CAS-12_FALCONER, GREG & TAMMY - 720 WEST 96TH STREET RESUBMITTALThomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Soren M. Mattick
John F. Kelly
Henry A. Schaeffer, Ill
Alina Schwartz
Samuel J. Edmunds
Marguerite M. McCarron
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Suite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121
651-452-5000
Fax 651-452-5550
www.ck-law.com
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
JAN 3 0 2013
January 25, 2013 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Ms. Kim Meuwissen
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Chanhassen — Miscellaneous Recording
Dear Kim:
Pursuant to your letter of December 14, 2012, enclosed herewith for your
files is the original recorded Variance No. 2012-12. Please note that this Variance
was recorded with the Carver County Recorder on December 20, 2012, as
Document No. A568139.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call.
cjh
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Legal Assistant
1
SCANNED
Document No. OFFICE OF THE
A 568139 COUNTY RECORDER
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RECEIVED Receipt #
Certified Recorded on December 20, 2012 2:00 PM
JAN 3 2013 Fee: $46.00
CITY OF CHANHASSEN "�'
Mark
11111111111 IN III County Reecorder
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2012-12
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
A variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to
reconstruct and expand an existing accessory structure by 520 square feet
resulting in a 1,800 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2).
2. Property. The variance is for property located at 720 West 96 h Street in the City of
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as P/O SW 1/4 NW 1/4 E 155' OF
W 310' of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 (PID 250253210).
3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The approval is for the plan stamped "Received October 22, 2012", which
shows a 40-foot by 37-foot building with a 40-foot by 8-foot covered
walkwayAean-to area (1,800 square feet total).
b. Building permits are required for the construction of the accessory structure.
c. The structure must comply with Minnesota State Building 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: December 10, 2012
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
r—
BY: J
(SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, Qyor
AND: 'LW
v
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14/1%y 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.
r_
TAR PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN
(952)227-1100
55317
KA"' J.ENGELHARDT
's Notary PubliaMinnesota
/ Expires Jan 31, 2015
2
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
State of Minnesota)
PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-12
)SS.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
thatthe ChanhaaseaPlarming Com-
County of Carver )
mission will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at
7:00Rm. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
is to consider a requestfor Variance
from Section 20-904 the Chanhas-
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
of
sen City Code to allow an accessory
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
feeton structure in excess of 1,000 square
property caned Agricultural
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
Estate
ate
EDistrict (A2) located at 720
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
West 96th Street. Applicant/Owner:
amended.
Greg & Tammy Falconer.
A plan showing the location of
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.v�a
the proposal is available for public
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and sand
review on the City's web site at
wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
tng regular busi-
or at City Hall durinterested
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
ness hours. Aerested persons
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
are invited to attend this public
and Publication of the Notice:
heating and express their opinions
with respect to this proposal.
abcdefghijkbnnopgrstuvwxyz
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Email:bgenerous@
ci.chanhassen.mn
Phone: 952-227-1131 131
Y� M/ �,4VAk"')
(Published in the Chanhassen
Laurie A. Hartmann
Villager on Thursday, November 8
2012; No. 4743)
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this k � day of 1 (�., 2012
JYMME JEANNETTE BARK
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
No ltc MY COMMISSION EXPIRES01/31/13
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter..............................................$12.59 per column inch
SCANNED
i�)'-lam
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.
12/14/12 2012-12
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
12/10/12
12-12
Variance 2012-12 720 West 96 thStreet
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑
For approval
❑
For your use
❑
As requested
❑
For review and comment
❑
FORBIDS DUE
REMARKS
COPY TO: Greg & Tammy Falconer
❑ 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. \W -
im Meuwissen, E 2>2 1107
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
SCANNED
CITY OE CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2012-12
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
A variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to
reconstruct and expand an existing accessory structure by 520 square feet
resulting in a 1,800 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2).
2. Procerty. The variance is for property located at 720 West 96°i Street in the City of
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as P/O SW 1/4 NW 1/4 E 155' OF
W 310' of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23 (PID 250253210).
3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The approval is for the plan stamped "Received October 22, 2012", which
shows a 40-foot by 37-foot building with a 40-foot by 8-foot covered
walkway/lean-to area (1,800 square feet total).
b. Building permits are required for the construction of the accessory structure.
c. The structure must comply with Minnesota State Building 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: December 10, 2012
CITY OF CEMNAASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong,, yor
AND: 'L''L vl
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lq%ay 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. ENGELHARDT
Noffir Public- Minnesota
^M98b^ rWet.'..31, 2015
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
720 WEST 96Tn STREET VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARL4,NCE FROM SECTION 20-904
OF THE CHANHASSEN City Code TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS
OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT
(A2), APPLICANT/OWNER: GREG & TAMMY FALCONER.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item is a resubmit of an
application that is located on West 96`h Street for a reconstruction of a non -conforming structure. So
again the expansion of the non -conforming structure and then a variance to expand the non -conformity by
520 square feet from the original 1,280 square feet for a non -conforming shed. On September 18`h this
item went to the Planning Commission. It was denied a variance. The Planning Commission, acting as
the Board of Adjustments, rather than appealing that decision the applicant chose to revise the plan
reducing the structure to 37 feet wide and an 8 foot overhang. This item did appear before the November
20'h Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and they voted 4 to 2 to deny. Because they
had less than 75% majority then, that issue is then sent to you for your review. So again the applicable
regulations on this application is the non -conforming, excuse me, the ordinance regarding expansion of
non -conforming uses that allow for, you can continue the non -conformity as long as you keep the same
square footage. The staff did meet on site and gave some recommendations on that as we understand the
drainage was one of the big factors on the frost heave and then the second one was the ordinance
regarding limitations to detached accessory structures. So again the original shed is shown here in
yellow. This is what the applicant wanted to expand for the '520 square feet. And in 2000 an additional
building was added in the back but what we were talking then about is this non -conforming structure so
there was a total square footage for both structures. Again this is the aerial view of the roof that was
collapsed on the one structure. Again city ordinance does allow, you can rebuild a non -conforming
structure. The issue came in then was the expansion portion. So this is the area the applicant intended to
expand to to this line. And then the staff had recommended a couple proposals too so this would be the
applicant's proposal on this side and then the staff was looking at, in order to, if the issue was the
drainage to provide that matching roof line for the frost heave appeared to be on this side of the building
to change the, so you stay within that same square footage so you would meet the intent of just rebuilding
at the non -conforming without the expansion or in addition there was another alternative that was
proposed. The applicant still wanted to pursue their request for the additional square footage so the
Planning Commission, as stated in the staff report, 4 to 2 voted so the staff had recommended that the
City Council also deny the expansion to the 520 square feet for the non -conforming structure and adopt
the Findings of Fact and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the staff at this time? Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, and you go back to the, right there. Explain to me what's happening
with that middle slide. Are you making them take square footage off of the building in order to expand
the roof?
Kate Aanenson: No, what we're trying to stay within the same square footage of the entire building and if
the issue, as explained to us by the applicant, was that the frost heave and water movement along this side
of the building so the goal was to get the roof to extend to match the newer building so we felt this stayed
within the same square footage but also met the goal of trying to keep the rooflines matching so there
wouldn't be the frost heave or the water problem.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then bear with me when I ask you to explain the third alternative also.
SCANNED
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So it would just be a little bit different so the eaves would be a little bit longer so
the building wouldn't be, there would actually be eaves on the building. The code does allow 2 1/2 foot
overhang on the eaves so that's what this accomplished.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the applicant was not.
Kate Aanenson: They still wanted to increase the size of that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, can you go back a couple slides to show the, one more. Right there.
The larger building there to, I'm assuming that's actually, is that to the south? Well that larger building,
when was that building built? Do you have that information?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah it's in the staff report, I'm sorry.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, it was built before the change in the code, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. When we capped it to 1,000 square feet which was in...
Councilman Laufenburger: So the larger building is a legal nonconforming.
Kate Aanenson: Both buildings are, right. Now the city ordinance is the 1,000 cap. Right.
Councilman Laufenburger: So what we're saying is, you can have your legally non -conforming
buildings. They just can't be any bigger in size than they were before.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That was the staff's position.
Councilman Laufenburger: So, and what you're doing, the two alternatives that the staff is offering is the
same size of the building structure, whatever that 1,280 feet. In one case no eaves. In the other case 2 1 /2
foot eaves, right?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: And both of those were rejected by the applicant.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: So help me understand. If we deny this then what can the applicant build?
Kate Aanenson: The applicant can still build the non -conforming, back to the same square footage that
they had before.
Councilman Laufenburger: 1,280.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So they can still pursue that. They wanted the, to try to get the extra square
footage with it.
Councilman Laufenburger: Can you also, Could they also choose to build either option number 2 or 3 as
offered by staff?
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: If you'd like to address council on anything.
Greg Falconer: I'm Greg Falconer. This is my wife Tammy. We live at 720 West 96ih Street in
Chanhassen. This area here in Chanhassen is more or less 4.77 acres across the whole end here. Most
everybody here has a pole barn such as ourselves and the neighbors up here actually have about 25,000
square feet of buildings which is just two doors down from us. We didn't really reject the proposals of
the city. The problem that Bob Generous and a city engineer came out and we looked at this area. If
you'll notice in this picture I have a retaining wall that comes around here and all the way over and you
can see it in the pictures that Kate had originally showed you. By moving the structure back it leaves me
with a 13 foot gap between this retaining wall. This building is lower than the retaining wall because
when I moved in in 1996 the water used to come down my neighbor's property and go right through the
center of the building and out the other side. And this building was built in I think '65 and it has received
substantial damage from the water coming in so when I moved in in '96, built this retaining wall. The
water comes down here and around over here. I still have quite a bit of movement on the building. This
building side right here goes up by 4 to 5 inches from the frost heave and the reason being is because it
doesn't receive a lot of snow but I also have to pull my snow off of the roof in order for that not to happen
in the first place. I knew I was going to have to rebuild this building and we did have plans in 2005
before the ordinance was passed. We did not know the ordinance had passed, nor did anybody on our
street know that an ordinance had passed and I did have people come in and voice their opinion about that
at the original planning, so we had original plans to build the building. We didn't have the funds to do it
so when I submitted by plans we were rejected and I was well surprised and so were the other people that
didn't realize the ordinance had passed. So it was a factor. The thing that I really need to stress here and
it seems what we're having the biggest problem with and you asked the question is, well why don't they
just accept the other proposals? I would have to remove this retaining wall or do something different to
here. This retaining wall already goes down 4 feet into the ground. It's going to cost me probably about
$4,000 to $5,000 to relocate everything and re -landscape this in front and it's something that I already did
so I'm really not interested in paying more money when obviously what I'm really proposing here is just
to extend the roof line over and the majority of the building itself, if you can see here, would be an open
air space right here. There is 5 feet of extension of the original building. The original building comes
right down into here. This is all open air right here so it would just be an overhang roof of 8 foot.
Enough to get my water and snow to a manageable area out on my sidewalk out here and another reason
why I want to get that out is this door right here gets blocked off. Basically the ice forms here and the
door's completely iced in at that point. So what I'm really just trying to do is add an extension over so I
can manage the area and you know I just think that there's a different of opinion on how that can be as far
as the money that they would like me to spend to re -landscape around the whole thing and what 1 don't
want to spend is more money. I do have the right to rebuild this building as it is right now, as Kate said,
and we would like to do it correctly. If we put a metal roof on this, metal roof sheds snow very, very fast.
If I put a, if I leave it the way it is I'm going to have a bigger snow problem here than I already did as you
can see in that picture because this was an asphalt roof right here. So I'm really just asking for a 13 foot
extension of a roof over to here. We have over 200,000 square feet of property on our zoned Ag land and
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
we're just having a hard time coming up with why we can't do something like that to alleviate issues with
the building. I'm just trying to protect my buildings. One other thing I would like to mention, you know
in the ordinance, when it was originally discussed, and I don't know if anybody has read this whole thing
and 1 don't know if you really want me to but you can use your building for horticultural purposes.
Livestock, whatever. Tammy and I, Tammy comes from a farm in Wisconsin and she would like to have
a garden again. She would like to, I've already tilled up some land back here. About a half acre and if
you're willing we would like to use this area as an overhang where she can put some tables out and put
her produce on there and she can, on the inside she can do her canning again out in that area and maybe at
that point nobody has a problem with anything because as it is right now I don't know what I'm going to
do with it. I just wanted to get rid of my issue. But I, you know that sounds like a reasonable option to
us. If we could use it for horticultural purposes, Tammy can keep all her tools there and stuff and do her
gardening and process her food there so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions for the applicant? Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, just to clarify, Greg is that right?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger. Could you show that, well let's leave that one up there for a second. That
retaining wall, just point to that, if you wouldn't mind. Okay. Would you leave that retaining wall in
place all the way back to the larger building?
Greg Falconer: The reason why this retaining wall is here, right now it's a free standing one. I used to
have a drainage trough inside of here with draintile to catch all the water off the roof and the draintile
exited out the other side of the building over here so I had it sloped at an angle where it would catch.
There was a rubber membrane in here and I got the water to move to the other side of the building
because this is where we're having all our issues.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. You said that the neighbor, the water coming from your neighbors is
actually coming around the front of this retaining wall and depositing right there where you've got the big
frost heave, right?
Greg Falconer: Yeah, it's very difficult without showing the property but this is the low side. This is the
high side.
Councilman Laufenburger: So you're directing water, off the roof you're directing it over to the high
side?
Greg Falconer: In this case that's what I had to do because we had such an incredible ice issue over here.
1 was grabbing all the water off of this side and bringing it around over here. Of course you can't catch it
all and that's why you know we have this area here. It does get super saturated. We're in clay soil. 1
know that there's footings on this building. This is a pole building. The footings are down there but I'm
still getting frost heave by 4 to 5 inches and that might be one of the reasons why I had problems with the
roof collapsing like it did because structures aren't supposed to move around.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And if in fact you do build an overhang to extend the snow past that,
the entrance door, where's that water going to go?
Greg Falconer: This all drains, I wish I had a better picture here
10
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. But it does go that way
Greg Falconer: Yes. Yeah, at a favorable rate. You can see in that picture right there that Kate put up, at
a favorable rate. Right now this is more or less a stagnant area right here and you know 1 hadn't touched
this. The only land that I touched was out here in the beginning. This retaining wall like I said is buried
almost 3 to 4 feet down. That's how much we had to raise the level just to get the water to move away
from the buildings.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilwoman Ernst, then
Councilman McDonald.
Councilwoman Ernst: I'm just curious. So you're saying you want to extend the roof 13 feet?
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: And this is to avoid load and runoff, right?
Greg Falconer: Yes. To get to a, get the snow and water to a manageable area over here instead of it all
collecting in this area here where it's obviously doing some damage to my building and like 1 said we
can't get in this door sometimes. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Can you put the table back up?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: No, you're fine. I'm sorry, could you respond to that again. You were pointing to the
picture and we couldn't see it.
Greg Falconer: Oh, okay. Yes the, we would like to get the snow out to a manageable area out here so
we don't have the ice and water problems that we're having right here. You know even in the
summertime, I shouldn't just talk about the ice. In the summertime when this area gets saturated and we
go into a frost/freeze, that's when you really have issues and there's been many times where at this door
has not functioned all together just because of the frost heaving. So if I can just dry out the area, I'd just
like to build a weather shed to get the snow and ice and water away from the buildings all together and
dry it out.
Councilwoman Ernst: So just curious if you do that, are you sure you're not creating another problem
there?
Greg Falconer: Absolutely positive. I had an engineer, HavTek, it should be in your notes there too,
spoke favorably of my building design and when the City had offered up the two options to Tammy and I
we didn't get the two options until 1 think Saturday before our hearing, which was on Tuesday, so it
didn't give us any time whatsoever to get back to an engineer and have him discuss it because that was
asked of us and that's when one of the members decided to change their mind because we weren't even, I
mean it was just given to us. Now Bob did come out and talk to me about maybe some suggestions but
when I asked the City Engineer what she thought, she said I have no opinion. And I don't know what no
opinion means when you're a city engineer. Can you either tell me if that's going to work or not work,
she said basically she wasn't going to give an opinion and I'm not sure why.
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Councilwoman Ernst: So from what I heard you say there are basically 3 different options. One is, well
4. Including the one that staff recommended. One is to extend about 13 feet. One is to make the
building, serve as horticultural purposes.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilwoman Ernst: Or rebuild the building and then what staff was recommending, is that?
Greg Falconer: Yep. Yeah and like you know, for horticultural purposes we can use this side over here
for horticultural purposes, that would give Tammy enough area to do her, what she needs to do and you
know I already purpose for this building over here for what I've always used it for and storage and
whatever so I guess for horticultural purposes, it does say in the original proposal for the 2007 ordinance
that if it's used for a legitimate use, that would be okay. I guess we see that as a legitimate use.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald first and then Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman McDonald: On the City's proposals, explain to me why they won't work because it looks
like what they're saying is, that you can extend that roof. That would get you over the door and now you
would be able to again move the snow and water into the area you want to go to.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, Kate if you could put up that other one, that overhead deal? How about the other
one that comes down a little closer because you really can't see the retaining wall. Not that one. There
was another one that you had on there. No. There was one that we were looking at earlier there.
Kate Aanenson: This shows the retaining wall in here. Right here. This is where the retaining wall is.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, see that's just a free standing retaining wall. It doesn't really do, it didn't do
anything except grab water and pull it around the other side. That retaining wall that's on the north side
of the building there.
Kate Aanenson: This retaining wall.
Greg Falconer: Yes. With the City's proposal there's going to be a gap between the retaining wall and
the building of 13 feet, which creates about a 5,000 gallon bathtub and Bob said well you could use it as a
patio out there and I said well a patio's still going to fill up with water because there is no drainage on.
The retaining wall is here and the floor of that building is down 3 feet so somehow something has to be
done with that area. 13 feet by 30, it's 30 something feet wide. Actually 40 feet wide. Something has to
be done with that to a large expense.
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. Is there a gap between the building and the retaining wall now?
Greg Falconer: There's a gap of I think it's 2 feet right now and I had that filled with the rubber
membrane, the drainage rock and the draintile.
Councilman Laufenburger: Which directs the water to the high point of the property around on the other
side.
12
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: Yes, exactly. And then it exits out a hole in the retaining wall and then flows down the
east side of the building, which has worked pretty good in the summertime. In the wintertime obviously
things start to get icy again and whatever and you have issues at that point. But you know unfortunately
the City's plan is going to cost me a lot more money than just putting on a 13 foot extension onto the
building.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. On the retaining wall, I guess I'm trying to understand that first of all.
So that kind of goes around the north side of the building. That's the one that goes down 3 feet. The one
that's permanently in there.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman McDonald: Inbetween that wall and the building is where you've got the rubber membrane
and the tiles to drain everything to the east of that building.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. And what you're wanting to do on the footprint, okay you would build
the same footprint but now you want to do the first drawing which will get us, and you say all that's going
to he used for is strictly, it would be open space but you would just be extending the roof by that distance.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, there is a 5 foot expansion of the building on there as well. Originally when I had
proposed that, which I didn't realize that there was an issue with the ordinance because I didn't know
there was an ordinance, I only had about, I think it was, if you could put that back up. I think originally I
had my building to here and then I added on another 3 feet for 8 foot to see if that would satisfy the
Planning Commission.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Greg Falconer: So right now I'm adding 5 feet of interior space which would be 200 square feet onto the
building. The rest of it would all be open air.
Councilman McDonald: And is part of the reason for that 5 feet, I mean I notice the peak moves. Is that
for structural purposes because now you need to move out?
Greg Falconer: When I designed the building, and like I said I did not know that this was going to be an
issue. You were absolutely correct. In the center of the building there are footings right here along,
they're pole footings that come through the center of the structure and with the wall getting closer and
closer to that there's an impedance issue with the, with the poles coming down in the center of the
building. It's not an open air building inside. It actually has pole structure in it so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Now then, let me ask you about the City's proposal. The main reason
why that's not going to work is because of the retaining wall, is that?
Greg Falconer: Significant re -landscaping.
Councilman McDonald: And when you say significant, give me a figure
Greg Falconer: About $5,000.
13
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Councilman McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I've got for right now. Yield back to Mr.
Laufenburger.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger, questions.
Councilman Laufenburger: So Greg it sounds like what you're saying is, that the, if I'm doing right on
these numbers, 1,280 square feet is the existing structure.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: You want to add 200 feet to that to the interior dimensions.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Keeping the north and the south walls essentially where they are.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: That means you're going to have to take out a little bit of that retaining wall.
The retaining wall that runs north/south.
Greg Falconer: On the?
Councilman Laufenburger: On the east. Excuse me, on the west side.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, like I said this one's just free standing right now. All the drainage rock is out of
here and stuff and I can just put that right on a pallet and...
Councilman Laufenburger: And then by raising the roof, raising the roof structure you're going to get the
angle of the roof is going to take it past that entrance.
Greg Falconer: Yes, past this over here. Exactly. Keeping this area dry and weather free basically.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Greg Falconer: One more thing I would like to mention to you. I do have in this corner right here,
coming out of the ground is my electrical access from the house which is buried and comes up through
the floor there too. It was one issue, another issue that I had there.
Councilman Laufenburger: So right now it comes up through the floor inside the building?
Greg Falconer: Just on this comer right here, exactly.
Councilman Laufenburger: Inside the building, okay.
Greg Falconer: Yep.
Councilman Laufenburger: When did you move into the property?
Greg Falconer: In 1996.
14
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Councilman Laufenburger: And this 1,280 square foot building was already in place, is that correct?
Greg Falconer: Correct. In fact that's the original color of the building. The reason why we never
painted it during then was because, well at least I knew before I married my wife that I was going to, I
was going to redo the building.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And the bigger building, the, call it 5,000 whatever that thing is.
Greg Falconer: It's 45 by 90.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. A 45 by 90 building.
Greg Falconer: They have 46 by 90 but every foot for 100 makes a big difference.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. You built that.
Greg Falconer: Yes, in 2000.
Councilman Laufenburger: Before the ordinance.
Greg Falconer: Before the ordinance.
Councilman Laufenburger: Any reason why you chose to build that and not extend it and tear down this
building of 1965? Does it have historical value do you think Greg?
Greg Falconer: Yes. 1 have a windmill that I actually have on the property just to the west of there too so
I'm trying to keep a theme. There's horses on the right side of me. There's horses on the left side.
Tammy would like a horse. We're still in debate of that.
Councilman Laufenburger: You'll have to take that up somewhere other than here.
Mayor Furlong: Stay focused on the issue.
Greg Falconer: You know and another reason why they said the ordinance was imposed was because
people were starting businesses on their property. Carol Dunsmore who works at the City, along side
staff here and stuff can verify that we do not run a business out of this area. I originally did have a
conditional use permit to run a business out of that. I don't have that business since 2004. This is not a
money making adventure for us.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. What if you didn't get that additional 200 feet? Would you still build
the extension of the roof?
Greg Falconer: Yes, I would.
Councilman Laufenburger: Just to get the snow going over there.
Greg Falconer: I would.
Councilman Laufenburger. Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor.
15
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom
Councilwoman Tjomhom: This is probably for Kate. Sorry Kate. You know how I've kind of always
ruled on the side of common sense and so I mean I understand that there's an ordinance and that it's
important that we follow ordinances so we have some structure in our city but besides the fact that this
ordinance is in place, what are the, what are some other impacts? Negative impacts because to me this
doesn't seem like it's such a huge negative impact to this property or the city.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. What I don't have for you is looking at the, all the accessory structures in that area
and we kind of took it, looked at those in that neighborhood when we did another application over there
on West 96 ° Street. As the applicant has stated that they did have a commercial business there and some
of these uses are used for commercial which means there's commercial activity going down a residential
street and the like and that's why the ordinance was changed in that timeframe. This particular building,
when that came in and we didn't have the tools in place to say we already had 2,000. Now we're going to
add another you know 4,000 to 5,000 on there. You know what's the tipping point for that type of use.
Now clearly the applicant has stated that they're not going to, and we've talked about that. What happens
with the next buyer and that sort of thing. Yes, there's horses on there. Yes, there are places for
agricultural but not everybody's using it in an agricultural way. Whether it ends up being, and I'm not
saying that this person is doing that but cabinet shops, those are some of the things that we spend
enforcement time trying to resolve so that's why the ordinance was put in place. And we said if someone
was coming in for a variance because they had horses or agricultural type use, that would be some you
know findings that the council and the Planning Commission would say made sense if it was for
agricultural purposes. I know Bob and Alyson did go out on the site and they felt this was reasonable. I
can't go either way on the drainage issue. There's drainage issues you know no matter what's going to
happen water's going back and forth across different properties. I'm not sure this is going to keep it away
from the door. I'm not sure it's going to solve the long term problem or frost heaves and water on the
property. It's going to constantly fluctuate so I'm not sure that's solving the problem. So again our
position is to not increase that non -conforming but is the 200 square feet.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And that's where I'm wrestling
Kate Aanenson: Right, understood. Understood
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And then one more question for the applicant, and I don't mean to be naive
but you were talking about your neighbor has water flowing and so you built that retaining wall to redirect
that water. So if you expand the building, where does that water go?
Greg Falconer: If I expand this over here? I have a favorable flowage over on this side. My parking lot
has about a I think it's about a 5 percent grade on it right now. So once the water gets right to here, it
travels very fast. The water right here is pretty much stagnant at that point and unfortunately I can't dig
that out right there because if you dig this out or add to it one way or another you're going to create
another problem pushing it against the building or what have you. I understand that not everybody, you
know you can't just look at something and say I think this will work or wouldn't work but the fact of the
matter is, I'll probably completely dry this area up completely. Right now there's actual moss growing in
the corner in the summertime because it never sees any sunlight and what have you but the frost heaving
has really been an issue.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And then to clarify one more thing because you had mentioned that your wife
would like to garden and can and have tables out for that. That wouldn't be the start of like a mini
farmers market or anything like that?
16
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: No.
Tammy Falconer: No. We don't allow strangers on our property.
Greg Falconer: It's somewhat true. We had a pretty bad theft there 3 years ago.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? I have just a couple follow up questions. With your
proposal, the red building that we're looking at here, you'd be taking that one down and building a new
one, is that correct?
Greg Falconer: It's actually down already. The insurance company came out and said, take the building
down.
Mayor Furlong: So it's down?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then did you have a chance to have your engineer's review the
alternatives of the City?
Greg Falconer: No, I did not get a chance to on the last City Council meeting, or City Planning
Commission and.
Mayor Furlong: Right, you had said you got that a few days before but that was a few weeks ago now.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, exactly.
Mayor Furlong: Have you had a chance since then to take a look at those?
Greg Falconer. No, in fact I have not been in town. I've actually been down in Florida looking for some
work down there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Greg Falconer: l have a traveling business type of deal
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that's fine. And I guess the other question then is with regard to the current
gap between the building, or what was the building and that retaining wall. You said there's a couple feet
there. You've got some drainage tile and you put down some other materials to run water away.
Greg Falconer: Yes. What I would do with the new structure, which wouldn't be wood. This is a wood
structure. The next structure would be made out of metal. We would band around the whole bottom side
with a rubber membrane and put drainfile in the bottom and do it you know right so that whole building
stays dry in that area.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question is, if you went with one of the city alternatives, why couldn't
you keep the existing drainage that you have there now and just with landscaping run the water if you
added that additional I 1 feet.
17
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: The building is 3 feet lower than the top of the retaining wall. My grass is right about
here so when you see this retaining wall coming into view, you have to remember right here the grass is
right up near the top and then that's how low the building was. The building probably shouldn't have
been built there in the first place but I wasn't around.
Mayor Furlong: You didn't do that one.
Greg Falconer: Exactly and so if we bring the building back we're, you know we're creating a very large
space behind here. Now I've just created a bathtub that I have to do something with and that's where
you've got to decide do you take the whole retaining wall down or you try to fill that in. What you try to
do. You're looking at a sizeable amount of money to make it work without having another issue
happening.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess what I'm trying to understand is there's already water, rain water going
between the building and the retaining wall, correct?
Greg Falconer: Which 1 was able to get to with the draintile and the rubber membrane in there. Yeah, it's
a very small area. We're only talking a trough this big and so I was able to put drainage rock and
draintile in there with a rubber membrane and I got that to completely exit out the other side of the
building over here. Not this side. This side.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and the engineers say that you couldn't cover the 13 feet with that, or you don't
think you can cover the 13 feet?
Greg Falconer: It would be, it would be very expensive because we're talking not, without being there,
there is an extensive amount of soil and drainage rock and stuff that would have to be done to that front
area to make this work.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Greg Falconer: There's one thing, I just want to say one thing. My two neighbors were here last time and
they said I don't know if people can picture what exactly what, because those same questions were asked
by a couple of the planning commission people and it was quite clear that it's just hard to really see you
know because it does seem like a logical thing. Oh we'll just bring the building back and then just
landscape that and whatever but there's a lot, this is 40 feet from here over to the other side and every foot
you go back you're going to have to add something and up and up and up to get that to drain properly
towards the, away from the building and stuff.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions, follow up questions? Mr. McDonald
Councilman McDonald: I've got just one. So what this is coming down to is what you're asking us to do
is basically keep the same footprint for the building. You need to move the peak over structurally and
that's going to require 5 additional feet on that western side and then the rest of it is just an overhang in
order to get the water out to your driveway.
Greg Falconer: Yes. Yes.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, any other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much
18
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: Thank you.
Tammy Falconer: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any follow up questions for staff?
Councilman McDonald: Well 1 have one.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Has anybody complained about this in the neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilwoman Ernst: I have one.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, they talked about using this for horticultural purposes. Is there a problem
with that?
Kate Aanenson: No. The property is zoned A2. I think the reason we put that definition in there is, this
is a contractor's yard used to be permitted in this area so we've eliminated contractor's yards from home
occupations so this did have an active home occupation, contractor's yard as stated as recently as 2004
because it had the continuing in the non -conformity so this building had the continuation of the non-
conformity. This existing building so that was one of our recommendations too if you were to go forward
that we eliminate the conditional use, the non -conformity of the contractor's yard, and that was one of the
reasons why it was put in place. Not all of these were used for agricultural purposes. Some of them were
for contractor's yards and that was why we moved away from that cap. If it's for agricultural purpose and
it meets the criteria for, whether it's animals, you have to apply to the City to get your stable permit and
that sort of thing but certainly if they wanted to do that, that's permitted.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thoughts and comments from council. Councilman Laufenburger. Or I'm sorry,
Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I guess I'll start while everybody else thinks. Yeah, I remember the other
property coming and we did assess what's been done down in this area as far as out buildings and those
types of things. Out buildings seem to fit within this neighborhood and that seems to be something that
all the neighbors have accommodated and are very much in favor of doing and they've allowed people to
use this land as they kind of wish as long as it stays within the ordinances for contractors yards, and even
back then I remember the people that did come forward said that there was none of that activity going on
by any of the property owners. I realize that what staff has proposed on it's face seems very logical and
very easy to do but you know looking at the overheads and understanding what the applicant is talking
about, why would we continue to add on costs to something. I'm having a problem with that part of it
because we all seem to agree that if he wants to expand the building out a little bit there's no problems
with that. What we seem to be arguing over a little bit is the, is the blueprints and the plans. I would not
have a problem with him going back to the original plan and putting in there what he has originally
proposed.
19
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 1 can go next.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: l want to start by saying that I appreciate staff and all the work that you do put
into planning and this once again, I think you did a very nice job with it but you know I know we also
have to respect the ordinances that we have in this city so we don't have chickens running around and
lord knows what else. You can have chickens here so that's a good thing but it really does come down for
me to be, what's common sense. Does it make sense for this family to deal with the same problems just
in a different way or does it make sense for them just to do it right the first time and have a usage of the
building that they can enjoy for the duration that they stay there so I certainly would be in favor of them,
with the original plan also.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilwoman Ernst: I'll make a comment Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst
Councilwoman Ernst: So I would assume that when we talk about going back to the original plan that it
was the 13 feet on the roof? Adding the 13 feet to the roof. So, and I agree. I would support that as well
I think that, I mean 1 don't see where it really has any disadvantages and if they build it to it's original
state and 1 don't see any issues with that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger
Councilman Laufenburger: Well just to clarify Councilwoman Ernst, they don't want to rebuild to the
original state.
Councilwoman Ernst: They want to add 13 feet onto the roof, from what I understood.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well they want to go from 40 by 32 to 40 by 37 with an additional 8 feet of
roof that gives Tammy her gardening tables. So what they want to do is they want to expand the 1,280
internal dimensions to 1,480 and then add this roof, all for the purpose of getting the snow away from the
frost heave.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So I would call that the applicant's proposal and I think
Councilwoman Tjomhom said it the best. 1 think it makes common sense. I would support the
applicant's proposal.
Mayor Furlong: And that's fine. I'm comfortable with what's been discussed here. If there's no other
comments would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'll make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that the City Council approves
a variance to expand a 520 square feet of existing non -conforming accessory structure and adopt the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision. But that's not going to work.
20
Chanhassen City Council — December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: Right, we need to come back with Findings.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yep. The Findings of Fact aren't going to be applicable to this so
Mayor Furlong: So direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact?
Roger Knutson: For the next meeting.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next meeting
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves
a variance to expand a 520 square feet of existing non -conforming accessory structure and directs
staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Enjoy your chickens.
CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD): REOUEST FOR CONCEPT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 8.08
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2)o APPLICANT: OPPH)AN,
INCJOWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK.
Mayor Furlong: Let's start with a staff report and again just for format here. We'll start with the staff
report. Any questions might come from that. The applicant will be invited to come up and provide his
presentation. We will take public comments and then we'll, when that period is over we'll bring it back
to council for questions and comments as well. So let's start with staff report, Ms. Aanenson.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again the applicant is requesting a
concept PUD for 224 apartments. Again the Planning Commission heard this on their December e
meeting. Included in your updated cover memo to your staff report it's kind of a summary of their points
as it came forward. Again the application under the PUD concept is to, if it was to go forward would
have to have a land use amendment from office and residential low density to high density residential
PUD. And from, rezoned from the A2 District and would also require site plan approval. So what I'd
like to do then is go through the staff report. I'm going to try to weave in some of the questions that were
answered and then while I'm on a slide I think, instead of me trying to go back and forth on slides, if you
have questions while I'm on that slide that would be helpful. So again the subject site shown in black is,
there's office land use designation that is 8 acres. Across the street on West 78th is 6 acres that's guided
for low density, and just to clarify, I've been asked this question, and I'm not sure that we can get it out
definitively. When it's designated land use of low density there is several different zoning applications
that can apply so when you look at the zoning right now it's A2. That's typical when there's no
development on the site. It keeps it in a low tax area until it comes in for development. The zoning then,
21
3
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
CHANHASSEN FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard DATE: December 10, 2012
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Variance Re�uest — Accessory Structure exceeding 1,000 sq. ft.
720 West 96 Street — Planning Case #2012-12
Administration
Phone:952.227.1100
Fax: 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone:952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone:952.227,1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone:952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone:952.227.1400
Fax:952.2271404
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
PROPOSED MOTION
"The Chanhassen City Council denies the variance to the 1,000 square -foot
accessory structure limitation to permit the expansion of the existing
nonconforming structure and adopts the attached Planning Commission
Findings of Fact."
City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant desires to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming storage structure on
site. The previous building was 1,280 square feet (32' wide x 40' long). The proposed
building is 1,800 square feet (37' wide x 40' long plus an 8' wide x 40' long covered
walkway/lean-to area). The variance permits a 520 square -foot expansion to the storage
building. A total of 5,940 square feet of accessory structures would result from the
variance approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, held a
public hearing on November 20, 2012. The Planning Commission voted four (4) for and
two (2) against a motion denying the variance request. Because City Code requires a
three -fourths vote of the members present for the vote to be a final determination, the
vote serves only as a recommendation to City Council.
The applicant submitted a letter and drawing from Gregory J. Havlik, P.E., stating that
the "proposed rebuild will favorably alter the roof slopes and snow loadings". He also
noted that "the new configuration ... will provide safety egress function of the
pedestrian door to the existing attached building" (see attachment).
As part of the discussion, staff presented in the Planning Commission report two
alternatives that would meet the City's ordinance requirements and, therefore, not
require a variance. Both these alternatives assumed that the applicant's roof design
would be incorporated in the building. One alternative flips the building 90 degrees and
uses 2.5-foot eave overhangs to get the roof edge as the applicant proposes. The other
alternative shortens the building, but widens it to 45 feet to achieve this same effect.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning tot Tomorrow
SCANNED
Todd Gerhardt
720 West 96th Street Variance Request
December 10, 2012
Page 2
Engineering staff notes that the applicant indicated that the volume of snow and the resulting
runoff from the north -facing roof creates an issue. As indicated to the applicant at the time of the
site visit, the building footprint could be modified to be in compliance with the City Code.
Planning Commission minutes are item la of the December 10, 2012 City Council packet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion denying the variance to
permit expansion of the existing nonconforming accessory.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Gregory J. Havlik, P.E., to Greg Falconer dated November 15, 2012.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 20, 2012.
g:\plm\2012 planning cases\2012-12 720 west 96th street variance-falconer\resubmittal\executive summary.doc
.� Structural Consulting, Ltd.
6482 Carlson or -
Eden Prairie, MN 55346 -
w havtek.com
952-935-1113 Fax 952-935-1473
Date: November 15, 2012 HTK-2012-11-178
Greg Falconer
720 West 78" Street Chanhassen, MN
Subject: Roof of building Snow and Ice safety.
To: Mr. Falconer
HavTek Structural has reviewed your information for replacement of the building roof that collapsed probably
due to excessive snow load. Your proposed rebuild will favorably alter the roof slopes and snow loadings. We
have provided the loading requirements for the new configuration. The new configuration as shown on sketch
200386-SK1 will provide safety egress function of the pedestrian door to the existing attached building. A plan
view of the site indicates the roof load design requirements for sliding and drifting concerns. If you have any
other needs or requests please contact myself.
Respectfully: 1} `Vr'��
Greg�or Hk P.E.
President
PROPOSI
9
EXISTING BUILDING
1` • I 'I
1 • I I 1
DRIFT I SLIDING SNOW
PROFILESEE I' TOTAL
SNOW LOAD , "•'1 I
• •PROFILE
♦♦.♦♦ ♦.'♦♦ 1
37'-0*
2 NORTH ELEVATION
SKt ;&R N.T.S.
37 —0 8-0
PROPOSED NEW 1 HEREBY LT9TTTY THAT THIS PUN, TEORCA71ON
BUILDING OR REPORI WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
45'—D' DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
RE051FRED PROFE590NAL ENCINE#JtNDER THE
LA STATE
sa
1 PLAN II0 GREC Y HAVLIK
SNI SCUE N.T.S. 'I' REG. NO.: 22055
DATE 11/12/12
PROPOSED NEW
OVERHANG
EXISTING BUILDING
EXTERIOR DOOR
HAVTEK STRUCTURAL CONSULTING LTD.
6482 CARLSON DRIVE 952-935-1113
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 952-935-1473 FAX
CLIENT: DREG FALCONER
LOCATION: 720 WEST 96TH ST, CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
TITLE: BUILDING PLAN AND ELEVATION
SCALE: AS NOTED
SNP SK NO: 200386—SKI
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 4,940 square -foot variance to the
1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a 4,940 square -foot variance from
the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure area limitation to reconstruct and expand the original
non -conforming shed.
LOCATION: 720 West 9e Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT: Greg and Tammy Falconer
720 West 96d' Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)850-6856
gmfinc@,,mninter.net
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District
(A2)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
(net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 4.77 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -
MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the 1,000 square -foot maximum area for
accessory structures to reconstruct and expand the original 1,280 square -foot non -conforming
structure. A second 4,140 square -foot accessory structure was constructed in 2000. With the
proposed expansion, accessory structures would total 5,940 square feet, which would exceed the
maximum allowable accessory structure area by 4,940 square feet.
SCANNEO
Falconer Variance Request
Planning Case 2012-12
November 20, 2012
Page 2 of 6
E
� v
!
i
C •�
r
The property had a single-family home with an
attached garage, a 90' x 46' accessory structure (4,140
square feet) and a 40' x 32' accessory structure (1,280
square feet). Due to snow damage to the roof, the
smaller building has been demolished.
The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2)
and is located at 720 West 96 h Street. The properties
to the north, south, east and west of the subject
property are zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2).
Access to the site is via West 9e Street to the north of
the property.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming use,
Section 20-74 of the zoning ordinance regarding
nonconforming uses and structures allows for the
nonconformity to be continued, through repair,
replacement, restoration maintenance or improvement,
but not expansion.
Chapter 20, Article X, `EA-2", Agricultural Estate
District
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Section 20-904, Accessory Structures, of the zoning
ordinance regarding accessory structures limits detached accessory structures to 1,000 square
feet.
On September 18, 2012, the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied a variance
request for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to
expand the accessory structure (39' 9 '/d' x 40' plus a 5' 2 3/4" x 40' covered walkway/lean-to
area).
On December 5, 1984, the City Council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a
contractor's yard for the subject property. This application was in response to the August 20,
1984 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing contractor's yards as a conditional use in the
R-la, Agricultural Residence District. When the CUP was approved, the site contained two
parcels for approximately 10 acres and included two pole barns. The easterly lot was sold and in
1985 a house was constructed on 710 West 96a' Street. That lot required a variance because it
did not meet the standards of the R-la district. With the variance approval for 710 West 96a'
Street, the city council affirmed the CUP for the contractor's yard. As part of the Board of
Falconer Variance Request
Planning Case 2012-12
November 20, 2012
Page 3 of 6
Appeals and Adjustments hearing on September 18, 2012, the property owner was notified that
the conditional use permit for the contractor's yard was null and void.
The current zoning ordinance limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square
feet. This ordinance limiting the area of the accessory structures in Agricultural Districts was
adopted in May 2007 in response to contractors purchasing property and building accessory
structures to house their businesses. City Code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home
occupations.
At the time of the ordinance amendment, there were discussions regarding requests for structures
in excess of 1,000 square feet to be used for legitimate agricultural uses. Minnesota State Statute
17.81 — Definitions, Subdivision 4 defines agricultural uses as "use of land for the production of
livestock dairy animals, dairyproducts, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals,
horticultural and nursery stock which is under Chapter 18H, fruit of all kinds, vegetables,
forage, grains, bees and apiaryproducts. " As part of the discussion, it was determined that
requests for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a
legitimate agricultural use and that the variance process provided an appropriate mechanism for
addressing the request. The accessory structure to be located on the subject property is intended
to be used as a storage structure to house antiques.
Location of the
proposed expansion
Variance 2012-10, to
allow for a 2,560 square
foot storage building —
APPROVED October 9,
2012.
Structure constructed
after 2005, no permit on
file.
If a subject property meets the criteria in Minnesota State Statute 16B.60 and 273.13, the
agricultural building would be exempt from Minnesota State Building Code and would not
require a building permit. However, city code would still require a zoning permit for its
construction. The property located at 720 West 96a' Street does not qualify as agricultural land
Falconer Variance Request
Planning Case 2012-12
November 20, 2012
Page 4 of 6
because the property has 4.77 total acres. Therefore, the accessory structure requires a building
permit.
Minnesota State Statute 1613.60 — Definitions defines agricultural buildings to mean "a
structure on agricultural land as defined in Section 273.13, Subdivision 23, designed,
constructed and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or
products used by the owner, lessee, or sub lessee of the building and members of their
immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of
agricultural produce or goods. "
Minnesota Statute 273.13 — Classification of property, Subdivision 23, Class 2 defines
agricultural land to mean "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, used in the
preceding year for agricultural purposes. "
ANALYSIS
The applicant desires to reconstruct and expand a storage structure on site. The previous building
was 1,280 square feet (32' x 40'). The proposed building is 1,800 square feet (37' x 40' plus an 8' x
40' covered walkway/lean-to area). The walkway/lean-to area is included in the area of the building
since it exceeds the 2.5 feet eave or architectural detail exclusion. Additionally, it could be enclosed
in the future with a minimal of alterations.
Proposed expanded
building envelope
Original Structure
(32' x 40')
First Expansion
90.3' x 45.7' [4,140 square feet].
August 2000.
Falconer Variance Request
Planning Case 2012-12
November 20, 2012
Page 5 of 6
► On October 8, 2012 the City Council approved a 1,560 square -foot variance to the
square -foot maximum accessory limitation to allow for a 2,560 square -foot storage
building.
The subject property is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density use and is
included in the 2010 Metropolitian Urban Services Area. This area will redevelop in the future as
a more suburban -type development. Historically, 85 percent of residential low density land is
developed with approximately one-third acre lots and single-family detached residential units.
The remaining 15 percent of development of residential low -density land is some other type of
low density residential use, e.g., twin homes, town houses at a density of less than four units per
acre. Accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet are not conducive to these types of
development.
City staff met the applicant on site on November 7, 2012 to review the applicant's proposal and
evaluate site drainage issues. Staff advised the applicant that he could revise his plans and still
comply with the ordinance. The applicant stated that he was concerned that a smaller building
footprint would lead to snow storage issues and water problems that he is trying to address. City
code permits the applicant to replace the 32' x 40', 1,280 square -foot building. This building
would not have to sit in the exact location of the existing building, but could be shifted on site to
Falconer Variance Request
Planning Case 2012-12
November 20, 2012
Page 6 of 6
address the owner's drainage concerns, subject to compliance with the A-2 district requirements.
Additionally, the applicant could include eaves of up to 2 %2 feet to provide additional roof area
to direct snow to appropriate locations, which would allow a 40' x 32' building with the same
roof width as the applicant proposes (45 feet). Or, the building could be shortened from 40 feet
to 28' 5 1/3" by 45 feet.
2.5'
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals and Adjustment deny the variance and adopt the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced Copy Site Survey.
4. Reduced Copy Aerial View Building Plan.
5. Reduced Copy Aerial View Building Plan Previous Submittal.
6. Reduced Copy Building Elevation.
7. Reduced Copy Building Elevation Previous Submittal.
8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List.
gAplant2012 planning easas12012-12 720 west 96th street variance-falconerkesubmiaahstaff report 720 w 96th nzub.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
1113IN
Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000
square -foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) —
Planning Case 2012-12.
On November 20, 2012 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is as follows:
P/O SW 1/4 NW '/4 E 155' OF W 310' Section 25, Township 116, Range 23
4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the
request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for
hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a
legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for
agricultural uses. Therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the A2 district. This area is guided for residential low -density uses in the future.
Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of the subject property
within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory
structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a
permitted accessory use; however, the proposed accessory structure does not meet the
criteria- foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning
regulations; however, it does not permit its enlargement.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the
winter of 2011. The homeowner intends to replace and expand the existing structure by
520 square feet. The City Code states "any nonconformity, including the lawful use or
occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional
control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement,
restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not expansion." This does not constitute a
unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280 square -foot structure could
be replaced.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. The total square footage of accessory
structures on this lot is the second largest in the neighborhood and exceeds the square
footages of accessory structures of seven properties in the neighborhood. These
accessory structures were constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting
accessory structure size and are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this
area is guided for residential low -density uses in the future. Such uses do not require
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet.
The request is also inconsistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030
Comprehensive Plan:
2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE
Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide
for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in
greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm.
There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City
reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan
and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time
as are services are available and requested.
2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES
Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support
very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not
prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of
commercial and industrial facilities in this area.
f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2012-12, November 20, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board or Appeals and Adjustments
denies Planning Case 92012-12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -foot
accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 200' day of November, 2012.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
rLamaa
Applicant Name and Address:
C •,c5 t- 7-A y �i4lca e
7A 0 t-') 9G f-h 3 f
Ct:.a..V.!rSe, v2^,Al S 5-Y 7
Contact: a 5
Phone:oix$rvbe-sue Fax:
Email: _q . F r� r,
Planning Case No. 14L- P
P_A bm, r &I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Property Owner Name and Address:
S.' �" e
Contact:
Phone:
Email:
Fax:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non -conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development'
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)'
Subdivision'
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
�<_ Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost'
- $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
PROJECT NAME: ,� V\. e
LOCATIONS S`J / 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID .25 0 a 5 3 a t o
TOTALACREAGE:
Cy-7-;�,
WETLANDS PRESENT: AC e YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: Z7 v", ti( -Fu v e A D
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: &61 dcl.1F>
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: kl\
REASON FOR REQUEST: A e.h u ' (r� C o ((a iD 5 e al q L,( t ( Eli tit G fA-1 t f (n G rn
C-t,�aC-l-%ea Clio & , i r s ind!,�, rroo-c. Tl, e 'Ia(
rope n)ue1'(no�c..r,
Vh(a°vnS (/i�� try;vV� Sr-\ cca ee (V l
have Cav e \ C L,aS e f0 n"y- S i-.^kc-1,-t _✓,eS
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.
UQ-t- 3, cola
Date
t.C_i Z)? , l2oi
Date
g_\planUortnsWevelopment review application doc
SCANNED
W_
FAQ
920 West 96,th Street
J
J
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
SCANNED SEP 2 b 2012
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT
J+,- � WVXA�le
720 West 96%1 5Vicet CITY OF
RECEIVEDSSEN
Chanhassen, MN 21" x 8" slde wall footings AUG 2 4 2012
3/I6-P
,,
n----------
tussera�I�anNraco
Ea I
15'
24'
}
S41,
ender footings, 33" 12"
Ik'-62
a��
ta P,
TO' avenccad:door
9.471
�{" i8" fatlgs
_
,
Chanhassen,
North Elevation
.;iT" OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Ah J ? 4 2012
.;HANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Falconer
720 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN
North �levatlon
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2012
CHM'HASSEN PIANNMO OEPT
ia:�LIYl.Y'J
Falconer
120 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN r
1/ 4,1 - I'
MEMO
NONE
North elevation
OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
1i�: J z 4 2012
,:HANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Now
120 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN 2111
3/ I6 > 1'
CITY OF CHA.NHASSEN
RECEIVED
Y. 8" side wall foobings AUG 2
2012
__--__n__________ _ --------- R--------- __ __ _______vr_________ vny�� �gro�NGDEPT
15'-24
r fa&tings, 33"x 12"
red
De rq pff M
Rxhq per maufxhrer
krff
/1X91 :door
(e�q
i
4
4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 8, 2012, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for 720 West 96'h Street Variance Request — Planning Case 2012-012 to the persons
named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to
such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail
with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those
appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by
other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sw m to before me
this 1-h day of NoJembp r , 2012.
Notary plblic
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
--i `r My Commission E*m Jan 31, 2015
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of 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:
Greg & Tammy Falconer
Property
720 West 9e Street
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
at the Meeting:
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4, Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by
Questions &
email at boenerouscMci.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 reporton 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
omethin to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
something
Date & Time:
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening,de ndin on the order of the a enda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen
Proposal:
City Code to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1,000
square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A2
Applicant:
Greg & Tammy Falconer
Property
720 West 96'" Street
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
at the Meeting:
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by
Questions &
email at bcenerous(fti.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at
952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
Comments:
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. 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/industdal.
• 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 Stag person named on the notification.
ANDREW T RIEGERT BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC BRADLEY C WORM
620 96TH ST W PO BOX 1060 750 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1060 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM
760 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
GARY J & MARY LANE BENDZICK
731 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
JAMES R & SHARON M HEDBERG
750 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671
KEVIN L & LORI A BOGENREIF
631 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602
RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG
711 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
STEPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER
621 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8602
TIMOTHY A & DAWN M ERHART
9611 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8695
WILLIAM F & MARY E HEINLEIN
721 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
CONRAD L KERBER
9850 DELPHINIUM LN
CHASKA MN 55318-1176
GREGORY M FALCONER
720 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
JAXON D & ALLISON L LANG
9870 DELPHINIUM LN
CHASKA MN 55318-1176
LESLIE L O'HALLORAN
710 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
ROBERT & BETTY WOLD
730 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671
STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK
810 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8673
VIVEK KAUL
9875 DELPHINIUM LN
CHASKA MN 55318-1176
DOUGLAS L & PAULA JO STEEN
701 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
JAMES M & TERESA A BYRNE
700 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA
8503 OLD TOWNE CT
KNOXVILLE TN 37923-6361
LISA C OLSON
9855 DELPHINIUM LN
CHASKA MN 55318-1176
ROBERT A & ELIZABETH K HAAK
770 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8671
THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE
630 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8601
WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE
730 96TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8603
December 12, 2012
CITY OF
CHMIMSENGreg
and Tammy Falconer
7700 Market Boulevard
720 West 96`h Street
PC Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Accessory Structure Variance
Administration
Planning Case #2012-12
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Dear Greg and Tammy Falconer.
Building Inspections
This letter is to confirm that on December 10, 2012, the Chanhassen City Council
PFax:952.222z1900
Fax:952.2271190
approved your request to reconstruct and expand by 520 square feet an existing
accessory structure on your property located at 720 West 96d' Street. The approval is
Engineering
for the plan stamped "Received October 22, 2012", which shows a 40-foot by 37-foot
,Phone:952.227.1160
building with a 40-foot by 8-foot covered walkway/lean-to-area (1,800 square feet
Fax:952.227.1170
total).
Finance
I have added the approved plans to your building permit for building permit review.
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952)
Park & Recreation
227-1131.
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax:952.2271110
Cordiall ,
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax:952.227.1404
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Fax: 952.227.1110
Jerry Mohn, Building Official
Public Works
c: Building File 720 West 96 h Street
7901 Park Place
Phone:952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
gAplan\2012 planning caaesU012-12 720 west 96th street variance-falconer\resubmittanappmval letter.doc
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
SCANNED
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Generous, Bob
To: Greg Falconer
Subject: RE: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
G reg:
As we told you before, we are limited in our ability to approve expansion of nonconforming structures by city code.
Sec. 20-72. - Nonconforming uses and structures.
(a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of
the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair,
replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, ' t
It may be a good idea if I and a member of the engineering department come out to the property to review the existing
conditions and your proposed plans. If you have additional questions or need more information, please contact me.
:..
From: Greg Falconer [mailto:gmfincCalmninter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: Re: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
0--41
Hi Bob,
Yes that is correct. We brought the west exterior wall in 3 more feet. Also on the new plans the roof has narrowed down
to the same size as my existing building walls.
Also my wife and I are a bit bewildered why the planning dept is requiring us to rebuild the same building resulting in the
same functional problems that are a detriment to the two buildings. Clearly my plans show a determination to shed all
environmental issues away from the building foundations without creating a significant amount of interior space. We would
think the city would be open to its home owners protecting their properties. Isn't that why we have building codes in the
first place. My old building had 16 inch eves, and as my survey shows the building was not 1280 sq/ft. Does my new
planned 8 ft roof overhang constitute a problem for the city? If so, how? One trip out to the proposed site and I think
it would be clear as to our intentions. We realize the importance of your dept but we are just using common sense. We
would simply like a building that functions properly.
Thanks Bob,
Greg and Tammy Falconer
----- Original Message -----
From: Generous. Bob
To: Greg Falconer
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Sorry. I was looking at a reduction of the same set of plans. It appears that you are increasing the eve overhang from 5'
2 %" to 8' and reducing the building from 39' 9 %" to 37' in width. Is that correct? 4k
From: Greg Falconer [mailto:emfnc_&mninter.netJ
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:58 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: Re: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Hi Bob,
Ok sounds good. When I talked to Ashley she didn't know what the fee would be so 1 told her I would stop back up and complete
that portion of the paper work when you knew.
I wasn't aware there was a variance amendment application. How does that work and how is that different from starting over? Also,
I'm not sure what you mean by by incorporating the plans on to the site plan. Nothing has changed on that paperwork.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Greg and Tammy
----- Original Message ----
From: Generous. Bob
To: mg finc(iDmnintennet
Cc: Aanenson, Kate
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:27 PM
Subject: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Mr. Falconer:
I have been given your revised drawing and development review application form to amend your variance application
for the above property. It is my understanding that you intend to amend your variance application, rather than
appeal the Board of Appeals and Adjustment's decision.
By amending the variance application request, we are starting over as far as the City review process and the decision
deadline. The next submittal deadline is October 19 for a November 20t6 public hearing.
The application you have submitted is incomplete for the following reasons:
You need to incorporate the revised building plans on the site plan.
You will need to sign the fee owner signature line.
A $100 fee will be required. This is to cover the cost of the public hearing notice mailing and publication in the
paper
If you have additional questions regarding this project, please contact myself or Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director.
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O.Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1131
baenerousCa)ci.chanhassen.mn.us
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCi 2 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Falconer
720 West 96th 5tr-eet
Chanhassen, MN
3/16-P
14,
27" x 8" 51de wall footings
41
enfier footings, 55" 12"
Factory ea*me ej Two
Or" pff qwwracbxw
„
X91IF
rkead `door-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCI 2 2 ZU»
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT
Chanhassen,
Falconer
720 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN
side wall footings
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
i;
C
4'4
�I
ender footings, 55" 12'
.I
4'14'62
Lill
P
I
Venccad door
Cu�n fooErgs
AO' 1
nn
13.4
Chanhassen,
North elevation
CITY RECEIVEDSSEN
OCT t 1 1011
CHMIHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
Date: October 29, 2012
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
Review Response Deadline: November 9, 2012
By: Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner
952-227-1131 bgenerous&i.chanhassen.mn.us
Subject: RESUBMMAL -Request for Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow
an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2)
located at 720 West 96" Street. Applicant/Owner: Greg & Tammy Falconer.
Planning Case: 2012-12 PID: 25-0253210
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on October 22, 2012. The 60-day review period ends December 21, 2012.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on November 20, 2012 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
November 9, 2012. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and
assistance is greatly appreciated.
I. City Departments:
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b. Lower Minnesota River
c. Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint(United)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO.2012-12
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for
Variance from Section 20-904 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow an accessory structure in
excess of 1,000 square feet on property zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) located at 720 West
96a' Street. Applicant/Owner: Greg & Tammy Falconer.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web
site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2012-12 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All
interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to
this proposal.
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Email: b¢enerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1131
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 8, 2012)
SCANNED
Chanhassen,
WOMAN I _r eiI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
SCANNED
SCANNED
Generous, Bob 0 C-)�'
To: Greg Falconer
Subject: Variance
Greg:
We need the new application signed and the $200 fee to cover the mailings and public hearing notice. The deadline was
Friday, but if you get it in today, we can keep it on.
It is an incomplete application until we get all this.
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1131
bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
SCANNED
Falconer
-720 West 96fh Street
'"" x 8" 51d0 wall footings
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 2 2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
?i
ender footings, 33" 1211
Factory Eked Trusses
Drachm Per e+ dmixrer
i
!door
gverhead
IIy5II Pact I
1
I
SCANNED
CITY OF CHAN
P O BOX 147
CHANHASSEN N
10/26/2012
Receipt No.
CLERK: AShlE
PAYEE: Grec
720 W 96th
Chanhassen N
720 West 96t
Planning ca:
------------
Variance
Total
Cash
Check
Change
SCANNED
720 WEST 96TH STREET VARIANCE RESUBMITTAL - PLANNING CASE 2012-12
$200.00 Variance
$200.00 TOTAL
$200.00 Less Check #2514 from Gregory Falconer
$0.00 BALANCE
SCANNED
t
Generous, Bob
From:
Generous, Bob
Sent:
Monday, October 08, 2012 2:38 PM
To:
'Greg Falconer'
Subject:
RE: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Greg and Tammy:
I thought you were revising the building plans. If there is no change, why are you going back to the Planning
Commission? The facts of the case have not changed.
:..
From: Greg Falconer [mailto:omfinc(a)mninter.net]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:58 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: Re: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Hi Bob,
Ok sounds good. When I talked to Ashley she didn't know what the fee would be so I told her I would stop back up and
complete that portion of the paper work when you knew.
I wasn't aware there was a variance amendment application. How does that work and how is that different from starting
over? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by by incorporating the plans on to the site plan. Nothing has changed on that
paperwork.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Greg and Tammy
----- Original Message -----
From: Generous. Bob
To: gmfinc(doninter.net
Cc: Aanenson, Kate
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:27 PM
Subject: Variance - 720 W. 96th Street
Mr. Falconer:
I have been given your revised drawing and development review application form to amend your variance application
for the above property. It is my understanding that you intend to amend your variance application, rather than
appeal the Board of Appeals and Adjustment's decision.
By amending the variance application request, we are starting over as far as the City review process and the decision
deadline. The next submittal deadline is October 19 for a November 20`" public hearing.
The application you have submitted is incomplete for the following reasons:
You need to incorporate the revised building plans on the site plan.
You will need to sign the fee owner signature line.
A $100 fee will be required. This is to cover the cost of the public hearing notice mailing and publication in the
paper
If you have additional questions regarding this project, please contact myself or Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director.
SCANNED
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1131
baenerousCdci.cha n hassen. m n.us
SCANNED