CC Staff Report 06-28-21CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Monday, June 28, 2021
Subject Approve a Request for a TwoFoot Height Variance for an Accessory Structure on Property
Located at 6300 Hummingbird Road
Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: I.2.
Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 202110
PROPOSED MOTION
The Chanhassen City Council approves a twofoot accessory structure height variance, subject to the conditions of
approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
1. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed building.
2. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.
Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a twofoot height variance to allow them to keep the accessory structure as constructed.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 2021. The Planning Commission felt that the building
height fit in with the character of the neighborhood, was not opposed by any neighbors, would eventually become
moot when the applicant demolishes the existing house and constructs a new house on the property, tied in to the
detached garage, and that potential site grading alterations, which could have brought the property into compliance
with Code, would have been a suboptimal solution. The Planning Commission voted four for and two against a
motion to approve the height variance. Since the Board of Appeals and Adjustment decision must be by an affirmative
vote of threefourths of the members present, the Board's motion acts as a recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Mark Sass spoke before the Commission. He said that the neighborhood was supportive of the request.
The Planning Commission draft minutes are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends approval of the variance request.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 28, 2021SubjectApprove a Request for a TwoFoot Height Variance for an Accessory Structure on PropertyLocated at 6300 Hummingbird RoadSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: I.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 202110PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves a twofoot accessory structure height variance, subject to the conditions ofapproval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.1. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed building.2. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting a twofoot height variance to allow them to keep the accessory structure as constructed.BACKGROUNDThe Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 2021. The Planning Commission felt that the buildingheight fit in with the character of the neighborhood, was not opposed by any neighbors, would eventually becomemoot when the applicant demolishes the existing house and constructs a new house on the property, tied in to thedetached garage, and that potential site grading alterations, which could have brought the property into compliancewith Code, would have been a suboptimal solution. The Planning Commission voted four for and two against amotion to approve the height variance. Since the Board of Appeals and Adjustment decision must be by an affirmativevote of threefourths of the members present, the Board's motion acts as a recommendation to City Council.Mr. Mark Sass spoke before the Commission. He said that the neighborhood was supportive of the request.The Planning Commission draft minutes are attached.RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends approval of the variance request.
ATTACHMENTS:
Findings of Fact and Decision CC (Approval)
Variance Document
Draft Minutes from the June 15, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report
Finding of Fact and Decision PC Approval Signed
Findings of Fact and Decision PC Denial
Development Review Application
Narrative
Plan Sheets
Affidavit of Mailing
\\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\2021 planning cases\21-10 6300 hummingbird road var\findings of fact and decision - approval cc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Armenak Petrosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure on
property at 6300 Hummingbird Road, zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF – Planning
Case #2021-10.
On June 28, 2021, the City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the
application of Armenak Petrosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure. The
City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed variance. City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
use.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 5, Block 1, Murray Hill Replat of 17 and 18.
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to increase the permitted height of an accessory
structure by two feet. While accessory structures are limited in height, the applicant has
constructed the accessory structure to fit in with a future reconstruction of the home on
the property. By adding a second story, the applicant has prepared this structure for the
future home.
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.
\\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\2021 planning cases\21-10 6300 hummingbird road var\findings of fact and decision - approval cc.doc
Finding: The property owner could construct an accessory structure that complies with
ordinance, but it would not lend itself to a future connection to a reconstructed home on
the property and would require significant modification to be connected to a future two-
story home.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance would allow the applicant to keep the constructed accessory
building.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The reconstruction of the home is a timing issue for the applicant since the
home is currently occupied by his father. Rather than having him move while a new
home is constructed.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The variance will permit the applicant to keep the accessory structure, which is
permitted on properties zoned RSF.
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 condition does not apply.
5. The planning report #2021-10, dated June 15, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen City Council approves the two-foot accessory structure height variance
subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory
structure.
b. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of June, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-10
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen City Council approves a two-foot accessory structure height variance.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Murray Hill Replat of 17 and 18, Carver
County, MN.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory
structure.
b. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.
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.
2
Dated: June 28, 2021
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, 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 Laurie Hokkanen, 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\21-10 6300 hummingbird road var\variance document 2021-10.doc
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 15, 2021
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug
Reeder, and Kelsey Alto
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate
Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A TWO-FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 HUMMINGBIRD
ROAD
Senior Planner Generous presented the staff report on this item. He noted the applicant is
Armenak Petrosian and said this is the public hearing and if the item is appealed or does not meet
the 75% standard it goes forward to the City Council and is scheduled for June 28, 2021. The
specific request is a 2-foot height variance for an accessory structure. City Code permits a 20-
foot accessory structure height and this garage/accessory building is 24 feet with a 22-foot height
based on City dynamics. 6300 Hummingbird Road is zoned single-family residential and is a
.82-acre lot; setbacks are 30-foot front and rear with 10 feet on the side. In 2019 the applicant
applied to build a 768-square foot one story (approximately 15-foot tall) accessory structure to
replace an existing structure on site. After beginning construction, the applicant modified his
plans to a two-story design and completed the building. When the City’s Building Official went
out, they discovered that the building was too tall and the applicant was advised to come in and
go through the variance process. The applicant would like to keep this building as it is
constructed. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the variance request and
require the applicant to revise the plan and reconstruct the structure to meet ordinance
requirements. However, if the Planning Commission would like to grant the variance, an
alternate motion is also provided.
Commissioner Reeder asked if this garage was built as part of an existing house, would it be too
tall?
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
2
Mr. Generous replied no, it would not. If it was part of the principal structure, then the height
goes up to 35 feet. He noted he has had several phone calls regarding this item and were all in
support of approving the variance request.
Armenak Petrosian has lived in Chanhassen for 40 years and owns 6300 Hummingbird Road,
which is where his in-laws live. He said it is just as Mr. Generous stated and he never imagined
going over and beyond what is required within the City. He made a mistake and is here to answer
any questions.
Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian did the construction himself or had a contractor
working with him.
Mr. Petrosian replied he constructed the first floor himself; he poured the concrete himself, and
the second floor he did not as he was sick and hired someone to do it for him. It is a typical 10-
foot garage with an 8-foot floor and 5:12 pitch which corresponds to the roofline and they were
trying to match and blend.
Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian is allowed to keep the structure, can he explain
future construction plans of tying it into the house.
Mr. Petrosian replied the reason he changed the original plans is because he and his wife spoke
and eventually, they may want to construct a property there. Whatever they build now, whatever
the original roofline was will not fit into the future property because there is not going to be a
second floor.
Commissioner Reeder asked the timeframe for building on the property.
Mr. Petrosian does not know as his father-in-law is 88 years old and he wishes him a long life.
Commissioner Reeder would be willing to allow the variance if the Applicant will actually do
what he says he would do and perhaps even delay the requirement that he remove it by a couple
of years to allow the time to do that and take out a building permit. However, if it is totally
indefinite, then he has a problem.
Mr. Petrosian said, unfortunately, it depends on when his in-laws both pass away. At that time,
the front will be demolished and they will rebuild.
Commissioner von Oven asked if the Planning Commission denied the variance, what of the
available options has he explored and what will he do?
Mr. Petrosian said he does not have many options. He tried to build something that will suit his
family and there was no intent to harm anyone, the neighbors, or not comply with the City
requirements. The alternative would be to demolish the house and he clarified the second floor in
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
3
order to comply with the requirements. In order to comply he would need to make the roof
almost flat.
Commissioner von Oven asked if Mr. Petrosian referred to the outbuilding as the house because
his in-laws are living in the outbuilding?
Mr. Petrosian replied no, his in-laws are living in the house.
Commissioner Noyes asked if the original plan had 8-foot walls and the applicant changed them
to 10-foot walls.
Mr. Petrosian said no, they were 10 feet on the bottom.
Commissioner Noyes said Mr. Petrosian changed the pitch of the roof.
Mr. Petrosian noted he added the second floor and custom trusses but it was just a very high-
pitched roof.
Commissioner Noyes asked when he added the roof, he did not make the outside walls taller?
Mr. Petrosian said no.
Commissioner Noyes clarified Mr. Petrosian put in a different truss. Instead of having a triangle
truss there is more of a 5-sided truss that allows a room above.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Mark Sass, a former contractor, noted Mr. Petrosian is a great neighbor and built it right. All of
the neighbors around, as far as he knows, have no complaint whatsoever and Mr. Petrosian did a
lot of work with the neighbor to the north to grade and get things so that it feels good. His
question is, what is the solution? Butcher the building – it is a really nice, solid structure –
whether he built a new house in the back and all these future dreams, who knows where they
are? He knows this is a precedent but noted they are all okay with it. If there is anything Mr. Sass
can do, he is happy to help, he has worked with the City for 40 years and knows all the
inspections, etc.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Reeder asked staff if they looked at what the options would be if the application is
denied.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
4
Mr. Generous replied as Mr. Petrosian pointed out, he could lower the roof or raise the grade
around it so it is not as high. He noted mostly it is in the building construction and they would
have to change the height of the roof peak.
Commissioner Reeder asked if the idea of making the ground level higher is feasible or not.
Mr. Generous went out to the property and on the west side of the structure it is actually much
higher. Mr. Petrosian could alter the grade and it would fit in with his future house plan if he
were to do that.
Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Petrosian if he could do that.
Mr. Petrosian replied he is not an engineer and cannot speak to the construction business. To his
understanding, raising the ground around the garage is not really going to give him anything as
then he has to raise the floor of the garage, as well. Otherwise, he will be unable to get into the
garage.
Associate Planner Young-Walters said technically the way the ordinance reads, grade is
measured from highest adjoining grade to mid-point of the highest of the highest gable.
Hypothetically that means if on several sides of the structure the grade was two feet higher than
it was on, say, the front of the structure where the entrance was, they would measure from the
highest grade not the lowest grade. The only exemption to that is if there is more than a 10-foot
change in elevation in which case they use lowest grade plus ten. It is arguably using the letter of
the Code to defeat the spirit, but in theory it would meet Code. Engineering would have to decide
if the drainage would work.
Commissioner Alto clarified that would not affect the aesthetics of the building at all so why
would they make them add more dirt to one side. She would rather just approve the variance.
Mr. Petrosian said actually he already has two feet on one side of the garage because his
neighbor has always had a problem with drainage. Mr. Petrosian added two feet between them so
the water comes to him and he has drainage all the way to the street. He can add more to it if that
will satisfy the requirements.
Mr. Young-Walters noted it is theoretically possible.
Commissioner Noyes noted that precedence is the whole issue here, and Mr. Petrosian does not
have good alternatives. In plenty of other municipalities it has migrated towards - rather than
asking permission up front - people asking for forgiveness after the fact. He thinks they are
trying to avoid that in Chanhassen. Now if someone reads the minutes or sees the video of this,
they may think they know how to get around this for the next time and that person will say the
City approved it before.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
5
The Planning Commission discussed adjusting the grade of the property and the City Code.
Mr. Generous clarified the Planning Commission could tell Mr. Petrosian to go back and make
changes to the site to bring it into compliance then a variance is not necessary. That way it
avoids all the issues of precedent because they are bringing it into compliance with ordinance.
Vice Chair von Oven is a proponent of not setting these types of precedents. He noted the
mistake was made during the pandemic, not one of the neighbors has complained given the
chance – Mr. von Oven clarified if something else were to come before this Commission similar
to this, all it would take for him is one neighbor to complain. He noted the combination of
neighbors speaking on Mr. Petrosian’s behalf and seeing pictures, it is definitely not out of place,
although it is out of place in the Code and staff did exactly the right thing recommending denial.
He is trying to talk himself into the fact that this will not necessarily be a precedent and seeing if
they can approve.
Commissioner Skistad seconded Vice Chair von Oven as those are fair points. After the year that
everyone has gone through, making exceptions like this and then determining future cases is
case-by-case and facts are different every time.
Vice Chair von Oven added Mr. Petrosian’s first statement that in Chanhassen they have a
shortage of senior living and this house is being occupied by seniors who have a fantastic place
to live on behalf of their son-in-law and daughter. Although they cannot ride on that alone, the
combination of all these factors gives him something to say to the next applicant who would
truly come in and say they found a way around the system.
Commissioner Reeder asked if they should table this and allow the applicant to look at the option
of moving the dirt around to see if it is feasible rather than denying it.
Commissioner Noyes thought about that same option and the other thing the Commission must
keep in mind is that if they deny, Mr. Petrosian has the chance to go before the Council and
make the same case and they may have a decision to grant the variance. The applicant is not dead
in the water if they table it or vote to deny the variance as written. He still looks at moving dirt
around as a band-aid.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner von Oven seconded, that the Chanhassen Board
of Appeals and Adjustments approve the requested two-foot height variance for an
accessory structure subject to the following conditions: 1. the Applicant shall provide
revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory structure and 2. the
Applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection. The motion carried with a vote of 4
to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Reeder, Noyes).
Mr. Generous clarified the motion passes but the 75% rule does not, so this acts as a
recommendation to City Council. On June 28, 2021 it will go before the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
6
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FENCE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
931 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE
Senior Planner Generous noted this property is a corner lot and the applicant, Alec McKinley, is
requesting a variance to put up a privacy fence in what the City Code defines as his front yard.
On corner lots the front yard is designated by where the garage is located for access purposes.
The property is part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD and is a typical lot of .34 acres with 30-foot
front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks. Staff suggested line of sight triangles so those
on the sidewalk can be clearly seen. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request for
the six-foot fence and what is designated as the front property subject to the conditions in the
staff report which are the site triangles being preserved.
Alec and Amy McKinley live at 931 Lake Susan Hills Drive, and said the privacy fence purpose
is two-fold for security for their children and for privacy. He noted there is no intention of
creating a security threat by rolling their cars out the driveway and injuring anyone, so they
understand the site lines and adamantly support that.
Commissioner Noyes asked the McKinley’s if the staff suggestions are acceptable to them.
Mr. McKinley noted they did not have intention of running the fence right down the property
line to the sidewalk but pushing it back a bit. He said 30 feet is pretty big for a site view next to
his driveway and he understands that goes with City Code, but if that is what it will take for them
to get their fence, they would go for it.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded, that the Chanhassen Board
of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to construct a six-foot fence along West
Lake Drive, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached findings of facts
and decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT
TO REMOVE THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVING
RANGE NETS
Associate Planner Young-Walters stated this is a continuation of Planning Case 2021-02, the
resumption of the golf zone use at 825 Flying Cloud Drive. The applicants, Brian and Keri
Colvin, are requesting that Condition 9 from the Interim Use Permit (IUP) be removed, which is
the condition requiring the installation of driving range nets, particularly the nets across the back
of the golf zone driving range. Mr. Young-Walters refreshed the Commissioners on the location,
noting it is zoned A2 – Agricultural Estate and is guided in the 2040 land use plan for office and
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
7
agricultural use. The site is just under 100 acres in size and is currently operating as a golf
driving range under IUP 2021-02. Mr. Young-Walters gave a short background on the driving
range including amendments, noting it closed down in 2018 and per City Code after 6 months of
inactivity the original IUP permit expired. In January 2021, the City Council approved the
resumption of use under a new IUP and had a condition that nets be installed by June 14, 2021.
This is what the applicant is asking relief from and has stated they want to be allowed to operate
the driving range without installing the rear nets as the wetlands are approximately 400 yards
away and golfers cannot hit balls further than 300 yards. They also machine and hand-pick balls
daily and the previous driving range had not utilized rear nets for 10 years of its operation, a
2020 site visit did not find stray balls, and the applicant has stated if they observe balls in the
wetlands, they will voluntarily install the nets. He believes the applicant is still intending to have
the side nets present. Staff’s position is that wetland boundaries are not always obvious. The
most recent wetland delineation in 1998 expired (wetland delineations are good for three years),
showed that the wetland boundary at the time was 275 yards rather than 400 yards from the
concrete bunkers where the driving occurs. In the staff report, the Water Resources Coordinator
noted that there is significant concern with equipment being operated regularly near and within
the wetland and within the wetland buffer. One of the big reasons staff did not require the
applicant to get a new delineation when this IUP came through to be resumed is because staff
had been under the understanding that the nets would be installed at 230 yards which provides 45
yards of cushion between the last known edge of the wetland and where they would reasonably
expect balls to travel. Without the nets, staff is very concerned about ball-picking equipment
being used within wetland buffer areas and near the wetland. Staff is recommending denial and
that the condition of nets being installed be retained.
The applicant is a little confused. He understood that his nets were required to be put in the back;
he did not realize that they were talking about side nets and all. From their hitting area, using
multiple GPS units off of mats in the hitting stalls within the facility, it is 375 yards right to the
edge of the weed line. The wetlands start roughly about 400 feet in. They have two ball picking
machines that drive in the center of the driving range to pick the balls. On the outside where the
poles would be at the 230-yard mark, they have 5-6 employees every day that do a clean pick by
hand; every ball is picked off that property before they go home at night. Mr. Colvin clarified the
machine is not driving anywhere near the wetlands. He did not know they were also talking
about putting nets up on the sides and stated on the west side; he has not measured the wetlands
as they never planned on putting nets on that side because the land goes so far over before hitting
the woods – Tiger Woods could not even hit a ball into the wetlands over on that side. He
showed an overhead map and explained the distances and wetlands.
Commissioner Skistad asked where they hit the balls in looking at the map.
Mr. Colvin replied they hit from the building and within the blue boundary marked on screen.
Commissioner Alto asked if Mr. Colvin ever intended to put up any nets, whether on the back or
the side.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
8
Mr. Colvin said after owning, maintaining, and watching for 60 days, he realized that nobody
can hit into these wetlands. The previous owner did not have nets, as they had deteriorated, for
the last 10 years.
Commissioner Alto said wouldn’t the nets also prevent wildlife and birds from crossing the path
of the balls if the nets were there.
Mr. Colvin replied yes.
Commissioner Noyes stated they probably could have issues both ways that the nets would cause
issues with the birds.
Associate Planner Young-Walters clarified that Condition 9 requires that the nets be installed in
compliance with DNR guidelines in 1998. The DNR specified a minimum of a 4.5-foot clearance
for the nets as well as maximum heights so that they would not interfere with migrating birds or
any animals passing through.
Mr. Colvin said having the nets start 4.5-5 feet above the ground and go up actually defeats the
whole purpose of having nets. Most balls, about 80-90% that are coming out at 230 yards are
already dropping and rolling underneath that 4.5-foot net.
Commissioner Reeder asked why Mr. Colvin does not want to put the net up.
Mr. Colvin replied he does not feel there is any need for it as none of the balls are entering the
wetlands from the hitting area and it is an expense that as a new business owner he does not want
to cover if there is no need for it. As far as everything else, he was given a maintenance list by
the City and took care of that, they did the landscaping, put in a rain garden and he felt that was
all necessary and was taken care of within 30 days. Mr. Colvin feels like the nets are unnecessary
and very costly.
Vice Chair von Oven asked how costly the nets are.
Mr. Colvin was under the assumption they were putting the nets just in the back. He had one bid
just for the back and that was $32,000. He had two other bids for the back and one came in at
$28,000 and another at $30,000; out of curiosity he asked for a bid on what it would cost for the
nets to go around the whole perimeter and one came in at $89,000 and the other came in at
$97,000.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
9
Commissioner Skistad said 4.5 feet off the ground does not make sense to her either. It seems
that the regulation does not make logical sense and perhaps they should review it.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the 4.5 feet is a regulation or if that is just how they install the
nets.
Commissioner Skistad noted it is the DNR because they want to let animals through. She said if
they let animals through, they also let golf balls through.
Mr. Young-Walters said from going through the meeting minutes in the 1990’s, the original net
discussion was a balancing act. There was concern about balls traveling into the wetlands, and
they have a wetland alteration permit because part of the driving range that is no longer in use
went into the wetland at 255 yards. He noted a portion of about 18,000 square feet on screen that
was filled in order to allow for the driving range. Staff had been very concerned about long shots
going deep into that buffer area and into the wetlands and the compromise was with the nets
there a person who hits a high and far ball would be caught by the nets. He noted some will roll
further but the goal is to keep them from hitting the wetland. In regards to the location of the
wetland, Mr. Young-Walters understands what the applicant is saying, however, one cannot
identify a wetland just based on surface vegetation. A certified delineator must come out, take
soil samples, look at type of soils, hydrology, etc., to know where that boundary is. The last
delineation done at this site showed it at 275 feet out from the bunker. He noted wetlands move
and without a new delineation there is no way to know if it has moved closer, further back, or
zig-zagged around.
Mr. Colvin commented regarding a high shot near the 255, to reach that would actually be a 255-
yard carry. For those who do not golf, the average PGA Tour player has a 255–275-yard carry,
which is impossible for anybody to come to his facility make that let alone total that out. He took
all those facts from TrackMan Technology, a database that takes information in from every Tour
player.
Keri Colvin stated the last City inspection was in 2014 and the nets were not up then. The
previous owner closed it in 2018 and Mr. Young-Walters did a complete walkthrough of the
property prior to the IUP. Looking back at the previous City Council and Planning Commission
minutes, they could not find a single golf ball out in the wetlands or in the woods. The facility
had not had nets up for over 10 years at that point.
Mr. Young-Walters clarified that inspection was done by himself, a Water Resource
Coordinator, and the City Arborist. They did not do an intensive search, they walked out maybe
20-30 yards beyond the end of the poles which is the 230-yard point. In looking at the aerials in
2019, waters were up to the 230-yard pole so anything that would have been there from 2018,
beyond that point would not have been there when they conducted that walk through.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
10
Commissioner Reeder clarified this requirement for the fence was put in the last time they
approved it.
Mr. Young-Walters replied this was one of the conditions on the 1998 IUP and was one of the
conditions they informed the applicant they would be keeping for the reissued permit and was
upheld at City Council when they reissued the permit.
Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant knew that.
Mr. Young-Walters said the applicant was given the initial IUP and was told they would be
maintaining all conditions and was advised to familiarize himself with it. There was extensive
discussion on this condition when he asked for an extension on implementing it before the City
Council meeting where this was approved.
Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Colvin if he did not understand that he had to do this or if he
did not cost it out.
Mr. Colvin understood, he knew the list of things that he had to do. Everything else from the
City that was requested he completely agrees with, however, once they had the facility open for
60 days, he realized that it just does not make sense to put these nets up because nobody can hit
balls anywhere into these wetlands. As a new business owner this is a very costly addition and if
it does not have to be put in, he simply does not want to. It is a lot of money to put these nets in
to stop pretty much zero balls that would go into the wetlands. Also, to start them 4.5 feet seems
like he is really wasting everyone’s time and money.
Commissioner Reeder noted it was not in Mr. Colvin’s original business plan to put the nets up.
Mr. Colvin replied when he purchased the facility, he never planned on putting nets up as there
had not been nets up there in the last 10 years.
Commissioner Reeder stated it said in the permit Mr. Colvin received that he had to.
Mr. Colvin understands that part. After owning the facility for 60 days he decided to go back to
the Planning Commission and City Council and ask them to amend the request of the netting
because no one can reach the wetlands.
Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the DNR is driving the requirement for the
netting in the original permit. If the DNR was sitting here right now, would they say they are not
really concerned about this.
Mr. Young-Walters replied unfortunately the DNR did not respond to either of the
interjurisdictional requests which puts him in an awkward position in trying to speak for them. In
reviewing the letter, the DNR sent to the City in 1998, his understanding is that the City was
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
11
primarily concerned about balls moving into the flood plain and wetland and the DNR was
primarily concerned with the animal migrations and wildlife not being impacted.
Commissioner Noyes would love to go back and say there have not been nets in the previous 10
years of operation but he does not think that holds a lot of water; just because they were non-
compliant does not mean they can be non-compliant going forward. He thinks it is valuable to
understand why they would be requesting the fencing, whether it is the City or the DNR.
Commissioner Alto noted they also do not have proof that the 10 years without nets did not have
an impact, there is just no physical evidence that they can see right now. She said 60 days of
being open and not having an impact – the wetlands are not able to speak for themselves in this
matter – and if the DNR and the City also thinks it is best, she has to side with them.
Vice Chair von Oven asked from a historical perspective, what was the order? Did Mr. Colvin
purchase the property and then come to the City for the IUP renewal? Or did he obtain the
renewal and then make the decision to purchase the property?
Mr. Colvin replied they purchased the property and then came for the renewal of the IUP.
Mr. Young-Walters clarified he believes they met before Mr. Colvin finalized the purchase to go
over the 1998 IUP and to discuss whether or not the City would be amenable to reissuing it.
Vice Chair von Oven said Mr. Colvin had a good feeling that by purchasing the property that he
would have a path through the City.
Mr. Colvin replied yes.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded, that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Applicant’s request to remove
Condition 9 from the IUP 2021-02.
Commissioner Noyes has a hard time voting to deny because he does not know why it is required
to have the nets, yet. He really wants to know if the DNR is the one pushing this because of the
wetland issue. At this point in time, he would vote against the motion to deny and perhaps
recommend they get more information related to the origin of the netting requirement.
Vice Chair von Oven has gone back-and-forth on this one and he stated this is clearly not a
surprise for the owners. He does not think one purchases a driving range anywhere around a City
and thinks that they may not have to get some nets. He also agrees and he is not sure these nets
are serving the purpose that was intended. At the end of the day taking the facts and saying if the
right thing to do is eliminate the need for these nets, it is not through a variance but is through
amending the need for a net next to a wetland within 275 feet. Mr. von Oven said if it had been a
surprise to the owners, he would try to find a way to ease that burden. However, if this was not in
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
12
the business plan, then it wasn’t a very good business plan, or it was a hopeful business plan that
the previous owner did not have nets for 10 years so they could perhaps not have nets. He has to
be on the side of denying the variance.
Commissioner Alto said as they spoke earlier in terms of setting precedence, doesn’t it set the
precedent that one can buy a business that is out of compliance and hope that the City will allow
them to continue to be out of compliance.
Commissioner Skistad is all for supporting and protecting wetlands but she does not feel that this
does either. It would have been better if it was addressed before it got to this point, but perhaps
one cannot know that until they have had the business and been hitting golf balls for 60 days.
She will vote against this motion for those reasons.
The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Noyes, Skistad)
Mr. Generous stated this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City
Council on July 12, 2021.
Mr. Young-Walters noted staff will do their best to reach out to the DNR and try to clarify their
feelings on this condition. He said Staff did reach out to the DNR when the discussion on
delaying the condition came up and were not able to get a response, but he promises they will
try.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 2021.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission Minutes from June 1,
2021.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Skistad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: June 15, 2021
CC DATE: June 28, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 29, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-08
BY: RG
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is request for a two-foot height
variance for an accessory structure.
LOCATION: 6300 Hummingbird Road
APPLICANT: Armenak Petrosian
6300 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family
Residential (RSF)
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low
Density
ACREAGE: 0.82 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 requesting a two foot height variance to allow them to keep the accessory garage
as constructed.
The applicant has stated that the design of their addition and garage will allow for the future
connection to a reconstructed single-family home.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested two-foot accessory
structure height variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
6300 Hummingbird Road
June 15, 2021
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 1-2: Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground
level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the
highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest of the highest gable of a pitched or
hipped roof. (20)
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1. Generally
Section 20-904, Accessory Structures
BACKGROUND
The house was constructed in 1945.
The property was replatted in 1978.
Building permit #2019-01889 was issued on August 9, 2019 to demolish an existing shed and
replace with 24’ x 32’, one-story accessory structure.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The Single-Family Residential zoning district permits a single-family home and up to 1,000
square feet in accessory structures. Building height for homes are limited to three stories and 35
feet. Accessory structures are limited to 20 feet in height. The maximum hardcover is 25
percent impervious surface.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is not located within a Shoreland Protection District.
6300 Hummingbird Road
June 15, 2021
Page 3
Wetland Protection
There are no wetlands on site.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Variances within 500 Feet:
There is one variance within 500 feet of the property.
6200 Murray Hill Road #1977-08 15-foot front yard setback
ANALYSIS
Detached Garage
In 2019, the applicant applied to construct a 768 (24 ft. x 36 ft.) square foot, one-story,
approximately 15-foot tall, detached accessory structure to replace an existing shed.
Foundation Elevation
After beginning construction, the applicant modified his plan to construct a two-story accessory
structure without submitting revised plans to the city for review.
In March, 2021, the homeowner submitted revised plans for the garage he had built. His initial
submittal showed the shed height at 22 feet; however, the corrected plans show it right at the 20-
foot height limit.
6300 Hummingbird Road
June 15, 2021
Page 4
Staff informed him that he needed to call the Building Department to set up a final inspection. In
order to verify that the revised plans he submitted were accurate, we had the building inspector
check the following:
1) Floor to ceiling height (especially lower level)
2) Verify that 4:12 pitch trusses were used.
3) Verify the shown two-foot grade differential.
The building inspector went to the site on March 12, 2021, to perform an inspection. He
determined the building height to be 24 feet 10 inches with the roof height constituting four feet,
with an average height of two feet. The building height then becomes 22 feet, which is two feet
taller than permitted by Code. At that point, staff advised the applicant that they would need to
apply for a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested two-foot accessory structure height variance, require the applicant to apply
for a building permit, revise the plans and reconstruct the garage to meet the 20-foot building
height, and adopt 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:
6300 Hummingbird Road
June 15, 2021
Page 5
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a two-foot accessory structure
height variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision.
1. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed building.
2. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial)
2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Applicant’s Narrative
5. Plan Sheets
6. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-10 6300 hummingbird road var\staff report_6300 hummingbird rd_var.docx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COTINTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Armenak Petrosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure on
property at 6300 Hummingbird Road, zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF - Planning
Case #2021-10.
on June l5,2}21,the chanhassen Planning commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Armenak
Peirosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure. 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 currently zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
use.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 5, Block l, Munay Hill Replat of 17 and 18
4. Variance Findines - Section 20-58 ofthe Ci ty Code provides the lollowing criteria for the
granting ofa variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent ofthis Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
b.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to increase the permitted height of an accessory
structure by two feet. While accessory structures are limited in height, they applicant has
constructea the accessory structure to fit in',Mith a future reconstruction of the home on
the property. By adding a second story, the applicant has created prepared this stnrcture
for the future home.
when there are practical diffrculties 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
bhipt.r. Practical diffrculties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
g:\planUo2l planning casesu l -lo 6300 hummingbid road var\findings of frct and decision - apptoval'doc
Finding: The property owner could constnrct an accessory structue that complies with
ordinance, but it would not lend itself to a futue connection to a reconstructed home on
the property and would require significant modification to be connected to a future two-
story home.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance would allow the applicant to keep the constructed accessory
building.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The reconstruction of the home is a timing issue for the applicant since the
home is currently occupied by his father. Rather than having him move while a new
home is constructed.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality.
Finding: The variance will permit the applicant to keep the accessory structure, which is
permitted on properties zoned RSF.
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 condition does not apply'
5. The planning report #2021-10, dated June 15,2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Board ofAppeals and Adjustments approves the two-foot accessory stmcture height
variance subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory
structure.
b. The applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustments this 15e day ofJune,
2021.
CITY OF CHAN SS
BY:
an
1\Ftt-vos o,tE) ,v,ag g$lr(lltlnl
g:\plan\2021 planning casesu t -10 6300 humningbird road vaifindings of fact and decision - ryproval.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of Armenak Petrosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure on
property at 6300 Hummingbird Road, zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF – Planning
Case #2021-10.
On June 15, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application from Armenak
Petrosian for a two-foot height variance for an accessory structure. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice.
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
use.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 5, Block 1, Murray Hill Replat of 17 and 18.
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to increase the permitted height of an accessory
structure by two feet. Accessory structures are limited in height so that they maintain the
appearance of the neighborhood. Generally but not always, accessory structures are one
story in height. By adding a second story, the applicant has created a larger structure than
is permitted.
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.
2
Finding: The property owner could construct an accessory structure that complies with
ordinance. Their original building permit submittal complied with ordinance. It was
when the plan were revised, and not reviewed by the city, that the applicant exceeded
City Code.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance would allow the applicant to keep the constructed accessory
structure, thus saving on demolition and reconstruction costs.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: By revising the accessory structure without submitting the plans for City
review, the applicant constructed a building that exceeded City Code.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The variance will permit an accessory structure that is taller than most
accessory structures.
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 condition does not apply.
5. The planning report #2021-10, dated June 15, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the two-foot accessory structure height
variance and directs the applicant to apply for a new building permit and remodel the structure to
comply with City ordinance.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 15th day of June,
2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: _______________________________
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-10 6300 hummingbird road var\findings of fact and decision - denial.doc
Qtsx- (.t tL.q oh Ja_
$200
COilIIIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY OI CHAI{HASSII{
u
v
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
subinitbrDd!: ?/oo1Sl n*"k /,s l>t ccoa",a / t a-l >l 6GDay Reviev, Date:Ulot
Section 1: Applicataon Type (check all that apply)
E tnterlm Use Permit (lUP)
E h coniunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325E att oners...... ............. ... ...$425
(Rolet to ha qf/ryiae AIPlic ion C,€,c,did tu tqdtd
I Compehensive Plan Arnendment......................... $600! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers.....$100
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325D att oners...... .......................$42s
slffid inloot,,rjo, thal md s.,,np',-y hb aniL?/lrryr)
E SuMivision (SUB)!fI
trtr
Create 3 lots or less .................--..................... $300
Create over 3 lots $600 + $15 per lot(__ lots)
Metes & Bounds (2 lots)...,..............................$m
Coosolidate Lots. ................. $150
$300
on Permit (WAP)
$150
$275
$100
E Lot Line Adjusrnent.........................................$150E Finat P1a1...................... ........$7OO
(lncludes $450 esoow for attomey costs)'
'AdditbrEl€scrqw rIlay b€ rlSrirEd b o0€r applications
Arough 0ta devdoFnenl omtacl
E Vacatlm of Easemenb/Rigtrt-of-way (VAC)........
(Addliond ,.cordng tu€s m.y ely)
E Variance (VAR)
E Wetland Alterati
Single-Family Residence
$7s0
$100
$s00
E sbn Plan Review........................-......................... $150
E Site Plan Review (SPR)
E Adminisrrawe ......................$1mI Cornmerciautndusfial Disticts'...................... $5OO
Plus $10 per 1,0(x) square feet of building area:( thoussnd square feet)
'lndude nmb.r of ldgbq employoas:
E Escmw fq Recoding Documents (cfEck all that
D ConOitionat Use PermitE vacatbnE Mdes & Bounds SuMMsion (3 docs.)
'lrdude nunb€r ol Agg €mdoF€5:
Residential Disficts.............................
Plus $5 per d,velling unit ( units)
$500
El Nomcatim Sign (city b irdar and rEmorre)
! Property Orners' List within g)0' (city ro gsncraie affer pre-appticarion rn€eting)
gE: lthen rflddph +plica0ons r]l pToc6sed conoJrrnly,
the approp.ld! ftc shCl be.rrargcd lor ..ch appllc.Oon.
$3
'6"*:T..l......, gso per dodmentE Site Plen AgreementE wetlandE oeeos
TOTAL FEE
Alteration Perrnit
.@
$soo
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal
Property Address or Location:i0 0 Hua
parcet#: )s.S.rClI&,Legal Description:
Total Acreage:Wetlands Present? E Yes El No
Serecr one fZS F Requested Zoning . Select One
Requested Land Use Oesignation . Select One
6ie Hrlr:st
Present Land Use Desig 661;66. Selecl One
&isting Use of Property:
Echeck box if separate nanative is attached.
r
E Rezoning (REz )E Phnned Unit Development (PUD) ..................E Uinor lmenOment to existing PUO............-....E ff ottrcrs......
lnterim UsqPermit
Variance 7>o
Easements ( easements)
Pres€nt Zoning:
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
Name frntact:
Phone:Address:
City/Statetz ip
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
DateSignature:
PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property o,vner, have tull legEl capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by lhose
conditions, subjec{ only to the right to otject at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep mysetf informed of
the deadlines for submissbn of material and the progress of this application. I turther understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studi6, etc. with an estimate prior to any autlrcrizetion to proceed with f}e
I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and
Address:OO Huautri,,g Qc{ R4Mngsgl
ei/a L- P.fr-ot;o
cofrect.
Contact
Emait: cRRe o
Signalure:
PROTECT ENGIIiIEER (if applceb)
Name:
tq. e I (' enrr^
Cell:
Fax:
Oate
Cell:
Fax:
^t
Address:
Contact
Phone:
City/Statezip:
Email:
This applicalion must be compleEd in tull and musl be accompanied by all inbrmation and plans requircd by
applicabl€ City Ordimnce provisbns. EoforB filing this applicatbn, rebr to the apFopriate Applicalbn Cfieddist
and confer with the PhnnirE DeparfiEnt to determine the specific ordinance and apdicable procedural
r€quirernents and fees.
A determination of compleleness of the application shall be made within 15 business da)6 of application submittal. A
written notice of applicetion deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business da)/s of application.
tryho should receiye copaes of statr rcports?
Owner Via:
Ma:
Ma:
Ma:
dEmair !
Eemait E
E emait E
Eemar E
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
City/Statezip
Email:
Appli:ant
Engineer
other'
Address:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then selecl sAvE FoRM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM end deliver to city along with required docurnents and payrnent. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FORI PRII{T FORM SUBMIT FORM
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this applicalion, l, as applicant, represenl to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subjecl only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I ha\e attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submissaon of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additionalfees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted ere true and conect.
study.
Name:
pnone: 1{A- ) ?o - ?43 ?
city/statezip:
Section 4: Notification lnformation
'Other Contacl lnformation :
Name:
To whom it may concern,
We hereby requesting approval of variance for newly build structure (Shed/Garage) that stands 2' above
allowed accessory structure height of 20'.
While our original permit request was submitted for much lower height, during the construction we
came to realization that in the future we would like to make this accessory structure part of the new
house, that will be built on this parcel. To accommodate for desired (typical these days) height of the 9'
for the first floor and 8'for the second floor and taking in consideration the fact that future house will
need to be elevated at the min of one feet from the ground, we ended up with 10' for first floor and 8'
for the second story of the new structure. While our desire was to have much higher root pitch, to keep
up with essential characters of the current locality and surroundings and harmonizing with current
structure roof line with the existing structure, we went with 5/12 pitch to mitigate esthetic view of new
addition during the time 2 structures will remain on the parcel. As you can see in pictures below,
lowering the roofline made the new structure to fit esthetically into neighborhood and existing structure
character without standing out due to the structure size.
,t-
t
!tr!
tfi, -
d
While we met all the min requirements for the height of the building for our future construction needs,
we unfortunately have a "practical difficult/' with complying with current zoning ordinance for the
height of accessory building since it is a stand-alone structure currently. We will be in compliance with
the zoning ordinance for the height when this structure will become part of the main structure. We
would like to emphasize that this height difference does not change property value.
We have lived 2Gr years in this community and have no previous, existin8 or future intensions to create
any hardship for anyone with our plans on our land. We are just trying to build a better future for our
family with the means and timeframes that we have today. We are asking for the approval of the
variance until we build the new structure and become compliant with the zoning ordinance again when
new garage/shed will become part of the new house.
Sincerely,
Armenak and Lena Petrosian
Future
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
CoUNTYoFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
June 3,2021, 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 a 2-foot height variance for an accessor? structure on property
tocated at 6300 Hummingbird Road, zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF)' Planning
Case No. 2021-10, 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, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
this3(tr day of
S ubscribed and swom to before me
Kim Meuwissen, Deputy k
(Seal)
JEAII Iil STECI(LIilG
ilohryhffi'ilImGa!l,hEt-rrx,Ea
2021.
N otary Public
Subject
Parcel
Disclaime.
This map is neither a legally rccorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilalron of records. information and dalia located in vadous cily,
county, strate and federal offces and other sources regading the area shown, and is to
be used for reference puryoses only. The City does not warant that the Geog6phic
lnformation System (GlS) Data used to pepare lhis map are enor free and lhe City does
not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navlgational, tracking or any other
pu.poie requidng exacting measurement ol distance or diredion or preosion in the
depiction of oeographic features. The preceding disclaims is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Slalutes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowiedges
that the City shall not be liable tor any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and no6 harmless the city trom any and all claims brought
bt User, its employees or agents. or third p€rtes which arise out of the use/s access or
use of data provided.
(TAX-NAi|EE
rTAX_ADD_Llr
rTAX_ADD_L2l
(Next Record)N(TAX-NAMET
<TAX_ADD_LI r
r<TAX_ADD-L2r
Subiect
Parcel
lI
Diaclaimor
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suryey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilatron of records, infomatjon and dala located in vaiou3 clty,
county, state and federal off@s and other sources regarding the aree shown, aod is to
be used lor reference purposes only. The City does not wanant that lhe Geographic
lnformalion System (GlS) Dala used to prepare this map are enor free and the City do€s
not represenl thal the GIS Oata can be used for navigatronal, tracking or any other
purmse requiring exactng measurcment of disliance or directron or precjsion in the
clepictjon of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided purcuant to
Minnesota statutes s466 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges
thal the City shall not be laable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims' and
agrees lo defend, indemnfy, and hold hatmless the City from any aM all claims brought
by user. its employees or agents, or tiird pa.lres whict afse out of the useis access or
use of chta povided
!
I
fr
T
E
D
a
--
rrf*
tp\-!
-)\. I
U
f]
l/'
t-
!-
!
t-
-
?a!!:po-oo lt)o5(Do,
&PoaNO.
-cno-Ecc
;c(E:o-
9E
P(!d)IocoooooN|\-tio-o
Eoa,(-)
caoo
o-
--_o
o)cooEc.9.9EEooq)ccC'Eooo,
?oo,oco
=o
o
=E
coc.so-ooEcqq!stiaEc
c)
occi!!
lLotEcq)p(l,d.o+o)ot.-coEocoN
ci
f
f
to
o
(0
cC'ooc(E.c.9oEN(!
o
oaoo
o
q)p
coo
0.!!o3e6E&:
"tq E.=o
"or.gCo
oo
(o<
oq)'6'
o
d)EEE E5 6= Io-o > a ;l-o-c c A ::o qro .ga =3PE gE ;isE en 8..5E Egg "FiEEgEEEE€E;EETg!EE;;E;EE35Ef
EE6-PE;HP
:s$Ege-f;E
+€sEGeEio.9E;l(,Foo-o o-o -.-c cL -cr yF(!(!!F(!o$
Eq,
q,
E
o'6
.9
E
Eoo
.dE=E$.,(D > o Y:}E*EEE"' 6 -o d.I oroloE E'.-e eEEfi;E=! F a, o.Ir EE >E 88 3B€ k oro 93n EtB"' c (! G5E=a i e
-.eggr:Iep=PQ >o I o>o(D -ll=o;Eq,o =o >
!gEEE
-'!;E j
N H 3,Ei
ot(oo)oocoEo-oo=iqCq,(E.ccoEI
e
JIq)coo
-o
(!
o
Eo
:e'.6 9, 2> -5g EEE e.Eo -cva 33E >aoEti.eE o= Ed)c, oc OOI o$ gElfigs{lae 5 9la
te" EIB
;E EIEopElE
P a€Ifpa ql 6
saElE
o.fc
,9
o
d)
E
.Foc
f
c
Ec
o.,
ClEcoEq
q
E
oo()o)=llo=1!-oil)Eo
D
c)too
o-a
0.)
t!
o
o,p
oco
o)
a
.Etr
!;
o
ooo-
opcn)(,)q)c0)q)Eco)E;c.oo(.)Eog
x
0)
op
([
o
Elo
lt,
oo
o)
o
o,f
tr
.9)o
=u,lz
E
a
E
6
E
.g
6
I
o
.EF€(,
t!o
o
GooJ
,
o
(!
o,
.9 '6
.ots3l!co-
::(!oo
CLIo.
iio
=o
E
0,
o
G
>EtooEo. t!eto-J
q ii)
o.=
=6'f=
eOr!E
=i
.6..o9CEoo
o=OE=ogo
otoEDO.s=6=oo-ElloEo3>O-=
E()oEoooo,EOoozt=
t!
o
o
.E
EDO
=E(!-g'6
rJ3
=o€odi
E6oE6q,
E,BzEca!
.Eo
cD
'i:
q,
c)
E
o'6
.9
E
Eoo
c(l,
o
lt,o-
(l,
Eo
E
a;
-9
o
-9,4,
o
P
o
e.o
Hg8:
6?.=6
ErgCa
er
oEoo
(o<
_ (,)PEE
'-.c o)EEE q
-o-c c 7i o(! Ett (d X A
=6E *- E9.:; tE 6EESgE* 5€Ee9H[:dE!-;eg:ai
3E€Ee ieE
EEEEEEEE
EE5E Eg Ef
EE"FIE * e
E; It;cE5
=
fr:€Ee 5€*= f o, (, r- (J O-o o-o -.-c o--o :F O (!tFNclt
o
o
E
Q)
€
e
d
E
.:
!
E
.a
F
cio9F.
o
Noat
d
o)cl");oo
o,lF
E
o
o
o
co
o
o
=ooF.F.
!;
o.o
EoEo
ocfo
(_)
o-
o
a .lou,l- q,ic.=l
-o ql3:,ll o
^6
,EI E
sl5
EIEI
EI Eil ts
3ld
-lCql o
5t3_3laolEEl (Egtd
Ele
.9t E
!la
!rE
AA>--
LLaE
oF
6E
d,
d.
:
E
C'
LL
o
o,c
cho
0)EoN
o,
l
f
-o
oo
(0
co
o
o
co
Eo)'d
E
oo
N
o
o
q)
loo
(l,
q,p
coo
a
c
,s,
o
o
E
C
Jcq
c
iD
o-cc
GEI
3;;
!coo)oo)oc-EO
EoEg
5E
Eg
2lnEa6ooo)
9o
EE;E
croE'6ocaoE
OJE.>t9lo
EE
eE
rcEEdtL
2e.
=;!E
E
9
E
otr
=o
E
C'CII
o-
>Et.o
o-oPto-J
9b
a, .=CL;
r'g
l!.CEP
=E
idc
F
c6(,
(!o
o
t!IJoJ
T
.9
t!
CI.9'6-ot=oGO-
t!oo
ELor
c
.g
o
(!
(!c
ID
E
e :?* g=EEe
E EEPAE;EEE :ags6s;f
Ee:EEEEEti
E etIcElE HgE t
gBgEBiEEiE
.a ..o9E.O(,
tD=O'E:ooo
ooooooots,G.EEEdooOOOOOOOdGEtG,A.G.Et))666AA66JJ(9(,(99(919(,r-zzzzzzz>->-=======gg>>>=>>>EEllll)))!!r-r---->>
!-.{ Lt) Cr ii r-t O Ft O FlFr\ao@otooNNNa{NNc!.nrnd)(Y)(o(o(o(o(oro\o(o(o
FF O ql .Eol (nor<f O<f m .r) Oc)+sllr)<tt<l<f SNqll{) 6 O !QO 6or@rnO @ 0O .o-O.O6€O.yl .O .ir ivioo o i 99n QQo9ooa @ o @o€.oo€aat6ddor or o oo a@ 6€6.o00 0 co @@@6600at4@-06,iiir,iaFl .-l !-r r-l !.{ Fi F.l F.{ F.l F.l F{ Fl !.1 F.l !.{ F.l -i -t r-{ r-.1 F.t .i !-t F{ r..t r-l !i ..t i Fr ..r !i rid)rn (n m (nlr1 m (n r') an mm (Y) m mm ln d) an (t (n ln (n .y, m lY) d) (n ar, (n an d) mm m an m dt d) m d) d) (n m (n d) m (n m rn m an m (n an (n rn m d) tr) (, rn lYt an (n mU) la Ln rn LA U) LA Ln .,1 U) tJ)|a rn !1 LO l..) Ul g) LA !n !n g) ul !n ul La Ur .n !n .A l.n rai tailJ) !n ln.n l,1 ra rn Ln rn Ln t, rn l,1 u1 Ln ul u1 t4 ln Ln !n l./] v) t/) !n l'a rrl u) l,) ta rn !n ulz z z z z z z. z z z z z z z. z z. z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z 2 z zN==>>==>>>===>>====>>==>=>:>>===>=
t d d 6a oa d oa oi oa oe oe !a oe d oi !a oe oe oi d oa oe oa o(' d oa oe oa oe 6e oa oe oi 6a
^o o ooo oo o oo o o 666 O 6 66 66 o o o oo oo o o666 o2 4 4 4 4 4 4 q v,,4,4 6 -6 -n -^ i^ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6,^ A v, 6 A G A,r, ;
I I.U !U U I'! rlJ LU TTJ lrJ IJJ lrJ I.IJ T! UJ IJ.I TJJ UJ lrJ IJJ IJJ IJJ IJ.I I.!J UJ TTJ TJJ IU IJ.I L! tJJ IJJ I! UJ !Ux u u u u u u u (J (J !.2 !, !,2 !J !2 !.1 !, u u u u o o o o o o o o o o o o o<xxxxxxxxxxx=xx****=**=====xx=*i**F lrl l! uJ ur t! trJ IrJ trr ur lr.r Er Lu LrJ ur rri rr.r uJ L! r! r! iri iLi iri Li iri Li [ri [ri r.u u.t qJ uJ
o o o o o 00oo600
E e e p e p e e p 5 e 5 e E p X e E p p p 5 X X 5 5 E 5 e e
- c- --t ( --t 4 t 4 - i t t L 4 4 q. G G G G -r Jat!!:JJJJ=J .o = .o J 6 = A J A J I J A E A 6 6 6 6 f =OOrrI r--I- -'-9-9-9r9-(J, rI-99(9(,(9l9(9rI
n t y a e e E e E a a 6 Z=i=i=i=3
=
3 3 3=======3i;
==
33 3P 3 3 3: :
=4"s=g =
g
=
B
=
3 E E
= = =
i E = =
g s
--l I O O O Fr -{ -i O O rr aO v) O !-.r F{ O Fr Fi O O O Fr O Ct !-r 6 Cr Ft !-t o r-r o Ft)< cl -l st rYt r,1 (O f- @ Cn Or CD Ot O O.! m.n .n <l !n (O (O f\ F. F. F. O @ Ol O O - a{< Or Or (n O O O O O O O () m N - ..r N .! N 6r N N N N c.r i.r irr c.r - ii - - .n d,F Fr Fr Fr N 6l N 6t ..,t ..{ N N m \o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (c, ({) (o 6 6 tj i.ct tc| \!, 6 (ct
iZtr<\H
=r{ + .>.o i L/)LUt-==EJ > d
=8 ; a,- !
=: n oY =32 = E= 9E - ur o
=;ria;==E;I;Eie=iiE;=IxElgEEgEglE=
oooooEppe e e a e e e E P E e E p X e 5 e e--!-{---tg_-4tiL.Lc, e J J = = = = = = = =.o J.o = A J 6 J A J Joo-rrErr-r--9r9-(9r(,r(9--ssaaBa-eeBeE=e=i=i=a=tt^ = =
3 3 3 3 -e 3 33 3 3
=
g
=
g
=
g
= 1iE:5
Soooo FlFl .rooFr@ti c) Fi F.r (:) Fr r-r o o o .r oI Cl -i $ q)'4 I i- !0 ql Or Or @ O O N m m.n t l,) (O (o r\
= (h q1 0r o o o o o o o o o.! N .! N 6t N .! N ..,t .! N(a Fr F{ r-.r N a{ l! 11 NNNa!N(O(O(O(O(O@(O(o\o(o(o
E6r)r=oEea==aQITCII"{LEm-FH2qp€'.iiBEEHai ET;TI ->(@ Q;I DC; -a vt- "'lz0
or ot or or ol olSSqruJq)uJ@P{555oooPoo<o<<<=C:CCC=,+vuv<,=vDr?>z>>>=-<@<<<Z
-t---6)
=>F-Fqt-Y-'t-t-V, vv700 00o!I
lnrYlrnmmFlxxxxxx..)0r).)()0lnmmmrt!lrl-, Gtr,E,7,F,666666PPPPPP
zzz.zzz(,nurur(,vl(,gr(,r(Jr(J1qrl,lJ, u, uJ qJ uJ (.r,(! uJ (rJ (r.) (.D (!
PPPPPP
@6@@(oo@6
5@5N
cD (n ct! cn crr or5E(r)@iJJ(,rallr\r555oooPoo<o<<<-CZCCC=v'nrvU<v=vvu?I'z>>>=<cD'<<<2,at---o
1-v,-t--,ov vruoo s00,0