The URL can be used to link to this page

1h. Cooper Variance Extension 05-10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site VNIW.ci .chanhassen. mn .us 1-~"\- - MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner t"~~ r May 14, 2007 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Approval of Three-Month Extension to Variance #05-10 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard - Laura Cooper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a three-month extension to Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard-surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Section 20-57 of the Chanhassen City Code states, "A variance, except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon." On May 8, 2006, the City Council approved a one-year extension to this variance. Due to personal circumstances, the applicant has been unable to begin work on the proposed demolition of the existing home and construction of a new home. The applicant intends to begin actual construction in July 2007. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a simple majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY On May 17,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard~surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with conditions 1-12. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed variance. RECOMMENDATION There have been no amendments to the City Code that would affect the conditions of approval of Variance #05-10; therefore, staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a three-month extension to Variance #05-10. The extension shall become void July 14,2007 unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon. A TT ACHMENTS 1. Letter from Applicant dated April 22, 2006. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 17, 2006. 3. May 17,2005 Planning Commission Minutes. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chamning downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-1O sharratt variance \extension. doc Laura Cooper 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8650 Plarming Case # 05-10 April 22, 2007 RECEIVED APR 2 4 2007 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sharmeen: I am sending this letter in follow up to a brief conversation I had with you earlier this month. I'm pretty sure you gave me another contact to direct this letter to, but I apologize I can't find where I wrote her name down. Due to extended changes in personal circumstances, I am submitting this letter of request for an extension to the variance granted to me by the city last May. I believe that I will be making my first submittal for building permit (through my brother Joseph A Cooper) by the first week in May. We have been working diligently to get our project to a biddable state and feel confident that we will be ready to break ground by the end of July. The reference on the variance letter dated May 23,2005 indicates the subject of the letter as: Variance, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard - Planning Case #05-10 I have attached a copy of the letter that formally notifies me that on May 17, 2005 the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved the motion for variances as included in the letter. I am still intending to build a new home on the same lot, but expect the project to be smaller than originally planned as I must downsize to fit my modified budget. It is my expectation that the new construction will fit well within the existing variances granted - including all setbacks and other stipulations. With the intended building permit submittal will be the new drawings for the site including front and back elevations, drawn on the survey as well as the other submittal requirements. I wish to reiterate that is my expectation that we will be within the previously approved variance stipulations. The forecast at this point is that I will plan to start construction in July, 2007 with an anticipated move in date of March, 2008. Please let me know what else you might need of me to extend this variance to cover the construction effort. As always, if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at any of the following: Home Email: Work Email: lakeriley(jj)mchsi. com laura. coopcr@carlson.com Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: 952-934-6388 763-212-1619 612-396-6388 ~in r ~11.(\~ La Cooper ~ . . .......................... CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site WVNI.cLchanhassen.mn.us May 23,2005 Laura Cooper & Tim Walker 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen,:MN 55317 Re: Variance, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard - Planning Case #05-10 Dear Ms. Cooper & Mr. Walker: This letter is to formally notify you that on May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house. 2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3: 1 are not allowed.. There is a slope along the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3: 1. Revise this slope to comply. 3. The applicant mustbeawareth~t anyretainiIlg w allover fourfeetinheight must be designed by aregistereclcivilellgineer and a permit Jrom the city building departmentrnustþe obtained. Iiladditi?Jl,ienCrpachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a puþlic easement. 4. Show the top and bottomwalle1evationsonthe survey. 5. The applicant's contractör.willneedtoverifytheexistingsewerand water locations and submitrevised service tie cards upon connection. 6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing withil1the . shore impact zone. 7. The applicant shall deternlÎne whetheLpermits wiUbe requiredfrOlll the Riley- Purgatory- Bluff Creek ",atershtdpistrictandMinnesotai;r)epartment of Natural Resources for theproject,iIlcludingtheshorelineriprap. All· necessary permits shall be obtained and all cQnditionsof approval should be met. 8. Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side; Typelsilt fencesha.ll be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall beremovedwhenthe construction is complete and the site has been revegetated, The City oj Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, Quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Laura Cooper & Tim Walker May 23, 2005 Page 2 9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvcgetated when area is not actively bei~ worked) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days 10. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner." If you have any questions please contact me at 952-227 -1132 or by email at í metzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Planner I g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-1O sharratt variance\letter of approval.doc PC DATE: May 17, 2005 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/11/05 CASE #: 05-10 BY: JM, LH, MS, JS STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Sharratt Design Laura Cooper & Tim Walker 464 Second Street 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre DENSITY: NA SITE DATA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing legal non-conforming single-family home built on a legal non-conforming lot of record and build a new single-family home. The proposed single-family home will require hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variances because the existing non conformities would be intensified. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This application first appeared before the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 15, 2005. The proposed design of the new house at the time of that submittal was drastically different from the current proposal. The applicant had originally proposed to substantially increase the existing hard surface coverage from 26.4% to 32.7%. The original proposal also called for a reduction in the shoreland setback from 36 feet to 33.7 feet. The amount of hard cover encroachment on the shoreland setback was also significantly increased from the existing encroachment. Planning Commission chose to table this application and advised the applicant to redesign the proposed home and submit new plans at a later date. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Lyman Boulevard on Lake Riley Boulevard and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance, a 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage permitted in the RSF district and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance from the required 75 foot minimum shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruction of a nonconforming structure to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconforming structure. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Structures Classes of Public Waters Sewered Lakes Recreational development 75 Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 3 Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (RSF) (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. BACKGROUND The subject property is located just south of Lyman Boulevard on Lake Riley Boulevard in the Shoreland Management District on the northwestern shore of Lake Riley. The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Lake Riley is a Recreational Development Lake. The minimum lot area for a sewered riparian lot on a recreational development lake is 20,000 square feet. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with a lot area of 12,936 square feet. However, the lot does meet the minimum depth and width requirements with an average depth of 127.51, 96.35 feet of street frontage, and 101.18 feet of lake frontage. The topography of the site is relatively flat and slopes very gradually from a high elevation of 873.7 at the southwestern front property corner to a low elevation of 865.3 at the OHW level. *Note: Person in picture is standing at the lakeshore. *Note: Picture illustrates the distance from the existing deck to the lakeshore. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 4 Staff reviewed city records to determine if front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property and also properties along Lake Riley Boulevard which lie outside of the 500 foot radius. This review turned up the following cases: Variance Shoreland File Address Variance Setback Number 9235 Lake 25 foot shoreline 1986-1 setback variance 50 ft Riley Blvd 14 foot front yard, 7 foot rear yard, 4.5 89-1 Setbacks: foot west side yard, 10 foot east side yard 98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width 9247 Lake 1989-1, 10 foot front yard variance (lake access), setback variance, 57 ft Riley Blvd 1998-12 3 foot side yard4 foot shoreland setback variance, setback variance 13 foot front yard June 28, 1999: Single family home: 7 foot shoreland setback variance, setback variance 9231 Lake 27.7 ft 6 foot side yard 1989-13 setback variance Riley Blvd 10.35 foot shoreland 9051 Lake setback variance for the construction 1990-7 64.65 feet Riley Blvd of a new home 9203 Lake 2.5 foot side yard 1991-16 setback variance 80 ft Riley Blvd 9221 Lake 14 foot front yard6.5 Garage setbacks: setback variance, Riley Blvd 1992-2 28 ft foot side yard7% hard surface coverage setback, 9021 Lake 36 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of 1992-9 39 feet Riley Blvd a deck 9 foot shoreland7.9 foot front 9243 Lake Addition setbacks: variance, 1993-8 66 ft yard Riley Blvd variance 3 foot east side yard5 foot west side Setbacks: variance, 9225 Lake yard33 foot shorelandhard 1996-9, variance, variance, 25% 42 ft Riley Blvd surface coverage variance; 9223 Lake 7 foot rear yard 1997-11 97-11-setbacks: variance 68 ft Riley Blvd 361 Deerfoot 1.6 foot front yard 1997-3 Deck setbacks: variance N/A Trail 9217 Lake 7 foot front yard 1998-6 Addition setbacks: variance 115 ft Riley Blvd 9249 Lake 18 foot shoreland 1999-14 setback variance 57 ft Riley Blvd Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 5 Variance Shoreland Address File Variance Setback Number 6.6 foot side yard5 foot side yard setback variance, 9221 Lake 18 foot shoreland 2003-07 setback variance, setback variance for 57 ft Riley Blvd construction of a new home 9203 Lake 7 foot side yard 2003-12 setback variance for a home additionN/A Riley Blvd *Items in bold italics are within 500 feet of the subject property. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 6 ANALYSIS Original Proposal New Proposal The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). Given a 30-foot front yard setback, 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a 75-foot shoreland setback, there is a buildable area of approximately 2,045 square feet Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 7 on the subject lot. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-car garage, already exists. However, staff would support a variance to allow the applicant to demolish the existing home for the construction of a new home which would reduce the existing non-conforming hard surface coverage and shoreland setback. Shoreland The shoreland setback is measured from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Lake Riley which is 865.3. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing legal non-conforming single family home on a riparian lot. The existing home, which was built in 1978, has a non-conforming shoreland setback of 36 feet from the OHW. The applicant is planning to reduce the existing non-conformity by increasing the shoreland setback from 36 feet to 43 feet from the OHW. The proposed structure will reduce the hard surface square footage encroaching on the shoreland setback from 1,350 square feet of the existing structure to 1,315 for the proposed structure. Hard Surface Coverage The subject property has an existing legal non-conforming hard surface coverage of 26.4%. The applicant is proposing to remove all existing hard surface and rebuild with a hard surface coverage of 26.0%, thus reducing the hard surface cover as it exists today. This is a major improvement from the original proposal which had a hard surface percentage of 32.7%. The applicant achieved this reduction by altering the design from a one-story walkout with a two-level four stall garage to a two-story walkout with a one-level three stall garage. The new garage design and placement greatly reduced the proposed driveway area. Chanhassen City Code does not consider wooden decks hard surface as long as there is no hard surface beneath the decks. Because of this the applicant has agreed to either sod or place landscaping mulch or Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 8 rock with a fabric liner beneath the deck areas. Proposed hard surface coverage for the subject site is calculated as follows: Proposed House & Stoop: 2,547 sq. ft. Proposed Driveway: 818 sq. ft. Proposed Stoop: 0 sq. ft. Proposed Patio: 0 sq. ft. Proposed Retaining Wall: 0 sq. ft. Total Hard Cover: 3,365 sq. ft. Lot Area: 12,936 sq. ft. % Hard Surface Coverage: 26.0% Front Yard Setback Chanhassen City Code requires minimum front yard setbacks of 30 feet in the Single Family Residential District (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance. The encroachment into the front yard setback would be 62.5 square feet of garage area (corner of garage). The existing front yard setback is 36.5 feet making the proposed front yard setback variance a new deviation from ordinance. There have been five front yard setback variances granted in this neighborhood since 1992. The Planned Unit Development of Sunny Slope located on the west side of Lake Riley Boulevards south end has minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet. Staff conducted a field survey of existing front yard setbacks on Lake Riley Boulevard. The field survey was necessary because many of the older homes on Lake Riley Boulevard do not have registered land surveys. The field survey revealed that as many as 12 of the 26 homes on Lake Riley Boulevard appear to be setback less than the required 30 feet from the right-of-way. The Chanhassen City Code states: Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. This evidence of existing non-conforming front yard setbacks suggests the current proposal is consistent with pre-existing neighborhood characteristics and does not depart downward from them. Lakes The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Riley and is therefore within the lake’s shoreland district. Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. The structure setback requirement is 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level (865.3 MSL). The existing house and deck are set back 36 feet from the OHW; the proposed setback is 43 feet. Intensive vegetation clearing is not allowed within the shore impact zone (the land between the OHW Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 9 and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback (37.5 feet in this case)). The current plan proposes grading the width of the property within 20 feet of the OHW. Grading should be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. The applicant must determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits should be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Impervious Surface Coverage The amount of impervious surface on any site profoundly affects the physical and biological characteristics of the site and areas downstream. This is one reason the City regulates impervious surface coverage. Generally, increasing the amount of impervious surface: a.Increases the temperature of water flowing into downstream water resources; b.Prevents surface water from infiltrating into the ground; c.Increases the velocity of runoff water; d.Increases the likelihood of flooding; e.Increases the area upon which pollutants can settle; and f.Increases the potential for erosion, especially in sensitive shoreline areas. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-485 states that “Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25% of the lot area.” The current impervious surface coverage of this lot is 26.4%; the proposed 26.0% impervious surface coverage is including retaining walls. Erosion Control Type III silt fence on the lake side must be provided during demolition and during construction. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE Hard Surface Shoreland Front Yard Side Yard Lot Area Coverage Setback Setback Setbacks Ordinance 20,000 25% 75 feet 30 feet 10 feet Existing 12,936 26.4% 36 feet 36.5 feet 23.5 & 16 feet Proposed 12,936 26.0% 43 feet 25 feet 16 & 16 feet Neighborhood Characteristic The existing home was built in 1978 making it 10-15 years outdated from neighboring homes. The new design proposal is comparable to that of neighboring structures. The characteristics of the subject property are unique from that of neighboring properties in that it has a much smaller lot size. 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard 12,936 square feet (subject property) 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard 16,552 square feet 9021 Lake Riley Boulevard 20,473 square feet 9051 Lake Riley Boulevard 19,166 square feet This has made it difficult for the applicant to find a design that is consistent with the neighborhood while at the same time appeasing the City. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 12 Chanhassen City Code states, “There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity.” The applicant has worked very hard to find a design that reduced the previous proposals intensification of non-conformities. The new design proposal goes beyond that by actually reducing non-conformities that exist today. In light of the evidence and facts discussed in the staff report we are recommending approval of this variance request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. Having a substandard size lot that is significantly smaller than neighboring properties has made it difficult for the applicant to design a home that is consistent with neighborhood characteristics while meeting ordinance requirements. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within both the Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management Districts. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed development will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole purpose of the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The subject property has a substandard lot size, significantly smaller than that of neighboring properties making it difficult to design a home that is consistent with neighborhood characteristics while meeting ordinance requirements. Therefore, the hardship is due to the lot size and is not self-created. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 13 Finding: The variance will be less detrimental to the public welfare or less injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located than existing conditions. The proposed house lessens both the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage non-conformities, thus reducing the impact on Lake Riley and surrounding properties. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the Planning Commissionadopt the following motion: “The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1.Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house. 2.Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply. 3.The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 4.Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey. 5.The applicant’s contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection. 6.Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. 7.The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. 8.Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 14 9.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days 10.Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11.A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 12.The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner. ATTACHMENTS 1.Findings of Fact. 2.Development Review Application. 3.Letter from Sharratt Design dated February 11, 2005, Revised February 25, 2005, Revised May 2, 2005. 4.Letter from Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN. 5.Lot Survey of existing conditions stamped “Received May 2, 2005”. 6.Lot Survey of proposed conditions stamped “Received May 6, 2005”. 7.Building Plans. 8.Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharratt variance\staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of Sharratt Design for variances from hard surface coverage, shoreland setback and front yard setback restrictions for a new house - Planning Case No. 05-10. On May 17,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Sharratt Design for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116, Range 023. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management districts. c. The construction of a new home will increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will be less detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located than existing conditions. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-10 Variance dated May 17,2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the variances from hard surface coverage, shoreland setback and front yard setback restrictions for a new house. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 17t1J. day of May, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Planning Commission Chairperson g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharratt variance\findings offact.doc Ul/U(/U~ l~:lZ tAÅ ~~ZZZ(lllU \,,11Y Ut \"tlA1~tlA;);)~J~ ~uuu (/::> - /0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN,.MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FES 11 2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPr APPLlCANT:~a..n,,,--tf Út=5Ü*" ¡CO. OWNER: LA..U~"-- V\. ~Op« ADDRESS: t./{¡ &. SIJ'ðn& $!t. 5k.. 100 ADDRESS: 'j015 ~tu. f!.11t« 5}.v~ E )(~J~/ðÝ MN 5S33/ c/hWttS~ MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day Time) CJ 5' 2-. L/70 ·17 SO TELEPHONE: c¡ 52· 934· ~38'8' Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit X Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit . Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" Site Plan Review* - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes & Bounds . $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. 'If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box 0 Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) fuJI-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an B%" X 11" reduced copy for'~ each plan sheet. "'Escrow will be required for other alpplications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED Ul/!~/y~, ~{;q{ rAA Ø~~~~llllV '-'.1..1 i VI' .......LJ.n.l'Hn.~U'Ul., PROJECT NAME: LOCA nON: QOJ5 Su.- 1 Ju.. 'f¿)cÁJ I> IvJ Jt 0:'# (d..hi. . - A (\ lJ4l1 htZ. sS-U) "AN L~GAL DESCRIPTION: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: ) Z I C¡I.)~ s· f YES . TOTAL ACREAGE: NO -- R<sF REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: PJÛA.~ 'Set'- tdttl d-v,1. - ß This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shaH be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shan be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 1 am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fess, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed With the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ignature of Applicant j IWA fÁ..- ~fh J)j- Signature of Fee Owner 7 ',2 . II· Ç) S Date 2 . II· oS- Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the .applicant's address. G:\plan\fOffils\Development Review Applkation,DOC des I company .. iÖlrv OF eHANHASSEN RECeiVED . February 11 , 2005 Revised: February 25, 2005 Revised: May 2,2005 MAY 0 3 2005 (CHANI-I ' ' ASS EN PLANNING DEPT RE: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 PID: 25.0240300 Laura Cooper and Tim Walker are requesting a variance for the lakeside setback, front yard setback and lot coverage for the above named property. The lot in question is a legal lot of record that is 2,054 square feet smaller than the current lot size requirement for this zoning district in the City of Chanhassen. The existing home on the property is 34 feet from the lakeshore at elevation 864.7 and lot coverage is 26.4%. The owners are proposing to improve the existing lake setback as well as provide a small improvement of the lot coverage. To provide a feasible building site for the new home, they are requesting the front yard setback variance in order to reduce the lot coverage and encroachment upon the lake. The proposed lakeside setback is variable, never going closer than the current non-conforming distance; and further in others to balance the rear of the house. The closest corner of the house is 48 feet from the lake; the closest corner of the wood deck is 43 feet. The owners are requesting a lot coverage variance of 1.3%. This reduces the current non conforming lot coverage by 0.1 %. Finally, the owners are requesting a front yard setback variance of 5 feet, from a 30 foot setback at its closest point, to a 25 foot setback for one small corner of the garage. The owners respectfully request consideration of the following: A. The literal enforcement of the zoning requirements provide a building pad of only 23' in depth, street setback to lake setback; a size that is not only unreasonable for a home today, but fundamentally out of character with the neighborhood. In addition, the buildable area results in a trapezoidal shape exacerbating the difficulty of rectangular geometry for reasonable cost effective construction. The new design fully utilizes the available building area, and requests an improvement over the existing non- conformities. The owners are requesting the variances to make reasonable use of the property, with a home that is an improvement for the neighborhood, the city, and the health and wellbeing of the homeowners. B. The uniqueness of this lot is that it is significantly smaller than 77% of all the lots on Lake Riley Blvd; it is only one of six, out of twenty seven, that are 650 or more square feet less than the required 15,000 square feet. All des I company t~t ~ -~"" of the other lots this size or smaller are either around the point or at the end of the point, making the Cooper lot the only lot this significantly smaller within the first sixteen lots on this street. C. The owners are putting considerable time and effort into providing a design that is suited to the neighborhood, their needs, and the current zoning requirements of the City of Chanhassen. They intend to stay in this home permanently and are therefore looking at a long term design solution for every stage of their lives and those of their family and friends, not an increase in property value. D. The lot in question was a legal lot of record when purchased by the owners, with the current non-conforming home on it. The owners have not created this hardship, as the lot has always been smaller than the majority of the other lots in the neighborhood. E. The owners are taking particular care to insure that the new home design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and does not encroach upon the neighbors. Additionally, they will be taking steps above and beyond the current requirements for drainage to mitigate the run off of surface water from their property. F. The new home will in no way impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or increase any congestion or danger. On behalf of the owners, we thank you for your time and consideration of this request. MAY, 9,2005 L55PM CARLSON MARKETING NO. 7021 P. 2 Joan Ludwig 9005 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAY 0 9 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT May 3, 2005 To The Chanhassen City Planning Commission: My neighbor, Laura Cooper has reviewed her plans for upgrading her home with me. I am comfortable with the plans_ If you have any questions please contact me at 952-946-8739. Sincerely. (.~:~~~~ c¿an Ludwig <:>'<><')'" o\cÒc;c\ '. r-... '" '" \c ~<:OQ;:)Q;;)(Q ¡S:o, £::~ ~¡., tqG¡;; ~ [;j~g <:>~~g§~ ~ c: r.¡ <:>~ .... C¡~~~;.: Vj ~"'~~~ r::2(3~~ ß ~ g¡ 8: '" !i oi co ~I . I ~l'-J -0', ~ lJ)CIj II ~l'-J 0',....0 0 0;)1 U) ~ ~ I 0 !! .... ó ::I: i!!í .... co ~ 0 X ~ d '" oi CO CO X II :¡;~ E?t.; ~~ :::J_ ~~ ","" \<J<::i~ <1:;<:<:> Ç:)t.;iJ; b¡l,j &,,,,~ ~~Q 'l""E? \§""Il _r.:!' '1i&r.=-.. ¡,Ie-IT I ®! E- ~ '" 0 µ:¡ ~ :I: . '" 9 z ,- Q W Lr) III (j) a (J) = (!J N <Co = z :rill '" 2' oi z> ~ co <C_ "'" Z co :rill .5 X 00 "'" "- ,,-ill Z arr >- III '" ç o:¡; ø ;;;:;: 'E Ö :z g paAOWaJ aq 01 ~ bUll/aMp ÔU/lSjX3 r:: ~ .... co r:: ...; ro .... co "! r:: I co - -ç['. J - 0h "t-tJ.9£è r'(flQ Á'.. ¡ N Halla- ~G u&J .... .... ~~ ~ ~~ ts~ ~§ ~ c ê;j 0 <:.(f ~ ~~ 6 ~~ ~ u:; tiI ~~ ~ Q ¡.. ~ ~ ,~ ~::E ~ ø ~§ ~ M r;jó <:! :£ ~:z: ¿¿ 0 ~ ~~ "" N >< .... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0 tI) - V> o o N .,¡- N ¡; 2 -£ "" ]u 8~ g~ ~ ~L~ o18!~~BIS~¡-~~aM~S~ ~Z~ M_~P~~=~~o-~oi Æ ~g~~8~ìf'§~ª'§z~~~~~: .9- to-< to) ~ V Sb <I I,¡:; v .56 v In 0 u '"0 ¡:; 00 0 o o~E~o]8N ~vu~~o~~~ .~ ÞO .,. 5 0 "'0 0 . V) t-- - 0;/) B :l ~ 13 M to-< ~ Q~'6R~u"etl-Æ8~~~oeN~O~ ·~u -00 '-kV)~k~~ o~~-5 oS CIS (,¡::f æ.q VI v CJ) 0 "'0 CQ ... '" z > 0 0;/) Q' VI ] ¿g 8 1:: :5 4¿j -8 ~.g ;.g "'8 ~ 08 8 gf'õ 13 ~ ~~~~zo~8v~~t--~~g"'O~£~'~ ... " '" "" ~ g.... - ,,'" ".... ".~ ~ " ~ 'õ S~6b-8~~:J~~~t=.~tr..s~~,?;>+J~ ....... :3~t)~c::I' .!::2t::: o"'Oo...ep... 1-480 œ ~o"'O~o ~Zo~~Zo~~o~~o- ~ ~o_o"Bo~ o+Jo~.9~U~~~.s ~ æO~~~~-8zggg~~~õoi& N g 11 g 3 ~ H ~ B ëf.9 oS ] .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s ~ o~~~~~~~'~~u_:~ogg~o 9 g~gg~~d~~o3~ooZ8.sg~ ~ £~~š~~§~o~:~gtl£5~~~ ,J: .....'"t:J.:;) 4-..,J: ~::£ J3 _..C!: 0 () E! 1:1 > 0 VI k M ._ tf E 0 1:: V"'J. .~ \0 bO..s 23 0 0 ::;; ~ «:t ~ a~æ'a800=~~~'lu~]O~~= ~ ~ogooj~I~·~<'õ· ~~&]~gg ...... do.V"'J U¡¡O~OO U ~~d~ - O]~~~fi' OC~o]N~~~~'§~ ~ ~~~ä~~\OH~~3~~~~~~o~ f1 >~-3~ ~ 11'-::6 ~=..:å.š~ g 2 e~::~ ~ 0 E~~~o~'8N~o u~ooo~ ~ O~~oo~_ä-sõ-~8~~~~äd ~ ~bO~~g~~i·o~~¡Bg·~~~~§ N ~'d~OU_ ~~o~o~~~~ooo~ g 'õ~i~~~~cgtc~~5~~~oog ~ ~J~u8°~8ü§8~-S9Z-~~ ~ ~~~BD§~~~~~\O~'8~ol~~ ~~~~g~~Bog$tlg~~~~~:bO.e õ~~dHü·~~g~~!~=d~]~~·êe ..~~!§:~M~~5'õ~~'õ§ä~~g_ft~ Z d c..=. t:: U) ...... f"'I 0 ~ ....5 0 Z·... 0 <1.1- 0 U) U) o,D 4) oo~oo~~n~õ8o~8ov~roro~oo ~~~~~E~ä~~~H~~~~~~~~~~ ~g~!I'~~~g~~~~~~~~§~~~: US~ro.aN8ogg~m~~m.sog~~.~~ ("/) obOaNg,J:~C""I0IJ........CJJ"'8Z~ ·oo......Q ~~~·ft~~~~N~~~~~~~8~;eg~ ~5~5N8~Z~:~~~~~:fi~=·g~z <~~a~~~8B~,J:~],J:~3~8~2~8 ~~~s~~-øå~~oo~o~~§sro~~ 5~~8~~~~·s~~~§~~~~·S~§]¡ ~ Q V> o o '" M N ¡; 2 -£ "" ç¡ ~ !;! !5 tI) ... N ~ alflJ7 ~ ~ '<> b ó z " ~ ð :!! ¡j o ¡.. B J Po 'iJ-g 12 0 :;¡~ .§~ ¡jJ¡ =0. :Q -Ë '0.... " 0 '~8 -<>15 '30 ~.s 6,5 ~iË ~ g 13 ~ ~ã " ~ .¡;.... .... 0 0'" në.. 'C " ~ -s_ " c " 0 ~~ ¡:!.g -g gg.~ ~~ ro ..9 0 0:> g -E~.s ~ g ~ ~.~ ~.,§ .~ ~ ]~ € ! ii ~ ] ~o: ~ 0. 0 >,.~ 0 ~ .t:: e ~""d~.;:!gp em ;5 0.. ~ ß .... g ..¡:: .9 ~ >,. -Š'~9og~'; ~~ ~ tç;o~§~~~ ¡go ~ ~;:€~~Æª 88 § E! 0 ~ -t-' ~ Q Š .S ~ 'ß. 8 8.~ '6 'ª ~.8 ã .£ '5 ~.š ~] ,5f < .€ 4) .2 ~ ~-2~¡§tH·1,;~§~ ~~ ~8.:;¡;¡¡~'O·,,@)6!i " gt § e Q õ ª ,D § 0 Q .§ .£:og.-8C§dO§ gr~ -Ë ~ $ ~ g..g.g.~..g '2 ~ ~0~-M¿8g~~ 'ê~ ~ "'0 S 3: ~:; o;ð:: .¡:: 8 oS 4) ~ c 0 Q g g ,S .;:!.. u ..!or: ..]žjå.;:!SouSo --gg ; ~ 5 öO 3.8 e ~ '(5 j .~ ð :§ "'0 e .-ª ~.~ c..11 bI) >. ~'_--. cE g ~.~ ~ ~ g ~ 'å ã a ~ .- :~ a.~§cE~j ~~ ci ~~ :g ~ .~£ ~ .g ð ~] ~ '£ ~ ~ ·~.2 C'J: g ~ 0 c;; -~ .Ë ~ oS ~ ß·.g ~..g.9 ~2'õ~ a E M !:I')( M :> "'0 ro 0 æ <i-i O..Q.s ~:.ouo.,.g~t~oooo~ ~ "'0 <0-. ~ U '0 --0 a bO ~ þ[j c o;ð 8 ª § fl 8. e=§ ()'~ ~ .ª ~ "õ -~ ~.~ ~ en ø.~ -s =-= >.·~"'O.9 ~ B g g.J;:g~~ ~~:2~ .. ¡...., - - s o;ð 0 c -:S ~ 8 v :> -Q Z ~ -š -Ë ~ .~ ~ ~ g] ~ J¿ [] ~ S ~ .Ë.Ë ~:š ~:M g..s -§ ~ ~ ~-.g < 8 ~ ~·ä ~ ~~ à :a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !=;~-"-",,-,,,c...E1J"O>.¡j.. 2uU)U]U)U):$::s 0"'0 ~ :t;> cI;:J ,...:¡ i5 ....; N M .¢ '^ g, ~ 8 oS g.~.8 g, '" .f .... co X ~ Q~ E?~ :j~ h~ <:>a ~~~ 0: '" ~ci"< ] ~;:r:~ õ þ<~f:2E ~~&:~~ .~ g ".¡; .¡; .- o i< ~ ~ §."ª ~ ~ ~.~ '" - ~ ~ ~o; :3 ~ ~:g 5 ~ " " :l:a.å ° ~.ti) ~~~-š ,ê:; ~ .. ~ !3 ~ U';I,Do~ §1~ê ~ ~.8 ~ ~]§~ o~~~ 0·" ~ '0 ~ ~ 0 g ::3 .e-offl g, o~~~ ~-~" >~~;9 CfJ-œ.8 o B 1i .~ ta:::ou"'O « 5"'d ,S ~A~~ ;S;' S-ê tI): .....( r.LI ~ ..........0 fi1::r: p...~ O~ 0,......] U<r.: 2:: <:::i I.J \:) ~ ¡:.¡ ~~ t3¡;- ~ff ~ .....';- ~ 0<)£ ~ \:)::1 q ~¡¡ ¡;:a ¡... ~i fSj " I tJ I II "=~~~ ¡ ~ "" " .:t..t " ~ ,,'f.:f... '" ì':: ~;¡ ~ 53°: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~I ~ ~~ã ~ t L ti 6 ~~. i ª g ~ ~ 8 z w 3 3 I UJ o.n c ~I!h ~ $ = '" ~ ~ ~ ~ = z ~~ p u r <0 C'-.J z ~ªl b ~ ~~ t ~ :I:L1I 5 " . ~~ <0 :t:L1I 0 "- 00 ,Z u.L1I ~ IJJ 00: I ~ :;¡; 0 .dtO!J'. o,l:\~.., ..~riri~ ~~'>:I~<{I ~o ~I~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ o,h~ ~~~2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]*>1<'1 ~~ ~~ 0,- "" , ",' £~ x . ~ x ~ ~ ;i I !! o~ _ _~~ §~ -01 s~ .g:z: og;- oV.g!~1! Q-S~~§:!; !j;jlljll~lt~jl~~11 1 ~if~~äo~älhIH.~B"¡; I t_ 5.~5. §~ .~...~. -. J·8~ O~ifO.-' if~o-o~i t 1ªli!i1;~gl~~1!~1~~ - ~..~~.2~IC~]d~t¡;~.S ~ : t':~8Ç~(g~.g!·.. ~]8 ~'¡~!B ¡llg"~g~I~.R~~gl..lt J e:Htl~tll!ii~t¡~¡J" 4 5.~.~~e~;~.~~;~~]:8~ 8 3hUa~S ~g';~ 1.3~~';;! ~ -~8.~:.i]8n~i·l~~~~ ~ ~]~~g~~~õ.~o~~ !egj¡ I ~..1!~~1!gil~j~~ ~o1. I J~I~ll~g]@~~g~~~IIH ~ !i~~I~~!j¡!!!~II;~~ ] ~.3!!Si!li~ig~!::13jtl ";ï8",,~;;\L"'.1~.!f"'l- o~ _!.I~~~·§~~ g§¡~·!II~¡~ Z~~~S~OOSO~ ~~~~~ ~~&! ~1~·8~j~~j.lgMt;l~ ~~I~ S~]!~lli~IHg~I~I~i~]:J! IIJJ1~;~t~:!!I~J~·~~I~t PIä~I~J~~~N-I=I°J]~a~1 ~~1šl~1~il~ii~I~I~lgj1j { ! ~ ~ . 8- 8!l ~] ~~ j11 ~IÎ h ã~ alflJ7 . ~ '" ~ ~ J i ;;-§ is -'0 ,¡oS 'g. '-8 ~8 1o H ~;å ,g g ~" :;~ .~ ~o o. n'õ. H .8~ ~~ ~ ] ¡~ ! ¡ ~~~ ~j u I ~ I iH i H g ~8,j9=~:f ·i~ -ê ~'.~~H~~ sg 1 ~ oS "<>ä ~_;; g èg·jJr~g:¡o:<> ß. 8i!'.~~] ~~ H~nf'/'II H .....8.ãõi3="tI·a b ~~ }.u s.~ g ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~ .JI1~ nH:¡¡-£ .'1 ·'d~~.~1~1 u" ..j. 0H] 8'"'~ ~ð ~,,~ ~s.8 ~.~.a ,. ¡' :ã~~:fi~HJL~~ ¡¡ .1dpo~~~ ~_ n-Hålh]~h~ Hi! ~h ~H~ §~-"~o ~....~:!.-li;¡~. ~Jj:1l n..B~"]N·'9 - ~H I~;i~] HiH ~IH~ ~!hPH fJ~ ¡:: 8-'~'~ ~,. o:a ~ 1,¡¡.oJ! 0 g ;:::§o~i~~~;¡¡'dor ~~::::..; uU ~~;¡jf ] n ..8 å ~ ]. ~~ :i~ ~,E ..'. § ~ .~ I~·~ ~1~ s~ 0 ~II ,"'¡¡j~ "J.~ ~.[1 ~ U~~ o ~~'ª ~~~~ ~.~.!¡ ~e~s ~. -¡¡: B øS'] ~H' i@£":] <" ].. Ii; ~ g.8 ~ o ~] "'~ b ~l ß ~ ,- ~ U~ :S"'8~ "u t.", c!'~.š .~ ~ 'S VJ if].!l -g'¡¡ fH fJ] .... å'.2 1J.¡¡.H ~ g£ ~ ¡.¡ ..... < . u [J} u :2 Il. < p: <:J ~ '" ~ ...........0 f&~ ~~ o~ o....:¡ U<t:; ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~§i ro. h~ p:. ~hfi S ,¡:J!~ ç::B :5 ::::b..O ro't""'"'l ~{/) ~(l) "'d 1I3m10HDNVID p:=:; .!as NOlDflID.SNro o l'illillBOOV l!!SOIa P-t llISill'i83d NOISW!>! l!!S¡UVl'ilI.<'l l!!S=mw M3lAIDI JN3I'D l!!S JŒIID ~~ ..,2 ~~ !8~ ~ lR ~ i o II:! ::> Cf) Cf) í ~ I, J '* !.. \\ . . ~ ~. j ~ 11 ~ ]!P¡ d~ '" ~ ø .... '" '" :r: '" z W <IJ rJ} «0 :rw ~2: :rill üO ,,-ill aU: >- f- o f- [l. ill '" '" z Z ~ [l. z ill rJ} "" Ie Z "" :r o U") = = '" """ = ~ ~ , 1. ¡ i ! \ l\ , ¡ -1 i ! ¡ ¡ i I ~ t ~ II i ! I I 1 I ! I i I i I j- I,' I ! I I i i i i ì I'] ¡ ¡ ¡,~ ¡~! lÍ\ . I L~ ! r~ j 'i~ ¡ iJ ¡ hili ¡ ¡IIJ! I rJ; i i ll~ !. : ~·nl ·1 f~ ¡ I f'~i I ¡-if ! 1-\-1 ¡ r~ l 1';1; ¡ j'~J ~'I~ I '¡~~I ~~j I [~-11 d. B 1 ) -l ~ .Ç ~ î & ~ J::t:I ~ ...........0 fi1:r:: p...,P::: OJ::t:l O~ u....J ~ '" ffi U) ~ I ,:.-..... . EŒlOæJNVJO ESt-¡OLDmUSNOO rmQN30av ES œR ES .!lJWLI NOJSW!>! ES 3.L VJ'illÆ ES~ M!!L\ID! lNiIJD ES JD3ID ~ " ~ ~I ~~l I gR ;S;S n .",,-g ç::~ pJ ® 1 :t::bJ:) ro~ ~CJ:) j¡ ~ .ßQ) ~ 2 f-< '" l~J! '" '\j d~ :I: (f) 10<: o p.. o µ¡ ;:0 '" '" I ., i I ;~ ~{¡ 0~¡~ ~tl ¿I~ It ~ -----~I~"l -~1-- "1 . i 1 I II I I I . ~ I ; , i ~ ¡ i. 1, ~ I -II ~ ~ J1 ! ¡ I I , I I i j i i ¡ i ~ I. !\-'I ~ i: ¡¡ i! I: H ___l'Ji . 11 . ' \0- --i' ~ 1 '. ".n i~I:=:! 1 . "1' .1 Î '.., i ,: "q¡":" I I r--· .--=:j'. i ,.> , L ~ L. " ..å:.ii' to . . , I I . ,.~.-- . I . '. . "'. I ,...', ' ",. I -.... J' I ro. I ... .;,r~.. I: :. :: ., I I : ~ ~ I ~ .. ;/, ,'. .-----.G . . "..-. . ..... .. L- - , ~:.; - J......·~.,d;' 'f I'-~I .. --:';'.. t' ¡.I·t-.· ,~·~~.i;". .~- ~ !A"'~'/ : l-~· .,...J I II , : ' " ! I ! - '"'Y 1"-- -- . ~: ", -':r.:::' i! 1- ~ . ":' =-~i: ~'.. .._. .. ;;-:1 .' . ,"" -- 1.1; I. II" i ~,( ~ ;. I~;:......,.!!: - . :"~~~ : ,:'~': I;;¡ I I:! ~ i¡ :1 ~, ~T,.'!r-~r¡ I"~::-:--:--l' lu="" :-~-:::iil .' ~ . I',",,~,·· ..-,;! i: I ',. ; : I'). -·-·~.h " ~ ~ h~-i+:' ---.:-:=¡.. il--" --...;:,'~ 7~1:"· "-' ~ ~::.-.:r· . ,. 1 ¡. "" ". .-. I' 1 1.-:"00' ,...,..,..,. I '.. II·· :-''';',' I II: :: I .' !d;"._. ';;,';':,~.I, I: ".,. ". ,; 1 : ,I I .' ,,' I . I' I , ,~ 1'.;:;1 I [I L ~---ll I' ,: i· .'/;' ..-- ,~... '-'-"¡:'" , " ~. '~. 'I~ i,·. :"~I-~'::' '~""""'''~I' -,~~ I' ·'"r......., i. : '-. 1"'-·······.:...1·· ;1 ~ r-- "1 ,I == I I'.... --·..·..:1 . 1 ¡. ~","", ~,..: ¡¡ _. ..._:.=i :'1': '!::-'il~ I ' 1 ,. " ~ ... "'1 ..' tQ 1;--=1 !. "'>~' ___, ._, ',:~ ~ ~:;¡:.!" ~,..~~=_. I' I. ' . -....... ':=E=" . r 1----. I 1 L· i:" ¡~~~al 'I .. ~~-.;~~..! : i " .. '""-~, .-:- . -, .- .. . .. I ~r-'='" . ·~t:.:=:;1 L . Ii. I \," 1 "~"I 1,'1 !. . . .,. .... 'I----:-:-:-~. --:-_...P.... . i.+~: ',. I :::il:¡ -:1r I ~;r~j· ! I .f'. ·1,' .' I ~_.....II!. ·1'· -... .:....-.. . --- I -...~ i ~ =_ L II ' i I I . Iii I I I .·..,,'!,l <:··1:+ ·······1;i.'Cf$.-...·......'"'' 'r- jl ....-j " . .1 I , ~-~. - I ¡ .... :<: "- ill to f.U '" ¡g = <!) = <0 "" z Xw Z ~~ "'" z :5 XW = "- 00 z u.W >- ill ocr: '" ~ '" >- « .... :::;: :r: 0 z « :r: 0 i 1 I II II ¡ I I i I ' I I I I I. I I II I ! I ! , I I , I ¡~ if¡ , !)! I I d1 ¡ i. ,-:] I I.ll\ I 81 I~ ! 'I~. I I I !~ I ---, w=-I .... ¡~ ~4 "II~' ~~ ~ ~I ¡ 1 ¡ I I , , I ; I j ! III III ~ ~ ...........0 ~:r:: P-.~ o~ o~ U<r:; ~ ¡;¡ :2 ~. I >ßcrno~ ~ J3S NOlDfi1l.I.SN<X> o I'IfiONRUav J3S rug J3S.l.II'ffi3d NOISLIffiI J3S aLVI'!lIS1 J3SDNJ.\illII'I M3IAIDIJMITD J3S:03ID "'" o ¡,;¡ ::> rJ'J rJ'J ~ ¡ I I : I' II i' ¡ I . I ¡ I· I. .1 ',! : f" !" I ' !~ ~ - ,I j I L\ Ä ~ j) . ~ Î '~~ di~ '.1: ~ i ~-' ~ I'~' t~~¡!. f' .~ ~ i ~'J~ - ~.. ~" ~ J ,~~~.l ~,¡.;¡".~ .__ ~ , ~'." ~L;"\_:~¡· ~\:. '~i:J !-~~t--."~.- ---,¥--.Æ.~_~~:" ~ ,'_._ ~_m.. "¡¡I 1') r: ¡ I .' li ¡. I j , I I ·'1 ¡ " i '-...! {I "" I f . ¡ , I II 1/ "'IJ I. 'I - ':1 Jf'" J iT.. II 1 ··.·,1 II II - .~ II . -·:1, -- II 'I I, {l '" II I It .~ ' ! i -l<"-' ,,' ; ~ ~ ~, I~ -Ill I I II ì I I ¡ . ! ; I ! r - ~:JI£H ~ !H ~~ ,jij 4::Cb ro't"'""'l ~(/) ii(l) ""d I ; I ì 1 ¡ : I !/\ I ¡ è I ¡ ,C ; 0 ~ 12. ' i'Y j . i¡; , ¡ ti i.-.; t~ i~ !'4!! ij "1 J.= ~¡~~; ~ - ". 4-.Y i I l ~ ~ ~ ~8' ~iI ! i ®I (-4 !;;. '" " '" ~ ~ 3 U) <9 i ¡ , ¡ i , , j i ¡ ¡ i'j I ' ¡ ~ I ì I , '! f ~ .J! . , .. ",-. p::¡ ~~ ~~ ~ Ii1 ~ "'- ErnlOæ)NV}D RR '" ~ ¡g p:; .I3S NOlDflRlSNffi ~i11 ...........0 0 Yillillaoav '" J3SŒij ~g! ~~j ~~ ~ <Lo .æsllÍ'nüld £~'i ® P-.t~ Z' NOISWI>! 1: '" P J3SH.LVJ'lli.S3 OP::¡ I ¡L J3S ÐNillIID'i O~ MTh\ID! lNID'D <d~ ::> J3S Jœ1D ~C/.) ~ m U~ Ù> ~ <t:: U) ~Q) ... ~ ~ '" ~ gg .: '" ~ ~ ~jì :r: '" \ II'-.c:>z:. ~ ... -' 'f' ¡,I' -===it t ' ~1 4- I,t?-/~~ II PJIf'Z? n.l-,? .Þ,-Þ'9 , ., i ! , N } \ . .. .J ~ J' f , \ !: ~ ~ EmlO3.8NVlD ~~ ~U g¡ ............0 ¡g ¡:<: l3SNOI.I:lHdLSNOO ~H ~ U) YillGNRoav i!>i!>j! ~~ ~ 0 .IBSŒ' S', ~;¡! æ "" .IBS.III'!1IHd ~8 ,!!~ ® ~p::: NOISWn! :;: O~ I Ci llIS!lLV}'{1.IS3: ~o.o <>1 .IBS Œ'IIl33W O~ A\RW!1I JNiIlD I-<r-I ::> 13S= ! ª U<r:: U) ~(/) ~ ..g(1) ~ !!í ... ~ U) ,., !§.!Ì ,., ID "'d :r: d] '" .,"--J ¡1 '1"-1+ ,.1~,$ I i I , I I I I I I '--1 --" --- "'.~ . i' -j-......,.... ¡,; .t..jþ·.li !. - ~ = ':)L.. I. (t i' ) ~ ~ J ~ J- I i I , r I 'F""' ~ t.! ÌI I I I I I I I ¡ ¡ ! ¡ II I II i ' I ! II I, I I [ I I I I I I I I i . I I i ! I I ¡ i <:> . }, *' }GffilG a:>NVlD ~~ ~U '" ~ p:; l3S NOlDmU$NCD [ RR~ ! ~ t-.. l'if}GN3oav ;:¡~II .... 0 g,g,'j! > ¡g 13S ma .~gß pj ............0 <x. 13S1lI'I>I3d ®I ~~ ~ NOISWl1l j Q 13SaI.VJ'I!ISa p...~ i J1I 13S ÐNlliI3I1 AillW!1! lN3l'D 8~ ::> 13S:ŒIID ~r-I U) ~ ~C/) ~ ~ U,...J, U) ..gQ) ¡.. $i '" <r:: J ~ ""d ]~~ '" ~ ;§U :I: (f) " ~ <"-) "'-Z ?> t?-~ P ...'''''' ~~ "- '1-' ~.~ ~ '.~... .'. _.-:.- . .0·. ._' .'._ ~.' _ ; J ~ I I I I I ¡ J -14; r. , I ' I ',-....:¡ ., CZ--¡-%. '1:::, ",,-, .~"-. . '..~ ;-,.." . -.:. <' I I I I -~ :-~: _\ ¡" , i II··~ . III 11:1 I 'I ~ I I I»J 1!1 I~ ! Q j T Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 3. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit. 4. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. 5. Rental licenses must be obtained in accordance with Chanhassen City Code. 6. The applicant/property owner must obtain permits for accessory structures constructed without the required permits. 7. The variance shall expire upon the sale of the property by the Carlson family. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: The motion carries 5 to 1, which is enough for it to carry right? Sharrneen and Jason? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: So this does, is considered approved unless somebody complains about it to the City Council. If it has to go to City Council, it can go to City Council on the 11 th of April, according to staff report so I wish you luck with this and thanks for coming in. It was nice to meet Molly. Slagle: Thank you Mr. Carlson. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR V ARlANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10. Public Present: Name Address Michael ShalTatt Lissa Tenuta Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 464 2nd Street, Suite 100, Excelsior 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Jason. Any questions? McDonald: I had some questions for staff. On that sentence where you say that you would support the variance to allow the applicant to maintain, at that point what kind of a home are they 48 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 building? This is where you get me confused a little bit. Is that within the almond colored area? On your map on page 6. We've got kind of an almond colored area. Sacchet: That's the buildable area, right? McDonald: Yeah, what is that? Okay, that's the buildable area. And then that would go back to where the CUlTent back of the house is at? Is that. . . Metzer: Right, where the same footprint is which encroaches on the shoreline setback. Because once they demolish the home, they lose their non-conforming status. McDonald: Okay, so what you're recommending is that in order to allow them to better utilize the property, they could go ahead and keep their setback but the buildable area is as defined and right now the current house does not meet that. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Jerry, basically all the houses in that neighbor have problems with setback. Side setback. Front yard setback. Lakeshore setback, and basically everybody who does something in that neighborhood has to come up here. For variances and then as you can see the list that staff gave us, there's a lot of variances in that area. And what we're trying to do is that we have some mitigating factors. And I'm not sure whether the current plan has some, does it mitigate? Does it lower any of things, non-conformances? It intensifies all the non-conformances, okay. That's one of the problems. Any other questions? Slagle: I've got a couple. Looking at this sheet that you were kind enough to provide, I am trying to understand, and I don't know, Sharmeen if you want to put it up there. But where is a variance File #1996-9 relating to a 33 foot shoreland variance. What lot is that or what? Do you know what I'm saying? Al-Jaff: Would you call out that. Slagle; It's 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. Metzer: It should be the one that says 7262 I believe. Slagle: 7262. Sacchet: The one right next to it. Metzer: The one that she handed out is from another. . . Slagle: I understand, yep. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Metzer: The map you're looking at is south of where we, where this southern property is located. Sacchet: Oh that's not, okay. Subject is, okay. That's not the same thing. Al-Jaff: It is located right here in relationship to the subject property. Slagle: Yeah. And just for the fellow commissioners, the reason I'm asking is, it's the only one I see on 9 or 10 other homesites on this side of the lake that has anything close to a request for a variance from a shoreland that this applicant is asking for. And if I understand, getting back to my question, am I correct that right now they are 36 feet from the overall, okay. And they want to move it to 33.7 with the new home. Metzer: Correct, but the area, if you see here. Slagle: Show me where 33.7 is. Metzer: 33.7 is this deck footing here. Slagle: So it's a comer of the deck, okay. Metzer: Right. I have outlined the existing home in black here. The 37.3, or 36 actually is here. And they're proposing this but this. Slagle: I'm with you. Let me ask this question then of staff, and I don't know if it would have been fair to ask the City Engineer but I mean when they came to you with this plan, I mean was there a question asked back to them why aren't you moving it closer to the street? Metzer: It was not asked. McDonald: Can I follow up Rich's question because he brings up a point about the 33 feet. The topography of that area is such that where the subject site is at, it is flat and right on the lake but then directly below that, or directly south, the land begins to rise. This particular one at 9225, what is the site on that? And what I'm getting at is, I noticed the house next door, again it is at a higher elevation so at that point I wouldn't worry so much about the setback versus this one where the setback is on flat property. That becomes to me a bigger problem. What was the propeltyat 9225 like because I didn't go down there. Sacchet: Do you know? Slagle: If I remember, that's next to the Hamilton's. I think you had a little bit of a hill. McDonald: Okay, so that one's also on a rise, okay. Thank you. Keefe: I've got one question. The properties on either side of this subject property, both those I think are relatively new houses, particularly the one to the south, and then the one to the north. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 What is the setback? Do we know what the setback is on both of those properties, the one to the north? Directly to the north and then the one directly to the south. Metzer: Yes. It's 50 some feet. 57 feet approximately on the property to the north. I got that based off of a survey that didn't measure from the ordinary high water mark. Larson: 57 from the lake? Metzer: Yeah. Larson: Okay. Keefe: It looked to be on your map that this particular property, the proposed building would be in front of the properties on either side, so if I looked, if these buildings are placed, perhaps not. I can't quite tell on the, from the contour of the. Sacchet: If you look at this, you actually see where. Keefe: I can't quite tell from the contour where the lakeshore goes though. Metzer: The lakes are kind of. Sacchet: You don't know, yeah. I mean if you assume this is straight, and the properties, or the buildings are here. Keefe: It looks like it's. Sacchet: It's definitely sticking out more. Keefe: Okay. That's what I really wanted to know. And both of those properties are newer than this property. Metzer: Right, yeah. Sacchet: Any other questions? Okay, if not, do you have something to add Jason? Okay. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you want to give us your side of this story, we'd greatly appreciate it. State your name and your address for the record please. Mike Sharratt: Chairman and Planning Commission members, my name is Mike Sharratt. I'm the architect for the project. Been working with the CooperlW alker family and trying to justify pretty difficult planning constraints. We have a property that is about, I believe it's 84% of lot size, sub-standard lot size and the buildable area as a result of the lake setback and creating a very nalTOW, buildable area. This is a diagram. The shaded area is the buildable area of the lot. It's, as staff said, it was a little over 2,000 square feet, which is about 62% or so of what was mentioned earlier as a 60 by 60 pad as being desirable. 3,600 square feet. It's not an easy site to deal with. Programmatically what we've been trying to solve for the client is handicap 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 accessibility. This site is fairly flat but they have 2 handicap members, and friends that visit their home regularly and presently their garage is a tuck under situation. So they would not be able to access the first floor, so we've been working with our client to try to bring the driveway up to the first floor. We looked at recessing, at the same time of course solving all the programmatic constraints of the space that they need on the first floor. Need and want. As opposed to what we heard earlier, we did talk with staff regularly on the phone and we were, it was suggested to us that we bring the garage forward and ask for a street side variance. There's a little bit of resistance from the client that they don't want to be a whole lot closer to the street but, and so we decided to leave the front yard setback as it was and not propose that. This is a diagram, and I apologize that this was not on the original survey of the two adjacent structures. Sacchet: I think you've got it upside down sir. Mike ShalTatt: Upside down. Well the two adjacent structures and. Metzer: Lake Riley's here. Mike Sharratt: Right. This is the most projecting bay in the back of this house. And this I believe is a deck, as this is a deck. And on this side, again it does not show on our survey. Unfortunately our surveyor was in Florida at the time the project was corrected but there's a projected pointed bay on the back of this, as well as a stair over here in this location. If we take a straight line in those two non-conformities that are existing, it adds this sliver of possible reasonable, buildable area. This line being, this diagonal line here being the one that is created by the existing structure that will be removed, so we understand that a lakeside setback, it is the neighbor's or the 50 feet I think it is, whichever is greater and that creates the other, the very nalTOW space. Which by almost any standard is very difficult to work with. So given the constraints that we had to work with, and that was to try to bring a garage up to the first floor. We couldn't just come straight in from Lake Riley Boulevard. We could not come straight in and give enough rise to the driveway. We had to make some length on the driveway to get that up to the upper level. The client is willing to only have a 2 car garage at the first floor rather than a 3. We had originally started with a 3 car garage. We have looked at many, many options including these which show alternative configurations and, hard to read but we're playing with how do we manipulate this. We're looking here at 15 foot setback to the street and asking for that as a variance. Sacchet: Would that work? In view of you just explained what the topography. Mike ShalTatt: Well 15 feet is so tight. We're substantially improving the. Sacchet: How bout with the grades? How about the grade aspect that you just pointed out. Mike ShalTatt: The grade will work. Sacchet: Okay. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: It requires retaining walls in the front yard unfortunately but the grade will work. At the same time the client doesn't want to be 15 feet from the street. Maybe 25 might work. People ask for a 5 foot variance, which case the house would be behind the existing position of that existing rear wall. So we would be making our structure than existing footprint as it is now. Slagle: Mr. Sharratt, is that right? Mike Sharratt: Yep. Slagle: Would it be fair to ask, in the scheme of things if someone was watching this from their home that an applicant would be as equally or more concerned about the setback to the lake than they would be to the street? I guess what I'm getting at is, we're intensifying the non-conformity by moving closer to the lake and I'm hearing that it's the client's, your client's desire not to be as close to the street that's pushing them closer to the lake. But I'm sitting here going, that doesn't seem fair. Sacchet: Let's hold that for discussion. Slagle: Well I ask, I want to hear his comment. Mike Sharratt: My comment would be, is that they were concerned about that and that's why we tried to pull the back comer of the structure no closer than where the back comer of the existing is, and the decks are exceeding. You know we could possibly get back behind the existing line, the existing structure if we were to have a 5-6 foot encroachment into the front yard. We didn't know really what to ask for. We didn't know really what was going to be the set points. We hear from staff that a lot of variances have been granted on this lakeshore, particularly for lake side setback. There also have been some granted for front yard setback. The reason we looked at all these options and we were faxing these back and forth with the staff at the end of last week, was because of the staff report that we got early and we wanted to try to address where's our flexibility? In accommodating the client's program of getting handicap accessibility to the first floor as well as balancing, okay what's the hotter point here? What's the bigger concern? I think we can get behind the existing setback of the existing structure if we come into the front yard a little bit with the proposed design. We also, there's a curious line on this drawing. I don't know if you guys have, I think you have the survey that was originally from the adjacent house here. There's a line here that says, that this is the, this is I believe it is, this line right here, that is to grant a variance for when this house was built. And I don't, that's well outside of the envelope of where the house was, as well as way outside of the envelope of where the existing house is, so I don't know what that was about. This is the survey we got from the contractor who built this house, and here you can see on the survey the variance setback line that was granted is right here. Sacchet: Is there a year on that sir? Mike Sharratt: There's not on this because we reduced it from the original survey but we can get a year on that survey. Mid 80's? Mid 80's when that house was built. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Lillehaug: Does it show where the existing structure was? Mike Sharratt: Ah yeah. This really light dotted line as you can see going through here, right there, that was the old structure. Lillehaug: It looks like the house moved forward, right? .. .on the lake, right. Mike Sharratt: The deck, no. The actual, the house is maybe 3 or 4 feet more forward than where the house is. Here's the light dotted line right there and the deck is substantially forward from where the old house was. Sacchet: Alright, let's stick to the current situation. Mike Sharratt: Right. Sacchet: You want to add anything else from your end? Mike Sharratt: Maybe the client would like to speak. Sacchet: Okay, please. Do so. Laura Cooper: My name is Laura Cooper and I live in this house and I have for 8 years. I have to say, excuse me. We have made all, probably 15 to 16 different versions of this and our goal, first and foremost was the handicap accessibility and a lifetime house. Pat Swenson, who used to be on the City Council and her husband Ben left this house. I bought it from them because of their age and infirmities. This isn't our preferred design. This is 10 feet from both sides and as far using the comer of the existing property, which we took the deck into account because we didn't know about whether it was a deck or the back wall to work with. I don't like that we're 15 feet to the front. When you come down Lyman Boulevard, it's kind of a nice view and the houses, both to the north and the south. If we, our preferred view for the same footprint would be to be halfway into both variance lines so you've got the fronts of the houses and the backs of the houses in line with each other. Sacchet: Line them up. Laura Cooper: I think that would make Norm and Kim happy and Joan's happy anyway so, I think we've definitely done our diligence with this one. Every single proposal we put with the garage, the grade was too high. I don't really like having the garage on this side, the north side of the property anyway, but that's the only way that we can meet the grade as well as hit the setbacks. We spent hours trying to get something that would be amenable to the neighbors. Amenable to the spirit of the intention of the non-conforming and 9225 is a flat lot and many of them up in that comer are actually fairly flat. There's some rise but it's not like the ones just to the south of us where some of them go straight up. I think it would be, you know we should probably have just asked some of our neighbors to come. I don't think that we're trying to, we don't want to change the character of the neighborhood, and if it means that we have to go to the front setback instead of the back, that's great but I think if it was 15 feet from the front edge of 54 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 the property, when you come down Lyman Boulevard you're going to see Joan's house, my house, Kim and Norm's house and the rest and I think what we, why we put it where we put it was to meet the spirit of the variances. Not because it makes good sense for the neighborhood. So we're not stuck on that placement as much as doing the right thing. Sacchet: Thank you. Anything you wanted to add? Tim Walker: No, I think I'djust re-emphasize what Laura said, really trying to strike a balance as far as positioning the house on the lot between the road and the lake. Not being to the detriment of neighbors to the north or south on either the street side or the lake side, and to where Mike was trying to show if you struck a band between the north and the south houses, we're trying to fit in that band and get as much of the house in that band as possible. As Laura said, we've gone through many iterations, starting out with the garage on the south side of the lot. It' s sort of a parallelogram. There's more room. East/west on the south edge of the lot. Put a garage there but the lot actually slopes upwards to the south so then you end up with more grading in the driveway, so that's why we ended up putting the garage at the north end and trying to strike a balance there. Sacchet: I do have a question for you. I mean your current design, it has a lower level garage and an upper level, correct? Now how would that access the street? Tim Walker: The lower level would be a shop more or less so we would not use that for regular driving in and out of. We would use the upper level for. Sacchet: So your main driveway would be the upper level, but you would need a driveway to the lower level, a separate one don't you? Tim Walker: Actually we would not. Laura Cooper: Tim's a car guy. He's got more parts and more pieces and he, that's what he does to keep himself sane. We've got a Porsche. We've got an Audi. We've got a BMer. Larson: I'm manied to one of those, I know exactly. Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because that would potentially be another need for a valiance because having two driveways would need a variance I believe. Tim Walker: Actually we are not requesting two driveways. One driveway to the upper level and the lower level garage, if we had anything we'd consider using grass pavement. I'm not sure if you're heard of that. It's like a grid under the grass so you can drive over it without creating ruts. Sacchet: Would that be considered a driveway from city viewpoint or not? Kind of wonder about that. AI-Jaff: If it's grass. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Grass is not a driveway. Grass pavers, then you're kind of halfway. Larson: Is it considered partially used possibly for a boat or anything too or? I mean when I looked at this, that's the first thing, cars did not pop into my mind but obviously boat deal or storage did. Tim Walker: Yeah, and hobby shop, garage if you will. Sacchet: Toys. Ultimately known as toys. Larson: Gotch ya. Tim Walker: Getting back to the second driveway, if we could use, and it sounds like staff doesn't consider paver driveway as permeable. Sacchet: I don't think they answered really yet. Metzer: Pavers we would consider, this grid, I'm not an expert on it. I've heard of this grid being laid out and allows grass to grow through. Mike Sharratt: It's actually a plastic grid that you put under the grass and it resists ruts and you can drive occasionally across it. I mean I would be surprised if you're going in and out of this garage once every 2 weeks or something. I mean it's not that it's being used as a garage. So there's no desire to pave it and there's grass going through a soft cover. Not hard cover. Actually below the grass. Below the soil. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks for answering that one. Any other questions from the applicant? Jerry? McDonald: Yes, I have a lot of questions. I won't ask that many. I've been out to the site. The house to the north is higher. That's why I think the variances are there, so I don't think it's apples to apples. The problem I have with all of this over under garage, the new access, how are you going to elevate to get up there because according to the drawings you show this new driveway coming in off the street level, yet it has to be below. You're going, you'd have to be going up a hill. Are we changing? Are we talking about changing the topography on the south end to bring the house up because otherwise I don't see where there's room for an over under garage on that current site with it the way it is without changing the lot. Mike Shanatt: We're not changing the lot. The lot is not higher to the north. It's higher to the south. McDonald: You said it's not that much higher. I mean right here are the pictures. You've got a slight rise. The lot directly to the south rises steeply. It goes up quite a bit, but to show where this driveway's at and everything, I cannot picture this because how are you going to get that up from the street without raising the grade or that part of the lot. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Mike Sharratt: We're going to leave the grade where the driveway... McDonald: Okay. And then what's the impact on the other lots? I mean now you're changing the lot, the character of the lot completely at that point. Mike Sharratt: Explain character. McDonald: Explain character. The current lot is a flat lot that drains from the front to the back toward the lake. At this point you're going to bring up a lot that almost is going to create a valley between the lot to the south and your new lot as you raise things up, unless you're now going to go the lot to the south and fill in where they have that boulder wall. Mike Sharratt: The drainage, the existing drainage to the lot right now drains between the houses down the property lines. McDonald: Right. Mike Shanatt: It would not change. The drainage, the driveway would drain down the driveway back onto the street. McDonald: Okay, then I need further clarification. I need some drawings that are going to show that because right now the way this is with the setbacks and everything, I cannot visualize doing this and I just see a lot of problems as far as variances. Mike Sharratt: Did you see the front elevations? McDonald: Right, the front and that's the one I've got the most problem with it because that shows everything being relatively flat across the lot and it's not that way. Mike Sharratt: The grade on the street is about 4 feet higher on the south end than it is on the nOlth end. McDonald: Okay, and a typical garage is going to be anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. Your under garage. What I have a problem with is, I mean this begins the looks of, right now this lot is relatively flat across here. Yes, there's a slight rise but there's a hill that comes down with boulder walls here and you've got the drainage. It's flat and you've got pictures in here to show it. It goes down to the lake. Mike Shanatt: And it's going to continue to do that... McDonald: But then how can you put this house on that lot when this is coming down and if this is street level, there's not that much variance from that end of the lot to that end to rise up 6 to 8 feet. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Can you comment of the grades of your driveway? It's less than 10% right? And in your grading plan it shows a tying in on the south property line? Relatively with, yeah we want flatter slopes. I mean it doesn't exceed 3 to 1 slopes. Mike Sharratt: The grades? Lillehaug: Right. Mike Sharratt: Other than retaining walls, no. Lillehaug: Exactly, right. Okay. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Slagle: I've got a couple. Have you seen these photos? Have we distributed that to the applicant? Sacchet: No. Slagle: Can we do that? Ijust want their input. You're going to see on the bottom right hand side a photo of looking down Lake Riley Boulevard to the south and having been through a few cases before us, you can show it on there. There are homes that are close to the street as you go down. I would not argue the point but I would say that there, it gets hillier down there. And so again, the necessity for them to be a little further up towards the street, any thoughts on that? Laura Cooper: If you go down to the comer I think it looks really cramped and crowded. And from the perspective of character, you know Kim and Norm for example on our south side built a beautiful house. If we pulled that garage forward, maybe not as you come directly up the road but as you come towards it, that garage structure I believe will look out of character with what is there on the road, if we go too far towards the road. Slagle: Let me ask one more question then. Was it ever contemplated in your 15 or 16 versions or variations, which I applaud your patience, of somehow incorporating a house that has more of a garage that you drive straight into. House above it. I mean instead of having a, I'm just trying to think how you could have built a house there that. Tim Walker: You just can't get the driveway and the garage up to the first main level. You just can't get it up there. Laura Cooper: It's the handicap accessibility that's really what we've struggled because if we put it right in the front say and face it directly and tuck it in with I don't know, a bedroom or something above, the grade on the, where we want it on the south side was greater than the 9 or 10 percent that you allow. If you put it on the front of the house. That's why we've got, it's so long. Slagle: And did you say that you have a family member who's. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Laura Cooper: Actually a very good friend and his friend, best friend who visit the house and have you know, played on the water toys and had their families out with us, but it's a very difficult thing to do. Tim Walker: They're both in wheelchairs. Laura Cooper: They're both in wheelchairs and one of them lives in England. He comes back for the MS 150, the first time again this year and we'd like to have him stay with us in the future. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Larson: Yeah. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So they're non-residents. They would not be residents. Laura Cooper: They wouldn't be for anything other than a visit. Larson: But they're just frequent visitors, okay. Laura Cooper: Conect. Larson: I had a question if, going back to your many attempts at trying to redo this. Was it ever a consideration to, because of the setback to the lake. I mean there's a pretty decent setback right now. 30, whatever, 7 feet or 5 feet. Was it ever a consideration to try and do a 50% add on to that house or to restructure what's already there? I mean I don't know if that was. Laura Cooper: It's a split level and that's the issue. Larson: That's the issue, okay. Laura Cooper: I've dragged Rob at 170 pounds up those stairs and I've also got, he's got a great ability to get down the stairs from my deck, but it scares the living daylights out of me every time. It's not that it's not physically possible to make it work, but also this is our lifetime house. We don't want to have to leave at some point because either one of us is incapacitated. And I think the families who was here before, Chanhassen would do well to have a few more places like that in the long run. Larson: Okay, that's all I had. Lillehaug: I had a question. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Sharmeen, can you put that up. I want to ask you a question. I highlighted in the area on your map that you provided. Would you agree with me that that is an area that you are intensifying and increasing and expanding into, intensifying the variance that you're requesting. Is that an area that goes deeper into the wetland setback than what's there currently? That that darken area is intensifying. Laura Cooper: Based on the angle, yes. The one comer I think is probably pretty dang close to where the existing property is. It's just that. Lillehaug: So, at that comer? Laura Cooper: Yes. Sacchet: That's why he didn't color it. Because there you're not intensifying. Lillehaug: '" is specifically the area compared to the existing house, your proposed house according to that drawing, you're intensifying the wetland setback, would you agree with that? Tim Walker: You're including the patio and... Sacchet: Yes. Laura Cooper: Yes we would agree with that. And we would also be amenable to turning that so that it didn't as much as well. The challenges then, we're asking you for a different variance which is a front variance, and to Mike's point, when we went through this process we asked okay, we want to minimize the variances. Let's do 2. Hard cover and we heard that the front setback was going to be the issue so that's where, no we heard the front was going to be the issue so we didn't, we avoided that. Slagle: Who, can I ask who shared with you that the front setback would be more of an issue than the water? Mike Shanatt: .. .we were trying to minimize the number of variances we're asking for. Sacchet: Well, that's besides the point. Slagle: It is but, but let me just throw this out for consideration. We've seen a number of cases on this lake. At least in my 4 years, at least 3 or 4. If you had a chance to watch any of those or research them, I mean we literally spent a lot of time talking 1 foot, 2 foot. Moving a room, and I mean, so I'm just shming with you, I'm hoping that you understand and get the concern that we're talking 7 feet I think. Something like that and just what Commissioner Lillehaug showed you, I'm just surprised you wouldn't have come with not encroaching in any of those areas. Just sharing that with you. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Laura Cooper: And we are novices. .. .I've had the variance notices but I'm not come to any one. I think as Mike shows you this picture here, if we, we are willing to move. We met after the fact when we saw the denial. If you see that straight line there, to your point, if we move the angle back on the. " where the garage fits, do we have to go through the variance process again for 4 or 5 feet on the front? Do you see where the challenge is? Sacchet: Yeah. Laura Cooper: Weare okay with moving back to that line if the intensification of the back is the true issue. Sacchet: You see the problem we have is, we have to make a decision on the proposal in front of us. We can't make a decision on something that hasn't been worked out in detail. That hasn't been studied by staff so we can maybe give you a little bit of a reference point, but these can't go further than that. So we have to contend with that. That's the best we can do tonight for you. Laura Cooper: Well and then that gets back to the, if you do recommend approval, which we hope you will, the conditions that are included at the back. Can those conditions, to avoid us getting into. Sacchet: Well we're not quite there yet. I mean you'll just have to wait til we get there, I mean we will get to that pretty soon I hope. Lillehaug: Can I ask one more question? Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Did you consider any mitigating factors such as, you know we saw one a year ago regarding a variance and we have this whole list of variances out in that area. This is the map for that. It shows variances. But in this case they mitigated something. Like the case we saw, they moved their whole, the existing structure, they moved it away from the shoreland so there is a, in my mind you can't just look at these and say well, they have a setback. They have a variance. They have a variance. They have a variance. You should grant us one. In these cases there is most, in more than likely a mitigating factor and do you have any mitigating factors? I mean I don't see any, do you? Tim Walker: Well I guess what we hear a lot is that they should be able to put their property to similar use that others are having granted. We have maybe a 36 foot here and maybe about 45 foot here, setback to these structures. I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that we should be significantly tied in with the existing neighboring structures are, or have been permitted to do by the city. I think if we can verify scientifically this line for you, that we stay behind this line, that seems to be a reasonable approach to me. McDonald: If I could make a suggestion. Are you willing to table this and to come back to us at some other point because. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: Well, I'm not sure I'm willing to table it. McDonald: Okay. I'll wait. Laura Cooper: I think another mitigating factor, we have lots not only behind but in front of these houses and looked, and it's 30 foot, 30 foot, 20 foot, 20 foot, so I mean in terms of have we investigated their variance reports? No. But have we looked at the houses? Yes. The last 4 on the comer that were built, some of them have side variances as well as front and back variances and the bottom line is it's a hardship lot. I've got 12,936 feet and even in your new guidelines, 15,000 feet. I'm still a hardship. Sacchet: Yeah, and that's the case with just about every property there because we have quite a bit of experience, at least those of us that have been sitting here for a while because we have these cases come in several times a year. And again, our aim is to be somewhat consistent with how we treat everybody, and we're not there yet in our discussion but I think you certainly picked up some of the elements is that we look for a lessening of the intensification. What I see here is intensification only in terms of the lakeshore setback and if you would have looked at some of the debates that we had in the past in similar situations, I would definitely think that you could back up that this lakeshore setback is the most significant in this gang here, okay. But we'll get to that when we get to the discussion but I mention that here because there is no way of spinning our wheels here. We have a proposal in front of us that we make a decision about it. We cannot make a decision about another proposal at this point because it's not in front of us. It's as simple as that. And I'm sorry because that basically means that you're going to have to come back for another variance, okay. We're not there yet but I don't really see much other possibility to be honest with you, and I mention that here because there is no point in us debating this over and over and over because we're not making headway with it. Do you understand where I'm at? I mean. Laura Cooper: I think based on the fact that we are going to have to come back, it will be very helpful if you knew exactly what we really need to come back with. Sacchet: Yeah, and give you an idea. Absolutely. And that's what we're trying to clarify too at some point here. Slagle: But if I can, point of clarification. I mean truthfully that, those discussions and those helpful points if you will would really come from staff. I mean we're 1 of 7 or 6 that we have our own opinion but that's really, you know. I would suggest whatever happens tonight you really work with them in refining. That's assuming it doesn't pass. It might pass, who knows. Laura Cooper: And from that perspective, we would like to thank Josh because I know he's worked a lot with Melissa on... Sacchet: We haven't made a decision yet so, let's take it in steps definitely. By all means. Anything else you'd like to add from your end. Let's open the public hearing and see what anybody else wants to address this item. This is a public hearing so if any of the other residents 62 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 want to speak up to this item, this is your chance. Seeing nobody getting up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Lillehaug: Can I blurt a few things out? Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I have to believe that based on staff's recommendation that most of this stuff has been discussed with them. Or some of our opinions anyways. Is that a fair statement? Metzer: Particularly which? Lillehaug: Well particularly I mean one in my mind reasonable use. You know I'd love to have storage for my boat at my house. I mean I see a pretty significant 14 plus foot by 32 foot lake storage as labeled on the plan. I mean is that a reasonable use? I mean it's a little more than a reasonable use in my mind. So that's one thing. Because the main thing is, I absolutely don't support intensifying and increasing the encroachment on the wetland setback, and we have some footages in here, 33.7 foot setback. Well, if you really look at it, it's worst than that. If you look at an area intensification because the house is skewed right now. You straighten it up with the shoreland and, on the map that I highlighted there. I mean it drastically increases the intensification and I absolutely don't support that, especially on a lake lot like that. I think we need to be very sensitive to that. Intensifying the hard surface. It's not a drastic intensification but again it's intensifying it. Just simply put there is absolutely no mitigating factors and I think that the commission and the city and staff should be very stringent on these standards. Like I said, in the earlier, in the past there's always been a mitigating factor that I've been involved with. Significant mitigation factors and this way it goes totally the opposite direction, so me. I would not support any intensification on the lake side. That's where I stand. Sacchet: Let me clarify Steve. When you, and I think that's important for the applicant to understand. When their idea was that it they stay 37.3 feet away from the lakeshore, the whole front, that that's not intensification, but that really is not what we're saying here. It's because the building was not the whole building was at 37.3 feet. Only the first comer was, and the other comer on the other side was more something around, probably 60 feet or so from the lake. So it's not the straight line that we're looking at, but as you were able to see on the drawing, what he highlighted, I mean that gives you an idea of what we look at, okay. Is that understood because that's important. Thanks Steve. Anything else? Lillehaug: That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Anybody else? Dan? Keefe: Just some brief comments. I don't support this particular proposal just to really the comments by staff that it's an intensification and it's of both the hard surface coverage and particularly the lake side. Intensification. One question I've got in my mind is, if there are a lot of vaIiances on this particular lake, which obviously there are, particularly in regards to the lake side intensification, I might be willing to consider some level of variance, as long as it's 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 consistent with the neighboring properties, and I can't get, I mean I've seen a couple different maps. I just can't even get a feel for whether, at least the one that I've got in front of me looks like it's significantly in front of the other properties, but I don't know the answer to that so I really can't even rule in regards to that at all. I would like to see no intensification of it but I think in regards to whether we would consider granting a variance, I would like to at least have that trued up to a certain degree so that we've got a better feel for that. And the hard surface coverage, you know I'd really like to just see that, no intensification there as well. So those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie. Larson: Okay. First of all I want you to know I think the idea of upgrading the property's a great idea. There's many of the homes in the area have been upgraded and you know, your's does stick out as being one that needs it. It's a nice home but certainly the ones around it definitely have gone further extent of that. I'm very also worried about the intensification. The encroachment towards the lake. Seems a bit excessive but if you're willing to move it back, maybe my main concern would be maybe this garage area because that's what's, I know what you're saying as you come down Lyman you can see the house and then I drove it today and it's definitely going to look odd to me. Whether it's placed closer to the street or not. It's still going to look weird to me, and I don't know if there's something that can be designed differently to that to where it can be more part of the main structure or something because the two houses on either side, as you saw by the new photographs, don't really have that. They're more flat fronted and so you know, since we're in the process of having to do a 16th version, I hate to have you do that but at this point I'm not comfortable with passing this either so that's all I have. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comment. Jerry. McDonald: Well first of all, I understand the problem you got with this lot. It is not the same size as the others and I understand how that will limit you and everything. And again because of the lay of the land, it is different than the other lots so you've got a challenge and I mean you've done a great job with what you've come up with but at this point, to me you're changing the character of what's there. You're asking us to create too many variances and I have a problem with that, as I've said. I'm not against creating variances, and again I looked at the other properties and we're talking decks. We're talking footers. Your property is plat with the lake. All these others again going to the south, there are different reasons why they got that. It is not that you can just draw a line. That is not your answer. I would suggest again you need to work with staff as far as coming up, there are going to be design constraints. I'm sorry. You may not get to do exactly what you want to do with the land. I do agree that an individual should have rights on their property, but however that's why there are city zoning laws and variances and those things. You have rights within certain limitations so it's not a blank check. And then based upon all that, unfortunately I've got to say you've got to come back. I mean that's why we would prefer to table it but it's the same thing. You're not there yet. I'm not sure that when you come back the design's going to be the same as what it is. Maybe it is. Maybe you can work something out but you can't bring us something where you intensify things. I mean to me when I look at this and I look at the property, it's trying to put 10 pounds of sand into a 5 pound sock. I can't support that, I'm sorry. All I can say is based upon maybe the comments and what staff 64 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 has said, that's your variances. That's your design constraints. I'm sorry. That's the way it is. That's what you'll have to go around. That's it. Sacchet: Still nothing Rich? Lillehaug: Mr. Chair can I ask? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: I also wanted to make a point that in reviewing a variance we have findings of facts that we need to.. . Sacchet: I was just getting to that. Go for it. Lillehaug: It's not iterated enough that there's. Sacchet: 5 or 6 points. Lillehaug: . . .6 points and a majority of them, they're just not met so that's something that at the board level, at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals level, we need to consider. That it doesn't meet those standards. Sacchet: Actually Steve I'd like to go through these points for the benefit of the newer members on the Planning Commission. And also for your benefit. I mean basically for us as a Planning Commission to approve a variance we have to look at 5 things. That's anchored in by city code. The first item is that the literal enforcement of the code creates undue hardship. Now undue hardship is defined that it would prevent somebody from making use of the property as it's commonly used within 500 feet and surrounding. Now if you take that literally you could say in 500 feet sUlTounding are single family homes. With 2 car garages. You have a single family home. You have a 2 car garage so therefore it's not causing undue hardship, if you look at it in a nasty way you might say. From your angle. If you look at it in a very factual way let's say. Objectively. The second point we have to look at is, does the condition of this variance create a precedent for similar properties, for similar places in the same zoning district. Because here we're trying to treat everybody the same way. And that's partially what your reasoning was too. You said well the guy next door and the guy there, so we have to make sure that we make something that is not creating a precedent for everybody else in a similar situation. The third thing we have to look at is, is the aim for this to increase the value of the property? Which is not the sole. I wouldn't hold that against you. I mean you're building your house. It's going to be worth more, but that's not your main aim here. The fourth thing we need to look at is the hardship self created? Well the hardship is self created because you want this type of house. You want it the way you want it. The way you put it. You put it there. And then we also need to look at does the variance detrimental in any way to the public welfare, and there could be a case made that encroaching further into the lakeshore setback is damaging to the other welfare. That's the position that I've seen the city take repeatedly. And then the last point is, does it impair adequate supply of land and air and all that to surrounding. Light. Light, and that's not, that doesn't come into play so much with this one, but that's the 5 criteria that we go by. And I 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 think it's very obvious that in terms of hardship, in terms of making a precedent, in terms of self created, we're falling way short. On top ofthat, and I don't know, did you want to add anything else at this point Steve? On top of that, the encroachment is very big. I mean you may have thought that well you're only increasing from 37 to 33 feet. However if you look at it with the way Steve colored it for you, there's a big chunk there. Now are we holding you to just be able to build in the little sliver of land that is actually buildable? No we don't. I mean that's not reasonable. There's the aspect where the hardship, where the reasonableness of the request comes into play, so we try to balance that in a way that is workable for everybody. So we try to work together. However, the intensification on the lakeshore setback is very significant. The lakeshore setback is the most sensitive constraint you have on that lot. The second sensitive is the hard cover. Because that also impacts the water quality of the lake. That has an impact on that too. So your second variance is also the second in sensitivity. While the encroachment on the front yard setback would be the least sensitive so that I think I feel confident to give you that as a framework of how we look at it. That doesn't mean that everybody's going to agree with me and that, I mean we can't give you any guarantees what we decide anytime in the future but to give you a little bit of an insight into the thinking that we have. Now in terms of the size, and Jerry put that, I mean you can't put 10 pounds of rice into a 5 pound bag. I mean when I looked at this first I thought well, either the lot is too small or the house is too big. Now you can't make the lot bigger so you might have to make the house smaller. I don't know. I mean but that's, and that's where I draw the line but I don't think government should dictate to you how big your house can be, but that's for you to balance. But then when you come to us with a request for variance, we have to look. How does it fit with those 5 criteria? The hardship. The self created. The impact it has. Is it detrimental to public welfare? In this case the quality of the lake. And one important thing that's always been a gaining factor is, you have to lessen the non- conformance. If you come in here with, and I can tell you that from me personally. I can't speak for everybody. If you come in here with a proposal that's well, now we're not encroaching any further than 37.3 feet, which is where the comer of the deck was before, I was like well that's not a lessening of the non-conformance. We're looking at a balance, and that's why I wonder whether the lot is simply not big enough for the size of house you want. There needs to be a significant lessening of the non-conformance to justify all the other variances. And it's not necessarily the number of variances, if you have a front yard, a side yard and an impervious surface and a lakeshore, all these things. It's the amount of variance. I mean if you have a big variance, that's much more weighted than if you have a small variance. But I hope that gives you a little bit of feedback. Now I have to pounce on staff a little bit too, in all fairness since I'm kind of in a pouncing mode. Laura Cooper: ... on your feedback? Sacchet: Yes. Laura Cooper: One of the challenges, why it's so big isn't because we need a 30 by 10 garage below. That's. ..but we do want to have the master suite and living suite on the same place as the kitchen and the laundry. That's why... Sacchet: And you see that's why I'm saying, I don't want to get involved with that. That's your business. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Laura Cooper: But if we come back with that same kind of goal, are we really defeating our purpose? That's what I'm asking. ... accessibility is why the hard cover is so big is you have to have a 60 foot driveway. Sacchet: The hard cover is not a significant increase but it's not a tremendously, what is it? It goes from 26 to 33 or something like that. Metzer: 26.8 I believe to 32.4. Sacchet: So we're looking at about 7-8%. I mean it's not a trivial increase but it's not really a insane increase either, but I can't tell you where we're going to be because you don't know what you're going to bring to us. Okay. Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can throw this out again, just as a word of, as a word of thought. We have seen others come back in a revision form and really in some respects it's a different house. I mean not that I want you to pay your builder or designer more money but I mean really people have gone from really a certain type of format of a house and decided you know what, this is not going to work. I'm not suggesting that but I mean, be open at least to that possibility. Sacchet: Now I do want to address staff on this. I'm not thrilled with this coming in front of us in this shape, I have to be very honest about it. Because there's no mitigation. This is all intensification. And I wonder if they have to make another variance, do they have to apply for a new variance? Is there a fee involved with that? Could we ask staff to waive that fee for them to come back? Al-Jaff: We don't have the authority to do that. That's something that the City Council can do. McDonald: I have a question then to that, that's part of why I wanted to table this, to keep all this within the same record. If they need to make the changes at that point, we're talking about the same thing. That solves that problem. If they're willing to do that and to re-look at things, then we don't have to get council involved or anyone else. It is the same file. Sacchet: The reason why I disagree on that Jerry is because this is so far away from something that I consider acceptable. McDonald: I agree with you 100% but you know, they can change it and come back. I don't know that there's any requirement that says they've got to just tweak it here and there. They could come back with something totally new. I mean we're asking them to table this and at that point they need to bring back something based upon what we have said that we would probably consider, and if that's totally different than it's totally different. Sacchet: How much is the fee for a variance? Metzer: 250. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: 250. McDonald: And at that point I think it begins to solve the problem but they have to agree to the waiver and to give them more time. Sacchet: What's the time clock on this? Because you see we have time restrictions. McDonald: I understand. Al-Jaff: Application was submitted April 15. Deadline. Slagle: Not April 15. Metzer: The review deadline is Aprillth. Al-Jaff: Sorry. So that's the 60 days. Sacchet: 60 days is Aprillth. Al-Jaff: Correct. We can take an additional 60 days. Sacchet: If they agree. Al-Jaff: If they agree. McDonald: Otherwise what I would propose is that they have to pay the fee again. I mean that's one of the risks that you run when you submit something to council is they, is going to be turned down and at that point if you have to start all over again, you need to pay the fee again. Mike Sharratt: May I ask a question? Sacchet: Yes. Mike ShalTatt: As far as coming back a second time around here, would we have any leniency on the amount of time required for review since you've already familiarized yourself with somewhat with our situation tonight, would require the full 30-60 days or could we come back next Planning Commission meeting say with submitting the plans? Sacchet: I don't know how full our schedule is, do you know? Al-Jaff: It is full. Sacchet: It is pretty full isn't it? Al-Jaff: We have some heavy items. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: I know we have a pretty heavy schedule these days. Lillehaug: If I can also add. Like I said before, I mean I have to believe that staff has done their due diligence in working with the applicant. Literally I mean staff denied, recommended denial of the variance based on all those findings. Sacchet: So it shouldn't be a total surprise. Lillehaug: I'm not saying let's send a message here, but I mean the fact of the matter is, I mean staff relayed this information to them. I mean it's pretty straight forward. Sacchet: Okay, I can accept that. McDonald: What I would only offer is that you know, ask us to waive this and at that point fine. The fee's taken care of. If not, I'm afraid I'd have to support, you're going to have to repay the fee because again I think staff did do their job. I mean they pointed out this isn't going to pass. It is your choice to bring it to us or to halt it. It is totally within your control. So that's what I would offer as a compromise is that if they want to ask for a delay in our decision, I'm fine with doing that. Sacchet: Personally I still think it's the wrong signal. I mean this is so far away in terms of intensification and no mitigation that tabling is, I'm not really considering that personally myself. I don't know, maybe you all are. ...we can make a motion and see what happens, yeah. Keefe: I was just going to say. When would be the soonest we could probably get it back on? Do you have any idea Sharmeen? Slagle: Point of clarification too though. I mean just making sure we're on top of this is, if they grant the, agree to the waiver of the timeframe, it's really up to them then. Forget our schedule. I mean they have to put together something. Work with you, so I guess I would just ask if they're open to it and if they are, we might make a decision. If they're not, then we make another decision. McDonald: And I would suggest at that point that if staff says it's not ready, do not try to bring it up. Sacchet: Well you see that's one of the things I'm concerned about. Once we put the timeframe on it, if we don't act within the timeframe, it becomes automatically approved. Now if they don't come in with another applicant though it would never get to that point so yeah, that would work. Keefe: It's May 3rd. It looks like May 3rd. Sacchet: I think it'd be better to be crisp personally. Do we want to take a motion? Or do we want to know whether the applicant's willing to extend, since some of us asked. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Mike ShalTatt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then 1'd like clarification. Sacchet: Please. Mike Sharratt: Do you want to waive the 60 day rule? Sacchet: Basically extend it to 120 from 60. Mike Sharratt: Set it for 120 on the same application. Lillehaug: You can also appeal our decision directly to the City Council. Laura Cooper: If we extend. . . Mike Sharratt: Well it's more absolute that way with staff, but here's the clarification I'd like. Sacchet: Go ahead. Mike ShalTatt: What I'd like is clarification tonight so that we know our constraints. Is our constraint. Sacchet: Can you zoom in on it Nann? Thanks. Mike Sharratt: What I've been, is our constraint location of the rear facade of the existing house or is our constraint the precedence if you want to call it that, of the actual setback of the two neighboring structures or the average thereof? Or the straight line between the most projected parcel of those structures. What is our, can we have a scientific direction from you as to what. Sacchet: It's a combination of all those. And I tried to give you a little bit of, at least from my personal prioritizing and idea of how I stack them. I would stack the neighboring context further down the line. I didn't touch on that one. I think I touched on the other ones to some extent. I don't know whether any of you wants to add something to that. McDonald: I would defer to staff. I mean. Sacchet: And it's really a thing you have to work with staff. McDonald: You really need to work with them and you know, they're much better at I think doing some of this balancing and bring it to us and at that point what we can do is apply our perspective. Mike ShalTatt: .. . communication. Sacchet: There is no scientifically fixed formula. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Mike Sharratt: That's, but what we're saying is.. .that we are further encroaching toward the lake setback. Sacchet: I would interpret it that way, correct. But then there are mitigating factors. I mean nothing is absolute because you have a little comer of a deck stick out a little bit. And it's on the side where the house was further back. I mean that's why I'm saying, it's a combination of all those. Al-Jaff: I can work with the applicant and Josh and I can both. Sacchet: Yeah, I really I think we told you that several times. It's something you need to work with staff. Because they, I mean that's their job. Alright. Did we want to get a clarification whether to extend the timeframe or do you want to make a motion? McDonald: Did they want to ask for one? I mean we can't just ask for a motion. It's their. Mike Sharratt: They said yes. McDonald: Then in that case, I make a motion that we table this application until the applicant re-submits. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: I second. McDonald moved, Larson seconded to table Variance Request #05-10 until the applicant re-submits. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Sacchet: Now for a table that's enough, right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, it wouldn't be enough to approve the variance but it's enough to table. Alright. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: Alright, we got that in place. Thanks for bearing with us. It's a beautiful property you have there so. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 15, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 71 Ö5 ~·¡O CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MA Y 17, 2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet and Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive REQUEST FOR V ARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions from any of the commissioners? Papke: I can start here. Under applicable regulations, point (e). The issue of destruction of non- conforming to the extent of more than 50%. Is this particular proposal more than 50% of it's estimated value? So is this regulation enforced? Metzer: Well yes, by demo'ing their existing home. Papke: So this thing is. Metzer: It's 100%... Papke: It's 100% gone so it's like 99%. Okay. Given that, what is the precedent for allowing a confOlmity under that particular situation. The non-conformity. How many times before have we allowed someone to bypass that limit of the 50% demolition and then allow them to have a variance, the non-conformity. Al-laff: In the past we have ran into situations when, and it was in that exact same neighborhood. They maintained existing and there was another situation where they exceeded what originally was on the site as far as hard surface coverage and setback. Papke: So there is precedence for doing this? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 AI-Jaff: COlTect. Papke: Okay. The reason I bIing that up, because I know in that same neighborhood there are some homeowners that have gone to great extent not to exceed that 50% to not lose that grandfather clause, and my concern here is, you know are we establishing a precedent here that these lots along Lake Riley Boulevard, we can mow them down as long as we can build them back up and make it a little bit better than it was before. Okay, that's the concern. 1'mjust wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time? AI-Jaff: We have done this before. McDonald: Next? Deborah, do you have any questions? Zorn: No. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Okay. No questions of staff from the council at this point. I will ask that the applicant come forward. Tim Walker: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see at least some of you again. Recognize some new faces. I don't think we have anything to add other than the staff repOli, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to Josh and Shmmeen. Laura Cooper: And Matt Saam. Tim Walker: And Matt, yeah. We spent quite a bit of time and worked very closely with them. Appreciate them putting effort into it all. McDonald: Okay. Any questions of the applicants? Keefe: No, I guess what 1'd like to say is I appreciate your willingness to work with staff and consider the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission and really work on your design because I know you guys kind of went through a wholesale change from where you were before and we appreciate that. Tim Walker: Thanks. McDonald: Okay. Well with that I'll throw it open to the floor. This is an open meeting. Anyone that would like to come forward with any comments on this matter, please do so now. And when you come up to the mic, would you please identify yourself and tell us where you live in relation to this home. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Dlive. I live down the street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So 1'm very interested in what happens to our shoreland. I have to apologize to staff because I was not able to look at this until late this afternoon and there's a finding that I think is important. And that is, you list applicable regulations, Section 20-73. Non-conforming use of structures and Kurt asked some questions about that today. But there's also another section that's relative when a home is totally eliminated and that's Section 20-73. Non-conforming lots of record. And point (b), 1'11 just read this. It's hard I know when you don't have it in front of you but I couldn't copy it either. I should have probably plinted this off at the office. Anyway, no valiance shall be required to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record excluding platted outlots, provided it fronts on a public street or approved plivate street, and provided that the structure meets the minimum requirements of this chapter. The minimum requirements it' s speaking about are the shoreland regulations, zoning setbacks. So this was re-written, it was enacted as a new ordinance on May 24, 2004. So one year ago this was changed. And one year ago it used to read 70, it had to meet 75% of the ordinance. Now it reads it must meet the minimum requirements of the chapter. Not 75%. The minimum requirements of the entire chapter. So that's important. It's also important in light of, if you look at the other homes that are listed in your report, if you look at 1999, the last one on the first page. Number 14. And 2003, number 7. Those valiance files. The shoreland setback for those properties was set at 57 feet. Which is 75% of the setback as the code was written then. But now the code was changed last year. No more 75%. It means 100%. So I just think you need to realize that. That yes, valiances were enacted over time but the code was strengthen last year and you can look at all these items but the purpose of it is to protect the shoreland. Also the first 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8 of these items highlighted in yellow were all variances granted before 1994, before we re-wrote the shoreline code in Chanhassen. So I think you kind of have to kind of disregard that too. Not that 1'm like against these people or anything. They've made some progress. I think maybe more progress could even be made. That impervious surface number is outstanding, and that's why it's hard to stand up here and say anything because that is really outstanding. But I was contemplating all of this and I was thinking, you know it's society. We all want what our neighbors have. These big homes or whatever. 1've never in what, 5-6 years here have ever heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It's small. 1'd like to build a small, quality home. May I have a valiance please for a single car garage. A single family with one car, they do exist. This property, lovely. 3 car garages. I mean a 3 car garage. I think there's room here for a more, even though progress has been made, you know and I applaud them for that, and if I owned that piece of property 1'd want to put the best home on it too, but I think there is opportunity here for improvement. And to Kurt's point, you know where do you hold the line? You keep making valiance, valiance, valiance. You know I wlite the City Council and I do crazy things and I kind of dubbed our little development by St. Hubert's, I don't even remember the real name. What is it? Pond? What's that supposed to be called? AI-J aff: Villages on the Pond. Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. 1've kind of dubbed that, you've never heard this before, sorry. I've kind of dubbed that Valiancea. I don't want our whole town to become a valiance. I 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 mean we have standards and that's why I continue to come up here, embarrass myself and, but I try to bling forth what's in the code and make it valuable to you as well. Keefe: I have a question for you. Just you know the thing that I like about this is they're actually improving the hard surface coverage from the existing home. And I don't know, what year was the existing home built? Metzer: '78. Keefe: '78 so I mean they're improving the hard sUlface coverage. And so you know, in regards,. And they do have a very small lot so I'm sitting here going, at least so I'm kind of sitting here going, okay. Since'78 we've been living with a situation where it's been non- conforming and now they've come back and they're actually, yeah they are making a bigger house, but they're improving the hard surface coverage so, 1'm not sure what type of an improvement we could suggest on that particular property, particularly in light of a smaller. Debbie Lloyd: I think the setbacks on the lake is really vital because the 75% with that 57 feet back, the requirement is 75 feet and this one is at 43 feet. Keefe: So what does that leave on this lot? AI-Jaff: If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non- confOlmities that the 75 applied to. Not the setback. Debbie Lloyd: Well the setback is at 75, for both of those other lots that were approved, they were approved with the 75% deviation of the 75 foot setback from the lake, and I know that's vital to our Minnesota shoreland regulations. That's where the regulations came from, State of Minnesota. I don't want to debate anything. It's not my job to debate it. I just wanted to present it. Thank you. McDonald: Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak on this? Okay, seeing no one else I will now throw it open to the council for discussion. Papke: I really respect what the issues that Debbie brought up here, but I think in this pmiicular case they're, you know at the end of the day what we really care about is forward progress here, and every time we approve a variance, it seems impOliant to me that we're making the city better in some way. And in this particular case I think these applicants are doing that and you know, we can debate the fine details of the city code and how we interpret them, but I think in this particular case it's well walTanted from my perspective. It's my two cents worth. Zorn: Josh or Sharmeen, could you talk a little bit about the variance that is being proposed. What that is equating to size wise? That little pOliion of the garage. Metzer: It's 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that's just for the very outside comer. Zom: It kind of looks like it's 2 feet by, kind of nalTOw. Angles in. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 Metzer: Right, it's this section here. That shaded in the front. This is the front of the garage running down this line. And the setback line runs on a line like this. Zorn: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I had. McDonald: Next. Keefe: You know 1'11 just re-state briefly, I think that they've improved the situation. 1'm happy to see that. I mean I think really to Debbie's point as well, you know we tried to improve the code last year and strengthen the code but, and that's a good thing. I think it's also a good thing to see proposals come in which actually improve the situation where they're at in terms of you know runoff potential, in terms of the hard surface coverage from the existing situation so 1'm in favor of approval of this particular proposal. Undestad: I guess my comment, I didn't, wasn't here the first go around, but looking at the two, it's a great job. Revisions and I think you did great. McDonald: Okay, I guess what I would add to the record is that I do want to congratulate you. I know that when you left the last time it did not seem as though that it was going to be possible to build a house on that particular lot. And I am, I guess 1'm very encouraged by the fact that yes, the lakeshore setback has been increased from what it was, and it doesn't seem to affect the quality of the home. This will be an improvement for the neighborhood. One of the things that we talked about valiances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the fault of the owner, that we can grant a valiance. In this particular case we're dealing with a lot that, if we enforce the valiances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think this is a case for where the valiances need to be given, and again this home improves, and this is what we asked. The home improves all of the setbacks. Improves the encroachments. It takes away from the hard surface areas. I think they did everything that we asked in order to build this new home there. I hope that in the process of doing so that they are getting a home that they can live with and that meets their requirements and everything, but I believe that kudo's for you all for working with the staff. We really appreciate that. So at this point I guess we will vote. Do I have a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve Valiance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1 % hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback valiance for the demolition and re-building of a single family home on a lipalian lot zoned single family residential with conditions 1 through 12 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I second. McDonald: Having the motion made and it being seconded, we will now vote. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17.2005 Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales are required to be graded In along each side of the house. 2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3: 1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the nOlihwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply. 3. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a pelmit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 4. Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey. 5. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection. 6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation cleating within the shore impact zone. 7. The applicant shall detelmine whether pelmits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed DistIict and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline liprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. 8. Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side propeliy lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. 9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum timc an arca can rcmain unvegctatcd whcn arca is not actively bcing worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 10. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17. 2005 12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A STORAGE SHED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7450 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT. TIMOTHY & DIANE MCHUGH. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-17. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Papke: In terms of the storage available on the site here, the garage, the dimensions are listed here. I take it this is a two car garage, is that correct? That the occupant currently has. Timothy McHugh: Yes. Papke: Okay. And is there any storage above, maybe 1'11 hold this for the applicant. Okay, that's all I have. Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other valiances that you found on that area of the lake. You've got 2 listed in here. Is Hill Street nearby? Metzer: Yeah, it's to the southwest. Keefe: Oh I see it, south of the property. So there are a couple of them. Metzer: Hill Street is here, Subject property is here. Keefe: Alright. And then in terms of 27 foot front yard setback valiance. Construction, expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct? Metzer: COlTect. Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what 1'm looking at? Okay. 9 foot side yard setback. Construction of a one car garage. Okay. And those are the only two that you found in regards to variances which have been granted along the sort of east and south of Lotus Lake? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: Okay. And then another question, what does the fire department say about access in regards to this? 7