Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
CAS-10_SHARRATT DESIGN CO. LLC (COOPER/WALKER)
CAS-10_SHARRATT DESIGN CO. LLC (COOPER/WALKER)0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
CITYOF
FROM:
Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
CMUSEN
DATE:
May 14, 2007
T700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
SUB J:
Approval of Three -Month Extension to Variance #05-10
Chanhassen, MN 55317
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard — Iaura Cooper
Administration
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax:952.227.1110
Request for a three-month extension to Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard setback
Building Inspections
variance, 1.0 percent hard -surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback
Phone: 952,227.1180
variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned
Fax:952.227.1190
Single Family Residential (RSF).
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Section 20-57 of the Chanhassen City Code states, "A variance, except a variance
Fax:952.227.1170
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."
Finance
Phone:952.227,1140
On May 8, 2006, the City Council approved a one-year extension to this variance. Due to
Fax 952.227.1110
personal circumstances, the applicant has been unable to begin work on the proposed
Park & Recreation
demolition of the existing home and construction of a new home. The applicant intends
Phone: 952.227.1120
to begin actual construction in July 2007.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
ACTION REQUIRED
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone:952.227.1400
City Council approval requires a simple majority of City Council present.
Fax: 952,227.1404
Planning A
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
Natural Resources
Phone:952.227,1130
On May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved Variance #05-10 for a
Fax: 952.227.1110
5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard -surface coverage variance and a 32-foot
Public Works
shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a
1591 Park Road
riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with conditions 1-12. The Planning
Phone: 952.227,1300
Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed variance.
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center RECOMMENDATION
Phone: 952,227,1125
Fax:952227.1110 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
Web She applicant's request for a three-month extension to Variance #05-10. The extension shall
wwaci.chanhasseu.mn.us become void July 14, 2007 unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in
reliance thereon.
ATIPACHMENTS
I. Letter from Applicant dated April 22, 2006.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 17, 2006.
3. May 17, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes.
Llk
gaplan@005 planing cauA5-10 sha n valance'emcmionAm
The City of 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.
Lam
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317-8650
April 22, 2007
RECEIVED
Ms. Sharmceffn Al-Ja
7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 APR 2 4 2007
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Sbarmeen:
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 Bust 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 from 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: lakerdey@mchsi.com Home Phone: 952-934-6388
Work Email: laura.gME@c—arlson.com Work Phone: 763-212-1619
Cell Phone: 612-396-63811
Sin
Cooper
May 23, 2005
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
MY OF
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CIMMSEN
Re: Variance, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case #05-10
7700 Market Boulevard
_
P147
Chanhassen, MN 55311
e4
Dear Ms. Cooper & Mr. Walker.
Administration
This letter is to formally notify you that on May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen
Phane:952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Planning Commission approved the following motion:
Building Inspections
"The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard
Phone:952227.1180
setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and a 32-foot
Fax 952227.119e
shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family
Engineering
home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the
Plan 952227.1160
following conditions:
Fac 952227.1170
Fine=
1. Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house.
Phan:952227.1140
Fax ss2227.1110
2 Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along
Park a Recreation
the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this
Phone:952227.1120
slope to comply.
Fax 952227.1110
RecreationCerdr
3.
The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height
2310 Coulta Boulevard
Phow 952227.1400
must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city
Fax 952-227.1404
building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements
will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
Planniag d
Natural Resources
Phone: 952227.1130
4.
Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey.
Fax 99 V7.1110
Public Weeks
5.
The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water
1591 Park Road
locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection.
Pion 952227.1300
Fax952227.1310
6.
Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the
Seolor Ceder
shore impact zone.
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax952227.1110
7.
The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley -
web Site
Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural
wwnadantiassarnnus
Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits
shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met
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.
r 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:
e of Slope
pe
Time
(menmu n drat an am ran rxmem =ve�ated
when area is not wfively 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."
If you have any questions please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at
imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Sincerely,
�
Josh Metzer
Planner I
gAplan\2005 planning cases105-10 shanatt varianceVetta of approval.doc
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
464 Second Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
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
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. 20481. 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:
Classes of Public Waters
Structures
Sewered
Lakes
Recreational development
75
Planning Case #05-10
Sharrait 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.
a_
*Note: Picture illustrates the distance from the
existing deck to the lakeshore.
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.
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
Address
File
Variance
Shoreland
Number
Setback
9235 Lake
Riley Blvd
1986-1
25 foot shoreline setback variance
50 ft
89-1 Setbacks: 14 foot front yard, 7 foot rear yard, 4.5
foot west side yard,10 foot east side yard
98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot
9247 Lake
1989-1,
area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width
Riley Blvd
1998-12
variance (lake access), 10 foot front yard setback variance,
57 ft
3 foot side yard setback variance, 4 foot shoreland setback
variance
June 28, 1999: Single family home: 13 foot front yard
setback variance,7 foot shoreland setback variance
9231 Lake
27.7 ft
Riley Blvd
1989-13
6 foot side yard setback variance
9051 Lake
1990-7
10.35 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction
64.65 feet
RileyBlvd
o a new home
9203 Lake
Riley Blvd
1991-16
2.5 foot side yard setback variance
80 ft
9221 Lake
Riley Blvd
1992-2
Garage setbacks: 14 foot front yard setback variance, 6.5
28 ft
foot side yard setback, 7% hard surface coverage
9021 Lake
1992-9
36 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of
39 feet
R' Blvd
a deck
9243 Lake
1993-8
Addition setbacks: 9 foot shoreland variance, 7.9 foot front
66 ft
Riley Blvd
yard variance
9225 Lake
Setbacks: 3 foot east side yard variance, 5 foot west side
Riley Blvd
1996-9,
yard variance, 33 foot shoreland variance, 25% hard
42 ft
surface coverage variance;
9223 Lake
Riley Blvd
1997-11
97-11-setbacks: 7 foot rear yard variance
68 ft
361 Deerfoot
Trail
1997-3
Deck setbacks: 1.6 foot front yard variance
N/A
9217 Lake
Riley Blvd
1998-6
Addition setbacks: 7 foot front yard variance
115 ft
9249 Lake
Riley Blvd
1999-14
18 foot shoreland setback variance
57 ft
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 5
Variance
Address
File
Variance
Shoreland
Number
Setback
9221 Lake
6.6 foot side yard setback variance, 5 foot side yard
Riley Blvd
2003-07
setback variance,18 foot shoreland setback variance for
57 ft
construction of a new home
9203 Lake
Riley Blvd
2003-12
7 foot side yard setback variance for a home addition
N/A
*Items in bold italics are within 500 feet of the subject property.
Subject
site
Addmon setbacks 7
foot front yard
variance
Smg9e fat * home:
Garage setbacks 14
13 foot from yard
foot from yard setback
setback vatance,7
varance, 6. S foot side
foot shorclaad
yard setback. 7% hard
setback vatance
AddMon setbacks 9
surface coverage
foot shoreland
valance. 7.9 foot
Deck setbacks 1 6 foot front
front yard valance
yard vananc e
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 6
ANALYSIS
N 897552- f
--12992--
o::tr
---.-AGO
.-`•26
)
f0--
Original Proposal
N 8975 52" E'
--.2a o9--
New
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-confommng 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 Coveraee
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
26.01/o, 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 (comer 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 20485 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
impervious surface coverage is 26.0% 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:
Type of Slope
Time
(maximum time an arm can remain unvegetated
when arm is not active) 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
Lot Area
Hard Surface
Coverage
Shoreland
Setback
Front Yard
Setback
Side Yard
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.
Lr NSLVu
Lake Riley
r,
9ubjec�
Properly
6 zat
ztn
ACT
mu
eons
soez
W71
Planning Case #05-10
Sharrau 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
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt 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 pemnits 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
Sharrau 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:
Type of Slope
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active) 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:iplani2005 planning cassT5-10 shanutt variance\stati report.doc
C1TY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: 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 Govenunent 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 17`s day of May, 2005.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING
WU
Planning Commission Chairperson
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 shanatt varlanc \findings of fact.doc
U1/U//V0 10:1Z rAA 9bZZZ/111U 1.111 ur l"AnnADbLN �. VVV
65-ILA
CITY OFCHANHASSEN CITY 01'CHANHASS2N
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD RECEIVED
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FEB 1 1 2005
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSENPLANNINGDEPT
APPLICANT: S ••'' 1 r^GS t0 .
ADDRESS: 5iC 1(20
_ F—yee smr Mil SS33!
TELEPHONE (Day Time) IS: Z - 470 ' If DSO
OWNER: lLU✓Gl _LC)QI
9 ADDRESS:015 )#Jtf_ Q1iGd NV
�,�nrun {�Ssen MIJ 553/7
TELEPHONE: 952- /.3y- iD3S�
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Interim Use Permit
�Variance
Non -conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review'
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/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
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
SCANNED
V1/1J/Va 11:41 rnn 11L111111V
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
(�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S_r a`''11� a Li'l�.tY_ A
TOTAL ACREAGE: ) 21, 9,16 s ic
WETLANDS PRESENT: {� r YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: RS r
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: PJcasC SGG d j%j — 6
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 shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall 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 I 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 fees, 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_
p57
ignature of Applicant} Date
Signature of Fee Owner /_ � 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:�plaoVolmsrDevelopmenl Review App6cauon.DOC
shrra
C16S� •
company "+ Oty0l' CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
February 11, 2005 MAY 0 3 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Revised: May 2, 2005
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 nonconforming 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
sharra
des
c o m p a n y
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 1:55PM CARLSON MARKETING NO. 7021 P. 2
Joan Ludwig
9005 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY RECEIVEDOF
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 952-946-9739.
Sincerely,
%an Ludwig
id
a
Obnry q
W
m
�Bg
g
b Q T ,J• m 6� N
m
OLH W
G m m N
!nq g I 1O x ' X
X mi
Z P P I N
1U-1 y� G tl1 P O n t O (O
ZLecam
+
m ~ ' OO' � - '�ly •y0 Y � � 0
ory� w x
m � -7 Ao x
.rel Ly - o
x m" Y
�me �
�m
$ TZ% x H fag^ 5 s uim
ka g �^
2 ,r5555W�geg�saeg�o� AEi _
Is o
iog�- �" I�
W O $ 9 9 0 e y�. s N g g a j$e y� �� �a 6.
1'VGVr 53g ��ggggg 9w.a��9$ry 8.E's $ 88; a.'.
Z8 If
e.e"3 'a =�9eg<o '8 is
��z H ma 3•t �°1.9s ui 9°� .9 x�� g� .��e ox''"E '. °=�g�
E4I.a
�, 8 mes��s��zo"W.�o
F&gse���''g�v0%%�o9xa°ac�� z �[���/j✓x.�
2i<°'��u�uie "G'z <g.3 %�'a'o Q$.q ra
aC s o 55 .9
&.59�§ggq@sFy-.e9 �„ 09 ° t-•
�I p1i l-°Ic4oi4 °59 E'`�Z %�Z %$yE'e 99
cxc e 1
s;,xx x j xx it a
$� a
f� U
� 9
MID
a�
01
-
5
U3 [ {
H1HIM
y$,{l. is
agp'
W o 3 s a-saa 5 as8 7{ 38 8[lit
F §gaaa •a ^x, $g{�6 F 3�gg'g$F
j 3a )5 3
W yy 3ga--W
a g€ �3 a 37E3ScE@Si, 5® a3�85�g�€
y a$ 3 �IY y ii� SrII2)i([�.]{' �g ,$'j@t I $• 11®9YAAF
W'- h B� i 3 Sv # ya�$Y Yam• .IM , g g r3y Ti
? HIM
• fal i x 4�a I{SAIMA Ell
9
ad
-s,
r
E
M
{u
1
1
,`
-O
x
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.
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? Sharmeen and Jason?
AI-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 1 Vh 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 VARIANCES 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 Sharratt 464 2°d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Lissa Tenuta 464 2"d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Tim Walker[Laura Cooper 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
M
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 current 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 -Jaffa 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.
m
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 corner 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
property at 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 Cooper/Walker 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 narrow, 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 Sharratt: 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
narrow 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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: The grade will work.
Sacchet: Okay.
bw
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 corner of the structure no closer than where the back corner 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.
W]
Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005
Lillehaug: Does it show where the existing structure was?
Mike Sharratt: Ali 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 corner 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 corner 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'd just 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 married to one of those, I know exactly.
Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because that would potentially be another need for a
variance 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.
KI
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 1
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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: 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
north 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 Sharratt: 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: Correct.
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 corner I think is probably pretty dang close to
where the existing property is. It's just that.
Lillehaug: So, at that corner?
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 Sharratt: ...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 I foot, 2 foot. Moving a room, and
I mean, so I'm just sharing 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.
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: We are 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
corner 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 variances 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 16`s 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
M
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 surrounding 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 of that, 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 temrs 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 corner 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.
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 -Jaffa 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.
At-Jaff: Application was submitted April 15. Deadline.
Slagle: Not April 15.
Metzer: The review deadline is April le.
AI-Jaff: Sorry. So that's the 60 days.
Sacchet: 60 days is April le.
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 Sharatt: 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?
AI-Jaff: We have some heavy items.
m
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 P. It looks like May 3'd.
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.
19
Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then I'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 Sharratt. 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 Sharratt: ...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 forbearing 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
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 2005
Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..
Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and
Kurt Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet and Debbie Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
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
conformity 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-Jaff: 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
A] -Jaffa Correct.
Papke: Okay. The reason I bring 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. I'm just
wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time?
Al -Jaffa 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 report, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to
Josh and Sharmeen.
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 I'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.
Planning Commission Meeting — May 17, 2005
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I live down the
street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So I'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), I'll 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 printed this off at the office. Anyway, no variance 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 private 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 variance 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,
variances 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
I'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. I've never in what, 5-6 years here have ever
heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It's small. I'd like to build a small, quality home.
May I have a variance 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 I'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 variance, variance, variance. You know I write 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?
Al -Jaffa Villages on the Pond.
Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. I've kind of dubbed that, you've never heard this before,
sorry. I've kind of dubbed that Variancea. I don't want our whole town to become a variance. 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 bring 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 surface 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, I'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?
Al -Jaffa If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non -
conformities 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 particular
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 important 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 warranted 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 portion of the garage.
Metzer: It's 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that's just for the very outside comer.
Zorn: It kind of looks like it's 2 feet by, kind of narrow. Angles in.
0
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.
Zom: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I had.
McDonald: Next.
Keefe: You know I'll just re -state briefly, I think that they've improved the situation. I'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 I'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 I'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 variances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the
fault of the owner, that we can grant a variance. In this particular case we're dealing with a lot
that, if we enforce the variances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think
this is a case for where the variances 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 Variance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard
setback variance, 1% hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance
for the demolition and re -building of a single family home on a riparian 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.
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 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.
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:
Typeof Slope
YP Pe
Time
(maximum hme an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active) worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
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.
r
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 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD
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 I'll hold this for the applicant. Okay,
that's all I have.
Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other variances 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 variance. Construction,
expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct?
Metzer: Correct.
Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what I'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?
CITY OF
CAANNSEN
T700 Market Boulevard
PC 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: 952227.1160
Fax:952.227.1170
Finance
Phone:952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park A 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:952221.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone:952.227,1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web She
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
May 17, 2007
Laura Cooper
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Variance Extension, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case #05-10
Dear Ms. Cooper:
This letter is to formally notify you that on May 14, 2007, the Chanhassen City
Council approved 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.
You must obtain a demolition permit, building permit and begin construction of
the new home no later than July 14, 2007.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1131 or by email at
sabaff @ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Sincerely,
` J
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
Senior Planner
GAPLAN\2005 Planning Cases\05-10 Shatxatt VariancexSecood Extension Approval LetterAm
SCANNED
The City of 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.
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
h. Approval of Three Month Extension to Variance #05-10 for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard,
Laura Cooper.
i. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Rotary Club, Fourth of
July Celebration, July 3 & 4.
j. Approve Release from Contract for Private Redevelopment Between the City of
Chanhassen and Coeur Terra, LLP.
k. Approve Professional Services Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., PW009Z.
Approval of Agreement with PCI for Temporary Concrete Batch Plant for TH 212
Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to keep this short
but I need to say this now to make it a matter of public record. As you are aware for over 6 years
I've watched what's happening with developments within Chanhassen. After shoreland code
wasn't properly applied in a subdivision within my neighborhood. It's sad to say that despite
bringing information to the attention of the city staff and council that their application of city
ordinance to all residents and developers doesn't exist within our borders. It does appear that
certain developers are set to higher standards than others. It is the ordinance, it is the city code
which puts each one of us on a level playing ground, and I didn't plan that. Thank you. Tonight
you have before you the final plat for 2°d phase of the Preserve for approval. As you are aware I
did raise questions about this development in an email correspondence.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Ms. Lloyd. Is this the reason why you pulled that item from the
consent agenda?
Debbie Lloyd: No. Not in and of itself solely. This relates to something else as well.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Debbie Lloyd: Condition 13 for Addition 1 of the Preserve specifically mentions the
construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements to serve the development, and that the
development is assessed for this project, but there's no mention of setback. The ordinance
requires 50 feet. The setback of 3 homes from Bluff Creek Boulevard is less than what
ordinance requires along a collector street and less than what was required of Town & Country,
also a PUD established along the very same collector street. When the Preserve was approved
the developer claimed no variances were required. The only mention of any setback condition in
the report was a 40 foot setback for the primary corridor. That is the Bluff Creek corridor. The
exception for the street setback was not stated again. Therefore implied that they were meeting
all city standards. The Preserve is a multi -phased development and as such may have violated
CITY OF
CHO SSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
May 11, 2006
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Laura Cooper
Phone: 952,227,1180
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Fax: 952.227.17.1190
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Engineering
Phone:952.227.1160
Re: Variance Extension, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case #05-10
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Dear Ms. Cooper:
Phone: 952.227,1140
Fax: 952227.1110
This letter is to formally notify you that on May 8, 2006, the Chanhassen City
Park & Recreation
Council approved a one year extension to Variance 05-10. You must obtain a
Phone.952227.1120
demolition permit, building permit and begin construction of the new home no
Fax:952.227,1110
later than May 8, 2007.
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone:952.227.1400
If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at
Fax:952.227.1404
imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone:952227.1130
Fax: 952,227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharratt variance\extension approval letter.doc
Phone: 952,2271125 _
Fax: 952 227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mo.us
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a champing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone. 952227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1Igo
Engineering
Phone:952.22T1160
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
www.a chanhassen.mmus
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE: May 8, 2006 OS/
SUBJ: Approval of One -Year Extension to Variance #05-10
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura Cooper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request for a one-year 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."
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.
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 one-year extension to Variance #05-10. The extension
shall become void May 8, 2007 unless substantial action has been taken by the
petitioner in reliance thereon.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 17, 2006.
2. May 17, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes.
gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharrat[ variance\extension.doc
The City of 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.
Planning Case # 05-10
March 17, 2006
Mr. Josh Metzer
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Josh:
Loom Cooper
90151ake Riley Blvd
C1•s ls^as-a, MN 55317-8650
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I am sending this letter in follow up to a brief conversation I had with Sharmeen this afternoon.
Due to unexpected 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.
The reference on the variance letter dazed 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.
I will forward to your attention new drawings for the site including from and back elevations, drawn
on the survey and annotated with square footage, dimensions, elevations, key anticipated grading and
hardcover calculations. Again — 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 September, 2006 with an
anticipated move in date of March, 2007.
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:
lakeriley n mchsi.com
Work Email:
laura.cooperncarlson corn
Home Phone:
952-934-6388
Work Phone:
763-212-1619
Cell Phone:
612-396-6388
S' iy,
Cooper
...
May 23, 2005
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
CITY OF
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CHONSEN
Re: Variance, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard —Planning Case #05-10
'7W Markel Eouleaard
PO Box 147
Dear Ms. Cooper & Mr. Walker.
CYarhmen. MN 553', i
Administration
This letter is to formally notify you that on May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen
52227110
FFax
Planning Commission approved the following motion:
1
Fax:952727.1110
952
tleRdiop Ilspeclieu
"The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard
PIrm: 952227.1130
setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and a 32-foot
Fax: M227.1190
shorehmd setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family
rnpineving
home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the
Ptww: 952.01160
following conditions:
Fac 952.227.1170
Firwnn
1. Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house.
From 952227.1149
Fax. 9`.2.2271117
2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along
Part & Recreation
the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this
Phax.9e2'1271120
slope to comply.
Fax 9522271110
lecreahon Center
3. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height
23"0 Coulter 9oul.vard
Phore. 952.227.14CO
must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city
Fax 952.227.1404
building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements
will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 952.227.'130
4. Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey.
Fax 9522271110
5. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water
Public welt
'E91 Park Road
locations and submit revised service tic cards upon connection.
Phorz 952.227.1300
Fax 952.227.1310
6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the
seeiorCOW
shore impact zone.
Phoce: 952.227.1125
Fax. 952.227.1110
7. The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley -
Web sXe
Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural
wnw.ckchanhassen.mn.us
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 he installed along the side
property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete
and the site has been revegetated.
The City of Chanhassen - A growing camnunity w-th wean lakes, quality schools, a charm ng devrrtown. thriving businesses, winding trails ant beautiful parks. A gnat place b hea. work. and ?lay,
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:
of Slope
Typepe
Time
[maximum time m area ran remain wvegetated
whet, area is wt actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1 to 371
14 Days
Patter 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
jmeyerC ci.chanhassen.mmus.
Sincerely,
�
Josh Metzer
Planner I
g:1p1aa\2005 planning cas \05- 10 shatratt variami%ieuer ofappsuval.dm
I
�PAZ"
uwrt
a.n
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
FEB 1 1 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
• 1
SCHEMATIC:
FIRST FLOOR 7170 FIN 5F.
COOPER -
SD- C
--------_,.... -
ti•
-- - - -- ----
------- ----------------
N
0
Tio
N
d�
---YVJ4
::::r ar do
14
I
I I
j9e,H!W
all
U50064 24/116f23 SHARRAI7 DESIUN
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February 23, 2005
DRAFTED: February24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain thew
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
Professional Surveyor
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
]CI Ll�r�aow 1 1 \ 1 An
HParker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
PROPOSED RET WALL, TOP
MATCH 0J BELOW DRIVE GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOWN
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 a
PROPOSED RET WALL, BOTTOM
87U2 E. END, 870.1 WEST END, ( IN FEET )
TOP AS SHOWN
iI
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
TOP OF FOUNDATION 8 79. 0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
LOW FLOOR 870.3
BENCW& RK 869.1
EMN r M" LAKUt,U V EK
House
Existing Deck
Bituminous Driveway
TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
Remove all hardcover
Pmposed Patio and Decks
Proposed House
Proposed Drive
Proposed Stoop
HARDCOVER AFTER PROPOSAL
AREA OF LOT TO OHW 12,936 Sq. FL
SCANNED
u�`rr�r r l•.unsLrucL 1 oh
•� • • 7 T, ;
i� •
l J G) J 1 %J - 1 �•..-
0
,.oBp /V�-,�•t, i'I�•'• ems+-�►�v-.•.�'
1
r. NrkI•� .. . , •,.
1
• •
•' •
r y
00
J+
24,67
*ELL
-
• LLY.
L.CAR 34 10,p0 x I �, o
PR
vS staGg
y
Ljr
1*3
o
`• "
,,m,, DECK {$ 741 ' � - •�. o --- � kN ° `�2 •�
N Q1
•�,.. ate: o ,
VAJANG ^ d N °i •s•Yo.3 - - -Y=< - - - �y'9- ... ill
r l�j
SuRV�'}' � - - -- - -�. � N
ddb
rl
1.01
48
I
s/1/90 ./
• t.
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
FEB 11 2005
GHANNASSEN PONNINQ OEPT
VUnsLrucL ion
'1111W • •' ` ie 10• • ,
• �� ♦ • •
oN
300
00
024-67
MELD
L.
•.
Y
/ O y {
•� ♦ , �\, �r ' • • • • •• 1 Trig q•. `' —•�,• —' �.. C��'•
6
«� CAR 06
'44% PR
►=s T.
-97
0.760
9 23*86
1 X 0•YR7 a 3 1
• • • (J � w •
• � • •.�.cat
n ..
• t_...
XK
1 r
7V` , ..•q.--.. ...___.........._.......- ..w
�] I
•+1•
�ft 'DECPC �5745Y
*ago" (810 1'ij1
10.0
ANCE
VARI A.
SETSA
CK
{/// /I +~ +[ • �.. is / N. , 1 _ J }s °e �yh
OS 48*0
w
-�.. Vs �' 8a.
S/>>90
Pro osed Hardcover Su nm
0
House
5
555
Garage
Patios
1111 5
Front Porch
Deck
5
5
265
Upper Drive
118
Lower Drive
544
Total Hardcover
4938
u c 1, 0,
j
_;
06
ex
O i
.•t 1 I
44
1V
eiaFe9w.,
G J
SCANNED
City Council Meeting — May 8, 2006
e. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park,
June 24 & 25, Chanhassen Lions Club.
h. Approval of Extension to Variance 05-10, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura Cooper.
Resolution #2006-34: Approval of Moving the Polling Location for Precinct 3 from
Discovery United Methodist Church to St. Hubert Church.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
1(G). CALL FOR SALE, 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Gerhardt, on those G.O. bonds, is that part of our, I'll call it the loan
program from the State? It's part of all that work.
Todd Gerhardt: No, this is for the east/west collector road and sewer and water.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that's the part of it of that that is not associated with the State
program. That's just the 2005 east/west?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. There's also.
Councilman Lundquist: As far as that, so the assessments from that are those benefiting property
owners there and this is our portion.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. That's all I have Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Resolution #2006-35: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the Call for Sale of 2006 G.O. Improvement Bonds. AB voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: STATE OF THE AGENCY REPORT, SOUTHWEST
METRO TRANSIT, LEN SIMICH.
Mayor Furlong: If you'd like to address an issue, please come to the podium. State your name
and address and we'll be happy to listen to your comments. If no one this evening, we do offer
SCANNED
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February 23, 2005 DRAFTED: February24, 2005
REVISED: May 5, 2005 to add proposed dwelling and grading.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58
seconds East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of
49.60 feet; thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89
degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00
seconds East a distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of
470.07 feet; thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of I t.86 feet; thence North 44
degrees 24 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13
degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East from the Northwest corner of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the
recorded plat thereof; thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence
North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to
be described; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a
bearing of West a distance of 9.47 feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of
60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the
North line of said Government Lot 3 distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest corner of said Government
Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley;
thence Southerly along said shoreline to its intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02
seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145
feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrent; Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the corners of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use
that benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to
verify your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" 0 " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise
noted. Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a
box. Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
am s H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
873.7 X
X 874.9
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
TOP OF FOUNDATION 880.9
GARAGE FLOOR 873.2
LOW FLOOR 873.2
BENCHMARK 869.1
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
X 869.9
Liz./
X870.1 �� 869.3
X869.8 N 892552"
s9.4--128.92--
0 12' A.VK
870.
a ay
40 o°
71.4 15.0 ^
o
/ ri 71.7X
X871.8 12' Spruce
o Trees
Z 871.8 M
Top of Iran 869.1 Xaby.3
ur - - E869.0 - -
8701 �+ ,Z
Nf
30.0 o X \ a Sh
Faros "
5 371.6 X
N
m
869.0 0
y`
/ n
to
a
4
�
pa
��a0 �
q'
I
X 871.9
n
Qt
I
apo�
8.0
(b
X873.4
870.9�
'
�y869.2
Oy ��
8.0
iQ Qi
o a in X6 8.7
c� 6> ^ ^ rw I 867.3X/
ro �0 0 2B.0 6 _8 I X868. I 866 3 865.1
2.0 /X 872.4
- -6 X86�.8
872.0 +--
Triple mople 12� � � � o �
o
0771�873.0 87 126.10- X869.2
X868.7 -866 Fo ie y 864.9
e>_ NN N 8837'56 ""
X 875.3
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 to w 40
( IN FEET )
872.7
871.8
HARD COVER TABULATION:
EXISTING HARDCOVER
House 1,763 Sq. Ft
Driveway 1,157 Sq. Ft.
Stoops/sidewalks 495 Sq. Ft
TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,415 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO OH W 12,936 Sq. Ft
%HARDCOVER 26.4%
HARD COVER TABULATION:
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
Proposed House and stoop 2,547 Sq. Ft
Proposed Driveway 818 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 3,365 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO O14W 12,936 Sq. Ft.
% HARDCOVER
26.0%
050064 24/116/23 SHARRATT DESIGN
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February23, 2005
DRAFTED: February24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet-, thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof, thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court -
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" • " Denotes 1 /2" ID pipe with plastic plug beating State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site. PROPOSED RET. WALL, TOP
MATCH 03 BELOW DRIVE GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOWN
ll OI OSLD XEW COHETlDCT10X OF iNE:
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 0 10 20 40
PROPOSED RET. WALL, BOTTOM'
870.2 E. END, 870.1 WEST END, IN FBE1'
TOP AS SHOWN
iI
csY.� n A
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
TOP OF FOUNDATION 8 79. 0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
LOW FLOOR 870.3
BENCHMARK 869.1
CiTY CP CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
© COPY{I CNT IH1 SX{... Ti DESIGN E <DYPNNY. LLC
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300S.Hwy.No.101 M®entla,MN55345 Phoac(952)4747964 Faa(952)4749M7
SURVEYFOB: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYEI} February 23, 2005 DRAFTED: F 70P OFetroOM41SlA9 880.9
REVISED: May 5, 2005 m add dwell.,and eh^'arY 24, 2005
GdRAG6 £LCCR 873.2
Proposed 8r^d�°g- LLW FZLgp 873.2
Pti5'CBNAR,[
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 869.I
Thus Part of Govermnat La 3, Scoon 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Metidian, described as follows: P80°OSiO S(7 fEH�
Commancing A the Northwest caner of sad Government Lot 3; thence on an aasomed bearing of South 0 X869.9
degrees 25 minutes W seconds East. along the West line ofsad lot; a distance of 1293.96 feet; thence North Lz�j
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 X870.1 X869.3
seconds East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of X869a IV897552' i
49.60 fat; thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 r>.y % --128 92--
degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 870.4 .!
rye\
seconds East a di.tacee of 304A2 feet; Wince North14 deg . 46 minutes 05 .goads East a distance of 87oIC&I� l ° 856.9,
degrees
feet, thera North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 far; thence North 44 I2' ^� y ''� �_ _tea hq o/ am H621 X r�,9.3 Qa
degr24 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 64.01 fat to the intersection with a liceoNorthbna, N13 m /ti
degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East from the Northwest corner of La 2, "Shore Acres', according to the ' ' 14 070, 870.1 - \ - - 86,. t
recorded lad thereof, thence North I1 - 854.8
P degrees a 17 mmures 09.%coeds Eon a Point
of
eg ruing feet, thence jjj �p• / \ F 8�6.
North ] degrees 45 North 54 greets 4 Ens a eist se of s East feet to We point o(hgi, tie of the IvM to 9]0.8 N� dl6 k0 0 w9ox 6 a / °
be ring uled; thence North 7 degm 45 mbuto North
seconds Fast a distance of 13.32 [at, thence w a Cd • /A'V 71.6X ry n +v m
bearing of Wert • distance of9.4] feet, thence Noah 16 degrees 40 minors W seconds Ens a distacee of X87 .t � a ay /
%65 feet, thence North 7 45 minutes 54 seconds i HARI)COWa TAIRrATION:
degrees East, along a line passing through a pawl on ebe �1 / Xff 1.9 o m 1.�5I ppy�pK x lgprt�vpt North Tice of vtl Gov.58 fir t La 3 distant 114524 feet East from the Northwest comer of said yW 7 . a n 6' - m- 1.763 Sy R
La 3, a distance of 22.58 fen, thence ao a bearing of Eon abour 158 feet m the shoreline of IJke Riley;Ril; z / Do-axy 1.157
sq. R
Wince Southcrty ales., said shmelae m ib interseutiw with a live boring South 88 de®ra 10 rrtinuta 02 p / 0 1 I / Swp.tm...ao tas s9 R
trmds Eau Gam the tof be _ a^ 0 866.E Tm'LL EcisrTIN3 N.51lpNx'ER 3.415 S,R
se pain gmnmg; thence Nor 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds W est about 145 h _
feet m the pointof begi®ing.
yhQ 71. H DX673.4 )0.9� 9.2 ' :7 O/ ARPr OF I.Or TOg1W 1; Sq. Ft
The boundaries of We premiss arc marked by judicial landmnt aa ks set ato Torous Casc No Tfi84 as 1 / 6 `
shown on e plat in survey on file the office of the Clerk of Cou / '73C O
WC .Q HO .� s / x xAaOtwtn n.ax
2 X8n.8 o 12
t°¢ 34
LIh9TAt.four w a7te h Q Q m / xs80 covFx rneuunOn:
115e scope of our services for this job isufollows: _a�v Xes
.a
L Showing the length and direction of boundary lino of the legal description which you famished stly�. XB 8.7 ® m -a p p-1 xoasss eetmop ;sal sq R
2. Showing We location ofexisting wpmvetnevts we deemed smportavt �F sw >2 u I �l.,Xl ® Row+a4 a+se.'.r ate Sq. R
1. Setting new momunrnts a verifying existing monuments to mark the coraers oldie Property. y r m 290 m .8 ' X W& ' ( W5.1
4. Showingexisting T.O
gSpdelevet fi neaSSeryh Showelevarlanw famiilia it Wesite. X8724 / TMF PAOPOSEO FU,OCOVFA 3,165 Sq. Ft
5. While to show a proposed tontine fa this house, we art era az familiar with your house plans as you and Xm a A OF 3ar To oxw 149M Sq. Ft
yourarchitect anNa baadnt are. Check out ptapmN Iacation and siting so We home and yard grades ^ 1 ^ 872.0 - -
oreCWly m see that they Dutch your Plans before coasvucaov begins. Also, we sec not as familiar with local a 7ro/e�wea / o s x xA,0cov6a 74.0%
codes as the local bolding official and cooing official in this consonantly are. Be sure m show this survry m 873.] X is
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over We home and its siting, and obtain their 873. e� 873.0 87 .
mv appak before begimung ca°6ouctuoa--J26.J0- X869.2 X868.7 -866, ,,,; 86ais
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use a determining elevation% for covsmsetion oo this site, use a>e w N 88:3756
that benchmark and nothing else fa that puryose. Check We elevatian of at least one older [canoe showy toX814.9 \
Verify your elevatlaas. X875.3 \8 a>
X 74.!
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
•' Denotes 12' m with 1.9
pipe plastic Plug bearing State License Number 9235, set unless shown otherwise 8727
noted. Proposemiss indicate
eke the p are, showy with a ban around them, while existing cicvanom we shows without a
box. Artows mdirate the proposed Bow of storm wars an the am. /
871.8
I hereby certify That this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that 1 am a licensed Pmfessionsl Engineer and
Plroffmional Surrv-Ieyo/rr un�Jderr the laws of the State of Minnesota
�1SlfMon I 1 1 rran X'
(!T51. H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OFCHANHASSEN
1.ar RECEIVED
1 lR FgE�) MAY 0 6 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
.. - CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
----- - -- ---- ---- ------------ MAY 0 5 2005
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEP T
r
SCANNED
Fz O,O$10 MIN CONSTLO CTIOM Oe TM\:
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CI iANHASSEN, MN 55317
design&
46 5xond 5tr flue.. 952.470.9750
Suite 100 F. 957.47034M
En 1..,, MN 5MI mfo�ttdmg.m
SHEET A V NUMBER
0 COTTSIGNT i00L 4NA...." .(SIGN Y CONTANY. LLC
- -- --- , _ RECEIVED
4 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT
SCANNED
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
de- - o & �
464 SDad Slnel Ph.: 952.470.9750
SW@100 Fa 952470.8407
EVELUM, MN 55331 WD®shazrehdCDg.C.
SHEET A / NUMBER
CDmwxnoa• SHAuliT DESIGN &COMPAN ,uc
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
4
- - - tour. RnvraE JtNf
5
• 1 \
'AW~ • ISSUED F O R
{ I 14;19.. \ �1s tuts✓ r� tro C�`(P) ___--- _ � � � o � � � o
1 1• _._-.-.._._._.' i_Mld.EWEDATE mq4 Pl
4 ,
4 —
! vr.LONG : Pr G� Fp40. WAvt,
444
dshmatt
esl n&
m anv�
4 t p � � .T. a tr M.o t'a-r1><
i Otl - - _ _ •- _ __. _. _ _ - _ 464 5e nd Sneer Phone: 9s247o9750 �i _..-_____� ____.._____—__ _�..___. 5Dih 100 Fu: 952470.8907
Ez Wm•MNSMI ufo®shuvndmgmmm
a
-- - - SHEET A6 NUMBER
4 SCANNED 111 ��, IVVVJ
0 COPY\IODTM41KADtAWD410N&COYTAN;LLC
SCANNED
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
desi company;Lu
4" Seco d Street Phw .. 952470.9750
Suiee 10f1 F=9521711B1f77
Excelsior, MN 5W1 mf.09— td-gi -m
SHEET A3 NUMBER
0 COIT[IGNTSII18MAllATT OIIIGN i COYTANL LLC
r LolosLo xew eoxsnvenoN oe ixe.
(I = I1, D 11 5A,a
f
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CjjAN ASSEN, MN 55317
design&
_ 4N Second Sheet Ph.. 951470.9750
Soih 100 Fax 952470.8407
E.U., hW 5M1 odofthan t de igncom
SHEET AZ NUMBER
SCANNED
® COIie1GNT318....L8.LiT 0[81GNi COYI.LNi.LLC
4
r
SCANNED
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANH,k%EN, MN 55317
desi company:
Second Steet Ph. 951.470.V%
Suite 100 F=957.470MM
E¢ebior, MN SMI udo9shn tbd®gncom
SHEET NUMBER
O corencxnus sxsnen xsvcx a couraxr, uc
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Mitmetook; MN 55345 Phtte (952) 474 7964 Fors (952) 4748267
suRVEYFoR. SMRRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED- FeMtmy23,2005 DRAFTED: Febmary24,2005
REVISED: May 5, 2005 W add proposed dwcOmg and geathng
LEGAL DESCRIFMN:
That part ofGm er®rnt Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Natclple
Meridian, descaLed as M.
Cammegcing at the Northwest coma ofsaid Government la 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes W seem& East, along the West late ofsaid lot a distance of 1293.96 feet thence Noah
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 secoods East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degras 00 minutes 58
second¢ East a distance of 24938 feet thence North 89 degrees 58 mine W seconds East a distance of
49.60 feet thence Noah 0 degrees 03 minutes W semods Fin a distance of 247.87 feet thence North 89
degrees 34 arm. 42 seconds Fin a distance of 714,51 fen; thence, North 20 degrees 20 m®acs 00
seconds East a distance of 304A2 fee; theta Noah 14 degrees 46 mo me 05 seconds East a distance of
47nM fat thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes W seconds East a duusec of 11.86 fee; thence North b
de®eev 24 minutes 55 seconds Ear a distance of6/.01 fM to the imessection with a line bearing North 13
degrees 17 minutes W seconds Fan from the Northwest coma of I.ot 2, "Shore Acres', accon ing to the
recorded plat thaeoC thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes W seconds East a distance of 156.08 @et thence
Noah 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 secomis East a lot nce of 113.%feet m the point ofbegiwiug of the Iaml to
be described; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds Fast a distance of 13.32 fat thenee on a
bearing of West a distance of 9.47 fat thence North 16 degas 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of
6n65 fen; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East, along a ame passing through a point m the
North line of said Government feat 3 distant 114524 fat Fan from the Northwest corner of said Cmvemmcnt
La 3, a disaoce of 22.58 feet thence on a bearing of East about 158 fen to the shoreline of lake Riky,
thence Southerly along said sboega, to its atkraeeerom with a late boring South 88 degrw 10 minutes m
seconds East hose the pout of beginning, thence North 88 degras 10 mines 02 secomh Wen about 145
feet to the point ofbcgi smmg.
The boundaries of the premises are martod by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Togreaus Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office ofthe Clerk ofCoort
LMTATIONS:
The scope of out services for this job u as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction ofbmmdary lines of the legal description which you furnished
2 Sbowmg the Ioarms, of existing impmvemmn we deemed imporam,
3. Setting new monuments or veofymg existing morn ms m mark the omens of the Property.
4. Showing existing spot ekvatiasa necessary to show cicvauot diffe m,, s m We snc.
5. White we show a proposed location for this home, we ate ma as familiar with your house plans as you and
yow architect and/or builder era. Cheek our pm,,mod bcatm. aid stung of the home and yard guiles
-fWty m see that they match your plain before comnmtioo begins. Also, we are ore as hughar with local
codes as the local building official and song official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction ova the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for yaw tax in dnesmirtmg clevauoos for comtruction on this site, tau
tbm bmchmah and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown m
verify your d.fiaoa_
STANDARD SYMBOTS & CONVENTIONS:
• • Otbotes 12• m pipe with plastic plug homing State Licen Number 9235, set. md. otherwise
nosed Proposed elevation are shown with a but asamd than while e,isung elevations ate shown without a
boa Arrows inthate the proposed Row of atom water on the site.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
Prolic sional Surveyor lenkT the laws of the State of Minnesota
(
H. Parke P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
MOP IW BLBFA TUW--
MP OF E17O863TiGY 0801
GARAGE FLOOR 87K7
lrJl FLAIR 973.?
Iy ,I BENC]CIARB B69.2
I'e€ .{ PRanvsro sxrrwa
X869.9
X570.1 86!I fg, �-L-C1L[LQ�j 9.J
-
X869.8 N 897552"
94 5� £«�
„o �, �--128.92--
c ? !I'.ql
8]0.8 P a4f
�-
X87 .4
" y_Ti, aioo B69.s
to
869.OX1.
r a S0 b X 7a4
/ �
X871.8 0!T. pQ w
Bx71.ati QS
�yy
�T
y r �m � • 2fl0
xan.4
872.0
T10" mgoh 12ite
X87L9
X875.3
GRAPHIC SCALE
Yt869.2
Xa 88.77 i
--126. 10- X869.2 e
N 883756" X868.7
NARDCOVQ TABDIATW:
FXISIWOILVIDCOVFX
Ilwm
I,MISaR
Giamy
Ilfl Syh
®
a
1415Sq
TOTAL W11WG11MOCOVF2
TOT (MT
J,IIS SqR
AREAQIAi I'001191
115J4 Sq.R
y�J
aft
%1WlDCOVFR
MA%
HARDMvFRTADUTAM0N:
QOPOS6D HARDCOVFA
®
?"bed home and amp
7.5a7 S4R
hwp Ltirtwb
818 Sq Ft
�j
IOFALPRW�FDNAROCOVQ 3ja5 S9.R
AREAOFI.OFTO ONW
12,93659a
%NARIXAVQ
M.t%
CITY OFCHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAY 0 3 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
c
raorosto wtwcowsnocnow or Twt:
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ISSUED FOR
destt com
464 Second Swet Fh. 952.470.9750
SuiE l00 F. 95247O.NT
E.W., M 55nl trdo®shmrzMdmgmD,ND
SHEET 8
NUMBER
© C01VAIGNT 1084 SNAYIATT DESIGN Y CONrANt LLC
' CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANRA S%EN, MN 55317
desl no�L
4N Second Street Phone: 952470.9750
Suite 100 F. 952470.8407
E.N., N1N 55331 info&he tnieng Loom
SHEET A 7 NUMBER
0c.11uGXT1 ,XCOYeAXI. LLC
4
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
design&
company,L
4 S M Sheet Phm 9 WO.YM
Suite Im Fax 95147OW
Es bim MN 5WI i d.@,har ftdesigmm
SHEET A6 NUMBER
[OtY IIGMT 100. SN L EEATi DESIGN Y COYtAXY. LLC
1,0 [1
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
opF.1"I:L s- I211 f'1gmeum
desi �o> &
� Secmid Sheet Fhwu: %2V0.9m
Suite 100 F. 9514M.UM
&,d,mMN 5Wl vd.@dumftdaigm.
SHEET DNUMBER
®co...... uux.eurroumx•coue�xr. uc
taotoslo xlN coxsnucnox o1 Txl:
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
desi company;
_ 464 Sword Street Ph.: 9 4703M
Sidle 100 F.9 470MW
F.ssd.., MN 55331 Edo ttdesig c
SHEET A4 NUMBER
® COtYLIGXi SIII SXAIIATt DESIGN I COYt1NY. LLC
4
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANi1ASSM, MN 55317
s
design
company, ,�
464 Second S� Pb. 952470.9750
Suite 100 Fax 952470AM
--- Fxcelsint, MN 5WI vd-sd- b&-p —
SHEET A5 NUWER
®COtYl1GXT ItITfNAIIATT Oa61LNACOYtAML LLL 1
J
050064 24/116/23 SHARRATT DESIGN
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February23, 2005
DRAFTED: February24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMPfATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you famished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
�t
73 7 //
87 .7 X
UtY/tI oxen
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" • " Denotes 1 /2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site. PROPOSED RET. WALL, TOP
MATCH 03 BELOW DRIVE GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOWN
SL LCOOPER/ YN.
WALKER HOME
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 a 10 20 40 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
TOP OF FOUNDATION 8 79. 0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
PROPOSED RET. WALL, BOTTOM LOW FLOOR 870.3
870.2 E. END, 870.1 WEST END, IN FEET BENCHMARK 869.1
TOP AS SHOWN
Fiat R " PROPOSED SIL T FENCE
X869.9 B71.7
869.9
" t X 870.1 869.3
x 869. N 89 25 52 �'�
70.4�� _ .li\ .,.,..�,. 69.4--I28.92-- 66.9
870.4 `
X
120 Ash
IX 71.1
p Existing arive �rl
71.4
12'
T 71.
11'
7t.8
X871.8 Z
It €a
872.4
Trpgr, , qW# 12-
FOB 873.0
a
X874.9
X 5.3
r
° ° 34.07
-
° �w�b..1y
o . O
Tqv of Nat Bt49. b';
X 869.0
X g;;F3
-
867.1 <
870.1
-XOZR
48
ow 8�6_
t:870o8
�
869.OX
/
871.E
O
Co / o
^O' �
ro�
871.9
1
�--126.10-
cN N 88 37 56 "
X 869.2
868.7
868.8 X868.
Exis ' g DICk
6 X86�.8
N 3.3
E
X869.2 X868.7 -868 Fe
\ C17YOFCH
RECEIVED ssEN
872.7
MAY 0 2 2005
- 8718 CHANHASSENPLANNING DEP-
o
I
I,
I
I
I
864.9
864.8
i.6
71
SHEET nAl!1
UMBER
© COYYIICXi SOOL SXA0.0.A}t OB6ILN k COY0.AXY. LLC
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 M®lelaeka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 9267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED February 23, 2005 DRAFTED: Febuary 24, 2005
REVfSED. May 5.2005 to add proposed dwelling and grading.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part ofGovemm®t Lot 3, Section 24. Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the Sth Principle
Meridian, dumbed as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Government Le 3; thrnce on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West live of said Id; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minmes 14 seconds Fact a distance of 16,00 feet thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58
seconds East a distance of249.38 fret thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds Eau a disance of
49.60 feet; thence North 0 degrees 03 mouses 00 words Fin a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89
degrees 34 mouses 42 seconds Fast a distance of 714.51 her; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00
seconds Eau a domance, of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrev 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distarcc of
470,07 feet; thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44
degrees 24 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of"ol feet to the usterseetlov with a live boring North 13
degrees 17 car muter 09 seconds Rant from the Northwest rower of lot 2, "Shose Arms", according to the
m mmadi plat thereof; therm North 13 degrees 17 roinses 09 seconds Fast a distance of IMog feet; thence
North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds Pau a durance of 113.9E feet to the point ofbeginning of the hood in
be described; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds Fast a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a
beasivg of West a distance of9.47 feet thrice North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of
W 65 feet thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seemds Ear, along a line passing through a point on the
North Ise of said Government Let 3 dismiss 1145.24 feet Feu from the Northwest comer of said Government
Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet thence on a bearing of Fast about 158 feet to the shoreline of lake Riley,
thence Southerly along said shoreline to its mtrsctioo with a hoe bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02
secooda East 6om the point of begi ossult thence North 88 degrees 10 minuses 02 xecords West about 145
feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the possesses am marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Tmreos Case No. T 684 am
shown on the plat of meve, on file in the office ofthe Clerk of Coure
LUA TATIONS:
The scope of. services for this job is as follows:
L Sbowisg the length and d.ection of boundary lies of tb legal desription which you furnished
2. Showing the location of existing improve arts we deemed important.
3. Setting new cons mneuts out verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
year archileet and/or builder are. Check our proposed loettion and siting of the home and yard grades
ruefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the lorl budding official and 7omeg official in this community are. Be rue to show this survey to
these of6cid1 or any other offsciis that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting ad obtain the.
approval, before begntving construction
6. We have Provided a benchmark for your use in deterroman, rig elevauons for construction oo this site, use
that benchmark and nodsmi, clse for that Propose. Check the elevauum of at lean one other feature shown re
verify your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
•' De esm; 12n m pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, sore unless otherwise
voted Proposed elevations area shown with a box around them while existing elevations are shown without a
box. Arrows indicate the proposed Bow ofsorm wade, on the site.
I hereby certify that this pL3q specification, report or survey Was plepaed by me or
under my direct Supervjsion and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
P'roofflessional Surveyor n
/u\da the laws of the State of Minnesota
Yffl moon n \ 1 nnX'nn
am H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
X869.9
X869.a
870.8
2 f
xeJts
y
871.8
X
ar
X872.4
ti
repae on4Pb
'A
X874.9
%875.3
PROPQSED &L6T�ATrCm:
H7P OF EDORL1ITI. BB0.9
GARAGE tZQ7R 873.2
LGW FLOOR 8 73. 1
L CBYARA B69.1
r� PR047Y0 St fFNCE
X070A 869.3
N 89 7552"T
09--
tare- X169.0
9)0 OF4W
Mo es
8�6.
069.0X \a d 1
J1.6X 1M1gx aaa p / e
X871.9
&0
0 o a
X8
"'734 70.9� „I C9.2 '
41 A &o JI I I
�O 34 w
es
q 71 /I/
2&0 as 8 ' X888 I 4� 865.1
'20
0
--It.. 10- Xaws
N 8837"58" I
dye
1.9
^7T�ic872.7
GRAPHIC SCALE
M 10 va
( WFEAT)
X868
tuaocovmTAanwnw:
E%ISIING II.5R0005'EA
caw:
1,743 sp R
Qiveway
I,ISI Sq.R
de�am
54R
6.fi
TOTAL FXISRaO HARDCOVER
WY1 AL
J.41A135gR
�
AREA OFIArroOHw
I; Sq.El
%F1ARIX.OVF1
26.1%
FIARD COVU iAtwunW:
pROPOSLD HARDCOVER
Fops Houss and camp
2,%7 Sq FL
praP^xd Llrvexay
81a Sq. Fe
TOTAL?ROPoS6D HARDCOVER 3X5 Sq. R
AREA OFIAf TOOIIW
12,93a Sq.a
%HARDCOvU
260%
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAY 0 6 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP'
ti
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ISSUED FOR
desi company;
464 Secmw SU Pllmre 95147OW50
Suite 1w F. 952470.5407
Eudso3, MN SMI mfooslumndoigmmm
SHEET A3 NUWER
® CpPYIILXY 301e 8M1llATT UIf ILN Y <OYP.YMY. LLC
i
rwrosxo xsx eoxsnuenox oe T.
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
desi company;
464 Second Sheet Ph... 952470.VM
Suite 100 Fix 952470.8407
Ficelsim,6 55331 udo®sharrandesignmm
SHEET A4 NUMBER
© conucxr zoe, sN a esarr DESIGN& coEII Nv'uc
Per ��r - -- ---
�I-6afir i Pt�/HJ ---
t
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ISSUED FOR
de- - company;
464 5amd Street Fhn 952470.9750
Sulu 100 Fax 952.4709W7
Exceb wc, MN SMI N!o@dM tbdesg v.
SHEET A5 NUMBER
® corniexnoat sxsaun wssmx • cowuxr. uc
/our. ¢AEarsL J►uI � .
,�lpd6'K gsts(INfT -
;��: n► -rtiw�rsa
1�7. ft1� �fi.,T qs
j'1= vJwal yr I�oC�)
s
Gor+c , Pi Cr/ �r+v. wl�w
You
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHMZ-U%EN, MN 55317
design&
4 second Str Alms 'n M.=
suite 100 Fez: 952470.BM
Excelsior, MN SM1 info ftdesignmm
SHEET pi 6 NUMBER
© c.I I I.. T I..l 1.AI Ti DE,IGMY e"""', E"
0
I
TY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAY 0 3 2005
CHANHASSEN PLINNING DEPT
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHA.NTiASSEN, MN 55317
design&
464 Saari Street Phone: 952.470.9750
'Salta 100 F. 952.470.8407
EYnlda, MN 5951 rzdofkhAaandesign.mm
SHEET(: A / NUMBER
0 CO" RIGHT fee. SHARIATT oeswx k COY FANX uC
-�-'- CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
------------- -'-- MAY 0 3 2005
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT
]IOYOSSD NBW CONSiIVCiION Oi TX[.
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
desl � LNz
464 Second Street Aare: 951470.9750
SWae 100 F. 952470.S4V
Fueleim, MN 5MI hd09Awm1tdesigD.
SHEET AV NUMBER
0 COPYRIGHT xuuHAueTT VESIGN 0 mYee NI, uc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
FEB 11 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
s
SCHEMATIC
FIRST FLOOR 2,I10 FIN SF. COOPER - WALKER 1411-
114" = V-0' SDC 2/11/2005
l
0 � e
---
---��__�... -. ��'�' _ I% L Er �laTl a t�-- • `o' p�,� ,�i.,r-o- � � o µ �
--- -- °h o,- tea"
t
4
t
a
r�saw~ w"u Xa ua,ww�
ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO,
S30DS-E*.IJo.l01 Mi.a1,"UNUM PiaeVM4M7964 Fata(95Z)4MU67
saRVBYFDa SHARRA77 DESIGN
I SURVEYED: February 23, 2005
DRAFTED: February 24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the Sth Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 mmutoa 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot', a distance of 1293.96 feet thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East A distance of 24938 feet thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet
thence Nordk 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet theme North 14 degrea 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof,thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be desenbed; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet thence on a beating of West a distance of 9.47
feet thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet Fast from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet thence
on a beating of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersecfion with a he bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
You architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" • " Denotes 1/2" IDpipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site. PROPOSED RET. WALL, Rap
MATCH a an ow DRILr GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOM
,. O,O. 10 ..M CON,},VCTIOM 0, ,H...
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
GRAPHIC SCALE
7,
MagzfD RET. WALL, BOTTt2t/ t
87Q2 E. END, 87ai 1t£ST END, g
TLW AS SNOW✓ �!
V Fkvt floor
CITY OF CHAT iHASjcr1
RECEIVED
PROPOSED ELEV MMS.
TOP OF POWDATION 879.0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
LOW FLOOR 870.3
BENCHMARK 869.1
hhna
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222
E-mailAddress. snelson6zck-lamcom
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
October 19, 2005
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
loci J. Jamnik
Ms. Kim Meuwissen
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Chanhassen City Hall
Matthew K. Brokr
John F. Kelly
7700 Market Boulevard
Soren M. Mattick
P.O. BOX 147
Henry A. Schaeffer, III
Chanhassen, Minnesota 553.17
Alina Schwartz
Marguerite M. McCarron
RE: Miscellaneous Recorded Variances
Gina M. Brandt
• Also Licensed in Wisconsin
Dear Kim:
Enclosed for your files please find the following original recorded variances:
anceZ05-1�0 Cooper/9015 Lake Riley Boulevard) for part of
f
er,ion 24-116-23 was recorded on 08/09/05 as Document
No. T154041.
• Variance 05-17 (McHugh) for Lot 5, Block 1, Sunset View was recorded on
08/08/05 as Document No. A420611.
Regards,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
S an R. Nelson, Legal ssistant
SRN:ms
Enclosures
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121
IGP°tRSF~ .
651-452-5000
60, _
Fax 651-452-5550
tt�� ``
IOCT 2 U
www.ck-law.com
SCANNED
f , , • 1
• Document NoOFFICE OF THE
T 154041 REGISTRAR OF TITLES
IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIIIII CARVER
CCerthe #28247
COUNTY,
FIA # 14520ee N$ 46.00
Certified and filed on 08-09-2005 at 10:00 JAM ❑PM
2005-08-09 Ll
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Registrar of Tdlesr.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 05-10
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
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).
2. Prove . The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
See attached Exhibit "A"
(9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 553 Pn
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to 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.
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
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when arm is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
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."
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: May 17, 2005.
FA
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
CITY OF
BY: i K-r--Y I`t
Thomas
�/A. Furlong, Mayor
AND: �'
z
odd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this' day of V u�
2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Cl anhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
NOTARY PUB C
dNlh
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
0�-�._..a YCtary bn Expires Jan 31, t
F
gAplan\2005 planning cmes\05-10 shorted variancekecording documeadoc
3
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
VARIANCE NO.05-10
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5 h
Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing
of South 0 degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the west line of said lot; a distance of
1293.86 feet; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet;
thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89
degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet; thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes
00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a
distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 304.42
feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence North
13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24
minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13
degrees 17 minutes 90 seconds East from the northwest comer of Lot 2 "SHORE ACRES",
according to the recorded plat thereof, thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a
distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 113.96
feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47 feet; thence
North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the north line of said
Government Lot 3 distant 1145.24 feet east from the northwest corner of said Government Lot 3,
a distance of 22.58 feet; thence on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake
Riley; thence southerly along said shoreline to its intersection with a line bearing South 88
degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 88 degrees 10
minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case
No. T-684 as shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
The above described property is subject to an easement for public right-of-way purposes as
described in Book 143, Page 260 of Deeds, on file or of record in the office of the Carver County
Recorder.
Subject to the proprietary and sovereign rights in the State of Minnesota in all that portion of
land lying below the ordinary high water mark thereof, not intending, however, to deprive the fee
owners of the usual riparian rights that attach to the land riparian to a navigable public body of
water incident to the ownership thereof.
(Torrens Property — Certificate No. 28247.0)
4
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110
TO: Campbell Knutson, PA
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
WE ARE SENDING YOU
❑ Shop drawings
❑ Copy of letter
•
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
JOB NO.
7/20/05
ATTENTION
Sue Nelson
Document
M Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
5/17/05
05-10
Variance 05-10 Sharratt Variance
1
6/27/05
05-17
Variance 05-17 (McHugh Variance
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑
For approval
❑
Foryouruse
❑
As requested
❑
For review and comment
❑
FORBIDS DUE
REMARKS
COPY TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
® For Recording
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
SIGNED.
Kim Meuwissen !f 227-1107
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, NIINNESOTA
VARIANCE 05-10
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
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).
2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
NW 1/4 of the SE 1/a of Section 24, TWP 116, Range 023
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to 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.
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
Time
(maximum time an area ran remain m,vegetated
when area is not active) worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
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."
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: May 17, 2006.
2
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
CITY OF
BY: Y /�'
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
4,z
AND:
odd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this6?Ly of -,3 L l
2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of C anhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
TARY PUBVC.
KIM T. MEUMSSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
My COMIWWOn EXPM Jan 31. 2010
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
9:lp1an12005 Planning c MN05-10 shartatt varianm\k coding documenLdm
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: 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
Ci=
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 17a day of May, 2005.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
M.
Planning Commission Chairperson
g:lplan12005 planning casu105-10 shartattvarian=\ indings of fact.doc
May 23, 2005
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
C
Uff OF
Chanhassen, MN 55317
�i
CgANgASSEN
Re: Variance, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case #05-10
77W Markel Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Cooper & Mr. Walker.
Administration This letter is to formally notify you that on May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen
P2.21100
Fax: 952.227.1110 Planning Commission approved the following motion:
Building Inspections
"The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard
PFax:952..27.1190
setback variance, 1.0 t hard surface coverage variance and a 32-foot
percent �
Fax: 952227.1190
shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family
Engineering
home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the
Phone:952.227.1160
following conditions:
Fax 952.227.1170
Finance
1. Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house.
Phone: 952227.1140
Fax: %2.227.1110
2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along
Park & Recreation
the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this
Phone:952.227.1120
slope to comply.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
3.
The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height
Phone:952227.1400
must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city
Fax:952.227.1404
building department must be obtained. Ih addition, encroachment agreements
Planning a
will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
Natural Resources
Phone: 952,227.1130
4.
Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
5.
The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water
1591 Park goad
locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection.
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227,1310
6.
Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the
Senior Center
shore impact zone.
Phone: 952227.1125
I'mc 952.227.1110
7.
The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley -
web site
Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural
www.d.chimhas ann.us
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.
The City of 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.
SCANNED
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:
Type of Slope
Time
(macimnm time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively 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
imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Sincerely,
�
Josh Metzer
Planner I
gAp1m\2005 planning cases\05-10 shanatt variance\1etter of approvalAm
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 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 Al-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 VARIANCES 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
conformity 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 -Jaffa 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?
SCANNED
Planning Commission Meeting — May 17. 2005
Al -Jaffa Correct.
Papke: Okay. The reason I bring 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. I'm just
wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time?
Al -Jaffa 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 report, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to
Josh and Sharmeen.
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 I'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 Drive. I live down the
street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So I'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), I'll 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 printed this off at the office. Anyway, no variance 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 private 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 variance 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,
variances 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
I'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. I've never in what, 5-6 years here have ever
heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It's small. I'd like to build a small, quality home.
May I have a variance 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 I'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 variance, variance, variance. You know I write 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?
Al -Jaffa Villages on the Pond.
Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. I've kind of dubbed that, you've never heard this before,
sorry. I've kind of dubbed that Variancea. I don't want our whole town to become a variance. 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 bring 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 surface 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, I'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?
Al -Jaffa If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non -
conformities 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 particular
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 important 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 warranted 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 portion of the garage.
Metzer: It's 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that's just for the very outside corner.
Zorn: It kind of looks like it's 2 feet by, kind of narrow. Angles in.
4
' Planning Commission Meet 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.
Zom: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I had.
McDonald: Next.
Keefe: You know I'll just re -state briefly, I think that they've improved the situation. I'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 I'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 I'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 variances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the
fault of the owner, that we can grant a variance. In this particular case we're dealing with a lot
that, if we enforce the variances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think
this is a case for where the variances 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 Variance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard
setback variance, 1% hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance
for the demolition and re -building of a single family home on a riparian 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.
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 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.
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
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
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.
0
'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 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 I'll hold this for the applicant. Okay,
that's all I have.
Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other variances 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: Ahight. And then in terms of 27 foot front yard setback variance. Construction,
expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct?
Metzer: Correct.
Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what I'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?
%I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
PC DATE: Mefeh 15 May 17, 2005
CC DATE: Apfi141- June 13, 2005 Ifl
REVIEW DEADLINE: 441=5 7/11/05
CASE #: 05-10
BY: JM, LH, MS, JS
PROPOSAL: Request for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 7691.0 percent hard surface coverage
variance (32.7% 26.0% coverage) and a 41. 32 foot shoreland setback variance (334 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
464 Second Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
01✓,
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
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
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 denial 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 #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
This application fast 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, L." a 1.0
percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage permitted in the
RSF district and a 41-3 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:
Classes of Public Waters
Structures
Sewered
Lakes
Recreational development
75
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17,2004
Page 3
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (RSF)
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
(h) One driveway aeeess is allowed from a single ..esidential !at to the SI feet
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 comer to a low elevation
of 865.3 at the OHW level.
;Note: Person in picture is standing at the
lakeshore.
*Note: Picture illustrates the
existing deck to the lakeshore.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
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
Address
File
Variance
Setback
Number
9235 Lake
1986-1
25 foot shoreline setback variance
50 ft
Riley Blvd
89-1 Setbacks: 14 foot front yard, 7 foot rear yard, 4.5
foot west side yard,10 foot east side yard
98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot
9247 Lake
1989-1,
area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width
Riley Blvd
1998-12
variance (lake access),10 foot front yard setback variance,
57 ft
3 foot side yard setback variance, 4 foot shoreland setback
variance
June 28, 1999: Single family home: 13 foot front yard
setback variance,7 foot shoreland setback variance
9231 Lake
1989-13
6 foot side yard setback variance
27.7 ft
Riley Blvd
9051 Lake
1990-7
10.35 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction
64.65 feet
Riley Blvd
of a new home
9203 Lake
1991-16
2.5 foot side yard setback variance
80 ft
Riley Blvd
9221 Lake
Garage setbacks: 14 foot front yard setback variance, 6.5
Riley Blvd
1992-2
foot side yard setback, 7% hard surface coverage
28 ft
9021 Lake
1992-9
36 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of
39 feet
RUey Blvd
a deck
9243 Lake
1993-8
Addition setbacks: 9 foot shoreland variance, 7.9 foot front
66 ft
Rile Blvd
and variance
9225 Lake
Setbacks: 3 foot east side yard variance, 5 foot west side
Riley Blvd
1996-9,
yard variance, 33 foot shoreland variance, 25% hard
42 ft
surface coverage variance;
Lake
1997-11
97-11-setbacks: 7 foot rear yard variance
68 ft
Rile
Rile Blvd
361 Deerfoot
1997-3
Deck setbacks: 1.6 foot front yard variance
N/A
Trail
9217 Lake
1998-6
Addition setbacks: 7 foot front yard variance
115 ft
Rile Blvd
9249 Lake
1999-14
18 foot shoreland setback variance
57 ft
Riley Blvd
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17,2004
Page 5
Variance
Shoreland
Address
File
Variance
Setback
Number
6.6 foot side yard setback variance, 5 foot side yard
9221 Lake
2003-07
setback variance,18 foot shoreland setback variance for
57 ft
Riley Blvd
construction of a new home
9203 Lake
2003-12
7 foot side yard setback variance for a home addition
N/A
Rile Blvd
*Items in bold italics are within 500 feet of the subject property.
Sagefandyborne:
13 foot front yard
setback vaaaance.7
foot shoreland
setback variance
ANALYSIS
Addmon setbacks. 9
foot shoreland
variance. 7.9 foot
front yard vattance
Sim
Addition setbacks 7
toot front yard
variance
Garage setbacks 14
foot from yard setback
varunce. 6 5 foot ade
yard setback, 7% hard
surface coverage
Deck setbacks 16 foot front
Yard vanarue
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 6
N 897552' E
--128.92--
s::�o-
Ob, f Ewisf.p (triK q i � j�F
"5 0
<B JAY
--126.10--
Original Proposal
11vw riupubw
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
on the subject lot. A single family st......tum :..,a..ding .. two eaf gafage .. eeld be developable 041 she lot
A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 7
property within 500 feet. A reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two -car garage,
!'_.' this fe.......tien 't would be possible to build ., now home without the need already exists. or':cirtrz�siinvnruay.,-zr-�ac-pu�3iv a .. ...
shoreland sethask end—w4A seveeage pees. €urthe=miOFe, due —tethe -restristiens e€
eFdinanee 20 72 (e):f the applicant a to L fAalish the existing home to the evtent of «.e-., th.... 40
per-eent of its estima*dvalue the), shall feizfeit the right to eentinue the e*isting legal non eenfeEwtities.
ee..,.mge of 25% ,... 3,234 ..eua fe Feet and niust ..feet the ..h..«.1 ....,7 seth....L
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. maintain the legal non ,.fife.... ing shoreland setback while
..,.t ........e.r the :.a,.....:A....ti...i of the e..:..ting five eon fI8F.,,:..g hard su ffaee ee..er-age
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 intensi€y reduce the existing non -conformity by redusiag
increasing the shoreland setback from 36 feet to 334 43 feet from the OHW. The proposed structure will
grew iusrease reduce the hard surface square footage encroaching on the shoreland setback eempaFed to
that 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
..t' h d ffaee ealettlations en h suFvey stafnped "D d D hFaafy 25 ZG" .1 1 d
....ner-ete slab het.. the h:t.. driveway a and gafage, and five el. landseaping aFeas. 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
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 8
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
February 29, 289S". Pir-st the . ed e...:..:....Wall ift the 400t yard is et , eludOa an t
ealeulatiens, but should be. This proposed retainingwa-11 fneaseweq I fAst in width and 67 feet in length;
theFefere, we will add 67 sqoafe feet te the proposed hffd suFface ealeulatiens. Seeend, the propose
deek square feetage was ifteluded in the -..p.. y Bale lati,...- 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 rock with a fabric liner beneath the
deck areas. TheFefem, the squam footage of the week 277 squai7e feet, will � ..htr p.e
surveyealeulatieas: Proposed hard surface coverage for the subject site is calculated as follows:
Proposed House & Stoop:
2-,838
2,547 sq. ft.
Proposed Driveway:
4;194
818 sq. ft.
Proposed Stoop:
24
0 sq. ft.
Proposed Patio:
404
0 sq. ft.
Proposed Retaining Wall:
67
0 sq. ft.
Total Hard Cover:
4p28
3,365 sq. ft.
Lot Area:
12,936 sq. ft.
% Hard Surface Coverage:
32.68%
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
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 9
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.
Adjustments to the lir-epesed house design should eneourage a gFeatly Fedueed pr-opesed hafd suffaeo
While the plans only lifopese efie Ekiye...e.. the elevation Af.,..,;..gs of the how;0 qhn. ... seeand, lewe..
level gafage aleng the neFthwest eoffief ef Oita hAase. The applioant sheuld be awafe that, pef City eede,
enly ene (1) driveway aseess par let is allowed onto publis stfeets. M addition, the proposed dfiN,ewa)
must be hard suFfaeed and eemply with City Code 20 11-2-2.
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 334 43 feet. Staff does not suppe&4 the in%nsifleation of the mis&g leo
Intensive vegetation clearing is not allowed within the shore impact zone (the land between the OHW
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.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 10
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
impervious surface coverage is 12 69% 26.0% including retaining walls. Staff does not suppeFt th
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:
Tof Slope
Type pe
Time
(�°m time an area can remain mvegemted
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
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
12 694 26.0%
33.7 43 feet
3A 25 feet
40416 & 40:4
16 feet
Neiahborhood 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.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 11
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
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 12
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.
LYMANBLVD
282
Lake Riley
9005 J
275 =
290 1
Subject
296 Property
GS 281i'y+ ' S
1 �„a
tt p f
{ d3 �,` �t�Ikt yrtfr+i(t
287 e
291
9054 C 1
9079
r_.
9082
9071
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.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 13
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.
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 intensifies lessens both the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage non -
conformities, thus hwkng a greate 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.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 14
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 However-, the pfopesed heme will ifiefease the amount and iete of wateF FlIfIA9 into
hake Riley. TWs will negatively impaet tho lakes WateF qHAt)'.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
Y.. .. .. ... .. .. _ ..\ \
N
"The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 7-.68
1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (33.% 26.0% coverage) and a 41-3 32 foot shoreland
setback variance (334 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 south 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.
Planning Case #04-07
Johnson Variance
February 17, 2004
Page 15
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.
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
Time
°0O0 � as area can remain mvegelated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
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.
9.,Vlan\2005 planning cases105-10 sharmtt varlanmwaff reportdac
U1/UI/UJ
10: 12 VAN `JJ222/111U U111 UV Ut1AiNUAJJLIV
*J VUu
6s-10
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: S rr eS >t 0
ADDRESS: d Sit 100
rXPAiSfdy MCI Ss33/
TELEPHONE (Day Time) 9SZ- 470 -17S0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
FEB 11 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEpT
OWNER: I 4.uy-a-
/nr.nr�/Y
ADDRESS: 9015 i kA- kill / r-)W
Clm t i ssen Mn! ss3l 7
TELEPHONE: 952- 1.34. &38,8,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of Right-cf-Way/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non -conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development'
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/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 ❑
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 61/2" X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet -
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
SCANNED
U1/1J/UJ
11:41 PAA VULLL1111V
yll l Vl yla(ll�aanJ JY••
PROJECT NAME:
DESCRIPTION:LEGAL
TOTAL ACREAGE: 12.1 �qtLS�
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: T j6&5U SAC 1a U
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 shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall 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 I 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 Owners 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 fees, 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
of t.►L!� C
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
,2'lI• r,s
Date
2•11.05
Date
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 applicants address.
G-.\plan\r,m \Develop=nt Review AppGotion.DOC
sharra
CieS� •
c o m p a n y e+"OPCHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
February 11, 2005 MAY 0 3 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPT
Revised: May 2, 2005
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
Shama
c eSI •
company
�"'
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 1:55PM CA'RLSON MARKETING N0.7021 P. 2
Joan Ludwig
9005 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, N1N 55317
Mav 3, 2005
To The Chanhassen City Planning Commission:
CITY RECEIVEDSSEN
MAY 0 9 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
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,
4
loan Ludwig
oowea iwuaU JtrfflerrglI obbluN
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300S.Hwy.No.101 Mmandialks,MN55345 Phone(952) 4747964 Fax(952) 4749267
suRVEYpow SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February 23, 2005 DRAFTED: Febmaty 24, 2M5
LEGAL DESCV=l0M
That part of Crovervmevt Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West ofthe 5th principle
Meudhv, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer ofseid Gove dd Lot 3; thence on an ..ad bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 aemvds East, along the West line of said lot a distance of 1293.86 fat; theme North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 fact; thence Smith 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 dogmas 58 minutes till seconds East a distance of49.60 fasC
theme North 0 degrees 03 minutes till seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet thence North 20 degrees 20 mines till seconds East a
distance of 304.42 fees thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 semvds East a distmce of470.07 fat: theme
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 sasands East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feel to the intersection with a line beard, North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest costar of Lot 2,'Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof; theme
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.09 fast; thence North 7 deereea 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land in he described; thwa North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 fat theca on a besting of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 dcgres 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thanes North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North hoe of said Government Lot 3
distant 114514 fat East from the Northwest comer of said Govamnmm Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet o the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a has, beside, Scuds 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the taint of hegtem,;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 fast W the point ofbeginming.
The boundaries of the premises art mused by judicial landrearl® set pursuant to Torrsm Case No. TfiM u
shown an the phi of survey on file in the olfia of this Clark of Court.
LlMrrATTONS:
The snipe of our atwices for this job is as follows:
I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lives of the legal description which you fumuhed.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we decmed important.
I Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments in mark me comers ofthe property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
S. While we show a proposed location for this home, we fine not as bouillon with yaw house plans as you and
yourarebitect and/or builder fire. Check ow proposed laeuon end siting of me home end yard grades
carefully to de that they match your plans before caysWcdmi begins. Also, we ere not as familiar with local
codes ea the local building official and mining official in this wmmuvity arc. Be sues to show this survey to
these offictoth. or say other officials that may have jurisdiction ova the he= and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for you we in determining elevations for commuction on this soh, use that
broad ma k and nothing else for that purposes. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
yaw elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIOW
' • "Denotes la' ID pipe with plastic plug hearing State License Number 9235, sal, It. otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around %em, while existing elevations are shown without a hax.
Artows indicate the proposed Row of storm water on the site. PROPOSED REr. WALL TOP
MArCH 03 BELOW MIT GRADE
BOrrOM AS SHOW
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
GRAPHIC SCALE
as, o io an a
PROPOSED MET. WALL BOTTOM'
e70.7 E END, e7a i REST ENO, 1)I M? I
TCW AS SNOW I
PROPOSED ELEVATIOi
:
TOP OF FOUNDATION79,0
GARAGE FLOOR 7B.6
LON FLOOR 70.3
BENCRNARE 69.2
OHAA'NASSEN 9LNINWO DEPT
4..........su..o—.ar....... ..e...
[ [ I [ Yr
i:[rra
rr„ ,
g x A 7 R a a o 0
peaIe je ` s$JgGt tuoi `�"
i ®�.L
UW O
Ex 0
MIS
0
a
N t
e�jAlB.iQ�9d[ytt ,y .jj��l [
Z C & fl•Y IP1�e=8 a1
539a
C7 9 aj t p4
W � a e �a?�a `=•�.�ax a�L=g Y A's��y� � 2" $�
qg r
p9WAga
�
y appn .9l2!
$
^+,449���'g�� r'ge9 81Y8 gg} as m
we 5 9� ag8ggg g�gg 3S888gg H v,p{a $5H9pg &tip 0
CHANHASSEN PLANNING KEPT
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
design
company,.
w.w r nm. aawmo
awlao em w.Pa+w
muv.�u+.md
SHEET A/ NUMBER
p mrmaxnxnun.nxxuox •<ov.xuu
4uL rbxE J6HY
A , P-fflg
a
RC�kf.1..$hdTMv
cz -w s r
wee Cwrorr.. wad
------ — — — F%x.ro-/pw.wnw
i
" COOPER/
WALKER HOME
aiAN,MJ55317
desl comp
BN4L W'Sbi � nvm%m
�rnm
SHERT A6-)NUInER
4 e..ni..........n.n..nu..on.n u
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
desi comp
au.tm v.. wxwum
e.mm,wuxm w.ae..•m.ocm
SHEET A3)NLWM
o.................................. u.
COOPER/
WALKER HOME
.. a � a
design&
mmpany�
w e.w rr m. �mcua+.v
armo r.. mwe.m
o..�,�awa einrmr+ima
SHEET A4)NUMER
c....................................
0
Lo
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 cant' right? Sharmeen and Jason?
Al -Jaffa 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 I Ph 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 VARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE
Public Present:
Name Address
Michael Sharratt 464 2°d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Lissa Tenuta 464 2°d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 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
M
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 current 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?
A] -Jaffa 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 -Jaffa 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
property at 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 Cooper/Walker 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 narrow, 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 Sharratt: 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
narrow 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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: 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 corner of the structure no closer than where the back corner 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: Ali 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 corner 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 corner 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'd just 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 married to one of those, I know exactly.
Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because that would potentially be another need for a
variance 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.
Al-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 fast 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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: 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
north 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 Sharratt: 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: Canwe do that? I just 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 corner 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.
m
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 MS150, 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: Correct.
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 greal
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 corner?
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 Sharratt: ...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 sharing 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.
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: We are 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 corner 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 I 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 corner was, and the other
corner 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 variances 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 le 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
0
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 surrounding 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
W,
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 of that, 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.
M
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 -Jaffa 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.
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 -Jaffa Application was submitted April 15. Deadline.
Slagle: Not April 15.
Metzer: The review deadline is April 12"'.
Al-Jaff: Sorry. So that's the 60 days.
Sacchet: 60 days is April 12m.
Al -Jaffa Correct. We can take an additional 60 days.
Sacchet: If they agree.
Al -Jaffa 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 Sharratt: 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.
W
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 P. It looks like May P.
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.
Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then I'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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: ... 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 corner 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 -Jaffa 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 -Jaffa Absolutely.
Sacchet: Alright, we got that in place. Thanks forbearing 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 Nano Opheim
71
MAY. 9. 2005 . 1 :55PM
CARLSON MARKETING
NO. 7021 P. 1
To:
Josh Metmer
Fax: 952-227-1110
From: Laura Coopnat Date: 5/9/2005
Re: Cooper_Walker Submittal Pages: 2
CC:
C3 urgent 0 For Review 12 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
�rrtt
�
1.
Y
attached is the signed letter from my next door neighbor Joan. Please include with
Cooper/
CRY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAY 0 2 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
February 11, 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005
Revised: May 2, 2005
RE: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
sharratt
esign&
company
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 by 9 feet 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 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 point of the proposed design is 43 feet from the lake.
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.
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. This lot 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 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.
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.
464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
0�.
The new home will in no way impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or
increase any congestion or danger.
261 School Avenue Suite 310 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952,470.9750 Fast: 952.470.8407
5HARRATT DE516N ti COMPANY
T R A N S M I T T A L
TO
Josh Metzer
Cily of Chanhassen
05/02105
Cooper/Walker
Variance pages
_ _
ADDRESS
PHONE
FAX
OTHER
COMPANY
DATE
PROJECT
SUBJECT
VIA
DESCRIPTION
TRANSMITTED
US Mail
Design Sketches / Notes
For Your Information
Fax
x Print Sets
As Requested
Courier
Original Tracings
Review & Comment
x
Drop / Pick-up
Specifications
Review & Approval
Air
Shop Drawings
Reference
Over Night
Samples
x
Record
Other
Other
Printing
ITEMS
ACTION
1
Transmittal
x No Response Required
52
Drawings / Set
Respond
Letter
Respond ASAP
34
Notes / Memo
Urgent
87
Total Sheets
NOTES
Josh,
Enclosed please find pages A2, A7and A8, as well as 15 copies of the variance hardship statement
(with some slight changes from the one you received yesterday.) I will be delivering the certified
survey with the proposed home to you by Friday. Please call me if you have any questions or need
anything further. Thanks for all your help and patience!
Lissa
• • 41 n =n r . r r =r bl RUH
.1.1• 1 TY 1 T •JI R1111
+6+5econd5trcet Ste loo Excetsi-AN 55551 F6ne=95z-+70-9750 f=ax:95z470•8407
This communication may contain confidential information. Any use of the information contained within this document without the
permission of the intended recipient is prohibited. If received in error please destroy. Thank you.
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
CIIANgASSEN
TO: Josh Metter, Planner I
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box147
FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
DATE: March 3, 2005
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax 952,227.1110
SUBJ: Variance Review for 9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952 227.1190
Upon review of the variance application submitted by Sharratt Design, I offer the
Engineering
following comments and recommendations:
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax:952227.1170
1. While the plans only propose one driveway, the elevation drawings of the
Finance
house show a second, lower -level garage along the northwest comer of the
Phone:952227.114C
house. The applicant should be aware that, per City code, only one (1)
Fax:952.227.1110
driveway access per lot is allowed onto public streets. In addition, the
Pare A Recreation
proposed driveway must be hard -surfaced and comply with City code sec.
Phone:952227.1120
20-1122 (attached).
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2.
Drainage swales are required to be graded in along each side of the house.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952 227.1400
Fax:952.227.1404
3.
Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope
along the south side of the proposed home that is greater than 3: 1. Revise
Planning A
Natural Resources
this slope to comply.
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax:952.227.1110
4.
The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in
Public works
height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from
1591 Park Road
the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment
Phone:52.2.2271300
Fax:agreements
Fax:92.227.1310
wbe required for an retaining wallwithin a
gr ill q y iig hipublic
easement.
Senior Center
PFax:952.227.1110
Fat: 952.227.1110
5.
Show the to and bottom wall elevations on the survey.
P y
Web she 6. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water
www.ci.chanhassen nn.us
locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection.
c: Paul Cleburne, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Dan Remer, Eng. Tech III
g:\eng\matt\memos\staff reports\variances\sh=itt vmance.doc
The City of 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.
Sec- 20-1122- Access and driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope
standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility
easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all
driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and direct
drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking
and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width
of access drives shall be located to rninimi>e traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All
driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines, beginning
at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is
received from the city.
b. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one-half of one (0.5) percent and a maximum
grade of tea (10) percent at any point in the driveway.
c. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (b1USA) as identified on
the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or
other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas outside the
MUSA, driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the
right-of-way portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface
material, as approved by the city engineer.
d. On corner lots, the minimum corner clearance from the roadway right-of-way line shall
beat least thin: (30) feet to the edge of the driveway.
e. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access steal not
exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may
be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site,
the maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum
driveway width shall not be less than ten (10) feet.
f. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed thim-six (36) feet
in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way
may be paved except that portion used for the driveway.
g. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to the following criteria:
1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and
2. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the engineering
department; and
3. The location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer to ensure that
it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
i. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
(Ord. No. 117, § 1, 1-8-90; Ord. No. 330, § 1, 11-13-01)
Snpp. No. 14 1250.17
y
sharra
CZeSI •
c o m p a n y
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
February 11, 2005 MAY 0 3 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005
Revised: May 2, 2005 CHANHASSEN PUNNING 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
comer of the house is 48 feet from the lake; the closest comer of the wood deck
is 43 feet. The owners are requesting a lot coverage variance of 1.3%. This
reduces the current nonconforming 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 comer 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
60"No
t
sharra
des
company
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.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
P(1 ❑-..-p6
p3,05/05
553 SENDER
CE RF-0 SUCTON FORWARO p3-41
UNABLE *y370-p67y4_
563y7p1 p747
I fl S5311nlInnlllu yt1J111111f11'11111111)1t11)11�u
Riley ,V C����� \ec\
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended 10 W used as one.
This map is a completion of records, information and data locatetl in various city, county. state and
federal offices and Omer sources regarding me area shown, and is to be react for reference
purposes only. The Oty does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare Mis map are error free, and the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. H enors or diecreperrcies are found
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disdaimer is pmdeal pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of this prop acknowledges that Me City shall not
be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all clams, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City from any and all chime brought by User, its employes or age t or Nib
parties which arse out of the users amass or use of daM,YraDi .* y� 7 0147
�& ke c"
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO
350 H W Y 212 E
PO BOX 89
'6HAA}Hflr,S MN ","ia-
ci-- S1C0. SS31�r
11111111till 11111t11111fttrtlltltltfltitlf11111111111111111
Notice of Rliblic HeS9
Chanhassen Planning Commission iN
at
to Lakeshore setback and lot coverage
Planning File:
05-10 I
Applicant_
Sharratt Design & Company
Property
9015 Lake Rikfy Boulevard
Lo_caticitt_:
A-iocation map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtr:- ':,put from the neighborhood
about this project. DrlMg the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
_
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-
Questions &
Comments:
mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will
be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezbnings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attar*,meet,,ing•
Staff prepares a report i the subject application that inclVVdent information antl a recommentlation.These
reports are availvole by request. At the Planning Obi?eting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the
report antl a recommentlation. The item will be opened ic to speak scout the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested personisl.
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council, If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
PC DAW: March 15, 2005
CC DATE: April 11, 2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/12/05
CASE #: 05-10
BY: JM, LH, MS, JS
❑3
PROPOSAL: Request for a 7.68 percent hard surface coverage variance (32.7% coverage) and a 41.3
foot shoreland setback variance (33.7 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 6
APPLICANT: Sharratt Design
464 Second Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
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
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 denial 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.
kocation Map •
Sharratt Variance Request
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Planning Case No. 05-10
Subject Property
Lymm
Lake Riley
SCANNED
Sharrau Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 2
SUNIMARY 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 7.68 percent hard surface coverage variance from
the 25% maximum hard surface coverage permitted in the RSF district. The applicant is also requesting a
41.3 foot shoreland setback variance from the required 75 foot minimum 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 intensify the existing non -conformity by reducing the
shoreland setback from 36 feet to 33.7 feet from the OHW. The proposed structure will greatly increase the
hard surface square footage encroaching on the shoreland setback compared to that of the existing structure.
Hard Surface Coverage
The subject property has an existing legal non -conforming hard surface coverage of 26.4%. The
existing hard surface calculations on the survey stamped "Received February 25, 2005" do not include a
concrete slab between the bituminous driveway and garage, and five rock landscaping areas. The
applicant is proposing to remove all existing hard surface and rebuild with a hard surface coverage of
32.68%.
Two adjustments need to be made in the hard surface calculations on the survey stamped "Received
February 25, 2005'. First, the proposed retaining wall in the front yard is not included on the survey
calculations, but should be. This proposed retaining wall measures 1 foot in width and 67 feet in length;
therefore, we will add 67 square feet to the proposed hard surface calculations. Second, the proposed
deck square footage was included in the survey calculations. 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 rock with a fabric liner beneath the
Sharratt Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 3
deck. Therefore, the square footage of the decks, 272 square feet, will be subtracted from the survey
calculations. Proposed hard surface coverage for the subject site will calculated as follows:
Proposed House:
2,838 sq. ft.
Proposed Driveway:
1,194 sq. ft.
Proposed Stoop:
24 sq. ft.
Proposed Patio:
105 sq. ft.
Proposed Retaining Wall:
67 sq. ft.
Total Hard Cover:
4,228 sq. ft.
Lot Area: 12,936 sq. ft.
% Hard Surface Coverage: 32.68%
These hard surface calculations were discussed and agreed upon by both City staff and the applicant.
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. 20-73. Nonconforming lots of record.
(c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, there shall be no expansion,
intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot.
Sec. 20481. 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:
Classes of Public Waters Structures Sewered
Ickes
Recreational development 75
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (RSF)
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
Sharratt Design Variance • •
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 4
Sec. 20-1122. Access and driveways.
(h) One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
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.
Staff reviewed city records to
determine if shoreland setback and
hard surface coverage variances had
been granted within 500 feet of the
subject property. This review turned
up the following cases.
*Note: Picture illustrates the distance from the
existing deck to the lakeshore.
Sharratt Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 5
Variance
Shoreland
Address
File Number
Variance
Setback
9021 Lake
92-9
36 foot shoreland setback variance for
39 feet
Rile Blvd
the construction of a deck
9051 Lake
10.35 foot shoreland setback variance
64.65 fee[
Rile Blvd-�
for the construction of a new home
-------------
LYMANBLVO
Lake Riley
9805
282 275
290
subject
296 Property
6 281
287 '
291
9050
P.:
9079
9082
9071
ANALYSIS
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). A single-family home with a two -car garage can be
legally constructed on the site. The standards for a single-family residential district requires a minimum
960 square -foot living area for a one-story rambler design; minimum 1,050 square -foot living area for a
split-level design; and minimum 600 square -foot first floor living area for a two-story design. The
regulation also states "a two -car garage must be provided with the single-family structure" As the
graphic below demonstrates, the house design chosen by the applicant substantially underutilizes the
lot's buildable area, placing a majority of the living space outside of the buildable area.
Sharratt Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 6
N 8975 *52 ` E
--128.92--
oi;.o
dR
!7 . Q ero.e �0 �17
O/ �7
DS h
IB �Y Erisalg Deck "-.._ � .7
--126.10--
.ome E N 88:37;56• W -'
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 on the subject lot. A single-family structure
including a two -car garage would be developable on the lot within the required setbacks. 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. Given this information it
would be possible to build a new home without the need for a shoreland setback or hard surface
coverage variance. Furthermore, due to the restrictions of ordinance 20-72 (e), if the applicant were to
demolish the existing home to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated value they shall forfeit
the right to continue the existing legal non -conformities. Therefore, if the existing home is demolished
the applicant is permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%, or 3,234 square feet, and must
meet the shoreland setback. However, staff would support a variance to allow the applicant to maintain
the legal non-confornung shoreland setback while demolishing the existing home for the construction of
a new home with a different design. Staff would not support the intensification of the existing non-
conforming hard surface coverage. Adjustments to the proposed house design should encourage a
greatly reduced proposed hard surface coverage. The design of the home proposes five garage stalls.
Particularly, the placement/orientation of the garage stalls greatly increases the proposed driveway areas.
While the plans only propose one driveway, the elevation drawings of the house show a second, lower -
level garage along the northwest corner of the house. The applicant should be aware that, per City code,
only one (1) driveway access per lot is allowed onto public streets. In addition, the proposed driveway
must be hard surfaced and comply with City Code 20-1122.
Sharratt Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 7
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 33.7 feet. Staff does not support the intensification of the existing legal
nonconforming shoreland setback.
Intensive vegetation clearing is not allowed within the shore impact zone (the land between the OHW
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 Coveraae
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
impervious surface coverage is 32.68% including retaining walls. Staff does not support the intensification
of the existing legal nonconforming hard surface coverage.
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.
Sharratt Design Variance•
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 8
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
Time
(maximm utime an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active) be" worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Lot Area
Hard Surface
Coverage
Shoreland
Setback
Front Yard
Setback
Side Yard
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
32.68%
33.7 feet
30 feet
10.1 & 10.1 feet
IQQ
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 this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a
single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has a reasonable use of the property.
Additionally, the site could be redeveloped and comply with zoning 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.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Sharratt Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 9
Finding: The proposed redevelopment of the site substantially underutilizes its buildable area. A
redevelopment of the site could comply with the zoning ordinance; therefore, this is a self-created
hardship.
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.
Finding: The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed house intensifies
both the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage non -conformities, thus having a greater
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. However, the proposed home
will increase the amount and rate of water runoff into Lake Riley. This will negatively impact the
lakes water quality.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-10 for a 7.68 percent hard surface coverage variance
(32.7% coverage) and a 41.3 foot shoreland setback variance (33.7 foot setback) for the demolition and
rebuilding of a single family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the
findings in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has a reasonable use of the property.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 7.68 percent hard surface coverage
variance (32.7% coverage) and a 41.3 foot shoreland setback variance (33.7 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 south side of the
proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply.
IV
Sharrarr Design Variance
Planning Case #05-10
March 15, 2005
Page 10 -
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.
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
Time
(maximum time an area can remain tmvegetated
when area is not active) be' 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.
4. Building Plans.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
6. Lot Survey stamped "Received February 25, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 shaaatt variance\staff mport.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Sharratt Design for variances from hard surface coverage and shoreland
setback restrictions for a new house — Planning Case No. 05-10.
On March 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the Application of Sharratt Design for a 7.68 percent hard surface coverage
variance (32.7% coverage) and a 41.3 foot shoreland setback variance (33.7 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 not 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 a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. The proposed variation may 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 March 15, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer,
et al, is incorporated herein.
ACTION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the variances from hard surface coverage
and shoreland setback restrictions for a new house.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 15`s day of March, 2005.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
Im
Planning Commission Chairperson
&Nplan\2005 planning ca s\05-10 shu ttvarianceTjndings of fac[.doc
65-10
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: S rY 1�. CS ! p
ADDRESS: irld/np
--- xr•o l sfay LN 55331
TELEPHONE (Day Time).-1 S Z • 470 - -7 7SO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
FEB 11 2005
CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEFT
OWNER: UYI M nr�n�Y
ADDRESS: '3015 10'i 2,I 4 bIVA
TELEPHONE: 9 5Z - 1.3'/ • &,36'T
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
Site Plan Review'
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/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 ❑
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 83Y' X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
SCANNED
PROJECT NAME:
DESCRIPTION:LEGAL k_.
TOTAL ACREAGE: )2.1 116 t -
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: PkAy- SGL 4AA r1 i J —
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 shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall 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 I am responsible for complying with
aft 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 Owners 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 fees, 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
�11+-
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
Z' //• 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 applicants address.
G:Aplm\fb s\Developm t Review Applim6an.DOC
February 11, 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005
RE: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
sharr `t
esign&
company
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Laura Cooper and Tim Walker are requesting a variance for the lakeside 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 35 - 36 feet from the
lakeshore at elevation 864.7 and lot coverage is 28.7%. The homes to the north and
south of the lot are 50' and 33' from the lake, respectively.
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 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.
The owners are requesting a lakeside setback of 37.3' to the closest comer of the house
and 33.7 to the closest point of the deck. The home would not obstruct any views for the
neighbors as it would not be any closer than the existing home, and would present an
aesthetically pleasing and up dated face to the lake. The lakeside variance request is
less than that granted to the lot to the south, and places the new home three feet further
from the lake than the cantilevered portion the home to the south.
The second request is for a variance to the lot coverage requirement. The owners are
requesting a variance from 25% to 34.2%. This lot 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 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. The owners
respectfully request the opportunity to put their site to reasonable use and build a home
comparable to, or smaller than, the property not only within 500 feet, but in a much
greater area as well.
The 34.2% lot coverage variance would allow the owners to put a bituminous drive in
place to the garage. The owners are also willing to consider utilizing percolating pavers
in place of bituminous to further reduce the impact of water run-off. Percolating pavers
are an environmentally sound solution to the problem of run-off from solid surfaces. Not
464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
0
10
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
Page 2 of 2
only do the pavers provide for absorption of water, but they provide filtering and water
temperature control thus improving the groundwater at the same time as they reduce run-
off. If percolating pavers are used, with a one inch per hour percolation rate, the lot
coverage would be equal to 24.7%.
We thank you for your time in consideration of this request on behalf of the Cooper -
Walkers.
261 School Avenue Suite 310 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
0 0
I
I
I
e
E
40
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
March 3, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for variances to lakeshore setback and lot coverage, Sharratt Design — Planning
Case No. 05-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice
in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such
owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses
of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver
County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this3r8 day of March 2005.
- I
Notary Pub c
i
K J. Engel t, DeptWy Clerk
IjKIM T. MEIN'IISSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
. V� M, clmmtssw FXPires Jet 31, 2010
Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for variances to lakeshore setback and lot coverage
Planning File:
05-10
Applicant:
Sharratt Design & Company
Property
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-
Questions &
mail imetzerOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit
Comments:
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will
be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council, If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Date & Time:
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for variances to lakeshore setback and lot coverage
Plannin File:
05-10
Applicant:
Sharratt Design & Company
Property
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
•
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-
Questions &
mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit
Comments:
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will
be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Altera
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of
application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial,
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council, If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Subject Property
Lake Riley
This rrep is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This vpp is a comoblattion of records, information and data located in venous city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The Gry ones not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, and the CM does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for na,gatoral, tracking or any other purpose requiring erecting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. if errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
be liable for any damages. and expressly waives all clairts, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold hamiess the Gty from any and all claims brought by User, its emuloyees or agents, or third
Parties which arse out of the user's access or use of data provided.
610212
Subject Property
Lake Riley
This nmp is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a ccurp.tation of records. information and data located in vanous may, county, state and
fact Offices and other sources regarding the area shown. and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not "mans that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent drat the GIS Data can be used
for navigational. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
direction or predson in the "Man of geographic featuresIt errors or discrepancies are found
Please contact 952-227110T The preceding disdamer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466 W. Subd. 21 (21 W t and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
the liable for any damages, and expressly wanes all claims, and agrees to defend indemnify. and
hold harmless the City from any and all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or third
parties which arse out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Ll
DAVID L ANDERSON &
HEATHER M BERGERUD
290 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
LAURA MARIE COOPER
9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO
350 HWY 212 E
PO BOX 89
CHASKA MN 55318
JOAN M LUDWIG
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING
281 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES G & KRISTI S ST MARTIN
9082 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN G & KAREN L WEDIN
9101 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD S & JEANETTE K BACKER
9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
ANTHONY T & SHELLY A DENUCCI
287 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE
275 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
KEVIN P & MOLLY K MCORMICK
9054 SUNNYVALE DR
Chanhassen MN 55317
GREGORY R RENBERG
282 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL
291 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY
9079 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT
9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
RAYMOND M & JUDITH N LEWIS
9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
PAULJNESBURG &
KATHERINE A SCOTT
9093 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH
9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES & ANDREA SWEENEY
296 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
Public Hearing Notification Are (500 feet)
Sharratt Variance Request
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Planning Case No. 05-10
tGin
-7e
�"
-----
AU
posed-� H.212
ro
�R
i
i
We Rile All
[subject Property
Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18)
\; s Lake Riley
x
off; Pa Wa -:
a
m _
�-
4
yN A 6\ os m\� o, a R�W�� aBiSdggx `aka
Q h I of n
".]w 4V H t l Solid to x d
a
c
= m
00
xt
m o„
3�
m . n
�hi m o n M 1
am
3 �0
J
O
�3=
W o i
'o L'.m. 'oO. pW � E E'E °q�"`� 1- � � 3 „0 9 • _�
W N =
Ua EB n%3'eEC _`om "a e g atom a W m LL
a" n 5mg3€°'8`�IIs�.d �go-g. u55 a a oa 7:c 'or € LL
Z� w o $O 6•^5����`2�350� Eo F £ §8 `5m p'� �.�` 1� U
�° u�w5o • a u8 ,-5.99
IQ p a =3$ffU w � s ^gZiaa oOSoagE "a °i
2!9
�a 6_57r'o3xg�'.em Sri`^'U mE E9 ASS E'o �o ZA
c`o�nmmII... S:�vyo_
ti? c ° „ Z 'lac < �'�`-.�£ • n'� 'J c .. S 5 4 c Y� c
�°• `i _ E=Omm,SES5°xnu�is`o of _u 33o�m- �t yES
"Oo yu�.5 Y,--9�e°e3 's ..E�m°t ge e'. o mro g
VS Q $35aW8 U 3E£s" oaf a z w� <a1.
'3maiLo^�$;as38`-"`x a sEB.�e 's off€
iY ry °•9��'-'co.. v'9vc no5mry 5� .DSu�Y.9 `,6
.a o�„= 8° s� � � o Y • i' z 3 9? ``o E s c o • 5` n
W�s�3i°'- wS m$m"` a� s`>S8 ._ Ere o�3�a
_cmegiq=�•c E.. coE o ..S�g V$�H000 °` U-sv dEEEEyo.
i ung X �'a.g� n� a[ d5�c g9 E y c $
' oVj 2 pE'Zoo4.omma
W_ re°m9' mo qqpppE
��yC?� S` W
U z d w u s e E u e v• u. r o-- _ d° ° 9
i.. C WO. n. Rr � x S Ez •ry ocm i O`o m$c ° • �' � ty�'
�x
aQ� W W ''�5 a"m:� `-a2- �t a-�'o a€ a�" a.Ya^.`2?u•tL� 0080 �y¢. yyhhE $ x
w�tfU°o°�'wwS E'o��'Z Y„'�Z°„v KEe `o 55 F: 3F`Nrv.�<.; NKaI
05UO64 24/116/23 SHAKKAfI
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February 23, 2005
DRAFTED: February 24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the corners of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
" • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
Professional Surveyor under the taws of the State of Minnesota
�mno���n�n
am H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
i
F
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
20
0 10 20
40
TOP OF FOUNDATION 8 79. 0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
PROPOSED RET. WALL, BOTTOM
LOW FLOOR 870.3
870.2 E. END, 870.1 NEST END,
( IN FEET)
BENCHMARK 869.1
70P AS SHONN
First Floor
x
PROPOSED S/LT FENCE -�
869.9 871.7
869.
X 870.1 869.3
fq�
X869.N8975'S2"'E
704p 9 4 --128.92- -
870.44
X _
12' Ash
• X87 .4
70.1
(Q X 71.1 74.
I ==* Existing
71.4
.� 12' Spru
Ties ,
1�
Y871.8
PROPOSED RET. WALL, TAP
MATCH 0.3 BELOW DRIW GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOW
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
X 874.9
12"
3.0
1 0 ; %0 - - Top of /Ton 869. b ; X tiey.3 o r '
cso _ _ X 869.0 N t _ �J 3
570. 870 - _ ^�,` 48 867.1 4
♦/ 0 870 N ?.(8 1; '� W OW g�6 864.8
ti 871.6 8/70�j(8� O® .�
p. / h
Q0
70p O 6
871.9 C v
ai c l
°$
QO
866.6
8
�
873.4 Q 870.9 a° 869.2
\ a h a ou 0
e �S
Q 0y 8 � � 6 .7 � 0�867�3 /a
t O / X
Of 868.✓ 5 868 33.7 86 865.1 _
/^1 Exis g D�ck l
4. B 7 1 �I
S47 6 X86 8
37
t5 O n -'Z:;;; o
76 i
67.6 •
871. - - 126.10- X 869.2 '
X 868.7 -868 Found 864.9
n N 88J756" HARD COVER TABULATION:
t° EXISTING HARDCOVER
9 House 1,763 Sq. Ft
4.4 �O Existing Deck 160 Sq. Ft.
Bituminous Driveway 997 Sq. Ft
q�, „ TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 2,920 Sq. Ft.
872.7
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
/
Remove all hardcover
-2,920 Sq. FL
Proposed Patio and Decks
377 Sq. FL
rsf
Proposed House
2,838 Sq. FL
Fjo 871.8
Proposed Drive
I, 194 Sq. Ft
8>
9,�
Proposed Stoop
24 Sq. Ft
HARDCOVER AFTER PROPOSAL
4,433 Sq. FL
AREA OF LOT TO OHW
12,936 Sq. Ft.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
•
7700 MARKET BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
Payee: SHARRATT DESIGN CO
LLC
Date: 03/08/2005
Time: 2:24pm
Receipt Number: DW /
5922
Clerk: DANIELLE
GIS LIST #05-10
ITEM REFERENCE
-------------------------------------------
AMOUNT
GIS GIS LIST #05-10
GIS LIST
57.00
Total:
Check 6854
---------------
57.00
57.00
---------------
Change: 0.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
05-id
SCANNED
i
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
affOF (952) 227-1100
To: Sharratt Design
464 Second Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Ship To:
Invoice
SALESPERSON DATE TERMS
KTM 3/3/05 upon receipt
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
19
Property Owners List within 500' of 9015 Lake Riley Blvd .(19 labels)
$3.00
$57.00
TOTAL DUE
$57.00
Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen
Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-10.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
gAplan\2005 planning cas \05-10 sha tt variance\05-10 invoice-gis.doc
SCANNED
r ,
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Sharratt Variance Request
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Planning Case No. 05-10
W 86,n s, -
Rtcec�-
TrI -
--
�F
O _
e�
used i VA212
_:prop
�F
fake He
I \.
Subject Property
Lyman Blvd R. 18)
f i
Lake Riley
J o
w
Y
oU.Pfta
Wa��_.—_
! v
e
a
DAVID L ANDERSON &
HEATHER M BERGERUD
290 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
LAURA MARIE COOPER
9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO
350HWY212E
PO BOX 89
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOAN M LUDWIG
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING
281 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES G & KRISTI S ST MARTIN
9082 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN G & KAREN L WEDIN
9101 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD S & JEANETTE K BACKER
9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
ANTHONY T & SHELLY A DENUCCI
287 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE
275 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
KEVIN P & MOLLY K MCORMICK
9054 SUNNYVALE DR
Chanhassen MN 55317
GREGORY R RENBERG
282 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL
291 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY
9079 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT
9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
RAYMOND M & JUDITH N LEWIS
9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
PAUL J NESBURG &
KATHERINE A SCOTT
9093 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH
9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD
Chanhassen MN 55317
JAMES & ANDREA SW EENEY
296 GREENLEAF CT
Chanhassen MN 55317
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.
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? Sharmeen and Jason?
Al -Jaffa 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 I I'h 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 VARIANCES 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 Sharratt 464 2"d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Lissa Tenuta 464 2"d Street, Suite 100, Excelsior
Tim Walker/Laura Cooper 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
m
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 current 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 -Jaffa Would you call out that.
Slagle; It's 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard.
Metzer: It should be the one that says 72621 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 corner 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
property at 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 Cooper/Walker 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 narrow, 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 Sharratt: 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
narrow 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 fast 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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: 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 corner 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 fast
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'd just 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 married to one of those, I know exactly.
Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking is because that would potentially be another need for a
variance 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.
Al -Jaffa 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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: 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
north 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 Sharratt: 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? I just 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 mad, 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.
m
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 MS150, 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: Correct.
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 corner?
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 Sharratt: ... 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 sharing 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.
Z1
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: We are 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.
311
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 corner 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 corner was, and the other
corner 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 variances 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
[All
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 16`h 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
0
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 surrounding 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 of that, 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 corner 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.
5TI
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 -Jaffa 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.
:YI
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 April 12`h.
AI-Jaff: Sorry. So that's the 60 days.
Sacchet: 60 days is April 12a'.
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 Sharratt: 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 fu1130-60 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.
:]
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 3'a. It looks like May Yd
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.
Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005
Mike Sharratt: I think maybe if we could ask that question first and then I'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 Sharratt: 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 Sharratt: ...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. Alight. Did we want to get a clarification
whether to extend the time -ame 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
April 25. 2005
Laura Cooper/Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Mr. Josh Metzer
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Planning Case 05-10
Dear Mr. Metzer,
Tim Walker and Laura Cooper respectfully request and approve a 30-day additional
extension to the original 120 day extension of our variance application for 9015 Lake Riley
Blvd (granted at the March 15.2005 Planning Commission Meeting). This extension
modifies the expiration date from June 14.2005 to July 14.2005 in order to accommodate
the June. 2005 City Council meeting date should it be required.
We are also confirming our intentions to submit revised variance application materials to
Josh Metzer by May 2.2005 in anticipation of the May 17.2005 Planning Commission
Meeting. Our variance hearing should reside on the May 17. 2005 Agenda. accordingly.
Please contact us with any questions. Tim Walker at 612-581-0788 (twalker421 aol.com)
or Laura Cooper at 612-396-6388 (laura.cooper it carlson.com).
Sincerely.
Tjsn Walker and LaumCooner
��I
Page 1 of 2
Rich Slagle
From: Debbie Turner [DebbieTurnerOriginals@msn.comj
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:26 PM
To: kwpapke@aol.com; jmcdonald@mcdonald-rud.com; Rich Slagle; d.keefe@gmacrfc.com;
slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us; Uli Sacchet
Subject: Cooper -Walker Variance
(While Y— Photo E-mail Play slideshow I Download images
Hi Guys,
Upon viewing the neighborhood, I made these observations:
(for larger pictures, play the slide show)
Home just north of
subject.
Home just south of
subject
Subject Property
down the street on Lake
Riley Blvd
3/15/2005
05UU64 24/11623 SHARRA'fI DESIGN
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: SHARRATT DESIGN
SURVEYED: February 23, 2005
DRAFTED: February24, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0
degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds East, along the West line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86 feet; thence North
89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds
East a distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 34
minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 304.42 feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 470.07 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East from the Northwest comer of Lot 2, "Shore Acres", according to the recorded plat thereof; thence
North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a bearing of West a distance of 9.47
feet; thence North 16 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a point on the North line of said Government Lot 3
distant 1145.24 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 22.58 feet; thence
on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the shoreline of Lake Riley; thence Southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East from the point of beginning;
thence North 88 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premises are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. T-684 as
shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the Clerk of Court.
LIMITATIONS:
The scope of our services for this job is as follows:
I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing existing spot elevations necessary to show elevation differences on the site.
5. While we show a proposed location for this home, we are not as familiar with your house plans as you and
your architect and/or builder are. Check our proposed location and siting of the home and yard grades
carefully to see that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local
codes as the local building official and zoning official in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to
these officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the home and its siting, and obtain their
approvals before beginning construction.
6. We have provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site, use that
benchmark and nothing else for that purpose. Check the elevation of at least one other feature shown to verify
your elevations.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS•
" • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box.
Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site.
1 hereby cartify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and
Professional Surveyor laws of the State of Minnesota
Maow 1 1 \) fiL
H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
PROPOSED RET WALL, TOP
MATCH 0.3 BELOW DRIVE GRADE,
BOTTOM AS SHOWN
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
GRAPHIC SCALE
20
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
0 10 20
w
TOP OF FOUNDATION 8 79. 0
GARAGE FLOOR 878.6
PROPOSED RET. WALL, BOTTOM
LOW FLOOR 870.3
870.2 F. END, 870.1 WEST END,
( IN FEET )
BENCHMARK 869.1
TOP A:S SHOWN
First Floor
r
PROPOSED SlC T FENCE --�
869.9 871.7
869.
X869N 89 2552 " X� X870.1 869.3
70.4ay 9.s--128.92--
870.4 JI _
12' Ash
,
XE7y.4r 30.
865.1
rwners 873.0 8I7�
--126.10- X869.2
X868.7 -868 F--W •LM
864.9
11
a
N 88 3756 « HARD COVER TABULATION:
X874.9 00
EXISTING HARDCOVER
X 5.3 \
d' House
�0,,
1,763 Sq. Ft.
X 74.4
Existing Deck
160 Sq. FL
Bituminous Driveway
997 Sq. FL
71.9 TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER
2,920 Sq. FL
872.7 PROPOSED HARDCOVER
-�'
Remove all hardcover
-2,920 Sq. FL
Proposed Patio and Decks
377 Sq. Ft -
Frs(
Proposed House
2,838 Sq. FL
fjoor
871.8 Proepos Drive
1,194 Sq.
B,9 j a Stoop
24 q. F
HARDCOVER AFTER PROPOSAL
4,433 Sq. FL
AREA OF LOT TO OHW
12,936 Sq. FL
864.8
CITY OF
CUMNSEN
T700 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 6 Recreation
Phone:952227.1120
Fax: 952,227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Conger Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning 8:
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
www.ci.chanhasseir mirms
March 17, 2005
Laura Cooper & Tim Walker
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Variance 05-10
Dear Ms. Cooper & Mr. Walker.
At the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, you agreed to a 60-day
extension to process your variance request. The additional time will allow you to
revise the proposed house design and resubmit it for review by the Planning
Commission.
This letter is to formally notify you that the City is taking the additional 60-day
extension to process this request as permitted under Minnesota Statute 15.99.
Should you have any questions, please to contact me at (952) 227-1132 or
imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Sincerely,
A �� J Metzer
annerI
JM:ktm
gAplan\2005 planning cum\05-10 shauatt variance%% day extension.doc
SCANNED
The City of 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.
Location Map
Sharratt Variance Request
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Planning Case No. 05-10
Subject Property
(C.R.
Lake Riley
$CANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO.05-08
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for subdivision
with variances on property located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of
Pleasant View Road — Fox Den. Applicant: 10 SPRING, INC..
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1134
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 3, 2005)
WAW8W
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO.05-10
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for variances to
lakeshore setback and lot coverage on property located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant:
Sharratt Design & Company.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Josh Metzer, Planner I
Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 3, 2005)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the
5th Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government Lot 3;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 25 minutes 00
seconds East, along the west line of said lot; a distance of 1293.86
feet; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 14 seconds East a distance
of 16.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 58 seconds east a
distance of 249.38 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 00
seconds East a distance of 49.60 feet; thence North 0 degrees 03
minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 247.87 feet; thence North 89
degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 714.51 feet; thence
North 20 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 304.42
feet; thence North 14 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds East a distance
of 470.07 feet; thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East
a distance of 11.86 feet; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 55
seconds East a distance of 64.01 feet to the intersection with a line..
bearing North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds East from the
northwest corner of Lot 2, "SHORE ACRES", according to the
recorded plat thereof; thence North 13 degrees 17 minutes 09
seconds East a distance of 156.08 feet; thence North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 113.96 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence,North 7 degrees 45
minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 13.32 feet; thence on a
bearing of West a distance of 9.47 feet; thence North 16 degrees 40
minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 60.65 feet; thence North 7
degrees 45 minutes 54 seconds East, along a line passing through a
point on the`north face of said Government Lot 3 distant 1145.24 feet
east from 66 northwest corner of said Government Lot 3, a distance
of 22.58 feet; thence on a bearing of East about 158 feet to the
shoreline of Lake Riley; thence southerly along said shoreline to its
intersection with a line bearing South 88 degrees 10 minutes 02
seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 88 degrees
10 minutes 02 seconds West about 145 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundaries of the premisesare marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens
Case No.T-684 as shown on the plat of survey on file in the office of the. Clerk of Court.
1I
February 11, 2005
Revised: February 25, 2005
RE: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
sharratt
esign&
company
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 Zoos
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Laura Cooper and Tim Walker are requesting a variance for the lakeside 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 35 - 36 feet from the
lakeshore at elevation 864.7 and lot coverage is 28.7%. The homes to the north and
south of the lot are 50' and 33' from the lake, respectively.
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 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.
The owners are requesting a lakeside setback of 37.3' to the closest comer of the house
and 33.7 to the closest point of the deck. The home would not obstruct any views for the
neighbors as it would not be any closer than the existing home, and would present an
aesthetically pleasing and up dated face to the lake. The lakeside variance request is
less than that granted to the lot to the south, and places the new home three feet further
from the lake than the cantilevered portion the home to the south.
The second request is for a variance to the lot coverage requirement. The owners are
requesting a variance from 25% to 34.2%. This lot 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 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. The owners
respectfully request the opportunity to put their site to reasonable use and build a home
comparable to, or smaller than, the property not only within 500 feet, but in a much
greater area as well.
The 34.2% lot coverage variance would allow the owners to put a bituminous drive in
place to the garage. The owners are also willing to consider utilizing percolating pavers
in place of bituminous to further reduce the impact of water run-off. Percolating pavers
are an environmentally sound solution to the problem of run-off from solid surfaces. Not
464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
SCANNED
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
Page 2 of 2
only do the pavers provide for absorption of water, but they provide filtering and water
temperature control thus improving the groundwater at the same time as they reduce run-
off. If percolating pavers are used, with a one inch per hour percolation rate, the lot
coverage would be equal to 24.7%.
We thank you for your time in consideration of this request on behalf of the Cooper -
Walkers.
261 School Avenue Suite 310 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
Location Map
Sharrat Variance Request
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Planning Case No. 05-10
Subject Property
Lake Riley
4tv..0.:J
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
Date: February 14, 2005
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I
Subject: Request for Variances to Lakeshore Setback and Lot Coverage on property located at 9015 Lake Riley
Boulevard. Applicant: Sharratt Design & Company (Cooper/Walker — homeowners)
Planning Case: 05-10
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on February 11, 2005. The 60-day review period ends April 12, 2005.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 4,
2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments:
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
a.
Engineer
b.
Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a.
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b.
Lower Minnesota River
c.
Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
13. Other -
14. Other -
7. Carver County
CITY OFCHANHASSEN sharratt
RECEIVED degn&
S1FEB 1 1 20051company
February 11, 2005 CHANHASSEN PLINNING 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 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 35 - 36 feet from the
lakeshore at elevation 864.7 and lot coverage is 28.7%. The homes to the north and
south of the lot are 50' and 33' from the lake, respectively.
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 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.
The owners are requesting that the legal non -conforming lakeside setback of 36' at its
closest point be maintained for the new home. The home would not obstruct any views
for the neighbors as it would not be any closer than the existing home, and would present
an aesthetically pleasing and up dated face to the lake. The lakeside variance request is
less than that granted to the lot to the south, and places the new home three feet further
from the lake than the cantilevered portion the home to the south.
The second request is for a variance to the lot coverage requirement. The owners are
requesting a variance from 25% to 33.9%. This lot 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 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. The owners
respectfully request the opportunity to put their site to reasonable use and build a home
comparable to, or smaller than, the property not only within 500 feet, but in a much
greater area as well.
The 33.9% lot coverage variance would allow the owners to put a bituminous drive in
place to the upper garage. (The site plan attached shows an optional lower driveway,
and the Total Hardcover number reflects the areas for both drives.) Should the city of
Chanhassen be willing to consider the use of percolating pavers, the owners would like to
exclude the bituminous drive altogether, and use porous, percolating pavers for both the
464 Second Street Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
PID: 25.0240300
Page 2 of 2
upper and the lower drive. Percolating pavers are an environmentally sound solution to
the problem of run-off from solid surfaces. Not only do the pavers provide for absorption
of water, but they provide filtering and water temperature control thus improving the
groundwater at the same time as they reduce run-off. If percolating pavers are used, with
a one inch per hour percolation rate, the lot coverage would be equal to 24.7%.
261 School Avenue Suite 310 Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.470.9750 Fax: 952.470.8407
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7 (00 MARKET BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
6
Payee: SHARRATT DESIGN CO LLC
Date: 02/14/2005 Time: 12:02pm
Receipt Number: DW / 5873
Clerk: DANIELLE
SHARRATT VARIANCE 05-10
ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------
DEVAP SHARRATT VARIANCE 05-10
USE & VARIANCE 200.00
RECORDING FEES 50.00
---------------
Total: 250.00
Check 6804 250.00
---------------
Change: 0.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
26