Loading...
CAS-10_620 WEST 96TH STREET VARIANCE (ANDREW & SHANNON RIEGERT)K R Document No. OFFICE OF THE A 565179 COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fee: $46 00 Receipt# Certified Recorded on 1102012 at 01:53 ❑ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2012-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a variance from the 1,000 square -foot limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building as shown in plans dated received July 20, 2012 on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: East 155 feet of West 930 feet of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Except P-21 Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat #10-22. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The accessory structure will require a building permit. b. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. c. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. d. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. 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: October 8, 2012 RECEIVED DEC "1 0 201Z SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: c L A7Q=5� oe= Thomas A. Furlong, Mayo AND: 1✓_J Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2012 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. 1 /—, - A DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 J 0 TARY3UBLIC :KARENJ.ENGELHARDTPublic-Minnesotasim Bom Jan 31, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 10/26/12 2012-10 ATTENTION Carole Hoeft RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 10/8/12 Variance 2012-10 620 West 96 thStreet - Rie ert THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: Andrew & Shannon Riegart ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ® For Recording ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED:' Kim Meuwi sen, (g52) 227-1107 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2012-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a variance from the 1,000 square -foot limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building as shown in plans dated received July 20, 2012 on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. Proverty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: East 155 feet of West 930 feet of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Except P-21 Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat #10-22. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The accessory structure will require a building permit. b. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. c. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. d. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. 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: October 8, 2012 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: L A 7a77::S 11 Thomas A. Furlong, Mayo -0��1Ji AND: JJ_J—" Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2012 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 KAREN J. =NGELHARDT Notary Pub .,,,: My Cmm"on E CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 930' OF SW1/4 NW1/4 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide for additional storage. The construction of accessory structures is a permitted use in the Agricultural Estate District (A2). The size of the structure is in keeping with accessory structures in this neighborhood and the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty is the homeowner does not have adequate storage and work space. The home was initially purchased with the intent of constructing an accessory structure and the building pad was initially graded. The homeowners ceased construction after the initial grading for financial reasons. The homeowner now is in a financial position to move forward with the project, but there is a 1,000s square -foot accessory structure limitation in Agricultural Estate Districts (A2). c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent for the request is for personal storage and work space and is not intended to create an economic windfall. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998. However, due to financial concerns the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of the accessory structure would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or locality. There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-10, dated September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. W "The City Council approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions of the staff report." ADOPTED by the City Council this 8th day of October, 2012. CITY OF CHANHA%SSSEN BY:— Mayor CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-10 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Com- mission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to Considers requestfor Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhas- sen City Code to allow sin accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) located at 620 West96th Street Applicant/Owner: Andrew & Shannon Riegert. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10 or at City Hall during regular busi- ness hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with Ashley respect to this proposal.. Y llgren, Planning Intern Email: amellgrenGci.chanhassen. mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, August 9, 2012: No. 4693) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abodefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz sy A Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and swom before me on this 1 day of2012 u k. JY�iME JEANNETTE BARK g NOTARYPUBUC-MINNESOTA No b is < i ": a1Y COMMISSION IXPIRES 01131113 f RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matteL................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged forthe above matter ............................................... $12.59 per colunm inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 930' OF SW 1/4 NWl/4 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide for additional storage. The construction of accessory structures is a permitted use in the Agricultural Estate District (A2). The size of the structure is in keeping with accessory structures in this neighborhood and the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this 11 't��Gomm2rl�--itioY�I{ cEue 4. fb 4-a, \V0 (less er _7S'4 Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty is the homeowner does not have adequate storage and work space. The home was initially purchased with the intent of constructing an accessory structure and the building pad was initially graded. The homeowners ceased construction after the initial grading for financial reasons. The homeowner now is in a financial position to move forward with the project, but there is a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation in Agricultural Estate Districts (A2). c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent for the request is for personal storage and work space and is not intended to create an economic windfall. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the -property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998. However due to financial concerns, the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of the accessory structure would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-10, dated September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,000 square foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions of the staff report." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18t' day of September, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (?E!!!n Chairman October 9, 2012 ❑IC,��Iu�T❑❑Y��OppFQpj,�j Cllfil1l1 SEN Andrew & Shannon Riegart 7700 Market Boulevard 620West 96drStreet PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 620 West 96dr Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-10 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Riegart: Fax:952227.1110 On October 8, 2012, the City Council approved a 1,560 square -foot accessory Building Inspections Phone:952.2271180 structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot limitation to allow for a 2,560 Fax:952.227.1190 square -foot storage building on your property subject to the following conditions: Engineering 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. Phone:952.227.1160 Fax:952.227.1170 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. Finance Phone: 952227.1140 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. Fax: 952.227.1110 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home Park & Recreation occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. Phone:952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 952- Recreation Center 227-1139 or kaanensonci.chanhassen.mn.us. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Sincerely, Fax: 952.227.1404 WAPlanning & Natural Resources A�-� Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director Public Works 7901 Park Place KA:ktm Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 c: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Jerry Mohn, Building Official Senior Center Phone: 9522271125 Ashley Mellgren, Planning Intern Fax: 952.227.1110 g:Nplan12012 plmming c \2012-10 620 west 96th street variance\approval lenerAm Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing forTodayand Planning for Tomorrow CITY of CAANHAS3EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.22Z1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone:952.227.1140 Fax:952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone:952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax:952.227,1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: October 8, 2012 6k7 SUBJ: 620 West 96 h Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-10 Andrew and Shannon Riegert PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case No. 2012-10 for a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure variance subject to conditions outlined in the staff report, and adoption of the attached Planning Commission Findings of Fact." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square - foot maximum area for a detached accessory structure to construct a 2,560 square - foot accessory structure. The property currently has a single-family home with an attached garage. There are no detached accessory structures existing on the property. The applicant is intending to use the accessory structure for additional storage and work space. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planting Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2012 to review the proposed variance request. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the variance request allowing for an additional 1,000 square from the minimum 1,000 square feet. Section 20-29 of the city code states: "Decisions of the board. The board shall be empowered to decide appeals and grant variances, when the decision of the board is by an affirmative vote of three -fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three -fourths of the members present or any vote on a variance in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional use permits and interim use permits shall serve only as a recommendation to the city council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request within 30 days after receipt of the board's action." The September 18, 2012 Planning Commission minutes are item la in the council packet. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Todd Gerhardt Riegart Variance — Planning Case 2012-10 October 8, 2012 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION City Council approves the variance request for 1000 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,000 square -foot accessory structure, with the following conditions: 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 18, 2012. glplan\2012 planning cases\2012-10 620 west 96th street variance\cc staff report 10-08-2012.doe CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 930' OF SWl/4 NWIA SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide for additional storage. The construction of accessory structures is a permitted use in the Agricultural Estate District (A2). The size of the structure is in keeping with accessory structures in this neighborhood and the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty is the homeowner does not have adequate storage and work space. The home was initially purchased with the intent of constructing an accessory structure and the building pad was initially graded. The homeowners ceased construction after the initial grading for financial reasons. The homeowner now is in a financial position to move forward with the project, but there is a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation in Agricultural Estate Districts (A2). c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent for the request is for personal storage and work space and is not intended to create an economic windfall. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998. However due to financial concerns, the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of the accessory structure would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report 42012-10, dated September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,000 square foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions of the staff report." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18'" day of September, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M Chairman PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Denial." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). LOCATION: 620 West 966' Street O�C{o E 155' OF W 930' OF SWIA NWl/4, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. APPLICANT: Andrew and Shannon Riegert 620 West 96" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)685-8815 andrew(a)naturalsurroundinesmn.com PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.47 acres (194,713.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96a' Street to the north of the property. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of SCANNED Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 7 discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for a detached accessory structure to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure. The property currently has a single-family home with an attached garage. There are no detached accessory structures existing on the property. The applicant is intending to use the accessory structure for additional storage and work space. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904 regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 620 West 96`" Street. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures BACKGROUND The property is located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 101 at 620 West 9e Street and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has an area of 194,713.2 square feet (4.47 acres), which satisfies the minimum lot area requirement of two and one-half acres in the A2 district. The property has 155 feet of lot frontage and a depth of 1,200 feet. Staff notes that the lot frontage does not meet the 200-foot lot frontage minimum for the A2 district. The house was built in 1966 and purchased by the applicant in 1998 with the intention of constructing an accessory structure. The homeowners acquired a permit to install a crushed gravel driveway from 96a' Street to the intended location of the structure. At the time of driveway installation a pad was graded for the intended accessory structure. The project was then put on hold for financial reasons. In 2004, the owner added an attached garage and a house addition. The total house addition was 298 square feet. The attached garage was 27 feet by 37 feet and 999 square feet in size. The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 7 At the time of the ordinance amendment there were discussions regarding reasonable requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for a legitimate agricultural use. Minnesota State Statute 17.81— Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural use as "use of land for the Production of livestock dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products. " It was decided after the discussions that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square -feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This intended use of the accessory structure to be located on the subject property is for storage; therefore, it would not be considered to be for a legitimate agricultural use. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. If a subject property meets the criteria as listed below or found in Minnesota Statutes 1613.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 620 West 96`h Street does not qualify as agricultural land because the property has a 4.47 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure would require a building permit. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Minnesota Statutes 16B.60 — Definitions defines agricultural building to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in section 273.13, subdivision 23, designed, constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, and sublessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23. Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage often acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. " ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot maximum detached accessory structure limitation to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure. The applicant bought the property in 1998 with the intention of building an accessory structure. At the time of purchase there was no accessory structure area limitation. After grading work was done to level a pad for the structure, the project was put on hold due to financial reasons. The applicant is intending to use the additional space for storage and work space and has submitted a list and photos of intended uses with the application: 1. Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles, snowmobiles, lawn mowers and tractors 2. Provide space for indoor storage of a motorhome and boat 3. Provide space for an art studio 4. Tack room for horse equipment The applicant has not chosen a contractor or company to construct the accessory structure to date. However, the applicant does have several examples of what the building would look like. The structure will be in earth -tone, tan and green, as shown in the image to the right. Staff is concerned with the large size of the structure. This concern orginates from the possibility home occupations may be conducted out of accessory structures. Home occupations are a common cause of complaint by citizens. They often create an excess in parking, traffic and noise. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Currently, it does not appear that the homeowner has intentions of selling the property. However, staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it may be purchased by a person with intentions of operating a home occupation out of the large outbuilding. In the past staff has found that it is very difficult to remove and terminate noncomplying home occupations. The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitian Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban type development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached resdiential units. The remaining 15 percent of development is some other type of low density residential use e.g., twin homes, town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by a reduction in the size of the structure to maintain the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation. This would allow for a 20' x 50' structure or similar configuration. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing home and garage. SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. The location for the proposed accessory structure was previously graded and would likely not require additional grading for the construction. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southern most portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD The applicant believes the accessory structure would fit into the neighborhood. Staff did confirm there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square -feet in accessory structure area; these properties are illustrated in the image on the following page. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Properties in proximity to the subject property have accessory structures ranging in size from 200 square feet to 13,500 square feet (this is a combination of five detached accessory structures). These structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet at the time of the ordinance amendment are considered to be legal nonconforming. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request for an accessory structure; however, literal interpretation of the City Code does not establish a hardship. ALTERNATIVE Should the Chanhassen Planning Commission decide to approve the variance request for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted: 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 7 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Denial. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval). 3. Development Review Application. 4. Original lot survey. 5. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9:\plan\2012 planning cases\2012-10 620 west 96th meet varimn \staff report 620 west 96th stmt.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) It ' Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On August 21, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 930' OF SWIM NWl/4, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide additional storage and maintenance for non-agricultural equipment. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for storage and not for agricultural uses; therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house and attached garage exist on the property. Accessory agricultural buildings are listed as a permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship or practical hardship. The applicant could build a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for personal storage and work space. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998, but due to financial hardships the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since a 1,000 square -foot structure could be constructed. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-10, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. " ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21s` day of August, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions of the staff report." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2151 day of August, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN L-M Chairman 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 93W OF SW IA NW 1/4, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide additional storage and maintenance for non-agricultural equipment. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for storage and not for agricultural uses; therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house and attached garage exist on the property. Accessory agricultural buildings are listed as a permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship or practical hardship. The applicant could build a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for personal storage and work space. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998, but due to financial hardships the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since a 1,000 square -foot structure could be constructed. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-10, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 180' day of September, 2012 CITY OF CHANHASSEN M Chairman Planning Case No. la-1 a CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 CITYRECEsseN IVED Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 JUL 2 0 2012 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION cKamgm"NINODEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Q4vi�R 4J 54iMWa.\ 18�� W. °l hTkl r C(1PtJNAS5Er1� M+J �S31"'� Contact: ANb2Ew R F_bz 2T Phone: 12a 615-Ui5 Fax: Email: ndrzufFJ;nai�ralSu(fo;tn ��sr n Com Property Owner Name and Address: � L Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) k Variance (VAR) -2,0D . Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost' - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB Pft4'2cd C-MA.%- card TOTAL FEE $_SD •*_ PLt 3 4GO CK jGOkfi An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (".tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAM 1E: aE LJn A n CC7 1 2 LOCATION: (oaQ W, 6� � CIAAWAASS I\ t LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: TOTAL ACREAGE: � Kl WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: ACC Z REQUESTED ZONING: D..150Z53500 X YES PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: NO REASON FOR REQUEST: Skle pcAAPICFLa�- I.CMF . FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. �11911D, Date MIA�.N CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPr gAplar,Wr \development review applicalim.doc SCANNED PROJECT NAME: _ f"� pBwg LOCATION:_(oaQ Vy, 6% Sr C�ANAAS , MO 5S-50 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: D.. 250253500 TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Ke- S-r'AC^71;9�k REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: S kA�NCVtas 1LV"`E1K . FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. �11911a Date 01, ft. .... CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 U 2012 (%fW ASSEN PLANNING DEPT g:\plan\f m \development review appfiution.dm SCANNED I am asking for a variance to build a 40' x 64' Pole Barn. The reason I am requesting the variance will be outlined below. In 1998 we purchased the property with the intent to install a pole barn. At the time there was not a 1000' sq. ft. maximum on building size. We acquired a permit to install a crushed gravel driveway from 96`h St. to our backyard. At that time we had the excavating work done to level a pad for the pole barn. Due to financial reasons, we were forced to put the pole barn project on hold. Now we are in a position to move forward but have been told there is the sq. ft. size limit. We need additional storage/work space for multiple reasons. • Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles. • Storage and maintenance of snowmobiles • Storage and maintenance of Lawn mower • Indoor storage of Motorhome • Art studio • Restoration of vintage John Deere tractors • Tack room for horse equipment 111 8oxc This is a small list of the uses that we had intended for the pole barn. We feel it would fit in to the neighborhood very well as many of our neighbors have sheds of a similar size and even larger. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew & Shannon Riegert 620 W. 96`h St. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED 45UPVF 1 Z� alz.tt A\ � TN A�3Df�G T.eb�R.2�j 4 E n �O 51�-EET Top izw.1 —� a Ete�o869.aT � 'O E sy 0 560t ? e Ia +IIb.2N _ R __�,-%iai 5�57@•,54E;83,545$7 ��, �D 6, - 155.00 (1.�69e0�'43"E O11v 1-hov ok �,uW�4\�Ec.2-j- erm—ad carare floor elevation SMm pI-�GER i �( N EK�N SNE 1 o. sxho`NNoEY P0.1 1 SS P p5 gV0. iNt P '91.G7 \F N�\N\GpSE OFPNO M00.Nc �EptG t\ON SED_•D 1 A3 EXGpI vEO0% % 0 aSS PK C FCao�eeopi3P5 LV`NSS0.V 9 0: 5 5witM el- VSED 1N Fbs.T Ipa 9 I DATE / Bearings are eaumed CQp y90 c' Subject to elements of record if any O Denotes set or found iron pipe monuments $ Denotes set wood hub and tack TB4z Monte- exleung vav u Proposedtopof block elevation ® Denotes proposed finish grade elevation Denotes direction of surface drainage Proposed lowest floor elevation A' Lhu ettke, Gv bE POL zF.ORniunt� I�plp •. �11 F1lMtiwt GRAAE f-DR ORAit1AGE V Y vn Ru s bws G¢.Pcs is 2.Oe10 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of theboundaries 6Akr 155,O4m;F o1'+aaYk-sT 93 oSae-+wt Mensurs.ea of"4M. lb{tw' So-tM 4nas ipa.<da okih¢��SoOM- �IARDER County. Minnesota as on file and of record VliAt'R�Ha*aa Ny NoaatiWfSt B.NWlTt1 ni- $W,04 7.5, TewusmP iea. R� 1Ge 7.1) . in the Office of the County -Recorder in and for.said County, also showing the proposedlocation of a house as staked thereon. That I am a duly Registered Iivd Surveyor under the Owe of the State of Minnesota. Datedz Geaut 22,2004 Cliv % RECEIVED J cE1vED JUL 2 U 2012 NOV 2 9 2004 Allan R. Naeticie Minnesota Registration No. 19009 C,q,,gMgA&"OEPI CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS 212 Flrsi Avenue E. �^ suite No. C : ��1`l/'TinE OCPI01,09 l AE064€D TO DpR'E Shakopee, Minnesota $5379 Phone K2 445 4027 _. m:NED TV ANOBEW' 5Pk 99N K E(AI T (o2a vJ, y�,n+ Si CHkN11A%&N1'�N 55'%�-I -— ratoot CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 9, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for a Structure Variance Request at 620 West 96th Street — Planning Case 2012-10 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 T�N day ofALLauf.4 2012. Notary Pu is KIM T. MEUWISSEN S E` Notary Public -Minnesota �� My commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,dependingdepencling on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96 Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. _ If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren by email at amellaren(o)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s), • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council, If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start ' until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96" Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren by email at amellgren(fti.chanhassen.mmus or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request, At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may lake several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council, If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT DONALD E HALLA REV TRUST ETAL DOUGLAS J & REBECCA A DUCHON 620 96TH ST W 6601 MOHAWK TRL 9630 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 EDINA MN 55439-1029 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8688 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES & ARLENE J CHURCH 611 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES H & TERESA O GIUSTI 540 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 HALLA FAMILY LP 495 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4718 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & CHRISTIN E BOECKER 610 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY J LOWE 601 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE VIVEK KAUL WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 10790 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 9875 DELPHINIUM LN 721 96TH ST W SAN DIEGO CA 92127-5705 CHASKA MN 55318-1176 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 6, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for a Structure Variance Request at 620 West 96t" Street — Planning Case 2012-10 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. DeputAderk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisjp-L+\day of I i. 2012. - JR:KIM T. MEUWISSENNotary Fubllc•Mesotallotary�� CgnmI 'Im F I, Jen 31. 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West Win Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bcenerous(Cci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent intonation 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 apart of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519,99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, clepenclino on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96l Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bcenerous(&ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm 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 commerciallindustnal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting, • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT DONALD E HALLA REV TRUST ETAL DOUGLAS J & REBECCA A DUCHON 620 96TH ST W 6601 MOHAWK TRL 9630 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 EDINA MN 55439-1029 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8688 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES & ARLENE J CHURCH 611 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES H & TERESA O GIUSTI 540 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 HALLA FAMILY LP 495 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4718 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & CHRISTIN E BOECKER 610 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY J LOWE 601 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE VIVEK KAUL WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 10790 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 9875 DELPHINIUM LN 721 96TH ST W SAN DIEGO CA 92127-5705 CHASKA MN 55318-1176 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Denial." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). LOCATION: 620 West 96°i Street E 155' OF W 930' OF SWl/4 NW1/4, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 r MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. APPLICANT: Andrew and Shannon Riegert 620 West 96 h Street / Chanhassen, MN 55317 1\ (612)685-8815 andrew(a),naturalsurroundinesmn.com - PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.47 acres(194,713.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 960' Street to the north of the property. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 7 discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for a detached accessory structure to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure. The property currently has a single-family home with an attached garage. There are no detached accessory structures existing on the property. The applicant is intending to use the accessory structure for additional storage and work space. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904 regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and is located at 620 West 96 h Street. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. • Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures BACKGROUND The property is located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 101 at 620 West 96`" Street and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The property has an area of 194,713.2 square feet (4.47 acres), which satisfies the minimum lot area requirement of two and one-half acres in the A2 district. The property has 155 feet of lot frontage and a depth of 1,200 feet. Staff notes that the lot frontage does not meet the 200-foot lot frontage minimum for the A2 district. The house was built in 1966 and purchased by the applicant in 1998 with the intention of constructing an accessory structure. The homeowners acquired a permit to install a crushed gravel driveway from 96`h Street to the intended location of the structure. At the time of driveway installation a pad was graded for the intended accessory structure. The project was then put on hold for financial reasons. In 2004, the owner added an attached garage and a house addition. The total house addition was 298 square feet. The attached garage was 27 feet by 37 feet and 999 square feet in size. The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupations. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 7 At the time of the ordinance amendment there were discussions regarding reasonable requests for structures in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for a legitimate agricultural use. Minnesota State Statute 17.81 — Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural use as "use of land for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products. " It was decided after the discussions that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square -feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This intended use of the accessory structure to be located on the subject property is for storage; therefore, it would not be considered to be for a legitimate agricultural use. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. J Proposed location for storage building Structure constructed after 2005. no permit on file If a subject property meets the criteria as listed below or found in Minnesota Statutes 16B.60 and 273.13, the agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 620 West 96th Street does not qualify as agricultural land because the property has a 4.47 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure would require a building permit. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Minnesota Statutes 1613.60 — Definitions defines agricultural building to mean "a structure on agricultural land as defined in section 273.13, subdivision 23, designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, and sublessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or goods. " Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23. Class 2 defines agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used in the preceding year for agricultural purposes. " ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot maximum detached accessory structure limitation to construct a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure. The applicant bought the property in 1998 with the intention of building an accessory structure. At the time of purchase there was no accessory structure area limitation. After grading work was done to level a pad for the structure, the project was put on hold due to financial reasons. The applicant is intending to use the additional space for storage and work space and has submitted a list and photos of intended uses with the application: 1. Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles, snowmobiles, lawn mowers and tractors 2. Provide space for indoor storage of a motorhome and boat 3. Provide space for an art studio 4. Tack room for horse equipment The applicant has not chosen a contractor or company to construct the accessory structure to date. However, the applicant does have several examples of what the building would look like. The structure will be in earth -tone, tan and green, as shown in the image to the right. Staff is concerned with the large size of the structure. This concern orginates from the possibility home occupations may be conducted out of accessory structures. Home occupations are a common cause of complaint by citizens. They often create an excess in parking, traffic and noise. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Currently, it does not appear that the homeowner has intentions of selling the property. However, staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it may be purchased by a person with intentions of operating a home occupation out of the large outbuilding. In the past staff has found that it is very difficult to remove and terminate noncomplying home occupations. The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is included in the 2010 Metropolitian Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as a more suburban type development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached resdiential units. The remaining 15 percent of development is some other type of low density residential use e.g., twin homes, town houses at a density of less than four units per acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of development. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by a reduction in the size of the structure to maintain the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation. This would allow for a 20' x 50' structure or similar configuration. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing home and garage. SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. The location for the proposed accessory structure was previously graded and would likely not require additional grading for the construction. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southern most portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD The applicant believes the accessory structure would fit into the neighborhood. Staff did confirm there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square -feet in accessory structure area; these properties are illustrated in the image on the following page. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Properties in proximity to the subject property have accessory structures ranging in size from 200 square feet to 13,500 square feet (this is a combination of five detached accessory structures). These structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet at the time of the ordinance amendment are considered to be legal nonconforming. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request for an accessory structure; however, literal interpretation of the City Code does not establish a hardship. ALTERNATIVE OTr Should the Chanhassen Plannin ommission decide to approve the variance request fo a 1,560 square foot accesso area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory struct limitation to allow r a , 6,0 uare-foot accessory structure, staff recommends the following conditions be adopt 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. Riegert variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 7 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined the Chanhassen City Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Denial. ATTACUMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval). 3. Development Review Application. 4. Original lot survey. 5. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. giplan12012 planning caust2012-10 620 west %th street variance\staff report 620 west 96th streetdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) Ua4" Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On August 21, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 15T OF W 930' OF SWI14 NW114, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide additional storage and maintenance for non-agricultural equipment. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for storage and not for agricultural uses; therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes t9-usalbLeproperty in a reasonable manner not Dermitted by this are not tmutea to, inadequate access to for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house and attached garage exist on the property. Accessory agricultural buildings are listed as a permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship or practical hardship. The applicant could build a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for personal storage and work space. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998, but due to financial hardships the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since a 1,000 square -foot structure could be constructed. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report 42012-10, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2 1 " day of August, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 13W Chairman DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions of the staff report." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2 1 " day of August, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert for a 1,560 square -foot area variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) — Planning Case 2012-10. On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: E 155' OF W 930' OF SW I14 NW114, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, EXC: P-21 MNDOT R-O-W PLAT #10-22. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to provide additional storage and maintenance for non-agricultural equipment. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for storage and not for agricultural uses; therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the A2 district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house and attached garage exist on the property. Accessory agricultural buildings are listed as a permitted accessory use however, the proposed accessory structure does not meet the criteria for an agricultural building. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship or practical hardship. The applicant could build a 1,000 square -foot accessory structure in compliance with the zoning regulations. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The stated intent of the request is for personal storage and work space. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The homeowner purchased the property with the intention of constructing an accessory structure in 1998, but due to financial hardships the project was put on hold. During the time the project was on hold, the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance limiting the size of accessory structures in A2 districts to 1,000 square feet. This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since a 1,000 square -foot structure could be constructed. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012-10, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18v' day of September, 2012 CrfY OF CHANHASSEN RIM Chairman •A km._'— Planning Case No. 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 CRY RECEIVED or SSEN Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 JUL 2 0 2012 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION cmOmsmpt.AwwoDEPT r"Cmac Applicant Name and Address: :sbmmfx t A t Rc CttAtJNA55irJ� MIJ �S`Si-j Contact: AtimX) rztCbMT Phone:_ba (25-3215 Fax: Email:;n�srvn tom Property Owner Name and Address: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) k Variance (VAR) 77-45C, --- Welland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB OA42-W crcdik- carp TOTAL FEE $ S> .� ed A. c, dSaSt An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (`.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNEn PROJECT NAME: ?%k A LOCATION: V aO W, M S-r_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: fD- 2boZ535O0 TOTAL ACREAGE: `-T1 WETLANDS PRESENT: k YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: j (J PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: IGe -GLe— C I REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: P.� �— REASON FOR REQUEST: Ste kANPIC as LET- 6W . FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. (OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 U 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT &Nplan\fo s\development review applicatim.rim SCANNED I am asking for a variance to build a 40' x 64' Pole Barn. The reason I am requesting the variance will be outlined below. In 1998 we purchased the property with the intent to install a pole barn. At the time there was not a 1000' sq. ft. maximum on building size. We acquired a permit to install a crushed gravel driveway from 96th St. to our backyard. At that time we had the excavating work done to level a pad for the pole barn. Due to financial reasons, we were forced to put the pole barn project on hold. Now we are in a position to move forward but have been told there is the sq. ft. size limit. We need additional storage/work space for multiple reasons. • Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles. • Storage and maintenance of snowmobiles • Storage and maintenance of Lawn mower • Indoor storage of Motorhome • Art studio • Restoration of vintage John Deere tractors • Tack room for horse equipment • IT�Bl This is a small list of the uses that we had intended for the pole barn. We feel it would fit in to the neighborhood very well as many of our neighbors have sheds of a similar size and even larger. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew & Shannon Riegert 620 W. 96t' St. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED 4 9 o Ttp woo 9.te�V1159.77 J 'V'; N OOWGE�z ..�`x,_�uos 54576,59£63,o45b�-'� \ t�GE RT- No P_ �9\(1�VgV1^INYp\Vh - N1, 0\tp: G G�OF 91.f� ' Ql TpV P SM1t�� OF IASP`i€[o 13Zi5_ CONS sO wit oTnP NAte Q Fa Par 996Bb � 6a�\KteK ti 33 `I'pp Nuu =Na weJ�e�n.et e� APPR 9 WASA Hearings a assumed LWOL-Yro l Subject to ' gents of record if any 1� �155.0o M09p0643 SpuTM Lute A aXN4,3bJV011SM- Proposed garage floor elewtion Proposed top of block elevation Proposed losest floor elevetion 9P.ING Q". G hocx- bRRhtl h6E .. GRMF- PDe. 9RCMIAGE 6.s Gees as 2ZI. O Devotee set or Sound i"n pipe mcuuaents $ Denotes set uood. hub and tack _ Ta4b D Rote. existing elevation ®Denotes proposed finish grade elevation _tbvotmdlrectlov of surface draidage I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct "Ic'esentatlen of a survey of the boundaries -4c Sw 1r55A4ed etivIvilu f Movftd sm NNtsuaeo - ofs 4m' t tm� Mw.nk, of sk?IS000tN} CAROERCoaty. Mieasot.....a file and of record *4 Me yJp'.r cturwee s.mWvsc(pu vqA In the Office of the Couvty-BeCotdei in and for.eaid County, also shoeing the prupoeed'locatlon of a house as staked thereon, - That I u • duly Registered 1•md Surveyor under the-1•me of thee State of J of minnesota: D.Lad:�OUFrvase 2Z,%04 RECEIVED (, �UW / C(fY R �p/ED�N Nov 2 9 2004 W O 4 JUL 2 U 2012 dllm It. Hastings Ki,asota Registration No. 17009' ,,~p RAwavocwT CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS 212 FNst Avenue E. - - m Suite No. C gow. �)poom faet.>1 au To � Sbakopee, Minnesota - 55379 Pboa 952 -445 4027 __ I ', A4NREWf..SNhNNW KlE(�EiiT (da vJ.9LTy SC CtiktSNASfaEN, MN 553\1 _r.r— .- u to mx CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 9, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for a Structure Variance Request at 620 West 96`h Street — Planning Case 2012-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this C day ofALjA LAc.42012. Notary Pu is • r / '4 Clerk jr =?y KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31. 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96th Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 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 rolect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren Questions & by email at amellaren(a)ci.chanhassen mn us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party Is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 5 19. 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. Date & Time: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: I City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: I Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96' Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10, If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren Questions & by email at amellgrentaaci.chanhassen.mn us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialfindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard, Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood 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 pemon(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT DONALD E HALLA REV TRUST ETAL DOUGLAS J & REBECCA A DUCHON 620 96TH ST W 6601 MOHAWKTRL 9630 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 EDINA MN 55439-1029 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8688 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES & ARLENE J CHURCH 611 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES H & TERESA O GIUSTI 540 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 TIMOTHY A & DAWN M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 HALLA FAMILY LP 495 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4718 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & CHRISTIN E BOECKER 610 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY J LOWE 601 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE VIVEK KAUL WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 10790 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 9875 DELPHINIUM LN 721 96TH ST W SAN DIEGO CA 92127-5705 CHASKA MN 55318-1176 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 6, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for a Structure Variance Request at 620 West 96t° Street — Planning Case 2012-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this (ci Ll\ day of 2012. ' w'L Notary c Karefi J. Engel "I Deput Jerk IR=KET-MENota102153 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 96 thStreet Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. _ If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerousCrDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews. Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclalllndustrlal, • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 50 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen Proposal: City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2 Applicant: Andrew & Shannon Rie ert Property 620 West 960Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen,mn.us/2012-10. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions 8 email at bcenerousOci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within e0 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take severe[ months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethingto be included in the report, lease contact the PlanningStaff person named on the notification. ANDREW T RIEGERT DONALD E HALLA REV TRUST ETAL DOUGLAS J & REBECCA A DUCHON 620 96TH ST W 6601 MOHAWK TRL 9630 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 EDINA MN 55439-1029 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8688 DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN 701 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES & ARLENE J CHURCH 611 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 8503 OLD TOWNE CT KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361 LISA C OLSON 9855 DELPHINIUM LN CHASKA MN 55318-1176 ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 GREGORY M FALCONER 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 JAMES H & TERESA O GIUSTI 540 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG 711 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8697 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695 HALLA FAMILY LP 495 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4718 JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE 700 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 LESLIE L O'HALLORAN 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 ROBERT & CHRISTIN E BOECKER 610 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 621 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 TIMOTHY J LOWE 601 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602 US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE VIVEK KAUL WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN 10790 RANCHO BERNARDO RD 9875 DELPHINIUM LN 721 96TH ST W SAN DIEGO CA 92127-5705 CHASKA MN 55318-1176 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603 4 9-s iz- CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Greg & Tammy Falconer Gerald & Karon Story Andrew Riegert Roger Lee Gary Bendzick Naomi Carlson Chris Martin John Kunis 720 West 96's Street 6281 Teton Lane 620 West 96`' Street 600 96`h Street West 731 90h Street West 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN SHANNON RIEGERT, PLANNING CASE 2012-10. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This first case before you tonight is located on 620 West 9e Street and the owners are the applicants, Andrew and Shannon Riegert. The applicants are requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation and they want to construct a 2,560 square foot accessory structure. The property is zoned agricultural. It's guided. Excuse me, it's zoned agricultural but it's guided for residential single family. The lot itself, as stated in the staff report, is about 4 1/2 acres, although that doesn't, that's gross. Doesn't extract what we believe is wetlands in the rear of that. So the applicants purchased the property, shown here in yellow, in 1998 with the intention of constructing an accessory structure. They stated the intent for the 40 by 60 accessory structure was for additional storage and work space. The current zoning limits accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet so if they were to come in and submit a permit for 1,000 square feet of accessory structure and it met the setback criteria and the like, it would have been permitted. As you are aware in 2000 in response to a number of problems that we had with some of these larger square foot buildings the City did adopt a policy of restricting them to 1,000 square feet and we said that through a variance process we would look at these, if they were intended to be agricultural related, businesses where they're hobby farms or horse property or the like so in 2000, excuse me, 2007 the, again the ordinance was adopted restricting the size to over 1,000. To less than 1,000. So in this neighborhood there are several accessory structures in excess of 1,000. According to the City records some of these structures were constructed prior to the 2000. I would say the majority of them have been and this is some of the instance where we have records, or couldn't find records of some of the permits SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 being pulled and that's one of the reasons, this is one of the neighborhoods, but we've had problems throughout the city regarding these structures and then how they would be used in the future. Maybe not the current owners but maybe owners in the future looking for a type of business that they could use it for And also for the record too, we've also, used to allow and we'll talk about this in more detail later, contractors yards in these but that was also stopped a number of years ago too. So because the applicant, while there is nothing on the property right now, has a right to go forward with a 1,000 square feet, we recognize there are other larger properties in the area but for us the staff the strict interpretation of law based on the fact that this area is guided for lower density residential and we believe that 1,000 square foot is adequate for this type of use, we would not support the variance at this time. We put together Findings of Fact in your staff report. Again those relate back to the agricultural zoning. The fact that, what the intent of the agricultural zoning is and this doesn't meet it and we believe the 1,000 square feet would be adequate. There are some of that size in the neighborhood so with that we are recommending that it be denied and we've attached the Findings of Fact in your staff report. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Aller: Any questions from anyone at this point? The, it looks like there was an addition on the property in 2004? Aanenson: No, not on this one I don't think. To the house, I'm sorry. Yes. To the house, there is a garage attached to the house. I'm sorry, yes. Undestad: Do we know how many of those buildings in that neighborhood are not permitted? Aanenson: Again backed in for agricultural purposes, if it was on agricultural land and they weren't permitted and that's why we went back and changed those. It's not just this neighborhood. We had some other ones that things got pretty excessive as far as the square footage and so we wanted to cap that. When we were spending a lot of time on the complaints and certainly this application doesn't have an accessory structure yet so. Alter: Okay, then in 2007 it looks like the city code was amended to prohibit anything in excess of 1,000. That was the dateline? Aanenson: 2007. Alter: 2007. Aanenson: 2007, correct. Aller: And at that point there were public hearings and Aanenson: It was noticed. It was gone through. We had quite a lengthy discussion. It was noticed in the paper. We did it with a code amendment but yes, there was I think certainly the applicant has concerns about that. That they maybe felt like they weren't duly notified but we went through our normal process for a code amendment, correct. Alter: I don't have any further questions. If anyone else has. Colopoulos: Yeah, I had one about the agricultural use provision that was adopted in 2007. How many of the structures in the area, and just ballpark percentage had been constructed in excess of 1,000 feet before there was that ordinance. Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Aanenson: All of them, yeah. Colopoulos: All of them. Aanenson: Yeah. Colopoulos: I mean there was pretty much every, there were a lot of non -conforming structures, or I should say grandfathered in structures. Aanenson: That's correct. Colopoulos: Once the ordinance regarding agricultural use was adopted in 2007. So if I want to expand a structure in excess of 1,000 feet after 2007 it would have to be for agricultural use. Aanenson: Well you still have to come before. You'd have to demonstrate how, you know I think what we said we'd take it on a case by case basis. Looking at whether it's for a hobby farm or whether it's for horses or how is it being used, so we look at that as part of your criteria. Again the comp plan is for agricultural, preservation of agricultural we said we're not going to continue to do that. We also said in the comprehensive plan that we did not want to proliferate commercial uses in these areas and that's why we changed that. Aller: Okay. Hearing no further questions I'll open, or I'll ask the applicant. If the applicant wishes to come forward and make a presentation, that's great. Please state your name and state your address for the record. Andrew Riegert: Good evening. My name is Andrew Riegert at 620 West 96th Street. That's where we are living and what I guess my main concern with the, with this new ordinance is, you know I know they had to pick a number but I don't know why, where they rest at 1,000 square feet. I just don't see how that, you know I just don't know where that number comes from. Some of the things that I want to do in this building are mainly revolve around storage and hobbies and that's just not a lot of space when you're trying to store a boat and some snowmobiles and a couple of, you can see in the packet, some vintage automobiles and things like that. It doesn't take long to fill up I,000 square feet. That's basically what I have on my house right now. I understand that there is concern about the home occupation and we just, I have a 5 year lease for a, I have a home, a personal business. I have a landscape company and I just signed a 5 year lease in Waconia for a 6,000 square foot building so needing space on site is certainly not an issue so it's clearly just for hobby purposes so. In somewhere around '98 or 2000 when we applied for a permit to have a driveway put in for this accessory structure and paid to have an area leveled out for it so there's already been quite a bit of cost put in to the development of this so I guess the way I feel is that if I'm limited to 1,000 square feet, it's not enough storage for me so I might have to go up a level. Maybe do a two story building, which I don't really want to do. I think the cost would be prohibitive and I just don't think it would look very nice. It wouldn't fit into the character of the neighborhood like they ask us to do so. This size of a building is actually one of the smaller, would be one of the smaller sized buildings on the street. You can see the numbers up there of some of the other buildings so I certainly don't think it's out of line. That's about what I have so thank you. Aller: Could you just explain a little bit more about what types of, I mean you use a broad term there for you know hobby and such. Andrew Riegert: Oh sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission —September 18, 2012 Aller: Can you tell us what kind of things you're expecting to do with it and what kinds of things you're supposed to store or would consider storing. Andrew Riegert: Absolutely. Yeah, I have 3 snowmobiles. One for my kids. Snowmobile trailer. I have, there's a picture in here, I have a vintage pick-up truck and I am currently restoring another vehicle so that's one of my hobbies is vehicle restoration and so there's you know machinery to do that. There's drill presses. There's lathes. There's metal brakes. Large tool boxes. Basically what I have is 1,000 square foot garage and 1, between all the kids bikes and the two vehicles it's pretty much full so if I, by the time, well I'm also paying my neighbor to store my boat so it's, it doesn't make sense when I would like to be able to do that in my own back yard so, by the time I store a couple of items in there and then still have room for work space for that, it's pretty much, I'm out of room. Allen. And then was there a reason that when you first put in the driveway, I don't see anything here where you showed up at the hearings, I don't know whether you did or didn't. All I know is, new to the commission myself since this ordinance was put in place, this zoning was put in place, the typical thing is that there are notices out to the public. The public come in. There are hearings. There is a determination that that's what's best for the city and that's where the 1,000 foot comes from so I don't have to necessarily look at that I don't think but what is your position with that that you didn't build it before? Andrew Riegert: Yeah, right, right. Well I wish would have, obviously. No, the main reason is I just didn't have the finances back when we put the driveway in and I was just starting a business myself so I didn't have the money to do it for one thing. And then honestly in 2007 I just didn't know that the ordinance went into effect. I had heard rumblings of some of the people in the area, even on our street that were having troubles with home businesses but it went no further than that. I know pretty much everybody just complied and changed what they were doing and it just, it wasn't a need at the time. It wasn't something I was looking to do at the time and I guess I didn't look into it or hear about it honestly because it was a surprise to me when I went to do this what, probably 2 months ago now so. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: But back in 1998 it was your intention to do it as evidenced by the fact that you built the driveway to the pad. Andrew Riegert: Right. Yeah, yeah. It was, I think I was told that there was a 5 foot setback and I, as I don't need to be that close to the property line, even then I didn't but I was actually really surprised that being a growing city that that was really the only restriction and then I just. Aanenson: Yeah, it's 10 feet. Andrew Riegert: 10 feet, okay. And I didn't do anything formally. I never applied formally for anything. Aller: And the pad is big enough certainly to do a 1,000 feet because it's less than what you're asking for. Andrew Riegert: Oh yes. Yes. Yep. Aller: Any other questions? Undestad: How big is the pad I mean when you did it back in '98? What were you anticipating then? Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Andrew Riegert: Wow. I think I was anticipating somewhere around a 2,000 square foot building. The pad is actually bigger so you'd have room to drive around it so I would say 60 by 80. I haven't specifically measured it. Undestad: Okay. Alter: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much sir. Andrew Riegert: Okay, thanks. Alter: With that I'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting with regard to this particular property. If anyone wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the request. Seeing no one come forward, oh. Thank you. If you could state your name and address. Roger Lee: My name is Roger Lee. I live at 600 West 96's Street. I'm Andy's neighbor. I guess I'm just here to say I'm in support of him being able to build a shed of a couple thousand square foot. And I was not aware that things were changed you know to go to 1,000 square foot. I understand you said you put it in the paper. All the other times we get notified we usually get a postcard in the mail if it's directly affecting us. I don't believe that was the case. I mean so I don't feel I'm obligated to read the paper for everything that's going to affect me personally so, if you guys had that in your, any of you are zoned Ag where you live, did this affect any of you guys? I mean would you have voted that way if it would have affected your house? Alter: I don't know because I wasn't there and I didn't hear all the arguments at the time. Roger Lee: So, but you understand where I'm coming from. Alter: Sure, I understand your position. Roger Lee: So that's realty all I have. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to build a shed just like the rest of us have. We're out there. We're zoned Ag. We knew that when we bought the property. I think it's going to affect the sales of our property you know because right now you know we always thought we could put a shed up. If you sell your property, you don't have a shed, the new owner can put up a shed so I mean that's just, I just don't think it was, I don't think we were notified fairly or allowed to have an input on that decision. I guess that's all I have. Alter: Thank you Mr. Lee. Roger Lee: Yep. Alter: Anyone else wish to come forward and speak either for or against? Alright, seeing. Naomi Carlson: I'm Naomi Carlson, is that my property here that you're looking at? Alter: No. Colopoulos: No, it's too soon. Naomi Carlson: Okay, thank you. Alter: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this particular item? Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Gary Bendzick: I'll speak Aller: Okay. Gary Bendzick: Gary Bendzick. I live at 731 West 9e Street. When I put up my shed I was told at that time I could put up anything I wanted as long as it met the setbacks. I know that planning has changed that but I look at the land that we're on and I look at what planning is proposing to do to change this more toward residential. This isn't residential property. This isn't property line in town here. Yes we're in the city limits of Chanhassen but these are large acreage lots. Most of the people across the street from me have horses. These horses aren't going anywhere. They're going to have horses there til they die and I just don't see the sense that this large acreage lots is being basically forced to comply with a more residential area. I'm definitely in favor of this structure, and also the one that's you know going to be after this one and I think that this is a place where this stuff needs to be allowed just because of the type of land that we have. Thank you. Aller: Mr. Bendzick, before you go. When did you put up your shed? Gary Bendzick: When did I put it up? Alley: Yeah, you indicated you had put your's up. Gary Bendzick: I believe it was 2004. Aller: 2004, okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing. Comments, questions. Undestad: You're looking my way huh? You know. Aller: Just looking for your input. Undestad: No, I think I kind of struggle a little bit with this one here. Just somewhat understand why someone buying their large site with the idea of I'm going to put up, you know I'm buying this land because I can do this. You put all of your money into buying your house and your land and you can't do the structure right away but now you can and things have changed so. But I also I think looking at all the structures that are in there, you know so we can maintain control over the home based businesses that were the concern why we put this together in the first place. On the other hand I'm looking at you know we do this and we've got something coming up behind that and something behind that and. Aller: Anyone else? Colopoulos: I'm motivated by two influences here. Number one, I'm curious as to who thought the agricultural rule in 2007 was a good idea. We just heard from 3 residents on this, of similar properties in that area that obviously don't feel that that was a necessary move. Secondly, you know I take a very dim personal view of limiting anyone's use of their property unless there's a very good reason for it. I mean I believe that rules should serve the people and not the other way around. So I'm inclined to be in favor of granting this variance based on what I've heard here, in this one particular case. I mean there could be other extenuating circumstances regarding the issues that are following us here this evening after this one issue but based on the merits of what I see here there was clearly intention to build this structure back when the property was purchased at which time there was no inhibiting ordinance or rule that would have restricted the property owner's ability to do that. And you know the only concern I think we all have Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 going forward is the use of the structure for a potential non -conforming home business, which we all understand can be problematic once they're, once they become in place. I'm sure there's a lot of legal fees involved with that with the city attorney and back and forth, but that's another issue. I don't think fear of a future violation is enough reason by itself to deny a request. Aller: Well I tend to disagree with the analysis in general because I think that we become part of the community when we purchased the property and one of the things that we've done, and this is, the property is guided residential so we've got a 2030 plan. That plan, we use experts. We have hearings. It takes a better part of a year, two years to put together and it was the intention at that time I'm sure to start limiting the excessive use on this particular property. That's not to take away from the intention of a homeowner and there a lot of things I would have liked to have done in my life that I am not able to do and have not been able to do because times change. Rules change but I'm inclined to say that 1,000 feet was decided for a reason and I wasn't there but that's the state of the structure that 1,000 is sufficient for purposes of storage of materials. That the community at large deserves a plan so that when I have my heart attack or get in a car accident or decide not to sit on the commission or the panel changes, that property isn't controlled by politics of particular individuals coming from a certain neighborhood or a certain ideology and I think that's one of the reasons why we have that long term plan and it's required for cities to have and why it goes through such an intensive process so I'm tending to say that we shouldn't deviate from that plan unless it's really exceptional and because of the fact that he's got use of his property, a reasonable use, that he's not being unreasonably restricted and in fact he's got the ability to create another 1,000 square foot structure so that's my opinion. Undestad: May I? Aller: Anyone. Undestad: No okay, I mean again it kind of comes back to the 1,000 square feet back when it was determined and by whom and why and Kate if you want to address that but it was more the contractors. Aanenson: Yeah I mean let's talk about how the city's evolved. When we did the 2000 comp plan, the 2020 comp plan, now the 2030, we said in that comp plan that we're not going to be, we're not preserving agricultural in this community. Yes, there's going to be horses and we did grant a variance for a property up on, that is agricultural. We approved for a barn up there because it was agricultural and there's an active farm but there's very few of those in the city. The other thing that we've changed over time since the comp plans and the city's zoning ordinances, we used to allow when the city was more rural, we used to allow contractor's yards and these types of business. We also stopped doing that because they're incompatible. That's our number one complaint in the city is contractor's yards. I'm not saying, I'm not accusing anybody of doing this but over time they do become a nuisance. Not everybody in this neighborhood has the ability to have as big a structure so you know we try to find a cap. There was some sort of nexus to say that's what, in a residential zoning district, the 1,000 square feet and we said there are going to be some areas where it may conflict and we'd look at those on a case by case basis was what you're looking at now. What is the appropriate basis to make that decision on how is it being used? What's the character of the neighborhood? Yes, there are structures out there and we felt the 1,000 seemed reasonable for additional storage and we did put in this, if you felt inclined to go somewhere inbetween that range, not everybody in that neighborhood has you know 10,000. Some people have you know slightly over 1,000 so trying to find that range but once they're up there and they're built, they're bigger than the houses there and that's what we're trying to say. If we're mostly going to be residential than what is the long term value of these when our goal says we don't want to encourage spreading of commercial pockets. Where we have those now we're trying to work through those issues of incompatibility so we made those decisions and it's not perfect science. This is a neighborhood that there Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 tends to be a lot more of them. Others of them are sprinkled around through the community so we'rejust trying to find that balance. Laurie Hokkanen: Does it get back to the agricultural use, the use of the building? Aanenson: Well that was our intent back then and obviously people have hobbies you know so we're saying that's kind of what we were looking at is what's the rational basis. How big of a storage space do you need for your hobby? What's the appropriate scale? Is it for charging people to store stuff in there? Is that a rental income? Is that a commercial type use? We've got those kind of businesses in the community and that was part of, we had a long protracted discussion on when we went through that zoning ordinances when people are using that to store when you've got businesses in town that do cold storage sort of thing so we're trying to say well what's the basis for that. For your own personal needs, how much do you need if it's not a hobby farm and every one, every circumstance you're seeing here is different so that was the basis for that. Colopoulos: See that's where I'm having issues with the comprehensive plan. I don't see it as the inflexible document. I don't see it as an instrument, as a blunt instrument that just basically says okay this is how we envision our community going forward without exception. There are flexibilities built into it. The agricultural use is one of them. You know and so I think that's something that needs to be explored a little bit from the perspective of you know Ag because to me the first thing I thought of when I read this was, it was kind of my first reaction was well gee if he was in here proposing to build a 2,500 square foot chicken coop, that's a conforming agricultural use and I wonder how the neighbors would feel about that so, I don't know where that 1,000 square foot, you know I just, I just don't, I guess I don't understand. You know I understand where the process that led us to, you had to pick a number. I just think that might have been a number that in retrospect might have had a little bit more flexibility built into it and we wouldn't be having these discussions. Aanenson: Well we looked at all the, we looked at all the agricultural zones in the entire city and where they would be. What the implications of the ordinance would be when we put this together. Again it was a pretty protracted conversation. A series of several meetings where we looked at all those agricultural zonings. Where they'd be. What are the problems. Where the rub points are and. Colopoulos: Were you concerned about limiting the size of the structure so it wouldn't encourage home based businesses? I mean was that the rationale? Aanenson: That's one of them. That's one of them and if someone's doing it for agricultural purposes, if they're riding horses or if those sort of things, sure I mean but I think you know at what point do you say if someone's got 10 acres what's the basis for continuing storage and what becomes down the road when someone else has another goal for that. Cabinet shop, you know those sort of things which we do have problems with. They become a business. Colopoulos: I was going to say I can do a cabinet shop very easily in 1,000 square foot structure. Aanenson: Right, and we've had to litigate those unfortunately so you know I'm just trying to... Aller: See the enforcement issue is still there. Aanenson: And not this particular case but representing the cases that we've had in the past and that's how we came to that basis and whether or not it's being fairly applied you know, we just came through that as a discussion to say well we'd look at them on a case by case basis. We did put an alternative in Chanhassen Planning Commission —September 18, 2012 here. Somewhere kind of splitting the difference or a range within there to say something, you know if you felt so inclined. Aller: And I'm not saying it's not inflexible because that's what the variance is about. Colopoulos: Right, exactly. Aller: That's why we're here looking at it. What I am saying is that I'm more inclined to stay with something unless I hear a reason to change, and I'm not hearing that the use is incompatible with 1,000 square feet at this point because I don't want to be, I guess as the old adage with the camel getting his nose in the tent and the next thing you know you're outside and he's sleeping inside so. Where do we go with that? Anybody have any suggestions? Have we looked at the middle road? Tennyson: I have a problem with focusing on the numbers just because even if you take the numbers away it's still a variance and a variance has a certain threshold to get to and that would be the hardship and it's not there. In theory for what a variance is supposed to be. Nelson: ...I feel that this could end up being sort of a slippery slope and all of a sudden we're starting to revamp the 1,000 square foot situation. Aller. Okay, would anyone like to make a motion one way or the other or inbetween? Colopoulos: One last note. The applicant did list the various items he intends to store as an explanation of why 1,000 square foot structure was inadequate. I just want to make sure that gets in the record. Aller: And then just as a last, does the report state that that other structure that was non permitted in 2005 would be taken down or is that going to remain? Is that this property? Nelson: It's the one next door. Aller: Different property? Okay. Nelson: Yep. Aller: I'll entertain a motion or further discussion. Undestad: I'd be in the further discussion side of things. Hokkanen: Yeah. Undestad: You know I just think that what we've got, again sitting through a lot of the 1,000 square feet and the areas we were looking at and the problems we were having with contractors and businesses and, but I think again I look at this and say alright, as a board of appeals you know somebody comes to us and he goes I bought this. I want to do. You know 1 had plans back before. Granted he, you know somebody didn't get the notice or didn't show up or voice concern for that but I think we have to look at this lot in the middle of this neighborhood and you know up and down both sides of the street there's nothing but outbuildings in there. Hokkanen: Structures. Large structures. N Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Undestad: You know and again it's, the primary reason or one of the reasons was you know the home based businesses and to keep that out of there. Well I think we all know the phone rings right away if somebody tries putting in their home based business right away. If it was in a neighborhood where he was the only one in there, you know I might look a little different at it. Right or wrong but I just think in this neighborhood you've got 13,000 feet. 6,000 feet. 4,000 feet. You know there's just, and again what he stated and what he's trying to do in his facility, you're probably not going to be able to tear apart cars and do your hobbies and rebuild stuff and store everything in 1,000 square feet. That is a small area but. Aller: Does it make a difference that 8 years ago he build 1,000 structure and then. Undestad: Well he didn't have a garage. That was a garage he put onto his house. Aller: Well that's why I'm asking. Undestad: Well but you know you have to put your cars in the garage. Hokkanen: Well I also think he had clear intent with the driveway and the pad to do something, whether he was notified or not or didn't know about it. Every other home along side of it, and I see his point for resale, everybody else on the street has some kind of out building and now he can't have something similar. There's the one that came in without permit that went up. Nobody's make him take it down. He's coming in asking for permission to do it properly with a variance. It just seems. Undestad: I think the other thing too is that the applicant needs to understand yeah you're, the 2030 plan is changing. I mean it's the change. The densities out there. You know okay, if you spend money putting up your building on here that some day this land will change and you're going to tear your building down but you know that going into it so. Aller: Then we turn to hardships. I mean I'm hearing that you want to say that that's a reasonable use as collective so the question would come, does he fit the bill for a variance under the hardship. Hokkanen: Kate, what's the actual legal words for the variance? I'm not the lawyer on the commission. Tennyson: Practical difficulties. Hokkanen: Practical difficulties? Aanenson: Yeah, the first one is, they're in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the chapter. Practical difficulties would be topography. Limited space. Is not based on economic consideration alone. The ... land owners due to circumstances need the property not created by the landowner. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And then I think those are the ones that would apply on this. The other ones have... Aller: So I think, I don't believe it fits with the harmony of the plan, however it would not change the character of the neighborhood. So then we move to the others which are, what was it? Created by him. I don't believe is the case but does it fit the bill for purposes of, is it a hardship not to have an accessory structure to store boats? And other items. Hokkanen: For agricultural use. Aller: Not for agricultural use. 10 A Chanhassen Planning Commission —September 18, 2012 Hokkanen: Right. For not, right Aller: Does anybody feel one way or another? I mean if we go down the criteria I say it would be 3 against, 2 for. In looking at those criteria, the way I've described them but if somebody has a different feeling please. Colopoulos: I think hardship is a subjective determine which is the one I'm struggling with. I mean I'm a boat owner and for 23 years I've been storing my boat somewhere other than my property in the winter as a matter of convenience. However if I had a 4 1/2 acre property and wanted to build a shed to store my boat I would consider that to be a reasonable use of my property and would consider it to be an inconvenience. I don't know if hardship is a strong enough term, okay, but an inconvenience to have to store it on a neighbor's lot and if that neighbor's lot had, or excuse me structure happen to be a neighbor of mine right next door I might not feel you know, I may feel more than inconvenienced. At that point I might feel myself ill used somewhat. Now does that raise the, you know my consternation to the level of hardship? I don't know. I think hardship is a difficult aspiration for this thing, but nonetheless I would tend to call it 2-2 tie okay. That's how I would. Aller: And abstain. Colopoulos: Your list of criteria there but the other point I would like to ask the Chair, being new to, relatively new to the Planning Commission and having stumbled through more than one motion I've made already, could we make a motion conditional upon a guarantee from this owner that would, that could possibly succeed this owner against any commercial use down the road? Aller: I don't see... Colopoulos: We couldn't do that Allen. Ask for or enforce. Colopoulos: We couldn't ask or enforce that, okay. Aanenson: We did put that as a condition of approval that it goes with the chain of title Colopoulos: We can do it a condition of approval. Aanenson: You can attach reasonable conditions. I think the challenge is just to make sure it doesn't happen and we have to in good faith, if you put that in there assume that that's not going to happen but you certainly can attach reasonable conditions with the variance, and we did put that in if you did want to structure something over the 1,000. We did add that. It's on page 7. Starting on 5 on page 6, yeah. That would have to get a building permit. Meets the building code. Outdoor storage and yeah. Colopoulos: Well in that case I think I'll have a lash at a motion here. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: I'll move the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,560 square foot accessory structure on the property at 620 West 96th Street conditional upon the structure and property not being used for any home based commercial application. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Hokkanen: That only had one condition on it. Colopoulos: Right. Hokkanen: Okay. Aanenson: Chair, can we get a clarification then because there's a motion on the floor with one condition, correct? Aller: With the additional condition. Aanenson: Yeah, just one. Colopoulos: Oh I'd like to, could I add, yeah I'd like to add two other conditions. The accessory structure will require a building permit. Must comply with Minnesota State Building Code and the outdoor storage facility must comply with the City Code. Nelson: In addition to the other one? Colopoulos: In addition to the other, to item 4 which I already mentioned. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. So I'd like to amend the motion with those changes. Aller: Okay, I have a motion before me. Undestad: Second. Aller: And a second. Any discussion? I'm not sure I want to go with the full 2,560 Nelson: What if we went 2,000 based on the fact that we have one property with 1,300. We have another property with 2,000. We have one that's under the 2,560 adjacent from that property. Based on the fact that maybe it doesn't meet the full hardship but at the same time it's not going to change the neighborhood by providing a 2,000 square foot accessory building to the property. It would still be within the neighborhood and the feel of the neighborhood but at the same time. It would still at least double what was provided so it would be a reasonable variance. However not a full variance in the fact that, I agree. I don't know that it necessarily meets the hardship requirement. Aanenson: Mr. Chair again before we get to, we've got a motion and a second so I think just so we don't confuse it I think we should act on your motion since there's a motion and a second and then see if it goes or no goes and then, just to be clear that we're following Robert's Rules here. Aller: Well at this point we're discussing a motion. Aanenson: You are? Okay. Colopoulos: Right. Aller: There could be a motion to amend the motion there so Aanenson: Okay. Alright, I'm sorry. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Allen. We're still following the rules but I just want to make sure we're, but thank you. Colopoulos: Just slow. Aller: Well we'll be out of here by 11:00. Nelson: I guess at this point I would amend the motion for 2,000. For a variance of 2,000. It would at least provide additional storage but at the, and keep it within the neighborhood feel but at the same time, due to the fact that it didn't meet the hardship and it would still have those 4 conditions stated in the previous motion. Allen•. So we have a motion to amend, unless you wish to. Colopoulos: And I can accept the friendly amendment, correct? Aller: Yes. Colopoulos: Okay. And adopt it. That's what I choose to do. I'll adopt a friendly amendment to 2,000. Aller: There's been a friendly amendment which reduces it to 2,000 with the same conditions. Do we have a re -second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Witha second. Any further discussion? Colopoulos moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a variance request for a 1,000 square foot accessory structure area variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limitation to allow for a 2,000 square foot accessory structure, with the following conditions: 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code 3. Outdoor storage must comply with City Code. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for the purpose of a home occupation as defined in the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor, except for Alter and Tennyson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of4to2. Aanenson: Just for clarification then for the audience... super majority so this will automatically then now go to City Council because we didn't have a super majority. You need the 5 votes to go forward so this will appear at the City Council meeting with their recommendation on October 8 s. Okay, so anybody tracking it. Aller: So those of you that are listening please make sure that if you're interested in that, follow that on the website and at the City Council meeting. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 18, 2012 Colopoulos: City Council will render final approval. Aller: Correct. The recommendation will be to pass without a super majority. Moving on to item 2. OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN TAMMY FALCONER, PLANNING CASE 2012-12. Aanenson: Thank you. Same neighborhood. This address is 720 West 9e Street and this is Greg and Tammy Falconer, homeowners and applicants. Again this property is requesting a variance from the 1,000 square foot accessory structure limit. This one has two existing structures on the site and I'll kind of go through the history here a little bit but in December the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on the subject property. Again back in the 80's, late 70's contractor yards were permitted on these large lots and again the City has done away with that. When the CUP was permitted there was actually two lots, 710 and 720 and those are the conditions there. They also in your staff report we enumerated the uses that could be permitted with that and all vehicles had to be stored within, it's our opinion that the expiration of that conditional use because it's not being used as a conditional use was permitted so in our opinion that contractor's yard is void because they're not using the cement mixer, the one bulldozer, as stated in that and it becomes non -conforming. That aside this is how the property looks today. The existing building to the north here and then this addition was done. Again that addition was done prior to the 2007 requirement. I'll go through that in a little more detail and you can see the outdoor storage and then this is the expansion area but I'll go through that in a little bit more detail here with the site plan. So you have the original shed. There was a snow load collapse on that one you can kind of see here. I have another picture of that and that's what the applicant just wants to replace is that portion of the building. So with that the original shed and now rebuilding of that so that would give you the total of 1,800. That would be this total expansion area here so this building in 2000 was constructed. Again that was permitted because we didn't have the rule in place of the limit of the 1,000 square foot so the total out there then would be, for both structures, would be almost 6,000 square feet for accessory structure. Again going back to what we stated previously in the zoning ordinance is the structure limits to the 1,000 square feet. Again the non -conforming structure is in use. This allows for the non -conformity to continue. Now we're talking about the existing building so the roof can be repaired on that existing building. It's the expansion of that building even going beyond that, that expansion of the non -conformity. As we stated earlier that building is not being used as was permitted under the conditional use so in speaking to the city attorney that use is no right now. So again the contractor's yard is prohibited as the current city ordinance today. I'm not saying that that's the intended use for that property. I'm just clarifying the history of that. So this is the existing building that wants to be replaced. You can see that the roof, there was a snow collapse out there and this is the building that is intended to be replaced and there's anew metal building going up. It's kind of, the word-smithing on that was just a small addition but really this building's being replaced with a metal shed. The plans are in your packet kind of to match that. Again we're saying there's reasonable use of that property with existing building. Certainly this roof could be replaced if they want to. They have that right. You can repair a non- conforming structure by city ordinance and it's just a continued expansion of that building is where the staff was making that interpretation. Again we talked about the comp plan. This area. Agricultural use does not provide in this area not being used for that type of purpose and then again the expansion, discourage of commercial industrial activities in these areas was our goal when we made those changes. So for those reasons we did recommend denial and certainly the applicant has the right to fix that roof so with that we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 14 c.-)vnc,� eA� b 0 0 9 6 TI, �—( cfinrm4 9 sr/V fri"i ��-y) IZ iv CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/18/2012 11:34 AM Receipt No. 00198678 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Natural Surroundings Inc 147 N Johnathan Blvd #3 Chaska MN 55318- Planning Case 2012-10 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 69.00 Total Cash Check 25091 Change 69.00 0.00 69.00 0.00 SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952) 227-1100 To: Andrew & Shannon Riegart 620 West 96" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice Re: Variance Request for 620 West 96' Street Planning Case 2012-10 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM August 9, 2012 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 23 Property Owners List within 500' of 620 West 96'" Street (23 labels) $3.00 $69.00 TOTAL DUE $69.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for August 21, 2012. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2012-10. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI SCANNED Generous, Bob From: Craig Mertz [CMertz@ChanhassenLawyers.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:02 PM To: Generous, Bob Cc: andrew@naturalsurroundingsmn.com Subject: Application of Andrew and Shannon Riegert, case # 2012-10 (Application for Accessory Structure Variance) Bob, I am writing to you on behalf of Andrew and Shannon Riegert regarding your file #2012-10 which is scheduled to come before the Chanhassen Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Riegert request that above referenced application be tabled until further notice. They are not withdrawing their application. Instead they wish to have opportunity to meet with staff and discuss possible modifications of the application, and then re -schedule the matter for additional staff review, planning commission consideration. Council action. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Riegert agree to a sixty day extension of the statutory 60 day review period which would otherwise expire on September 18, 2012. Sincerely, Craig M. Mertz Craig M. Mertz Law Office 7955 Stone Creek Drive, Suite 10 P.O. Box 623 Chanhassen, MN SS317 Phone:952/975-9960 FAX: 952/975-9963 cmertz@chanhassenlawyers.com This is a transmission from Craig M. Mertz Law Office and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, and protected by the attorney -client or work product privileges. If you are not the addresse, note that any discloure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and noftify us immediately at our telephone number (952) 975-9960. The name and biographical data provided above are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be a signature or other indication of an intent by the sender to authenticate the contents of this electronic message. Location and driving information: We are located in the Chanhassen Stone Creek Town Office Condo Project which is on the south frontage road of Minnesota Highway S. FROM 1-494: Take Exit it-C and proceed west on Highway 5 to the Galpin Blvd. exit. Turn left (south) on Galpin. Drive south one block to the frontage road (Coulter Blvd.) Turn left (east) on Coulter and proceed east to Stone Creek Drive. Turn left (north) on Stone Creek Drive. Building #7955 is in the second row of buildings. A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: ct) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations n I� alone. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentiaLcharacter of the locality (6) Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 21, 2012 ❑ CC DATE: September 14, 2012 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 18, 2012 CASE #: 2012-10 BY: AM, JM, JS, TJ Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 1 of 10 PROPOSED ALTERNATE MOTIONS: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, deny Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, and adopt the Findings of Fact for Denial." -or- "Me Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approve§ Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to construct a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A-2). LOCATION: 620 West 96" Street Add in parcel information APPLICANT: Andrew and Shannon Riegert 620 West 96 s Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)685-8815 andrew@naturalsurroundingsmn.com Fonnalted: LeR: 05", Bottom: 1", Section start..New page, "h: 11 Height: B.5" Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 2 of 10 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A-2) Manage II wetland 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 4.47 acres (194,713.2 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for a detached accessory structure to construct a 2,560 square -foot storage building. The property currently has a single-family home with an attached garage. There are no detached accessory structures existing on the property. The applicant is intending to use the storage building for additional storage and work space. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904 regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, and is located at 620 West 961s Street. ADJACENT ZONING: The proferties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). Access to the site is via West 96 Street to the north of the property. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 3 of 10 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. Chapter 20, Article X, "A-2", Agricultural Estate District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures The property is located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Highway 101, at 620 West 96"Street West and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A-2) The property has an area of 194,713.2 square feet (4.47 acres), which satisfies the minimum lot area requirement of two and one-half acres in an A2 district. The property has 155 feet of lot frontage and a depth of 1,200 feet. Staff notes that the lot frontage does not meet the 200 feet lot frontage minimum for an A2 district. The house was built in 1966, and purchased by the applicant in 1995. In 2004, the owner added an attached garage, and a house addition. The total house addition was 298 square_ feet. The attached garage was_ - - - Deleted: foyer aad porch, enlarged ma k3<nco. ----- 2T by 37' and 999 square feet in size. ana raworkea the n,aara bathroom and emaet. The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. This ordinance limiting the area of accessory structures in Agricultural Estate Districts was adopted in May of 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory structures to house their business. The City Code does prohibit the use of accessory structures for home occupations. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any structures in proximity to the subject site were constructed after the accessory structure limitation was adopted in 2007. In December of 2007, the Planning Commission approved a 177 square -foot variance to exceed the 1,000 square foot maximum for accessory structures. The variance was to allow for a 452 square -foot addition to an existing 725 square -foot detached garage. There was also a structure constructed sometime after 2005, without record of a building permit. It is unclear if this structure was constructed before or after the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2007. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 4 of 10 Proposed location for storage building Structure constructed after 2005, no permit on file • • I t __. .__ . _.... Moved (Insertion) Ill Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 5 of 10 If a, property meets the criteria as, listed above or, found in Minnesota Statutes 161360 and _273, 13, the agricultural building would be exempt. -, - Deleted: subject from Minnesota State Building Code and would not require a building permit. The property located at 620 West 96b Street does not qualify Deleted: below as agricultural land because the property has a 4.47 total acres. Therefore, the storage building would require a building permit. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1,560 square -foot variance from the detached accessory structure limitation to construct a 2,560 applicant bought the property in 1998 with the intention of time of purchase there was no accessory structure area was done to level a pad for the structure the project was put on The applicant is intending to use the additional space for storage a list and photos of intended uses with the application: Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles, tractors Provide space for indoor storage of a motorhome and Provide space for an art studio Tack room for horse equipment The applicant has not chosen a contractor or company to date. However, the applicant does have several examples of The structure will be in earth -tone, tan and green, as shown in Staff is concerned with the large size of the structure. This Possibility that, home occupations may be conducted out of they occupations are a cause of complaint by citizens. They often 1,000 square -foot maximum square -foot storage building. The building a storage structure. At the limitation. After excavation work hold due to financial reasons. and work space and has submitted construct the storage building to what the building would look like. the image to the right. Moved up [1]: Mmnasota Statutes 168.60- Definmons defines agricultural building to mean "n structure on agricvlmrnl dnnd os defined in section 273.13, suMfivlaian 23. designed, constructed tint userl to house farm implements, limbock. or agHadtuml produce or prnluco meal by the owner, lessee. and sublessee of the building and members of ,heir immediale familles, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of Agri culnrrd prmluce or goorla. " ¶ Minnesota Sumre 273.13 - Classification of property, Subdivision 23. Class 2 defines agricultural land in mean "contiguous arrange often acres or more, used in the preceding year for ogricultun l pu't,sat. "¶ concern orginates from the Deleted: some people in neighborhood and surrounding neighborM1oad. may be running accessory ,structure, Home _ Deleted: it create an excess in parking traffic Deleted: s Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 6 of 10 and noise. Currently, it does not appear that the homeowner has intentions of selling the property. However, staff is concerned that if the property would be sold in the future, it maybe purchased by a persoq with intentions of operating a, home occupation out of the large outbuilding. ,.ln the past - - - Wetea: s staff has found that it is very difficult to remove and terminate noncomplying home occupations. The applicant would be in compliance with zoning regulations by a reduction in the size of the structure to maintain the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation. This would allow for a 20' x 50' structure or similar configuration. According to City Code the applicant does have reasonable use of the property with the existing home and garage. SITE CONDITIONS There are not any topographical or pre-existing conditions or characteristics on the site that would constitute a hardship or need for the variance. The location for the proposed storage structure was previously graded and would likely not require additional grading for the construction. There is a Manage Two Wetland located on the southern most portion of the site. The intended location of the structure would meet the Manage Two Wetland setback requirements. Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 7 of 10 The applicant believes the accessory structure would fit into the neighborhood. Staff did confirm there are several properties with an excess of 1,000 square -feet in accessory structure area; these properties are illustrated in the image below. Properties in proximity to the subject property have accessory structures ranging in size from 200 square feet to 13,500 square feet (this is a t; 1 te R 5 . ,+' -•;.I _,,.fir ta,:?,:.. i combination of five detached accessory structures). These structures were constructed pnur to the 2007 ordinance amendment. The accessory , . - Deleted: surcwssawe eaten:deb structures in excess of 1,000 square feet, where in existencgat the time of the ordinance amendment and therefore they are considered_ legalDeleted: --- - - -- -- - - -- -- -- - - - nonconforming. Deleted: these structures Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 8 of 10 Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request for an accessory structure however, literal interpretation of the City Code does not establish a hardship. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt one of the following motions: A. "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and appeals derl Planning Case #2012- I0 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, and adopt the Findings of Fact for Denial." a B. "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves Planning Case #2012-10 for a 1,560 square -foot accessory structure area variance to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage building on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. The accessory structure will require a building permit. 2. The accessory structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 3.outdoor storage. must comply with City Code. Deleted: I heeppliwnt shall ensure there is no -' - Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5', No bullets or 4. The accessory structure may not be used for home occupation numoses" numbering, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -N + -0.5" 1. Findings of Fact Alternate A (Denial) Riegert Variance Request Planning Case 2012-10 August 21, 2012 Page 9 of 10 2. Findings of Fact Alternate B (Approval). 3. Development review application. 4. Original lot survey 5. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. g:\plan\2012 planning c s \2012-10 620 west 9601 street vmiance\smff report 620 west 961h strcccdoc I am asking for a variance to build a 40' x 64' Pole Barn. The reason I am requesting the variance will be outlined below. In 1998 we purchased the property with the intent to install a pole barn. At the time there was not a 1000' sq. ft. maximum on building size. We acquired a permit to install a crushed gravel driveway from 96`h St. to our backyard. At that time we had the excavating work done to level a pad for the pole barn. Due to financial reasons, we were forced to put the pole barn project on hold. Now we are in a position to move forward but have been told there is the sq. ft. size limit. We need additional storage/work space for multiple reasons. • Storage and restoration of vintage automobiles. • Storage and maintenance of snowmobiles • Storage and maintenance of Lawn mower • Indoor storage of Motorhome • Art studio • Restoration of vintage John Deere tractors • Tack room for horse equipment • 11' Bow This is a small list of the uses that we had intended for the pole barn. We feel it would fit in to the neighborhood very well as many of our neighbors have sheds of a similar size and even larger. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew & Shannon Riegert 620 W. 96' St. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PLEASE PRINT Planning Case No. )a- 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 CrtY RECEIVEDOHANHA Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 JUL 2 0 2012 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION psmPLAmNGDEPr \y l— Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)" Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) k Variance (VAR) -24�v. Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost*' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB Phb� Grcdi;- call TOTAL FEE $ 'iSV ,i pd 3aSD CK aGokfi An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (".tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: T�"��!1Ep/1L�W9 Cr7 �, 1 2 LOCATION: U10 Vy, bpwu �A�AA,<Li,l�, MN SS t:2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 0-. 250253500 TOTALACREAGE: 'A.41 WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: K� S� OL I l�C ✓� h! 1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: S k A' Pl PtQ� LETITOK . FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (edher copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information f have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 111911a Date CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2012 CKAWASGEN PLANNING DEPT &Nplan\fw \developm t review applimmAm i) lj 71 Pmx I JIJDRF'V\J tD T,uy,R.23 I \oN col oN'tt\\�A \t1SS P� G pS $ * 40%� \IIXI P\\A%t 891, 4,7 NG\N SE � � FE 5\4\Gp pN PN . OVA NP sh 9, a °EX1S'CtaJ �' � �0��E✓2e.3. ._ ------ 831 �3 ire ,cam �XCL*`I vECEtP�NgiP�'�q\NR Fd t/21P.A� PVti�t j�uCt\� V pE P Oaavem 13za5 NS 0.31 E.AST koo co UgkO o:Z5aotinl a� 6t �s tT toe . �0' Y`'r C Hearings V 15�.00 V� e)9`00Oar,e jputs6l,-IuN a� �I�h,uW�/cHtSEc.2S Proposed garage floor elevation Proposed top of block elevation Proposed lowest floor elevation CEi t hQbG(_I�PP..ItJG CRa. %l{ku�+F �R.Fgtti1 HG F GRUFF_ Foe V)RAtAAG, T-- cats GP_,*sr> 2.OMD 45 Subject to assumed I nts of record if any O Denotes set or found iron pipe monuments $ Denotes set wood hub and tack 'e .p Denotes existing elevation P Denotes proposed finish grade elevation Denotes direction of surface drainage � c=oy CGS �� h QQ�- I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries -Iw 6RST Vr75,0$v} CA-+hewr'57 9'.50.04M* CAS MWsua.eo of(ANO g ktv2 lio2TH mind So�tAt 4h% -thereof, 4 4hei%U.t4k• (2NIj UCZ County, Minnesota as on file and of record ne tSoRntWFsc Gsw v4 6F4v�*) oi- 1 SM-V 1 2,97,70v3 14N'V 111a, RNOGC in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, also showing the proposed'location of a house as staked thereon. That I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. DatedAo0r:,vwbE1; 22 2004 RECEIVED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED (J1 i JUL 2 U 2012 NOV 2 9.2004 Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No,.17009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS 212 First Avenue E. �7 }� Suite No. C �oC ' IWU.�IILF ®7 ip14Ot\� fiXE0Gi4Fb ID Dw: Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952 445 4027 D 'ANn `ems o V ,gel CITY OF RECEIVEDSSEN JUL 2 0 2012 CFiANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OEM.. I--- Carver County, MN �oisWi,ror. r mavw-s weata am`of cw ata Ge mg at¢ Map Scale of lnlnrrt Ot S ty (GIST. e l a compi4Don W infwmatpn ma data hom .maws c Naga"ty. sate. awl p am w m 1. mar, � nog a 1 inch = 652 feet suneYea a kgap, recwaea map am is intenrleE to pa used as a W E eMerce. Carver Carry is nd responside rw any maavraoes Map Date L 7/24/2012 S SCANNED 18:12 Create Map CARVER COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION ` 1P +�.4 t Y a' .:f Ig•J.JVI. i� Y y r} u �7rRJ r�MtM1 pjftNbgS APPROxImA% SGl- FT. S126 p F EX I ST)N 6 Pbi;� * -Os IN Map created on 7/18/2012 Aerial Photo: April 2011 Disclaimer: This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Carver Countydoes not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, CARVERf�� Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this service acknowledges that the County shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly weives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless COUNTY the County from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. JUL 2 0 20T? CHANHASSEN PLANNIN3d Legend Aerial View Active arvergiswebl.co.caNer.mn.usIPublic_Parcellprint.htm?MapPath=http://carvergiswebl.co.cawer.mn.... SCANNED 1, miu tk�Ea Welk CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 07/20/2012 10:56 AM Receipt No. 00193519 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Andrew & Shanon Riegert 620 W 96th Street Chanhassen MN 55317- ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Total 200.00 Cash 0.00 Credit Cd 200.00 Change 0.00 SL,r 4ED VARIANCE -620 WEST 96TH STREET VARIANCE -PLANNING CASE 2012-10 $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign $50.00 Recording Escrow $450.00 TOTAL $250.00 Less Check #25069 from Natural Surroundings, Inc. (Andrew Reigert) $200.00 Less credit card payment (Receipt 00193519) $200.00 BALANCE SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 07/23/2012 3:47 PM Receipt No. 00193929 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Natural Surroundings Inc 147 N Jonathan Blvd # 3 Chaska MN 55318- Planning Case 2012-10 620 West 96th Street Variance ---------------------------- ------------ Recording Fees 50.00 Notificatin Sign 200.00 Total Cash Check 25069 Change 250.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 SCANNED Agricultural Exemption from State Building Code Relevant Minnesota Rules and Statutes Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1300.0030 PURPOSE AND APPLICATION. Subpart 1. Purpose. The purpose of the code is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all structures and equipment specifically covered by the code in a jurisdiction that adopts and enforces the code. The purpose of the code is not to create, establish, or designate a particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of the code. Subp.2. Application. A. The code applies statewide except as provided in Minnesota Statutes, sections 168.72 and 166.73, and supersedes the building code of any municipality. The code does not apply to agricultural buildings except with respect to state inspections required or rulemaking authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 103F.141, subdivision 8, and 326.244. Minnesota Statutes, §16B.60 DEFINITIONS. Subd. 5. Agricultural building. "Agricultural building" means a structure on agricultural land as defined in section 273.13, subdivision 23, designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, and sublessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or products. Minnesota Statutes, §273.13 CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY. Subd. 23. Class 2. (a) Class 2a property is agricultural land including any improvements that is homesteaded. The market value of the house and garage and immediately surrounding one acre of land has the same class rates as class la property under subdivision 22. The value of the remaining land including improvements up to the first tier valuation limit of agricultural homestead property has a net class rate of 0.55 percent of market value. The remaining property over the first tier has a class rate of one percent of market value. For purposes of this subdivision, the "first tier valuation limit of agricultural homestead property" and "first tier" means the limit certified under section 273.11, subdivision 23. (b) Class 2b property is (1) real estate, rural in character and used exclusively for growing trees for timber, lumber, and wood and wood products; (2) real estate that is not improved with a structure and is used exclusively for growing trees for timber, lumber, and wood and wood products, if the owner has participated or is participating in a cost -sharing program for afforestation, reforestation, or timber stand improvement on that particular property, administered or coordinated by the commissioner of natural resources; (3) real estate that is nonhomestead agricultural land; or (4) a landing area or public access area of a privately owned public use airport. Class 2b property has a net class rate of one percent of market value. (c) Agricultural land as used in this section means contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used during the preceding year for agricultural purposes. "Agricultural purposes" as used in this section means the raising or cultivation of agricultural products. "Agricultural purposes" also includes enrollment in the Reinvest in Minnesota program under sections 103F.501 to 103F.535 or the federal Conservation Reserve Program as contained in Public Law 99-198 if the property was classified as agricultural (i) under this subdivision for the assessment year 2002 or (ii) in the year prior to its enrollment. Contiguous acreage on the same parcel, or contiguous acreage on an immediately adjacent parcel under the same ownership, may also qualify as agricultural land, but only if it is pasture, timber, waste, unusable wild land, or land included in state or federal farm programs. Agricultural classification for property shall be determined excluding the house, garage, and immediately surrounding one acre of land, and shall not be based upon the market value of any residential structures on the parcel or contiguous parcels under the same ownership. (d) Real estate, excluding the house, garage, and immediately surrounding one acre of land, of less than ten acres which is exclusively and intensively used for raising or cultivating agricultural products, shall be considered as agricultural land. Land shall be classified as agricultural even if all or a portion of the agricultural use of that property is the leasing to, or use by another person for agricultural purposes. Classification under this subdivision is not determinative for qualifying under section 273.111. The property classification under this section supersedes, for property tax purposes only, any locally administered agricultural policies or land use restrictions that define minimum or maximum farm acreage. (e) The term "agricultural products" as used in this subdivision includes production for sale of: (1) livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur - bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products by the owner; (2) fish bred for sale and consumption if the fish breeding occurs on land zoned for agricultural use; (3) the commercial boarding of horses if the boarding is done in conjunction with raising or cultivating agricultural products as defined in clause (1); (4) property which is owned and operated by nonprofit organizations used for equestrian activities, excluding racing; (5) game birds and waterfowl bred and raised for use on a shooting preserve licensed under section 97A.115; (6) insects primarily bred to be used as food for animals; (7) trees, grown for sale as a crop, and not sold for timber, lumber, wood, or wood products; and (8) maple syrup taken from trees grown by a person licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture under chapter 28A as a food processor. (f) If a parcel used for agricultural purposes is also used for commercial or industrial purposes, including but not limited to: (1) wholesale and retail sales; (2) processing of raw agricultural products or other goods; (3) warehousing or storage of processed goods; and (4) office facilities for the support of the activities enumerated in clauses (1), (2), and (3), the assessor shall classify the part of the parcel used for agricultural purposes as class 1b, 2a, or 2b, whichever is appropriate, and the remainder in the class appropriate to its use. The grading, sorting, and packaging of raw agricultural products for first sale is considered an agricultural purpose. A greenhouse or other building where horticultural or nursery products are grown that is also used for the conduct of retail sales must be classified as agricultural if it is primarily used for the growing of horticultural or nursery products from seed, cuttings, or roots and occasionally as a showroom for the retail sale of those products. Use of a greenhouse or building only for the display of already grown horticultural or nursery products does not qualify as an agricultural purpose. The assessor shall determine and list separately on the records the market value of the homestead dwelling and the one acre of land on which that dwelling is located. If any farm buildings or structures are located on this homesteaded acre of land, their market value shall not be included in this separate determination. (g) To qualify for classification under paragraph (b), clause (4), a privately owned public use airport must be licensed as a public airport under section 360.018. For purposes of paragraph (b), clause (4), "landing area" means that part of a privately owned public use airport properly cleared, regularly maintained, and made available to the public for use by aircraft and includes runways, taxiways, aprons, and sites upon which are situated landing or navigational aids. A landing area also includes land underlying both the primary surface and the approach surfaces that comply with all of the following: (i) the land is properly cleared and regularly maintained for the primary purposes of the landing, taking off, and taxiing of aircraft; but that portion of the land that contains facilities for servicing, repair, or maintenance of aircraft is not included as a landing area; (ii) the land is part of the airport property; and (iii) the land is not used for commercial or residential purposes. The land contained in a landing area under paragraph (b), clause (4), must be described and certified by the commissioner of transportation. The certification is effective until it is modified, or until the airport or landing area no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (b), clause (4). For purposes of paragraph (b), clause (4), "public access area" means property used as an aircraft parking ramp, apron, or storage hangar, or an arrival and departure building in connection with the airport. Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. c� a ��i � �p�� W l�It�S $b� TIEV\s To 131a STbV�e)/ OSE,D IQ . .. . . p . . 17 IV © � ^ it ..�. r \4=1, \ 40 0 .»ww \ SCANNED SCANNED I f l ..w gg . 7 • 1 fbk 1 r) a!j-e • YAK r 3 y y r� i � � � a�f pry{} TM� }, •-p, � r� � " x of + D / �fk �. �.• "p, / - t e� tF fNvv ' Z,-' ,g. tier' yi♦ �� Y r '. v f„f d o �r a � M �/� 4 cAl,.� 4 iMi wo. ............ !7i� j wd e ..I ` It . .� .. . . ,� © - ^ \ lmilk ) . r.f ,.% . zy�\-� 4w i 3 0 0 M Q 2 FLOOR PLAN �2,Nj NEWBUILDINGFOR: ANDREW RIEGERT 24" SIDE & ENDWALL OVERHANGS STEEL WALL LINER W/ STEEL CEILING W/ R19 WALL INSULATION R40 BLOWN INSULATION CONTINUOUS PROFILEVENT 12' X 14' OVERHEAD DOOR W/ OPERATOR BUILDING DESCRIPTION: 40'X64'X16' DATE: 7/17/12 36" WAINSCOT PERIMETER 0 It S(;HNNED n� t y 'Its 4 _ lu 03NNVOS ,7'I11N1 S63Wo1sJ '31V4-a A3Z r W-Vt (OLI Xbi B bl NW MA Zb0 W osn-nt ILnu a�iaao i�n>.s isaii >cca 3YIW :NVWS3lVS ZI/BI/L :31V0 Y`J �A9 NmVdo 3NI SDNIMin9 Iv8nl�nNi1 1�3�3ia 3uu eor " gr �n �a z w: I] I] 0 z O i i II x 24 2r I m Q W if I n- w u £ Q PRE -FINISHED METAL ROOF PANEL Z ~ Z N DC J £ N O In PREL LL PANEL METAALL WALL 7 U N D) r w STEEL WAINSCOT IF - l7 W W ~ F m � Z �= m Q Q 7 CI CI W De SHEET 2