Letter from Gerald & Karon Story 09-17-2012Gerald and Karon Story
6281 Teton Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55357
September 17, 2012
Attn: Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55357
Re: Planning Case No. 2012 -13 (6411 Bretton Way)
Dear Planning Commission:
We are submitting this letter for inclusion in the September 18, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting agenda regarding the appeal for the property located at 6411
Bretton Way. We are the adjacent property owners and have owned the property at 6281
Teton Lane for over 21 years.
We agree with the city of Chanhassen Staff's determination that the landscape business,
Greenscapes Lawncare, is an intensification of the non - conforming use of the property
and respectfully request that the Planning Commission uphold the Staff's determination.
In the attached letter to the city dated September 7, 2012, Ms. Carlson states "I firmly
maintain that Greenscapes Lawncare is not an intensification of the use of this
grandfathered -in property for the following reasons" and gives six reasons, none of which
are valid points in this case.
Point 1 is an invalid argument because Greenscapes LawnCare does fall under the
definition of a Contractor's Yard, which means any area or use of land where vehicles,
equipment, and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by the building,
excavation, roadway construction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored and
serviced. Greenscapes LawnCare offers landscaping services, whether it is by customer
request or not, it would therefore fall under landscaping. Greenscapes could also fall
under and similar contractors.
Point 2 is also an invalid argument based on the definition. Ms. Carlson makes an
assumption about the types of items that are "normally found in a contractor's yard" but
she has no expertise on which to make this assumption. The equipment that has been
stored at 6411 Bretton Way includes trucks, including a pickup truck with a dump trailer
and a chemical spray truck, landscape equipment trailers, and lawn maintenance
equipment, which would fall under equipment used by landscaping and similar
contractors.
Point 3, 4, and 5 are not entirely accurate. As homeowners living at the adjacent property,
we are able to see the traffic and activities at the building as it is right outside the window
of our main living area. Ms. Carlson is not on the premises of 6411 Bretton Way on a
regular basis and is therefore not in a position to make these statements or know exactly
what is occurring at her property all the time. Greenscapes LawnCare is the first tenant on
the property to regularly use the driveway behind the building and also the first to store
equipment on the back driveway and on the steep backyard of the building, making their
use an intensification of the non - conforming use of the property. In addition, multiple
aerial views of the property taken at different time periods before she rented to
Greenscapes show no or very few cars parked at the building. Traffic coming to and from
the building and vehicles parked at the building are at the highest level we have seen in
21 years.
Point 6 is not valid to the determination of whether the use of the property by
Greenscapes LawnCare is an intensification of the non - conforming use of the property
because storing of equipment on the property, even without the added traffic, would still
be an intensification of the non - conforming use of the property.
Ms. Carlson goes on in her letter to personally attack us with false statements and accuse
us of "harassing some of my tenants for months" which is simply a lie. We were not the
first or only neighbors to complain about the ordinances being broken at 6411 Bretton
Way, nor have we ever harassed anyone. We have however, been on the receiving end of
harassment and countless belligerent phone calls from Ms. Carlson and heard on multiple
occasions that we have no rights as property owners to complain about anything she does
because her property is "grandfathered in" and she has "friends at the city."
Over the 21 years we have owned our property, Ms. Carlson been arrogant and hostile
towards us and seems to believe that she is above the law and that grandfathered in means
she can do anything she wants with her property. She thinks she does not need to comply
with city ordinances as the rest of us do, which she makes clear by the last statement in
her letter "I have the right to allow my property to be occupied by Greenscapes."
What we have done as property owners is take pictures of the activities at the building to
provide proof to the city of the activities occurring there. Exercising our right to complain
about an adjacent property owner breaking city ordinances is not "harassing."
In addition to Greenscapes LawnCare using the back driveway and yard of the building,
they attempted to use the driveway to our residence which is an ingress /egress easement
for the sole purpose of accessing our property. Greenscapes LawnCare attempted to drive
down our driveway and proceed to drive down the steep yard to Ms. Carlson's building.
The grade of the yard is approximately 30% and it is not safe for driving, nor is it a
driveway of any sort.
Ir
We have maintained and cared for the driveway to our property for over 21 years and
there is simply no reason for any tenant in Ms. Carlson's building to ever use our
driveway for access to the building when there is a driveway in the front and back of the
building.
We respectfully request that you uphold the staff's decision that Greenscape's use of the
property at 6411 Bretton Way is an intensification of the non - conforming use of the
property and that Greenscape and any other nonconforming tennants be asked again to
vacate immediately.
In addition, we request that the property at 6411 Bretton Way be inspected as there are
multiple code violations occurring at the property. The disrepair and structural integrity
of the buildings on the property located at 6411 Bretton Way could pose a threat to the
safety of the residents surrounding the property and may fall under the definition of
Hazardous building or hazardous property as defined in Minnesota Statute 463.15 and
the definition of a nuisance in Section 13, Article I of the Chanhassen City Code.
Sincerely,
Gerald & Karon Story
Carver County, MN
a �
... �.. ��.._�.. .�.iaY i�l� •q 100, � .. .. - S,
A�
t t
�k
r t ;
Disclaimer: This map was created using Carver Count/s Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data trom Map Scale
various City,County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a 1 inch= 117 feet
I -urveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a
r - ence. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies
contained herein. Map date
i
5/7/2010
N
W E
S
3-0
-4
.1 \"
4�
s LL,
x
, L
�` � ♦ °L "SIC .
bn
1,
�' � � ,r�a. f #�" °tit° ` �° ( e,.r• - : - .�a?.�`
�t yyY 4 y
� �.SSr,}fo� � "t■ai .r'•�� " +� - ,. .� 'y�-a�... Y " F �. t»r� ` ;: ", - ..
I�R�II�� �+ � .. - , '(F..• ����,, Lam:° �?.4 � '� ' �Y �� �i ,:a
..a
Aw
Us k C?
i . It,
��RS 0 �) Lam) � �� •
1
1 :.;,.a _
It.S
C U
f !,
i• = ;-
�cc
4 b
no
���at `• ai `` � I(ry fY • y� 1+
����, jot
km
Ile
�y ,/
WALIMA
A
J '
Jr
//�'
�f �-e'► rc�- GIva a es
vo
re p(ki
TAL
10*
s�
r
;f
µ l ✓
zs �:
r-ey
t
0
A S _ ..
F7 V,
M
? �y
5
t