The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-16_GRAVES, PAUL & LAURArhomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson rhomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Watthew K. Brokl' (ohn F. Kelly Toren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Marguerite M. McCarron mina M. Brandt 'Also Licensed to Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve iuite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 551-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 v .ck-law.com 0 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222 E-mail Address: snelson(a)ck-lamcom June 3, 2005 Ms. Kim Meuwissen Chanhassen City Hall clTv RECEIVEDOF SSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 JUN 0 6 2005 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT RE: Miscellaneous Recorded Variances Dear Kim: Enclosed for your files please find the following recorded variances: 0,4 - 1� • Sign Variance 2002-5 for the REMAX ACTION WEST building which was recorded on 09/11/03 as Document No. A365865. • Variance 2003-15 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7s' Addition (8170 Upland Circle) which was recorded on 07/23/04 as Document No. T147602. • Variance 2003-16 and CUP 2003-8 for Lot 20, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres Second Addition (7474 Moccasin Trail) which was recorded on 03/24/04 as Document No. A382455. • Variance 2003-17 for Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (114 Sandy Hook Rd) which was recorded on 04/07/04 as Document No. T145315. • Variance 2003-18 for Lot 16, Block 1, Greenwood Shores (6900 Utica Lane) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. T146888. • Variance 04-07 for Lots 17 and 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta (3637 South Cedar Drive) which was recorded on 07/26/04 as Document No. A392683. • Variance 04-11 for Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 (795 Ponderosa Drive) which was recorded on 07/15/04 as Document No. T147407. SCANNED • Variance 04-16 for Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5h Addition (8634 Valley View Court) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. A389723. Variance 04-19 for Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres (9217 Lake Riley Boulevard) which was recorded on 08/06/04 as Document No. T147845. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association SRN:ms Enclosures Document 0 OFFICE OF THE A 399723 COUNTY RECORDER IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA IIIIIIIIIIII Filing Fee: $ 20 00 Check# 12783 Certified filed and recorded on 06-18-2004 at 1230 ❑ AMId PM 1 "'04-111-11 nIIIIq1111IQm�N111111i1111W1 .County _.M. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-16 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: Allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) as shown on the plans dated December, 2003, as prepared by D. James Architectural Design 2. Proyerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 8634 Valley View Court — Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5t6 Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3. Separate utility services will not be established. 4. The suite shall not be used as a rental unit. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: May 4, 2004 SCANMo _�E o.. e6(( tfw1Te� CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, Mar" AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this14thday of 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of anhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. a N T Y P15AIX '"AAivkAAAAAAAANA,AAA` 3 KAREN J. EN6ELHARDI Notary Public Minnesota DRAFTED BY:ommissionExpires�tl3V e/VVVVV'+/V V City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAplan\2004 planing cases\04-16 - graves variance -8634 valley view courttrecording documen[.doc .♦ • • of CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Paul and Laura Graves, 8634 Valley View Court Variance No. 04-16 On May 4, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Paul and Laura Graves for a Variance to (Section 20-59 of the City Code) to allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which 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 • The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained. The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property. • In reviewing neighboring properties' surveys, all properties maintain the appearance of a single-family dwelling. There are two cases where applicants requested a mother-in-law suite in a single-family dwelling; both were in the basement of the existing home. The applicant for Variance 04-16 is proposing to constrict a separate living quarter above the garage portion of the home with a separate entrance. • The addition will increase the value of the home; however, that is not the primary intension of the applicant. The intended usage of the proposed mother-in-law suite is to serve the aging parents who have medical needs and do not have a steady salary or set income. • The hardship is self-created by the homeowner, since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained. The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property. • The variance if approved will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. • The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The addition is located in the same location of the existing garage west of the SCANNED .4 adjacent property and out of site of the front and rear entrances, nor will it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets as it is an addition to a private residence. RECOMMENDATION "Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approve Variance 04-16 to allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court, zoned RSF, with the following conditions: 1) Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2) The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3) Separate utility services will not be established. 4) The variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is permitted as a mother-in-law suite only for the use of Mrs. Laura Graves parents. The use cannot be continued for other persons. 5) Eliminate the separate doorway through the garage leading directly to the suite via the mudroom. 6) The suite shall not be used for a rental unit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of May, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:J Uli Sacchet, Chairman gAplan\2004 planning cases\05-16 - grave variance -8634 Valley View CourtVindings of fact.doc SCANNED r 9 Planning Case #: 04-03 Description: Subdivision with Variance/Vacation Location: 400 Pleasant View Road Applicant: CBR Development w. Descri tion Date of Pre -Application Meeting (if necessary) Date Date Application Submitted 1/30/04 Resubmittal Date of Staff Meeting Review Date Referral Notices Sent/Distributed 2/3/04 Date Referral Agency Comments to be Received By 2/18/04 Date PH Notice to be emailed to Villager 2/26/04 Date PH Notice to be published in Villager 3/4/04 Date PH Notice to be mailed to Property Owners 3/4/04 Date PC Reports due t 3/8/04 Date PC Packet goes out f 3/10/04 Date of Planning Commission Review (PH date) 3/2/04* 3/16/04 Date of City Council Review 3/22/04* 414OW04• Date of 60 -Day Deadline EXTENSION LETTER NEEDED 3/30/04* 5/29/04 *To Be Extended r • CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 5/19/04 04-16 Variance ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 5/4/04 04-16 Variance 04-16 8634 Valley View Court - Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5t Addition, Paul & Laura Graves ❑ FOR BIDS DUE For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED: copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. 0 1J CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-16 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: Allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) as shown on the plans dated December, 2003, as prepared by D. James Architectural Design 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 8634 Valley View Court — Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5's Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3. Separate utility services will not be established. 4. The suite shall not be used as a rental unit. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: May 4, 2004 CCrrYOF CHANHASSEN BY: -Vi, A V9:::, - (SEAL) ThomasA.A.. Furlong, AND: Z a Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisL4i day of 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Manhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. N T Y P LIC .,AAAAiuUAAAAAAAA►AAAAI -�, KAREN J. ENGELHA9Dt NotaryPublic-Minnesota nn., cOmmission FxDires ti3td2005 DRAFTED BY: �,vyVWVVVvv City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 P'tplan\2004 Planning ase W-16 - graves variaoce 9634 valley view courftmording doc ntdoc CITY OF CIIAUSEN 7700 Market Boulevard May 7, 2004 PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration 1. Phone: 952.227.1100 Paul and Laura Graves Fax: 952.227.1110 8634 Valley View Court Building Inspections Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1190 Re: Variance Request #04-16 Engineering 3. Phone: 952.221.1160 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Graves: Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance This letter is to notify you that on May 4, 2004, the Planning Commission Phone: 952.227.1140 approved your request for a Variance to Section 20-59 of the City Code to allow Fax: 952.227.1110 use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) as Pan & Recreation shown on the plans dated December, 2003, as prepared by D. James Architectural Phone: 952.227.1120 Design, with the following conditions: Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been 2310 e: 52.227.1400er Phone: 952.227.1400 permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. Fax: 952.227.1404 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling Phone: 952 227.1125 including the maintenance of one driveway. Planning A 3. Separate utility services will not be established. Natural Resources www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952.227.1130 4. The suite shall not be used as a rental unit. Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works if you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132. 1591 Park Road Phene:952.227.1300 Sincerely, Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Nathan Bouvet Web site Planning Department www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us NB:k gAplanx2004 planning cases\04-16 - graves variance -8634 valley view courAappmal letter 54-04.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a Channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding hails, and beautiful parks. A gut place to live, work, and play. Planning Commission Amary — May 4, 2004 C� J boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Three additional fire hydrants will be required. Install one southwest of Lot 11 in the parking island. Install one southeast of Lot 6 in the parking island. Install one in the island between Lots 20 and 21 on the south side of the building. If necessary, please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location. Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. 11. Extend the sidewalks and relocate accessible parking access aisle as shown in Attachment 1. 12. The applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and over to the cul-de-sac, then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail system. 13. Relocate the trash enclosure and add another one as indicated by staff. 14. Add bike racks on the plan. 15. If entrances are granted on both sides of the southern buildings, there should be a walk on the north side of the building 16. The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berming along Highway 5. 17. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-59 TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, 8634 VALLEY VIEW COURT, PAUL & LAURA GRAVES, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16. Public Present: Name Address Kent Ludford Paul & Laura Graves 8615 Valley View Court 8634 Valley View Court Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tjomhom asked for clarification on the number of entrances into the home. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to walk through the sequence of events with this application. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for further clarification on the exterior and interior entrances and asked if the 0 o4 -)(.o • Planning Commission Ounary — May 4, 2004 Graves were to sell the house, how easy would it be for someone to rent the mother-in- law suite. Chair Slagle asked for further clarification on the time line of events for the permit. Paul and Laura Graves presented their reasons for the variance request and clarified the sequence of events. Chair Slagle opened the public hearing. Kent Ludford, 8615 Valley View Court, stated his support for the project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tjomhom asked for clarification on what plans were submitted to the city and when. After comments, the following motion was made. Lillehaug moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves variance 04-16 to allow the use of a single family dwelling as two family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court zoned RSF, with the following conditions: 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3. Separate utility services will not be established. 4. The suite shall not be used for a rental unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE -GUIDE PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (NET DENSITY RANGE 4-8 UNITS/ACRE) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (NET DENSITY RANGE 1.2-4 UNITS/ACRE) LOCATED SOUTH OF Public Present: Name Address Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the 2020 plan. Commissioner Lillehaug had questions regarding what's driving this request and zoning. Chair Slagle opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked staff to clarify if open space was dedicated as a part of the PUD. The public hearing was closed and the following motion made. 7 Planning Commission Ming — May 4, 2004 16. The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berming along Highway 5. 17. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Slagle: Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: GRAVES, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16. Public Present: Name Address Kent Ludford Paul & Laura Graves 8615 Valley View Court 8634 Valley View Court Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Thank you very much. Let's begin with questions for staff. Anybody want to start? Tjomhom: I have one question, and in reading this, are there 3 entrances then to this? Bouvet: Correct. There's existing right now one entrance from the garage. One main entrance to the home, and then what they're proposing to do is have an additional, what we consider a main entrance so we have a combined total of 2 from the garage. Tjornhom: So there's 2 entrances from the garage. Bouvet: And one main entrance in the front of the home. Tjomhom: Okay. And so why are there 2 entrances from the garage? Bouvet: That's probably a question to be asking the applicant. I honestly don't know what the future intention of that would be, from how it's situated to under staff's determination it's to be used as a separate entrance up into the suite above. The stairway actually kind of makes a barrier between the two sides of the garages. One going right into the laundry room and the entryway directly to the left of the existing opening, right up through the mud room and up to the mother-in-law suite. 23 Planning Commission Oting — May 4, 2004 • Slagle: Yeah, I was just going to ask. Let's just say, take the approach that you are driving in the house. What will you do? Bouvet: Here's what here now. The two car garage. You come in this, there's an entryway right here. The proposed, or the future intended use is coming in via this way through the door located right to the left of the. Slagle: Okay. Bouvet: Where you go in through the, what I consider you call it a mud room. You would share. Tjomhom: Now my question is, you know the reason for this was to care for elderly people who had health conditions, so was this to eliminate stuff or was this to, was there a medical reason for this or was there? Bouvet: If you make note of the staff report, there are some medical conditions leading to that, but as far as the limitation of steps or the. Tjornhom: So one entrance isn't more handicap accessible than another entrance? Bouvet: Not from what I was able to determine, no. Tjornhom: Okay. Keefe: Is the first entrance from the garage where you would expect to typically find an entrance into the house from the garage, without the mother-in-law suite. Bouvet: Correct. Keefe: Okay, so that's going to be a typical location. Bouvet: Right, that's where it was before the addition. Keefe: It wasn't clear to me exactly what the sequence of events here is and maybe you can help clarify just a little bit. The addition was permitted for an additional 2 car garage and a basement addition, correct? Bouvet: Yeah. Back in October of 2003 they came in for a basement addition for storage. To excavate underneath and to construct an additional 2 car garage to the already existing 2 car garage. They later revised the plans, re -submitted and according to the plans they just made a note of the future intention of an apartment up above. Keefe: So was the original permit, did that include the space? So in other words was the 2 story design in the permit approved? I mean was the 2 story design approved in that original permit in October or was it? 24 Planning Commission Seting — May 4, 2004 • Bouvet: No. If you actually make note, zoom in here. This is from the original permit application just for the basement addition. There's an additional 2 car garage and they just made notes of the future apartment. And I believe the building department said that they would have to seek planning approval before they can submit or get a building permit for that. Keefe: So on the original permit the elevation of the house, really you're looking at it more as a 1 story rather a 2 story? Bouvet: Correct. Keefe: Okay. And then when the building inspector went out, or somebody went out there. I'm assuming it was the building inspector, he found the building was, there was a 2 story. Bouvet: He came to the determination that it wasn't following what the permit was allowing and that they're constructing that apartment or mother-in-law suite above without approval from the city or the planning staff. Keefe: And it's what, 1,100 square feet, is that what I read? Bouvet: It's roughly 40 feet by about I believe 23 feet or about 1,100 square feet. Keefe: Okay. The 4 car garage that was approved, was, the question I'm thinking about is if we were to allow the mother-in-law suite are we creating a situation where we would want, where we may end up having additional cars sitting in that particular property because we approved the, the permit was approved for the house without the mother-in- law so we're now going to add another 1,000 square feet onto this house with 2 tenants. Potentially 2 tenants. Are we in a situation where we're going to end up. Bouvet: When I made the site visit, they currently have a tenant that's not paying rent. They're just staying at the home and I didn't see any evidence leading to the, me to determine that there'd be more cars parked on the property. Keefe: Okay. That's all. Slagle: Steve. Lillehaug: I'm still not totally clear on the entrances, and that's my big thing in understanding and looking at this whole thing is understanding exterior entrances as well as interior entrances, and can you just point, or look at maybe a profile or elevation and show me the exterior entrances? And then show me, you know and count them up and then show me on the plan view exactly where the entrances are. I apologize, I haven't been able to follow here. 25 Planning Commission Wing —May 4, 2004 • Bouvet: Here's the exterior entrance, so what we deem to be the main entrance to the house. Lillehaug: So one from the front. So the side on the garage, on the left side of the garage there's one. Bouvet: Correct. But this would be the main entrance to the house. Lillehaug: Okay. So that meets, I mean that gives the appearance of a single dwelling. Bouvet: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Bouvet: In comparison to the existing properties surrounding the proposed. Lillehaug: So exterior wise there's nothing that would give it an appearance of a dual. Slagle: Dual resident. Lillehaug: Yeah. Bouvet: Correct. There's no appearance that would lead us to believe that this is a two dwelling unit, other than interior. Lillehaug: Okay, so it's staff's position is interior they're providing too many entrances into the. Bouvet: Correct. Lillehaug: So can you point them out please again? And are these entrances all to go upstairs? Bouvet: The entrances are actually on the main level or the garage level. Lillehaug: Okay. Bouvet: The first entrance which is existing right now is from the existing 2 car garage. The proposed extra entrance, or the second entrance from the garage is directly to the west. So here's 1, there's 2 there. Slagle: Let me, if I can ask a question here Steve that might help. So let's say that you're using the new entrance. You open the door. You walk in. You turn to your right. You walk a few steps and then you start going up the steps. Okay. Stairs. Is there going to be a wall separating what I will call the old mud room and this new area? OR Planning Commission ftting — May 4, 2004 • Bouvet: When speaking with the application, that wasn't their intention to do so. But staff felt that in the future that could be the case because it's spaced between, that could easily have someone put a door in there to make it completely separate. That's right here then ... between the two. Slagle: Okay. Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Then one other question. Would, upon this not being used as a mother-in-law suite anymore, would the city require them to modify the structure to give the full, to bring it back to a single dwelling and not give any appearance of a dual dwelling? Bouvet: That might be a question that Bob can probably answer, as far as the wanting to know if after this use isn't used as a mother-in-law suite, is there a way to maintain that they're put back to a single family home? Generous: Well it's still a single family home from our standpoint. You're just permitting the use for their parents. One of the conditions is it may not be used as rental property, so that becomes the case, they need to do a rental licensing if we discover that they're going to beyond what they're approved for. Bouvet: I guess that's kind of what my point I'm getting at is if the applicant sells their place. I'm not saying they are or not going to, but if they do and someone else comes in there, how likely or unlikely is it for them to illegally rent that place out? You know because it gives the appearance of a dual dwelling. Generous: Well it's always possible someone can rent out portions of their houses right now. Lillehaug: Sure. Generous: We rely on them to go by what their approval was for. Plus if they, if it did become actually a rental property and there's advertising or anything, then we would hopefully find out and our rental licensing requirements would kick in when we discovered that it's not permissible there. Lillehaug: I guess my concern, these are comments I guess. Maybe I'll just wait. Slagle: Yeah I was going to say. Anything else Steve? Nothing? I just had one last comment again talking about the time line. When they received their permit October 24, 2003, there was mention of an apartment but nothing in the way of a design or that would have led staff to think there was going to be one. Bouvet: It was specifically stated on the plans they submitted, future apartment. So it was the applicant's own wording that they intended for that use, whether it's mother-in- law suite or apartment. 27 Planning Commission Sting — May 4, 2004 • Slagle: Okay. Then let me ask the next question. Then in that paragraph on page 2, you say revised plans to the basement garage addition, including a proposed future use or apartment above the garage were submitted to the city. That's what you're referring to as we've just discussed, right? Bouvet: Right. Slagle: That wasn't after the permitting was approved. Bouvet: It was just a revised plans for the garage. The basement addition, and that was just made note of the future apartment. Slagle: Okay. Last question, you note that the applicant was notified to contact the building and planning departments about the addition above the garage. Did they do that? Bouvet: No. That's why it's here today. They put a stop work order on the construction. They contacted us. They applied for a variance. Slagle: Okay. How was the applicant notified to contact? Bouvet: That was from a building inspector. They put a stop work order. Slagle: So it was the stop order so. Bouvet: Correct. And that was to contact Steve in the building department. Slagle: Fair enough. I just wanted to get that clear. Alright, thank you. Alright, is the applicant here and would you like to come up and state your name and address and address the commission please. Paul Graves: Good evening commissioners. Paul and Laura Graves, 8634 Valley View Court in Chanhassen. Thank you. Couple of things I'll just start. There's confusion around sort of the time line on the permit process. It really was pretty simple. In October plans were submitted. Slagle: If you could talk into that mic, that would be appreciated. Paul Graves: Thank you. Plans were submitted for the 2 car garage and approved, the permit, as was we had some architectural drawings done. After that plans revised. Construction was very early, in early stages when our architect came to the city and resubmitted the plans as they sit, that you have now. There was confusion, in fact one of my kind of beefs with this thing was, the city had accepted and they stamped them as received. I'm the one who pulled the permit and I guess I don't know, I probably should have made sure we went through and I received official, I don't know. The deal was that we had turned plans back in and we were always good to go in my opinion. And then the 0 Planning Commission Oeting — May 4, 2004 • stop order came because they had, an inspector came out and Derek had a meeting about apartments in houses that morning is what I understood from one of the inspectors and red flags went up and of course I went into what are we talking about. We submitted the plans. Everything I think is okay and so that was sort of the chain of events there that the original plans were submitted without the apartment early, early in construction. I don't know the date exactly but plans were resubmitted with the upstairs addition on the 2 car garage and that was that chain of events. And apparently they were accepted by the city. They were stamped, but not fully approved I guess is what I, I don't know, I didn't quite understand that but that's what brought us to this. And the first time we had talked about a variance or I knew anything about it was at that time. Couple of just, couple of things that I would like to address. There's a lot of talk about the two doors in the garage so to speak. Would like to address that and in addition, thank you Nathan. In addition to talk, a couple of things. There's another entry in that level. To the current house there's a glass door between the new. Slagle: You talking upstairs? Paul Graves: Upstairs. There's a glass door between the current house and the new addition that's another, I don't know somehow. Keefe: You mean a sliding? Paul Graves: No, it's an actual glass, two 30 inch glass door. Framed wood glass door connecting the two and somehow they're, it's like somehow somebody thinks we're trying to separate and there's just nothing about trying to separate these two pieces apart. Essentially just there's nobody trying to separate. And in terms of on the garage, it's a little difficult, and the drawings are small and a little difficult to see. The purpose of the two entries down below is not to have a separate entry into the upstairs. It's really a practicality. It's a big garage. It's 40 feet across and it's on one side it's 25 feet deep and on the other side it's 30 feet deep. Part of that on the side that's 30 feet deep, part of that is being used for a construction of additional, we have four boys in the house ranging 8 to 12 years old and may do we have stuff. We have a little mud room and wow, we get a big mud room now that really is like it's considered part of, you know it's in the new addition garage is where we're expanding the mud room kind of greatly. And the two entrances isn't, there's talk about it sort of being the separate entrance and really it's a practicality deal. We extended the mud room out to a point that there's now about 17, I think 17 feet between the mud room and where the garage door is. If you were to count stalls, stall 1, 2, 3 and 4 going across. At stall 3 it's about a 17 foot stall and it really becomes a practicality. There's the current door that we've always had, and the new door is kind of along, it would be. It's between 3 and 4. Now here's stall 3 about where my finger is and the stall goes up to about here where this, there we have, this post is. The mud room then is kind of squared off like this, so this is a short stall. This is a very long 30 foot stall but this third stall, 1, 2, 3 and 4, it's just a short 17 foot stall. The other door is an entrance door over here and really becomes a practicality. To park over here and to lug and get past that third, it's just impractical. Not to separate the two apart or anything of the sort. There's a door into the mud room here. A door into the, it's a very large mud Rt Planning Commission Oeting — May 4, 2004 • room over here, and it's open inbetween the two, and it's not, you know in terms of, the concern, I have a little bit of difficulty addressing the concern of, the purpose of this is, I believe the city's concern or the Planning Commission's concern is as a rental unit and there's, I have zero desire to rent any part of my house just for, no desire for that whatsoever. The second door is really just practicality. Trying to get past the parked car in that third stall. One way or the other would be just really challenging and inconvenient is the purpose of the other one. And it's serving as a separate entrance there. The whole thing's all tied together kind of as one house so I ask real strong consideration on the basically the condition of eliminating one of those doors. It would just hardship that quite frankly I don't understand. Questions? Slagle: That's all I have. Anything else? Paul Graves: ...glass doors upstairs. The whole thing's kind of tied together. It's not. Laura Graves: If we wanted to rent that out, obviously a glass door at that time ... into our son's bedroom. Just in response to that glass door upstairs, it ties, it's a glass door and it ties into one of my son's bedrooms. There'd be no purpose obviously to rent that out to anybody. Slagle: Any questions for the applicant? Keefe: Yeah, are you doing the construction or did you design it or do you have somebody helping you out? Paul Graves: I'm being the general contractor and was sort of by, just really wasn't designed that way. That's what's ended up happening. Laura Graves: Learning process. Keefe: So in terms of the original permit that you went in to get from the city, is that something that you went in to get or was it. Paul Graves: Yes, I went in to get it, yeah. I've actually had two people drawing and it's kind of just been a whole process along the way but I pulled the permit. Keefe: So the person who was helping you draw said you need to go in and get the permit or how did that work? Paul Graves: I was using the design, a drawing firm here in Chanhassen. Went through the initial, wanted them, we started talking about the upstairs and went to a different architect who then drew the upstairs. And he submitted, then when we completed kind of where we're at on those drawings, he came back in and submitted those drawings on behalf of us. 30 Planning Commission Wing — May 4, 2004 • Keefe: Okay. So the original, let's see if I got it. So you went in for the original permit and then you went to your architect to kind of review it and included the second level. Paul Graves: Yes. Keefe: And then your understanding was that he brought them into the city. Paul Graves: Yes. Keefe: Okay. And at that point there really wasn't an intent from the architect to pull an additional permit for that second level or get. Paul Graves: I think at that point, I mean it was just to essentially bring the city up to speed as to what we kind of changed things, more than just a little. I wasn't moving the door. I mean it was a substantial change and the purpose was to let the city know that. The city then accepted, I don't know what happened. For some reason things from that point didn't follow the way that they should have. I don't know. I don't understand the internal workings but something went wrong at that point. Laura Graves: A lot of our concern too was so that we went to the second designer so that it wouldn't look like this huge box for the garage because it is a 4 car stall. And so we tried to make it so that it would look more like not this huge garage but part of the house. We liked that drawing better... Slagle: Any other questions? Tjomhom: Maybe this is a question to staff. Why wasn't that second submittal? Slagle: If I may Bethany, we'll finish with them and, because I do want to ask that of staff as well. Tjomhom: Yeah, it's okay. I'll wait then. Slagle: Okay, just one last question. Typically we see neighbors and so forth, I don't know if any are here. Have you received positive feedback from the neighbors? Everybody okay with it? Are you hearing that some people kind of get. Paul Graves: Nobody's throwing eggs at the house. I have not heard a lot of positive or negative. I really have not. Laura Graves: Except let's see, what are you doing? You know can we take a tour. Slagle: Okay. Paul Graves: I have not felt any animosity at all from the neighborhood from anybody. Nor has anybody contacted with any concerns to me. In fact just the opposite. Positive 31 Planning Commission ating — May 4, 2004 • you know. People saying hey would you like me to be at the meeting? No, that's alright, thank you kind of comments. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay, thank you very much. And then as I mentioned earlier, this is a public hearing and again we'll get back to that after the public hearing. For those who'd like to address this issue, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address and tell us what you have to say. Hi there. Kent Ludford: My name is Kent Ludford. I live at 8615 Valley View Court. My front door is aligned with his front door so what we see in the morning is his house. And I think Paul has gone beyond the normal that puts on an addition. He has gone beyond to make that house look like it was built all at the same time. Anybody driving down, I don't think when he's done will be able to tell it is an addition. It doesn't look like a separate structure. You can't tell it's, it looks like bedrooms upstairs of the garage, so I think he's done very well. Very good job on it. I know back to the, in talking to Paul and he's always been very forward with me telling me what he's doing. He's even asked me suggestions if I thought something should be changed, and originally it was the garage. That was the heart of the whole construction process. He had, our houses are identical floor plans, just flipped a little bit but identical floor plans. Only he had a 2 car garage, I have a 3 car garage. I only have 2 kids and I've added 14 by 32 more to my garage. He had a 2 car garage with 4 boys. And so he has an initial plans drawn for the addition of the garage, and when you look at it from the street, it was all garage and that's about the time he started to think of the, after he got the renderings from the architect that this just isn't going to look right for that particular neighborhood. It will look added onto. I think he's done a great job of making it look good. I think, I'm not sure on the time line but I think that's about the same time, and he had, he really didn't know what he was going to do with the upstairs. The way I took it, until Laura's father had a stroke and was disabled. Couldn't walk much and he comes up every year. They come up every year and spend quite a few months here. They're from Honduras, and I can see a real need for this added square footage with their own 4 boys, it's tight and then add 2 people for 4 months in a regular house was just overwhelming I think. And knowing Paul and Laura, there is no way that house will ever become a rental unit. It's for her family, Paul's dad is getting older. It may be a residence for his dad. His mother's in a home right now for Alzheimer's so once something happens there, he might leave his condo. Be interested in, and they're all fabulous people. We've never had a bit of trouble with Paul and Laura. They're good solid citizens of the community and I don't think they in any way did anything to hide anything from the city. I think it was, like you said, it was different architects involved. I was told a long time ago that his architect had submitted the second set of plans. I thought everything was fine just like he did. But the house is going to look great from the outside when it's completed and you will not know it's, it wasn't built all at the same time. If you look at his house. You look at my house. Wow, what a difference. Slagle: So we'll see you here in a year or so, right? 32 Planning Commission ating — May 4, 2004 • Kent Ludford: No. Maybe. My, the front bedrooms that they have now are the same as our's, and they're too small. I'd love to pull mine out 10 feet. It would be over my garage too. Thank you. Slagle: You're welcome. Any other comments from folks? Okay, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for questions. So Bethany, you have the same question, I'd like to hear it answered. Tjomhom: I guess. Is there confusion? Was there, is there a stamped drawing from an architect that was received from the city that would lead someone to believe that they had approval to go ahead? Bouvet: I could see how there was a confusion on the applicant's side with the architect. If you look at one of the attachments for the only permit that the building department received that we signed off on was from October 13`". It actually reads, as far as the improvements to be done, to tear down existing garage. Excavate underneath. Add another 2 car garage and excavate underneath for office and storage area. Will be using spancrete, etc, etc, With the revised plans that were submitted that was to change, if I'm correct, the office and storage area to a master suite and a theater, so that was the revised plans. With the revised plans that were submitted, it was just noted on the plans future apartment. That wasn't added to the permit application. That was an improvement that was put on there. It was actually mentioned as well as far as the inspection that took place. Number one, as far as the inspection report, revised plans submitted February 3, 2004 does not or have not been approved. Proposed use of area above garage constitutes another dwelling unit which is in violation of city code. It actually talks about how the applicant intends to apply for a variance to allow two dwelling unit in the home and it says applicant can proceed at own risk or the stop work order was taken off with the, if a variance is not approved. Items that define it as a separate dwelling unit must be removed, so the stop work order was removed. So I don't honestly see confusion on staff's part of the plan submitted and the actual application. Tjomhom: Was there a piece of paper that had a drawing with the second story that was received and stamped by the city? Bouvet: As a future use. It wasn't an intended use, a part of this original application. So yes we received it but we stamped off what they originally proposed. The revised plans that they submitted for the change from a storage area to a master suite, so we didn't sign off on the future apartment itself. Because at that time they didn't have any details of what was going in there. Tjomhom: Okay. Slagle: Anything else? Comments. Lillehaug: I can go. Boy, I commend Mr. and Mrs. Graves. My mother-in-law's at my house right now and I'm not too sure if I could do that. RXI Planning Commission feting — May 4, 2004 • Slagle: They might be watching. Lillehaug: No, I have dish. So, I commend them. I'm in full support of this. The only concern I have is the sensitivity to the neighbors. Not now. I have full confidence that Mr. and Mrs. Graves have full intention of not renting this unit out, but being sensitive to the neighbors in the future, you know I want to maintain the perception and assurance that this does appear and will be used as a single dwelling for the neighbors. If I live in that neighborhood, you know I'd want that to be maintained a single dwelling period. I think the city owes that to them. How do we, what do we do to assure that? I'm not too sure. You know I guess I don't have any problems with how we got to this point because I think we'd still have what we're looking at right now. Still requesting a variance so I think the events that brought us to this point, it happened. So how can we put an assurance that this, if they sell this property it won't be used as a dual dwelling. I'd like to propose maybe putting another condition in there. Deleting condition 5. You know to eliminate that separate doorway. I think we should allow them to have that. I don't really see a problem with having a second doorway. Inside, interior in the garage. I don't have a problem with doing that. And allowing that. But in the second breath, if they were to sell that house, I don't know any other way to assure that this wouldn't be used as a dual dwelling. I think if we could put a condition on here, and this is kind of reaching, but eliminate that second entrance through the garage directly to the suite upon the We of the home, and I don't know how the heck staff or the county could enforce that but I don't know any other methods of kind of reassuring the neighborhood that that will continue to be maintained as a single dwelling. So I'm in full support of it. It looks great. Keefe: My only comment is, in the you know, they've got quite a ways along before the city discovered that it wasn't a permitted use. Or the building and the second piece of it was already well underway in terms of, so my concern is that if they were to go down the road and rent it, how do we know? How do we put a stop to that in terms of you know, if they can get this far along in terms of building it, we put conditions on in terms of renting, how do we sort of control that and are we just putting something in place that is unenforceable. The thought, I really don't have a problem with the building. I went and drove by it. I think it looks like he's doing a great job. I agree with Steve's comment that we're where we're at. How we got there is, you know we're here so. The only question I would have, and I think the conditions are good. The question is, are we putting conditions in place which are essentially unenforceable. I don't know how we go about monitoring this. Did we do a good enough job of monitoring the permitting and building process so that we were able to stop it in time before they got too far down the road? I mean if we were to peel it back and say okay well, you can't do this. What would we be doing? I mean we'd have to deconstruct some of the house and you know so, that's just my comments in relation to that. Slagle: Okay. Bethany? Tjomhom: No comments. 34 Planning Commission ating — May 4, 2004 0 Slagle: I don't have any comments. I think that it is what it is. So is there a motion to be made? Lillehaug: Can I make a question to staff before we make a motion? Imagine that huh? Slagle: Sure. Lillehaug: Condition number 4, and this is a condition that's being recorded with the variance and it says it will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is permitted as a mother-in-law suite only for use of Mrs. Laura Graves' parents. The use cannot be continued for other persons. Is that something the city or county has done previously and is very enforceable? Or it's something they've done previously. Al -Jaffa It's something the city has done previously. Slagle: I have a friendly amendment on that so. Lillehaug: Let me make a motion then. Unless you guys want to make a motion. No? Alright. I make a motion. You know what, I have another question before we do this. If this passes unanimously, does it go to council? Al-Jaff: No. Generous: Only if it's appealed. Lillehaug: Okay. If it passed, what about a 3-1 vote? Generous: 75 percent is the approval. Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion the Planning Commission approves variance 04-16 to allow the use of a single family dwelling as two family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court zoned RSF, with the following conditions 1 through 6 and delete number 5 and revise it to say, eliminate the second entrance through the garage directly to the suite only upon sale of the home. Does that make sense? Slagle: It makes sense. Lillehaug: But you don't like it? Slagle: Well I didn't say that. Is there a second? Tjomhom: I'll second that. Slagle: Okay. Friendly amendments. I have two Steve. One is, I think we should just eliminate 5, and just eliminate it and that house would fall under, it's like your house or 35 Planning Commission Oting — May 4, 2004 • my house and everybody else's house. And the other thing I wanted to throw out is an amendment would be considering eliminating point 4 only because there was talk of perhaps Mr. Graves' father. I mean I guess to think that you can tell a family who can stay in their house, you know and how do you determine who's staying. If an uncle came and stayed for 4 months, is there a timeframe that they have to be there and then leave? I think that's just probably more than needs to be, but that's just an offering for a friendly amendment. So you either accept it or reject my friendly amendments of deleting 4 and 5. Lillehaug: I accept deleting 5 and leave the doors forever. That's fine. I guess my concern with deleting number 4 is, like I said before, I'm pretty sure that the Graves' wouldn't abuse this, but who knows about other owners of that property. Slagle: But wouldn't that, if I can add, wouldn't that just fall within the typical city ordinances and practices that, I mean they have to. Tjornhom: A single family dwelling. Slagle: Yeah, they have to stay as a single family dwelling and if the city finds out that it's not, they take action. Keefe: Does number 6 sort of take precedent over number 4 anyway. The suite shall not be used for a rental unit. Generous: Yeah, number 6 is more critical. Keefe: Right. If you kept that in there then really number 4. Lillehaug: Okay, I accept that. Yep. Yep. I guess we shouldn't go overboard with this and try to put stuff in here that is almost impossible to enforce so I think yeah. Yep. Slagle: Accepted. Lillehaug: So 1 through 6. Delete condition 4 and delete condition 5 and no other conditions. Slagle: And you could make 6 4 I guess. Lillehaug: Sure. Slagle: Okay. Any other comments or amendments that want to be proposed? Lillehaug: No one tell my mother-in-law. Lillehaug moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves variance 04-16 to allow the use of a single family dwelling as two family dwelling �cZ� Planning Commission Wing — May 4, 2004 • (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court zoned RSF, with the following conditions: Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3. Separate utility services will not be established. 4. The suite shall not be used for a rental unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE -GUIDE PROPERTY FROM PUBLIOSEMI PUBLIC AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (NET DENSITY RANGE 4-8 UNITS/ACRE) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (NET MINNEWASHTA (CHES MAR FARM AREA), PLANNING CASE 04-17. Public Present: Name Address Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road Sharmeen Al -Jeff presented the staff report on this item. Keefe: Just a quick one. When I was looking at this 2020 plan, it looks like it's guided for medium. Al -Jaffa Correct. Keefe: And so if we were to go to low now, I'm confused on how that works in terms of you, if we got it to low, then we'll just change the 2020 plan, is that what we would do? Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: And then currently the property, I mean most of those are pretty large lots, aren't they? AI-Jaff: That's correct. 37 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA: 5/4/04 CC DATE: 5/24/04 REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/4/04 CASE #: 04-16 BY: NPB PROPOSAL: Request for Variance to Section 20-59 of the City Code to allow use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite). LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5`s Addition, 8634 Valley View Court. APPLICANT: Paul and Laura Graves 8634 Valley View Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family Residential (RSF) Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .47 DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a Variance for a two-family dwelling in a Single Family Residential (RSF) District. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying variances, based on whether or not the proposal meets the variance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable variance standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 0 0 0 Location Map 8634 Valley View Court City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-16 8634 Valley View Court Planning Case No. 04-16 • • May 4, 2004 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a two-family dwelling in a district zoned residential single-family. By ordinance two-family dwellings are not a permitted use in a single-family district. The purpose of the mother-in-law suite is to house the Graves' aging parents. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: 1. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. 2. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one (1) driveway and one (1) main entry. 3. Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). 4. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2003 the applicant requested a building permit to tear down an existing two -car garage to excavate underneath for the construction of an office and storage area. The applicant also proposed to construct an additional two -car garage. The permit was approved and issued on October 24, 2003 for the construction of an additional two -car garage and basement addition. Revised plans for the basement and garage addition, including a proposed future use of an apartment above the garages were submitted to the city. The permit contained a note stating that Planning Department approval is required before the construction of a mother-in-law suite. An inspection took place on March 31, 2004 where a "Stop Do Not Proceed" order was posted for an addition above the garage that was not approved by the city and appeared to have the characteristics of a separate dwelling. The applicant was notified to contact the Building and Planning Departments about the addition above the garage. After further inspection, staff determined the addition above the garage to be a separate dwelling unit which is not a permitted use in the Residential Single Family (RSF) district. The applicant stated they intended to seek a variance to allow a two-family dwelling in a single-family district. On April 5, 2004 the applicant was told they can proceed at their own risk pending variance approval. Additionally, if the variance was not approved, items that define it as a dwelling unit must be removed. The purpose of the mother-in-law suite is to house the Graves' parents in time of need. Laura Graves' parents live outside of the country and have been missionary doctors for over thirty (30) years in a rural village in Honduras, Central America. They do not have a salary or set income. When they visit the United States often their stay is from several weeks to several months. Recently Laura Graves' father, who is 65, suffered a stroke that affected his optical nerve. Laura Graves' mother, who is in her sixties as well, needs assistance with his care. The applicant demonstrates the need for a mother-in-law suite based upon disability, age, and the financial hardship of Paul and Laura Graves' parents. Planning Case No. 04-16 • • May 4, 2004 Page 3 The proposed mother-in-law suite is located above the existing and proposed two -car garages and basement addition. The suite is a one bedroom one bath (1,100 sq. ft.) suite that proposes to utilize a full kitchen, living room, and a shared deck. The proposed addition maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one (1) driveway. Three entrances serve the mother-in-law suite, the main entrance to the home and one of two entrances from the garage. Planning staff determined that one of the entrances from the garage appears to serve as a separate, main entrance to the suite. The criteria for permitting a two-family dwelling in a single-family district require one main entrance to the home. If additional main entrances service the home, it does not meet the standards for approval. With a separate entrance to the unit through the garage, the suite could be considered a separate, independent living unit. The Chanhassen City Code defines a dwelling unit as one (1) or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. (7)(20) The Building Department determined that the mother-in-law suits does not constitute a two- family dwelling as identified in the building code because the dwelling units are not completely independent. The mother-in-law suite and the existing home share a mud room, laundry room, and a four (4) car garage. The applicant stated the utilities will be connected to the existing home and separate utility services will not be established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the neighborhood. If the variance were to be approved, staff believes the mother-in-law suite could be used as a separate living quarters. A future door could be placed between the proposed mud room and the existing laundry room making it a separate dwelling unit, in addition to a separate main entry that services the mother-in-law suite from the garage. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a 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 there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion. Planning Case No. 04-16 • • May 4, 2004 Page 4 Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Finding: In reviewing neighboring properties' surveys, all properties maintain the appearance of a single-family dwelling. There are two cases where applicants requested a mother-in-law suite in a single-family dwelling; both were in the basement of the existing home. The applicant for Variance 04-16 is proposing to construct a separate living quarter above the garage portion of the home with a separate entrance. C. 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 addition will increase the value of the home; however, that is not the primary intention of the applicant. The intended usage of the proposed mother-in-law suite is to serve the aging parents who have medical needs and do not have a steady salary or set income. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created by the homeowner; since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained. The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance if approved will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The addition is located in the same location of the existing garage west of the adjacent property and out of site of the front and rear entrances, nor will it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets as it is an addition to a private residence. Planning Case No. 04-16 • • May 4, 2004 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approve Variance 04-16 to allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court, zoned RSF, with the following conditions: 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as - built plans must be submitted. 2. The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3. Separate utility services will not be established. 4. The variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is permitted as a mother-in-law suite only for the use of Mrs. Laura Graves' parents. The use cannot be continued for other persons. Eliminate the separate doorway through the garage leading directly to the suite via the mudroom. 6. The suite shall not be used for a rental unit." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Application and Narrative 3. Reduced Copy of Survey Dated January 26, 1996 4. Public Hearing Notice 5. Mailing Notice 6. Floor Plans and Elevations 7. Letter Illustrating Financial and Physical Need 8. Building Permit Dated October 10, 2003 9. "Stop Do Not Proceed" Work Order 10. Inspection Notes 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Paul and Laura Graves, 8634 Valley View Court Variance No. 04-16 On May 4, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Paul and Laura Graves for a Variance to (Section 20-59 of the City Code) to allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which 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 • The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained. The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property • In reviewing neighboring properties' surveys, all properties maintain the appearance of a single-family dwelling. There are two cases where applicants requested a mother-in-law suite in a single-family dwelling; both were in the basement of the existing home. The applicant for Variance 04-16 is proposing to construct a separate living quarter above the garage portion of the home with a separate entrance. • The addition will increase the value of the home; however, that is not the primary intension of the applicant. The intended usage of the proposed mother-in-law suite is to serve the aging parents who have medical needs and do not have a steady salary or set income. • The hardship is self-created by the homeowner; since a reasonable use of the property can be maintained. The applicant can eliminate the separate main entrance to the mother-in-law suite from the garage and still have reasonable use of the property. • The variance if approved will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. • The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The addition is located in the same location of the existing garage west of the 0 adjacent property and out of site of the front and rear entrances, nor will it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets as it is an addition to a private residence. RECOMMENDATION "Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "Ibe Planning Commission approve Variance 04-16 to allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite) located at 8634 Valley View Court, zoned RSF, with the following conditions: 1) Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2) The dwelling maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway. 3) Separate utility services will not be established. 4) The variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is permitted as a mother-in-law suite only for the use of Mrs. Laura Graves parents. The use cannot be continued for other persons. 5) Eliminate the separate doorway through the garage leading directly to the suite via the mudroom. 6) The suite shall not be used for a rental unit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of May, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman gip1an\2004 planning cases\05-16 - grave variance -8634 Valley View Court\findings of fact.doc • CITY OF CHANHASSEN • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD RECEIVED CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 APR 0 5 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: PJ ± L �� L('Yf is � rc 5 ADDRESS: �6Z3I �Ia IIP / V leLV C� 0#9 5S__5_7 TELEPHONE (Day Time)�I�Z�6 101 14 11.1�1�ld:ti ADDRESS: CHANHASSEN I&6 C TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit ' Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPFNACNAWWAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ G `� Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ®� Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: �k I 4Lkti-� bt-kvo TOTAL ACREAGE - �-A 1 o C , L1'1 -� --�- . V � , WETLANDS PRESENT: YES ✓ NO PRESENT ZONING: �� H REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DES REQUESTED LAND USE C 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 ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 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 Certficate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city herblupleted not'Ifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirepihntgency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development review'shall within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ire of Ap6dicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date 06) Application Received on 3/ r--6 T Fee Paid Receipt No. _(/ / The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:tplanVorms\Development Review Application.DOC I o � � Apid Z, Q `I (ale am 'vq a4 ate- t►o , �II__� cL-dt'r2 e mc 1-Y7(a�, �,i. Ovr Corm r�✓rte NIOAY�. �vr d� qr ( WA 4o ate eX��ov�e. l �r Joe P,rfe :All f vt c r rife . t; . � . � . r 4c V� �a v1�e cv l l no l i n Vuri 0 46 -tk Yeti c� 0 be Geu� dk p("51a�- �I��+ U -06 3¢ *VAI—z EY 3loGZ-lT-B SURiVt1*R'S CERTIFICATE /J +KEYLATND HOMES clil-!J%</}vH rreN -7�ND MRe NTA/K UN1-,L Lw >- JS / L.f/Gi XIle4 W%SFE' RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2003 CHANNASSENINSPECTIONS Vzee 11A 30Q�,l_Y' 9,7.7-� a� � Swr`X � r ..wK 4RK V 40 �.rsracL� — Y9 -L fos,ay :Fcn oArun �,<C j R,r r� LeTls t� ;fcjAr"T`D- EDA$E EN7 PER LITY PwT 0 o F �� 7 h o F �� o h James R. Hill, inc. m m �� D o(` o z t m �m b< PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS n% m m� 2500 W. CTY. RD. 42 • BURNSVILLE, MN. 55337 • 612-890-6044 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a variance to Section 20-59 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow use of single-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling (mother-in-law suite), 8634 Valley View Court. Applicant: Paul & Laura Graves. 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. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Email: nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 22, 2004) • CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 22, 2004, 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 Variance to Section 20-59 of the City Code, Paul & Laura Graves - Planning Case #04-16 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and swom to before me this day of r , 2004. Notary Public Kar J. Eng lh dt, Depu,6 Clerk 18 KIM T. MEUVVISSEN NotaryPublic- Minnesota CARVER COUNTY My Commission Expires 1/310M gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-16 - graves variance -8634 valley view court\04-16 affidavil.doc Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for variance to Section 20-59 of the City Code to Proposal: allow use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling mother-in-law suite Planning File: 04-16 Applicant: Paul & Laura Graves Property 8634 Valley View Court 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: WOHappens 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 stop by City Hail during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or Comments: e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Re pings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the P g Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the a ion 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 pubhearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council ma 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 commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. I �1i now •, �,./,� 0 0 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) 8634 Valley View Court City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-16 s. P Pv� 5�. Gp, p��GP 8634 Valley View Court 0 0 MARK K & RACHEL D ANDERSON TIMOTHY J & BEVERLY ANGLUM JEFFREY L & JENNIFER T BENKE 1797 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 1841 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S 8643 VALLEY RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8419 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8417 CATS PAW INVESTMENT LLC CAESAR JAMES CRUDUP KRISTOPHER E & MINDI L H DAHL 1851 LAKE DR W 8712 VALLEY VIEW PL 1774 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8585 SUITE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM MICHAEL J & CAROL L FELLNER LYNDELL F & MARY F FREY 10 HILL ST 1796 VALLEY RIDGE PL 1822 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 TIMOTHY G GEEHAN ALVARO J & NANCY A GOMEZ PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES 1819 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 8748 VALLEY VIEW PL 8634 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 JOEL K & KERI L JOHNSON MARK R & LAURA G JOHNSON ANDREW J KAYATI III BARBARA A 1806 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 1807 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N KAYATI CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 8715 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 WILLIAM B & TERRE D KEMBLE GREGG J & AMY M KLOKE DEBRA LYNN LUDFORD 1782 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 1836 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S 8615 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8418 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 DOUGLAS A & CINDY L MERRIGAN STEPHEN B & SANDRA L MEYER TODD M & JONI J NELSON 8736 VALLEY VIEW PL 8724 VALLEY VIEW PL 8610 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 ERIC & MELISSA NOYES MARK A & NANCIANN S OLSON KAPIL K & NEETA K RAJVANSHI 8622 VALLEY VIEW CT 1792 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 1848 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8418 MICHAEL A & JULIE A SALENTINE GREGORY S & SHELLY M SCALLON U S POSTAL SERVICE 1784 VALLEY RIDGE PL 1814 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 6800 W 64TH ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 #100 OVERLAND PARK KS 66202-4171 PHEAVANH SOUVANNALA L &HATKENNETH A & MARCIA S STRAND THOMAS S & SUSAN M TISCHER 1829 VALLEY RIDGSOUE TRL 8631 VALLEY VIEW CT 8729 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 0 0 JOHN F & PATRICIA G VANNUCCI LAWRENCE P & HOLLY WHITE MICHAEL J & MARY M YAZCEC 1798 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 8657 VALLEY RIDGE CT 1813 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8417 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 RICH SLAGLE GAPLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-16 - 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD Graves Variance -8634 Valley View CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Court\04-16 PH Notice labels.doc r 1 L raim..-i Framer contractor is responsible in verifying III 1 FIN f r Y.l sees.ti-1 framer contractor is responsibie in verifying all r.o s and window locations as we4 m au m.....amenta on this project nt- TW Ys' n.f lom W � El frot', ec.t.tor enol) Eeponelpb of verifying all —. J Noetl�.�pe ar emiutbn lu Owe. pbn whh uul the --- - desgnm NnoNage. 77 b b uwu. e.moo.� .a ..�uoe nx.n CONT. COPY ❑ ❑ F.Ey1SFD ETLAN RE( ![B Dear City of Chanhassen or to whom it may concern; The purpose of the mother-in-law suite is to house our parents in time of need. My parents (Laura's) live outside of the country and have been missionary doctors for over 30 years to a rural village in Honduras, Central America. They do not have a salary or a set income. When they visit here in the United States often their stay is from several weeks to several months. Recently my father, who is 65, had a stroke which has affected his optical nerve. My mother, who is in her sixties as well, needs assistance with his care. We do not at any time intend to use this space as a rental unit. Thank you for your consideration. Paul and Laura Graves City of Chanhassen METER No: 7700&arket Blvd. - PO Box PERMIT No.: 0302295 Chanhassen, MN 55317 952/227-1180 FAX: 952/227-1190" ISSUED: PRINTED WITHOUT ISSUING 10/24/2003 Address :8634 Valley View Court PIN :251290040 Legal Desc :Subdivision BLUFF CREEK ESTATES 5 TH ADD :Lot 004 Block 001 Parcel Permit Type :Building Property Type :Detached Single Family (r-3) Construction Type :Garage, New Or Addn ;-}�Id�fl �+ Activity :Misc. Valuation :50,000.00 OWNER Paul S & Laura E Graves 8634 Valley View Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES B634 Valley View Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 is work for which this permit is issued shall be srformed according to : (1) the conditions of this :rmit; (2) the approval plans and specifications; (3) the )plicable city approvals, Ordinances, and Codes; and, ) the State Building Code. This permit is for only the ork described, and does not grant permission for iditional or related work which requires separate :rmits. This permit will expire and become null and )id if work is not started within 180 days, or if work i suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days any ne after work has commenced. The applicant is esponsible for assuring all required inspections are :quested in conformance with the State Building Code. sued by: Steven Torell, Building Official ity of Chanhassen Permit fee (Valuation) $643.75 PLAN CHECK (BUILDING,ISTS) $418.44 STATE SURCHARGE (BLD,PLB,HVA $25.00 Erosion Control Escrow Fee $250.00 Total $1,337.19 U llilz�tlo� SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE. Addre Legal: • • RESIDENTIAL PERMIT/SURVEY ROUTING FORM Permit for: Home_, Addition v Deck , Other_, Explain: 2zij qdA R Detached Structure Permit No. 0 3o [e Received Route Permits/Surveys in the following order, note any changes you require and forward to next department. Engineering will order new surveys as requested and route for approvals in reverse order. Address/legal description, building footprint, building type matches survey (walkout, lookout, etc), benchmark. Approved ff)N Date:7j By: 1�iL Required corrections: Revised survey/plans approved Y / N Date: By: Setbacks, tree preservation, wetlands, bluff zone, height, surface area, bluff setbacks. Approved V/N Required corrections: Date: Revised survey/plans approved Y / N Approved Y / N Date: By: Date: By: Elevation, building type, grading/drainage easements, erosion control. 31 p F/Jf /D !S —a Approved Yo Date: (D(J Q-� By (/►� c . �, W_4-WEC GF CHAtIHASSEN Required corrections: , T 2003 ENGINEERING DEPT. Revised survey/plans approved N Date: _a ( �7 By:10 g. �Wety\fo=m pcmdtrouing 8/00 A Site PITY OF CHANHASSEN* # 6 22-9 7 - PERMIT APPLICATION Blinn zoNE FIRE ExG 7700 MARKET BLVD ♦ PO BOX 147 ♦ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Phone: 952-227-1180 Fax: 952-227-1190 Web: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Please Type or Print. Complete Sections A & F and either Sections B, C, D or E GENERAL INFORMATION Person: 02WI [ 7 "- f -S t Contractor: ��- �� Contact Address: Phone: City: State: Zip: License Number: Type: Expiration Date: _ Parcel Identificat Section Number: North South Variance required: Yes ❑ No ❑ Planning Dept. Case Number: Is there a wetland within 75' of any property lines? Yes ❑ No Q Is the property in a floodplain? Yes ❑ No H If YES, Complete Certificate of Compliance for Authorized Floodplain Development. Sewer Available: Yes ❑ No ❑ City Water Available: Yes ❑ No ❑ Estimated Completion Date: ♦ ♦ *COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTION ON REVERSE* PIIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT. IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT. THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS ACCURATE AND HEREBY AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEC SEN CITY CODE AND THE MINNESOTA STATE LAWS REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION NAME: Lia =V; S COMPANY: PLEASE PRnrr OR TYPE SIGNATURE: ��>a„rfaYP DATE: ?/D PHONE (HOME): mJSZ ,3'( q (WORK): (EMER): SIGNER MUST BE CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR'S AGENT OR EMPLOYEE G APPROVALS *Route Applications in the Order Below: Wrww M l w W ncvivw I UUIIDCMIW date: PARK & REC: date: FIRE MARSHAL: date: .OFFICE USE ONLY* DATE RECEIVED RECEIVED OCT 10 2003 CHANHASSEN *RETURN TO INSPECTIONS WHEN COMPLETED* � ary VALUATION $ sQ OOQQ Permit Fee ---- 1 5 Plan Review Fee -- State Surcharge -- 2 SAC Fee{_units) - '---�+ Sewer Surcharge -- Park Dedication Fee— Trail Dedication Fee — Trunk Water Hookup — Trunk Sewer Hookup -- Water Meter ------- Sales Tax --- Erosion Control Escrow - TOTAL— 0 B ONEATWO FAMILY DWELLING I" Levet (basement1 Finished 2nd Level 3'd Level 4' Level Finished Total Unfinished Finished Finished Unfinished Unfinished Finished Designate Energy Code Compliance: MN Rules 7670 CAT I 171lfmished Unfmisbed — Garage Square Footage: Attached ( ) — or MN Rules 7672 path 0 _ 1 _ 2 _ 3 _ 5 HVAC System: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Electric ❑ Forced Air ❑ Hot Water ❑ A/C [3Detached T uck Under Number of Baths: Full Mechanica] Ventilation ❑ 3/ Number of Fireplaces: Maso Number of Bedrooms Number Future Bedrooms Deck - Sq. Footageason Manufactured Other Value of Dwelling EXCLUDINGel and Porch - Sq. Footage Screen Porch - Sq. Footage C COMMER IALCND Occupant/Tenant: Current Address: Contact Person: City: Phone (H): State: �: New ❑ Alter ❑ Repair ❑ Addition ElOther ❑ Square ip: e: Location in Building: q g Construction Type: Description of Work: Proposed Use: Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No ❑ Occupancy Classification(s): HVAC System: Gas[] Oil ❑ Electric ❑ A/C ❑ Forced Air ❑ Space Heat ❑ Hot Water ❑ Steam ❑ Land Value: Acreage: Value of Improvement: SEE COMMERCIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST FOR ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS L) TENANT IMPROVEMENTS Current State: Building City: New ❑ Al Phone (II): Contact Person: Phone (H): Zip: ter ❑ Repair ❑ Square Footage: Location in Building: Construction Type: Occupancy Classification(s) Description of Work: Proposed Use: HVAC System: Gas. Oil ❑ Electric ❑ A/C ❑ Forced Air ❑ Hot Water ❑ Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No [:IAdjoining Tenants: Name: Proposed Use: Value of Improvement: E cation: SEE COMMERCIAL PERMIT ME CHECKLIST FOR ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS uccupanUTenant: .5 p j,(' Contact Person: 4ddition LEr�Basement Finish ElDeck ❑ Demolition E3Fence ❑ FireplacePhone Grading ❑ pool ❑ Remodel El 13Reroof�❑ Shed ❑ UST Installation 13UST Removal [I Other E] Year home was built ?xplain:� x �i �.S{ii�o,.... ;quare Footage: lDbo Cearwrr Occupancy Classification: Occupangy Classifi of :vised 11101 0 Location Date 4 ✓Inspector l) DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG City of Chanhassen 952=227t1186 Contact �'-�— �� Dept.— INSPECTION REPORT / CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MI ESOTA / p/ 952-227-1180 + /� INSPECTION FOR �" — k DATE. TIME TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED WATER METER LOCATION — PERMIT NO.C!3-( —J-- TAKEN BY: REMOTE NO conceal or proceed with construction In any areas LIKI 1ryu--o -•• authorized y the building official. Inspector Ll Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PLANNING CASE NO. 04-16 agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- •CITY OF CHANHASSEN lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal Commission will hold a public newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as hearing on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at amended. 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. SZ� Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said to consider a request fora variance to Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit Said notice was cul from the columns of Section 20.59 of the Chanhassen City the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Code allow use of single-family dwellinn inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition (mother-in-law suite), 8634 Valley and publication of the Notice: View Court. Applicant: Paul&Laura Graves. abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz . Aplan showing the location of the J proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing Laurie A. Hartmann andexpressthen opinionswithrespect to this proposal. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subscribed and swom before me on Email: gbouvetAci chanha� e�mN us _ /) Phone: 952-227. <A -d" 1132 (Published in the Chanhassen this day of 2004,µN Villager on Thursday, April 22, 2004; GWEN M. RADUENZ No. 4164) -e. NOTARY PUBIJC MINNESOTA My Canmissial Expires Jan. 3t, 2005 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 UM OF (952) 227-1100 CHIMSEN To: Paul & Laura Graves 8634 Valley View Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ship To: 0 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KM 4/14/04 upon receipt 33 1 Property Owners List within 500' of 8634 Valley View Court (33 labels) TOTAL DUE Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #04-16. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI $99.00 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) 8634 Valley View Court City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-16 Qp,G � 0• QpJ ys. GG, Gd�GP � 8634 Valley View Court - Rid e Trail North t0 U aGe Valle Rid a Place 0 �\ a r d e Trail South Via. MARK K & RACHEL D ANDERSON 1797 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CATS PAW INVESTMENT LLC 1851 LAKE DR W SUITE 250 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8585 THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9586 TIMOTHY G GEEHAN 1819 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 JOEL K & KERI L JOHNSON 1806 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 WILLIAM B & TERRE D KEMBLE 1782 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 DOUGLAS A & CINDY L MERRIGAN 8736 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 ERIC & MELISSA NOYES 8622 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 MICHAEL A & JULIE A SALENTINE 1784 VALLEY RIDGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8416 TIMOTHY J & BEVERLY ANGLUM 1841 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8419 CAESAR JAMES CRUDUP 8712 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 MICHAEL J & CAROL L FELLNER 1796 VALLEY RIDGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8416 ALVARO J & NANCY A GOMEZ 8748 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 MARK R & LAURA G JOHNSON 1807 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 GREGG J & AMY M KLOKE 1836 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8418 STEPHEN B & SANDRA L MEYER 8724 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 MARK A & NANCIANN S OLSON 1792 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 GREGORY S & SHELLY M SCALLON 1814 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 0 JEFFREY L & JENNIFER T BENKE 8643 VALLEY RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8417 KRISTOPHER E & MINDI L H DAHL 1774 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 LYNDELL F & MARY F FREY 1822 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES 8634 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 ANDREW J KAYATI III BARBARA A KAYATI 8715 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 DEBRA LYNN LUDFORD 8615 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 TODD M & JONI J NELSON 8610 VALLEY VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 KAPIL K & NEETA K RAJVANSHI 1848 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8418 U S POSTAL SERVICE 6800 W 64TH ST #100 OVERLAND PARK KS 66202-4171 PHEAVANH SOUVANNALA L &HATKENNETH A & MARCIA S STRAND THOMAS S & SUSAN M TISCHER 1829 VALLEY RIDGSOUE TRL 8631 VALLEY VIEW CT 8729 VALLEY VIEW PL CHANHASSEN VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8423 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8421 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 JOHN F & PATRICIA G VANNUCCI LAWRENCE P & HOLLY WHITE MICHAEL J & MARY M YAZCEC 1798 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N 8657 VALLEY RIDGE CT 1813 VALLEY RIDGE TRL N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8417 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8424 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD • CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: PAUL GRAVES Date: 04/19/2004 Time: 10:33am Receipt Number: DW / 4971 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST 04-16 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT GIS GIS LIST 04-16 GIS LIST 99.00 --------------- Total: 99.00 Check 1027 99.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD . CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: LAURA GRAVES Date: 04/06/2004 Time: 8:22am Receipt Number: EE / 4719 Clerk: BETTY VARIANCE ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------- DEVAP ------- USE & VARIANCE 200.00 Total: --------------- 200.00 CREDT 200.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Department FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: April 20, 2004 SUBJ: Review of variance request to allow use of single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite), 8634 Valley View Court. Paul and Linda Graves Planning Case: 0416 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have the following comments: 1. Permits must be obtained for additional work that has not yet been permitted and revised as -built plans must be submitted. 2. The addition of the mother-in-law suite does not constitute a two-family dwelling as identified in the building code because the dwelling units are not completely independent. G/safety/stmemos/plan/variance/8634 Valley View Court City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF (952)227-1100 Date: April 13, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for Variance to Section 20-59 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow use of single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite), 8634 Valley View Court, Paul & Laura Graves Planning Case: 04-16 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 5, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 4, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on May 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 23, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. L 'Or (76 r CPa nS M1 -J< 0 11 o� C,�nc� i��s�-✓► � 4)e a4V- rte. Ad Alr044 till pVrjalf� Our 60di 'oo, -IrI64 6+ our CU 6 Wv- ink{r t Lj d- � Y--4"- dwd *II A6 0 41Z,o� 6 of Cpm u- Gkw e446r ; T our h6w aVU 4PAr26Zr & Ah aovAldt- 40 �fi �06 � vto 6 ee. gciVasz 4 9 re�l lle- tet -ere A i'ofe4+ IQ D Y7 tk hi�v a r CvYI ( u'r Q + I -am Gra&o5 �%aIIPy VIPUI. T ft I i od Vlj -f 6446-�- leve I wh,I� 600��lvry --- �� N�(4► icor T-0 yon sl 6m h Y7 n 000 Tf 6wg- 01) _ f- ate- - - your� - X EM o13 FRO ee oi. ION Framer contractor all r.o•s and is responsible in verifying window locations as well as all measurements on this Pro'ect I ID I ^ �a M �� JpID f&A+ -Xf-is CTf� cop? 00 LLJ pl/Y/4 P1 .....> .. R r Wty� REVISED PIAN (pod f-* C e X rr .""t aroyl' W4 r te• Framer contractor is responsible in verifying all r.os ana window locations ae well ac all mea.Wrements on this project noel is on is, VW Yr � isFro ting contractor shall be responsible of vefting all ` asb/bq ono MW mapear ". No change or eeriatlon to th. plan With oot the ITotelage. a a Marler WYMT Veit u ti Mise 9,� Nre to. WnW case to TM rwn� CONT. COPY ❑ ❑ RV jSED VL*N RE «p • 9 a E� FUTURE FAMILY `� � b Aa n snmMe deMcar NI FNa � n C �: y Oe NI IHelf Iev Nxlefrd^8" EMl hfadNn. -I -1 Vr r -B• a' An aap CE1l1NlS r —monlws V*m Ilsom tw s BATH ' pIEb4L1pfl TRES 1 iI R NE VENT CANNOT E 14 ET WITH 2 fLBO .� J +i6, t 'BEDRGOM/DEN iO ^0M CALL FOR INSPECTIONS r r -e re•. r -B• a' r�� —monlws V*m Ilsom tw s vi ama M0V ` e I.M.e =FyO.N G d11RWSE3_ i GARAGE ' NfIMipN YVIVVw.f n rSUM wML10AR0 a,V4 a w ;2 ABOVE r ( lli� "ham IIS NG II I II FOYEit i i� �� IpIE r y a .• WlI .R�,E.R^,�, OVER CRF. sT® T I tBSo-� CMTV� -NRDyD1wIER-DMIPENirns BESTKL E%TRATRUSS T FPfM I.SVALL. 'mSf9AR k STAIIIMM -Tr R 3!A CALL FOR INSPECTIONS 88 —monlws V*m Ilsom a =FyO.N G F/p ABs. NfIMipN rSUM wML10AR0 a,V4 CI ;2 ! A CO OVID PIANS, SURVEY, MFG. PONENT SPEC$ ANR PERMIT QST BE ON JOB SITE AT F ALL TIMES CITY QS I CONTRASTING MOUSE COPY NUMBERS REOURED APPROVED SURJFCT TO COMMIANCE WITH CODES AND FIND INSPECTIONS. CITY OP C I ` . SEN BUILDING DEPT. P�, MVAC AN`DO:LE' P M ANO UGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS NO OCCUPANCY ALLOWED VTR NYt NLIRKN I.he YVEOVµ fILL pDJf NYECIO4 fDNW. nuLnrwuw>wom II[G -PL3658II FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALL 1/1• • V • xrw✓YYu — 1� OMS— SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS — J NOM V Y CQ KK VEATn•.i RES W. c. DSMT. 1A,6 M)E' 0/G XOr Rmw. k• w0/C. AS R KL Rc fnlc To x woo PSL Psz POO INO REINF.0E-�M� s INRE �PS�REVIl Tl Y4. IDE�COgEf I�EPRVI 0 POIMS. CONC. SLAP P000 PSL TF, [sb W W CO?PCT V/ C01C. PPROVmE MS UX ATS p w sOfl., SOLL ]EAR010 V.LLIIE TO EE AT POOP PSL OR PETTE PL3658II LOWER LEVEL PLAN • I • I N}L } �IW}LI CT. EPW-]OUT. COYLY YYI CSIf! -3 CWT. �Ma YPw�] CE. _ b' PAA T ➢0011 Yt m� any _ —M ve Vwr iw �,}y,� IM N' Y•1Y 10. lbY� �NuaW`�.n FK¢ W m Yml� � I e� mr r x �6'fmlolO J I • .T 4eP^F �M� � Y�/�i6u �Tm m[L I I � M• I , I I I I II II I UNE%CAVATED I II u1 v 0c ila ,�,pC {l I 10 d 'I S Y •1d (�L IABP Nm II I II P^ 5TH LEVEL I" ] i°RE— AF35E1StE5`0.EdoI 4TH LEVEL I I ^O"' �^ I pew q T EBLOC �� FFI AND DRO I ~ I F/ww mAco P+cf orfs. Fvryy-s .4s r vmirvWiR$1" u s. i R I r m�nmx I�+w er,ajr ws w Y- S� On �R Yvmr mOmaM tleeq maa t INat b YO�de In.Y YeeGlnB eteX . m I VAmI PA Y _11\ ih '�1 I xrw✓YYu — 1� OMS— SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS — J NOM V Y CQ KK VEATn•.i RES W. c. DSMT. 1A,6 M)E' 0/G XOr Rmw. k• w0/C. AS R KL Rc fnlc To x woo PSL Psz POO INO REINF.0E-�M� s INRE �PS�REVIl Tl Y4. IDE�COgEf I�EPRVI 0 POIMS. CONC. SLAP P000 PSL TF, [sb W W CO?PCT V/ C01C. PPROVmE MS UX ATS p w sOfl., SOLL ]EAR010 V.LLIIE TO EE AT POOP PSL OR PETTE PL3658II LOWER LEVEL PLAN • I • I } s I Q S1 COLP Pu any �. I a6tN 9 ie kQ rsY � C+a t~ �NuaW`�.n wl wOYe.]�.Yw -41 Eum II I I I I I II II I UNE%CAVATED I II I I II I II xvmcu I ..G.00{f. I.Y.. Y,.00IR I L n,®CY.]Yy.ImIY --ORNg40CY-- — ,J xrw✓YYu — 1� OMS— SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS — J NOM V Y CQ KK VEATn•.i RES W. c. DSMT. 1A,6 M)E' 0/G XOr Rmw. k• w0/C. AS R KL Rc fnlc To x woo PSL Psz POO INO REINF.0E-�M� s INRE �PS�REVIl Tl Y4. IDE�COgEf I�EPRVI 0 POIMS. CONC. SLAP P000 PSL TF, [sb W W CO?PCT V/ C01C. PPROVmE MS UX ATS p w sOfl., SOLL ]EAR010 V.LLIIE TO EE AT POOP PSL OR PETTE PL3658II LOWER LEVEL PLAN • I • I ni 227 3ColoZ-.y-B SIJfMtYOR'S CEF��i-`-'-IFICcATE /J ; KEI,AND HOMES . -- --T'/V S7Fi-GC /yPF � LI?r<S�avY (_.aft TKoC /+"'v cid T �R<R-Yvi'Tv�'nr /QNA M,+rNTA/K Un/r-,f- Cd r A 1-U 4 L vEgW7-,,f7 . RECEIVED OCT 10 2003 CNANHASSENINSPECTIONS 4q �`� C /��✓ Com T v �9VA D/ 1 ! - o 14- BENCH 4 BENCH MARK TOP OF PI � T4�... t`f �r 0 I`J Cr4.�apL OILCCIL 1-.�`.q� pr r:r. ti up rt tt+ H -KR 41,Y1 -AW 1nrt� Lorry YoLltr IFriArATO- �o��o m o �(r1N 4D � l� 0 n -n ffO VI � � `\ < le i James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 2500 W. CTY. RD. 42 • BURNSVILLE, MN. 55337 • 612-890-6044 c Cant Deck a �Il 7'6"x5' 1 MEN* momm*mw M 14'-W 11- • � oho 6, 6'-9350 10' -335 0- 6 5' II� Ro— 6'x8' to -o 20'-0• Ro— 2'60x3' roof is on arOF Date: April 13, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department 0 By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for Variance to Section 20-59 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow use of single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling (mother-in-law suite), 8634 Valley View Court, Paul & Laura Graves Planning Case: 0416 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 5, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 4, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on May 4, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 23, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. � f to l,u I Tei .. Ynr�sfer r..� beck room S �t2� _ -L) /// BGTy Ace r v ►eA) Cr. 6 PATI 11uD0t .pYW.Y LF • {; � 1® LWT. SAFTY GLASS M Y adr •T. 6'A- COT. Y •7 tut ur.uw Iwt ¢690- CANT. � a adwr DINING wt yr w.wl Uma � � w . sra II adds II '• fig+ vnivm m vY Yw g p 9 I II KITCHEN FUTURE FAMILY Oet w rww t CALL FOR INSPECTIONS hetatmal,T w M I II �'II Y i3 .RNs Ndnt rtT' m!GO=INGS OX ea Nvula naO lY cry oa..nnr 1 II II iGUNDAigN won 1hdlLLapdM^ ^ afw • i IMI[ w mWI ING S • Y-7 VY r r m S."'ULATION 3 II aa. MOP =NM I �GYR$ M W.LLEOAaO ��AClD(L40. Iu n ca ABOVE TREA u as n T,WIOE, TI „.A M al Pa ,<sMd I II "d" v Bnmrta "tsPIATES - R _ �_ IIS VING IIR ROVED PIANS, SURVEY, MFG. av L. sx v rvlur vus I I vdlam m II CO ONENT SPECS AND T �Tr.* MUST B[ ON JOB SITE RE AT • `<ed<h^'„d;y,,. A.1„ h I �. II / I 1 II ``' ALL TIMES u —_-- LAUNDRY d< MF.e+dAl•rIM 1. I 'a� II I IIS i. Ip ryyp Me.� v'd - 1 II Ihe•71. 1 FGYE�: I I -`L1ped a tll NNOT E �„ � � � a J a e. BEDROOM/DfN I CITY fS DRYE VENT CAY rYY 14 fi WITH T EL80 Yr {I COPY CONTRASTING HOUSE d c• I4LF TIVFR SHOP ¢090 vt= NUMBERS Ill -WIRED Nn >< va' • v R--9' ""` �`w`• mY� APPROVED rwmi sR s r prl v, pyo edr sstS a u7' y SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCETR YY R QaA m no :6'NITN CODES AND FIELD INSPECTIONS. WNx. GTY OUILDING DEPT. kN1�Y 7' \ 4 TRUSSES j :,d�sw, i.. 7 rrt1Pa l4)TFJ VILLNRE-C.PPOrtIF$ � / WSTN.L CXTRA TRUSIS T GARAGE fool Ls. WALL. TNT$ P UM81, IG, N'/AC AND ELE TRI SHIRILD C STANDNlA P MI ANC TIO;I G syo rum mva RrM"idT / \ UGGES'iEU HEATING / \ � & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS a 1 NO OCCUPANCY ALLOWED Kmcm,, sp � II ` reYaTTJ4tauw ssaono swL II Y-3' lY-Y I I NIS: PL3658II nl FIRST FLOOR PLAN FX 1/Y w,aw ML Rf SCALFi VY V-0- 8634 VALLEY VIEW COURT CHANHASSEN L I�I FE.Aru aAcn Rm• over FvPL,v_i rn IC a wJIM II II K r OB... Y.1YgT I L w ` _ OR IV 0•II 0C — 4 - J SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS NOTE: r u•cmc aK VERTICAL MW. RLL HSM. MA PARS 7E'O/C. NORII. REMF. SR• O/C. AS REal. ALL FTG CIXIG TO IE 3W0 PSL FODTOA'i5 RIRSELAV GRADE. FOATINA REA6. e !-N0.m 3 RARE C. REaA LY = SO ALTS b• MAX O/C. PROVIDE SW C P •BEARING PAINTS. .• TO SW US PSL TRFATC➢ 0.6 SOLS W CANTACT V/ ClPlC. R -10A FNWDATIW INSIA.ATII81 PROVIDE DRATN T0.E AS REaA HT SAA, SDIL lE/JgNG VALVE TO X AT E000 PSL aR BETTLTL PL3658II �I' I LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALL: 1/4- . 1'-a w s.ur. yr 260-3 CSMT. vum^r.m aT. (MIT.— N fI W . Lr �ml .< i V• � — _ • 71Rh hwn. hRuirm a unoTie'tl W.1 1m .11ftt — — Ebl09 CSM. b' PAT DOOR ml oval — Vr aP.iw ML ��y — — H YY YrtM IPM1 !Wf• —H •C�CWm �M I _ _ b.rm4 iT6 xvr A.. m'.r(9L Ir6 Kea M.YV.1LL w ve I Nc EI' Y la -b• VAAM I ••Y � �Mp}/ V0 Y. !'�°�m. • ��..r v � p�.rd r. r a.n rn ,1pC {I V - I "'",•,p•mw• 1.n .mow S.T �1C 31 ] Hd s pv; 5TH LEVEL h TED I• 4TH LEVEL w w xar :aa 4 ue a• me v. I' w q �+ We T0.E�9 I b w .._s• noM "Its I u¢7 -W o nam m . v me Fm r qa 1/r EDLDCYy� 1 BATN _ i v -b• Yom, I n �,\UN�,m. AND DRU I ty'� i< r mie .nuc u I� ? m,-4 r si�em �A—I IC a wJIM II II K r OB... Y.1YgT I L w ` _ OR IV 0•II 0C — 4 - J SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS NOTE: r u•cmc aK VERTICAL MW. RLL HSM. MA PARS 7E'O/C. NORII. REMF. SR• O/C. AS REal. ALL FTG CIXIG TO IE 3W0 PSL FODTOA'i5 RIRSELAV GRADE. FOATINA REA6. e !-N0.m 3 RARE C. REaA LY = SO ALTS b• MAX O/C. PROVIDE SW C P •BEARING PAINTS. .• TO SW US PSL TRFATC➢ 0.6 SOLS W CANTACT V/ ClPlC. R -10A FNWDATIW INSIA.ATII81 PROVIDE DRATN T0.E AS REaA HT SAA, SDIL lE/JgNG VALVE TO X AT E000 PSL aR BETTLTL PL3658II �I' I LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALL: 1/4- . 1'-a : 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- • 71Rh hwn. hRuirm a unoTie'tl W.1 1m .11ftt Iry= rn � • �.m ap eeD 6n8VV�•�w�.000... VNw AW Mx Nc EI' Y _.—• •_ VAAM niR II 31 CRD AOt c w w xar :aa 4 ue a• me v. .._s• u¢7 -W m . v me Fm r BATN �,\UN�,m. na 0w vra I ty'� i< r mie .nuc u J�'"o --- ----- ----� --� F -- -- --� F_ ------ ve v me na •crmcu n sem. VIIIIM II wa idlLm I II I I I I I II II II UNEXCAVATED I II I r I IC a wJIM II II K r OB... Y.1YgT I L w ` _ OR IV 0•II 0C — 4 - J SUGGESTED HEATING & ELECTRIC LAYOUTS NOTE: r u•cmc aK VERTICAL MW. RLL HSM. MA PARS 7E'O/C. NORII. REMF. SR• O/C. AS REal. ALL FTG CIXIG TO IE 3W0 PSL FODTOA'i5 RIRSELAV GRADE. FOATINA REA6. e !-N0.m 3 RARE C. REaA LY = SO ALTS b• MAX O/C. PROVIDE SW C P •BEARING PAINTS. .• TO SW US PSL TRFATC➢ 0.6 SOLS W CANTACT V/ ClPlC. R -10A FNWDATIW INSIA.ATII81 PROVIDE DRATN T0.E AS REaA HT SAA, SDIL lE/JgNG VALVE TO X AT E000 PSL aR BETTLTL PL3658II �I' I LOWER LEVEL PLAN SCALL: 1/4- . 1'-a a Cant Deck 'v Ro-2'6"x 7'6"x5' rv}vre I io 10 O—ow —(2 20s—Os R — 2> > 2'�— 10°-3;b'Ro- 5j 5• Ro— 6'x8' 10-0 Ro— 2'6"x3' roof is on �"F*ZA 36. SURVEYOR'S CER11TFICATE ; KEYrAND HOMES .— ..— _Tly 4 -CC T ylo c% L` t_'a Sc a.v ..r'u rjedG Tp''r a— TO l= R</t get 7-1 /iNA MR,.vTAiK 1%A' if- Lor Is fljcL y V/t 4 4r,Pr,D• RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2003 CHANHASSENINSPECTIONS / BENCH MART( TOP OF plp ELEV,_VA�, C.OZ,(,0T �� LLE S! � - /ff/ „/,, �y�- dol y3ff _ �¢'21-4 o 9/7. 00 J,q� ,- c!g %J10 r/p/(�i� / gEpOH /� O �pJu r(ZeL {�, c/AIL r tU,4'r, a,' lt,xL I)rVrtL LnfrS r yFGArAFCD' 1A0 DRA INANE & EASEMENT PERI LPLgf 5_'no 33 'Qo „� IE M m M o m 7 ��cN� N M,"I 1� I� DEPf., P .O NN) DATEr,lo�l o h 7R (p;X- r 0 B . d �... V 977.9 I Q v EPT : DATE. -� BYE �m �z DATE: O m 1A0 DRA INANE & EASEMENT PERI LPLgf 5_'no 33 'Qo „� IE M m M o m 7 ��cN� N M,"I 1� I� h Z \ -+ v O �m �z O m C James R. Hill, inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 2500 W. CTY. RD. 42 • BURNSVILLE, MN. 55337 • 612-890-6044 0 i Location Map 8634 Valley View Court City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-16 8634 Valley View Court 4 \4 ��+ � �J , , r i �.,: -.` ,. -., -• ,�,�. �1 %/ � �i �� . � � � �+__stir. (=�pa� �� / a s. �� n � r' t • �i 'r � � t� '$ 1 m " SC�. i I i!t r i f rti ; `�- 1 l -L � � � , �.rC i �'11�1 L�:I� ,r � ' ,ri _ _ �� _�_ -. ,.... I