CC Staff Report 02-22-21CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Monday, February 22, 2021
Subject Consider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 SquareFoot, Detached
Accessory Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to an
Existing Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard
Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202108
PROPOSED MOTION
The Chanhassen City Council denies the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adopts
the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Decision.
Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.
SUMMARY
During the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 43 to deny the variance request. As the
motion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation to
deny the variance request.
A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at
its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and voted 43 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approved
with a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.
No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11
neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.
During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:
1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the property
was already over its 1,000 squarefoot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require a
variance.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 22, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 SquareFoot, DetachedAccessory Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202108PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council denies the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adoptsthe Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYDuring the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 43 to deny the variance request. As themotion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation todeny the variance request. A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDOn February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 43 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approvedwith a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the propertywas already over its 1,000 squarefoot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require a
variance.
2. Commissioner Randall asked if the historic significance of the property limited what the applicant could do. Staff
noted that the city did not have a historic preservation ordinance which would constrain the applicant’s ability to
modify the existing structures.
3. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about a home occupation if the proposed
garage was attached rather than detached. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could construct an attached
garage of similar size and that it could also be used to house a home occupation, but noted that in their
experience, detached garages where much more likely than attached garages to be used for home occupations.
4. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff's main concern was potential use of the property to conduct a home
occupation. Staff confirmed that the intent of limiting the size of detached accessory structures was to prevent
their use for home occupations.
5. Commissioner Noyes noted that not all of the neighbors had responded to the survey, and asked if those that
did not respond opposed the project. He noted that the wording of the survey seemed to ask for approval, not
concerns. The applicant stated that they attempted to word the survey in a neutral manner and that he did not
know why two of his neighbors did not reply.
6. Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars were kept in the garage and if the applicant had
investigated other storage options. The applicant responded that two classic cars would be kept there, and that
even though it would be cheaper to store them off site, he preferred to keep them on site. He noted that he felt
an additional outbuilding would complement the property’s historic farm aesthetic.
7. Commissioner McGonagill expressed concern that the summer kitchen was referred to as a “cottage” and felt
that it implied a dwelling unit. The applicant said that the structure was originally a summer kitchen, though it no
longer had a kitchen, and that they had no intention of using it as a dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledged it
could be converted into a dwelling unit, although he reiterated that he had no intention of doing so.
8. Commissioner von Oven asked the applicant to clarify granting this variance would not establish a precedent.
The applicant stated he understood the concern but felt his situation was unique.
9. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would add an attached garage if the request was denied. The
applicant said that would be a last resort as it would not go with the property’s historic character.
10. Chairman Weick asked if the single garage door would provide adequate access for the vehicles. The applicant
stated that most of the vehicles stored there would not be moved and that the door would allow the van and
tractor to easily enter and exit.
11 . Commissioner Reeder stated that the property is unique and not in the middle of residential neighborhood;
therefore, he believed the request to be reasonable.
12. Commissioner McGonagill asked if they could rebuild the garage in the old barn's location and if the proposed
garage looked like the old barn. Staff stated that a variance would still be required and that the garage did not
resemble the old barn.
13. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he opposed the requested variance due to the almost 1,400 square feet
of detached accessory structures already present and the fact that the request would double this.
14. Commissioner Randall stated that the property was large and of historical significance, and hoped that a
compromise would be possible.
15. Commissioner Noyes stated that he was concerned with the precedence that granting the variance would
establish.
16. Commissioner Reeder stated that not a lot of other properties would have similar historical significance, and that
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 22, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 SquareFoot, DetachedAccessory Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202108PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council denies the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adoptsthe Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYDuring the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 43 to deny the variance request. As themotion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation todeny the variance request. A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDOn February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 43 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approvedwith a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the propertywas already over its 1,000 squarefoot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require avariance.2. Commissioner Randall asked if the historic significance of the property limited what the applicant could do. Staffnoted that the city did not have a historic preservation ordinance which would constrain the applicant’s ability tomodify the existing structures.3. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about a home occupation if the proposedgarage was attached rather than detached. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could construct an attachedgarage of similar size and that it could also be used to house a home occupation, but noted that in theirexperience, detached garages where much more likely than attached garages to be used for home occupations.4. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff's main concern was potential use of the property to conduct a homeoccupation. Staff confirmed that the intent of limiting the size of detached accessory structures was to preventtheir use for home occupations.5. Commissioner Noyes noted that not all of the neighbors had responded to the survey, and asked if those thatdid not respond opposed the project. He noted that the wording of the survey seemed to ask for approval, notconcerns. The applicant stated that they attempted to word the survey in a neutral manner and that he did notknow why two of his neighbors did not reply.6. Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars were kept in the garage and if the applicant hadinvestigated other storage options. The applicant responded that two classic cars would be kept there, and thateven though it would be cheaper to store them off site, he preferred to keep them on site. He noted that he feltan additional outbuilding would complement the property’s historic farm aesthetic.7. Commissioner McGonagill expressed concern that the summer kitchen was referred to as a “cottage” and feltthat it implied a dwelling unit. The applicant said that the structure was originally a summer kitchen, though it nolonger had a kitchen, and that they had no intention of using it as a dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledged itcould be converted into a dwelling unit, although he reiterated that he had no intention of doing so.8. Commissioner von Oven asked the applicant to clarify granting this variance would not establish a precedent.The applicant stated he understood the concern but felt his situation was unique.9. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would add an attached garage if the request was denied. Theapplicant said that would be a last resort as it would not go with the property’s historic character.10. Chairman Weick asked if the single garage door would provide adequate access for the vehicles. The applicantstated that most of the vehicles stored there would not be moved and that the door would allow the van andtractor to easily enter and exit.11 . Commissioner Reeder stated that the property is unique and not in the middle of residential neighborhood;therefore, he believed the request to be reasonable.12. Commissioner McGonagill asked if they could rebuild the garage in the old barn's location and if the proposedgarage looked like the old barn. Staff stated that a variance would still be required and that the garage did notresemble the old barn.13. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he opposed the requested variance due to the almost 1,400 square feetof detached accessory structures already present and the fact that the request would double this.14. Commissioner Randall stated that the property was large and of historical significance, and hoped that acompromise would be possible.15. Commissioner Noyes stated that he was concerned with the precedence that granting the variance wouldestablish.
16. Commissioner Reeder stated that not a lot of other properties would have similar historical significance, and that
variances existed to deal with unique properties.
17. Commissioner von Oven stated that he was not sure it made sense to limit every property in the city to 1,000
square feet of detached accessory structures and wondered if a better system would be using a sliding scale
based on lot size. He also expressed concern about establishing a precedent.
18. Chairman Weick asked if the entire property was buildable and stated that a reduction in buildable lot size may
affect consideration of the plans. Staff stated that a portion of the property was encumbered by bluffs.
19. Commissioner Reeder asked if a walkway was constructed between the home and garage if it would be
considered part of the main structure. Staff stated that they would need to see plans to make a determination,
but that the Code considered structures with a common wall to be attached and that such a connection might
meet City Code.
20. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt that the city was being excessively strict by saying a garage was
allowed in one place but not another due to the definition of detached accessory structure.
21. Chairman Weick asked how much of the property was buildable. Staff stated that they could not speculate as
the survey did not delineate a bluff line.
22. Commissioner McGonagill stated that the variance was too large, but that reviewing the City Code’s detached
accessory structure size limit made sense.
23. Commissioner von Oven expressed support for altering the City Code to accommodate larger detached
accessory structures.
After the public hearing, staff received a phone call from a neighbor wondering if the item had passed and, if so, if its
passage would establish a precedent allowing them to also add another attached garage to the property. Staff informed
them that the item had been forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny and that each variance is
evaluated based on the unique characteristics of the subject property.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing a 76 squarefoot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’s
old summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 squarefoot main floor and
approximately 864 square feet of upper level storage.
As the property already has a 456 squarefoot summer kitchen, a 200 squarefoot garden shed, and a detached
garage with a 728 squarefoot main level and 390 square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a
1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add a
restroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoor
storage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly fiveacre site.
The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with the
character of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to store
vehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. They
observe that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that the
owners of eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requested
variance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize the
proposed detached garage as part of a home occupation.
The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm that
used to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, the
property is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single
family residence.The city extended the 1,000 squarefoot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural
Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 22, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 SquareFoot, DetachedAccessory Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202108PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council denies the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adoptsthe Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYDuring the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 43 to deny the variance request. As themotion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation todeny the variance request. A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDOn February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 43 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approvedwith a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the propertywas already over its 1,000 squarefoot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require avariance.2. Commissioner Randall asked if the historic significance of the property limited what the applicant could do. Staffnoted that the city did not have a historic preservation ordinance which would constrain the applicant’s ability tomodify the existing structures.3. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about a home occupation if the proposedgarage was attached rather than detached. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could construct an attachedgarage of similar size and that it could also be used to house a home occupation, but noted that in theirexperience, detached garages where much more likely than attached garages to be used for home occupations.4. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff's main concern was potential use of the property to conduct a homeoccupation. Staff confirmed that the intent of limiting the size of detached accessory structures was to preventtheir use for home occupations.5. Commissioner Noyes noted that not all of the neighbors had responded to the survey, and asked if those thatdid not respond opposed the project. He noted that the wording of the survey seemed to ask for approval, notconcerns. The applicant stated that they attempted to word the survey in a neutral manner and that he did notknow why two of his neighbors did not reply.6. Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars were kept in the garage and if the applicant hadinvestigated other storage options. The applicant responded that two classic cars would be kept there, and thateven though it would be cheaper to store them off site, he preferred to keep them on site. He noted that he feltan additional outbuilding would complement the property’s historic farm aesthetic.7. Commissioner McGonagill expressed concern that the summer kitchen was referred to as a “cottage” and feltthat it implied a dwelling unit. The applicant said that the structure was originally a summer kitchen, though it nolonger had a kitchen, and that they had no intention of using it as a dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledged itcould be converted into a dwelling unit, although he reiterated that he had no intention of doing so.8. Commissioner von Oven asked the applicant to clarify granting this variance would not establish a precedent.The applicant stated he understood the concern but felt his situation was unique.9. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would add an attached garage if the request was denied. Theapplicant said that would be a last resort as it would not go with the property’s historic character.10. Chairman Weick asked if the single garage door would provide adequate access for the vehicles. The applicantstated that most of the vehicles stored there would not be moved and that the door would allow the van andtractor to easily enter and exit.11 . Commissioner Reeder stated that the property is unique and not in the middle of residential neighborhood;therefore, he believed the request to be reasonable.12. Commissioner McGonagill asked if they could rebuild the garage in the old barn's location and if the proposedgarage looked like the old barn. Staff stated that a variance would still be required and that the garage did notresemble the old barn.13. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he opposed the requested variance due to the almost 1,400 square feetof detached accessory structures already present and the fact that the request would double this.14. Commissioner Randall stated that the property was large and of historical significance, and hoped that acompromise would be possible.15. Commissioner Noyes stated that he was concerned with the precedence that granting the variance wouldestablish.16. Commissioner Reeder stated that not a lot of other properties would have similar historical significance, and thatvariances existed to deal with unique properties.17. Commissioner von Oven stated that he was not sure it made sense to limit every property in the city to 1,000square feet of detached accessory structures and wondered if a better system would be using a sliding scalebased on lot size. He also expressed concern about establishing a precedent.18. Chairman Weick asked if the entire property was buildable and stated that a reduction in buildable lot size mayaffect consideration of the plans. Staff stated that a portion of the property was encumbered by bluffs.19. Commissioner Reeder asked if a walkway was constructed between the home and garage if it would beconsidered part of the main structure. Staff stated that they would need to see plans to make a determination,but that the Code considered structures with a common wall to be attached and that such a connection mightmeet City Code.20. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt that the city was being excessively strict by saying a garage wasallowed in one place but not another due to the definition of detached accessory structure.21. Chairman Weick asked how much of the property was buildable. Staff stated that they could not speculate asthe survey did not delineate a bluff line.22. Commissioner McGonagill stated that the variance was too large, but that reviewing the City Code’s detachedaccessory structure size limit made sense.23. Commissioner von Oven expressed support for altering the City Code to accommodate larger detachedaccessory structures.After the public hearing, staff received a phone call from a neighbor wondering if the item had passed and, if so, if itspassage would establish a precedent allowing them to also add another attached garage to the property. Staff informedthem that the item had been forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny and that each variance isevaluated based on the unique characteristics of the subject property.DISCUSSIONThe applicant is proposing a 76 squarefoot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’sold summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 squarefoot main floor andapproximately 864 square feet of upper level storage.As the property already has a 456 squarefoot summer kitchen, a 200 squarefoot garden shed, and a detachedgarage with a 728 squarefoot main level and 390 square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add arestroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoorstorage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly fiveacre site.The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with thecharacter of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to storevehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. Theyobserve that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that theowners of eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requestedvariance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize theproposed detached garage as part of a home occupation.The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm thatused to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, theproperty is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single
family residence.The city extended the 1,000 squarefoot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural
Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large no
longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted in
these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as
part of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the
sale or transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future
owners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shown
that granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues.
Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvements
within the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to the
existing house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of the
summer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provides the property with a
significant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code.
Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barn
once it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit.
Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringing
nonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s longterm plan
for this area to develop as lowdensity residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff and the Planning
Commission are recommending denial of the variance requests.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adopt
the Planning Commission's Findings of Facts and Decision.”
If the City Council determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motion and
conditions of approval be adopted:
The Chanhassen City Council approves a 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance, subject to the
conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property.
Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or
stream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid
compliance inspection on file in the past three years.
2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements of
the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation.
5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.
6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 22, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 SquareFoot, DetachedAccessory Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to anExisting Detached Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202108PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council denies the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adoptsthe Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYDuring the February 2, 2021 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 43 to deny the variance request. As themotion was not approved by a 3/4 majority vote, it has been forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation todeny the variance request. A full discussion of the requested variance can be found in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDOn February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 43 to deny the variance request. Since this motion was not approvedwith a 3/4 majority vote, the case was forwarded to the City Council for a decision.No member of the public spoke during the public hearing, though the applicant submitted statements from 11neighbors indicating that they approved of/did not oppose the project.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following:1. Chairman Weick asked if the existing detached garage could be expanded. Staff clarified that since the propertywas already over its 1,000 squarefoot limit, any expansion to the garage footprint would also require avariance.2. Commissioner Randall asked if the historic significance of the property limited what the applicant could do. Staffnoted that the city did not have a historic preservation ordinance which would constrain the applicant’s ability tomodify the existing structures.3. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about a home occupation if the proposedgarage was attached rather than detached. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could construct an attachedgarage of similar size and that it could also be used to house a home occupation, but noted that in theirexperience, detached garages where much more likely than attached garages to be used for home occupations.4. Commissioner Reeder asked if staff's main concern was potential use of the property to conduct a homeoccupation. Staff confirmed that the intent of limiting the size of detached accessory structures was to preventtheir use for home occupations.5. Commissioner Noyes noted that not all of the neighbors had responded to the survey, and asked if those thatdid not respond opposed the project. He noted that the wording of the survey seemed to ask for approval, notconcerns. The applicant stated that they attempted to word the survey in a neutral manner and that he did notknow why two of his neighbors did not reply.6. Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars were kept in the garage and if the applicant hadinvestigated other storage options. The applicant responded that two classic cars would be kept there, and thateven though it would be cheaper to store them off site, he preferred to keep them on site. He noted that he feltan additional outbuilding would complement the property’s historic farm aesthetic.7. Commissioner McGonagill expressed concern that the summer kitchen was referred to as a “cottage” and feltthat it implied a dwelling unit. The applicant said that the structure was originally a summer kitchen, though it nolonger had a kitchen, and that they had no intention of using it as a dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledged itcould be converted into a dwelling unit, although he reiterated that he had no intention of doing so.8. Commissioner von Oven asked the applicant to clarify granting this variance would not establish a precedent.The applicant stated he understood the concern but felt his situation was unique.9. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would add an attached garage if the request was denied. Theapplicant said that would be a last resort as it would not go with the property’s historic character.10. Chairman Weick asked if the single garage door would provide adequate access for the vehicles. The applicantstated that most of the vehicles stored there would not be moved and that the door would allow the van andtractor to easily enter and exit.11 . Commissioner Reeder stated that the property is unique and not in the middle of residential neighborhood;therefore, he believed the request to be reasonable.12. Commissioner McGonagill asked if they could rebuild the garage in the old barn's location and if the proposedgarage looked like the old barn. Staff stated that a variance would still be required and that the garage did notresemble the old barn.13. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he opposed the requested variance due to the almost 1,400 square feetof detached accessory structures already present and the fact that the request would double this.14. Commissioner Randall stated that the property was large and of historical significance, and hoped that acompromise would be possible.15. Commissioner Noyes stated that he was concerned with the precedence that granting the variance wouldestablish.16. Commissioner Reeder stated that not a lot of other properties would have similar historical significance, and thatvariances existed to deal with unique properties.17. Commissioner von Oven stated that he was not sure it made sense to limit every property in the city to 1,000square feet of detached accessory structures and wondered if a better system would be using a sliding scalebased on lot size. He also expressed concern about establishing a precedent.18. Chairman Weick asked if the entire property was buildable and stated that a reduction in buildable lot size mayaffect consideration of the plans. Staff stated that a portion of the property was encumbered by bluffs.19. Commissioner Reeder asked if a walkway was constructed between the home and garage if it would beconsidered part of the main structure. Staff stated that they would need to see plans to make a determination,but that the Code considered structures with a common wall to be attached and that such a connection mightmeet City Code.20. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt that the city was being excessively strict by saying a garage wasallowed in one place but not another due to the definition of detached accessory structure.21. Chairman Weick asked how much of the property was buildable. Staff stated that they could not speculate asthe survey did not delineate a bluff line.22. Commissioner McGonagill stated that the variance was too large, but that reviewing the City Code’s detachedaccessory structure size limit made sense.23. Commissioner von Oven expressed support for altering the City Code to accommodate larger detachedaccessory structures.After the public hearing, staff received a phone call from a neighbor wondering if the item had passed and, if so, if itspassage would establish a precedent allowing them to also add another attached garage to the property. Staff informedthem that the item had been forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation to deny and that each variance isevaluated based on the unique characteristics of the subject property.DISCUSSIONThe applicant is proposing a 76 squarefoot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing outbuilding, the farmhouse’sold summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop with a 1,382 squarefoot main floor andapproximately 864 square feet of upper level storage.As the property already has a 456 squarefoot summer kitchen, a 200 squarefoot garden shed, and a detachedgarage with a 728 squarefoot main level and 390 square feet of upper level storage, the applicant is requesting a1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add arestroom providing a more convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoorstorage of tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly fiveacre site.The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally compatible with thecharacter of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an attached garage, and that being able to storevehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. Theyobserve that the proposed addition and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that theowners of eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the requestedvariance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as a dwelling unit or to utilize theproposed detached garage as part of a home occupation.The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that invoke the farm thatused to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical flavor of the property; however, theproperty is no longer a farm and variances should only be granted that are in keeping with its current use as a singlefamily residence.The city extended the 1,000 squarefoot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned AgriculturalEstate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and large nolonger being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted businesses that were not permitted inthese areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding aspart of his home repair business or to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on thesale or transfer of property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how futureowners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where experience has shownthat granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code compliance and enforcement issues.Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct similar improvementswithin the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledged that an attached garage could be added to theexisting house and in theory an interior remodel could accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of thesummer kitchen. The existing presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provides the property with asignificant amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code. Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of the property’s barnonce it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the maximum accessory structure size limit.Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringingnonconforming properties into line with current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s longterm planfor this area to develop as lowdensity residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff and the PlanningCommission are recommending denial of the variance requests.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the City Council deny the requested 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance and adoptthe Planning Commission's Findings of Facts and Decision.”If the City Council determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends that the following motion andconditions of approval be adopted:The Chanhassen City Council approves a 1,842 squarefoot accessory structure size variance, subject to theconditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being issued for this property.Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river orstream requires a compliance inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a validcompliance inspection on file in the past three years.2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements ofthe Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home occupation.5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision_PC (Denial) Signed
Findings of Fact_CC (Approval)
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Description of Variance Request
Justification of Request
Key
Photo of Similar Structure
Photos and Elevations
Plan Sheets
Square Footages
Letters to Neighbors and Response
WRC Memo
Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: February 2, 2021
CC DATE: February 22, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: March 1, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-08
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,246-square foot detached garage, 1,382-square foot
main floor, and an approximate 864-square foot second floor, and 76-square foot addition to
facilitate adding a bathroom to an existing outbuilding. As the City Code limits all property’s to
a cumulative maximum of 1,000 square feet of accessory structures and the property has 1,384
square feet of existing accessory structures, a variance is necessary to add another garage and
expand the existing outbuilding.
LOCATION: 10151 Great Plains Boulevard
APPLICANT: Ed Myslivecek
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
Chaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: “A2” – Agricultural Estate District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 4.37 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to
whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the
Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a
deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial
decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a 76-square foot addition to add a bathroom on to an existing
outbuilding, the farmhouse’s old summer kitchen, and constructing a detached garage/workshop
with a 1,382-square foot main floor and approximate 864-square feet of upper level storage.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842 square foot
accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 2
As the property already has a 456-square foot summer kitchen, a 200-square foot garden shed,
and a detached garage with a 728-square foot main level and 390-square feet of upper level
storage, the applicant is requesting a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance. The
applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to add a restroom providing a more
convenient bathroom location for themselves and visitors, and to facilitate the indoor storage of
tractors and other equipment needed to maintain the nearly five acre site.
The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will be more architecturally
compatible with the character of their historic property than alternatives such as adding an
attached garage, and that being able to store vehicles within a structure will be more aesthetically
pleasing then continuing to store them on the driveway. They observe that the proposed addition
and building would not be highly visible from neighboring properties, and that the owners of
eleven of the eighteen properties within 500 feet of theirs have indicated their support for the
requested variance. Finally, they have stated that they do not intend to use the summer kitchen as
a dwelling unit or to utilize the proposed detached garage as part of a home occupation.
The applicant’s property is a unique one in the city with a distinct historic style and elements that
invoke the farm that used to be on the site. Staff fully supports maintaining the existing historical
flavor of the property; however, the property is no longer a farm and variances should only be
granted that are in keeping with its current use as a single-family residence. The city extended
the 1,000-square foot accessory structure size limit to areas zoned Agricultural Estate District
(A2) and Rural Residential District (RR) in recognition of the fact that these areas were by and
large no longer being used for agricultural pursuits and that large outbuildings attracted
businesses that were not permitted in these areas. While staff acknowledges that the applicant
has stated that it is not his intent to utilize the outbuilding as part of his home repair business or
to use the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, variances do not expire on the sale or transfer of
property. Once these structures are built, it becomes very difficult for staff to control how future
owners use or repurpose them. Historically, staff has not supported variance requests where
experience has shown that granting the variance has the potential to create subsequent Code
compliance and enforcement issues.
Additionally, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated an inability to conduct
similar improvements within the bounds of the City Code. The applicant has acknowledge that
an attached garage could be added to the existing house and in theory an interior remodel could
accommodate a bathroom within the existing footprint of the summer kitchen. The existing
presence of a large detached garage and garden shed provide the property with a significant
amount of storage space and reasonable use under the Zoning Code.
Finally, it is the intent of the City Code to phase out nonconformities. In this case, the removal of
the property’s barn once it was no longer being used as a farm, brought the property closer to the
maximum accessory structure size limit. Granting a variance to add a new large outbuilding
would not be in keeping with the city’s goal of bringing nonconforming properties into line with
current City Code, nor would it be compatible with the city’s long-term plan for this area to
develop as low density residential neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending
denial of the variance requests.
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 3
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. Generally
Section 20-904, Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
General History
County records indicate that the home was built in 1872.
In September of 2005, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 1,118-square foot
detached garage, 728-square foot main level and 390 square feet of second level storage.
In May of 2006, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a 270-square foot addition
to the existing summer kitchen.
Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.
Note: Two large barns had been present on the property from when it was an agricultural use, the
last of these barns, an approximate 1,728-square foot structure, was removed between 2005 and
2008.
Ordinance History
In April of 1991, Ordinance Number 145 was passed establishing a 1,000-square foot size limit for
accessory structures within the RSF and R-4 zoning districts. This ordinance was passed in response
to large detached garages being constructed and subsequently used to house home occupations.
In May of 2007, Ordinance Number 451 was passed extending the 1,000-square foot size limit to
the A2, RR, and RLM districts. This ordinance was passed in response to large detached garages
being constructed on formerly agricultural properties and subsequently being used to house home
occupations.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 4
The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District and bluffs are present on the eastern and
northern sections of the property. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of two
and one-half acres, have front and rear yard setbacks of 50 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and
limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Principal and accessory structures are
limited to a maximum height of 35 feet. The total square footage for all accessory structures on a
property is limited to a cumulative 1,000-square foot maximum. Structures must be setback 30
feet from the top, side, and toe of the bluff, and alteration of the land and vegetation within the
bluff impact zone is heavily restricted.
The lot is 4.37 acres with approximately 10,000 square feet (5.25 percent) of lot cover. The
existing house has a nonconforming 3-foot front yard setback. The property has a summer
kitchen, shed, and detached garage which combine for 1,384 square feet of accessory structures,
exceeding the city’s 1,000-square foot maximum by 384 square feet. The house and other
features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are bluffs on the property. The city’s Bluff Protection Ordinance requires structures to be
setback 30 feet from the top, toe, and side of the bluff and prohibits the alteration to land or
vegetation within the bluff impact zone, the area of the bluff and within 20 feet of the top of the
bluff. Stairways, lifts, and landings are permitted in areas where they will not redirect water flow
or increase drainage velocity so long as they do not exceed four feet in width and meet other
design criteria. Limited topographic alterations, grading, and filling within the bluff impact zone
is permitted through an earthwork permit, subject to standards designed to protect the integrity of
the bluff.
No portion of the requested variance is expected to impact the bluff, and all proposed structures
and addition will need to meet the requirements of the Bluff Protection Ordinance.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is not located within a Shoreland Protection District.
Wetland Protection
There is a basin which appears to show wetland characteristics; however, the city’s Water
Resources Coordinator has determined, based on aerial photos and soil characteristics, that this
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 5
area is a created wetland in an upland area. Given this determination, the wetland would be
considered incidental and would not be governed by the Wetland Conservation Act.
No other areas exhibiting wetland characteristics are present on the property.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Great Plains Boulevard
This area of the city does not have access to
municipal services and properties are zoned A2.
The area features several uses with commercial or
recreational characteristics, i.e. the garden center
and golf courses; however, most of the properties
have single-family homes on relatively large lots.
Several large outbuildings are present within this
neighborhood, and the city has historically had
issues with individuals running businesses out of
these buildings.
With the exception of the Halla Great Plains
Addition to the northwest, which is guided for
residential large lot and features one to three acre
lots, all of the properties in this area are guided for
residential low density. The city anticipates that
once municipal services become available, the rest
of this area will be developed into single-family
neighborhoods with densities between 1.2 and 4
units per acre. These densities correspond with
average lot sizes of between approximately 11,000
and 36,000 square feet, though the area’s
environmental features could lead to the use of cluster zoning resulting in neighborhoods with
dedicated open space and smaller lot sizes.
Variances within 500 feet:
There are no known variances within 500 feet of the property.
ANALYSIS
Detached Garage/Workshop
The applicant is proposing constructing a detached accessory structure with a 1,382 square foot
main floor and an approximate 864-square foot second floor storage area. The applicant
describes the structure as a detached garage in the narrative and states that the intention of this
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 6
structure is to provide a covered location to store tractors and collector vehicles currently parked
on the driveway. They have also stated that they do not intend to use the building as part of a
construction business.
Examining the plans, staff is very
concerned that this structure will be
used either by the applicant or a future
owner to conduct a home occupation.
The structure is described as a
workshop on the submitted elevation
drawings and in staff’s experience,
structures oriented towards vehicle
storage typically feature more than a
single, centrally-oriented garage door.
Since the applicant owns a home repair
business that is registered to a
residential property in another city, staff
must note that if any portion of the
business was conducted out of the
requested detached accessory structure,
even just office operations or storing
materials before taking them out to a
job site, the applicant would be in
violation of the city’s home occupation
ordinance which prohibits the use of any garage or accessory buildings for any home occupation.
It has also been staff’s experience that in cases were an applicant understands and intends to
abide by the city’s home occupation ordinance, they have little control over how the property is
used by future landowners. Many times staff sees large lot properties with large detached
accessory structures listed by realtors as prefect sites for landscaping or other businesses. Other
times, staff finds out about the sale of these properties when neighbor’s call to complain about a
new business. Due to the difficulties in proving how the interior of a building is being utilized, it
is extremely time and labor intensive to follow up on these complaints and enforce the ordinance.
For these reasons, a city-wide limit on accessory structure size was enacted in 2007.
In examining the applicant’s property, staff notes that a detached garage with a 728-square foot
footprint is already present on the property, as well as a 200-square foot garden shed. Staff
believes that these two structures provide a reasonable amount of enclosed storage space for a
single-family residence. While it is true that other properties in the area have larger detached
garages, these were built before the current ordinance was passed, and the presence of
nonconforming structures should not be used to justify granting a variance when a resident has
reasonable use of their property. Additionally, as the applicant notes, they have the ability to add
an attached garage to the house. While staff shares applicant’s concerns about the impact that a
garage addition could have upon the historic character of the property, the city does not have a
historic preservation ordinance or similar statute that would limit their ability to modify the
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 7
home. Staff believes that a thoughtfully designed attached garage could be compatible with the
existing architecture. Variances should only be granted to provide relief from a practical
difficulty caused by the property in question, and not to facilitate a preferred configuration.
Finally, the property already exceeds the accessory structure size limit, which means that it falls
under the city’s nonconforming use ordinance. Section 20-72(2) of this ordinance explicitly
states that its intent is to “prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any
nonconforming use, building or structure.” Granting a variance to permit the property to increase
its existing nonconformity with a new structure that in and of itself exceeds what is permitted by
ordinance would not be in keeping with the intent of the City Code.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance
for the detached garage/workshop.
Summer Kitchen Bathroom
The applicant is proposing a 76-square foot
addition to allow for the installation of a
bathroom in the property’s summer cottage.
The applicant has stated that they need to
construct the addition to allow for the creation
of a basement under the bathroom to prevent
pipes from freezing. They have indicated that
their intent is just to have a more conveniently
located restroom on the property and that they
have no intention of converting the summer
kitchen into a second dwelling unit.
The City Code allows for bathrooms to be
placed in outbuildings; however, since
this property is already over the 1,000-
square foot accessory structure size limit,
a variance is required to expand the
footprint of the summer kitchen. Since
the property’s current amount of
accessory structure square footage is
nonconforming, the intent of the city’s
nonconforming use ordinance is relevant
to this request. It is the goal of the city’s
nonconforming use ordinance to recognize existing uses and allow for their repair and
maintenance, but also to prevent their expansion and encourage the elimination of
nonconforming uses. Granting a variance to expand an existing nonconformity runs counter to
the intent of the city’s ordinances.
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 8
Staff also notes that most single-family residences do not have bathrooms located in outbuildings
and that the inability to add a bathroom to a detached accessory structure would not be
considered an inability to enjoy reasonable use of a property. Similarly, the applicant could likely
install a similar amenity within the footprint of the existing structure without requesting a
variance. While additional cost may be necessary to ensure that the pipes did not freeze,
variances should be granted to provide relief from an inability to comply with the zoning code
rather than to accommodate a preferred or less costly design.
Finally, while staff acknowledges that the applicant has stated that they have no intention of
using the summer kitchen as a second dwelling, staff is concerned that future property owners
would use the summer kitchen as either a short- or long-term rental. With two rooms and a
bathroom, the summer kitchen would lend itself to use as a tiny house for vacation rentals or,
with additional updates, as a full-on second dwelling unit. Staff believes that granting this
variance would create the potential for future violations of City Code.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
The southern portion of the Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character with relatively
large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels host businesses such
as a garden center or golf courses. Historically, the applicant’s property was a farm with multiple
large outbuildings; however, the last barn was removed from the site between 2005 and 2008.
Examining the surrounding area, staff observed that several nearby parcels have large
outbuildings, though staff only identified one parcel with two large outbuildings. The applicant’s
proposal to have three outbuildings over 500
square feet in size is atypical for a residential
property, and approving the variance would
result in five buildings being located on the
parcel; the home, two garages, the summer
kitchen, and garden shed. This number of
buildings is not typical for a single-family
residence or for the surrounding area.
Staff agrees that the proposed addition to the
summer cottage would likely not be visible
from the road, though the detached garage
would be, and also agrees that the location of
the neighboring homes relative to the
applicant’s property means that they would not
be impacted by the proposed detached garage
or addition. It should also be noted that the
applicant wrote to their neighbor’s about the
proposed project and that most expressed
support for it.
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 9
While granting the requested variance to the present owner within the existing neighborhood
context may not have a negative impact, these variances will create a property that lends itself to
use for a home occupation and to the creation of a second dwelling unit. As the surrounding area
develops into smaller lot single-family neighborhoods, the presence of a large detached
garage/workshop will become increasingly undesirable and out of keeping with the area’s
character.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested 1,842-square foot accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached
Findings of Facts and Decision.”
If the Planning Commission determines that the variance should be granted, staff recommends
that the following motion and Conditions of Approval be adopted:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842-square foot accessory
structure size variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.
1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being
issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a
lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream requires a compliance
inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid
compliance inspection on file in the past three years.
2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home
occupation.
5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.
6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
10151 Great Plains Boulevard
February 2, 2021
Page 10
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial)
2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
3. Variance Document (Approval)
4. Development Review Application
5. Description of Variance Request
6. Justification of Variance Request
7. Key
8. Photos and Elevations
9. Plan Sheets
10. Square Footages
11. Letters to Neighbors and Response
12. WRC Memo
13. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\staff report_10151 great plains blvd_var.docx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND MNNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of Ed Myslivecek for a variance exceeding the accessory structure size limit by adding a
bathroom onto a summer kitchen and constructing a deuched garage on a property zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2) - Planning Case 2021-08.
On February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The property is cunently zoned Agriculture Estate District (A2)
2. The property is guided in the chanhassen comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
3. The legal description ofthe property is:
That part ofthe Southwest quarter ofSection 25. Township I 16, Range 23, Carver County.
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Southwest quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees l2 minutes l0 seconds West along the South line
ofsaid Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North I degee 0l minutes ll seconds
East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point ofbeginning; thence North 50 degrees I I minutes 32
seconds East a distance of289.79 fee; thence North l8 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a
distance of417.75 feet; thence North 76 degees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of591.83
feet to the centerline of State Highway No. l0l ; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a
distance of705.73 feet to the point ofbeginning.
4. Variance F indinss - Section 20-58 ofthe Ci ty Code provides the following criteria for the
granting ofa variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The city extended its maximum accessory stnrcture size limit to properties zoned
A2 in 2007 due to the tendency for these buildings to be used to house contractors yards and
landscaping business. The city determined that 1,000 square feet of accessory's structures
provided sulficient storage space for single-family residences in all single-family residential
districts. The applicant is proposing adding a garage/workshop sigrrificantly in excess ofthe
1,000 square foot limit on a property that already has over 1,000 square feet of detached
accessory structures. The proposed structure is exactly the qpe of structure in exactly the
I
zoning district that Ordinance 451 was passed to prohibit. Granting the requested variance
would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthe zoning code.
Similarly, the city's nonconforming use ordinance states that its express purpose is to prevent
the expansion ofnonconforming buildings or structures and to encourage the elimination of
nonconforming buildings and structures. Granting a variance to allow for the expansion of
the nonconforming summer cottage and creation ofa new, larger, detached garage runs
contrary to the intent ofthis ordinance.
Finally, the city's Comprehensive Plan guides this area for residential low density
development with densities of between 1.2-4 units per acre. The proposed outbuildings are
not in keeping with and would not be compatible with the smaller lot residential
neighborhoods envisioned for this area.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficutties" as used in connection with the granting ofa variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding: The existing outbuildings on the property provide the applicant with a reasonable
storage area for a single-family residence, and the applicant has options under the City Code
for constructing additional garage space without a variance. Similarly, the City Code does
not prohibit the applicant from installing a bathroom within the existing fooprint ofthe
summer kitchen, it merely prevents the expansion of the nonconforming structure to
accommodate the improvement. Since substantially similar results could be accomplished
without a variance, the applicant does not have a practical diffrculty in complying with the
zoning ordinance.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding: The plight ofthe landowner has been created by their design choices and not by
any circumstance unique to the property. Additional storage and vehicle parking space could
be created without a variance via an attached garage and a bathroom could be added to the
outbuilding via an interior remodel rather than an addition. again without a variance.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality.
Finding: The southern portion ofthe Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character
with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels
host businesses such as a garden center or golfcourses. Historically, the applicant's property
was a farm with multiple large outbuildings: however, the last bam was removed from the
site between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, staff observed that several
e
2
nearby parcels have large outbuildings, though staff only identified one parcel with two large
outbuildings. The applicant's proposal to have three outbuildings over 500 square feet in size
is agpical for a residential propeny, and approving the variance would result in five
buildings being located on the parcel; the home, two garages, the summer kitchen, and a
garden shed. This number ofbuildings is not typical for a single-family residence or for the
surrounding area.
That being said, granting the requested variances in and ofthemselves would not alter the
essential character ofthe locality; however, these variances will create a property that lends
itselfto use for a home occupation and to the creation ofa second dwelling unit. Use ofthe
property in this manner would have a negative impact on the character ofthe locality.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14. when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request
5. The planning report #2021-08. dated February 2, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters.
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842-square foot
accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings ofFacts and Decision'"
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of February, 2021 .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY
S en Weick. Chai
g:\pl$\202 I pbmrg c.s\21{t l0l5l Sran pLE bh d !.rfndin8, of hd .!d deBioD l0l5 I 8r!.l PhG blvd E ( &!i.l) docx
J
/
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Ed Myslivecek for a variance exceeding the accessory structure size limit by adding a
bathroom onto a summer kitchen and constructing a detached garage on a property zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2) - Planning Case 2021-08.
On February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and
voted 4-3 to deny the requested variance. As the motion was not passed by a ¾ majority, it serves as
a recommendation to the City Council.
On February 22, 2021, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the Planning Commissioner recommendation to deny the variance request and makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Agriculture Estate District (A2)
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds West along the South line
of said Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North 1 degree 01 minutes 11 seconds
East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 11 minutes 32
seconds East a distance of 289.79 fee; thence North 18 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a
distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76 degrees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 591.83
feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 101; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a
distance of 705.73 feet to the point of beginning.
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: Though the city does not have a historic preservation ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan states, “The city will continue to encourage the preservation,
interpretation and active reuse of privately-owned historic buildings and structures, and will
2
work to protect such buildings and structures to the extent feasible during the development
process.” The applicant’s property is a historic farmstead with the original farmhouse and
summer kitchen preserving the unique architecture and character of the period. While the
applicant could add an attached garage to the existing home, doing so would represent a
departure from the site’s character. Similarly, the applicant could construct a larger garage by
demolishing the existing outbuildings; however, doing so would result in the loss of the
historically valuable summer kitchen. Granting a variance to enable a property owner to
update their property in a manner that preserves its historic elements is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
While the city’s nonconforming use ordinance does seek to prevent the expansion of
nonconforming structures, it is not intended to deny nonconforming properties the
opportunity to conduct necessary and reasonable improvements. In this case, the
nonconforming elements of the property cannot be eliminated without also damaging the
historic value of the site. For this reason, it is appropriate to grant a variance allowing the
applicant to expand the nonconforming elements of the property in the interest of historic
preservation.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding: The parcel’s size requires multiple pieces of equipment to maintain and the
applicant cannot store all of the required items along with their personal vehicles in the
garage present on the property. Multiple similarly sized properties in the area have larger
garages in order to address this need. The pre-existing structures and historic nature of the
property make it impossible for the applicant to create the necessary detached storage space
without a variance.
The City Code does not prohibit the installation of restrooms in outbuildings and other
detached structures within the city have this amenity. In order to ensure that the bathroom’s
plumbing does not freeze in the winter, a basement is required. The existing configuration of
the summer kitchen means that an addition is the most viable way to add this amenity, and
the pre-existing structures on the property mean that a variance is required to allow for the
addition.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the historic nature of the parcel. The age and
unique architectural elements of the home render the addition of an attached garage
undesirable. Additionally, the property was already over its maximum accessory structure
size limit when the applicant bought the parcel. Options ordinarily available under the Code,
3
such as demolishing existing structures, would require the destruction of valuable historic
elements of the property such as the original summer kitchen.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The southern portion of the Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character
with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels
host businesses such as a garden center or golf courses. Historically, the applicant’s property
was a farm with multiple large outbuildings and the last barn was removed from the site
between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, several nearby parcels also have
large outbuildings. Granting the applicant a variance to construct a detached garage in the
approximate location of the old barn would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Similarly, the proposed addition to the summer kitchen is relatively modest and it would not
be readily visible from the road. Neither would the addition be visible from neighboring
residences. Given the small scale and location of the proposed addition, it would not
negatively impact the surrounding properties.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2021-08, dated February 2, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters,
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen City Council approves a 1,842-square foot accessory structure size
variance, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being
issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a
lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream, requires a compliance inspection. This
property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid compliance inspection on
file in the past three years.
2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review.
4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or as part of a home occupation.
5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.
6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 22nd day of February, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
4
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\findings of fact and decision 10151 great plains blvd var (approval).docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-08
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 1,842-square foot
accessory structure size variance.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as:
That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest
quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds West
along the South line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North 1
degree 01 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence
North 60 degrees 11 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 289.79 fee; thence North 18
degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76 degrees 26
minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 591.83 feet to the centerline of State Highway No.
101; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a distance of 705.73 feet to the point of
beginning.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A septic compliance inspection is required prior to any variance or building permit being
issued for this property. Any property with a septic system located within 1,000 feet of a
lake, pond or flowage or 300 feet of a river or stream, requires a compliance
inspection. This property is within 1,000 feet of a pond and does not have a valid
compliance inspection on file in the past three years.
2
2. A building and plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
4. No portion of the garage/workshop may be used to conduct or be as part of a home
occupation.
5. A second dwelling unit may not be created within the summer kitchen.
6. The summer kitchen may not be rented.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 30, 2020.
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: February 2, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim 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.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-08 10151 great plains blvd var\variance document 21-08.docx
Ed Myslivecek
10151 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
To: Chanhassen Building Commission Board
Ref: Bath addition and garage construction 10151 Great Plains Blvd
The variance to permit construction on the above property is necessary
prefaced that the external out buildings exceed the 1000 square foot
maximum on the property.
Construction of an 80 square foot addition to an existing building (summer
kitchen) would be as such to blend in with similar siding, roofing and
windows. This addition will compliment the structures on the property as a
whole. This addition is for use by the owner's for bodily function
convenlence when using said structure. No intent is considered for the
use of this structure to be one of a separate living structure. A current
description of buildings such as this may be called an accessory building,
used for anything from listening and making music (houses musical
instruments) and church youth group meetings.
The addition would not be visible from any neighbor from all cardinal
directions. This property is one of three that are on the newly renovated
Highway 101 that goes from Pioneer Trail to Hwy 61 Flying Cloud Drive.
The rebuilding of the old barn is for vehicle storage to keep them out of
sight and the weather.
best out of sight enclosed bringing the overall view less congested. ClTy 0F CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC $ 1 2020
CHANHASSEN PI.A]{NIiIG DEPT
The property is almost 5 acres in measured acreage and said additions
are not affecting any property distance restrictions. The additions would
enhance the visual aspect of the current property and buildings. Multiple
structures were once on this property as accessory bin structures a few
years back. The age of the existing structures (mid 19th century) and the
assoftment of out buildings used to house livestock and implements
necessitated the use of buildings to work the land as a local farm. No
longer such a property, the addition of my request will enhance the
grounds to please one with a nostalgic and pleasing view if time was
taken to absorb this parcel. Some vehicles are on the drive and would be
There are no economic considerations with the request to build the
addition.
Ed Myslivecek
10151 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
l.There are currently 172 National Register properties in Carver County, 10151
Great Plains Blvd. Chaska 55318 is not on the list.
2. Request for building permit for addition of room in summer kitchen (80 sq. ft.)
and the construction of a separate structure for motor vehicles and tractor used
for lawn mowing and snow removal. ( approximately 1500 sq. ft.) Both the
building and addition to conform with the character of the current structure built
mid 1gth century.
3. List of neighbors from Carver County Property lnformation that fall within 500'
of the property obtained and letter making aware the intentions of these
additional structures on the property, lncluded elevation and location of the
projects on the property included. 1 8 neighbors may fall within and 11 have
responded to the attached request in a positive response regarding.
4. Discussion with staff at Chanhassen mentioned the possibility of not
permitting the construction as requested due to possible use of the property as a
construction site. This is not the intention of its use. This is a private residence
where storage of vehicles and tractors and equipment for such tractors are for
personal use, as well as collector vehicle. Options are to leave said vehicles on
the driveway in the weather or store in the requested new building.
5. This home is a residential property used for residential purposes. No intent is
for use as a commercial property to store outside construction items (machines,
vehicles, building materials, etc. This would fall in accordance to the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Chanhassen.
6. As you approach this old structure with it's old indigenous stone front and
Chaska brick construction you are taken back a bit, As the other small structures
on the property you see that there is a consistency to preserve this look, The
intent is to not build a steel pole barn of innocuous design, but one which as well
will compliment the existing structures, at a considerable cost more that the
common steel buildings so common throughout the city. There is nothing wrong
with the steel pole barn, but for this property it would not be a pleasant view for
those passing by, nor to fit with a possible consistency hopefully desired by those
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 31 2020
CHANHASSEN PI-AI'INING DEPT
who accept and approve building structures, and keep with the Comprehensive
PIan. Again, the addition and new structure are of l gth century design.
7. This property has historical significance and any additional structures are built
to compliment the dates and architectural design of the time of the original
construction.
8. Should the design not be approved by said committee and review board, a
secondary option could be to add onto the house and connect to the existing
garage. (This would provide with less than the 1000 square foot rule for needing
a variance.) This would provide, as well the space needed for the vehicle and
implements, although not in keeping with the historical aspect of the separate
buildings so common in l9th century farmsteads. A poor choice in trying to keep
the 1 gth century architectural appearance.
9. One option is to add onto the house and connect the existing garage with a
connecting garage. This can be done, and be architecturally pleasing, but more
accurate construction would be to have as the property had when occupied in the
past as a farm with outer buildings.
10. The 80 square foot addition to the existing summer kitchen would be used as
a bathroom for those using the summer kitchen, as well as when outdoor
activities mostly gardening and yard maintenance are in season. The need for
an addition is for the construction of a frost level to bring water into the building. A
heated environment is obviously necessary to prevent the freezing of water in the
winter months. To have a basement under the bath, for water protection and a
root cellar is foremost to us in this case.
11 . The purchase of this property was for the enjoyment of gardening, and
maintaining a classic structure. As many can see there is much to preserve,
maintain and update to keep it in it's (close) original form. This is a pleasing
property that the City of Chanhassen can be proud to have within its boundaries.
Our fortune to have found and taken up the chore of doing this proves our
stewardship is well meaning, family oriented and hopefully a prize for anyone
who follows us in its f uture purchase.
Ed Myslivecek
10151 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
We have intended to install a bath in the summer kitchen for convenience
of those using the building and for those working the gardens and the
yard.
The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan appears to be one which
allows citizens to build within the limitations of safety and cohesion to the
look which the City desires. Building a structure that is regarded within the
Chanhassen Comprehensive is the intent with our request.
I would like to promote the property which has been in this city for almost
'160 years. One of the oldest residences in Carver County. The aspect of
maintaining the 18th Century appearance is important to this owner.
The subject property was a farm started by the Vogel family from Silesia
arriving in the mid 19th Century and obtaining the property via "squatting"
as was popular to newcomers in the midwest when the U.S. Government
was promoting and populating of this area. So with a Military Bound
Lands Patent issued by Abraham Lincoln on July 1 , 1861 it became
property of August Vogel, who built and lived in this stone and Chaska
brick structure. Brothers Franz (Frank) and Joseph as well purchased
adjoining lands.
The land was worked as a farm by the Vogels and after the early 1900's by
the Teich family. Prior to the purchase by the Arndt's in the early 1990's
the structures fell into disrepair and after purchased by Walt and Chris
Ann Arndt malor refurbishing was accomplished. They brought it back to
its original (or close to) stature. Many of the farm outbuildings fell from
disrepair or by them demolished before falling on their own. One
foundation is being preserved by us to the barn that fell in the ought
years, called "the ruins".
With the "blood , sweat and tears" spilled by the Arndt's, as they said, to
make this place exhibited the looks of its origin it is only my contention to
continue this preservation and add from the outside appearance whattTy OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 31 2020
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPI
After speaking with employees of the city I learned that the fear of a
"construction building" come to mind of those who permit a new building/
garage on existing property. This I assure is not the intention and would
be a scar on the site as it currently sits. As mentioned above, preserving
the 19th century look and a clean site to board vehicles and implements
used on the property is foremost in mind.
(Pictures of neighbors. A, A and B attached)
This may be the type of site that the City is hoping will not occur and is
not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
(Picture of current status of parking and vehicle storage C, C an D
attached)
Constructing a barn to house existing vehicles, etc. is to conceal and
clean up the congestion of outdoor stored vehicles and save on the cost
of inside storage to others.
(Picture of original site E, F, G, and H attached)
This is the site prior to the Arndt's arrival and reconditioning of the site,
Barns were throughout, and accessory outbuildings.
The construction of requested building and addition would not bring back
this cacophony of farm structures, and would house the vehicles stored
outside currently.
Note: "H" is approximate location of new garage structure request where
barn from "G" is shown-north side of property. Topographical lines are
noted on site drawing from county source.
Note: A required survey will be provided once approval of construction for
permit is granted.
would be seen by a passer by in the mid 19th century. The outbuilding /
barn/ garage that could possibly have been constructed and used in that
time is our request at this time.
Thus submitted to you is the plan of such a structure that would add to
the conformity I assume the City of Chanhassen comprehensive Plan
would find pleasant in appearance and add to the historic value of this
site. (Sec. 20-58 General conditions for granting # 1 and # 5)
Current structure
(Picture of existing house and summer kitchen I and J attached)
When submitting for a permit I found a variance may be needed which
constitutes extra costs. As well the need for storing vehicles, tractor
equipment and collector vehicles a new barn/garage will be needed.
Because of the square footage limitations on outbuildings to the primary
living structure a variance would be needed for this structure as well. The
decision to request both at the same time makes better use of time.
building costs and resources.
After drawings were made for the addition on the summer kitchen and the
new barn/garage structure a letter of note was mailed to each neighbor
within the 500' required distance for their perusal. I requested their
signature identifying a position of response indicating approval from their
point of view as a neighbor to proceed with the projects.
(Signed letters attached)
Relative to section 20-58 "General conditions for granting....
1) As noted above this request is for an addition and structure that is in
harmony with the existing structure and promoting the historical
content that Chanhassen has to offer the community.
2) Practical needs for vehicle and tractor storage belay reason for
personal storage needs. And to mediate outside vehicle congestion on the
property. containing said vehicles in the current garage is physically
impossible. Renting space for vehicles in outside locations is not as
secure as wished. (Ihis is believed to be consistent with the future
Comprehensive Plans desired by the city.) Alternative plans are to build a
structure connecting the house to the existing garage, albeit, this would
be unusual for a site with the mid 19th century style as is currently being
reflected. Adding onto existing garage would be difficult considering the
grades to the nodh and east.
Solar installation is not within the request and is thus not applicable for
this variance request
3) Applicant is focused on building not with the cheapest product or
practice but just the antithesis to build for longevity and structural
harmony for the site.
4) There is no plight which requires the structures construction, only
compliment to the site as mentioned. Strong consideration by the
occupant to keep the site within the natural aspect of the 19th century
"look" and architecture is paramount. Because of these considerations the
city requires a variance for neighbor feedback. (see returned letters from
neighbors, above)
5) As stated, correctly, this construction will not alter the essential
character, but add to the value within the city. Subjective decisions are the
right and reserye of those making decisions and trust must be implied
with the intentions of the owner to fit into the comprehensive plan.
6) Not applicable to this case
Attachment "K" and "L" are elevations of summer kitchen with addition as
viewed from the north and west respectively. "M" is the elevation
approximately of the new garage structure. (attached)
"N" property location to new Hwy 101 (attached) (Norte: see "H" for more
accurate locations. This illustrates where the new driveway will be going
because fo the new Hwy 101 construction.
"O" and "P" attached, is location of proposed addition and building on
site
Q are floor plans of requested construction.
R shows parcel as it sits in northeast corner of 101 and Creekwood Drive
Letters "S" through "2" are photos of Chanhassen properties that look to
fit the request of outbuilding/garages that are complimentary to the main
home/structures on their property. This is the intent of our request.
A plan "8" if needed will be one to build the necessary garage structure as
an attachment from the house to the existing garage, which would be
more difficult to blend with authentic design, but possible. Thus the hope
for approval for the external structure and bath addition is foremost.
a
F CHANHASSE N
ECEIVED
c3t2020
PI.AiINIIJG DETT
. .1')9.'I
\
4-
,6--*- i,:1, i i&*rr hEsE-
A,laiq
;rlr
7
q
n{i
I
-;{
A
From
Subiect
Date
To
Ed lrysllv€cgl edSlhandyfi]asieri.rc.ccn,
Contractor barn
December 15, 2020 at 6:47 PM
Ed Myslivecek edm,lslrvecek'Jgrnaii.c.rl
@
{
!I 1,,t'
' ,,
t
:i'a'f:
':-a'n'{,
-ftssw2 'b,..'il ,
t
I
*.d'
m.."",,J. " At
L-
t
-aF
EPre,.
t
,-
..1
n
r:eh=-
I
_
El
i
ta
,,+
i
''l'a
F.omr Ed t ysllv€cat edclhandymasteflnc coin !,
Subiect Yard 2
Date: October 27, 2020 al*22 PM
To: Ed Myslivecek edmyslrvecek3rgmail.conl
CITY OF CHAIIHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 3l 2020
CIIAI'Jf IISSEN PI.AI{NING DEPI
t,\c
T
I
t'
I
ri
\l.-l
I
-r.n:
rt
@
L
I I I
From: Ed lrysllvecek edehandymastennc conr a,
Subiect Van outside
Date: fttober 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM
To: Ed M)€livecek edmysliveaek.ilgfi al.ccnl
GD
/I
r;_--l
E.
' -'<.''
-4
-
E- ,-
r-1t-=---
-
hilrr
-!
-r,r
Fom
Subiecl
Date
To
Ed lryollv€cGk ed3handymaslernc com,
Trucks in drive
D€cembe|I4, 2020 at 7:49 PM
Ed M)€lNec€k eomyshveceqa omarl.ccnr
c @
IR7-V
E
E--:r!i f
\D- /-
\
/
r#
-'.-<---G t:
t B *..-..-*-',
Faom
Subiect
Date
To
Ed lrysllvgcgk edohandymasiei.c ccm ,
Cars outside
October 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM
Ed Ml6livec€k eomysl.\ ecet 3grrari .cr"'
P
a
.-a.
''..
..1 ,
'Qf
t
*
G.
i&".
ii.'
{rt
t *,..t
.{
.r-.
,ll
,.
!i\-_
"d'
I
_#
@
w I t{
t.
rl'l r't-4l*f,-:ir!r!\6
\
:.
A
Y6,t _-.
III
\
,
a
j
I ,I*i t]$,,1
\J
ty'
)r
I
ZI
#
\t
d im,.,hu: . tal
t :::-
I
:,4
a :
I
7
il
#
:
?I
-t
4{
I
I
IFrom: Eat tlirallyrcek ed,Ohandymaslerinc.com,
Subi€ctr 10151
Oate: Dember 14, 2020 al 8:21 PM
To: Ed Mysliv€cek edmyslivecek@gmail.com
@
.i
li
I
I .; I
t-.
n tl
)t
nd!
Faom
Subject
Date
To
Ed iryallvecek +d .slhandy,.nasl
Cottage
December 14, 2020 at 8:20 PM
Ed Myslivecek ecmyslivecekag
o J
*
Ig IfilJ
t4
5
F.om: Ed ilyslivecek edohandlmasiennc com ,
Subject G2
Datei No\€mber 15. 2020 at 1:58 PM
Toi Ed Myslivecek edmysli,,ecekeg.najl.com
m
f,
i'!!
,..1
,11,
t{/
$
fi
t
a
!,"tl
{t
*---'--*
a,
a
-
@
t)
\t
a\
$
{.
I
\
5t
s
0
B
,i*l._rrn
."{rt
t.,,%:
,,:
Ii-
L.
4
a
\
B
t.z
From
Subiect
Date
To
rdymaste
:58 PM
?cek@grI
Ed W8livecek ed(
Not/ember '15, 2020
Ed Myslivecek edm
tna
at1
0
hn
il.)
$\
A\
R
\a
\
T
*t,fl -
-E h---*-
E
F-
@
,L/
From
Subiect
Date
To
Ed Wslivecek ede handy,nasternc co:I l,
G4
Nolember 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM
Ed Myslivecek edmyshvecekGrgmart.com
@
I
\^s
+
$
,
.J
\,
t-J
\
*
I I
E
I
-&-a-
Faom
Subject
Date
To
Ed t y3llvac€k edohandymastennc.cont ,
G5
November 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM
Ed Myslivecek edmys,ivecekrslgmail.conl
@
'}{!d
\}
T
c
{
,!nIt
I
)I
4I.,,,tlP.
.., .':
f;l
I
3
,
n
tI<t-.',,
#v.^. -.
#
a
{
-r.)
,,1
+,
|tu
)
--*.
., -at
*tr q*-*
-a-v
a
^L
ttr
,.. rl
*
V/
F.om
Subject
Oate
To
Ed Wdlv€cek ederhandymasiennc.co.r,
November 15. 2020 at 2:00 PM
Ed Myslivecek edmyslrvecek<rcrnail.conl
I
t
i.,t
tr
!.
II
r
t,
J
\
J
it
s
nv
$
\tt
.i
1r
I,7 7
I
,
I ,i
&I^
, ,,t1
J \*
I
I:f r &i ' ti';' ' l'
,t ,l
-
.tt
;
-' #r*
77
{.
@
\^
N
e
N
\\
@
\)
$\i
I
J
s\
I
,)
IFrom: Ed irysllvecol edChandymaslerinc.cc.n,
Sutiect: GB
Date: November 15,2020 at2:01 PM
To: Ed Myslivecek .dmyslrvecek: gr,ar .r!-r:
J,I fIt-.-,
I
V
tt
*
I
t
-i -)F.,1
rl
r'l
tl
I
t F-t--
l
i
1
E
i E
YFrom
Subiect
Date
To
Ed iryslivecek ed@handymaslerinc.com C,
November 15, 2020 at 2:02 PM
Ed Myslivecek ednystivecek'Sgnart.ccm @
"i,
I
*l,
It
t,
lr _ ,,.
a
,
8'r;
' 'r.',
r
lI;r' r
' ^. .q+':l =.',F 't",
i
f2
4
I
-/
I
.t
;
-.
,.. -J
l'rtlal&:+
;
I
Z
From: Ed ilysllvacek ed3handymaster;nc com ,
Subiect: G10
Date: November 15.2020 at2:03 PM
Tor Ed Myslivecek edmyslivecekelgmarl.com @
n,)i.
I.,:'1.
l$g$,:
$4'
i.
si
r:
?_
II)
--*
ffii
t f 5-
-J
I -a a
+NOIV ]tl H]-UoNNOt-U00v y100uH-IVS \t>iol2.; -Ee Er3E:E6< Pdau n;!E EEEE!e'eE! E EEE
E;.EE(T
EE I5;I
EEE:IEeliei,.
EEEE:E
FE tr;FE
alt!tHzl
=la)l
EI
ulJI
-t<l
uiol
t
I
rI
Ez
E}
.).
Ea
(t(\!t
\n
_!
dS"2
/
89
s!
s:I
ts6
e
6
=o-I r99 Nfi 'NfSSVHtWtu0A'18 SNMId IVftfJ r9t0rY\UVJ HCU]d ]NO]S:801 0lsodoud o0-]Ll5 fE
.t-J .s-,t
,
e
a?
E
,0-,1
O
oo
NOtlVAftS lsli^NOI.LIOOV l^lOO8H1V8 !il8TE99 N}I 'ITSSYHNYH'o '18 sNMld .tvjlp r9r0rt,luv_l HSuld :Nol_s:uol (modoud_I:7pi eEEE:Esl E;t E :.iE; EEE EEer221i4=ETEFtEtrlrJfe
Ea EiE:
IE;ii5
Ee s 6aEIIEE6d
EE I;EE
w.FC2
zC
F
=d.
z
(-:
E.
ai!
trl-4 I
I
:--l
:
__l--
t:llo+i,l
zc
tr
I
(
ILt.I
i
T
!
I
\
9
NOtlV^J'tlNOTI|OOV dOHS)t80,r=isi rEEE:ErE 3zzd i9l\ irI r EEE BE snE: EEE E
!; ! EEI
Ei *t;3
qE;;EE
iE;E: E
EE E;ES
r-lOIzl
=lol
FI<i
il
-l<lel(JJI
2.,
(Jl
9
a
22
!*
JE
EE
5
7
I
=CL grcss Nfi 'NSVHNYHS0 18 SNftnd lV3tC r9r0rY\UVI H3U]d ]NOIS:lol o:so&8d o EILLT
o-8!C99 Nt{ 'I€SSVHNVH3o 18 SNrV'ld IVIUC tqlorr!UV! HCU]d :NO].S:rnl olsodoud o t)+Nor-tv l'tl:N0r1t00v doHs)tuo,t\
a
:
2=e IEEE :p=\ i;iz EEE E Esp
E! EEIE*oEPXq
EE;!gE
ErurlJP
E!EE;E
EE;; EE
aoz.
zo
e
z(,p
6
9G
ie
?6
8E
eF
Yti
92E=
v6
2_
i
I
;,Ii
]LII
:
=:
=
==
=
==
=
=
:
=
=7:
=:
=:
=--.J
a-t_
J /-
7
=:
=:
=:
=
:
=:
=
=
=::
=
=
==:
=:
_
==:
=:
=a:
=:
;
=
=:
=
=
:
=:
=
=
=
o
t
10151 Great Plains Blvd
Chaska, M 55318
Square footage of buildings on site:
Main House: 7450 (2 floors)
Summer Kitchen: 456
Shed: 200
Garage: 728
Total sq. ft: 2834
Addition:
bath 76 sq ft
Garage: 1382
crr{ o{EcJlt$$ASSEN
DEC 3 1 2020
fitAllHASSBl PLlNtllts sPf
Ed Myslivecek
10151 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
September 30,2020
Heidi and I are considering an additional garage to build on our property
to house our vehicles. The City of Chanhassen requires that we notify -
neighbors that are within 500 feet of our property to alert and get approval
of a project like this.
A variance is required where we will have to buy signage form the city to
post for the public to see as well.
The garage that we are proposing is approximately 4g x 32 feet in floor
dimension and to be placed north of the existing garage. lt wiil be praced
properly as required from the bluff and property lines. We intend to
construct it of wood framing with a siding to match existing buildings on
the property.
As well we intend to add an 8 x 10' addition to the "summer kitchen,, thatyou see on the driveway.
Both of these will be presented to the city and with said variance posted
on the property.
My intent is to let you, our neighbor, know what we intend to do and as foryour approval to present to the city in recourse.
As you can see in the attached 1): location on the property, 2): addition
location of the garage and addition to the summer kitchen.
Would you please mark the attached note of approval if you find no
negative issue in obstruction or other issue to your propefty from this
construction.
We are grateful for your participation and help to us in getting appro$fiY OFECHANHASSEII
from the city for this project.
DEC 3l 2020
CH,rt'{HASSEt't pWlUrc DET
And with best regards,
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner ad.joining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at '101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55919, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said prolect.
Signatu re date
Sig nature date
Address:
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Mysrivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 10151 Great plains Blvd, ChLska, MN 5531g, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us andfind the city to approve of said project.
sig nature dale -v,; -/-'r1a,)O
Sig nature date
Address:
Tom and Kathy Gertz
10001 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 9466
r(I
/1
L
IlJ
I
'l/
.+t}"
1
,,)\J
IJ 4 /.a\t a
:t,
/it't
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 1015'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55919, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
sig natu re 'our. !129, ii^a *r)
date 1. ..iSignature
Address:
Daniel and Catherine Schaitberger
10241 Mandan Circle
Chaska, MN 55318
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 5531g, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
3 z\)Lv
date iCtS r' jo
Sig nature
Sig natu re
Address:
Chris and Crystal Knutson
575 flakota Lane
Chaska, MN 55318 9455
.4
,,7L,,UL/',.1,
Please return in the stamped envelope.
Signatu re
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and HeidiAbramovich at 1015't Great prains Brvd, chiaska, Mr\i s5318, we find noreason that the encrosed project would have a negative affect to us andfind the city to approve of said project.
date '7''=,'-7crZ6
date IZLSignat
Address:
Jim and Bonnie Swansen
615 Lakota Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
z,/ 5
(=r-er^ L/
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 10151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no
reason that the enclosed prolect would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Signature G t-| [ ,1'/Z) a 66i,s /a'/ -1 o
sig nature date lo- l-zo
Address:
Gary and Debra Anderson
725 Creekwood
Chaska, MN 55318-9261
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at .l 0'151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Signatu re date / ( -7-ac
Signature
Address:
Jeff and Kathy Dypwick
10300 Great Plains Blvd,
Chaska, MN 55318 9467
.*.lI..date 1-{.,-
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and propefi owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 101 51 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 553.18, we find no
reason that the enclosed proiect would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Sig nature date n/_X1
sig nature Paluucia \ N"^0\"".q-adate 4 *Joa 4'c
Address:
Richard and Patricia Halver
'10271 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 10-151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55319, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Sig nature date tD -+-)oso
Sig nature date
Address:
Helen C. Link
ParcellD #25849002A
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 101 5'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Signatu
Signature
Address:
John and Cathy Schwanke
595 Lakota Lane
Chaska, MN 553.1 8
date
date .-Q
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 1015'1 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no
reason that the enclosed project would have a negative affect to us and
find the city to approve of said project.
Sig nature
sig nature date l:L
Address:
Blake and Alyssa Walz
100813 Great Plains BIvd
Chaska, MN 55318
i
Please return in the stamped envelope.
As a neighbor and property owner adjoining to Ed Myslivecek and Heidi
Abramovich at 10151 Great Plains Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318, we find no
reason that the enciosed project wouid have a negative afiect to us and
find the city to approve of said pro
sig nature date aZc
Signatu date
Address:
Heather and Francisco Silva
565 Lakota Lane
Chaska, MN.55318
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Date: January 21, 2021
Re: 10151 Great Plains Boulevard Variance - City Planning Case No.
2021-08
The Water Resources Department has reviewed variance request located at 10151 Great Plains
Boulevard. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed
conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper
planning of any water resources issues or stormwater infrastructure fo r this project, to inform
the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings.
Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends be formally imposed
on the applicant in the final order.
General Comments/Findings
1. The applicant is requesting variances, including exceeding the 1,000-square foot,
detached accessory structure size limit, construction of a detached garage and adding a
bathroom to an existing detached structure on a property located at 10151 Great Plains
Boulevard. The applicant has submitted application material to the City.
2. The primary issue identified by Water Resources staff as part of this variance review is
the presence of a basin, which appears to show wetland characteristics. The applicant is
proposing to place an accessory structure very close to this basin.
3. This basin has some characteristics indicating that it could potentially being man-made.
As such, Water Resources staff reviewed the property for the presence of historic
wetlands. This review is important to complete in order to understand the historical
context of wetlands on a site and how they should be managed.
4. A review for historical wetlands helps identify if an area with wetland characteristics has
historically been a wetland area and thus should be governed by the Wetland
Conservation Act or if it should be considered incidental, that is, it was a created
wetland in an upland area. Three factors are typically used to determine if a wetland is
incidental: aerial imagery, soil data, and antecedent precipitation.
5. City staff has reviewed these three factors. Aerial photos were reviewed from years
1937, 1951, 1957, 1963, 1969, 1979, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010,
2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2020. These photos show that a structure, similar to
the one being proposed by the applicant, was present in the area in question going all
the way back to 1937. This structure was removed sometime between 2005 and 2008.
After 2008, a circular basin can been seen which appears to hold water. It appears this
basin likely exists due to the demolition of the previous structure. As a result, given the
factors listed above, it is unlikely that this area was historically a wetland. T he City’s full
aerial photo review and antecedent precipitation analysis are available upon request.
6. The National Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey shows that the area in
question consists of Lester-Kilkenny complex soils, with have a 0% hydric rating. This
means this area does not contain hydric soils, and thus is further evidence that this
wetland area was created from an upland area.
7. As for other water resources issues: there are no other wetlands or streams on this
property. In addition, this project does not involves any City owned stormwater
infrastructure. As such, there are no concerns or conditions to place on the project
based on these conditions.
8. Based on City staff’s review of aerial imagery, soil data, and antecedent precipitation, it
is the opinion of the Water Resources Department that this variance request can be
granted in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as
it pertains to Water Resources requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully
addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, if applicable, and can be
approved.
Proposed Conditions
1. There are no proposed conditions associated with a review by the Water Resources
department. Given the proximity to steep slopes and bluff areas which ultimately lead
to Bluff Creek, extra care and review will be undertaken during the building permit
process to ensure that proper erosion and sediment control measures are undertaken
during construction.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss
cor.JNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
Jantary 21,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public
Hearing to consider a request for variances, including exceeding the 1,O00-square foot,
detached accessarT structure size limit, to construct a detached garage and adding a
bathroom to an existing detached structure on a property located at 10151 Great Plains
Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural Estate (A2), Planning Case No. 2021-08 to the persons named
on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing
as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesot4 and by other
appropriate records.
Kim T eu n, Deputy Cl
(Seal)
JEAI{ M SIECKLTT{G i
Subscribed and
tti*Q [6laa, o
S m to before me
,2021.
Notary Public
nGyPttfoemloom
r|rtrSIlA,rco.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
Subject
Parcel
DllcLlm.r
This map is neilher a legally reco.ded map nor a suNey and as not inlended to be used
a3 one. Th6 map is a @tnprlaton ot recods, informalion and data located in vatio!3 city,
county. staie and federal offces and other sources r€gardin! the a.ea 3ho m, and is to
be used for lebrence purp€es only. The CiV doe3 not t€rrant that the Geoglaphic
ln ormaton System (GlS) Oata used to prepaE this map are enor free. and the City does
nol represont tl:tt tlE Gls Data can be used to. navEatonal, tracking oa any o$er
purpoce equinng exacting fireasurement of distance or diectoo or p.ecision in the
dedciion of geogaphic bafules. The preceding disdaimet i9 provialed puBuant to
Minnesota Statl,Ites y66.03, Subd. 21 (20m), and the user of this map acknowtedoes
tEt lhe City rhall not be liable for any damag€., and e)9ressly waives all claims, and
agEes to debnd, indemnify, and hold hatmless the Ci9 fro.n any ard all claim3 b.ooght
by User. it5 ernployees or aleots, or lhird panjes wttici alise out of lhe usefs access or
use of data plovided.
Dbchtnar
Thb mep is neither a legally Ecorded map nor e sudey and is nol inlended to be lrsed
as one. Thi6 map is a comF,ilalion ot reco.ds. inlo.matoo and data located in vadqjs oty,
county, state and federal ofice3 and other sources reoarding the area 3hoen, aM is lo
be used for reblence purposes onv. The Cily does rlot warant that the Geo06phic
lnformaton SFlem (GlS) Oata used to pEpare this map ale eror tree, aM the City does
nol represent thal the GIS Oata can be used lor navi€atonal, tracling oa any olher
purposo requidno o€ctno mea3uemenl of distance or direclion or precision in the
depitlion of g€o€raphic ,eatrEs. The preceding dirdainler is provirod pu6uant to
Minn6ota StraMes Y66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of thi3 map acknowledges
fBt f|e City shall not be liaue ior any damages. and expressly waives all daims, and
a€re€a to debnd, indemnify. and hold harml€ss the Cily frorn any and all daims brought
by U3er, its employees or agents, o. third pani€J wttach atu6 out of the uscfs access or
u9e of data povided
tTAX_NAMEI
<TAX_ADD_LI l
(TAX ADD L2)
sNext RccordrrTAX_NAMET
<TAX_ADD_LI r
rTAX_ADD_L2r
I
L_
s
r,
F
l!0
t 4
i
Subiect
Parcel tT
I
I
\:,
l,o
{)EOEP ;<o- 0,'C^EEgE Ao cr, = ga =:6I 9-:i :i;E -.5 sEln o x (,€sEaBeEE:EHES EE EEEEiE;IgE;g:g_sEgq65 9cE Y.9q< = (, > o, ^
; 9E=;38 E FogXE=ah'E
SEgTfiEEFE
E $€'a. " ".
i e 3l Bx-g =5 EI=EE€E
iiaiBlsiiiE
6EEEc.r3FpEOc!5H3F- .9(uENgo-,Noj-.9NC
oo
_o-o)-t!bj6(5=
E-
Of.fs
ol(l)tolEIolol()lclelol6tflE
E
c(,
(E
coi:
;a;
ol= o<Fe9or 5.= N O>E 3* E9 -o+iDiio(l)cE CBE :' t, U)f CE_EM$E,i8tsfiB I9,,Ho !u i'= o 6ij(E-! O)-iExH€85xC'.iOE,^
iSeEbEes€59E9eE
EflEEE';o ! xro
5:;HP
ID
o
=!t!
oogoopE(!o>2lgoBid)oaE
OOd"q!Cl(EO
EEoE
'i, 3
5-ef<
iEiEiiiislisiiii
iiiiiiilliiliEia
3
E
I ii)
ar ,=
=d,fi-(,!! ,c
=r
.5 ..o9CEoo
o>OE:oo(J
U;ot,co)CDog)oEO(D .nEgEE:gLo.Ea6oo0)i- -c -.'Evr}Qol;RAg;(,
Looo o-
E;'Eo o,b'6 (56
clt corXq
9E;
tl., - Eo=;E6b
zsfr
)cc
6E*a u; .=
3Y=
H [3
o
i:
oo
a,
oo
Eo
o(,oJ
::i!oo(l.oo
t!o
c!.L
>EEO!,Eo- i!
E!
E.troo=EDOc,.=a2E.e tro F llJ- E IIJ.e 6=
=oo= ED7a.= 6E
=go r! i.Erqi B,ooEEos(.)
CDc
c,o
=
P.E 9
G I'Fo = llJ- E IIJo EE
= o..€olzdP5
o cF
* EU'iE5: E'oo
GE
G
o
'Ee
.e3
-BEorcig
ts3
F- .g
oE
c.r go--Nor-.EalE>9
E3
A.
o, '=
TLEj-so=E-
c)<
.:t g
olCI
rDtolcl
ololol
clot
rDl
(t)l
i
Ei
o)
o
c
{nrI6
I
o= o<F!
Pg E-
E S* E9 -.o+oooll)qr 3 or Er.=6.=.=E - o(rl
E f,EEa8Efi
E I9,,ko !o i
= o 66Oar Or5i*tr:EE Xo--!!i,i
BttEg.E99E
EflEEE
E8 h 6E83i e&
ooo
E
UJ
o
-goc!E
o
p*(!o
e;
6PElooEc-(gg
E.e
-A6.lgE
oE
b3
5.e
eEi fr
-E !? a
0619 1-o-c- ti ogEE *- E
:EE .I$ Et-o o: o€ E q,r 8;9 E:E! *&5€ E
HEEggEE;
aiseHgEfl
EgBF=+EE-is;!HEEF so o-o-o-c d-o =F O (! OF N (t {
= t^t oJitQ L rl q X-
e
=E
El=EE€E
EgiEgIEi;EEg
gE*lcBsgEiEE
9Bt|iiIEEiBE
o
oo
d,'d
-o
rl)
B
oo
=o-gl_c
EBooo!-o lD,t
EEo6ac
8E
-t->:
!, r:ccoo,
uft
cc'=(EE-c_u
6q-Y>o<8l
,/i(!
E'c
C'
CD([
CDc
(,
o)
Ec
o)
3
c
.o
ooE
oE
o
o
Ego
o
E
o)o
()o
E
o
o-lc
.s,a
=uJz
5
E
3I
E
E
!
E
E
E
8
c
_!9
iit
F
c6
a,
t!o
.9
o(,
oJ
G6otto
o-
G(,
>Et.9
o-Geto-J
26
Gt .:
+'E
r!E
=;
c6 ..o9caoo
o=q,Efoo()
ooor'{ooOOooOOOOO6 - c\.l.{ oO (O O 6l Cr t'r N .{ O O O)-oocrloooool 000!A.roc.r66.r,60mO(nOOOfnOOrn Fr ..r lrl o o rn or !n o (o \o \o !a oN rn.n.! N (\ N <l N <l o o an o.,lO r{ ..r O F{ d O cO O 6 16.n O.n.iZ r,) rn !n ral u) Ltl L^ rn .n ral r/) rn !n !n rnE a! a! ^r N N a! N a{ N N r\l a\r a\l a\l N
F.(o(o (., ch dt F@ m or;rIl rO (!' (.c' (ON rn^<tN+<r <r sr <l .J.^<.xi .{(oq9 q9 ? 9ijf ?ca 6 6 ao co 6 ao (n m @ rr 6 @ @ @- - -i .i .i .r - u) La Fi.l r{ .i !.. dm m an ar.| rn an m !n l,l (n :{ m (n (n mrn rn u) rr) !n (^ I^ -, ra = rn Ln.n ut!n r^ rn rn !/l !,1 tn
= =
ln .li L/) r^ !^ rrl.rzzzzzzzz2ztrlzzzz
3;;;';';-aaEEa>dddd
= \2 t !z :Z V Y }z O O !a,'!z !z sz :zt1 tt\ t^ th !z Y (^ = t\ t^ u\ v1
AIIIIII-IIIO--II; (J o U (J (J (J (J IA o (J T! (J U (J (J
ooo6000
co6dldlao@dt_? eth vl qt r^ tt\ tt1 tt1 =^ d. o^zzzzzzz*e E do oE
dd.dd-d3Ez=PP9ii k k k k k E k 3=ie::9 p
."E E H.'H H U Y H 5 X; f > EE::H:::3f=x=HH=r-rij i- U i iri i- 6 o) + J H o u a oX 6 6 6 r{ N a{ rrl m N O O O rn O O< 6 0 c, o o o o N co <l @ N N rn l'\
F: F{ Fr F{ F{ r'l .{ Fl F.r .i l'rl(O\OF (pOr
6000004d, al! dl d! ao d, altul .Jl \rl .h tt\ t l tl)zzzzzzzo-o-o-do-o-o-FFFFFFFr! r! uJ r! ur ru [!d,td,d,G,d,c,Q(,(,(,(,(,(,(,9.<.rmr{r{..roaOF.6!r)r/)F-OPOOOHNa{mEOOOOOOO(^ .r -r .{ Ft F{ r.l f{
;
Ez.
3o6=a>
-d,E:z=<ffo !2 6 -zt e- 3 a 6zi 6q z 9,,2H= a zd. H EEIE
.=i=Eg=t=E5:=$EEE;Y=i?'adi;:=2aaq
>,= E _i I E E E Z4;1;!aE
-{E3J6EgEE5=t=338
oao55 26ooE=E3E:<B=3<OuJr!r!Et rrJ uJ r! (9
i(Ju(JBooo1/r0<fNl'\a{Orrl F. (O F .r