The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-29_ONKEN, MARVIN & PATRICIAThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, I I I Alina Schwartz Craig R. McDowell Marguerite M. McCarron *Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.cem CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222 6-mailAddress: snelson@ck-law.com November 16, 2006 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: CHANHASSEN—MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED NOV 17 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ➢ Variance #06-29 — Onken, Marvin & Patricia / 6221 Greenbriar Ave. (Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #06-29 which was filed with Carver County on October 25, 2006 as Torrens Document No. T160562. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association B WSan . Nelson, Leg 1 Assistant SRN:ms Enclosure SCANNED OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Check # 16434 Cert 27217 Fee:$ 46.00 Certified Recorded on 10-25-2006 at 11111111111111111111111111111111 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, M1NNFS0TA VARIANCE 06-29 09:00 �IAM ❑ PM Carl W. Hanson, Jr. Registrar of Titles 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves the variance for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue. 2. Proverty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in-law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance 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: September 25, 2006 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: A ZL� (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: A --tA odd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MWNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L day of C 2006 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. AM N ARY PUBLI City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 KIM T MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota • My commission Expires Jan 31. 2010 2 04,-25 September 27, 2006 CITY OF Marvin & Patricia Onken CHANHASSEN 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 7700 Market Boulevard Ps MN sen, BoxVIN 55317 Chanhassen, Re: Variance—PlanningCase#06-29 g Administration Dear Mr. & Mrs. Onken: Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 This letter is to formally notify you that on September 25, 2006, the Chanhassen Building Inspections City Council approved the following motion: Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:952.?27.1190 "The City Council approves the variance for the use of a single-family dwelling as Engineering a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Phone:952.227.1180 Greenbriar Avenue based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the Fax: 952.227.1170 following conditions: Finance Phone:952.227.1140 1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the Fax:952.227.1110 applicants' mother/mother-in-law. Park & Recreation Phone:952.227,1120 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the Fax:952.227.1110 property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the Recreation Center additional unit. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.227,1404 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code." Planning & Natural Resources Phone:952.227.1130 If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at Fax:952,227.1110 imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works 1591Park Road Sincerely, Phone: for Center Fax: 952227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Josh Metzer Fax:952,227.1110 Planner I Web Slte www.d.chanhassennn.us g.xplanx2006 plmning ca \06-29 oaken variancexapproval letter.doc SCANNEO The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A g2at place to live, work, and play. 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 10/1 Sue Nelson Document Record ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 8/28/06 06-23 Variance - 3891 West 62" Street Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts 1 9/25/06 06-29 Variance - 6221 Greenbriar Avenue (Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Hei hts 1 10/3/06 06-31 Variance - 3735 Hickory Road (Lot 5, Block 2, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ❑ For review and comment ® For Recording ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO: Gary Carlson (06-23) Marvin & Patricia Onken (06-29) Edward & Cheryl Bixby (06-31) copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED.< U� V �e Kim Meuwisse , (952) 227-1107 SCANNED If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, DIINNESOTA VARIANCE 06-29 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves the variance for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in-law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance 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: September 25, 2006 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: A ZL� Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: odd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this edgy of C 2006 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 N ARY PUBLI KIM I MEUWISSSEN Notary Public -Minnesota �'�'�.�•' My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 2 014 -99 City Council Meeting - September 25, 2006 Marvin & Patricia Onken, 62221 Greenbriar Avenue: Approval of Variance Request for Use of a Single Family Dwelling as a Two -Family Dwelling on Property Located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District. j. Resolution #2006-68: Appointment of Election Judges for the General Election. k. Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chanhassen City Code: 1) Chapter 18, Subdivisions (Including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes) and Chapter 20, Zoning. 2) Chapters 1, 4, 7 & 13. 1. Award of Bid, 2006-2009 Audit Contract. in. Resolution #2006-69: Approve Resolution Authorizing Multi -Year Winter Trail Activities Permit with Three Rivers Park District for Minnesota River Bluff LRT Route. n. Resolution #2006-70: Accept Streets, Storm Sewer and Utility Improvements in Fox Den, Project 05-10. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: If you are interested in coming forward I would ask, we do have a couple scheduled presentations this evening but at first I'd like to open it up for the, for anyone else that would like to address the council so, if you'd like to address the council during visitor presentations, this would be an opportunity to come forward at this time. Okay, seeing nobody. We do have representatives here this evening from School District 112 that wants to make a presentation and discussion with regard to their upcoming referendum so good evening. Steve Pumper: Thank you Mayor, council members and city staff. I'm Steve Pumper. rm the Director of Finance and Operations with District 112 and along with me as well is Michelle Helgen our Board Chair. Certainly thank you for this opportunity to give us a moment to talk about the referendum that will be coming up on November 7`s with two questions. One question to build a new high school in the city of Chanhassen and the second additional dollars to operate that school as well. I'd like to take you through a presentation if I could. Mayor Furlong: Let's give it a minute and then maybe we can work on that and we'll take the other presentation, if that makes sense. Let's just see if we can get it up and going. That's going to take a couple minutes, maybe we should switch them, but stay right there Steve. If we can get it up, we'll do it quick. I tell you what, if they get that running, you don't have to necessarily switch to it right, so we can get that working. I'm wondering if we try to move on and maybe invite Mr. Cummings up to do his presentation. Steve, if you can wait while we get the technical stuff worked out. Hopefully well have that in a few minutes and we'll get you back on. At this time I'd like to invite boy scout Scott Cummings to come forward. He is proposing his Eagle Scout project on a trail in this city so. Good evening. 3 WANWe MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITY OF FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I ' CA�]��CpCp��11uu 11H111111 SEN o , DATE: September 25, 2006 7700 Market Boulevard PBox Chanhassen, MNN 55317 SUBJ: ONKEN VARIANCE — 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Request for Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a Administration two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Phone:952.227.i1W Fax: 952.221.1110 PlanningCase 06-29 Building Inspections Phone: 52227.1190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering The applicant is seeking a Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as Phone :952.227.1160 a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. The applicant Fax: 952.227.1170 wishes to establish a separate dwelling unit within the single-family home for the Finance applicant's' 91-year-old mother/mother-in-law. Phone: 952227,1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 ACTION REQUIRED Park ik Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center iVIIPLANNING COMSSION SUMMARY 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5, 2006, to review the proposed variance request. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve Planning A Natural Resources the proposed variance. The Planning Commission minutes are attached as item IA. Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 RECOMMENDATION Public Works 1591 Park Road Staff and Planning Commission recommend the adoption of the motion approving Phone: 952.227.1300 the proposed variance as specified on page 3 of the revised staff report dated Fax:952.227.1310 September 25, 2006 with conditions 1-3. Senior Center Phone:952.227,1125 ATTACHMENTS Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site 1. Revised Staff Report dated September 25, 2006. www.ci.chanhassenmn.us gAplanx2006 planning case \06-29 onken variancelexecutive summary.d1m The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. PC DATE: September 5, 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT CC DATE: September 25, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 3 CASE #: 06-29 BY: JM I I PROPOSAL: Request for Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. LOCATION: 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights APPLICANT: Marvin & Patricia Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.37 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Onken Variance Planning Case #06-29 Soper-5 September 25, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a variance for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. The site is located south of Highway 7 at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue. Access to the site is gained via Greenbriar Avenue. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS See. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Dwelling an means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. ANALYSIS The subject property was platted as part of the Minnewashta Heights subdivision which was recorded in 1953. A permit to construct a third -stall garage addition and a second level addition above the existing two -stall garage were obtained in November 2005. The third -stall garage addition measures 634 square feet in area. The second level addition consisted of a single room, walk-in closet and a bathroom and measures 435 square feet in area. The applicants wish to establish a separate dwelling unit within the single-family home for the applicants' 91-year-old mother/mother-in-law. The second level addition will be renovated to include a living room, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, thus, classifying it as a separate dwelling unit. The dwelling will maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. Separate utilities will not be established. Given the Onken family's unique circumstances, staff feels this is a reasonable request which complies with the standards for granting a variance and is recommending approval of this variance for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Onken Variance Planning Case #06-29 September-5 September 25, 2006 Page 3 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: 1. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated a need for a variance based upon age. 2. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. Finding: The dwelling unit has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, and is accessed via one driveway. 3. Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). Finding: Separate utilities have not been established. 4. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Finding: This request will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend$ that the Pimping Gommis : _ City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the variance for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in- law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code." Planning Case #06-29 September 25, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Findings of Fact. Development Review Application. Written Description and Justification of Variance Request from Marvin & Patricia Onken. Exterior Elevations. Original Addition Floor Plan. Second Dwelling Unit Floor Plan. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Marvin & Patricia Onken for a Variance to allow for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in a Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-29. On September 5, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Marvin & Patricia Onken for a Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in a Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial. b. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. c. Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). d. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 5. The planning report #06-29 Variance dated September 5, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the Variance to allow for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 5'h day of September, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MN Planning Commission Chairperson g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-29 onken va`iaoce\findings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Planning Case No. CITY OKCHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Applicant Name .and Address: Owner Name and Address: Contact: Contact: Email: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) X Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VACIVAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ °° Pi GkAk An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. I PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DES TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: \ f REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATH REASON FOR REQUEST: 1�, DcX, NO 1� 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. ig lure of Applicant Date SCANNED ign ure of Fee Owner �a Date b s Rev. 12/05 G:\ptAMforms\Qevelopment Review Appli tion.DOC City of Chanhassen Development Review Application, Addendum 5 5. Written description of variance request. The applicant wishes to establish separate living quarters within the single-family home for applicant's 91-year-old mother. She is active and alert, able to maintain a household on her own with some assistance with cleaning and cooking, but wishes to live close to family when the need arises for more help. The permits for an addition to the home have already been approved by the City of Chanhassen and construction has begun. This request for variance is in addition to those permits. What separates this request from a simple addition to the single-family home is the desire for separate cooking facilities. There would be a kitchenette area within the living space. The home will maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (See photos and design drawings.) There will be no separate entrance and no separate utility services 'for gas, water and sewer. Because her ability to climb stairs is limited, there will be an elevator stopping at all levels of the home. She no longer drives, does not own a car, and there will be no additional garage space for her use. This variance request falls under Sec. 20-59, Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. 6. Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance. Granting this variance would not cause undue hardship for any resident in the neighborhood because there would be no additional traffic, and the appearance of the home would be enhanced by the addition. There are currently, within the neighborhood, homes that are two-family dwellings, e.g. - - Maplewood Circle, so the applicant's home would not be an exception to the neighborhood's existing standards. The variance will improve the value of the home, but more so simply as an addition to the home, including a deck and screen porch and workshop area in addition to the additional living space. The additional living quarters will be converted to a master bedroom area when appropriate, with removal of the kitchenette area. The addition itself, without the variance, has already been approved by the City of Chanhassen, and the plan meets all current city codes and regulations, with inspections occurring as required by the city. SCANNED rFm AI513�iiiY6":f�19 ®® su! I�] CL ...... ... .. ... ....._.: ... . Deck above screen porch below a la/arnd Sm^a'sere e Mqualarm mir, whadehllbeteea"le"leve, withls t Valk Ih Goset 6221 Greenbriar 10/19/05 Scale " = 1' Vq i 36 D R-d-z) 0 Walk Ir Shower Basements roo with wlthfte�nAl heghtn tmorelth east eWqdom shall have at Pace and w e a floor dtwPenable Provide not less 44'as the han and no height lesII no s [ha 2s than 20 FV7-UR- 15!-6✓N-,TVA S7-4MS ARE To f3c =AlSMLL Ftr-- owa8ip, Living SCANNED APPROVED DEPT: i Nj DATE: it - BY: DA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: MARVIN ONKEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 4, MINNEYASHTA HEIGHTS DATE: /( A.I/n•,ar1 /l•-,use N7.0 8 00 5158,1 E \\ _ 960.6 x 958.6 �959.2 �% i 9 Maple 12" Walnuf r O l.0 r,1467.2 /g6pq go � ed � �0 P�orgge lv / /356 �r O/iIU D^ve � l N 15" MaPle 'A w C� o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed e/ev. Rev. Aua.8. 2005 I o ' mo � e 961.3 1?2.54 x 960.9 x 967.3 50• SPruce Fw SQI�Spruce x 962.4 I �. \ ` 616 ` Existi�g Cons. N 5 (to De removed) 1 xo n o- 961,2 J i av 96 , a 27.9 F 1.8• Cantilever 244 x 967,1960.7 I5� 961.1 x 960.5 EXISTING HARDCOVER Building 1,706 Sq.Ft. Patios & Decks 457 Sq.Ft- Canc. Walks & Drive 1.084 Sq.Ft. Total Hardcover 3.241 Sq.Ft. Lot Area 16,382 Sq.R. X of Hardcover 19.7 X PROPOSED HARDCOVER Building 2,536 Sq.Ft. Patios & Decks 0 Sq.Ft. Conc. Walks & Drive 7,237 Sq.Ft, Total Hordcover 3,773 Sq.R. a 16,382 Sq.Ft. X oI Hardcover 23.0 A 7r O �9i 9A -P v 0 '7 4% 01 ��. A it. LA 'L 00 a Z a 0 ;A '0 to 0 ZOZy'I0A0 Zo Qn cry 2G oytiK A RECEIVED OCT 1 9 2005 CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS C\EP\DRAW\12915. Mc I herebycertify that this survey, Ian or report was File No. -)EMARS—GABRIEL I pprepared ry me or under 12915 my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the LAND SURVEYORS, INC. Laws of the State of Minnesota. Book -Page 3030 Harbor Lone No. As surveys e 26TH day of ✓ULY 2011.15 429/62 Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone:(763) 559-0908 141000Scale _ _ David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 1 „-30' x 960.2 `j� 1 �O1 x 9601.5 961.1 I 1 , S 9g0o0459. 1 W 95.87 961.2 759.4 \ 96L3 X Adjacent House e hardcover CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 24, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Onken Variance — Planning Case 06-29 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this�tday of A ,)n+ 2006. um 1 . I.Jf �w�/14a Notary Pk1Zc K en J. E(ge hardt, Nputy Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota MY Commleslon F.PI J. 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 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. Variance request for use of a single-family dwelling as a two- Proposal:famil dwelling. Applicant: Marvin & Patricia Onken Property 6221 Greenbrier Avenue 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/sere/plan/06-29.htmi' If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. city Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 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 somethino to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 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. Variance request for use of a single-family dwelling as a two- Proposal:famil dwelling. Applicant: Marvin & Patricia Onken Property 6221 Greenbrier Avenue 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/serv/plan/06-29.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public heating 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 commercialtindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s), • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification. I Lake MRWAffilta This map Is neither a legally recorded map ner a survey and is not intended to Ine used as are. %a map Is a compilation of records, infomatign and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other spuroas regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. It errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or birtl parbas which anse out of the users access or use of data provided. 1 Lake MR12NwfYa This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as are. This rtap is a compilation M records, infomretion and data located in vancus city, cwnry. state and federal offices aW other sources regai6ng the area shown, antl is to be used to reference purposes only. The Ciry does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map art error Irae, and! the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used fm navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction m precision in the depiction pf geographic features. H emors or discrepancies are found please comm 952-227-110T The preceding osdaimer is provided pasuam to Minrsoa Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall no be liable to any damages. and expressly waives all darts, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its errployeas or agents, or third parties which arse but of ge users access or use of data pmvided. CURTIS J EISCHENS & THOPAUL S SCHAFER & 6211 GREENBRIAR JODY R PETERSON &ROSE RUHLAND DIANNE S TESCHENDORFF 6210 ELM TREE AVE 211 GREENBRIAR 6220 ELM TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8851 EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -8861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8851 JAMES & PAULA HAGAN MICHAEL MAXW ELL EDWARD H & GAYLENE B SCHMITZ 6221 FIR TREE AVE 6230 FIR TREE AVE 6230 ELM TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8851 KEVIN T & SUSAN C BENSON SHAWN D & DENISE J HEITZ BRANDON KARL WILLIAMS & 6231 FIR TREE AVE 3510 MAPLEWOOD CIR SHARI WILLIAMS VIGLIATURO EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 6240 ELM TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8851 CRAIG ALAN KOUBA MICHAEL W & KEISA M TRUAX GREGORY W & PAMELA D REINHARDT 3520 HWY 7 3530 HWY 7 6200 ELM TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8872 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8872 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8851 STEPHEN R MARBEN & HILDEGARD E & MILDRED A FORNER BRYAN N & ARANA F PETERS ROSALIE A DEHN 6201 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, FIR TREE AVE FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -8855 EXCELSIOR, , MN 55331 -8855 EDWARD J & JUDY A EVANS HAYLEY FORREST MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN 6220 FIR TREE AVE 3502 MAPLEWOOD CIR 6221 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 CHRISTOPHER M STEINKRAUS JOSEPH A & SARA J PLEHAL DAVID E THOMAS IV NICOLE R JOLY 6241 FIR TREE AVE 6240 FIR TREE AVE 3520 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 JAMES A & ELIZABETH A THOMPSON VINCENT D TURK THOMAS J & GENEVIEVE E HARINGS 6231 GREENBRIAR 3530 MAPLEWOOD CIR 6300 ELM TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 48861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8853 ROGER R & GENEVA ROBINSON JOEL A MELLENTHIN & ROBERT J & PAULA A CRIPPA 6300 FIR TREE AVE KATHARINE M KOCINA 3503 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8828 6301 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863 IRENE ELIZABETH OLSON CHARLES & PAMELA E RIENSTRA JOHN T FABEL 6301 FIR TREE AVE 3511 MAPLEWOOD CIR 6310 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -8829 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8828 BRIAN V MCCARTHY & ROBERT & SHIRLEY BARFKNECHT ARLAND & EVELYN L MCCAUL PATRICIA L MCINERNY 6310 ELM TREE AVE 6311 FIR TREE AVE 6141 CONCORD HILL LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8853 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8829 MINNETONKA , MN 55345.6093 WILLIAM S & DANIELLE J MODELL WILLIAM F FINLAYSON PHILIP B WARTMAN JR 6555 SYLVAN UN 6320 FIR TREE AVE 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7915 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8828 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8W6 HARLAN L WATERHOUSE KEITH O & SANDRA K ARNTSEN ANNALEE MARIE HANSON 6321 GREENBRIAR 6320 ELM TREE AVE TRUSTEE OF TRUST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8853 640E GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8864 THOMAS E & RANDEE L DIEDRICH TRADEWINDS CONCEPTS & DESIGN JEFFREY J VONFELDT & 6321 FIR TREE AVE 18001 HWY 7 ELAINE M WYATT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8829 HOPKINS , MN 55345 -4150 6331 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863 DANIEL L JETT & RONALD SWAIN DIANE N PULLING 6341 GREENBRIAR 6340 FIR TREE AVE E EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8828 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Onken Variance 6221 Greenbrian Avenue Planning Case No. 06-29 City of Chanhassen Subject Property I Lake Minnewashta Mi re oco -zg CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Marvin & Patricia Onken for a Variance to allow for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in a Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-29. On September 5, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Marvin & Patricia Onken for a Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in a Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial. b. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. c. Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). d. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 5. The planning report #06-29 Variance dated September 5, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ec"NEO ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the Variance to allow for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 5d day of September, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING 9W gAplan\2006 planning casesW6-29 onken variance\findings of factdoc Location Map Onken Variance 6221 Greenbrian Avenue Planning Case No. 06-29 City of Chanhassen Subject Property I Lake Minnewashta SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. W29 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of thishearibg into considera Variance request for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling The site is located in the Single - Family Residential (RSF) Distrietat 6221 Greenbrier Avenue. Applfcaot Marvin and Patricia Onken. 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/serv/ujAjj/ 0fr29 htmloratCityHallduring regular businesshours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their op inions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: jmetzerta'ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-Iln (Published intheChanhaasen V illager on Thursday, August 24, 200Q No.4724) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. L/ (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. y� was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghfjklmnopgrstuvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on thise t 7 day of 2006 *Notmyblic RATE INFORMATION G;Vcta &A. RAWENZ �-, NOTAWPURC-MIWESOTA Alf Com.%mm EVM JaL $1, 2910 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED n(- - Zc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-29 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a Variance request for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue. Applicant: Marvin and Patricia Onken. 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/sery/vlan/06-29.html 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. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 24, 2006) SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 O8/30/2006 2:29 PM Receipt No. 0020255 CLERK: katie PAYEE: MARVIN ONKEN 6221 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 planning case 06-29 6221 Greenbriar Ave --------- - ----- GIS List 132.00 Total Cash Check 5503 Change 132.00 0.00 132.00 0.00 SCANNED a) -C) I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: MARVIN & PATRICIA ONKEN: VARIANCE REOUEST FOR USE OF A SINGLE AVENUE, PLANNING CASE 06-29. Public Present: Name Address Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Onken Margaret R. Sloan 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark, why don't we start with you. Undestad: I really don't have any questions on this one. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: There'd be one additional person that we're aware of that would go into this particular unit. And then is there, is there a requirement for additional parking for the units such as this? Metzer: They have 3 garage stalls and I believe a 36 foot wide driveway, which from my understanding will be enough in speaking with the applicant. Keefe: Okay, it's the city's opinion that there'll be enough off street parking to accommodate this additional unit? Metzer: Yes. Keefe: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 Dillon: So if this variance is granted and it goes forth and all that stuff, what happens if the property changes hands? Metzer: Typically what we'd do is we'd require that the kitchen be removed or the sanitary facility, one of the items which are necessary to classify it as a separate dwelling unit is defined as eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities. So removal of one of those would basically eliminate the need for a variance. Dillon: And how is that enforced? Aanenson: If you look at the conditions of approval. The first condition, I'm on page 3 of the staff report recommends that the second dwelling unit not be rented to anyone than the applicants. As stated in a letter, the applicants of this proposing to have their 91 year old mother, mother-in-law live with them. Just antidotally, we did receive a concern from some of the neighbors about changing the character, which comes up under the circumstance but we did pull up, we've done probably 3-4 of these. There isn't a big rash of requests for these. I'll just pull up one that we did on Briarwood Court, which is off of Galpin. That was done in '01 and the same owners are living there. Then there was one done in 1990, and that was a similar situation. Mother, mother-in-law. Still living there. And then most recently this Planning Commission did approve a request from Mr. Carlson, up in the Minnewashta area for a handicap daughter, so we don't see more than maybe 1 every 5 years. But understanding your concern Commissioner Dillon and that, we do put that condition in there. It is recorded through the County so if it gets listed as a mother-in-law apartment or something like that, then they need to check and see exactly what the conditions and limitations are when they list that property and how it should be listed. The reason that we don't have as much concern about these. These folks went through the process to do it forthright. We do have other ones where we put the rental ordinance in place that sometimes tried to go under the radar and maybe fix something up but we haven't historically had a problem with these types of units and how they're being used. Dillon: Okay. Papke: The only question I had was addressed. McDonald: Yeah, that was pretty much the one question I had too. At this point then, if the applicant is here, would you please come forward. And I guess the only thing we're looking for is if you have something else you would like to add to what staff has aheady said or something else that you feel that we should be aware of. Marvin Onken: Well I guess when we started this project we had envisioned that we would try to build a home for my mother-in-law that was as much like our home that you would expect to live in as possible and we didn't realize that including a kitchen facility would infringe on the multi -dwelling home ordinance or whatever. So we had decided we wanted to do this before we found out the details so, had we known in the beginning we probably wouldn't have bothered really with this but I'm hoping somewhere down the line the ordinance is changed such that we can do this without going through all of this stuff. We are willing to remove the kitchen after it's 4"w,os 2 AN Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 no longer needed. There's no way to really separate this home on the lots and, we're putting in an elevator. We decided to put in a residential elevator because we thought eventually we would need it anyway so were going to use it as long as we might need it in the future anyway. We have persuaded mom to give up her driving so she has sold her car. There's not an extra car involved in this particular application so we're, we look forward to whatever help you can give us in our project here. Thank you. Any questions? McDonald: Any questions commissioners? I guess not. Thank you sir. At this point, this is an open public meeting and I would extend the invitation to anyone sitting out who wishes to come forward and to speak on this, to come up to the podium. Address the commissioners with your concerns or questions and we'll take it from there. Does anyone wish to come forward? Seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and bring this back before the commissioners for discussion and a vote. Kurt, why don't you start us off. Papke: Nothing else. Dillon: My one concern was addressed and I have no others. Keefe: Looks good tome. Undestad: Same with me. McDonald: Okay, I really don't have anything either. The concern I had was also addressed. I think it's well in hand so at this point I would be open for a motion from the commissioners. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in a single family residential RSF district at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report with conditions 1 through 3 as stated in the staff report. McDonald: All in favor signify by saying aye. Keefe: Second. McDonald: Oh, I'm sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Okay, second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report, with the following conditions: The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in-law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Dillon moved, Commissioner Undestad seconded to note the verbatim and summary minutes dated August 15, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim n Gb-2-1 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 i. Resolution #2006-54: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Wells 2, 5 and 6. j. Resolution #2006-55: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes for Security Contract. k. Resolution #2006-56: Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at the Southwest Comer of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. Accept Resignation of Councilman Steve Labatt. in. Resolution #2006-57: TH 212 Project 03-09: Approve Change Order for Turn Lane on Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: WAYTEK, INC., 2440 GALPIN COURT (CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK), APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: A. CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT. B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Public Present: Name Address Kelly Morlock 2325 Boulder Road Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. ...related to the next item. This is the vacation of the utility easement and precipitated by the request for the subdivision... The subject site for Chan West Business Park is requesting a larger lot than was originally anticipated for the development. Subject site located off of Galpin Boulevard, just north of Lyman. It's this lot. This one here, so the current utilities, this was the original configuration of the lot, Lot 1... The current utilities and drainage easement runs through the middle of Lot 1. So with the reconfiguration of the subdivision, which can be done administratively, because you're not creating a new lot, you're just rearranging lot lines, will put ... so this request before you is just to vacate the existing utility and drainage easement. The appropriate documentation is attached in the staff report and the staff is recommending approval. SCANNED City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now, I guess the question here is there may be some public comment or there are a lot of other issues we're going to talk about with regard to the site plan approval. Right now do you want us to address the vacation? Kate Aanenson: Whatever you're comfortable... if you want to hold that off, or whatever you're comfortable with. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I can go right into the site plan. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we go into the overall project and then well be sure, just remind me that we don't miss the public hearing on the vacation of the easements. Kate Aanenson: I'll rely on the City Engineer to help me remember. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And part of the reason for doing that is you said the moving of the lot lines is administrative. That's just an administrative function. Kate Aanenson: As I mentioned before, there are 2 or 3 lots that could be ... in this existing area. The applicant proposed a larger lot so the subdivision itself... So what the applicant's asking for is 110,000 square foot building. It says 2 stories but that's actually been ... on 7.4 acres of property. The history of this is the property is guided office industrial for a number of years and the applicant... development but staff is recommending doing a PUD so... Another thing we did when we put together the PUD is increase the standards for the design ... that would be in place for the office industrial. Specifically there was concern from the resident on the Trotters Ridge... The overall square footage for the entire industrial park hasn't changed... So the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this specific site plan on July 18th. They did recommend approval... One of the conditions that was added by the staff and the neighbors on that north side, they asked us to evaluate, would be condition number 11. We talked about breaks in windows based on the height, and they didn't want that as ... so were actually going to ask the applicant to do something architecturally... That is not reflected in your conditions of approval, so if you were to turn to your staff report on page 9 of 12, condition 11. We had added based on the Planning Commission... that high overhead windows be added on that northern elevation. We'd like that changed to architectural ... be added on that northern elevation so... So again there's loading docks on this side ... One of the other issues that was addressed at the Planning Commission in this site plan ... the trees that we saved in that one outlot, there was some concern about the canopy ... so that actually, if you look on the other side of the plan has been removed so those trees will be preserved. That is a parking, there's proof of parking, if they ever need they can go back and at this point it doesn't look like that will be necessary. So with that and architectural standards... look of the building itself. A lot of architectural relief. This does meet the standards that was put in place for that industrial park. This is... There will be the concrete. There will also be the copper window elements and then the burnish block ... so again, giving architectural relief on the building. So in your staff 4 Iry City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 report we went through the architectural detailing of the building itself, and that's... standards. And as the Planning Commission did concur with that. The building has downcast lighting, and that was one of the issues that we talked about regarding lighting, and... security lighting and then... So with that, the one condition that number I I is worded to modify the ... staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approval... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great. Kate Aanenson: Any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Couple. With regard to lighting, you mentioned that. Will there be the down lighting for security purposes around the entire perimeter of the building? Kate Aanenson: The majority of the lighting, there are entrances on both sides. There will be lighting. There is a change in grade but I think with that. Mayor Furlong: Where the road is higher than the. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I don't think there should be a lot of spill going that way, and based on the photometrics ... that shouldn't be an issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, I know this was an issue for residents on the north side of the building. Will there be lighting there? Kate Aanenson: No. There ... on the back. And the other issue that was addressed too is they're increasing the wing wall for that... Mayor Furlong: Okay, and for security purposes, is the lack of lighting there even minimum lighting, is that? Kate Aanenson: Well you've got lighting on this side here, so I think that, and then with the entrance ... I think if you recall when we went through the PUD standards there was a question that was raised on whether wed look at any lighting at all here... and we felt it was appropriate that that would be, appropriate lighting... at the Planning Commission the applicant talked about ... the use of the building. Hours of operation. It seemed pretty typical. Not much ... with the higher cost and... Mayor Furlong: Well and clearly wherever there's entrances, it sounds like there's security lighting. I'm not advocating lighting that's going to negatively affect the neighbors to the north. I guess the only question I raise, even though there are no windows there now, it looks like that's coming out, is whether or not some sort of lighting to avoid kids loitering in dark areas or something like that. If there's anything that will be there to. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why we keep... City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the berming I know is also an issue. You commented a little bit about that but, has that been. Kate Aanenson: Yes, at the Planning Commission we asked that that issue be resolved before it came before you. Make sure that a definitive, what the expectation was. The applicant has met with them and to satisfaction of... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this proposed usage here, what's the primary traffic flow in generated? Is it a retail outlet in and out kind of thing? Kate Aanenson: No, it's office. It'd be pretty typical what we have for the office showroom. Kind of office warehouse. Pretty typical... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? If not, the applicant's here. Is there anything you'd like to address to the council or comments to make? Ben Merriman: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and also I have the owners of Waytek here and they'd be happy to answer any questions for the council. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at all for the applicant or for the owners of the property? Or the business. Okay. Good. What I'd like to do then at this point is, officially open the public hearing with regard to the vacation of the easements, because of the lot line change and invite any interested parties on that particular issue to come forward and comment. And if there are others that would like to comment on something because of the change between the Planning Commission and now, well take up in a few minutes so at this point I'd like to just limit discussion to the official public hearing which we have to have by law with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. Any interested parties, please come forward at this time. State your name and address. Kelly Morlock: Just I may have two things. Mayor Furlong: This is only on item 2. Kelly Morlock: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Because we have some other ones so this is only on item 2(a) at this point, thank you. If not then well close the public hearing on item number 2(a) and now would invite, and the public hearing for this project, as with all projects, did occur at the Planning Commission. That's where it's appropriate for that but sometimes there are changes between Planning Commission and the council meeting, which did occur here because of the comments made at the Planning Commission, and that's part of the process, but if there is a desire by anybody to make public comment to the council based upon those changes, I would certainly invite you to come forward now. We have 0 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 all received copies of the Planning Commission minutes and had a chance to read those so there's no need to repeat that information, but if there's other information that you need us to be aware of, we'd certainly like to hear it at this time. Sir. Kelly Morlock: My name's Kelly Morlock. I live at 2325 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek Addition. I've got a number of different issues regarding this project, dating back to the beginning if I could. A lot of people are really pleased with this project, they're really happy about this project. Most of them don't live in Trotters Ridge and most of them don't live in Stone Creek. The developer is on the Planning Commission and yes, he does remove himself from the meetings but there's still an underlying influence there that I think that there is. Even though it appears that during the Planning Commission meeting, even though Kurt Papke thought that there was 150 foot barrier from the north, there was only 100 foot. The original plan was only approved on a 3 to 2 vote. It was tabled at council and then it was questionably passed back in August of 2005. ...Planning Commission meetings minutes and the council meeting minutes. Recently a homeowner came to the city for a permit for a patio. They were told they didn't need a permit. They hired a contractor to build a patio and they went in for a permit and the contractor was told he didn't need a permit, so they built the patio. Well the patio changed in our impervious surface percentage. They asked for a variance of less than 5%. They were denied and they had to remove the patio, or about 25% of their... They never asked if they would need to be in compliance with the hard surface percentage or 25%. The homeowner didn't know but his contractor should have known the zoning. Mayor Furlong: Sir. Sir. I'm sorry, this is relating to this site plan approval? Kelly Morlock: Yes. rll get back to it. Mayor Furlong: As quickly as you can then please. Kelly Morlock: Okay. I just need a few minutes. 5-10 minutes. I have... Mayor Furlong: 5 would be fine, thank you. Kelly Morlock: There's another story about a sport court. There's too much hard surface percentage and they must comply as well. Once again the contractor should have known. This is at the expense of the owners. And then there's another story going on right now about a gazebo and a fire pit up against the wetland conservation easement, but right now they haven't come to the end of that story. The developer knew a lot of things and it was stated at the commission or the council meeting that we as homeowners ask questions to get the results we want to hear. Do we need a permit for a patio? Well yeah, how much is my impervious surface percentage? We should know better or a contractor should know better. The developer ... to get results that they want. They know better. We have a number of issues and concerns with this project. We all know ... I'm not saying it's going to go away. We accept that and it does have a direct impact on us. But we just don't want this to be rubber stamped. It's going between two neighborhoods and once again they should know. Let me give you a little history on what we have seen and 7 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 experienced. One of our biggest concerns at the beginning and it was brought up at council and at planning and by every one of the people at Stone Creek and Trotters was traffic and safety. We asked many times to pursue an access out of Lyman. You're probably all familiar with that. We were told by the developer and then the Planning Commission and City Council that the County said no. There were traffic studies and conversations and meetings and requests and they just won't change. We should have known better. Here's what happened. At the July 19, 2005, the planning meeting last July, Dan Keefe asked about the access to Lyman. Staff said they had conversations with Bill Weckman, who was I believe the Carver County Public Works Director. Mr. Weckman said ... the County prefers the access to be at Galpin. Staff said another reason was the standards where access... The access to Lyman didn't meet the standards. Asked if Galpin met the standard, the question, the answer was no but it's a lesser of two evils. Staff used the SRF 2020 comp plan, I don't know what that is... Staff also said they would ask the County Engineer what his thoughts are regarding a signal at Lyman and Galpin. Planning Commission didn't think trucks mixing with residential seemed very logical. At the same planning commission the developer said they looked at two access points and the County requested Galpin. Both were considered, but the developers said they knew what was going to happen. At the City Council meeting on August 81h of 2005, it was asked if the design was presented to the county staff or just a verbal conversation. The developer said it was just a verbal conversation. There was no maps. There was no plans. He should have known. The developer didn't want any access off Lyman because they would have had to move a pond they had. They used trees as a hostage by moving them to Outlot C if we didn't have that access. Council requested staff to revisit the access to Lyman with the County. Lyman and Carver are both county jurisdictions. It was tabled until August 22Id. When staff approached the county on the issue, the County requested a traffic study. The applicant or the developer is the one who hired the traffic study to look at this particular development and right-in/right-out issue of Lyman. We should have known. They did another vehicle count in August. The numbers might be a little high because of postal activity we were told. So this study was done in August, not during the school year so there's no mention of traffic due to the Bluff Creek school, the proposed high school, Lifetime Fitness, school bus traffic for the neighborhoods and other schools, parents, teachers, students driving, ball games, activities before and after school, pedestrians, bikes, the proposed use of the business park. There was no mention of a possible traffic light to connect the property south of Galpin, which could be developed. The stop light will eliminate the need for an acceleration lane that would interrupt the right-in/right-out. The apartments at 41 and Hazeltine Boulevard have a stop light, and they have two access points, so it can be done with the County. Based on the study provided, the County was not supportive but if the council was to choose to pursue it, they would have significant impacts. The right questions weren't asked. We believe that the developer should have known. Now about the building we're dealing with ... the PUD was to have 8 lots with mid sized buildings in the 40 to 50,000 square foot range. Lifetime is considered a large building in an industrial area. At the July 19`h' 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the commission wanted Building 6 to be smaller than originally proposed to transition with the neighborhoods, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. Well now, at 110,000 square feet, this building is ... the original PUD lot size. It's like putting a Wal-Mart between two 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 neighborhoods, and even Wal-Mart doesn't do that. It's twice the size of the Byerly's. It's 9,000 square feet. Less than Costco, Cub store. Lifetime is 109,000 square feet on two floors. Over half the size of the new, this is over half the size of the new Wal-Mart superstores. The building itself is not to exceed 30 feet. It's at 30 feet 2 inches. They should have known. You were talking about a sight line from Trotters. You can kind of see it here. This bottom line is from the edge of the lot I believe ... I believe it's from the edge of the lot looking up to the top of the building. If you go to the side of the house where the walkout is, this red line here, a 6 foot person, that's their sight line. Then if you're standing on the deck over on the main floor, which is where their quality of life is, that's their sight line. It's a little different. Now is their quality of life... I don't know. Is this an undue hardship? I don't know. There's not a lot of similar buildings within 100 feet. From this, the same people up north, this is what they'll look like. The neighbors up north in Trotters Ridge are going to look like. There's no brick like the rest of the neighbors to the north, or to the east or to the west. There's no brick at all. These are tilt up concrete panels. Not in the original spirit of the PUD. They should have known that too. Tilt up concrete with exposed aggregate that's ribbed and smooth is not an urban style design. The proposed site plan for this building is 322,447 square feet. With the building at 110,000 square feet, getting back to my patio story, the green surface is 28%. The hard surface is 72%. That's not in compliance. But like Building 2 that's already been built, the impervious surface percentage to comply will come out of Outlot C. So now that leaves one of the remaining lots doesn't have a 200 minimum depth included in the PUD. There's lots combined. They should have known that, or we should have known that. At the April e Planning Commission meeting the commission said the PUD standards for impervious surface is 70% between the 8 developable lots. Building 2 is about 80% right now. More than the patio. Outlot C is a permanent conservation easement. Therefore it is not developable and shouldn't be included in the impervious surface percentage like the 8 developable lots as stated. Getting to this berm issue, I'm just about through, thank you. The original berm was to be 12 feet and the setback was told at 100 feet. Now the building is higher and the berm is lower at 9 feet. The developer says it gets much higher with trees on top. Well there are plenty of high berms in the area with big trees. There's a large berm west ... over by the Temple of Eck. There's a large berm between the ball parks at Lake Ann. There's a large berm west of Bluff Creek on the comer of Galpin. And there's also a large berm west of 41 by Hundtermark. The applicant should know, if he irrigates trees they probably won't die. And if they're not planning on irrigating trees, or maintain the trees in the setback, should that setback be included in the impervious surface percentage? The Planning Commission and City Council stated the applicant should preserve all trees shown on plans dated June 17, 2005. The developer has done some quality projects in Chaska and Chanhassen regarding this issue. They should have known. They should have known, so finishing off I suggest, one more page. I've got one more. Back to the traffic issue. This could be between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. This could be between 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. This is 3 trucks going into the development. I mean here's 2 school buses planning on getting onto Galpin. We have a lot of school buses going back and forth. There's a lot of schools around there. The buses go back and forth. I'd much rather have the school buses on Galpin than with trucks on Lyman. So to finish off, I would suggest the City Council does not approve the application for a vacation of easements. I suggest 0 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 the City Council does not approve the design of Building 6. I would like more understory and overstory trees added to the east side and the north and the northwest side. On the east side all the way down to Lyman. I'd like Building 6 to be made of brick. No block, like the surrounding neighborhoods. I'd also like an updated traffic study to include the effects of the 2 schools, development, possible development south of Lyman. Employees of the business park and stop light. I know I took a little bit more time than I should have but I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, any comments on those items or questions. Kate Aanenson: Regarding the traffic study, I believe we did our due diligence as far as submitting a finalized site plan to Carver County that worked out. I think what you also have to look at is the background on traffic in this area. Just to the south of this area is a million square feet of industrial park in Chaska that also exits out onto Lyman Boulevard. We're also cognizant of working with the new high school site. That there will be additional signals and that's something that the county's looking at, the spacing. Not just of this property but the other traffic on Lyman Boulevard, including that industrial park that's also dumping a lot of traffic. As far as the additional standards of the PUD, it meets the standards of the PUD. I do believe I spoke that the applicant has raised the back of that berm to 14 feet on the back as far as the setbacks. As far as it being all brick, I don't think we have too many all, unless for office industrial, I can't think of a pure brick building. As soon as I say that there might be one that we have in town that's a brick office warehouse that's pretty, not typical. So, if it's an office maybe but not this type office industrial so. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to your point, design standards that are in the PUD. Kate Aanenson: It meets the design standards, right. Mayor Furlong: On all sides. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly, and I did mention also condition number 11 that one of the things that we thought the neighbors wanted was the windows in the back, but they wanted instead of windows, they wanted architectural details so that was the condition I recommended you modify number 11. Mayor Furlong: Okay. On the impervious surface, that was an issue and a comment was made whether or not or, the opinion was made whether or not Outlot C should be included. Kate Aanenson: Of course, we always do that. That's exactly how we set up the Target PUD. Target's way over the impervious. We have green space that balances out. That's typical in a PUD where, I also want to comment on the comparison of Costco and the parking. This has office industrial parking standards. If this was a retail building of that size, it would take all that parking would be pretty much absorbed by the rest of the site. This has only 159 parking stalls. Significantly less than if you had retail. It would be 10 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 you know 2 or 3 times that for parking so the trips would be a lot different. The amount of traffic and the number of cars being parked and the trips being generated would be significantly different. If it was retail as opposed to office industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other issue raised was whether the, with the movement of the lot line, whether the, not this particular lot but the smaller lots now would be buildable under the standards of the PUD. Kate Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me to verify to check on. I'm assuming that someone on staff did but I could try to verify that quickly. While you're taking other questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If possible. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to add. The point of eliminating a lot line. If you have 2 lots, you know the amount of square footage of building space is not going to change on the subdivision. We're not adding building space square footage. Overall I think we're at the same amount of building square footage that was originally approved with the subdivision. Just because the applicant is bringing one 100,000 square foot building in, he could have put two 50,000 square foot buildings in, which probably would have had the same parking requirements that the 100,000 square foot building had. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, are there any other public comments compared to the changes in the plan? Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road, Chanhassen. Likewise with the building, I'm going to refer more to the tilt up concrete. When this came before the City Council, Brian, Mr. Lundquist you were actually one of those people that a big problem with tilt up concrete and the developer asked that it be added for a certain additive that could happen of some sort in the future. You guys all kind of nodded your head that you didn't really like tilt up concrete but you'd leave it here and you'd take a look at it when a project came before you. At this time it is finally coming before you. I can think of a handful of buildings that we think that will look pretty nice as I stated in my letter. You know the building there has got the Burnelle block and brick there, and that's located right along Highway 5. It's the Star Tribune building. And also I'd like to comment to you, as you're looking along a major roadway on one side and industrial park on still the other side, before it gets to the residential area in that area, and that area you deemed well enough with... conditions that it should look really nice to the people driving on a highway with that look of brick. But right now you're telling residential people that they should look at tilt up concrete. As I also stated in my letter, due to the fact of the way this building's going to look, that there needs to be more type of roof articulation to hide the air conditioning units. Yes, I know they're going to use low profile. Yes, I know they're going to use the color of sort that's the blue or the gray or whatever that blends into the sky, but anyway you look at it, most of what's going to happen even from Trotters, but also from Stone Creek, the people on that side are even at a higher elevation looking down, that they're going to see nothing but the roof top. Once again this is the 11 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Ridgeview building that I referred to with my letter that I sent to you. This has to do with the way a roof, brick and also some tilt up cast concrete there, but I think that has a much better break up look to it. Another thing for you to remember is that I'm ... is I had been told the fire is tilt up concrete. But with a brick interface. We do have a building that's pretty large. I think that has brick on the side of it. Also more pictures of the Star Tribune building heading south, even though one of you would say that for now, for brick, this has a much better look to it than something like this that I found, and I believe this is what I could find closest in the city that was going to look something like that. The biggest thing I have with tilt up concrete is the seam factor. That anyway you put up a tilt up concrete, unless you do that brick like a Byerly's has or something like that, you're still going to have that seam effect. Also once again, you're going to have a lot of people driving by this. This is your back entrance to Chanhassen. You've got this big new school that's going up that everybody wanted to be the marquee of Chanhassen. They want it to represent so the city would have a representation of a high school that represents Chanhassen. If you've ever driven down Pioneer during the morning when kids are being dropped out at school or all the parents are coming by. Yes, I know there's a ninth grade center so there's more traffic than there will be with others, but guess what? That place is just loaded with traffic and there's going to be a ton of people coming by this area, and this is what you're going to have people looking at as they go to the new high school. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thoughts or comments? Anybody else who would like to make a comment this evening? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comments made. Sir? Joel Lehrke: I'll be more than happy to let you guys have these. Mayor Furlong: What is it? Joel Lehrke: These are all pictures. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, thank you sir. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Just a brief comment. Just so we're clear. We're here tonight, we're looking at a site plan review. A site plan review is essentially a check list to make sure there is compliance with all our ordinances. This is not a conditional use permit application. Mayor Furlong: And by the ordinances, that includes the standards set in the PUD. Roger Knutson: That's correct. So the question is, do they meet the standards in the PUD? Do they meet the other standards in the zoning ordinance? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point then I would ask if there's any other comments or questions specifically here, I'm going to, unless somebody stands up now, I'm going to close the public hearing with regard to the vacation for the utility easements, since that is 12 -�i City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 something that we do have to take public comment on at the council meeting. Seeing nobody then without objection well close the public hearing and bring it back to council for additional questions or thoughts and comments. Any additional questions at this point for staff? Councilman Lundquist: So to Roger's question Kate, does it meet all the standards of the PUD and the conditional use? Kate Aanenson: No, just the site plan. Councilman Lundquist: Or the site plan. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It meets all the conditions of a site plan. Mayor Furlong: Which is the architectural standards and. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And all the issues there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And there is the opportunity to, as we have in other PUD's, to balance the impervious. And it also meets that standard, correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess the question, and again if you don't have the information you know with regard to the smaller lots, there's no relief being requested at this time for anything on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So the existing PUD standards would be required for any future site plan approval on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you have any idea Kate, just the fact the envelope gets, it doesn't do us any good to create a lot that can't be built on... Kate Aanenson: I know that, Bob Generous who worked on this did ask for a footprint to be shown on that additional lot to show that... Mayor Furlong: And I guess point of clarification. Before us this evening is not a question of whether that lot line's changed. Ben Merriman: It's 185 feet. 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: So maybe that's a question for the applicant. Roger Knutson: A comment on lot line adjustments. By state law a lot line adjustment, that's when you're not creating any additional lots. You're just moving an existing lot line so you're making a lot smaller or bigger, is not a subdivision by definition and we are not authorized to regulate that lot line adjustment. We basically sign off saying it's not a subdivision and if you're not creating a new lot, you're just moving a lot line, it's not. So we really lack discretion. And if, and not reference to this but to any such situation, if as a result of what you're doing you create a non -conformity, that's a self created hardship and you've created yourself a real big problem. You may not get building permits for that unbuilt lot if you aren't careful. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, and so then what will happen is well be back in here talking about an amendment to the PUD and all kinds of other stuff when they come back to build it so, that's... Roger Knutson: They certainly could ask for that, and then it would be your decision as to whether it's appropriate or not to grant it. Mayor Furlong: And I would expect some of the residents have an opinion on that matter as well. Councilman Lundquist: As they should. Mayor Furlong: Indeed. Fully agree. Fully agree. So the question here then, and you stated it but the question is, does this site plan. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, typically when they do a, yeah I'm not sure where that 130's, or the 200's coming from. Typically when you do a PUD, once you've created the PUD, you have to have, there's a 1 acre minimum to create the zoning but after that it's, I wasn't aware of a minimum but I don't have that in front of me at this point. Mayor Furlong: Ahight. Thank you. Any other questions or comments and thoughts? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Well I guess I'm a little troubled by the potential that we might be creating a non -conforming lot or something. I can't remember the specifics of that from a year ago and I don't remember where we were at or where all that came from. I didn't study that ahead of time so that troubles me a little bit that I'd like to have an answer to that I guess. As we heard Bobber say, I guess they're kind of in a bind to bit or maybe personally I'm in a bind to bit about the tilt up concrete piece that's, there isn't anything we can do about that tonight. It meets the standards so our hands are tied there. We can't deny the building for that anyway. The higher berm and some of the other stuff I think are good pieces and overall it's good I believe to take a business that's in town right now and allow them the opportunity to expand in town. It's a wonderful thing. 14 �. i City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Keep those jobs here in town and that so I'm in favor of that. I guess really the only sticking point for me now is the rest of those issues I think that were raised this evening are issues that we talked in length about a year ago. And I do feel like we did do our due diligence on some of the traffic and things there. There's no doubt that all of our roads will have more traffic as the area grows and things happen so, but there's no doubt that you know that's going to happen all over that area and it's not just a burden of this single development but of all the development that's going on in the area, and as well with the high school I suspect that we're going to have to look at when that gets built some improvements and upgrades and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around Galpin and Lyman and Audubon and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around there when that goes on, and we've got, you know we'll deal with that at that time. So I guess I'm in favor of the development and in favor of going through with this but I'm, I don't know whether it even matters I guess or not about the possible creation of a mess to deal with down the line. I guess I'd like to have an answer on that before I would decide one way or the other. Roger Knutson: I'm a little hesitant to jump in but as I read page 7 and 8 of your planning report, it appears that you'll end up with two lots. They refer to as parcels A and B. One being 7.40 acres and one being 2.65 acres. Am I reading that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: What page is that Roger? Roger Knutson: That's pages, at the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8. It says you're going to end up with two parcels. Councilman Lundquist: That's in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Top of 8, 8 of 12. Electronic 305. Roger Knutson: Oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Top of page 8. Councilman Peterson: Certainly means they're buildable. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Then we had the question of the 200 foot and 185 foot that the. Kate Aanenson: I don't know the context of that. I'm not, you know we just have a setback but there's no generally, I'm not sure where that's coming from. I don't have the entire PUD. 15 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: I guess part of it, does this meet the standard of the PUD? I think there was an issue on the parking and they're we're allowing proof of parking in order to. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Have less impervious surface or less. Kate Aanenson: Just less parking. Not the whole park based on the use. They could put the additional 55 in if necessary. I think we always review that when we do projects, not to over park. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the other comment with regard to sight lines and views, the building setback would be allowed to be 50 feet from Galpin, if I'm looking at this correctly and it's 120. The parking is up there so there's. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and move the building back further. Mayor Furlong: And moving the building back further than where it was. Okay. Other council comments. Thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: You know I think this has probably been through the Planning Commission twice, if I'm correct. Once last year and now this year, and so I'm not prepared to have a Planning Commission meeting here tonight and try to redesign a building and undo... Planning Commission did very well at the last meeting. My job tonight is to make sure that it does meet the standards of the PUD and we've been told that it does and so I'm willing to and ready to move forward with this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I feel the same way as my peers and I think there isn't much for us to decide tonight ... You always want to leave a meeting with everybody being happy, and it sounds like the majority of the neighbors are. You know you'd like to have 100% and Councilperson Lundquist thoughts on the tilt up concrete, again I think what we can do here tonight is to you know at least at a minimum send a signal to the developer and the building owner to continue to work with your neighbors because they're going to be neighbors a long time, and if they can do anything, whether it's increasing the berm higher than 14 feet and/or do something that's more articulated in back is, as staff is recommending, that they do what they're already going to do, maybe there's something more that they can do. That they would voluntarily do to be good neighbors, and I guess that's what I would send them off with, with the concept of look harder for better ways to integrate the building. It's a big building you know, and there are some neighbors are going to say I'd rather look at a big building than 3 small ones, and there's going to be some that say the exact opposite so again you can't necessarily meet the needs of everybody but I think that making the big building the best it can be is what I'd like to close my comments to the developer and the building owner. 16 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I think that's well put. Since the Planning Commission, I know the developer has worked with residents in the neighborhood to the north to try to change the plans to accommodate. If there are some other accommodations that can be done, I think that's a reasonable request that we can make of the developer_ And I think too, looking down the road, this is the second building in this development and you know continuing to look to find ways to meet and/or exceed the standards in the PUD, which I think is the desire of everyone here as well as the neighbors to the east and to the north so, other than that I think the other comments made by fellow council members with regard to the question before us is pertinent. Some of the issues raised this evening were issues that were well vented when the PUD went through and I agree with Councilman Lundquist in terms of the efforts taken both through the Planning Commission and again here at the council chambers to try to accommodate as many requests as possible when we considered the PUD and I know we made changes since then, and we asked questions that had already been asked again to try to see if we can get a different answer so, with that I think it makes sense for us to go forward with the comments with the request of the developer that was made here this evening and this summer as well to try to see if we can accommodate some of the lingering requests of the neighbors to the best of their ability. So with that, I believe our motion starts. Is there any additional comments, questions at all? If not, I think the motions start on page, bottom of page 8. And there was one request with regard to amending condition 11 to the architectural detail be added and striking the first words but with that is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve Planning Site Plan #06-27 for two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office/warehouse prepared by Houwman Architects, subject to conditions 1 through 31 with the addition of the one noted. Mayor Furlong: Before I ask for a second, do you want to incorporate the motion for item 1(a) too with regard to the vacation? Councilman Peterson: I would love to do that. Mayor Furlong: So we don't forget that part as well, I believe, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: What page is that on? Kate Aanenson: That's a separate report. 2(a). Mayor Furlong: 380 in our electronic. Kate Aanenson: The motion on that was recommend approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. 17 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that the motion you made? Councilman Peterson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: As stated in the staff report, thank you. And do those two motions cover what's being requested of us this evening? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Combined motion. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the combined motions of item 2(a) and 2(b)? Resolution #2006-58: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office -warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. 3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west. 6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade. 18 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation. 8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. 9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by the owner/operator of the site. 10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for the garden. 11. Architectural detailing shall be added on the northern building elevation between the smooth bands. 12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation. 13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area. 14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest comer of the loading dock area. 15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line. 16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage existing plantings. 17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the property line and the building to provide screening in depth. 18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded. 19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6. 20. The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way. 19 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment of storm sewer. 22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B. 23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north. 24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application. 25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 26. Eight -inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 28. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 29. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49 and 52. 31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 29-31, BLOCK 1, RED CEDAR POINT, LAKE MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: Fi0 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. LOCATION: 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Lot 16, Block 4, Minnewashta Heights APPLICANT: Marvin & Patricia Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.37 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for Variance to allow for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Leo Location Map Onken Variance 6221 Greenbrian Avenue Planning Case No. 06-29 City of Chanhassen Subject Property W C-NI r Lake Minnewashta Onken Variance Planning Case #06-29 September S, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a variance for use of Single -Family Residential (RSF) District. The site Avenue. Access to the site is gained via Greenbriar APPLICABLE REGUATIONS single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in is located south of Highway 7 at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue. Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. ANALYSIS The subject property was platted as part of the Minnewashta Heights subdivision which was recorded in 1953. A permit to construct a third -stall garage addition and a second level addition above the existing two -stall garage were obtained in November 2005. The third -stall garage addition measures 634 square feet in area. The second level addition consisted of a single room, walk-in closet and a bathroom and measures 435 square feet in area. The applicants wish to establish a separate dwelling unit within the single-family home for the applicants' 91-year-old mother/mother-in-law. The second level addition will be renovated to include a living room, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, thus, classifying it as a separate dwelling unit. The dwelling will maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. Separate utilities will not be established. Given the Onken family's unique circumstances, staff feels this is a reasonable request which complies with the standards for granting a variance and is recommending approval of this variance for use of a single- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Onken Variance Planning Case #06-29 September 5, 2006 Page 3 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: 1. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated a need for a variance based upon age. 2. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. Finding: The dwelling unit has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, and is accessed via one driveway. 3. Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). Finding: Separate utilities have not been established. 4. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Finding: This request will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the variance for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants' mother/mother-in- law. 2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code." Onken Variance Planning Case #06-29 September 5, 2006 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Written Description and Justification of Variance Request from Marvin & Patricia Onken. 4. Exterior Elevations. 5. Original Addition Floor Plan. 6. Second Dwelling Unit Floor Plan. 7. Lot Survey. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. gAplan\2006 planning ca \06-29 onken variance\staff reportAm Page 1 of 1 Metzer, Josh From: James J. Hagan Uhagan.mn@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 2:40 PM To: Metzer, Josh Subject: Minnewashta Heights Planning Case 06-29 Mr. Metzer, My name is Jim Hagan. I live at 6221 Fir Tree Avenue, Minnewashta Heights. I am against the proposal for a variance to change the dwelling at 6221 Greenbrier from a single family to a two family dwelling. I feel this will be the beginning of more requests for the same type of variance. I do not want our neighborhood to turn into a series of multiple families living in single family houses. In addition, I feel this type of variance will have a negative effect on property values. There are currently several what appear to be unrelated people living at 6230 Fir Tree Avenue. On most days at least four vehicles are parked on one or both sides of the street. If we begin issuing variances allowing single family dwellings to be used as multiple family dwellings, this will have a significant effect in terms of traffic congestion and overall quality of life. Due to a business commitment, I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for 7:00 PM Tuesday, September 5, 2006. Please convey my thoughts to the Planning Commission Members and other interested parties. I appreciate your assistance with this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional comments Sincerely, James J. Hagan President Hagan & Associates Inc. (952) 474-9747 — Home phone (952) 401-6019 - office phone (952) 239-3502 - cell phone jhagan.mn@att.net 9/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 Metzer, Josh From: James J. Hagan Ohagan.mn@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 2:40 PM To: Metzer, Josh Subject: Minnewashta Heights Planning Case 06-29 Mr. Metzer, My name is Jim Hagan. I live at 6221 Fir Tree Avenue, Minnewashta Heights. I am against the proposal for a variance to change the dwelling at 6221 Greenbrier from a single family to a two family dwelling. I feel this will be the beginning of more requests for the same type of variance. I do not want our neighborhood to turn into a series of multiple families living in single family houses. In addition, I feel this type of variance will have a negative effect on property values. There are currently several what appear to be unrelated people living at 6230 Fir Tree Avenue. On most days at least four vehicles are parked on one or both sides of the street. If we begin issuing variances allowing single family dwellings to be used as multiple family dwellings, this will have a significant effect in terms of traffic congestion and overall quality of life. Due to a business commitment, I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for 7:00 PM Tuesday, September 5, 2006. Please convey my thoughts to the Planning Commission Members and other interested parties. I appreciate your assistance with this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional comments. Sincerely, James J. Hagan President Hagan & Associates Inc. (952) 474-9747 — Home phone (952) 401-6019 - office phone (952) 239-3502 - cell phone jhagan.mn@att.net 9/5/2006 Deck above screen porch below antl smoke atarrns are smoke ata eQping �'9u"ed hOn ard resh�� ban nec e� 9 rYbaedand 6221 Greenbriar 10/19/05 Scale = V Vq y 3tAt?6-1)A M� � —� F'vTuR.E oIk o Living Shower � P tYl�✓q-TvR S'TF}IKS ARE Ns711u al apingew sh habitable space and aor a Sill height not all Moreve th east o e window of o and shall provide not above the Pee pled area 'in no ,eight less ess than han 1-7 2a no het than 24• rI ,)te, �ew4eA 11 Deck above screen porch below Walk In Closet C� Living Room Bedroom Closet Elevato 0 Stocked Dryer S tocketl ' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DeaT: z "q FOR: MARVIN ONKEN 3Y: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 4, MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS I]F nvv BY: � DEPT:J� EXISTING HARDCOVER DATE: /( I Building 7,706 Sq.Ft. AJlm rad Ilr,me I Patios & Decks 457 Sq.Ft. \ — Conc. Walks & Drive 7.084 Sq.FI. f 9s,.3 \ 967.0 f f E 22,54 \ Total Hardcover 3.241 Sq.Ft. \ 80•0�j 5 x 960.9 x 961.3 N11 Lot Area 16,382 Sq.Ft. 960.6 x 50' Spruce X or Hardcover 19.7 R 956.E x 959.2 9 Maple e PROPOSED HARDCOVER 12' walnut 0 ("� Spruce x 962.4 �9 Building 2,536 Sq.Ft. /961.2 1" 0 1,.— Patios & Decks 0 Sq.Ft. /g6p7 gyp' Q Conc. Walks & Drive 1,237 SgFt. p58d �.. � Conc. o Npa5ea prago p oqe Eto 9 Q X j �� m r,dr (to be removed) Q Total Hardcover 3,773 Sq.fl. O 9� 16,382 Sq.Ft. � ,0 3 m o : 01 Fbrdcover 23.0 2 //56 a o. X �961.2 nG�AntZ 9 r "is inks \ i9 m PG %sffG G n^ C a 5.r•{ MD Bittlp^tee m.'�. un U-4 N 2 O Q r y $ to •Y. $ . 6�. rn 2 r ` Z `AG eff Cr p5 n `_ 9 27�9 G N 10 c7 -A y p 15' Mople �G v �.0 0 y .P 3�.2 _ ZOO yZ-� p i Z G W v 960.7 15' McPle 1.6' Cantilever— \ Z4 A, x 961. 11 O G`9c�z P �C 967.1 x 960.5 01 � P •' Z yf 9 x 960.2 �� 7 J*'p f, ? x 960.5 967.1 7J 1 � yiL N x 959.1 S g0 f ff 95.87 961.2 RECEIVED •04 57 9594\ 961.3 Adjacent House OCT 1 9 2005 o Denotes iron monumenf . • Denotes found monument \ CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. \ (000.0) Denotes proposed elev. Rev. Aug.5, 2005 refigure hardcover C:\EP\DRAW\l2915LWC, I herebycertify that this surve , plan or report Was File No. 3EMARS—GABRIEL y y p P prepared ry me or under 12915 my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the LAND SURVEYORS, INC. Laws of the state of Minnesota. Book —Page 3030 Harbor Lane No. As surveye e 26TH day of ✓ULY 20Q5_. 429/62 Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone:(763) 559-0908 � Scale David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 1 °=30 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Vff OF (952) 227-1100 To: Marvin & Patricia Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 6/24/06 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 44 Property Owners List within 500' of 6221 Greenbriar Avenue (44 labels) $3.00 $132.00 TOTAL DUE $132.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for September 1, 2006. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #06-29. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI SCANNED Carver County GIS Mapping Application r 7 t Cn� ht ®2oM, Cane [[�; iW�u Legend Nad ten US Ng"aye / aM Kgftaye N Map Created on: caW Roads �� 8-15-2006 UkH Carver Pucela County Aenal Pharo 2002 This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is L—j not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. MEMORANDUM TO: Josh Metzer, Planner 1 FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: August 17, 2006 SUBJ: Review of request for Variance (for use of single-family as two- family dwelling) at 6221 Greenbriar Ave. Planning Case: 06-29 I have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments. These comments should be included in the conditions of approval. 1. Permits must be obtained for any building construction or alteration. G/plan/2006 Planning Cases/06-29 Onken Varianceftildingofficialcomments CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 Planning Case No. C(O _a CITY OR RECEIVED SSEN AUG 0 4 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEFT PLEASE PRINT ,g�cant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: ►\ V • Contact:_►►� • �� Phone: Fax: e Phone: Email: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARNVAP/Metes 8 Bounds - $450 Minor SUB ' TOTAL FEE $ SC p( q3` 6 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCAMWO PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DES TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: \ REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATII REASON FOR REQUEST: ASx -4 NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. of Applicant Date Date SCANNED -D Mynaaiyna ur\�wn� G:\pLAMfortns\Development Review Applit-DOC Rev. 12/05 CITY UTILITY BILL 511 �i L SAC IiI,I„l,l,iilliiill„llil,tllll MARVIN ONKEN 6221 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD. • P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 Utility Billing Questions: (952) 227-1144 Main Office No.: (952) 227-1100 Billing Date: Due Date: Service Address: Account Number: Billing Cycle It payment is not received by the due date, a 10% penalty will apply. 02/28/2006 03/21/2006 6221 GREENBRIAR 012995-000 003 Service From: 12/01/2005 To: 02/28/2006 Previous Current Consumption Total Previous Balance 0.00 Payments 0.00 Meter 930-1948-59270216 From I I/14/05 To 02/15/06 181 196 15 Water 23.85 Sewer 46.50 Storm Water 7.50 Water Test 2.00 Total Amount Due $79.85 $$$ AVAILABLE for 2006 H.S. graduates residing in Chanhassen. $1,000 GRANTS for Tech school, College or University are awarded for generosity of spirit, not CPA or financial need. APPLICATIONS @ high schools, Chamber office & Chan library. Due March 17 in Chamber office or high school career centers. Questions, call Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce 952-934-3903. Consumption is in 1,000 gallon increments Office Hours: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm ♦ Mon. - Fri. RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: City of Chanhassen 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD. • P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 Customer Name Account Number Total Amount Due Service Address MARVIN ONKEN 012995-000 $79.85 6221 GREENBRIAR STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2006 STATE FILING INFORMATION To ensure prompt processing make a copy of this page and submit with form MIPa. PARCEL IDENTIFlCATON NO.: Fi26.4960680 CARVER COUNTY _ 1C 600 EAST 4TH STREET • P.O. BOX 69 If this box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes. ❑ CHASKA, MN 55318-0069 2005 2006 Estimated Market Value: 210.700 216,300 'New Improvements or Expired Exclusions: TAXPAYER Taxable Market Value: 207,900 216,300 MA PR Line 1 Amount: $ 2,371.00 MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN MA PR Line 2 Amount: $ 2,429.00 6221 GREENBRIAR Line 6 Amount: 2,429.00 2,371.00 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8861 Property Class: RES. HSTD RES. HSTD TO ENSURE PROMPT PROCESSING MAKE A COPY OF THIS PAGE AND SUBMIT WITH FORM MIPR WHEN FILING FOR A REFUND FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2006 TAX BILL# 8307 ID# 13708 CARVER COUNTY TOM KERBER - TREASURER MARK LUNDGREN -AUDITOR MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN 266437 600 EAST 4TH STREET • P.O. BOX 69 C 6221 GREENBRIAR ii CHASKA. MN 55318-0069 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8861 952-361-1980 • www.co.carver.nmus IIIIIttIlltrtlltttllnttlllnlllrtltrllrtnrllrrllltnlllrrJl 2005 2006 'New Improvements or PARCEL Expired Exclusions: IDENTIFlCATION NO.: R26.4950680 J Estimated Market Value: 210,700 216,300 Taxable Market Value: 207,900 216,300 DESC: Sect-05 Twp-116 Range-023 Property Class: RES. HSTD RES. HSTD MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS Lot-016 Block-004 1. Use this amount on Form Ml PR to we if you're eligible for a property tax refund. File by August 15. If Box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes and are not eligible .............. $ 2,371.00 2. Use this amount for the special property tax refund on schedule 1 of Form M1 PH ............. $ 2.429.00 Your property tax and how it is reduced by the Stale of Minnesota 3. Your property tax before reduction by state -paid aids and credits . .......................... $ 4,346.85 8 4,250.08 4. Aid paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax . ............................ 1,732.66 1,701.35 5. Homestead and Agricultural credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. ... A. Homestead and Agricultural Credits. ........... 185.29 177.73 B. Other Credits . ............................. 6. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits . ........................... 2,429.00 2.371.00 Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 7. County A. CARVER COUNTY $ 835.28 $ 807.04 B. CO RAIL AUTHORITY 1.27 1.07 8. City or Town CHANHASSEN CITY 632.35 528.91 9. State General Tax............................................................ 10. School District 0276 A. Voter approved levies. ............................. 875.74 812.06 B. Other local levies . ................................... 168.45 224.90 11. Special Taxing Districts A. METRO DISTRICT 52.18 60.60 B. OTHERS 51.82 50.40 C. D. 12. Non -school voter approved referenda levies .......................................... 111.91 87.06 13. Total property taxes before special assessments ...................................... $ 2,429.00 S 2.371.00 14. Special assessments added to the property tax bill: PRINCIPAL 23.00 23.00 23.00 RECYCLE MGT 23.00 16. YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. ........ $ 2,452.00 $ 2.50 .00 Taxes of $50.00 or less must be paid in full. If you pay your taxes Pay this amount no later than: MAY 15 $ 1,197.00 late, you will be charged a penalty. See back for rate. Pay this amount no later than: OCTOBER 18 $ 1,197.00 You may be eligible for one or even two refunds to reduce your property tax. Read the back of this statement to find out how to apply. Detach and return this stub with your 2nd half payment Detach and return this stub with your Ist half payment 2006 2nd HALF PAYABLE OCTOBER 16 MAIL TO ECKS PAYABLE AND 2006 1st HALF PAYABLE MAY 16 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE AND MAILTO: Carver County Treasurer Carver Co Treasurer PRCL R 26.4960680 P.O. Be. 69 Chaska, MN 55318-0ab9 PRCL R 28 4950680 P.O. Bo Box 69 Cheskn, MN 553131 a-0U69 TAX BILL# 8307 ND TAX TAX BILL# 8307 FULL TAXAF RES. HSTD RES. HSTD $ 2,394,00 ID# 13708 ID# 13708 FIRST HALF TAX ANT MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN $ 1.197.00 MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN $ 1,197.00 6221 GREENBRIAR �NI I 6221 GREENBRIAR PEN I EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8861 EXCELSIOR MN 6533"861 TOTAL TOTAL ESCROW 9920608 CHASE ESCROW 9920608 CHASE SECOND HALF DUE OCTOBER 18 To pay on-line go to www.cacaycrmn.us for details. Your cancelled check is proof of payment. Please write your Parcel # on your check. No postdated checks accepted. Only official U.S. Postmark determines payment mail dale. Please indicate address change on back. Ne Receipt Sera UsleN Released. hue Receipt a aid If dreck is not harmed. FIRST HALF DUE MAY 15 To pay on-line go to wwwxo.carver.mn ns for details, Your cancelled check is proof of payment. Please write your Parcel N on your check. No postdated checks accepted. Only official U.S. Postmark determines payment mail date. SCANNED Please indicate address change on back. No Recap, Sent Unles, Requested. This Realm u aid if d erk is.. homed. • City of Chanhassen Development Review Application, Addendum 5 • 5. Written description of variance request. The applicant wishes to establish separate living quarters within the single-family home for applicant's 91-year-old mother. She is active and alert, able to maintain a household on her own with some assistance with cleaning and cooking, but wishes to live close to family when the need arises for more help. The permits for an addition to the home have already been approved by the City of Chanhassen and construction has begun. This request for variance is in addition to those permits. What separates this request from a simple addition to the single-family home is the desire for separate cooking facilities. There would be a kitchenette area within the living space. The home will maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (See photos and design drawings.) There will be no separate entrance and no separate utility services 'for gas, water and sewer. Because her ability to climb stairs is limited, there will be an elevator stopping at all levels of the home. She no longer drives, does not own a car, and there will be no additional garage space for her use. This variance request falls under Sec. 20-59, Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. 6. Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance. Granting this variance would not cause undue hardship for any resident in the neighborhood because there would be no additional traffic, and the appearance of the home would be enhanced by the addition. There are currently, within the neighborhood, homes that are two-family dwellings, e.g. --- -- Maplewood Circle, so the applicant's home would not be an exception to the neighborhood's existing standards. The variance will improve the value of the home, but more so simply as an addition to the home, including a deck and screen porch and workshop area in addition to the additional living space. The additional living quarters will be converted to a master bedroom area when appropriate, with removal of the kitchenette area. The addition itself, without the variance, has already been approved by the City of Chanhassen, and the plan meets all current city codes and regulations, with inspections occurring as required by the city. SCANNED City of Chanhassen Variances Fee - $200 + $50 Recording Fee Completed application form. 2. Application fee. 3. Evidence of ownership or an interest in property. 4. Plot plan showing property lines, existing improvements, proposed improvements with setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etc. 5. Written description of variance request. 6. Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its • size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Revised 4/06 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBMITTED BY: MARVIN AND PATRICIA S. ONKEN 6221 GREENBRAIR AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 • Sec. 20-59. Conditions for use of single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling. • A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dewlling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dewlling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injrious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city of the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. SCANNED ACTION 1 To: OJ Date: From: t^ ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS OR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑NOTE & RETURN ❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ NOTE & FILE ❑ CALL ME ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ME ❑ ❑ REPLY & SEND ME COPY ❑ COMMENTS: c� 1n C r r h-1 Ul I Y OF CHANHASSEN AM, 1) 9 29AN 0 Copyright 1%9, 1970—{aural Once AiCs, Inc., Br Ile, N.V. 10708 V.W. Eimicke Asswates, Inc., B..ille, N.V. 10708 Tel. (914) 337-1900 • Fax (914) 337-1723 Distributed in Canada solely by V.W. Eimicke Ltd., Peterborough, Ontario Tel. (703) 743-4202 • Fax (705) 743-9994 aaiNr D IN u5A Form OA-4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/08/2006 9:58 AM Receipt No. 0018610 CLERK: katie PAYEE: MARVIN ONKEN 6221 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CASE 06-29 ONKEN VARIANCE ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total 250.00 Cash 0.00 Check 9385 250.00 Change SCANNED