwarded to the City Attorney's office for enforcement Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900, ext. 141. Sincerely, C Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures c: v Building File, 720 W. 96th Street Scott Botcher, City Manager Elliot Knetsch, Campbell Knutson Community Service Officer The City o f Chanhassen. Agrowing community with clean lakes, quality schooh, a charmine downtown, thrivinr businesses, and beautiful Parks. A creat Place to live. work. and Pbte CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 6, 2012, 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 720 West 96a' Street Variance Request - Planning Case 2012-012 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 sworn to before me this lg day ofd& 'Morn r- , 2012. Ty Notary Pu riz— T De)Ey Clerk y14.4 KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota MY Gmmftion Expir" Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Gr &Tamm Falconer Property 720 West 96" Street Location: 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 W Wthe 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at 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 If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12. If you wish to talk to the City's projects web page at: email at bgenerous(Mci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12. If you wish to talk to Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at beenerous(Mci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Plannin Commission meeting. 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of staff report for this item will be available online on the the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of 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 parry 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 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 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, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of thea enda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Greg & TamTy Falconer Property 720 West 96m Street Location: 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/2012-12. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by email at bgenerous(Mci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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 Plannin 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 parry 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, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC BRADLEY C WORM 620 96TH ST W PO BOX 1060 750 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1060 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM 760 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 GARY J & MARY LANE BENDZICK 731 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES R & SHARON M HEDBERG 750 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 721 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CONRAD L KERBER 9850 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAXON D & ALLISON L LANG 9870 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & BETTY WOLD 730 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK 810 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8673 VIVEK KAUL 9875 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROBERT A & ELIZABETH K HAAK 770 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE 730 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 /W.n -,;: Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 2111 '5116 - I' CITU pP CHANHASSEN K 8'' side wall footings RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 --------- -------=---------------------------------- --��---------- -- --- - ------------------------N PLAN ly' 2k' er&r footings, 30 12" '14'6 Paday Ergreered fnvas Dram per maufxtrer r______ ________ 1, r x9' overhead el 14 (.,� �" fins Z- - I : -------------- ----"------------"------------"-----------"------------------------"--- „"------------ Date: August 29, 2012 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: September 7, 2012 By: Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner 952-227-1131 bgenerous@.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) located at 720 West 96th Street. Applicant/Owner: Greg & Tammy Falconer. Planning Case: 2012-12 PID: 25-0253210 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on August 24, 2012. The 60 -day review period ends October 16, 2012. 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 September 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than September 7.2012. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director it. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E 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 Sprint(United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED KNEE k Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 120 West Chanhassen, North Flevation CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2.4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT West Nevatlon Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, A I/811 - I' fast �Ievtjon AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN ' b0 Green treated T Ergveaed rneeee e' 1-5/4"K 14" M header Ergheered trueeee 4' 12'-46 11 ..__�55ii112"faitFiq 6" rb" 60 Green treated 2111X611 fwt M. cur >W ad `0 t 2"d0" header �8 x5fw* CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING [)EPT Chanhassen, Noah NevAlon CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2017 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 720 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 2711 x 8" side wall footings AUG 2 4 2012 311b - 11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT enEer footings, 33" A' 12" Fa-traq Fmwff d fw [3ractq Frr maufa8rc 7'x9' overhead Boor , -----"----------- "-----------"------------"------------"---------- "-----------"---------- " —----------- A'I Fal caner 120 West 96th 5Veet Chanhassen, MN 12'-6e," 61,16" b0 Green treated T W811 1118" faottq Erglleered frusses 6' 1-3/ 4"K 14" I.VI. Ergreered bows 4' 55" K 12" foot" 61,16" bOCram trMted 77"0" footeg OF. ear stall Faula ad 5ufiffi 211d0" header CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT West Nevatlon Falconer 120 West 96th 5rreet Chanhassen, MN I/8" I' Fart Hevtlon AUG 2 4 2012 CHANH EN PLANNING DEPT 10— t I ; Tot dt Yll� 4 I �0 ��Lt �R♦ ,.�1 pil,�y14 �� r.w r® Falconer 720 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 2711 '5116 - I' CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Y, 8II 51de wall footing5 AUG 2 4 2012 SSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED ---------------------------- ------ 77 5' 24 5-- y enEer footing5, 30''';1211 Fxtay Frghe ed fruseez Brxtg per maufx4rc ________ ____ �'x9' overhead ;moor �"r8" fmthgs .-----------"-----------"------------"------------ "----------- "----------- "------------------------"----------- SCANNED Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT : o 120 West 96th Chanhassen, MN Nath Nevation CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED West Nevation Falconer X20 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN x/811 - li t1avi.-IcwIVI AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 1/4"-1' 7' b0 Gem treated erklwe ed rnrsses a l 1-3/ 4''x 14" LVL herr ergneered trusses 4' �------�33"x 12"fmtnq _4-------' corr �W 6"xP b0 Leen treated Fmcla and 5oft 211d0" head, 77"0' fouttq1 6",8'.fcotnq �0 SEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED 7700 Market Boulevar4 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN55317 CITY OF CNANHASSEN Andrew & Shannon Riegart 620 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 LG+ftre SYS ;2C, -t, , X012 Qm- Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Colopoulos: City Council will render final approval. Aller: Correct. The recommendation will be to pass without a super majority. Moving on to item 2. OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN TAMMY FALCONER. PLANNING CASE 2012-12. Aanenson: Thank you. Same neighborhood. This address is 720 West 96th Street and this is Greg and Tammy Falconer, homeowners and applicants. Again this property is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limit. This one has two existing structures on the site and I'll kind of go through the history here a little bit but in December the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on the subject property. Again back in the 80's, late 70's contractor yards were permitted on these large lots and again the City has done away with that. When the CUP was permitted there was actually two lots, 710 and 720 and those are the conditions there. They also in your staff report we enumerated the uses that could be permitted with that and all vehicles had to be stored within, it's our opinion that the expiration of that conditional use because it's not being used as a conditional use was permitted so in our opinion that contractor's yard is void because they're not using the cement mixer, the one bulldozer, as stated in that and it becomes non -conforming. That aside this is how the property looks today. The existing building to the north here and then this addition was done. Again that addition was done prior to the 2007 requirement. I'll go through that in a little more detail and you can see the outdoor storage and then this is the expansion area but I'll go through that in a little bit more detail here with the site plan. So you have the original shed. There was a snow load collapse on that one you can kind of see here. I have another picture of that and that's what the applicant just wants to replace is that portion of the building. So with that the original shed and now rebuilding of that so that would give you the total of 1,800. That would be this total expansion area here so this building in 2000 was constructed. Again that was permitted because we didn't have the rule in place of the limit of the 1,000 square foot so the total out there then would be, for both structures, would be almost 6,000 square feet for accessory structure. Again going back to what we stated previously in the zoning ordinance is the structure limits to the 1,000 square feet. Again the non -conforming structure is in use. This allows for the non -conformity to continue. Now we're talking about the existing building so the roof can be repaired on that existing building. It's the expansion of that building even going beyond that, that expansion of the non -conformity. As we stated earlier that building is not being used as was permitted under the conditional use so in speaking to the city attorney that use is no right now. So again the contractor's yard is prohibited as the current city ordinance today. I'm not saying that that's the intended use for that property. I'm just clarifying the history of that. So this is the existing building that wants to be replaced. You can see that the roof, there was a snow collapse out there and this is the building that is intended to be replaced and there's a new metal building going up. It's kind of, the word-smithing on that was just a small addition but really this building's being replaced with a metal shed. The plans are in your packet kind of to match that. Again we're saying there's reasonable use of that property with existing building. Certainly this roof could be replaced if they want to. They have that right. You can repair a non- conforming structure by city ordinance and it's just a continued expansion of that building is where the staff was making that interpretation. Again we talked about the comp plan. This area. Agricultural use does not provide in this area not being used for that type of purpose and then again the expansion, discourage of commercial industrial activities in these areas was our goal when we made those changes. So for those reasons we did recommend denial and certainly the applicant has the right to fix that roof so with that we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 14 SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Aller: Questions. Colopoulos: In the material there was some reference to the type of structure that would need to be build to fix the roof. Is that in any way related to the size of the structure? I mean I didn't really follow that whole... Aanenson: No, I think the applicant wants to replace the existing structure with a roof and then put a new structure there and not just replace the square footage but make it slightly bigger so. And those arethe plans that are in your packet. Colopoulos: Got it. Okay. Aanenson: Showing those cross section, yeah. Colopoulos: Yeah, not being an architect 1 didn't quite... Aller: Okay. No questions? No questions? Okay, the applicant can step forward if they'd like to make a presentation at this time. Please state your name, address for the record. Tammy Falconer: Tammy Falconer, 720 West 9e Street. Greg Falconer: Greg Falconer, 720 West 96d' Street. Tammy Falconer: And before we get started, do you have the same exact packet that we have? Aller. Yes. Greg Falconer: Page for page? Aanenson: Yes. Greg Falconer: Okay. In that order right? Aanenson: Yes. Greg Falconer: Okay. We have some pictures also for reference for this building. What we're proposing and the site as it is right now. It was deemed unsafe so it had been torn down already. Aanenson: Yeah, if you put them right on top... show up on the camera. Tammy Falconer: Which one do you want me to put up first? Greg Falconer: Well I think let's put this up first and does it have to be a certain way? Aanenson: Yep. Greg Falconer: Okay. This is the snow load area right here. You can see there's still snow on it. This is where my snow collects over here in this area which I'll be talking about in a little bit. This red line right here actually is where the exterior of the building would be. Everything underneath this would be a covered porch area so I'm not actually building a building from here to here. That is interior space. I'm 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 actually not asking for that amount so what I'm going to do is, as we go on here I'll probably just have Tammy put up some of the pictures. Our names are Greg and Tammy Falconer. We live at 720 West 960, Street and a unique part of Chanhassen obviously. We are zoned in A2 which explains why there are over 26 horses within 3 houses any direction of our's, including 2 horses on our property which I cultivate for. A little history on my proposed building site before I get into details. The site building had been built around 1965 and housed both cows and horses throughout the years. When I moved to the property in 1996 the structure needed repair due to a high volume of water runoff that went through the front barn door and out the back. I had constructed a retaining wall on the north side as well as around the sides to divert the water from entering the building. It's foundation. It can be seen in the photos. You can see, Tammy will put up another photo here showing the retaining wall in the summertime, if you can see that. And this is what it looks like, she's got another one up here, so I built this retaining wall to stop the water from basically destroying this building when I moved there and it literally did come out one side, out the other during a rainfall. The snow and rain over the years caused significant damage to the foundation and walls, although the retaining wall did help it still did not solve the problem. In 2011 the building roof collapse due to a heavy snow build-up on the back side. The ice and snow along the side of the building made it impossible for me to remove the heavy snow load and the roof collapsed under the weight. Because I simply can't get around to that side, show that picture right there again, the show is literally up to here in the wintertime and I have no place to pull it. At that point this is a skating rink down here underneath here because the water has no place to go. Let's see here. The structure wasn't worth repairing due to the safety and integrity problems so we tore it down. Not knowing about the new ordinance adopted in 2007 we drew up plans addressing the two functional problems we had with the old structure. Number one being the snow load issue on the south side where it attached to the existing building. The new plan eliminates that problem as you can see. This is where, if I can put up some sort of something right here. I'm not going to get that snow load. The snow load should basically be falling off in this direction over here. The second problem was trying to get the water and snow to shed off the roof in a manageable area so the building wouldn't sit in the ice and rain time after time. This problem has been so bad that I had to create catch basins along the west side of the building to try and stop the water and ice from entering the foundation and walls. The retaining wall you see in the picture on the right side of the building both stops water infiltrating from the ground runoff and where I made the catch basin where that drain drained into draintile so on the back side of this I had a catch basin down here and draintile. Although these ideas helped they certainly were no fix. My true fix would be to extend the roofline to my walking path where the grade naturally runs and I can better remove the snow melting off the roof. In reading city staff's report it is clear and evident that a large emphasize has been put on the subject of running a home occupation on the property. 7 pages on the report address this subject matter. I would like to say a few things about this. My wife and I are not currently running a home occupation, and nor do we intend to run a home occupation in the future on our property. Our neighbors would be the first to tell you that we don't welcome strangers on our property. During the construction of our new house that we built in 2009, we had over $10,000 of property stolen on our property. The last thing we want is strangers on our property. My wife has a staffing service she owns in St. Louis Park where she has an office located there. She's been there for 14 years. I work for her part time and I also am in a partnership in an epoxy coating business located in Andover, Minnesota. I have business cards that prove that. I have a pickup truck and an enclosed trailer that I use for my work. There would never be a need for anyone to come to our house business related for any reason at all. For the record I had a landscaping service that closed it's doors in 2005 and I ran it legally under my CUP which was attached to the property at that time. City staff has concerns about the potential for a new homeowner to buy our house and use it for business. It's next to impossible. We just built this house 3 years ago. We have no intentions of leaving and we certainly aren't retiring any time soon. We're both in our 40's. Since the real subject is about square footage I would like to address that now. I'm asking for a variance to add 364 square feet onto my old structure hard cover space. City staff has informed me twice that my new building proposed considers the hard cover space on the roof itself. I was enlightened by this when I was told, I told staff that a large portion of my added square footage would be open to the elements porch 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 18, 2012 overhang as noted in the plan, which is this area right here. And it would look similar to that right there. City staff have my old structure down for 1,280 square feet. The actual hard cover roof was 1,436 square feet. The interior space proposed on the new building is 1,600 square feet which is from here to here. That's 1,600 square feet. I'm really asking for 164 square feet more of interior space when it comes right down to it. If the Planning Commission would be so kind to allow another 210 square feet for the porch area, which is right here, that would resolve my ice and water and snow problem altogether. In total I'm asking for 374 square feet to my 1,436 square foot building allowed right now. You have questions I'm sure. Aller: Did I hear you correctly that you put in the retaining wall? Greg Falconer: I did. I move in in 1996. I was not married to Tammy at the time. Aller: And then right now it's a pad, it's vacant. Greg Falconer: Yes. It looks just like this right now. Aller: Okay. And then you're not operating a business in there anymore? Greg Falconer: No. 2005 was the last time I filed for taxes but I actually quit in 2004 and I do know about all the problems that the City had with our street and stuff and I wasn't going to go down there anymore. I've had it with that so I got into another business and I'm very happy in that business. Aller: What's the use of the other structure? Greg Falconer: This structure over here, I have a shop in my first part there. I have been tinkering with cars and motorcycles and stuff my entire life since I was 13 years old so the structure has 2 boats, 3 of my snowmobiles, snowmobile trailer. I have some cars in there. I've got a lot of my hobby stuff in there. That's what's in there. Aller: Okay. And then there was another structure that looks like it was built in 2005. Do you know about that structure or? Greg Falconer: 2005? Aller. Am I on the wrong property again? Greg Falconer: Not on my property. Generous: Yeah, I think that was the previous. Aller: Oh it was the previous, yeah. So I was right the first time. Colopoulos: The plan that you're proposing for the structure, where did you get that plan? Greg Falconer: I wanted something that fit the neighborhood and was unique. Just because it has this upper area shown on here, that is not a two story. The equine building, those arejust open space from down below just to add some uniqueness or character to it but what I really thought that it would be good for is to get the snow away from the center. As you can see the sun never touches this area over here and the snow builds up and builds up and builds up and I have to get there. Somehow I have to get up there and get that snow off of there. That's what all this snow is about down here. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Undestad: You tore the other one down on your own or? Greg Falconer: Yes. Undestad: Were you instructed to do that or you just did that on your own? Greg Falconer: I had the insurance company out and they said if you want to recover any of the items in there, you'd better get to them. I had items in there that, so and it was, it could not be repaired. There was no repairing that roof. Even the insurance people said we don't want you repairing that roof. The side walls on the top bowed out 1 foot after the collapse. These are horses on my east side. These are Carol Dunsmore's horses on my west side, which they have a pole bam as well. Undestad: Excuse me, those horses are your neighbors on each side? Greg Falconer: Yes. I'm just showing the horses on both sides of its and then 3 doors up there's 21 horses so you know I'm saying it does fit the neighborhood still. Colopoulos: Hence the design that you chose for the building, got it. Greg Falconer: Yep. Aller: I'm sorry, I missed the answer on the plans. Were they your plans or did you have an engineer take a look at the property? Greg Falconer: Plans for the new structure? Aller: New structure. Greg Falconer: Yes, we drew up the plans with a contractor. K&H Services Aller: Yes. Did you talk about having a greater slope on the roof or maintaining the square footage or did you only talk about a larger structure? Greg Falconer: Well I thought about three different options for this. One, making the structure not as deep and then I said to myself I'm not taking that retaining wall out again because that took me 4 or 5 days of my own time to put that in and the footings are deep, down in there and so I said that's not a viable option for me. I thought about moving the building from, go to the other side there. Shifting the whole building over but this side over here I have the same problem. My water splits through the middle of that building and that's why I put up the retaining wall. Half of my water goes down this direction and half my water goes down this direction and not from anything I did. That's how the property was when I got there. It hasn't been re -graded or anything so I had to add, once I put in this retaining wall, we had to add a lot of soil to here to get it to properly shed and stop going through the middle of the building. But I'm still having problems. As you can see right here, the building literally rotted out on this side from all the snow coming over here and this is my walking path right here. If I could get the snow to come off the roof and land there, all I'd have to do is push it that way. And not to mention this is open. This is open space right here so this can get sunlight. This can melt. It'd be kind of a covered space and maybe it'd be more manageable where I'm not going to have all that snow and water issue down there. Aller. Had you discussed with the contractor any other ways to get the snow out of there or any other configurations? 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Greg Falconer: No, I didn't really see a need to. I don't know what you're referencing Aller: Well it's a non -conforming building and by code you would be using the same footprint so I'm just wondering how much of a discussion you had with the contractor and whether you really explored the avenues of keeping that footprint, which could be an end result of the hearing. Greg Falconer: Well the area right here is relatively no grade and in order to get grade I'm not sure what I could possibly do to stop, to stop this issue over here. I can't, you know I can't add grade to someplace that's already graded to where it needs to be. And this area over here it slopes quite a bit faster than say this area right here. Aller: Okay. And then did I hear you say that you added soil already? You actually did grade the property some. Greg Falconer: In front of his retaining wall. We had to when we moved there in 1996 because there was water coming straight through the building. Aller: Okay. Anybody else have questions? Undestad: Yeah, I've got one more. Aller: Sure. Undestad: Just with your existing building there of a little over 4,000 square feet for your cars and hobbies and things, what's the intent for putting this building back in? Greg Falconer: Well l was using this building for storage of a couple of my older snowmobiles. Yeah, and this building right here our goal is to take, once again. You know Tammy is, her hobby is antiques and I don't want them everywhere in the house where they are right now and it would be great if she could have a place of her own out here. This area right here is my area behind here which is our shop. My shop and this would be her area to do what she wants to do with it. So it's a his and her's, but you know I just, we somewhat feel a little bit victimized just because we already have this here, if you know where we're coming from. So people are like wow, why would you need that much space and whatever? Well, back when I built it, it wasn't a problem. It wasn't an issue. It just wasn't. It was never discussed you know, and I certainly didn't use this building nearly as much as I use this building because this building really looked similar to that back when I bought the property. That's the original color my house. Aller: Anything else? Anything further? Greg Falconer: Oh, I did want to talk, I know that you were discussing the points of the variance and stuff like that. Just wanted to go over, I think there's like 5 points that you need to somewhat meet for a variance and I understand it's all to interpretation and whatever. The first one on there being the variance shall only be permitted when it's in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I, myself feel that's somewhat open to interpretation of how people read things and stuff so I'm not exactly sure why I wouldn't be in harmony with the general purpose because I guess, in my opinion it's up to interpretation even if staff says this is what it reads. This is what we meant by it. That may not be what other people, that may not be how Other people view it so it is up to interpretation. The next one, which has to do with complying with the zoning ordinance practical difficulties. In this case I actually do have a practical difficulty. I would feel 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 sick to my stomach if I had to put up that exact same building there and have these exact same issues again so therefore I do think that is impractical to put up the same exact structure as that when it's already failed. The purpose of the variation is not to be based on economic considerations. That is obviously not the case here. We do not have any intentions of running an antique store or anything like that. Like I said we don't want anybody at our house. We have a very bad taste in our mouth after what happened 3 years ago and we really have no reason to have a business in there. The plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property. Well in this case I certainly didn't create the water problem. The water problem was there and it was created by nobody else other than God at that point because I certainly didn't have anything to do with building the structure at that point. And then the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. I think you've gone over that already. It certainly is in tum with the rest of the area around there so. And then last one does not pertain so I guess that's what we wanted to. Oh Tammy would like me just to reiterate the square footage we're adding on. Staff has us at 1,280 square feet but when I talked to them they said that it was the hard cover of the roof itself. Tammy Falconer: That's an incorrect number. Greg Falconer: So the hard cover of the roof itself was 1,436 square feet and like we had said before from here to here is 1,600 square feet so that's 164 square feet that I'm asking for. And then if we add on this overhang right here, I can build this building to right here. It is possible to do that but you know like I said I'd like to get my snow and water out to this area out here where it can drain properly that direction. All in all the expansion would be 374 square feet. Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay we'll open up the public hearing portion of this particular presentation. Anyone wishing to come forward speaking for or against the request may do so at this time. Roger Lee: It's me again. Aller: State your name and address for the record please. Roger Lee: Roger Lee, 600 West 96'" Street. Aller. Thank you Mr. Lee. I'm just here to say I'm for it. I mean I see no reason not to be done and all of us again that, not all of us probably out there but I'd say a huge majority of us that live in that area bought the property to be able to build sheds and do our hobbies and do things that we like to do out there so it's, I don't understand the 1,000 square feet thing. Not all of us can afford to go over to the carplex over there, whatever they call it on Galpin and you know, they've got some huge places there and get to do all their hobbies. I'm sure they don't get scrutinized on what they're doing in their sheds and stuff over there so I don't understand why we're getting picked on in an area that has always been that way so that's all I have to say. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against. Gary Bendzick: I'll speak. Aller: And if you could state your name and address for the record. Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick, 731. I live directly across from Greg and Tammy and if you notice in their picture the beautiful house they constructed several years ago has a real unique look. It's you know it's beautiful. It's something different. Something Greg alluded to that they wanted something different. If you look at the design of their structure, again it has a unique characteristic and it in reality actually Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 softens the look of the pole building behind it. Makes it more attractive than if you had the existing structure on it. I feel that it would be you know the right move to allow the variance to construct a building that would improve the appearance of the property. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no one stepping forward, close the public hearing. Comments from the commissioners. I think this one is more difficult than the last one. Colopoulos: I'm sorry. Aller: I said I think this is more difficult than the last one almost for purposes of, if it goes to, if you give it to him do you want to give him the extra 100 square feet or whatever it's going to be for that porch but at the same time we have to look at the use. The use is a non -conforming use at this point and so right now I look at it as the homeowner is granted the opportunity to maintain this structure and that's the gift. And the rest of my analysis is the same as the last one so 1. Tennyson: I agree. Aller: I think there are ways to deal with the water issue, which are outside the square footage situation and that they have a footprint that they can deal with. Nelson: I would agree with that. Colopoulos: I don't know the answer to the water issue. 1 mean yeah, it's a possibility. I don't know that it necessarily would be able to be mitigated as conveniently or as easily as this plan. For that matter I don't know if this plan would necessarily mitigate it either so I think that's a whole other question. But I think the merits, you know the one thing I found confusing about this was the difference in what I'm seeing here is the requested variance versus the numbers that I heard from the applicant. The question for staff, this 49, 4940 square foot variance, that starts from, they start over again with once the building is demolished and we're talking about a reconstruction here. That's where the total square footage? That number. Aanenson: Yeah, the number we're disagreeing on is we had the 520 square feet additional, the expansion and they believe it's 374. Again we went off the building plans and whatever that number, that range of numbers is. I did want to make one other point of clarification. The applicant have not run the business out of that property so as a point of clarification, we made that is null and void now. I mean that would go forward on this because it hasn't been used so that shouldn't play into your decision. The operation of a business. Nelson: But Kate I'm correct in thinking that they, the shed that has been removed, they have the ability to rebuild it as is still at this point using that footprint and still the, what would it have been, the 1,280 square feet? Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So that's I guess, and I think that's the point they were trying to make. So the difference is they wanted the additional expansion to manage their water runoff and make it more assimilate to the site. Hokkanen: But they don't need approval for that, to replace that building? Aanenson: That's correct. Right... Hokkanen: Right. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Colopoulos: Just those few hundred square feet, is that what we're talking about here? Aanenson: Right and that's. That's what we're saying. They're saying 374 and again for their issues that they enumerated so. It's got a different look, different pitch but again that's to manage their water, correct. Colopoulos: Well without understanding the water problem myself and the best way to solve it, I would yield to the applicant's analysis of the situation in lieu of any better information. I mean they've obviously gone to great trouble with the plans and the diagrams and they live on the property after all and have dealt with the water problems that have existed there in the past so unless we're prepared to hold them to a higher standard of judgment I don't think we could supersede the observations they've made with an opinion that would be more valid. We don't know is what it amounts to from our perspective. We don't know what the best plan for water mitigation is. Aller: But I do know that there was water going through the property when he moved on. I do know that he built a retaining wall. Colopoulos: That's right. Aller: And I do know that the water problem existed after and has continued to exist so. Colopoulos: And he is now planning to take further corrective measures based on the observations that he's had as the resident. Aller: Which hadn't been taken before. Colopoulos: Right, which actions hadn't been taken before so in other words his plan might work. It might be the best thought out plan that we have in front of us at this point is what I'm saying. It may not be the only solution as you've correctly pointed out but I don't think there's, I don't think we have better information in front of us. Undestad: From my side of the table I'd have to agree down here this time around that you know replacing what was there, to put it back in but you know having 4,000 square feet for your hobby and being able to have another 1,280 square feet put back in there for another hobby, and you know 1 think that's again, the ability to put the existing structure back in would give him enough. Hokkanen: Well and I agree with Mark. As new construction, new technology, you know hold old was that building before? I mean there's gutters. There's all sorts of different ways they should be able to get that water to go, I mean we do it all the time with you know different materials. Different roof. Different, you know not replacing the exact same building, exact same roof line but that would be my recommendation as well. Aller: Any further discussion? Does anyone want to make a motion or take a stab at making a motion? Undestad: I'll make a motion. Aller: Thank you commissioner. Undestad: The Planning Commission, staff recommended Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot OX Chanhassen Planning Commission —September 18, 2012 accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-12 for a 4,940 square foot variance to the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, except Colopoulos who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Again, point of clarification Chairman. This did meet the super majority but the applicant still has the right to appeal this to the City Council. Aller. Correct. Aanenson: And that would, could go forward on October 8'h. We just need to get it in writing the appeal. Aller: Okay, thank you. And we're moving forward to item number 3 on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: 6411 BRETTON WAY: REOUEST TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ON APPLICANT/ OWNER NAOMI CARLSON, PLANNING CASE 2012-13. Aller: We're going to have the planning staff will make it's presentation ma'am. Naomi Carlson: Oh, okay. Aller. Then you will make your presentation. Have your opportunity. Then we'll have a public hearing. Naomi Carlson: Thank you. Aller. You bet. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As you stated this is an appeal of administrative decision. Couple things. Administrative decision, staff sent a letter to Ms. Carlson on July 30 stating that the lawn care service that she was proposing at 6411 Bretton Way was not permitted in the zoning district and could not occupy the space. However we did also point out that the administrative procedures that she could follow for that. We followed up with a letter on August 17`h, which is attached to the staff report stating that this lawn care service was a non -conforming use. We determined that that was an intensification of the use of the property and it was not permitted in the district and they needed to have the business vacate the property. Subsequent to that Naomi Carlson submitted, made an application to appeal this decision. The Planning Commission sits as the Board of Adjustments and they can make that determination. Earlier tonight I handed out a petition signed by 21 property owners within the neighborhood. I put it out for all the planning commissioners, stating that they concur with staffs decision and want you to affirm that we, it is an intensification of the use and should not go there. They further pointed out that there's some code compliance issues that are in existence on the property. While 23 Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN Va°-r Nath elevation CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 2 b 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/19/2012 3:02 PM Receipt No. 00198980 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Gregory Falconer 720 W 96th Street Chanhassen MN 55317 - Planning Case 2012-12 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 72.00 Total Cash Check 2509 Change 72.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 1-7_1Z SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CM OF (952) 227-1100 a=50 To: Greg & Tammy Falconer 720 West 96" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice RE: 720 West 96`" Street Variance Request Planning Case 2012-12 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 9/6112 upon receipt 24 I Property Owners List within 500' of 720 West 96`" Street (24 labels) TOTAL DUE $3.00 1 $72.00 $72.00 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 September 18. 2012. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2012-12. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED Reason for request: My wife and I have had plans for building a hobby structure for about 10 years now. Since our first goal was to build a nice house on our property, owned since 1996, we decided to make that happen first and that was finished in January of 2010. Since our neighborhood is unique to Chanhassen, being zoned in agriculture, we had decided early on to create a building that fit the neighbor hood and our existing property theme. The theme is equine as we have over 25 horses within 300 yards each direction of our property. The building proposed is called a monitor style equine building and is a large improvement from the old equine building (see photo) original to the property in 1965. The old building suffered a structure collapse from snow load in 2011 just moments after I was in the building. Part of my reasoning for extending the width of the building is to try and prevent heavy snow build up in the back center of the existing structure and to make the building more uniform with the existing pole barn. A downsized monitor style building conforming to the original structure size of 1200 sq/ft does not work functionally or aesthetically to our goal. We are asking for only 500 sq/ft extra footage of which almost half will be open to the elements in the form of a covered overhang as my photo depicts. (see photo red line for interior/exterior wall) We believe our plan not only makes sense but improves the overall look of the neighborhood by keeping to the theme and preserving the original look to earlier Chanhassen. We think a diverse Chanhassen is good for everyone and preserves a look that some people may never have known existed without neighborhoods like ours. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer X20 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN I/4" -I' m ■mE■ IMOON mom momm 000i moon moon moon moon mmolm- North�IeAlom CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN 1/4"-1' IZ'-6�" 6"rb" bO Green treated Ergheered muscae e' I-3/ 4"114" LW healer frgreered b� 4' rb" bO Creea treated ea, corr eW Fa la aid 50flk. 33"x 12" foot" Z7"r8" faotrq �gi iii fauE q 5 � 15 i0 5y ur rMAM AASSEN RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT West FICA& Falconer 120 West 96th Street Chanhassen, MN I/8" -I' �ayt NMion AUG 2 4 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Falconer 120 West 96th Street CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 21'' x 8" side wall footings s ,� AUG 2 4 2012 3/ 16 - I' / CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT ,W ----- ---��---------- -- -- ----- -- R --------- - ------ ender footings, 33"x;12" Fxtay Ergreered inoses Rx1q µT m3vFx4rc 1'x9' overhead moor --------------------------- ----------- "----------- 'L ----- "------------"------------"----------'L-----------"-----------"-----------"--------- ,W CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/29/2012 1:15 PM Receipt No. 00197282 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Gregory Falconer 720 W 96th Street Chanhassen MN 55317- 720 West 96th Street Variance Planning Case 2012-12 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Notification Sign 200.00 Recording Escrow 50.00 Total 450.00 Cash 0.00 Check 2505 450.00 Change 0.00 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-12 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 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 Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) located at 720 West 96'h Street. Applicant/Owner: Greg & Tammy Falconer. 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/2012-12 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. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: bgenerous@.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 6, 2012) SCANNED Carver County, MN 11 ,2 101 v � 17 1�� n ri ■on■�'�91� v EY O a 0.p0. pE40.ppcP Property Information Parcel ID: 250253210 Taxpayer Name. GREGORY M FALCONER Taxpayer Address: 720 96TH ST W Taxpayer City St. Zip: CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8603 Property Address: 720 96TH ST W Property City: CHANHASSEN GIS Acres: 4.49 C AS400 Acres. 4.7 Homestead. Y School District: 0112 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF CREEK Tax Exempt: N Platname. 'i65tlame, 'Jnb Map Scale s 01n Systems Sa1 is a conyzla0 of in/ornunon aM Eara kpn a<�,s cry ca,nry statea�e. aro Feceras nrcar rnn a.„ n na, 1 inch = 1161 feet 'surveyed or legally recorEeI map and's mte to Oe 150E as a 1E a ,,lance Carver Courvys nobespons0le la arty Inacwracks r�r�a Id le•=I Map Date 8/27/2012 N W+E S 720 WEST 96TH STREET VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 2012-12 $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign $50.00 Recording Escrow $450.00 TOTAL $450.00 Less Check #2505 from Gregory Falconer $0.00 BALANCE SCANNED