77-14 Variance 3711 South Cedar Drive Scanned Planning FileCITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVESP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: September 15, 1977
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROM: City Planner, Bruce Pankonin
SUBJ: Variance Petition from Jerold Meyer Requesting the Opportunity
to Expand the Floor Area of an Existing House in the Red Cedar
Point Neighborhood.
Petition: Mr. Meyer is proposing to add a 20 foot by 16 foot addition
to the rear of the existing house located on Lot 25, Block 4, Red
Cedar Point. In addition, Mr. Meyer is requesting a building permit
to construct a second story to the principal structure.
Background-
1. Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential. Within this
district, the following minimum lot requirement apply:
a. Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 square feet.
b. Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet at the building setback line.
c. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 10 feet.
d. Setback from High Water Mark: 75 feet.
2. Existing Lot Dimensions: The subject property, Lot 25, Block 4,
Red Cedar Point Neighborhood, has the following dimensions:
a. Existing Lot Area: Approximately 7,900 square feet.
b. Existing Lot Width: 30.12 feet.
C. Front Yard Setback: 3.9 feet.
d. Side Yard Setback: 1.9 feet.
e. Rear Yard Setback: 105 feet.
3. City Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water is in place and in service
to the subject property. The subject property has been assessed one
sewer and water unit to response to public improvement project 71-1E.
4. Staff comments regarding the variance procedure is found in the
attached letter from the City Attorney.
Mr. Don Ashworth -2-
September 15, 1977
Planner's Comments
I concur with the findings and recommendations contained in the attached
letter from Craig Mertz.
1
'`1
LARSON & MERTZ, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
CRAIG M.MERTZ September 14, 1977
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
Mr. Donald W. Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
Dear Don:
TELEPHONE
(612) 335-9565
Ref; Zoning -None -Conforming
Uses
Re: Variance Request
Jerrold Meyer
3711 South Cedar Drive
You have requested that we provide you with a report on the matter
of the application of Jerrold Meyer to renovate the "Lund" house
which is located on Red Cedar Point. The subject property abuts
Lake Minnewashta and consists of one platted lot, forty feet wide
and approximately 130 feet deep. The lot in question was platted
in 1913, and is presently zoned "R-1". We understand that the
existing house has side yards of approximately one foot on each
side. We further understand that Mr. Meyer wishes to expand the
size of the existing house by building a second story on top of
the existing one story structure.
It is clear that the existing house is a non -conforming use because
it is not in conformance with:
a. The 15,000 S.F. minimum lot size (Ordinance 47, §7D5(5)); or
b. the minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet (Ordinance 47,
97.05(4)) or
C. the maximum lot width of 90 feet at the building set back
line (Ordinance 47, 57.05(6)).
The use of the subject property is governed by 920.02 and 20.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance, both of which sections are set out in full
below:
20.02 Enlargement or Alteration. No non -conforming use
shall be enlarged, altered or increased, or occupy a
greater area than that occupied by such use on the effec-
tive date of this ordinance or any amendment thereto. A
non -conforming use shall not be moved to any other part of
the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted. If
no structural alterations are made, a non -conforming use
of a building may be changed to another non -conforming use
of the same or more restricted classification. Whenever a
non -conforming use of a building has been changed to a more
restricted use or to a conforming use, such use shall not
thereafter be changed to a less restricted use.
Mr. Donald W. Ashworth -2- 9/14/77
Jerrold Meyer Variance Request
20.06 Normal Maintenance. Maintenance, necessary
non-structural repairs, and incidental alterations of a
building or structure containing or used as a non -
confirming use are to be permitted provided that any
such maintenance, repairs or alteration does not extend,
enlarge, or intensify the non -conforming building or use.
Strict application of these sections to the Meyer application
indicates that the building inspector was correct in his refusal
to issue a building permit to the proposed construction. Section
20.06 specifically provides that an alteration of a building may
not extend, enlarge, or intensify the non -conforming structure.
Mr. Meyer's only remedy is to seek relief from the City Council
by utilizing the Board of Adjustment and Appeals procedure which
is set forth in §22 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of
Adjustments and Appeals is empowered to recommend variances from
the area requirements, side yard requirements, and lot width
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, if all of the following
elements are present:
1.
Strict enforcement of the literal provisions of
the
Zoning Ordinance would cause hardship unique to
the
individual applicant; and
2.
There are special conditions affecting the land
and
building in question; and
3.
The grant of a variance is necessary to preserve
sub-
stantial property rights; and
4.
The grant of a variance will not be of material
detriment
to the public welfare; and
5.
The grant of a variance will not be a material detriment
to neighborhood property values; and
6.
The grant of a variance would not undermine the
spirit and
intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
(See Ordinance 47, 522.02).
Once the Board of Adjustments and Appeals has made its recommendation,
the City Council may approve, reverse, or revise the decision of the
Board.
We note that the subject property was assessed for sewer and water
as a part of Project 71-1E (North Area Sewer & Water). Thus, the
applicant can clearly demonstrate an economic hardship. If put to
a Court test, we would be hard put to justify the refusal to issue
a building permit in the face of this assessment.
Very truly yours,
CraiMer
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMM:mep
cc: Bruce Pankonin
Y
ROY J. HMSIEN
11907 " t� win n"i
L.M1,. Asumvyor UW�yOr PLAT OF SU.RVEY. TCMpitgae>i11M.
Chill gn$W or
OF PROPERTY OF Gerold Meyer
LOCATION. c.CA-01- Drive• ch.ay.l"w.py;serk Mn
OeaCRleeo AS FOLLOWS Lot 2S, 510e+k g L Reid. �q Q.tr Point
i
Omaehnle (Tep oi' Msnhole G Sena+ Mark-.26sumeJ, e
oi
�i ✓
�qP Q°'d)
l S
,( p a orner fall• •n
�Ol P�rt�r'vy"
{ w.�,.'�
C gl�4Apo o.\v (i
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
1 hereby certify that
1 made a Survey of the location of the building(s) on the
desuibed property and that the location of mid buildie
correctly shown on the above nlat.
i
(. td•�' iiq++o}es erxiq}in,� alcvetiuv�
0 �fAGlt tb Ir UY\ TOn1,�r'n!J\{
Scale
dMAA/6E To !¢-o
546E aWs, SNT 2
�P
4�� P
VA%
k
% %X. (_t4.4)- water a evat'o�,
CUTIF'ICATB OF
I bomb certify that on it
I iurypy*4 it+S�'OIRnY M�sribed ail
Is a CCerecl't�pgagldaI of maid wi
ROY J. HANSEN, FAM;6TRUD:1 }t l
LARSON & MERTZ, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402
CRAIG M. MERTZ
September 8, 1977
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E.SKAAR
Donald W. Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen,
Dear Don:
Minnesota 55317
el
TELEPHONE
335-9555
7 6
Re: Pauly Office Building
Conditional Use Permit
Attached are the original and two copies of the proposed conditional
use permit for the Pauly Office Building. Please note that the
legal description of the premises should be attached as an exhibit.
If you and Bruce Pankonin find the permit to be satisfactory, you
may wish to submit it to the Council for final approval.
RHL:mep
Encl.
CC: Bruce Pankonin
V y tru you ,
For
LARSON & MERTZ, LTD.
SEP1977
RECEIV
V7I,L.AOe 0jV
CHA NN.s�'.
'-1
K
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I A11M1'_ti7aIQ SolHEA- IM1iblt t1
WHEREAS, application has been made by Henry A. Pauly, here-
after referred to as the Applicant, for a conditional use permit
to construct an office building on a tract of land within the City;
the location of the proposed office.building upon said premises and
the legal description of said tract are as shown as Exhibits A
and B hereto attached and made a part hereof.
WHEREAS, said premises are within the Central Business District of
the City Zoning Ordinance, which requires a conditional use permit
for the proposed use; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has given consideration to the
application and has recommended the grant of a conditional use permit
upon certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given due consideration to said appli-
cation and the foregoing recommendations:
NOW, THEREFORE, a conditional use permit is hereby granted to the
Applicant herein to erect an office building upon the described
premises, subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which
shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection
of the public interest:
1. Permit Not Assignable. This permit is personal to said
Applicant, and shall not be assigned without written consent of the
City.
2. Description of Property. The premises subject to the within
conditional use permit and the location of the proposed office
building shall be as shown on Exhibits A and B hereto attached and
made a part hereof.
3. Use of Premises. The premises shall be ttilized as the site
of a 44 by 80 foot office building with accessory motor vehicle
parking, said building and parking area to be constructed as per
plans and specifications dated May 9, 1977 prepared by Criteria, Inc.
on file herein as Exhibit A, except as said plans and specifications
are modified by this agreement.
4. Use of Structure., The office building shall consist of
three levels, to be utilized as follows:
a. Lower level for business and professional office use
and tenant storage.
b. Ground level for business and professional offices
and general retail sales and services as that term is
hereinafter defined.
C. Upper level for business and professional offices.
"General Retail Sales and Services", for purposes of this permit,
are those general retail sales and services contemplated by
Sections 10.01 and 10.02(1) of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance,
and shall not include manufacturing or assembly of merchandise for
sale, repair facilities, nor sales of the "drive-in" type.
No changes in the use of the structure shall occur except as may
be permitted by an amended conditional use permit or by a rezoning
of the premises.
5. Architectural Style. The architectural style of the exterior
of the office building shall be that of a late 19th Century rustic
town, utilizing exterior materials symbolic of that era, natural
woods, and earth tones.
6. Limitation on Extent of Use. Due to extensive nighttime
use of available off-street parking by neighboring properties, the
use of the premises subject to this permit shall not extend beyond
9:00 P.M. of each day.
7. Street Parking Limitation. The City shall take such action
as is necessary to eliminate the curb cut between the Old Village
Hall site and Pauly's off -sale liquor store and to place a 15
minute parking limitation between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 8:00
P.M. on the west side of Great Plains Boulevard from West 78th
Street to the northerly limits of the premises subject to the
within permit.
8. Sidewalks and Curbs. The City Engineer shall design all
curbing and sidewalks, including establishment of all elevations,
along that portion of the premises contiguous to Great Plains
Boulevard.
9. Plans and Specifications. Lighting, surface water drainage,
and parking area plans and specifications shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to construction.
10. Schedule of work. The Applicant agrees that he shall commence
work hereunder on or before , 19 , and shall
have all work done and improvements fully completed to -the satis-
faction and approval of the City on or before ,
197 Upon receipt of written notice from the Applicant of the
existence of causes over which the Applicant has no control which
will delay the completion of the work, the City, in its discretion,
may extend the date hereinafter specified for completion.
11. Performance Bond. For the purpose of assuring to the City
that the construction of the parking area and installation of the
landscaping shall be constructed, installed and furnished according
to the site plans on file herein and to the satisfaction of the City,
and that all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal,
planning, and administrative expenses incurred by the City in
-2-
1.
1
connection with all matters relating to the administration and
enforcement of the within agreement and the performance thereof
by the Applicant shall be paid, the Applicant agrees to furnish
to the City a cash deposit in the amount of $ ,
or in lieu thereof a corporate surety bond in said amount
approved by the City and naming the City as obligee thereunder; said
deposit or bond, as the case may be, being conditioned upon the
performance by the Applicant of his obligations hereunder, said
sum being equal to 110% of thetotal cost of such improvements as
estimated by Schoell & Madson, Inc., the City Engineers, and the
City costs, as estimated by the City Manager.
12. Proof of Title. The Applicant shall furnish the City with
evidence satisfactory to the City that he has acquired fee title to
the premises involved herein prior to commencement of construction.
Said evidence shall include a boundary survey prepared by a licensed
surveyor.
13. Permit Subject to Review. The City reserves the right to
review the within conditional use permit at any time to determine
compliance with all conditions of the permit; and if the City
determines that the Applicant has not strictly complied with the terms
of the permit, the permit may be terminated at the option of the City.
All City expenses incurred in the enforcement of the within permit
shall be the obligation of the Applicant, and may be recovered
by the City as a special assessment against the within described
premises.
14. Standards Applicable. The City Council and Planning Com-
mission have determined that in the grant of the within conditional
use permit, the standards of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance have
been met.
15. Acceptance. No grading or building permits shall be issued
until the Applicant has accepted the within conditional use permit
and complied with paragraph 11 hereof.
16. Other Regulations. The Applicant shall comply with all City
ordinances, state laws, and regulations of state agencies and
departments.
17. Building Permits. No building permits shall be issued
until complete building and site plans have been submitted by the
Applicant and approved by the City staff for purposes of verifying
that said building and site plans are in full conformity with all
provisions of the within permit.
Adopted this day of
ATTEST:
1977.
MAYOR
City Clerk/Manager
-3-
i
ACCEPTANCE
The undersigned owner of the above premises hereby accepts the
terms and conditions of the permit herein granted, and agrees
to be bound by the terms thereof. Signed this day of
1977.
Henry A. Pauly
-4-
WILLIAM F. KELLY
GARY LARSON
JOHN C. SANDERS
THOMAS C. HANNON
KELLY AND LARSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
351 SECOND STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
AREA CODE 612
+T+-3an
September 23, 1977
The Mayor and City Council
City of Chanhassen
7610 Loretto Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Our firm has been assisting Earl and Averil Lund in their efforts
to sell their home located at 3711 South Cedar Drive, Chanhassen.
Mr. Jerold Meyer has entered an agreement.with the funds for the
purchase of the property contingent upon approval of the variance
necessary to enable him to remodel the existing house. I was pre-
sent at the last Council meeting when the four Council members
present considered Mr. Meyer's request for such variance, and a
motion to grant it failed on a 3-1 vote.
As those who were present are -aware, the Board of Adjustments
voted unanimously to recommend granting the variance under the
following conditions:
1. That any addition constructed on the lake side of
the house should be no closer than 85' to the shore of
the Lake (as represented on the survey plat presented
to the City staff).
2. That no part of the additions to the house overhang
the side lot lines.
3. That the height of the peak of the roof on the se-
cond story to be added should not exceed the height of
the peak on the house to the west by more than 11.
The motion to approve the variance failed when Mayor Hobbs voted
"no", thereby precluding the possibility of obtaining the 4 votes
necessary for approval. Mr. Hobbs had indicated, as I recall,
prior to the vote, that he believed a motion to table the matter
SEP1977
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF
CHANHASSEN,
MINN.
KELLY ANo LARSON -2-
was in order in view of the fact that a question had been raised
as to whether proper notice of the Board of Adjustment's hearing
had been sent to neighboring property owners, and no certification
of mailing was then before the Council, and, also, because the
Council did not have before it the benefit of written minutes by
the Board setting forth the evidence which it had considered, in-
cluding the reasons expressed by various interested parties for
their support or opposition to the requested variance. While
naturally I would have appreciated:a positive vote by Mr. Hobbs
on the ,matter, I cannot say that the reasons he expressed for
his "no" vote were unreasonable.
My purpose in writing to you is to request a reconsideration of
this.variance.application at the October 3 Council meeting. I
understand, from Mr. Mertz's comments following the vote, that
either Mr..Hobbs,-or Mr. Neveaux, who was absent, may move to
reconsider if !'new evidence" is brought to your attention, and
that -the written minutes and findings of -the -Board of Adjustments
and the, certification of mailing of the hearing notices would
constitute such evidence and enable the -Council to act on the
matter. As I see it, the Council's action did not constitute
a decision on the merits of the request.- The variance request
failed, not because Council members disapproved of the substance
of the request (indeed, three members approved), but because
Mayor Hobbs apparently felt some reservations about making a
decision without being adequately satisfied about procedures
having been followed.
Mr. and Mrs. Lund have resided at this home for some 32 years.
They now find themselves in an unfortunate position where, as
they are getting on in years, they are having difficulty in
maintaining the property, thus, prompting their decision to
sell. At present, their house is a one-story winterized cabin,
which all would concede is beginning to deteriorate. During
their occupancy. Mr. and -Mrs. -Lund haveusedthe porch, which
extends around the house in a "L-shaped" fashion along the east
and south sides, as sleeping quarters. Bedroom'space presently
available in the house is quite limited. While Mr. and Mrs.
Lund have lived with this arrangement, they recognize that very
few prospective -purchasers -would be willing -to-accept it in a
year-round home. It is only reasonable for a prospective pur-
chaser to have an expectation of being able to remodel in order
to make the: house useable in a manner more in line with today's
living standards. Yet, it is also clear that there can be no
re -construction or remodeling without some type of variance from
the City. Without the benefit of such variances or a reasonable
prospect of receiving them, the value of the property will decrease
markedly, and since the property is the only significant financial
KELLY AND LARSON -3-
resource, which the Lunds have, there would certainly be a de-
trimental economic impact on them: In view of the Lunds long
standing residence in the community, it seems only fair and
reasonable to make a decision such as this, with a significant
economic impact on them, on the merits of the request. I
would hope that the request would not be laid to rest, due to
procedural technicalities. I am sure you will agree.
I have had an opportunity to view the property, and -have dis-
cussed with Mr. Meyer and -the :Lunds-the nature of the proposed
improvements to the house. The dimensions are indicated on the
attached survey plat. No changeinthe main portion of the
house is contemplated other than to raise it by one story. A
20, x 14' (rather .than 161_as shown) walk -out with,a deck thereon
is also proposed. A copy of the plans have been filed with the
Clerk's office and are available for your inspection.
I am somewhat perplexed by the nature of objections which -have been
made by some neighboring property owners _c'oncerning the proposal,._'
Recognizing that any --reconstruction on the property_-Anvolves-a.
variance, some --would have the 'Council dictate to-aproperty owner
what type of home he can or -cannot have, using the power to grant
or deny a variance to restrict the type of construction more so
than would the .general guidelines of the zoning ordinance for the
R-1 district. They have said thattheexisting house should be
torn down and something else constructed. -Such opponents would
use the Council to impose their esthetic tastes upon their. neighbors.
Seldom are the tastes of two property owners the same. Moreover,
just exactly what would be acceptable to such opponents is any-
body's guess. Nor should it be controlling. Each property
owner -should be able to determine --within reason --what type of
housing he wishes to have on his own property. I am sure each
of you would be rightly offended if your neighbors felt they
could determine for you what type of house should be constructed
-
on your property.
Others in opposition to the proposal have stated that the addi-
tion of another story would somehow obstruct their view. Yet the
evidence is that -no one's lake view will in the least be obstruc-
ted if this variance is granted.. In addition, the -houses in this
neighborhood are already so close together that the.best side yard
view anyone has at present is of the siding on his neighbor's
house. In fact, this is pre.sently the case with each of -the pro-
perties adjacent .to the subject property:
KELLY ANo LARSON -4-
Still others have stated that the Council should not encourage
construction on substandard lots. Yet, new construction and re-
modeling hasoccurredfairly recently in this area. I am sure
you realize that preventing building on these lots would take
away a substantial property right. My impression of the Board
of Adjustments recommendations and of the reaction of the Council
majority in -support of approval is that those who govern Chan-
hassen appreciate and are sympathetictothese rights.
There have been other complaints about the close proximity of
the Lund house to side lot lines; however, this circumstance will
remain unchanged even if the variance As ngt_approveri. Those
who live in the area purchased their homes knowing how close
houses there are located to side property lines. It seems un-
tenable for them to take the position now that the situation is
objectionable to them. I heard one party at the meeting object
to possible fire hazards:caused by the close proximity of the -house
to the lot Tines. -If Mr. Meyer proceeds with remodeling the
house will'.be upgraded to present building codes, and that should
be encouraged. If anything, -.there -will be a decrease in the po-
tential fire hazard by reason of the construction, rather than
an increase.
As I previously indicated, Mr. Meyer has provided the City staff
with a survey ,indicating the location of the proposed construc-
tion and has also furnished copies of the plans which he.has had
prepared for the construction. 'I also invite any member of the
Council with any questions about this request to call on me. We
wish to provide any information which would be helpful to you
in your consideration of this -request.-'
I ask that, prior to the October 3 meeting, the staff prepare the
certification of mailing of the hearing notices and that the
written minutes evidencing the factors considered and the findings
of the Board of Adjustments .be prepared and made available. The
parties had been prepared to close their transaction on September 30
and, consequently.,.would.appreciate your resolution of this matter
as soon as :is reasonably practical. •With the certification and
the Board findings I believe all the evidence will be in, so to
speak.
n�
KELLY AND LARSON -5-
If this variance request,(which is really quite limited in scope
compared to proposals which could be made) is not approved I
think the Lunds would have to interpret that as a message from
the Council that any remodeling of this house involving its
expansion is not going to be allowed. The only viable alter-
native available then, in order to make this property truly
suitable for year-round living, would be construction of a
new house. Having only that alternative would indeed place
thesefolksin a difficult financial -situation. The Board of
Adjustments recommendations represent a practical solution to
this question for all concerned. I urge you to act favorably
on a reconsideration, and approve this variance.
Very truly yours,
BELLY AND LARSON
John C. Sanders
JCS:dm
ROY J. HANSEN
19907 Spring tab Road
Lan!N"'e'°r
OF
Hopkins, Minn.
SURV�
1—L.AT
phom
Civil EnBinaar
OF PROPERTY OF
G�rOla
Meyer
3'711
South
Cedarr�Drive
Chal+hassert 1`'�1'i
LOCATION
LOt
ZS L/10C�=- 4
1�C� Cedar POIV1f
CESCR1EED AS FOLLOWS
// -% nMankalc (Top of -Manhole = BeAclh Mar{---2SSUM
falls °n
; •c vs' f l� rcje rock
CI- A-0'v VI
t031.111
1
elcv.-cloo.o)l
to°� 'j7�no{es existin5 Clevatiuln
Ve-mote:5 irovL rT.onv.me.rlt
�P
9Va.
� P
�b�sa)_ µ>ater. clevafiovv
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
t hereby certify that on 19_ 1 hereby certify that on19772
1 trade a survey of the location of the building(s) on the above I surveyed the property described a( e.■ at the abovt plat
deseribed property and that the location of said building(s) is is a correct representation of said wrvey. -
eocrealy shown on the above plat.
ROY J. HANSEN, REGISTERED SURVEYOR NO. 6274 -
THE WORLDS LARGEST NETWORK OF INDEPENDENTLY OWNED MOTELS, HOTELS AND RESORTS/FOR RESERVATIONS IIAL TOLL FREE (800] 528-1234
MOTEL
2009 South Center Street
Highway 14 South
MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA 50158
(515) 752-3631
lox� 9 -�) a,� 7q� 2 �
���p19Z7
�,,j.Aar& o
c14AM13� `
rl
Board of Adjustment & Appeals -
Sept. 12,1977
Will Johnson Dick Pearson
Roman Roos present
Variance Request— Jerold J.Meyer
We heard opposition from neighbor C.A.Pedersen,
R.Anding, John Higgin & a letter from Lora Ebright.
Letter inclosed.
Mr. Dave Hempel said he was infavor & would like
something done with home to improve property.
Mr. Jo-n Higgin and Mr. Dave Hempel didn't
receive a notice of meeting.
A motion was made by Will Johnson, seconded by
Roman Roos to.table action on Variance till Sept. 19,
1977 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall . Till receive legal
answer from City Attorney and report City Planner.
SEP1977
RECEIVEM
VILLAGE OR
CHANHASSEM
MINK.
CITY of
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
September 28, 1977
Mr. John C. Sanders
c/o Kelly and Larson
Attorneys at Law
351 Second Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Earl and Averil Lund
Dear Mr. Sanders:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on Wednesday, September 28, 1977,
please be advised the Chanhassen City Council will not reconsider the
variance request for Jerold Meyers on October 3, 1977. The Council
will, however, reconsider this variance request after Mr. Meyers submits
all plans and drawings articulating his development intent for the
Lund property in Red Cedar Point. City Staff expects these drawings
to be submitted sometime next week.
If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact
me at 474-8885.
Res ectfu11
1-0
Bruce Pankonin
City Planner
BP:k
cc: Jerome Meyers, 3935 Brown Lane, Minnetonka, MN 55343
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
An appeal has been filed with the Zoning Administrator for
a variance of Zoning Ordinance No. 47. The Board of Adjustments
and Appeals will conduct a hearing on this appeal on
Nbnday .
Seotenber 12 1977 at 7:00 p.m. at the site - 3711 So. Cedar Drive.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and
place.
APPLICANT: Jerold J. Mayer
PLANS: Applicant wants to add td a house on a non -conforming lot which does
not meet the 15,000 square feet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 47.
ROY J. HANSEN
Land Surveyor 139o07 Spring Lake Road
SURVEY Hopkins, Minn. 55343
Civic oPLAT OF Engineer Telephone 938.5678
OF PROPERTY OFGerotd- Meyer
LOCATION 3111 South Ceckar Drive Ghan�-tassen M�
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS Lot Z.S [310ck. 4 Real Cedar Poivtt
R
/j \ OManhol� (Top OT Manhole = BencH Mark-.2sSumeoi elev. =C1oo.o
a
C Iou) "j�cno}eS existini; elevstlw�
/. L ° 'S
� t�Corner fills on
rj' }o�' �a�vs" ` larcjc rock o �er`ote.5 ir�r� mon�rnent
CIO31a`�Jk �� (i°�'��
/0
A
s� Iz
00 • i
°' 4
/ \ (102.4� JJg�
\ N RS
n
Sole: t"=30'
� d9 V� , � �e J 7✓R . .
d"AA14`5 7-0
QaJ% k 3oj SEE DwG SNT 2
'y
rt/ l9
s
F.
jA\V
Wafer elevatiov\'
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
I hereby certify that on__ 19__ I hereby certify that on_ '7 1 made a survey of the location of the building(s) on the above I surveyed the property described a ve an at the above plat
de19
scribed property and that the location of said building(s) is is a correct representation of said survey.
correctly shown on the above plat.
ROY J. HANSEN, REGISTERED SURVEYOR NO. 6274 / i
-24-
VAPi AN,'l: PETF..TiON CASE 140. VAR.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVE'R AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
Applicant:
Nam-: -
Last-
Addi 357
Numberr an
Owner
Name:
Lust
e
Address: 3-71 ( %_•_CePA
Num -or and Creet
Address of Property in question:
Date of Application
Fee Paid7# 35 "O Dar
Received b�ir,�I�P%�r
S
E
ty
to
m
---3 % //__ S . CEOAC_
O—x.CyaAjlj
i'FxcAl MA/s C--S-93
_
legal description of
property
in
question:
���A5s�A M1AJAJC sC r6 --
Present zoning oL property: < -
Present use of property: K -
Proposed use of property: _K�_
-25-
The following documents shall be attached to this application:
Date Received Initial
1. Sketch plan - -30 7 7,7 O
2. Abstractors Certificate �' 30 - 7 %
3. Lee paid
I hereby declare that all statements made in this application and on
the attached documents are true, and that I shall reimburse the City
of Chanhassen for all City expenses incurred in processing this
47- 30 - ? 7
(Following to be completed by Zoning Administrator or City official)
—
i
Date _ By
Public Hearing by
Board of. Adjustments and Appeals
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
postponed to
i
Adjacent propertY owners notified
Application on Council Agenda
Council postponed to
—
-
Council action
i
_26_
$OAIZD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
On this day of , 19 , this variance
action was recommended for (approval), (aisapprova1-Ffor the
following reasons:
Chairman of Board of A4justments and Appea.
Action by City:
On this day of , 19 , the Chanhassen
City Council, Carver and Hennepin ount es, Minnesota (approved),
(disapproved) this variance petition for the following reasons:
By Order of the Chanhassen
City Council
Mayor
Attest:
City Administrator
.- _- % 111 rl
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Don Ashworth
, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes
and says that he is and was on August 31 , 19 77 , the duly qualified and
acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said
date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a
Variance request for Jerold J. Meyer in the
City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said
notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes
addressed to all such owners in the United States mails with postage fully prepaid
thereon.; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as s4ci�
by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by otn r
appropriate records.
City Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 1974.
Notary Public
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
An appeal has been filed with the Zoning Administrator for
a variance of Zoning Ordinance No. 47. The Board of Adjustments
and Appeals will conduct
a hearing on
this
appeal
on
Monday
,
Septerrber 12, 1977
at 7:00 p.m.
at
the
site
- 3711 So.
Cedar Drive.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and
place.
APPLICANT: Jerold J
PLANS: Applicant wants to add !to a house on a non-oonforming lot which does
not meet the 15,000 square feet requirements of Zoning Ordinance 47.
Sank 9 Aveta Lund �1 Jahn T. H.igg.in
3711 South Cedars 50 GAovetand Tennace Apt.
UZiv,f'i iot, MN 55331 Minneapot", MN 55403
CCib j Pedeason Fhannc i6 M. S<ihona
3713 South Cedars 1814 4.th St. N. E.
Exce26.Lon, MN 55331 Minneapot" , MN 55413
Ric Andin Dish Peauon
3715 South Cedars 7307 FnontLe)L Trait
Excet.6.io&, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
BasiQ 8 Heeen Bustian Roman Roos
3719 South Ceda& 8001 Cheyenne Ave.
Excetz ia2, MN 55331, Chanha6sen, MN 55317
Tom Heibehg
W.iUaAd Johnson
3707 South Cedar.
1660 W. 63Ad St
Excets.ioA, MN 55331
Exce Pion, MN 55331
Andnue Jensen
JeAotd MeyeA
3705 South Cedar
3935 Brown Lane
Excef,6ion., MN 55331
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Dorothy CoQ .in6
r9 (
3701 South Cedah
ExceCa.iah, MN 55331
Che6.teA Lob.itz
3637 South CedaA
Excek6.io7, MN 55331
Gang Gom6nud
7201 Jun,ipe2
Excetz i.oh, MN 55331
Genevieve DA.aus
Rt. 1 Box 779
Exceez ion, MN 55331
ChaAEe6 Anding
z631 South Cedars
ds.ion, MN 55331