The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-12_GARY CARLSON - 3891 WEST 62 STREETSTAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: After -the -fact Variance request for a 22 -foot front yard setback for an existing four - stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District. LOCATION: 3891 West 62"d Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary Carlson & Megan Moore'ut 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction. Staff is recommending denial of the request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-12 Subject Property SL Minnewash Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact Variance for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four-stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 5,359 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West Wd Street. Access to the site is gained via West 6Vd Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. BACKGROUND The subject property was created as part of the Schmid's Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square foot four-stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square foot "loafing shed" (marked B), and a 466 square foot "machine storage shed" (marked Q. Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property is has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single -family residential lots that are currently being developed If the subject property is ever developed it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62°d Street via the subject property. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 3 ANALYSIS 1,000 Square Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 4 and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A-2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 201/e hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City's request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square foot pole barn on the property. Approval of the building permit for pole bam was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole bam since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The nine detached accessory structures on the subject property total 3,371 square feet. With the removal of five of these structures and the addition of the new pole barn, the property will contain five structures totaling 3,372 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square foot accessory structure restriction by 2,372 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconfommities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street. A The existing right-of-way for West 62nd Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey. The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62nd Street lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 5 By providing a 30 -foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62°d Street. The arlicant has a short boulder wall, approximately two or three feet in height on the south side of West 62 Street which provides a physical barrier between the subject property and passing traffic. Staff observed a small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, neither of which are identified on the survey. Due to these features' proximity to the four -stall garage it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30 -foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point tum pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 6 Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District, however not to agricultural lands. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the garage to the public street. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 -foot front yard setback for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-12 April 4, 2006 Page 7 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the nonconforming agricultural' use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the variance for a 22 -foot front yard setback for an existing four - stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District to permit 5,359 square feet of detached accessory strictures at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four -stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory strictures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted." The Planning Commission has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures staff recommends a condition be added stating: 1. Building permits for must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Megan Moore dated February 15, 2006. 4. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 6. Lot Survey. 7. Aerial Photograph. 8. Accessory Structure Photos. gAplan12006 planning ca \06-12 c Im varim=\staff repcat.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-12. On April 4, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-12 Variance dated April 4, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without pennits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 4`s day of April, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M gAplan\2006 planning c m\06-12 c lson varianmVindings of faa.dm 2 Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ie and Address: t0Ye' Planning Case No. d1:0- 6` Owner Name and Address: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAO A� AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ ash Z-t�-Ub An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 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. WANNEo PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE wt 6L it (?-P, WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: �1EI 2CI L P 2.Y �( I JD hI 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 1 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. 1 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. Auwutrwv-� gob Signatur of ArVarit Date Signature of Fee Date aliivlala SCANNED GA"Mfonns\Development Review Applicallon.DOC Rev. 12/05 Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen Mrs. Megan J. Moore 3891 W. 62°d Street Chanhassen, MN 55331 February Oh, 2006 Petition for Variance on Setback for Front Detached Garaee The following are the Hardships which should be considered for this petition. In the process of removing 5 building from this property and obtaining a permit for a pole barn, it was determined that 3 of the 13 buildings on this property did not have building permits issued when they were built. During the permit application process it was noted that the front garage did not meet setback requirements. Therefore, I seek a variance. This home and property has existed in its current location since the founding of the County of Carver. It is among the first farms to be homesteaded in the Schmid Acre Tracts. I am the 4'" generation to live and farm in this area- The reaThe main home was built in 1896 and its location preexisted setback standards. This home faces East towards the park and towards a proposed road the city will put in should the surrounding properties sell to developers. Consequently, the garage would be well within city setback requirements. The front garage was built in 1996 with a setback from 22 to 24 feet for 3 important reasons. 1. To create a safe, enclosed front yard for my children. 2. To conserve enough space between the house and garage for a vehicle to maneuver between. 3. To minimize the impact of increased traffic on the often dangerous curve at the comer of W 62°d Street and Cathcart. Decreasing the space between the home and the garage (thusly increasing the front setback) would create an additional important hardship. My sister's special needs commuter bus would not be able to pull all the way into the yard up to her handicap ramp so that she may embark/disembark and then turn all the way around and exit the driveway onto a busy street safely. The driveway as it is now allows for greater safety for her and her coworkers as well as those drivers which routinely use West 62°d Street in their commutes. Finally, I respectfully submit that the existence of the this garage contributes to the aesthetics of the neighborhood because it stores the accessible vehicles and specially enabled chairs, bikes, strollers and supports which give my sister a more positive adult experience (but take up a lot of space). I would like to note here that this variance request is, for my part, willingly brought forward with no complaints or questions from neighbors or from personnel who visit yearly. Please grant this variance as there seems no detrimental effects on anyone or anything in my area. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated by my family and me. Thank you_ Sincerely, Mrs. Megan J. Moore SCANNED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of 2006, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corpo on ("City") and GARY CARLSON ("Carlson"). WHEREAS; Carlson owns a home on certain real property (the "Subject Property") located in the City, the legal description of which is set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby .made a part hereof, and WHEREAS; Carlson's desire to construct a pole barn ("Pole Barn") on the Subject Property and demolish the five existing structures denoted to be removed on the survey dated January 26, 2006 ("Existing Structures") upon completing the construction of the Pole Barn, and WHEREAS; The City is not required to issue a building permit for the Pole Barn until the Existing Structures have been demolished; WHEREAS; The City is willing to issue Carlson a building permit and allows him to begin construction on the Pole Barn without first demolishing the Existing Structures; NOW, THEREFORE; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Issuance of a Buildine Permit: Provided the Pole Barn proposed by Carlson meets all of the conditions for issuance of a building permit, as determined by the City, and complies with the terms of this Agreement, the City agrees to issue to Carlson a building permit for the Pole Barn to be located on the Subject Property. 2. Demolition: Carlson shall demolish the Existing Structures before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Pole Barn. Carlson shall demolish and remove the Existing Structures no later than August 1, 2006. 3. Costs: The costs of the demolition shall be bome entirely by Carlson. In the event Carlson does not demolish the Existing Structures within the above described time frame, Carlson consents to the City arranging for the demolition of the Existing Home as soon as reasonably practical. Carlson has given the City a $5,000 security escrow for the demolition of the Existing Structures. Carlson shall pay for all of the City's expenses, beyond $5,000, incurred in the demolition of the Existing Structures; provided, however, that if any portion of said costs be outstanding more than thirty (30) days after mailing of an itemized statement for the costs to Carlson, the deficiency shall be certified by the City Clerk to the County Auditor for the entry on the tax rolls of the County as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Carlson hereby agrees to waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to any assessments against the Subject Property concerning the costs of demolition, including but not limited to the Notice and Hearing requirements, and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. Carlson waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to law or equity. Upon completion of the demolition and removal of demolished material, the City shall release the escrowed security after written request of the property owner, verification of said demolition and removal, and subject to the City not baving performed, or having contracted to perform, said demolition and removal of the Existing Structures. 4. Release: Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby forever extinguish, release and discharge the City and any of its elected or appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, of and from any and all claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit as stated in this Agreement or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. 5. Indemnification• Carlson, for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby agree to defend, indemnify, keep and hold the City and any of its elected and appointed officials, employees, attorneys, agents, inseminators, representatives, insurers and assigns, harmless from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, which arise from the City's issuance of the building permit or from the construction of the Pole Barn on the Subject Property, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorney fees, costs and expenses. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: t./ Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) n )ss. COUNTY OF l Ckryer ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Vo-� h day of �2Ll CA (q7, 2006 by Todd Gerhardt, the City Manager respective of the City of Chanhassen, d Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. (Notary Seal) inMT= an10 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF( CoVe "t -I I )�L �ev� N tary Public G Y CARLSON The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Llo�h day of Ctb'rucLv'J 2006, by Gary Carlson. No ary Public (Notary Seal) =taty j#,N 10 EXIT `1A" That certain tract bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point 648 feet East of the Northwest comer of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, and 16 Vh feet South of the North line of said section; and on the Easterly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence South 49°22' West along said right of way line a distance of 307 feet; thence South at an angle to the left of said right of way line of 4820' a distance of 391.8 feet along the West line of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6, thence East along the South line of said Lot 6 a distance of 524.5 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 591.35 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 6, and thence West along the North line of said Lot 6 a distance of 287.6 feet to the point of beginning. Except the North 217.75 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts; ALSO EXCEPTING: The South 217.75 feet of the North 435.5 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts according to the recorded plat thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING: That part of the East 200.00 feet of Lot Six (6), Schmid's Acre Tracts, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies South of the North 435.5 feet. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March. 23, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Gary Carlson Variance — Planning Case No. 06-12 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. Kare J. Engel t, Depu Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me this-2rd day of (marc% 12006. ' KIM T. MEUMSSEN Notary P lic otary Public-MinnesotaJ#N y conwnk s on E m Jan 81, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, Aril 4 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for Proposal: the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from Proposal: the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62ndStreet 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 at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments -are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/06-12.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Questions & imetzerOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure; • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to oommerciaVindustrial. • 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. Offen 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. It you wish to have something to be Included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, Aril 4 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from Proposal: the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62nd 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 at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/`06-12,html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Questions & imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, 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 recommendatlon. 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 commerciavindustrlal. • 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 Coundl. It you wish to have something to be Included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. This nap is neither a legally recorded rrep dor a survey and is not Intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, inbmaUon antl data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources mW&* Me area shown. attl is b be used for reference purposes orgy. The City does not warrant that de Geogmphk thiorrretlon System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map ant error free, add Me CRY does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting me taumrrent of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geogrq*dc features. It errors or disaepandes are Land please contact 952-221-1107. The pmcedrg declaimer is provided pursuant to MMrosom Stables §466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and Me user of fns map acbawledgea Mat tle City shall nd be Mable for any danages. and expressly waives atl dame, and agrees to defend, Indermify, and hold hamiess tle City from any and aft claims brou in by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the usees access or use of data provided lain Mnevasli vraaanuer This rrep is neither a legally recorded nap nor a wavey and is not intended to be used as ore. TMs map is a compilation d records, infomxation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown. and is in be used for mlerence purposes only. Tho CRY does not warrant Mat the Geographic Infomation System (GIS) Data used to prepare Mis crap are error t.. aM Me City does rot represent Mal Me GIS Data can be used for rwigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exactlrg rneewrertent d distance or direction a precision in Me depiction of , eograpNc features, ff more or discrepancies are fond pease correct 962-221-1107. The preceding disclaimer is proWded Pursuant to Nnnesota Stables §466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and Me user of this map ackn edges Mat tee City shall rot be liable fa any damages, std expressly v awes all darns. and agrees to defend, irMartnify, aM told lamiess Me City Iron a, and all claim brarpll by User, as ertpoyees or agents, or hand panties which arise out of Me usefs access or use of data prodded. HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON HOMES LLC HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER 27110 62ND ST W PO BOX 21327 300 STH ST S EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8907 EAGAN , MN 55121 -0327 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55487.1308 STEVEN L & SUZANNE M BRADLEY D&G OF CHANHASSEN LLC RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER 6175 STRAWBERRY LN 7820 TERREY PINE CT 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8956 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1126 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REG SYST C/O CITIMORTGAGE INC PAUL V & ALYSSA S NESS JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 1000 TECHNOLOGY DR 3732 LANDINGS DR 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR MS 314 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 ST CHARLES, MO 63304.2239 STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY JOSHUA E & HEATHER M HAYES BLAKE L BOGEMA 6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 3861 LINDEN CIR 3841 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7728 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7728 VICTOR 0 & DIANE T MORAVEC KEVIN T & MAUREEN S FARRELL LARRY L & USA M NELSON TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6541 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3860 LINDEN CIR 3821 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9655 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7728 VINCENT & JANICE FEUERSTEIN MICHAEL BARNES & DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 3880 LINDEN CIR TAMARA A DEVOS 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 3840 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8057 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON DAVID W & JULIE ANN TERPSTRA MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS 3820 LINDEN CIR 6581 JOSHUA CIR C/O NANCY NARR EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7727 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7726 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7703 BRICK HOLDINGS LLC CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING THOMAS & MARY ALLENBURG 117 WILDWOOD AVE 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKY BIRCHWOOD , MN 55110 -1624 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 MARY LYNN KNUTSON-ROGERS KEVIN R & MARY E HOFFMAN MARK W & JULIE W MCARTHUR 3851 LESLEE CRV 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3765 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9631 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9712 KENNETH C DURR MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE KEVIN R & JULIA E PROHASKA 4830 WESTGATE RD 7250 HILLSDALE CT 6424 LANDINGS CT HOPKINS , MN 55345 -3931 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7548 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9713 THOMAS R & KAREN C LONDO R KENMORE & ELOUISE M JOHNSON WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN 3764 LANDINGS DR 3748 LANDINGS DR 3780 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON ROBIN S O'MEARA 3790 MEADOW LN 3800 MEADOW LN 3814 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 BRIAN R CARLSON JEFFREY F JEWISON & JEFFREY R BERGE & 3828 MEADOW CT LISA J WECKWERTH DENISE E ZOELLMER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 3842 MEADOW CT 3856 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG JOSE E GARCIA-MUNOZ & 3670 MEADOW LN 3884 MEADOW LN ALMA GARCIA EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7640 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 3891 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 PATRICIA B CHARNEY RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 3861 MEADOW LN 3831 MEADOW LN 3801 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7840 MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC & KEITH R KORINKE WAYNE M HARTUNG & SMI3T71 MEADOW LN EVIC 6310 CHURCH RD TONI R JOHNSON 3771 MEADOW N EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8837 2306 RUSSELL AVE N EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -7840 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55411 -2443 CRAIG C MILLER CITY OF SHOREWOOD GARY CARLSON 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9652 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -880.9 DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL TERRANCE LANE TOLL MEGAN J CARLSON 3841 62ND ST W 6250 CARTWAY LN C/O GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7846 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 JOHN RABY CAROLE D WESTBY GARY R ANDERSON 26960 62ND ST W 27020 62ND ST W 26940 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE R & LESLIE C GLEASON 6130 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW J & DOROTHY A MELDAHL 6180 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RITA A DETRUDE MINNEWASHTA CHURCH 26620 62ND ST W ROBERT CASTELLANO TREASURER SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26715 W 62ND ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEVE KORIN/JANE SMITH 6135 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Y k� � w �. <<I `� <' a? . .. �. , .. NO A � WID It "'e yy S 44� 4, M JN RAMA Lot Survey �• 0000 SE's'-+'="'"' �r I 0 p• s 0 RECEIPT CITYOF 7700 MARKET BLVD. • P.O. BOX 147 WIESENPHONE: (952) 227-110017 RECEIVED OF No. 7$262 DATE l "� — ■ Minnesota Statutes 2005, 541.05 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Legislature Home I Links to the World I Help I Advan JW Office of the Revisor of Statutes House I Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions I Bill Search and Status I Statutes, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes 2005, 541.05 Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes 2005 Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 541 541.05 Various cases, six years. Subdivision 1. Six-year limitation. Except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within six years: (1) upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, as to which no other limitation is expressly prescribed; (2) upon a liability created by statute, other than those arising upon a penalty or forfeiture or where a shorter period is provided by section 541.07; (3) for a trespass upon real estate; (4) for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery thereof; (5) for criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated; (6) for relief on the ground of fraud, in which case the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud; (7) to enforce a trust or compel a trustee to account, where the trustee has neglected to discharge the trust, or claims to have fully performed it, or has repudiated the trust relation; (8) against sureties upon the official bond of any public officer, whether of the state or of any county, town, school district, or a municipality therein; in which case the limitation shall not begin to run until the term of such officer for which the bond was given shall have expired; (9) for damages caused by a dam, used for commercial purposes; or (10) for assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting in personal injury, if the conduct that gives rise to the cause of action also constitutes domestic abuse as http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.uslbinlgetpub.php?pubtype=STAT CHAP_SEC&year=eu... 4/13/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 541.05 defined in section 518B.01. Subd. 2. Strict liability. Unless otherwise provided by law, any action based on the strict liability of the defendant and arising from the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of a product shall be commenced within four years. HIST: (9191) RL s 4076; 1953 c 378 s 1; 1965 c 812 s 20; 1978 c 738 s 1; 1986 c 444; 2000 c 471 s 1 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. Page 2 of 2 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHA P_SEC&year=eu... 4/13/2006 C'OR-13-2006 09:29 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 65128112`.)b H.02 ' _73 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DE ON STREET 340A LMC VACATIONS OR ZONING DECISIONS memo 10/18/1997 145 University.Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 "46.14 0605 Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 ".4 0�9e « Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TAD (612) 281-1290 October 18, 1997 Mike Huseby City Assessor and Zoning Administrator City of Eveleth P.O. Box 401 Eveleth, Minnesota 55734 Dear Mike: I hope you received my fax message a day or two ago indicating that I was still trying to put together a response to your question concerning a statute of limitations that applied to zoning matters and/or street vacation decisions. I think that at this point I have come up with an acceptable response, although I am not absolutely certain of that. I think I told you on the phone two weeks ago that my best guess is that the period runs for six years. Enclosed, first of all, is Chapter 541 of the Minnesota Statutes. Many of the statutes of limitations applicable to various situations are included in this chapter. When I read through the chapter, I could not find much of anything that fit the situation you described. I didn't think that any of the general provisions in Minn. Stat. 541.05 seemed quite appropriate. I also looked through a 1988 memo in our files that outlined some of the statutes of limitations affecting cities, and again did not see one that appeared to be right on target. I could not locate any other discussion or materials in our files that were helpful. At that point, I began checking with attorneys on staff to see if they had any suggestions. I first spoke briefly with Chris Smith, who thought that somewhere in the laws there was a general catch-all statute of limitations that applied in situations that are not specifically spelled out. I wasn't able to locate that provision, other than 541.05, which I had already looked at. My next stop was Kent Sulem, Off the top of his head, he thought that there was a statute of limitations for zoning and/or street vacation decisions, but he was not sure how long it was or where find it in the statutes, and he didn't have time right then to track it down. Kent also suggested that I speak to Carla Heyl, which I was planning to do anyway. Carla does a lot of trial work for the League, and is very familiar with land use issues. Carla suggested that there probably is not a limitations statute pertaining to the two topics, but concluded that the legal doctrine of laches is the controlling factor. As best I can grasp that concept, laches will prevent a party from enforcing a right which he or she has neglected for an unreasonably long time. Carla suggested that I should look at two Minnesota Court of Appeals AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNM/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER OPR-13-2006 09:30 LEAGUE OF MN C:IIIES l 1 b512b1127b h'. 013 cases, Shortridge v_ Daubney v Ci jy of Maplewood, 400 N.W. 2d 841, 1987 (which deals with special assessments, not zoning), and Apple Valley Square v City of Apple Valley, 472 N.W. 2d 681, which is a zoning case, to get a better understanding of how the laches doctrine is applied. (It was at this point that I sent you the fax, stating that I thought I was on the right track in finding an answer.) Note that the Shortridge case (p. 845 and p. 847) quotes another decision, stating that "the purpose of laches is to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovery at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay." Again, this implies that if you knowingly sit on your rights for an unreasonable period of time, you lose those rights, especially if some innocent party would be damaged if you eventually get around to asserting those rights. A scenario that might apply to your situation could go something like this: Joe relied on the city's determination that a piece of property was properly zoned industrial and built a warehouse on that property. After it was built, George, who, from the beginning, knew that the zoning was in error finally challenged the zoning classification. I think in that situation laches might prevent George from making a successful challenge after Joe has finished building the warehouse, especially since George knew all along that the zoning decision was somehow defective. While I was still trying to understand how this principle of laches would tie in with the situation you described, I had a chance to discuss it with a fourth staff attorney, Tom Grundhoefer. While not necessarily disagreeing with anything Carla had told me, Tom indicated he had once concluded the hard way that indeed there L a statute of limitations that does apply, that it is a "catch-all" provision, and that it is not easy to find. We tracked it down in Minn. Stat. 541.05, Subd. 1 (5). That statute states that "Except where the uniform commercial code otherwise prescribes the following actions shall be commenced within six years: .... (5) For criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract. and not hereinafter enumerated." I had simply overlooked that section in earlier attempts to track it down. I don't understand why it would be lumped with "criminal conversation" (whatever that is), but it does seem to provide a reasonable response to your question. I guess it is also possible that some of the other sections of 541.05 might could apply, although my first impression was that they did not. In any event, I am now concluding that the statute of limitations is probably six years. If Tom's analysis is correct, it agrees with what Chris Smith and Kent Sulem suggested, and it does not really contradict what Carla Heyl stated, either. Rather, I think you would have to consider both a statute of limitations (six years) and the doctrine of ]aches when defending the city against a challenge to the zoning/street vacation decision. Since I don't know many specifics and because I am not an attorney, I would definitely follow through with your city attorney to sort out how this information pertains to the city of Eveleth's actions, if it pertains at all. I will send a copy of this letter and enclosures to Mike Fatchin for whatever assistance it might be to him. As you may gather, it was a struggle to end up where I did, and I do not guarantee I got it all correct. But I'm fairly comfortable with my response, and I hope it will be of some help. And it SPR -13-2006 09:30 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 6512ki112yb Y.04 looks like maybe I came up with the right answer (six years) off the top of my head when I spoke to you on the phone two weeks ago, even if it was only a stab in the dark. I should add that all the attorneys I spoke to seemed comfortable with the conclusion that, when a street which divides two zoning districts is vacated, the zoning classifications would split at the center of the former street. I hope this will be of some help. I'm sorry for the delay in my response. Sincerely, {lw V�U0. William Makela Research Specialist cc:Mike Patchin CITY OF MEMORANDUM CIIMSEN TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer U Chanhassen, MN 55317 G:\ENG\Variances\Carlson 04-10-06 PC.dm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. DATE: April 4, 2006 Administration Phone. 952.227.1100 Fax 952 227.1110 SUBJECT: Carlson Variance- 3891 West 62°d Street- Planning Case 06-12 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 Fax 952 227 1190 BACKGROUND Engineering The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback Phone: 952.227.1160 requirement. The existing garage is currently setback 22 to 24 feet from the Fax: 952.227.1170 property line. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 The existing south right of way for West 62°d Street is 18.5 feet per the survey. Fax: 952.227.1110 The north right of way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet. West 62°d Street Park & Recreation lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62°d Street. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 By providing a 30 -foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of Recreation Center damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62°d Street. The applicant 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 has a short boulder wall, approximately two or three feet high on the south side of PP Y g Fax: 952.227.1404 West 62°d Street which provides a physical barrier between the property and the traffic. Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227 1130 The site plan does not identify the small porch on the northwest side of the house, Fax: 952.227.1110 nor does it show the large tree in the vicinity. Based on field observations, it appears that there may be merit to the applicant's claim that a small commuter bus Public works 1591 Park Road would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the Phone: 952.227.1300 garage met the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement. However there would be Fax: 952.227.1310 space for the commuter bus to make a three-point turn — pull up to the north side Senior Center of the house, back-up and exit the property. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 RECOMMENDATION Web She www.6chanhassen.mn.us Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance for the front yard setback for the garage at 3891 West 62°d Street. G:\ENG\Variances\Carlson 04-10-06 PC.dm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. / w"'Al . ru/ M if 6YCALE 200 reZr ?V THE J/Yc1/ 6 d� �pd� 5 0 i e c. 6 Sec. J- TP. //6 N. • T{te Na6,7 • 'acre IIQCt Lot 8 0 T—_ --- TOIII,7SX //7 Norlr �' r----- --------- Tolvn.t/r/p 116 NoAit Ire �y # 3 Lot S � •� Mfol2�hT.S I o 0 LOt 6 °st �0 117 .6 -IT 06 n P Q L vc 7 7,tN5�:0 �Mcz of }:cEGZS`.I R OF DEEDS, ST:,TE OF ?d[NN ESOTA. CUUN7y OF CAaVER. l herchn c-artifV that the .1,"!h n ;aetramea r od m fY- . iEL and , -: ,irYtd CSF Y nr.F.ii �:r • - _ J. Lot Olt 631 e Loi 2 1 raN NoraB Se/1rnicC SBwe//s7 {oos aj es., - 1611 a//nrerl 4y f/iese�iresea/sx //a�1✓e, iY//crm S'c �n ids Evert e$'sya{aosayi9nncc�///i/ ^ Goec zmr Uovz/? jYMi/ler Noracs t?Maron Jasepi Nina ern YXICIPM S r M. cSe�rn, %'/rerescz /i/ianr�„ Emereazr'a f�a irz^ L)arie pcSc gny,YL , /a d, Louis E ma "t / b cSa srnr avr,6 Zezi/Iir /YJar era owpPrs to {1616 SIM/"e offiie��8eaeclrcf SC41r7/iv/ E&Iale� 6167% 714 direcf�ieirs namecz' r t 75116 //of Me Ila, �enedzc/ eSciirni� / �eceusecL� res s/2o1r rr � rYre c7o""./ yecar�G ori �� in /% j�'ecor�C�s p/y;ce 197c Larlrer Go, /Yl7/71� .� /Icr7.e caused7e �sczlr11e fa vle %9urveyed x117 Plcclfece/ zi7 Acre Traels <rncG fo rP�e rzaHis cra ef'e/rnid� Acre 77.ZCIs: ale ren,iiec( as {/1as+Is: Beyir�nr y crz�a�aiirf on We seal on Line s/,Y1U1- vdrecd exnteTory e�/i �6 SzB%feet Fa81-6f'7i,IV,114Ccr Cr oi`cSec�an �, T//6i1!� 7i23/Y 010-4Prir7c�a�//19eridian: tfieroee Ecusf a/ny >r/io ePrlfer ofa z`it o 1nc//e//7�ocrcG ��// a�eef fo crn cu:y/e /rr eS'rcid /�ovcC: T/7e.I7ce SOU4 /6' ce!p,-eas WIgl,'Pe rr7717M4 Fast �o50>{ret /d 7Ie / %• // Ceai�r o1'l`iie /Y/liyneal.6 1s ecrrcG G/en/cOe Road : f17gnGe Sou�/7 82 q/ rees�aad2Sitlinu/es �4esf C94� Ac la/o�7 ceh7er ofSczz; �7oad: fence iPO�'z /O c�rces ur�'•2d►rriiriu/es Ecrs� (6✓r.5-� fee/ /o lcr,�e%Y/irrneh-as/rlrc : �enee /9ou7,� y�9 �leyrees «nom 5cS/n1r11(/ps /Yes/ l 3�6io ee7` a/an9 salil -a ire s/rore : /gencP A -t&/ /Yarf/ Z d/eyrees 1Yes f ///S2 J {eef :) ��errcP / / 6-XR4s f e h fle ('e�an .Z lire IWe Vee/7 Secs. ,P -and 6 : l/7eVice Norfir aloes Per;a/ sea Ii ye (6/S/{eel /0 7,1116. dou> eRsl'erh bO6a7642ry li`roe 01'14e /W. and s/,L. t%A. Riy /if of pry : ri"e Nbrf/a i49 cls Bees E asf a/o ff cSair� Aiy/ri/ofsl y bounor/ar, (e6_4) feel' 7b 1& 80" /iae 0/ 70 &e iod goad: �rence iYorr/7 (%6�� Aeef ;� 41- -58�ea 2111116 arxC 1,0/ace Cif 6 �iiii� 6lww ire dere y at'¢dlcdfe >`lre Aa aC4 d>rcC ca/eLituyr /a jocc6/l:c Lcse forever- 71/C Pa"7e as �r/znul�n on14e aeeo rr�+sra-�, ii��,(,laf_ �/ r)eserU-e for 7T��Jrt�alt use afTrie �e�rs LZ/zLG 7lteiz• a".f'S'i9.s�s cYi sfr7' of I«ae(. yr!//y Xe afoa h;Ie R'ef�rl brzuna,Nl /'' / 9 �1 x eX>`ertc/1i� 7"'W7ge G%ncoe it7 L¢�e iWZ17e/r"Illa er1TcC /nccl>�ea/ 11peser:/e an fe aceor,zjoa,�/r� bjc{f; zit wi/nese of i�r�se /oreseirfs Ne /ter-eu11z /oJ'eI� our /randy arrc! WA L) �lJ—�n�-•�i�L, � _.,_,�� -- �%��1� /%� -r �/�Y — EAL — .��.�..�: - ��-�-��L _' tSEA EA - — — — — — — i-- �S . - `_- `- ..— — — — SEAL '��-ttii1�S/�.✓ �l1 (:L-twti� SEA ------ - - -�- _ - EA - - - — — - - ---- EAL !LA DL STATE or MIN NESoTA� SS. COUNTY o;aYkAeNEP{1y( Gin t� z's Z Q � day of — _ _r q D. /9/L7l, �iel'a,m we, a A1o1'c. PLS%r-v z 12. and for said cowry, /eers0,76-Ay erJpeared 11P1,ivertsor1,v czlescr11eol zh Z17CZJPv l executed t/�e fire oi>� ;r<srzzuzrzer7 ` ctr�d ae�rrzo�Jedye srrict execution 2'0616 f�ieir�ree act anei Geed.---- ---- --- - -- ----- - --- -- - /^f / /Jerez C er¢ry /zar/e Surveyed a/zd 2i/a-/i�c� 77je /«r7cc r�escri hem 7%1 1`�e f TOresi•Ozrt�' I;�sfrumenJ 01 C&Clica/ia7 info acre frac/ss /rirorrr crs Iois r�1zc! I/ie scrire 6are hunn�erez coasecr�fi'.e� from on/e /ti ery�i/ , q /„o ucr16 �iuc7 mown cls rise /�u/r17 7crac7 anc� u rCSserve cL s�`rrr s/o feelt rrl�le 1'"77 t/e �!/1711ed.Crolts II 1e/7Coe Abad 7a La,�P /jlii7Ne�vQ'sfTfC� a7•e 7.(%%!y/`�ii� il?�e �escr72ec/ Oeunds. ,9.//eCis�ccrlees vee y/very is feelarlcl Ct./eIZ;97ei/s of Ce foof_; c1�1c�,/1116 aeearrl�aoy�.ry �af rs a 7rrce [Yr1cl C+orrec� '"Cj�reserll<a'Iio1J Of 7Y7e d`[[rv'e_ STATE o r /YJ/NNESOTq ) }.SS CO UN T Yat N6+1'1VE'PliV 0,77 4XIS ae>arP mem cL 1Yo> wry Pu//,c 717 ZZ ad 7 c Suzil CoU,77 �, t'e/sans/ `�.'loecriec! fYes%y Beuc/z by /ere .irlro ,7 Ybbe hie Toa 5,017 descr71eoe 7-"7 ccad.tryle PxeeufecL /`re {Gre9oriJp 7rISXIru1Herr/ aa?W aer�rJow2ed9eol 7i/ra>L67e e.Yecu1ecL //e sa/7716 as /zis free a"lcz1 4,ol7.rn fuy cYet<- -J- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ureb� eei3O v that Phn tat. !.,r the year ✓ t;fn-i••'r'c TFFANIitE■ .7" PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name anti Address: M1 I - �L/lroor� t;ontact: Mertay< Phone: 0s?j*go4gizl Fax: Email: Mew ^k; ; A_H �- , e t Pk Planning Case No. d(c — Q` Owner Name and Address: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VACeFWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ CC Is13s An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 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. scANNEo PROJECT NAME: 1. 6Lv ISoil ,(d yage_ � (2 vt a LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DFSIr,NGTInN- REASON FOR REQUEST: 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. 1 n Signature'of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date SCANNED GApLAMforms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 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 March. 23, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Gary Carlson Variance — Planning Case No. 06-12 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. K J. Engell t, Depu Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisrd day of M a, -c h 2006. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary lic Notary Public -Minnesota -' My Commissw Expires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from Proposal: the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62nd Street Location: I 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 at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/06-12.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Questions & Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail Questions & imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, 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 commercialfindustrial. • 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 spokespersordrepresentative 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 peison(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. 11 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, April 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from Proposal: the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District — Planning Case 06-12 Applicant: Gary Carlson Property 3891 West 62nd 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 at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/Dian/06-12.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Questions & Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This na i is a mrrpilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error tree, and the CM does not represent Mat Me GIS Data can be used for reavigations. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measumrrant of dietaries or direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. If more or discrepancies are found please comact 952-227-1107. The preceding declaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §066.03, Subd. 21(2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall net be liable for any damages, and enpressly waives all blains, and agrees to defend, indennlfy, and heltl harmless the City from any and all claim brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mir pares which arse out of the users amass or use of data provided. tale Mawra!! This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suney and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infomatim and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources reganting Me area storm, and is to be used for rete amass purposes only The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City aloes not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or pression in the depiction of geographic features. If enore or discrepancies are found please comas 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §066.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall nd be liable for any damages, and tepressly waives all charts, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and held harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mir partes which was out of the users access or use of data provided. HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON HOMES LLC HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER 27110 62ND ST W PO BOX 21327 300 6TH ST S EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8907 EAGAN , MN 55121 -0327 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 -1308 STEVEN L & SUZANNE M BRADLEY D&G OF CHANHASSEN LLC RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER 6175 STRAWBERRY LN 7820 TERREY PINE CT 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8956 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1126 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REG SYST C/O CITIMORTGAGE INC PAUL V & ALYSSA S NESS JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 1000 TECHNOLOGY DR 3732 LANDINGS DR 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR MS 314 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7724 ST CHARLES, MO 63304 -2239 STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY JOSHUA E & HEATHER M HAYES BLAKE L BOGEMA 6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 3861 LINDEN CIR 3841 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7724 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7728 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7728 VICTOR 0 & DIANE T MORAVEC KEVIN T & MAUREEN S FARRELL LARRY L & LISA M NELSON TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6541 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3860 LINDEN CIR 3821 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9655 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7726 VINCENT & JANICE FEUERSTEIN MICHAEL J BARNES & DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 3880 LINDEN CIR TAMARA A DEVOS 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 3840 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8057 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON DAVID W & JULIE ANN TERPSTRA MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS 3820 LINDEN CIR 6581 JOSHUA CIR C/O NANCY NARR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7726 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7703 BRICK HOLDINGS LLC CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING THOMAS & MARY ALLENBURG 117 WILDWOOD AVE 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKV BIRCHWOOD , MN 55110 -1624 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 MARY LYNN KNUTSON-ROGERS KEVIN R & MARY E HOFFMAN MARK W & JULIE W MCARTHUR 3851 LESLEE CRV 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3765 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9631 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9712 KENNETH C DURR MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE KEVIN R & JULIA E PROHASKA 4830 WESTGATE RD 7250 HILLSDALE CT 6424 LANDINGS CT HOPKINS . MN 55345 -3931 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7548 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713 THOMAS R & KAREN C LONDO R KENMORE & ELOUISE M JOHNSON WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN 3764 LANDINGS DR 3748 LANDINGS DR 3780 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9711 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON ROBIN S O'MEARA 3790 MEADOW LN 3800 MEADOW LN 3814 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 BRIAN R CARLSON JEFFREY F JEWISON & JEFFREY R BERGE & 3828 MEADOW CT LISA J WECKWERTH DENISE E ZOELLMER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 3842 MEADOW CT 3858 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7839 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG JOSE E GARCIA-MUNOZ & 3670 MEADOW LN 3884 MEADOW LN ALMA GARCIA EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 3891 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 PATRICIA B CHARNEY RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 3861 MEADOW LN 3631 MEADOW LN 3801 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC & KEITH R KORINKE WAYNE M HARTUNG & SMIUANA SPASOJEVIC TONI R JOHNSON 3771 MEADOW LN 8310 CHURCH 2306 RUSSELL AVE N EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 EXCELSIOR , MNN 55331 -8837 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55411 -2443 CRAIG C MILLER CITY OF SHOREWOOD GARY CARLSON 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9652 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL TERRANCE LANE TOLL MEGAN J CARLSON 3641 62ND ST W6250 CARTWAY LN C/O GARY & MAUREEN CARLSON 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7846 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8803 JOHN RABY CAROLE D WESTBY GARY R ANDERSON 26960 62ND ST W 27020 62ND ST W 26940 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE R & LESLIE C GLEASON 6130 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW J & DOROTHY A MELDAHL 6180 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RITA A DETRUDE MINNEWASHTA CHURCH 26620 62ND ST W ROBERT CASTELLANO TREASURER SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26715 W 62ND ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEVE KORIN/JANE SMITH 6135 CATHCART DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-12 Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen Mrs. Megan J. Moore 3891 W. 62"d Street Chanhassen, MN 55331 February 15`s, 2006 Petition for Variance on Setback for Front Detached Garage The following are the Hardships which should be considered for this petition. In the process of removing 5 building from this property and obtaining a permit for a pole barn, it was determined that 3 of the 13 buildings on this property did not have building permits issued when they were built. During the permit application process it was noted that the front garage did not meet setback requirements. Therefore, I seek a variance. This home and property has existed in its current location since the founding of the County of Carver. It is among the first farms to be homesteaded in the Schmid Acre Tracts. I am the 4m generation to live and farm in this area. The main home was built in 1896 and its location preexisted setback standards. This home faces East towards the park and towards a proposed road the city will put in should the surrounding properties sell to developers. Consequently, the garage would be well within city setback requirements. The front garage was built in 1996 with a setback from 22 to 24 feet for 3 important reasons. 1. To create a safe, enclosed front yard for my children. 2. To conserve enough space between the house and garage for a vehicle to maneuver between. 3. To minimize the impact of increased traffic on the often dangerous curve at the comer of W 62n8 Street and Cathcart. Decreasing the space between the home and the garage (thusly increasing the front setback) would create an additional important hardship. My sister's special needs commuter bus would not be able to pull all the way into the yard up to her handicap ramp so that she may embark/disembark and then tum all the way around and exit the driveway onto a busy street safely. The driveway as it is now allows for greater safety for her and her coworkers as well as those drivers which routinely use West 62°d Street in their commutes. Finally, I respectfully submit that the existence of the this garage contributes to the aesthetics of the neighborhood because it stores the accessible vehicles and specially enabled chairs, bikes, strollers and supports which give my sister a more positive adult experience (but take up a lot of space). I would like to note here that this variance request is, for my part, willingly brought forward with no complaints or questions from neighbors or from personnel who visit yearly. Please grant this variance as there seems no detrimental effects on anyone or anything in my area. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated by my family and me. Thank you. Sincerely, SCANNED CITY OF CI MEMSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park 6 Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning It Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fac 952.227.1110 Public Wats 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Krone: 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web She www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us June 24, 2005 Gary Carlson 3891 West Vd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Gary: As you know, I have been concerned regarding the lack of shelter for all of your horses for many years. We discussed the delapitated buildings on your property which are not adequate. I am requesting that you obtain (or build) a covered shelter large enough to contain all of your horses at their free choice. Be advised that you must obtain the proper permits before building or moving a structure on your property. I will be conducting a re -inspection of your stable on September 1, 2005 for compliance of this request. It would be great if you could have this shelter up as soon as possible because of the bug problem, so please give me a call if you are able to comply sooner. Thank you for your cooperation, Gary. Sincerely, Carol Dunsmore, Stable Inspector CHANHASSEN LAW ENFORCEMENT PC: Justin N iller, Assistant City Manager Steve Torell, Building Official RECEIVED DEC 1 2 2005 gAsafety�uolxgarycartsona.aoc - CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channinq downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A broad place to live, work and play. TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: February 27, 2006 SUBJ: Review of variance request for setback restrictions for a garage located at 3891 West 62"d Street. Gary Carlson. Planning Case: 06-12 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have the following comments: 1. The garage, and addition to it, were both built without the required building permits. A building permit must be obtained and the building must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. G/safety/st.memos/pl"n/variance/3891 West 62nd Street 2 CARLSON VARIANCE 06-12 $200 Variance $50 Recording Escrow $250 Gary Carlson Check #15135 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 553 02/17/2006 3:56:10 Receipt No. 0000559 CLERK: danielle PAYEE: Gary/Maureen 3891 W. 62nd Street Excelsior MN 55331 Carlson ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 2 Recording Fees Total Cash Check Change 250 SCANNED -ection 5, -' 23 West SN011036NI N3SSVHNVH;J 9002 £ 188-� otp C13AI303H 01 1' y0 00 101. �e2 00 1 �s _N,62ND S7W,&'Kl' ff'M 648.0 - 7 M. H.. 984.5 985.2. ° � ' �S8905717 "E 87.10 4rarss `98 V °'o N North line of Lt 6 985.3 46.6 985.2 N N Garage N 22.3 N 9 N 24.3 85.2 984.9 '983.9 985.5 26.3 965.5 rybry Shed a 22 Shed 1979.0 G 22.71 986.8 5.4 House .8 ro m, 1982.7 Shed 4.9 981.1 Aed/6 wegi') 4b, %, i x 979.0 15hed%,,, 153 7-$ 41-1-1 �- (974.7) ire Fence x x x-976.4 x x 974. (975.0) 974.3 '987.8 1 33.5 3 '98 1. 7 777.5 10 40.0 %p o PROPOSED o BUILDING 4 -� am 1 40.0 ioo'9�� '974.2 970.7 qi�• (975.0) 974.0 x x x x x x x- - Wire Fence i� (974.7) SCANNED 973.0 section 5, -' 23 West SN011036SN' 62ND _ S'7W,8'''r' wc�: 648.0 -7-M. H. 984 S 985.2" °! i�S890 7117"E \87.1.0 177.5 N ti Barn 22.1 ti Shed 979.0 "983.9 191< Shed 17.8 ICO 982.7 Shed j978. J i Shed�� ♦ % a 4.3 ' x'979.0 9778x`" i♦Shed% hed� i Vire Fence X- X_ 985. a � North line of Lit 6 Garage 985.2 =984.9 985.5 4.9 FROMMM 19.1,Lr--= 98 7. 7 ,5%%edKhra+nq ) (974.7)----, X x X-976.4 974. (975.0) 974.3 �p 40.0 /D PROPOSED o BUILDING ° -� n L, k "974.2 0/4_ 40.0 /0 '' 970.7 I q13� (975.0) "974.0 IX X X X X X X x Wire Fence i� (974.7) q13. 987.8 985. SCANNED '987.7 X Y --• 973.0 �� N v1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006 dlo-IZ PUBLIC HEARING: RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CASE NO. 06-12. Public Present: Name Address Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Maureen & Molly Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Mara Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from staff? Jerry, any questions? McDonald: Yeah, I have a couple. First of all, do we know when these structures were put in place? When they were built. Metzer: I believe the first one was built in '96 or '97 and I don't know the exact dates of the other two but within... McDonald: Okay, and then on the drawing, it looks as though we did some trading for 5 structures to create the barn structure. Have the other structures been removed yet or are they in the process of doing that? Metzer: We're going to, we have a date set in the signed agreement with the applicant that those will be removed by a certain date. ...off the top of my head but the agreement is signed that the structures will be removed by a certain date. If not the city will use it's... escrow to hook up. McDonald: Okay. And then when we look at the amount of space that these other buildings take place, and the 5 buildings are pretty much a wash with the barn. You just consolidated all those into kind of one area. But aren't we still over with structures A, B and C? Don't they also create a problem that's there also as far as the amount of square footage detached that's allowed? Metzer: Well from what records we have, minus the three that were built without permits, those are grandfathered structures basically because they've been in existence before current ordinances. McDonald: Right. 18 OWNED 4 . 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Metzer: So by adding the 3 without permits he intensified the non-conformance which the code does not allow. McDonald: Okay. So if we deny his permits for say Building C and B and A, what's the alternative? Does he have to tear them down in order to be in compliance? Metzer: Correct. McDonald: Okay. Thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? No questions at this point? Alright, with that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and tell us if you have anything to add to what staff is presenting. What's in the staff report and so forth. If you want to start with your name and address for the record please. Appreciate that. You might want to pull the microphone a little towards you, yes. Thank you. Megan Moore: My name is Megan Moore. I resides at 3891 West 62°d Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota. I live there with my family. My husband and my 2 children. I would like to submit a letter from our neighbors the Keel's who live directly to the east of us. Just in support of the variances. Sacchet: Okay. Megan Moore: The Keel's house is. Sacchet: Right there, okay. Megan Moore: So this property represents a legacy which I look forward to passing on to my children. That is to say that the agricultural nature of 3891 requires adequate housing for livestock, feed, implement and machinery. Which one's are A, B and C? I don't really know Josh. Sacchet: It's the green ones. Metzer: Yeah, A, B, and C. Megan Moore: So B and C are machinery and loafing sheds. The residential nature of 3891 requires that safety and aesthetics retain high priority. For me the safety of my children and my sister, Molly Carlson, are paramount. These variances when granted provide the safe environment that Chanhassen, I think Chanhassen has always striven for. At the same time respecting the diversity that my family represents. As Executor I respectfully request that the Board approve the variances as the storage facilities benefit our comer of Chanhassen. Thank you for your time. Your hard work. Appreciate the time, I spend a lot of time on boards myself and I'll be available for any questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from the applicant? 19 J 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, I've got some questions following up on all this. When were the structures built? Megan Moore: I think that my dad knows the answer to those questions so he'll be speaking in a second. McDonald: Okay. The issue of safety on Building A. If that were to be moved the number of feet that it's talking about, how does that impact safety? Megan Moore: On this corner of the building and sort of along the front by the building, that's where my kids play. This is my daughter's playhouse. Their bikes and there's agiant tree right here. All that space isn't, it's not all driveway space. Do you know what I'm saying? And so while I understand that my kids could play in the driveway, I prefer that they don't. Especially when I know that at any time virtually during the day a UPS truck needs to back in there or whatever, but it's just, knowing that my kids have that extra buffer of safety when there are big vehicles and it's difficult to see behind when I have a 5 and a 3 year old. I think those, to me those are the vital safety points that I'm really protective of. So does that answer your question? Jerry, right? McDonald: Yes. Well I guess what I'm not sure of is, the number of feet you've got to move to come into compliance is not all that much. You're at, I think you're at 22 feet and you need to go to, is it 30 Josh? Metzer: Right. McDonald: So we're talking about 8 feet and in order to come into compliance at least with where that's at, I don't see where giving up 8 feet you've lost anything. Megan Moore: I see your argument but between the sort of area between the front of the house and the front comer of that garage, which is like this area right here. I don't think, I think the 8 feet would be significant. I don't think the vehicles can safety even pull out of the garage if that were removed. Especially right where the tree is. So it's hard for me to point it out on this picture but the tree is sort of sticking out, you can see the shadow of it on this picture, but I think 8 feet would be fairly significant to be honest. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, why wasn't the city consulted as far as building permits? Megan Moore: I didn't build it so again my dad can address that. McDonald: Because yeah, I'd like an answer to that question and also when these were actually built so I guess when your dad comes back, I do have some ongoing questions that I would like some answers to there. Megan Moore: Sure. FU 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Sacchet: Any other questions for her? Larson: Just a quick one. Megan Moore: Sure. Larson: Is the driveway from the main road leading to the house right there? Megan Moore: The driveway leading from the, I'm sorry. Larson: Yeah, look at this one. Where's the driveway that leads to the front of the house? Because it's hard to tell from this. Megan Moore: It comes along the trees here. Comes around. Larson: Oh that way? Here I was thinking it was the other way. Megan Moore: It's like underneath the shadows of the trees. Larson: Okay. So that's where the driveway is. I know you're saying that the kids, it would impact the area where your kids play. I thought it was more behind the house so I'm confused. Megan Moore: Well my kids. Larson: I know kids play everywhere. I have 4, I know. Megan Moore: Okay. Well they definitely don't play right here where they first come in from the, unless we're like taking the bikes and going out onto the trail or something. The trail leads right along our property right there. But they do, this is all their play area. This is more like parking and drop off areas so I can't really use that for play area. My concern is here, between the house and the garage. They play there. Their bikes are stored in that area. Their tric's. Their little mini type car things. Oh my god, everything. Larson: Okay now, so but what you're saying is. Megan Moore: Well but the cars do come through here. There's this place to park extra vehicles here if we have somebody visiting. Larson: On a regular basis? Megan Moore: And UPS guys, which are frequent visitors. Larson: Now why would they go that way when there's more room the other direction? Obvious to me looking at this. 21 0 • Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Megan Moore: Because they like to drop it off at this most northern door, which is my door. I think because mainly they know that I'm home all the time and so they ring my bell because I'll come and answer the door. Larson: So the one letter that was attached regarding having a van be able to turn around. Where does that, show me the route that that van takes. Megan Moore: The van pulls in and pulls right past this, pulls in the driveway. Pulls right here and has to get up to the ramp which you can actually see the ramp on the picture. It comes out right here. It has to be able to get in and face this way so that the, when the door comes out on the. Larson: Actually the photograph I have is more clear than what I'm seeing there but I can see where you're pointing now. Megan Moore: But anyways like in blizzard weather like we had this March, Molly's literally coming down this ramp and able to get right from the ramp onto the, I mean it's, and really it's better that way because her wheelchair for some reason doesn't make it through snow all that well. Larson: Yeah I can imagine. Megan Moore: So it's handy and it's handy for her to not be in the cold for too long or the rain. I mean her machine is really sensitive to getting wet. Her power wheelchair. Larson: Well that aside, because just looking at this, it appears that like Jerry McDonald said, if you were to move the building this way, that's not impacting where the van is coming and the UPS guys, you can put a sign up or something, you can't go this way. You know what I mean? Megan Moore: Right. Larson: So to me moving the garage, and I know it's going to be a pain in the neck to do that but the 8 feet, I don't see how it's going to really impact that big driveway area very much you know, other than the fact that I know it's a hassle to do that. But I kind of tend to agree with Jerry on this. Megan Moore: Okay. I just would like to reiterate that I think it's not safe. That's pretty much my stance on that. Mainly because I've seen them try and pull it in and out. Sacchet: So it's not safe when there are vehicles going through there. But I think what, where Jerry and Debbie are coming from is that, the vehicles don't really have to go through there. There's no requirement. I mean the van pulls up on the other side of the house. There's plenty of space in the area. I mean there's no need for the vehicles to go there, is there? Megan Moore: But I think that they do. They do, my sister loads off of this end of the building out of her van. Her van parks in this garage. 22 Planning Commission Meeting — Apri14, 2006 Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Papke: Could the requirement be met, since the infringement is really on the northwest corner at about a 45 degree angle, has the city planners looked if they chopped off the fourth stall, would they be in compliance? Metzer: The diagonal, the 45 degree line is actually considered the side property line, so the setback there is only 10 feet. It's from the short, it's the area up here. From this, the setback in here is 22 feet. Papke: Okay, so there's no way by eliminating a stall that we could get within, the whole building would have to physically be moved. Okay. Sacchet: Okay? Is that it for questions? Thank you very much. Megan Moore: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing and we know your dad is going to say something too so I'd like to open the public hearing and anybody who wants to address this item, please come forward at this time. And if you want to state your name and address for the record, appreciate that. Mara Carlson: Good evening. Pardon me. Good evening, my name is Mara Carlson. I also live at 3891 West 62°d Street and there's a couple things that I myself can clear up for you. Number one, the driveway issue does not end here. This is not the end of our driveway. Cars move continuously past this. This is our access area for all the rest of our agricultural needs, which I'll be addressing shortly. So there is a constant need for vehicles, and large vehicles that carry feed and materials for our ban to get through here, so it's not just a regular small driveway that a compact car or family van passes through but it's a large piece of machinery that needs to pass through there. Second of all the, I believe it's Building, this building here which is Building C was built approximately 12 years ago. Okay, so as I stated my name is Mara Carlson and I am the person responsible for the horse activities that have taken place on this hobby farm for the last 24 years, and I would also like to address the issue of hardship concerning these two buildings, the 23 by 24 loafing shed and the 21 by 22 machine storage shed. Our horses need these two buildings for their safe and proper care. That's the facts. Our horses need the loafing shed for shelter when they are confined to that section of the pasture, either for nutritional reasons or health reasons. And they need the, excuse me I need the machine shed for storage of my tractor mower and for other horse related care equipment. Again for the safe and proper management of their pasture environment. I need to be able to mow weeds. I need to be able to keep pollutants from their environment so that they don't contract issues and health issues that can be related to non -proper management. It would be an extreme hardship and certainly a safety risk for me to try and manage our horses without these buildings. I very much want to continue having a safe and healthy horse operation and therefore I support the granting of the variance and the relief. Finally I would like to just ask, request that you keep in mind that by building these two pieces of shelter, that the intention was not to increase the value of the 23 Planning Commission Mee• g — April 4, 2006 • property. Of course a new shed is going to be more valuable than an old shed. That's just the facts of life. But it was built with the intention of preserving a portion of the original intent and use of this property, which was agriculture and was established, as was mentioned, back in 1913. 112 years ago. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address this item. Please come forward at this time. Looks like we meet the whole family this time. Molly Carlson: Hello. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62°d Street in the handicap addition that you granted the variance for last year. I again I want to thank you for that. It was ... allow to keep my garages where my dad built them. By moving them from our front door... The garages need to be where they are so that I can get easily from my.:. If the garage is on the back side of that, I am not able to ... so I'm requesting that you grant the variance. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing is still open. Now we get to dad. Alright. Please state your name and address for the record. Gary Carlson: You'll have to please excuse me because we're getting into a grandfathered frame of mind here where we've all had to change occupations coming, we probably took care of our families before we came down tonight to make sure the kids were all safe and supper was over. And likewise I've been privileged to be in the city of Chanhassen for many, many, many years. My name is Gary Carlson and I'm the third generation in this area and we've maintained this hobby farm pretty much the way it was intended. Way we received it from the original developers, I mean original owners. I just want to give a quick overview tonight and then talk about a little bit on each of the variances and then I'll sit down and be glad to answer any further questions. It's just going to take a little bit to get up to speed. To get up to where we can be on the same page over this property has been there and pretty much it's evolving state for 112 years. I had to refer back to the county records. I thought it was 1896, but it was actually 1894 so we got a couple years older. Now the first question I always get when I get on my farm outfit and when I'm out in public is, what is that on your hat? And those in the ag business kind of know what it is. Iwamec is a bull enhancer, similar to Viagra which I might need some of after tonight. Now the property overview to begin with has been covered quite well by Josh from the City of Chanhassen and so we know where it is. It's up in the very corner of the city and it's been operating as a unique piece of agricultural property for many, many years. And what we have tonight is we're here to settle the zoning. To bring these 2 variances up to par. We were in here last year and got a variance for Molly's addition and this year we're bringing some variances on line to cover the I guess the accessory structures and also the setback variance. And they kind of came about originally with Molly's addition and then wanting to bring in a pole barn to replace our old barn. I became aware that there was a couple sheds and one garage that had some questions on, and so we're here to clear those up. And why we are operating in this unique fashion is in a grandfathered position on one side. We have nothing in the city that we can, there's no pile of rules and regulations on grandfathering. There's not a lot of help given in the city's guidance. Let's take a quick look at what Carver County, how they govern their initial look at this. The mission statement from Carver County, it's a very short paragraph. It's on their web page. We will plan the county's growth to preserve it's uniqueness and we will 24 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 encourage rural and urban compatibility. We will further endeavor to protect our historical past. So Carver County is trying right at the onset to get urban and a rural working together and living together. But as far as the laying, you come with to the City of Chanhassen and they have mention of it. Let's see how positively they mention it and whether rural and urban can compatible with together. I guess our terms are that we referred to is non -conforming. That doesn't sound good right there. To be non -conforming. Pre-existing. I mean that sounds like prehistorical so we have a little hill to climb there. The city staff has, which I have to commend them. They're very knowledgeable. They're very helpful. They get back to you. I've got properties in other states and in other counties and I find our city staff to be number one. They're very, very good. Very helpful, but they only have the zoning laws to work with. They only have the zoning rules and regulations to work with, and when they go to work on something they have to say well is it within that or is it without that? And so their recommendations show that they have to stay within that zoning and they've made findings that our property is a little bit unique. So where are we going to get relief and where are we going to get help because there's no set of rules and regulations for us. Being a non -conforming property. Well, our balance of power comes from you folks. It'd be nice if you had hobby farms or if you lived in a business that you had to run independent of what was maybe the norm in the area but you're still independent thinking people and you know what's right and you know what's the best thing to do. And so you can interpret grandfathering. You can interpret non -conforming use. If it's unique. If it's something that should be carried forward into the future, you can support that and you can come up with whatever motion you wish. You don't have to follow the city's permission. As I say, they must stay within their zoning and they're going to recommend things along the zoning line. I watched other Planning Commission meetings and I know that you do support diversity. You very much tried to get the non -conforming, I mean some uniqueness and different buildings that are going on in the city. And so we feel that maybe we're possibly climbing out of that hole a little bit and, with being before you tonight. Now Mr. Carlson, where are you with city zoning? Do you support city zoning? Or are you this maverick way out here on the edge and we want to just be sure that you don't get expanded. You don't change and if you do anything to change anything, and it's not occurring within a year, then you can't do it anymore. You're phased out. Well, on the contrary, Megan I need, or Josh... Will that come up on the overhead? Okay, Gary Carlson and Maureen Carlson, my wife is here tonight. We developed Minnewashta Meadows, right here. A 16 lot development. We came on board. We had no variances whatsoever in that development. We have, it's developed into a very unique and very neat neighborhood. Those folks sell their homes on a regular basis and they're happy to have that development. We developed that and my wife named the streets and it was completed with all your zoning and laid out and a perfect neighborhood. I, myself built the home, a second home that we still own. It adds to our acreage. I guess you can see on the survey, it's this down here. You see all our buildings that we're talking about are up here. It's this home right there and that again was all built within the city's zoning and setback no variances needed on that home. So we support the zoning. And Mr. and Mrs. Carlson and the Carlson family have always supported the new development following these plans but we're pre-existing on this ag site and we don't mean to say that we're above the zoning but we very much recognize what our grandfathered property has done for us, and that we're hoping to show you what's it done tonight. So you can see that I do support the variances and I can certainly work within them and I have. The, what has Mr. Carlson done for the City of Chanhassen? Well I've done a couple... that I won't mention right now but the one thing I have done, there's a new development going 25 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 • into the south of us. That's been going through the Planning Commission. I think it's pretty well all approved and running. Hidden Creek Addition. I've entered into an agreement with that developer to completely come onto my property by 200 or 300 feet. Landscape my property down to meet him in a proper fashion and the city's approved all that. That grading but it's giving up my land to let them do it, and what's better for the city is to have a proper grading from me to the new road, and I've allowed that to come on board. What that's going to allow for those neighbors down there, which there's some very expensive homes going in there ... more homes, you'll be looking out into what will be a very positive thing for them. A nice horse pasture with the property split rail fence and properly graded down to their development. Now I'm asking the city to do some things for me, and that is to look at these variances very carefully and see if they're, you're not opening the flood gates. You're not saying well we're going to have every resident in here wanting 5,000 accessory structures. 5,000 feet of accessory roof and we want to change our setbacks all along the front. We're not going to do that if you grant these variances. In fact you'll be setting the standard quite high because there's no other property like our's. To get a little understanding of the property, we have 4 residences within that home. Four completely separate residences. Separate entrances. Separate washer. Clothes washing facilities. Separate exits and entrances. Besides the ag operation, you know we operate the other businesses. I've been fortunate to be my own, I haven't worked for anyone since I was 41 years old. You couldn't say I've been retired but I've been self sufficient. This property has helped with that. And so it's, we've had one of the best realtors in the area try to find us another property because the developer that did this property to the south did want our property to develop, and we looked for 6 months. There's nothing comparable to this property. It's not just the land. It's what's the investment in the structures. And we certainly don't care about price. Our intent is not to gain further value. I suppose in 112 years we could have sold it several times. Now I just want to speak carefully or quickly to each of the variances. Thank you for listening to my overview. I'm sure it might have generated a few more questions. The variance for setback on West 62°d Street would be an additional 8 feet. Well the building is built, but we can, if we moved it back 8 feet it would block the front of the house from having proper fire equipment being able to get around it. I mean I have to really be responsible for the other people that live in this property. We have other tenants that aren't all family members. I have my daughter who lives in the handicap addition, but the other 2 apartments are complete, I mean they're just folks that are looking for affordable housing and we provided it. We provided it for years. When it was divided into, I mean I didn't need 15 bedrooms when I bought the house so it was divided and it's been maintained. You wouldn't know that it was built in 1896 if you walked into it. It has 10 foot high ceilings. Has a saloon. It has 3 whirlpools. Has garage. Heated garage. Attached. My garage. Has a sunroom. Has a couple porches. Now it's a little bit confusing whereas on the survey, which the city has to work off of. When we do a certified survey, anything that isn't enclosed they don't show. So they don't show on this, of the original building, the space between it. They don't know the entrance back here. It's a covered entrance but it's not enclosed entrance. They don't show Molly's handicap ramp that comes down here and out into the driveway. Her driveway comes out in the driveway. And I guess there's a carport actually on this end here. They don't show it because it's just a free standing carport. So those aren't ever shown on a registered survey because they're not enclosed, but they actually show my daughter, my grand daughter's playhouse I built for her. It's just a little playhouse because it's enclosed, so that's on this survey. Let's stay with the variances here Carlson. Okay, I'm trying to. So the setback. Now we're trying to work on the variance for the setback. As you 26 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 go down West 62°d, the next property to us has a structure within 10 feet of West 62°d. You go to the next property to the east of this and they have a structure that's within 15 feet of West 62°d. We're 22 feet back from West 62°d. The additional safety feature of that is that these people come screaming down Cathcart and they used to come zipping and they missed the curve a lot of the rimes with the new kids that learn to drive, especially towards spring. We a lot of times get them running right up into that curb. And since we built that garage, the full white, because remember it's white. When they're coming down the street, you see something, your headlights reflect off it and even in snowstorms, it looks something different. You're not looking like an open road. You're seeing a white. Even it's 22 feet back. We have not had one accident on that curve since we built that garage, so by taking the garage down or moving it, it would cause, will let some more kids, usually it's kids, up into that. But when you see, roaming around the Dakotas and you see a T intersection, you always see those big white barriers making the T and that's exactly what that garage does for that corner, so we actually added tremendously to the safety of that comer. And as I said with the responsibility of having other folks living in the property, I am concerned that we can get fire equipment around the front of the building. The side of the building. All sides of the building if needed, so by moving that 8 feet it would just squeeze this area and you're going to see 8 feet. And remember these are structures come out here. Trees and so forth. And then you have to have places to stack the snow. So the garage, I don't know if you've been out there and looked, it's exactly in the right place. Yes, it's not back 30 feet but none of the other structures along West 6V are back 30 feet either so we're hoping you grant that variance. As far as the variance for the excessive structure, what is that called Josh? Metzer: Accessory structure. Gary Carlson: Accessory structure, over 1,000 square feet. We have always been over the 1,000 square feet. Ever since that's been there so granting a variance... always been added since day one. We've been over the 1,000 square foot and you're not going to, by granting it us you're not going to have other people coming up, well I want 1,000. You know I want 3,000 square foot. I think the variance, in retro it was a complete surprise when we got the packet. Sorry that that variance request was in there but I did tell the city staff, I said now if there's any other things that are going to need a variance, let's do it this year. Again because I was just here last year. And I guess it's kind of resulting because we're doing some things. The neighbors are doing some things and it's just a chance to look at our property and say let's get the variances that we need in place and Josh was very intelligent. Very smart now. If you approve that variance, he has a condition there of no, do you want to read that Josh. You know what that is. Metzer: Which one? Gary Carlson: The condition that they approve the variance, you're recommending a condition of, it's very intelligent. It does say to the Carlson's, you know fine. You have these buildings. Metzer: Building permits must be obtained? Gary Carlson: No. RVA 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Metzer: No new accessory structure or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted. Gary Carlson: There you go. So it does say to the Carlson farm operation that, I don't agree with it. I really don't want that in there. I mean I don't know what's going to happen in the future. When I started in sweet corn, it was sold in Mike's stand. In fact we got calls a year after, when are you going to have some more. Well Mike Wanous quit selling sweet corn but we used to grow it on our property. Then we went to hay and we did hay for some years. Then we had cattle there for a while. Then we had back to hay and now into horses. We had an apple orchard and we sold apples to Lund's store at one time. So we don't know in the ag, when you're ag and you have ag things going on there, you don't know whether it's going to be soy beans next year or corn or maybe hogs. I mean I'm not going to be quite into those things but you see what I'm saying is, I have to make sure of that land. I can just sit there and watch it. And the other things if you grant the variances, going forward. ...these buildings are going to sit there forever. If I develop, all these buildings are gone and even if the city is contemplating a road to connect into the new addition coming through this property and if that road goes in, this house, it's going to be facing east. So this becomes a side setback. In the beginning I told Josh, well we face east anyway. Let's consider this our front and this our side. He said no, I'm sorry. We can't consider that your front because your front is where your driveway comes in from, but if we get developed and the road goes between you and the neighbor, that will become a viewpoint because it will be our side setback. So I hope I've kind of explained on it. Being a surprise and getting the variance for the number of buildings, square foot of accessory structures just as a surprise to us. If the commission is not feeling positive about these two variances we're requesting, I mean I was just surprised Saturday with this last request. You know I would like to have it tabled and maybe possible... maybe I can take down one of these other accessory structures. Maybe this one will have migrant workers in it at one time. When we bought the property it had a 10 inch casing on the well. I would have supplied water for that end of the city. It's gone through some changes and we're certainly willing to listen to whatever comments and questions you might have. Sacchet: Thank you very much Mr. Carlson. Gary Carlson: I hope that's not taking too much time. It's over 112 years of. Sacchet: Putting 112 years in 20 minutes. Gary Carlson: ...need some help because, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Gary Carlson: Thank you. Sacchet: Well public. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yeah, if you can tell me when these structures were built. I think A was built in 1996. C was probably 1994. When was B built? OR 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Gary Carlson: B is the garage? The four stall garage? McDonald: No B is the loafing shed I believe. Gary Carlson: The loafing shed. That was about, now through this process with building, let's cover that. I just a little bit give you an understanding on it. City of Chanhassen has a wonderful lady, Carol Dunsmore. She also does the horse inspecting and works in the building department, but she's the horse inspector. She might do some other cities around the area. Very wonderful lady. She said in one of her notes, because she makes a note each year. You know whether this horse looks a little, needs something or hooves need, you know whatever she notices. And she wanted more shelter for the horses so she came back the next year and there was a shelter. Well Mr. Carlson, I see you have a nice shelter for the horses. That's very good and that's the last I heard of it, so I mean, and that's from the building. I mean she was very kind. I mean she could have run back and said hey, Mr. Carlson built a horse shelter. Now when I say build a horse shelter, it's, these buildings are all fairly small. They're 21 by 22. They're set way back from the property line. They look like they belong there. They look like they've been there. They have been there for quite a while. I had a list of each size of all these buildings. There they are. The loafing shed was 22 by 24. I mean that's just, it looks, nice little building and it fits right there. The machine shed is 21 by 22. And even a garage is only 20 feet deep. It's not like it's a 20, nobody wants a 20 foot garage. You won't build them that way but I did to keep that strip there for the safety of the building. Keep back from our home. Try to keep certain distance back from the road. The garage was built in stages and all during that time, from Mr. Reed at the time was our building inspector but I think I'm on my about my fifth or sixth building inspector in the time I've been there but, he came out several times that year. Several times the next year. Several times the next year. He never said where's your building permit for that garage. I don't know whether he was, he felt sorry, felt that we were doing the right thing but at the wrong time. Or the wrong time and the right thing. I'm not sure but first, that was always parking area anyway. First I had a slab. The next year it had a carport. The roof trusses went on. The next year we enclosed it. Then the next year put the side next to it. Put a carport over that the next year and the third year we roughed in and closed that, so that garage took 3 to 4 years to build. I didn't just okay, let's sneak that in there. No. We took our time. We said okay. If anybody has any objection, you have not gotten one complaint from any of our neighbors in all the time that we've been there in the 112 years. The neighbors recognize the uniqueness. They enjoy us being there. They have a wonderful sight of horses. They all feed our horses carrots... enjoy the area too. And that's kind of the year the garage was built. The machinery shed has been there for a long time. That's tucked into the other buildings, and as you know, and as you've kind of read through here, we're tearing down 5 structures. Gone. We're tearing out 5. We're moving in a new, well it's only 8 years old. A pole barn from the neighbor when he developed. They were going to tear that pole barn down and we've been working to move the pole barn in. But even with the pole barn we still need when you have horses, you can't have them all together a lot of times. They have a pecking order and the last one will not get a thing to eat so we have to have separate areas for them and separate shelters. We're going to take down all these old buildings that are kind of really, we knew that was coming. It was really dilapidated. It's the only building I never really maintained on the site is this barn, and all those are coming down. Any other questions? 29 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, I have one more for you. Gary Carlson: Sure. McDonald: Why didn't you seek a building permit? Gary Carlson: That's a very good question and I'll be glad to answer that very carefully, but that again might take some time. Being in the city and doing things not only within the city's zoning and I know the rigamaroll. I'm always up against some. I knew from the get go, because I've seen these things through the years. I knew I was over the 1,000 square foot from the get go so they wouldn't approve one stick over what was there. And yet I'm an operating ag farm. You go out and I've just driven by them. You count 13, 17, 6, 9 out buildings. And they're coming and going. They're using them and not using them. You don't see them setting them out on the edge of the road for safety. They're sitting around the person's house and they need them for their ag business, and I'm not different. As I need these buildings, I put them up. Okay, you're in the city. Wants you to get a building permits. The one 13 years ago. Another one 4-5 years ago and one over a 6 year period while Molly's handicap addition was going on. I did not want to deal with the hassle factor. I'm not that, I haven't been treated that fairly. You want me to go into some of those? I can. When I did my development over there, Gary and Maureen Carlson, we want a strip of land 40 feet wide by 120 feet long. What do you want that for? The City said well we have to have access to the neighboring property in case they ever develop. So I did my part of the bargain. I did everything I was supposed to do. I turned certain responsibilities over to the City of Chanhassen and they were to check all plans as they were submitted by the different builders, and somehow the city allowed one of the homes to sit on that easement. So now... Sacchet: Mr. Carlson, excuse me for interrupting. Let's stick with the issue at hand please. Gary Carlson: Well, I didn't get a very fair shake there. I mean so, I have tried to do the right thing when I have to go out and do a proper development. On my property, on the ag property, you do what the farm needs to be done around the farm. Around the property to make it survive and make it viable and that's where these buildings come in and I guess you've heard the other testimony of where and why they're needed. Sacchet: Thank you. I think you did answer the question. Gary Carlson: I mean the City is being protected. In these permits, these building permits that are raised, I've applied for them. A way to see if they will be inspected and looked at just as if they haven't been built yet. I mean they have to meet state building codes. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Gary Carlson: You're welcome. tic Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Sacchet: Public hearing is still open. If anybody else wants to address this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing nobody get up, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. And in this, since it's kind of a unique case who'd like to go first? And make a few comments specifically to some of the statements from Mr. Carlson that I personally feel are important to make. To recognize the aspect of this being a grandfathered use with the agriculture and that's certainly very honorable. We want to help preserve that. However, you made a statement of if we don't feel positive. This has nothing to do with how we feel. We're not up here to be, we have guidance for what we do are the ordinances and the code of the city. This is not supposed to have anything to do with how we feel. And as such, you also made a statement we can do whatever we wish. Well we can't. That's not our role to do whatever we wish. I make that very clear in my opening remarks when we start this evening that our role is to review planning matters that are brought before the city in view of our city ordinances. Our zoning. And determine how do they fly. Okay. We're not at liberty to do what we wish. And then I'll have some other comments but I wanted just to take that up front. Now I saw Jerry you wanted to jump in. Go ahead please. McDonald: Well the one thing I wanted to jump in about was, Mr. Carlson brought up was the possibility of tabling this. There is a number of issues within this that maybe there may be another way to work this out, but you know as you said, based upon the statutes of where we're at now, I think it's pretty clear what our choices are. But if we could gain something by tabling this and coming to a resolution that would be beneficial to all, I would be more than happy to propose that. Mr. Carlson's already agreed that that would be okay with him so that waives the time line. Sacchet: So what would you expect from tabling between now and when it comes back Jerry? McDonald: I would expect a work out because I'm looking for something to be given up here. You know Mr. Carlson seems to hint that there may be some possibilities of looking at some things. I would expect some give and take. This is not just an opportunity to give him more time to continue. What it would actually be is a negotiation with the city to again meet the requirements of a non -conforming structure because as the ordinance says, you can't intensify it and I think that's what's happened, so you know if he's willing to consider some things, let the city look at it and see if we can't come back with something that would be a little bit more agreeable to everyone. Undestad: I agree with Jerry. I mean it looks like what they've worked out with Josh already, they've made some, they can put the barn in. Tear some of these down. Maybe the issues of these other buildings weren't discussed at the time that the rest of this was going through but you know if it makes sense now to jump back and look at that and see if there's some alternatives for you in there to bring it back. Sacchet: There was one aspect that I thought would deserve some research and maybe staff has the answer to that. Mr. Carlson made a statement that, actually said none of the other structures along 62°d Street have as much setback as his garage, and another statement he made is that there are others that are only 10 feet away from the road. What's, do we know what the status is of these other? 31 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 • Metzer: Well due to the age of the subdivisions up in that neighborhood, there are structures that have non -conforming setbacks and there are others that do meet setback. But many of these don't have surveys so it's hard to determine exactly a specific linear number of feet that they're within the front property line. Or the front property line even lies, in fact that's something we could look into more definitely. Sacchet: But then on the other hand, it's my understanding that that doesn't give somebody rights to build something new that doesn't conform. Metzer: No, that it show that there's a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood standards. Sacchet: Debbie, want to add something? Larson: No, I just. Metzer: And it's also worth noting that directly north and opposite of West 62nd is the City of Shorewood so. Undestad: There was also a comment made about the city looking at changing the street through there. Was that? Metzer: I believe the Pipewood Curve from Hidden Creek is going to be, it's intended to be connected to West 62°d. Larson: Can you show us? Undestad: Is that going to change the setbacks on any of that? Metzer. Well I think that the only way that it would be connected is if the subject property here were sold and subdivided. Gary Carlson: And houses were built. Sacchet: Now I hear where you're coming from Jerry and Mark. I kind of feel differently. I think that this is really not the role of the Planning Commission to get into this give and take part to the extent that Mr. Carlson's asking for. To some extent yes. I mean we do have, we have some...but I think to the extent that Mr. Carlson is asking for, this is a matter of City Council. And on that basis I think actually in the interest of expediting this, moving this along, I would think that from our role in terms of the ordinances, our role is really not that usually different from staff, and the primary question for us is, does this conform or is staff applying the rules in a way that is not right? Well, if you look at the rules by themselves, there it is. However, you were pointing out that your circumstances are different, and I think you make a pretty strong point that the rules don't apply to you. I think that we're out of our league to deal with that. I think that's a City Council thing and by us accepting the staff's motion, that would give Mr. Carlson a chance to go to council with it and I think that would be the right place for this to be 32 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 debated and decided upon. Because frankly if we look at the frameworks that are given to the Planning Commission, we're not supposed to grant variances if it is an intensification of non- conformance. We are pretty strongly bound by that. Now aspect is it self created? Well it is self created. I think that cannot be debated. I mean I can certainly sympathize with the idea that you didn't want more hassle and you just did it because you're agriculture and you feel that's right like that. But on the other hand that just underlines that it's self created. So with the criteria that we're given based on the code, city code, I think it's hard to juggle it. I'm not sure what we would gain by tabling it other than maybe get a little more context to what it is with enabling structures that are closer to the road, but then you could argue that those are grandfathered in. They haven't been built in the last 10 years, so I have a little problem. By what would we gain by tabling? We would just prolong the pain. I think we're doing them a better favor by going at it once here and then they can go up to City Council where the City Council has actually the authority to do something about it to the extent that they see fit. Undestad: Yeah I guess you know okay, when does it go to the council? Metzer: That would be April 24th. Undestad: 24'h so that would give them almost 3 weeks to do whatever they could do even if we tabled it and come back to us, so you would have your 3 weeks to work with Josh before you get to the council then so. Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to add something? Papke: Yeah, I have a question for staff. Mr. Carlson stated that in fact there are four independent residences here, and this is zoned residential single family. Is there an issue here? Metzer: No. These were grandfathered in and they also about exactly a year ago from now were granted a variance for use of a single family home as a two family home. Sacchet: Yeah, that was a discussion that we went through not too long ago. Well comments. Discussion. Where do you want to go with this? Or we could venture a motion. I mean at this point. McDonald: I guess Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind I'd like to make a motion to table it, since I did bring it up. And I guess I do feel that there may be something productive to come out of this, or at least to reduce the problem the City Council may have to look at. I probably don't completely feel that we're going to get 100% compliance but I think anything to reduce the issue would be beneficial so I would make a motion that we table this. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion to table it. Is there somebody second that? Undestad: Second. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded to table Variance Request #06-12 for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached 33 • • Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 accessory structure restriction in a single family residential (RSF) district at 3891 West 62nd Street. McDonald and Undestad voted in favor. Sacchet, Papke, Larson and Zorn voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. Sacchet: We have 4 nays and 2 ayes so the motion fails. So do we keep going, right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: We keep going, alright. Somebody else want to make a different motion? Papke: I'll just make some comments here. This is the best case I have ever seen for building inspections. I mean this is why we have building permits so that we don't get into this kind of a pickle. If there were permits for this, this would be a completely different deal. And I guess I do disagree with Mr. Carlson that we don't deal with grandfathering. We deal with this all the time. In particular, how many times have we had people grandfathered in with legal non -conforming lots along Lake Riley with setbacks of various kinds? This is something we deal with routinely and I think we've been pretty consistent about that and pretty consistent about not setting precedence and to some extent Mr. Carlson contradicted himself. In one breath he said well, you know if you grant me a variance here, you know no one else is going to ask for more. And then a few sentences later he stated that there's these other houses up the street that are closer to the street than he is, so you know very inconsistent there so I, this one I agree with Commissioner Sacchet. This is very clear cut. Zorn: I would have to agree along the same lines. The applicant seems very familiar with the development process and a lot of the hoops to jump through and checks and balances and for reasons that he expressed this evening he didn't feel as though he should go through those. Checks and balances and that building permit would have brought all of those to light and we likely wouldn't be sitting here today having to make a difficult decision, or at least what has been brought forth. The family has a difficult decision but it really seems like a black and white case to myself. So I would not, I would be in support to deny the request. Sacchet: Any other comments or points of discussion? Thank you Deborah and Kurt. Undestad: I guess, I mean again, I mean it goes to the council. It gives them time to try to do something in the next 3 weeks and. Sacchet: Yeah, and the council has more maneuvering space than we have in terms of what our charter is. It's very simple. So do we want to venture another motion? Papke: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback from existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the single family residential RSF district at 3891 West 62°d Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. And I order the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the 3 storage buildings and. Sacchet: That's it. 34 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Papke: And that's it. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Zorn: I second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62°d Street, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non -conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: We have 6 voting for this. Nobody voting against it so we are, that would move it forward to City Council. I think that's where it needs to go. Metzer: We need to get a letter from the applicant stating that they would like to appeal the decision to City Council. Sacchet: Right. You want to express in writing is that Josh? Metzer: Correct. Sacchet: That you want to appeal this decision to City Council and I think that City Council are actually the right people. I also want to point out that you will not need to repeat your whole story. City Council does review our minutes and the public hearings that we have here are to a large extent for City Council to get input so they will hear your story. Not just your's but also the other family members to understand what it is so that you will not have to repeat everything there. Okay? So we wish you luck with this. Thank you. 35 AIN CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Gary Carlson and Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-12. On April 4, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Gary Carlson & Megan Moore for an after -the -fact Variance request for relief from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. SCANNED E f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. S. The planning report #06-12 Variance dated April 4, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setback and 1,000 Square foot maximum accessory structure restrictions of the Single Family Residential District for three existing accessory structures built without permits. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 4s' day of April, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION gAplan\2006 planning cues\06-12 carlson variance\findings of factdoc 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 03/28/2006 12:07:59 PM Receipt No. 0006718 CLERK: katie PAYEE: GARY CARLSON 3891 WEST 62ND STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Planning Case #06-12 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 183.00 Total Cash Check 15914 Change 183.00 0.00 183.00 0.00 SCANNED 0 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 9ff OF (952) 227-1100 To: Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Ship To: 0 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 3/23/06 upon receipt QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT 61 Property Owners List within 500' of 3891 West 62nd Street (61 labels) 1 $3.00 1 $183.00 TOTAL DUE $183.00 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 April 4. 2006. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #06-12. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 06-12 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 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 relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62"a Street. Applicant: Gary Carlson. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review 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. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: Lmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 2006) {CANNED Date: February 21, 2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies 0 From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: GARY CARLSON: Variance request for relief from 30 -foot front yard setback requirement for the construction of an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure restriction for the RSF District. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street — Planning Case 06-12 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 17, 2006. The 60 -day review period ends April 18, 2006. 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 March 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Ball. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 9, 2006. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official 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 13. City of Shorewood 14. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Location Map 0 Carlson Variance Request 3891 West 62nd Street Planning Case No. 06-12 W. 62nd SL W. 82nd St. Subject Property m "keVinia ae Gia / s pe 2e RY A `c� .0 pey, Li en / mden Circ% r F Lake Minnewasht restview r 01 / � m e Ck m'e Ame e v e rive a 03w000a 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION rKIN I it Name�n� Address: yin f - torte Phone:OS24d;7.ov-gi21 Fax: Email: Mew z3a�.r� uH� . zar� Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: _ NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) � Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC AR/ AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ aSQ 2"!�-UES LC 1515 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 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 • 0 PROJECT NAME: CO -;r 1'70) C-76 We \ /a' Vi a Yl LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: H�In1 h 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 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1)V6 rwhA-� 2, 1 14- 0 b SignaturJofp icant ate 't Signature of Fee Owner Date r �':3 SCANNED G:1pLAMforms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12105 Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen Mrs.Megan J. Moore 3891 W. 62°d Street Chanhassen, MN 55331 February 15a', 2006 Petition for Variance on Setback for Front Detached Garage The following are the Hardships which should be considered for this petition. In the process of removing 5 building from this property and obtaining a permit for a pole barn, it was determined that 3 of the 13 buildings on this property did not have building permits issued when they were built. During the permit application process it was noted that the front garage did not meet setback requirements. Therefore, I seek a variance. This home and property has existed in its current location since the founding of the County of Carver. It is among the first farms to be homesteaded in the Schmid Acre Tracts. I am the 4'" generation to live and farm in this area. The main home was built in 1896 and its location preexisted setback standards. This home faces East towards the park and towards a proposed road the city will put in should the surrounding properties sell to developers. Consequently, the garage would be well within city setback requirements. The front garage was built in 1996 with a setback from 22 to 24 feet for 3 important reasons. 1. To create a safe, enclosed front yard for my children. 2. To conserve enough space between the house and garage for a vehicle to maneuver between. 3. To minimize the impact of increased traffic on the often dangerous curve at the comer of W 62°d Street and Cathcart. Decreasing the space between the home and the garage (thusly increasing the front setback) would create an additional important hardship. My sister's special needs commuter bus would not be able to pull all the way into the yard up to her handicap ramp so that she may embarktdisembark and then tum all the way around and exit the driveway onto a busy street safely. The driveway as it is now allows for greater safety for her and her coworkers as well as those drivers which routinely use West 62°d Street in their commutes. Finally, I respectfully submit that the existence of the this garage contributes to the aesthetics of the neighborhood because it stores the accessible vehicles and specially enabled chairs, bikes, strollers and supports which give my sister a more positive adult experience (but take up a lot of space). I would like to note here that this variance request is, for my part, willingly brought forward with no complaints or questions from neighbors or from personnel who visit yearly. Please grant this variance as there seems no detrimental effects on anyone or anything in my area. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated by my family and me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. Megan J. Moore �— SCANNED