The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-27_9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD (ROSEMARY KELLY)0 i The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Shana N. Conklin Amy B. Schutt David H. Schultz 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association March 19, 2015 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Chanhassen — Miscellaneous Recording Dear Kim: Foul® n C/ry 2 3 z0�s 0 4N ssft i14--a-771 Pursuant to your letter of February 12, 2015, enclosed herewith is the original recorded Variance 2014-27. Please note that this Variance was recorded with the Carver County Registrar of Titles on February 24, 2015, as Torrens Document No. T194575. If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call. cjh Enclosure Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association AN IOWSMIRV � 1 Legal Assistant 17S739�[ SCANNED Document NoOFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES T 194575 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Receipt # Certified Recorded on February 24, 2015 2.09 PM 194575 Cert. # 34633 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2014-27 Fee- $46 00 Mark Lundgren Registrar of Titles Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approved a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and denied the additional shoreland setback variance. This variance shall permit a patio expansion for a single-family home on property zoned Single -Family Residential District located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. b. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application. 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. SCANNED Dated: February 9, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) y Lau nburger, NWyor AN :�'/ Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L day of 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of ChanWsen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. TARY UBLIC KARENJ.ENGELHARDT Notary PubliaMinnesota My Cortim_1.0 ExWrN Jan'. 2020 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5* 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 Fast 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 Fast a distance of 714.51 fat; 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 lime 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 Fast 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 1332 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, Carver County, Minnesota. KAA CITY OF CHANASEN 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 OARANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 2/12/15 2014-27 ATTENTION Carole Hoeft RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION 1 2/9/15 14-27 Variance 2014-27 for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ 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 COPY TO: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly SIGNEq2 (,664 -P I I I a T7 AAL4�—�-- im I lewvdisse 7 27-1107 -,CANNEL: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2014-27 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approved a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and denied the additional shoreland setback variance. This variance shall permit a patio expansion for a single-family home on property zoned Single -Family Residential District located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. 2. Procerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86' TH N89*E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89*E 49.6V TH N 247.87' TH N89*E 714.51' TH N20*E 304.42' TH N14*E 470.07' TH N13*E 11.86' TH N44*E 64.0l' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13*E FROM N ... Parcel ID 250240300 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. b. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: February 9, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAT-) Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of ChanbQsen, 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 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Ct,(, TARY LIC KAREN J. EN6ELHARDT ``.. Notary Public -Minnesota r"� • My CanmiYbn DOW Jan 31. 2020 2 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax:952.227.1170 0 February 10, 2015 Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. P.O. Box 490 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Planning Case #2014-27, Variance Request Dear Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly, This letter is to inform you that on February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council approved a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property, and denied the additional shoreland setback variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the Finance City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the Phone: 952.227.1140 patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any Fax:952.227.1110 other plans required for the permit. Park 8 Recreation Phone. 952.227.1120 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Fax:952.227.1110 A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application. 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 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 Well www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Since there are no building permit requirements, you will need to apply for a zoning permit for the proposed patio. The following is a link to the permit (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/zoniRgVm1itl. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131 or by email at b¢enerousna.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sm , Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner EC: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator g:\plan\2014 planning cases\2014-27 9015 lake riley blvd varianc6approval lener.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providing forTodayandPlanning forTomorrow SCANNED ' 14, aal Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Good comment. Thank you very much Councilwoman Ryan. If there's no other questions do I have a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make the motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I make the motion the City Council orders the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2015 Street Rehabilitation, Kerber Boulevard from Powers Boulevard to West 78'b Street, project number 15-02. Mayor Laufenburger: We have a motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ryan: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilwoman Ryan seconded that, thank you. Any discussion? Resolution #2015-09: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded that the Chanhassen City Council orders the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2015 Street Rehabilitation (Kerber Boulevard, Powers Boulevard to West 781" Street) Project No. 15-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO: APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. Planning Case 2014-27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. This went to the Planning Commission on October 2"a. It was tabled at that time and then it went back for another hearing on January 60' of this year. Tonight it's going to City Council because the, as part of the Planning Commission review they could not come to a super majority decision on one way or the other so that's why it's here tonight. The property is located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It's in the northwest comer of Lake Riley, just south of Lyman Boulevard. This whole street is single family homes on some older lots that were platted a long time ago. Again this item appeared on October 71s Planning Commission agenda. It was tabled at that time to allow the applicant and staff to work out potential alternatives for this patio and also to provide us with additional information on their original request. Again this is a hard surface coverage variance request. The City Code permits up to 25 percent hard cover on properties zoned single family residential. In this case the original proposal was for a 30 percent hard coverage so it would be a 5 percent. The shoreland setback variance was increased. The original request would increase the setback from, variance from 32 feet to 36 feet so 39 foot setback from the shoreland. That's what was there prior to the, there's an existing variance on the property. They get a 1 percent hard cover variance so they're permitted 26 percent hard cover and there's a shoreland setback variance that permits a 43 foot 11 SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 shoreland setback. Again this is, the original variance was approved in 2005. It permitted a 5 foot setback from the 30 foot street setback requirement on the west side of this property. There's also the 1 percent hard cover variance to permit 26 percent hard cover and a 32 foot shoreland setback from our 75 foot shoreland setback requirement. The existing building on the site does meet that setback requirement and they do comply with the variance application for the existing conditions on the property. Again prior to that variance in 2005 the house was actually closer to the lake and it had a little bit more hard cover than is existing on the property. In 2005 they received a variance to build a new house on the property. Again it was moving closer to Lake Riley Boulevard and a little bit farther away from the lake. These are pictures of the property. There's an existing patio under the porch that's on the lake side and then this is looking from the north. You can see under the deck here there's mostly green space. There is a little landing outside the door and then this is the garage door that they're trying to provide access to this, use this area. Here's looking up. This whole site slopes down to the lake. It gets steeper as you go farther away from the house. The applicant wants to create a more usable space out here as well as providing handicap access from the garage door to the patio area. The original application was to expand the patio to include all this hard space. This. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Generous can I just stop you a second. When you use the term original, you're talking about the request that was made back, that was presented to the Planning Commission on January 61? Bob Generous: No, well both on October 7`" and then again on January 6'" but as part of the January 6a' review they also, we had worked out an alternative. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay but what you're showing us right now is a pictorial depiction of what the original request made, that was made on October and then January 6a'. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Bob Generous: So this was, it would extend beyond the existing setback line so it would be 7 feet closer to the lake and it was for 551 square foot expansion to the hard cover on the property. We did look at other variance applications within the area and there were, well 3 if you count the existing one for this property but 2 other variance applications within 500 feet of this property. Both of them dealt with setback requirements from the lake. These properties are a little shorter than we would require under new subdivision regulations so they're existing conditions. We did look at hard surface issues for existing hard surface within the neighborhood. They range from 25.8 to 29.3 percent hard cover. These are, or 16 percent hard cover to 29.3 percent hard cover and then the newest building on the corner has a slightly bigger lot and that's only at 9 '/2 percent hard cover. This property on the north had some issues because there's a creek running through the property from the northwest and so there were additional setback requirements and preservation issues and that so that reduced the amount of hard cover. Additionally this area has significant lakeshore setback. There's at least 3 of them that have 43 foot setbacks from the lake and that's what the existing home is proposing as part of their alternative to preserve. Under new subdivision requirements the lots would have to be 20,000 square feet. This property is 12 It • • Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 approximately 12,900 square feet so it's a sub -standard in that. Had this property even been at our 15,000 square foot minimum for single family lots there would be no variance request. Mayor Laufenburger: No variance for hard surface, correct? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Bob Generous: So, and that goes to the fact that this is a unique circumstances on the property. As part of the original Planning Commission staff report they talk about a water oriented structure and there was some confusion as part of the original public hearing and so we want to bring it up that even though the city permits water oriented structures closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback or in this case the 43 foot setback, they would still have to meet the hard cover requirements so even if they were to put a shed down by the waterfront that would be counted against the site's hard cover. Our issue with hard cover is it increases storm water runoff into the lake. Between the October meeting and the January meeting staff met with the applicant to come up with a possible alternative. Mayor Laufenburger: Can I stop you just for a second? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So this original request which you just reviewed, this was, it was discussed with staff and it was ready to go to the Planning Commission, is that correct? Bob Generous: Yes it actually went to. Mayor Laufenburger: It went to the Planning Commission and then that was tabled. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: On October 2°d Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: There about's. Okay. Now keep going. Bob Generous: So and then as part of that discussion we clarified. We got better data on the actual square footages of expansion that they were proposing from a revised plan that you did and we also were able to discuss the issues that the city staff had with any further encroachment into the lake as well as increases in hard cover on the property. And based on those discussion this area in green was removed from being proposed for patio and instead we looked at providing a 5 foot wide connection to the garage door to allow handicap access to the rest of the patio expansion that they were looking at. With this area here being that area that was under, is under the existing deck that's on the main floor of the house. And this would extend over to, in front of 13 Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 there's some window here and then the garage door. This alternative proposes, was proposal reduces the amount of hard cover being proposed for this site by approximately 200 square feet so it's a 354 square foot expansion of hard cover on their site. It reduces the variance request to increase it by 2 %2 percent or to 28 '/2 percent total hard cover from the existing 26 percent hard cover. And additionally it would preserve the existing setback from the lake for any of the expansion area. We believe this proposal is reasonable and is supported by staff. The applicant has discussed with staff the possibility of including landscaping improvements in conjunction with the patio expansion that would help mitigate any stormwater increases that would be due to the hard cover on the property. Some of these landscaping things could be either providing shrub beds that would be, the soils would be removed and new soils put in to help water percolate into the soil. The planting of trees adjacent to the hard surface coverage because they absorb a lot of rain water as it comes down and it would not even get to the ground. Or they could provide native planting adjacent to the lakeshore or portions of the lakeshore to help slow down surface water runoff into the lake. So there are all different alternatives that the property owner could do to help mitigate the increased stormwater runoff on the property and it's something that as part of their application for a zoning permit for this expansion that they would provide us with those plans at that time. The Planning Commission, again they voted 2 for and 3 against a motion to recommend approval of the variance so conversely that would be 3-2 to deny it. However they need a super majority to make a final decision and so their proposal basically was to deny the variance application and so that's why we have a recommended motion for denial of the original request for the total expansion that they were proposing as well as closer setback to the lake. However we are supporting an alternative plan that would approve a 3 %2 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28 %2 percent hard cover on their property and denial of any additional lakeshore setback variance and adoption of the Findings of Fact for approval contained in the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Generous. Before we hear from the applicant, are there any questions from council for Mr. Generous? Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: Mr. Mayor, sorry. Mr. Generous I got turned around on that last part. So the recommended motion for approval is the new plan that takes away the green area. Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions? Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: You had mentioned something, I remember a couple years ago about a house in this area and that was a tear down. Is this the same residence? We ran into hard surface issues at that time or is this a different residence? Bob Generous: This is one of them. There are several in the neighborhood that have hard surface issue. They have setback issues. They were built prior to the City adopting the shoreland protection ordinances. 14 LP • Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 Councilman McDonald: No the house I'm thinking of it was a tear down. Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman McDonald: And they had hard surface issues at that point. Is this the same house or is this a different house because I remember it was either 2 or 3 houses in from the road. Bob Generous: Well this was one of them and yes, this was a tear down that they came in. We actually had them reduce the amount of hard cover on the property by four -tenths a percent. They were asking for a 7 percent variance at the time and we were able to work with them to reduce that request. And then also we pushed it farther away from the lake by providing a front yard setback variance to help move the house up the hill. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And at this point with the patio expansion, the area in gray, are we looking to reduce the hard cover by any amount or are we satisfied at this stage that this would be acceptable with an increase of 2.7 percent over the 25 or actually they're at 26 right? Bob Generous: Right. They're at. Councilman McDonald: So there's no need to look at other ways to carve out some of the square footage on the patio expansion? Bob Generous: That's correct. We looked at this as a final solution for what the applicant wanted and something that the staff could support. Councilman McDonald: Okay, no further questions Mr. Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you council. At this time if the applicant is present and would like to speak to the council we would welcome that. Is the applicant present? Would you just state your name and address for the record please. Rosemary Kelly: I'm Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome. Nice to see you again. Rosemary Kelly: I want to first thank the staff for working with us on this current proposal. There was confusion I think at the very beginning when we submitted the variance because we were trying to get it done last summer and so I went to work with the staff due to availability. Was not able to work with them before putting in the variance and not understanding the intricacies of making those adjustments and not being a professional I believe working with staff later resulted in a much more appropriate plan for our property and the size and the requirements so I appreciate their input. The other component of all this is, and I just want to make clear why this is an exception for this property and why it's important to us personally is that the home is designed to be handicap accessible and it's that way internally and was a very important consideration for us as my mom is 90. Independent but wheelchair dependent, or walker dependent. The only place she's not accessible is to get to the outside the home and when the 15 Chanhassen City Council February 9, 2015 • home was built none of it was to the ADA or the American with Disabilities Act requirements. There's like a 2 '/2 inch drop out of every door and they're not, it's not easy to get a walker through so we've lived there for 5 years. We were not the original builders of the home but as we've kind of come to make this more usable for us this was an important part of expansion, or of the accessibility. So that's when this variance became more important to us as homeowners and I just wanted to make that point for why we put the variance in at this time. And if there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Laufenburger: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you Ms. Kelly. Appreciate you appearing before us tonight. Now this is, this is a little bit newer information, more information than was discussed at the Planning Commission, is that correct Mr. Generous? Bob Generous: Well the first public hearing. Mayor Laufenburger: At the first public hearing, right. As a result of that if there's anybody that, anybody present in the chambers that would like to speak to this, either for or against you're certainly welcome to do so at this time so I will open up a public comment time, if anybody would like to speak to this. Alright, there being none let's bring this back to council. Anybody have any further questions of Mr. Generous at this time? Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Generous, I want to kind of address this whole neighborhood because obviously the lots are much smaller than what we would accept now and also surface coverage percentages are way different than what we would accept now and so I'm sure a majority of the property owners are facing these dilemmas a lot. Would you say that's correct? Bob Generous: Yes. It's generally correct in this neighborhood under the undersized lots they're having issues with hard cover, setback requirements, yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And tell me what, Lake Riley, what issues does Lake Riley have when it comes to water runoff or impurities running into the lake? Bob Generous: I believe the biggest issue they have is turbidity but it's also part of the chain of lakes that start up at Lake Ann and go down through Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake and then into here and then down into the Minnesota River valley. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Bob Generous: So erosion issues, drainage issues, just a lot of volumes of water going into it. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. And you gave us a kind of a spreadsheet I guess. I think it's 4 variances but this is all there is for variance requests for this neighborhood or just for the area? Bob Generous: Jut within 500 feet. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Within 500 feet, okay. IL Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 Bob Generous: Because there's some all the way on the other end of the lake down, as you go down Lake Riley Boulevard. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so we don't see obviously a lot of those variances coming to us, requests so have they already been submitted and approved and done or have they just been denied and they haven't ever come to us or where are the rest of these variances? Bob Generous: The ones that we have records on are, have been approved. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Bob Generous: Some of the information we found are properties that were built prior to our ordinances and so they have non -conforming status. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Bob Generous: And so they can maintain what they have even if they don't comply with ordinance. It's just in the expansion, if they come in would have to come in through a separate variance process. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And Lake Riley I actually don't know because I've never been on it so I don't know but it is pretty typical to have these lot sizes or is it just this one area? Bob Generous: It's a lot like Carver Beach. They're old subdivisions. This area developed around the lakes and so those were some of the first lots that were platted in the 50's and 30's and 20's so you have undersized properties and then over time people have tried to assemble them and build on them but they don't meet the 20,000 square foot requirements that we have now for new subdivisions. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions for staff from the council? Okay. Councilman McDonald, yes. Councilman McDonald: I'm sorry. I'm asking a lot of questions. Mayor Laufenburger: That's okay. It helps all of us. Councilman McDonald: You know we changed the approach for looking at variances a couple years ago. I'm just wondering if Roger can refresh our memories because it used to be it was one standard. Now it's a totally different standard. What discretion do we have as far as variances? Roger Knutson: I won't give you the whole litany of why things got changed but the current standard is basically, is the proposed use a reasonable use of the property. 17 Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 n Councilman McDonald: Okay. Roger Knutson: Rather than undue hardship which is no longer a part of it. Councilman McDonald: Which is no longer a part of it. Roger Knutson: Yes. So is it a reasonable use of the property. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Roger Knutson: There are other requirements but that's the biggest one. Councilman McDonald: No, that's the major one. That was the big change. I guess are you looking for comments at this point or? Mayor Laufenburger: I had a couple other questions I want to make. Councilman McDonald: Okay, I'll wait. Mayor Laufenburger: Procedural questions so let's hold off on your comments for just a second. Mr. Generous I do have a question for you. Did you use the tens reasonable use or reasonable plan or reasonable? Bob Generous: Yes. Mr. Mayor we did believe this was a reasonable proposal for the property to build a patio. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, abight. Thank you. Now I have a procedural question Mr. Knutson. I want to make sure we do this right. I'm looking at one motion that came out of the Planning Commission, which was, or it was the original proposal and that's being offered as one that we should potentially deny. That's the additional setback and the 30 percent hard coverage. But then I'm also seeing a second motion or a second motion for approval so what action do you interpret that the council has to take at this time? Do we have to do two actions, a denial and approval or can we just make one action? Do you understand my question? Roger Knutson: Yes. You can just take one action. To approve or deny. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so one action is all that's necessary. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Roger Knutson: Yes, on staff's current proposal. You have the proposed motion by staff in front of you. That's all you need to do. !1H A Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, let's clarify. I think Councilman McDonald brought up this point that currently there is a 26 percent, or there's a 1 percent variance over the 25 percent allowed so they are currently operating with a 26 percent and that was clarified based on some recalculations of hard cover, is that correct Mr. Generous? Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so what, what they're asking for is an additional 2.5 percent on top of the existing 26 percent. Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Ahright. So council understands that. And the other action is that they currently, this property is currently operating with a 43 foot setback, which is a variance from the normally 75, correct? Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And this, this motion that's in front of us right now, or the recommended motion does not change that setback, is that correct? Bob Generous: That's correct. They would maintain the 43 foot setback from the OHW. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. And one last question I had and then I'll turn this to council for comment. You spoke about some landscaping things that could be done and I think there were some trees or something to help decrease the turbidity or the runoff. The council is doing, would have no action over that landscaping, is that correct? Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: That would be a discussion between the applicant and staff and they could follow or not follow those recommendations, is that correct? Bob Generous: As part of their application they would need to submit a landscaping plan. What they are proposing to do on the property and it would, staff would review it and say if that was acceptable or not. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Roger Knutson: Just to be clear, you could impose as a condition of granting the variance that they plant some trees. You could impose that as a condition because it's related to the hard surface. Mayor Laufenburger: I see. Roger Knutson: Shed off to the hard surface if you chose to. 19 Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 ., Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Something for consideration. Todd Gerhardt: Or shrubs. Roger Knutson: Oh yes. I'm not telling you want to plant. Bob Generous: Or native vegetation. Mayor Laufenburger: Or flowering hostas or whatever. Roger Knutson: Rain garden. Mayor Laufenburger: We've had discussions about rain gardens. Alright. Thank you Mr. Generous. Any comment or motion at this time? Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I have a point of clarification. When we talk about shrubs and trees, wasn't that part of your Findings? That some of that be done so if we adopt your Findings, haven't we adopted that? Bob Generous: Yes because the condition of approval for this is that they provide a landscaping mitigation plan. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so all of that would really, it's already in there. We wouldn't need to do anything extra. Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you. If you want Mr. Mayor I can start off with comments. Mayor Laufenburger: Please, Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I, I'm not sure if this is the same house. I think it is and from what the applicant is saying they weren't the original builders of this house but I do remember, and again I don't know if it was this one or the one next door but it was only 2 or 3 houses in from the main street and it was a complete tear down and we went through a lot to go back and forth about the setback from the lake so I'm glad that you haven't tried to encroach upon that because that was a major issue at that point and we did look at a number of homes along that street and that's where the numbers kind of came from. That was a compromise. Under the reasonable use standard, I think it is a reasonable use to put a patio in and also to do the extensions if what you're trying to do is to again allow access for your mother through the garage to get to a patio. That would seem reasonable to me so at this point based upon what we've talked about I would be in favor of voting for this and adopting the Findings as part of that to cover the landscaping. 20 r • Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger: Anybody else like to make a comment or a motion? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Certainly. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah I want to thank the applicant for you know doing their due diligence and I guess working with staff and the Planning Commission and now coming back to council. I think you've gotten to know everyone pretty well by this point and hope you can everyone over for a barbeque maybe on your patio. Mr. Knutson did I think you know once again explain to council that it really, it used to be you know if it was a hardship or not. If we could find you had some reason why there's no way you could access your property, you know that type of thing but now it's changed where the definition is reasonable use of your property and you know after looking at the pictures of what your, what you have now, while it's beautiful. You just have a little slab and I cannot see why a patio would not be a reasonable use and so I will also be in favor of it and good luck with your patio and I hope it all works out. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other comment or motion? Councilwoman Ryan: I'll make a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilwoman Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: The Chanhassen City Council approves a 3 '/2 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hard cover to permit the expansion of an existing patio on the property and denies the additional shoreland setback variance subject to the conditions of the staff and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Councilman McDonald: I'll second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hard cover to permit the expansion of an existing patio on the property and denies the additional shoreland setback variance subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plan required for the permit. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application. oil Chanhassen City Council — February 9, 2015 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: Any council member wishing to make a comment or presentation. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I just want to say that the Saturday fishing ice contest probably was the nicest Saturday I've ever been there. I don't think I even had a coat on. It was amazing. The weather was perfect. I don't think the fish were biting very well though. I'm not sure what was going on. It looks like you'd better work on that. You've got the weather right Mayor but now you've got to get those fish to bite so I don't know what your strategy is for next year but the fish were pretty small but it was really fun to see all the families out there. Especially all the young kids running around, fishing and having a great time so I just want to thank Rotary and staff and everybody who had a hand in making Feb Fest fabulous. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, it was fabulous Feb Fest and I would say Rotary and Culver's and Boy Scout Troop 330 was there selling bait. Actually some of the bait that they sold could have been fishing entries for the contest quite frankly but, and then all of the sponsors. I just think about all of the people in the community, this is the, I believe this was 22nd Feb Fest, is that right Mr. Hoffman? And Rotary goes out in the morning and drills over 1,000 holes for people to have an assortment of locations from which to fish. I do have a strategy for next year and I think what we should do is chum the water you know early in the morning and get the fish to come in and maybe that will help so something to be thinking about Mr. Hoffman for future but it really was a, it was a wonderful event and of course we gave away lots of prizes and I think it's a wonderful kickoff to the cavalcade of festivals that Chanhassen has so. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And our new city manager has a nickname. Mayor Laufenburger: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Not our new city manager, our city manager. Mayor Laufenburger: Our city manager has a new nickname, that's correct. Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Laufenburger: And for a certain sum he can rid himself of that nickname. Todd Gerhardt: I want to extend my appreciation to Councilmember Tjomhom for pulling my name out of the hat because I couldn't catch a fish. The Sunshine Committee, I donated the prize to our Sunshine Committee so it will be one of our prizes for one of our upcoming events. PA CITY OF CMSEN 7700 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: 952.227.1160 Fax:952.227.1170 Finance Phone:952.227,1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax:952.2271110 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 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.22Z1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern DATE: February 9, 2015 SUBJ: Variance 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Planning Case #2014-27 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council denies a 5.0 percent hardcover variance to permit the expansion of an existing patio and denies a 39-foot shoreland setback variance and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision," 0 "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover to permit the expansion of an existing patio on the property and denies the additional shoreland setback variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vote by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that is less than three fourths of the members present shall serve as only as a recommendation to the city council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request. The applicant is requesting relief in the form of a hardcover and shoreland setback variance from the zoning ordinance to expand on an existing patio. These variance requests would expand on existing approved hardcover and shoreland setback variances attached to the property (Planning Case #2005-10). As a part of their application, the applicant submitted an alternative plan that reduces the hardcover variance request and does not require a shoreland setback variance. They now prefer the alternate proposal. The property owner is proposing the patio expansion to create a connecting handicap accessible access to the outdoors. The small lot size of the property hinders the property owner's ability to create a handicap accessible outdoor access and outdoor space. The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot lot size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square feet). If the property met this lot size requirement, the proposal would not require a variance. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing torToday and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED • '1. Todd Gerhardt 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 February 9, 2015 Page 2 Staff is supportive of the alternate plan to permit the expansion of the patio to provide access to the patio via the garage. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, held a public hearing on January 6, 2015 to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission was unable to support the shoreland setback variance request, but did discuss the applicant's alternative plan, which had a reduced hard cover expansion variance request. The alternative plan does not require a shoreland setback variance. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of increased storm water runoff and were concerned about the ability of the City to require the property owner to maintain storm water mitigation strategies. Staff believes that the installation of a landscape area of shrubs or other plant materials can reduce the amount of runoff going into the lake by providing an area for water to percolate into the ground. Furthermore, the Planning Commission was split on accepting the small lot size and inability to have handicap accessible access from all rear exits to the outdoors as a practical difficulty and that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The Planning Commission voted two for and three against a motion approving the alternative variance request to permit the construction of 354 square -foot patio expansion that would put the property at 28.5 percent hardcover and would not further encroach into the shoreland setback. The motion failed. The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on October 7, 2014 to review the proposal. The Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant and staff to further discuss the proposal. These discussions lead to the revised plan prepared by the applicant. The Planning Commission minutes for January 6, and October 7, 2014 are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council denies the original variance requests and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision for denial, 0 City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property, and denies the additional shoreland setback variance and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. k . Todd Gerhardt • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 February ry 9, 2015 Page 2 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowski dated January 20, 2015. 2. Email from Rosemary Kelly to Bob Generous dated January 15, 2015. 3. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial). 4. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval). 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 6, 2015 (revised). 6. Planning Commission Minutes for January 6, 2015. 7. Planning Commission Minutes for October 7, 2014. g:lplan12014 planning cases\2014-27 9015 lake riley blvd varim\executive sumnmy m January 20, 2015 Denny Laufenburger, Mayor Bethany Tjornhom, Councilwoman Jerry McDonald, Councilman Elise Ryan, Councilwoman Dan Campion, Councilman City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Laufenburger and Members of the City Council: We appreciate the opportunity to present our revised variance request directly to the City Council and to identify pertinent information that was not addressed previously. We have worked directly with the Chanhassen Planning Staff and are in complete agreement with their recommendations. As residents of Chanhassen, we have appreciated the thorough attention given to the variance process and the commitment to protect the nature of Lake Riley. However, at the January 6, 2015 Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, I left the meeting with the feeling that our rationale for the variance request was not clearly presented. Perhaps there were misunderstandings between our original request and the revised and recommended variance request. In order to be as clear as possible in regard to our variance, I am submitting this letter. The revised site plan in front of you this evening was developed directly with Chanhassen's Planning Staff, at the request of the Planning Commission, in order to be responsive to city requirements and neighboring precedents. The Staff supported this plan, and provided a Resolution with Findings of Approval to the Planning Commission. The updated site plan was submitted with our revised variance request. At the meeting, I believed that the Commission supported the revised plan as well as I was not asked any questions and we met their previous request to find a solution with city staff. Without receiving questions I was unable to address the planning commission's concerns or clarify the details of our changes. I did not elaborate at the time as I felt the revised request was reasonable, supported by staff, and clear. Surprisingly, it was denied and moved to the City Council agenda for review. Following are critical elements of our revised variance request that we, as homeowners, felt were not made clear to the Planning Commission: 1. We DO NOT request an addition to our current setback from the OHW. (The original request was for a 39 foot setback.) 2. We REDUCED the hard surface request to 350 sq. ft. (2.7%). This amount was requested to connect the existing patio with the garage access, for wheelchair accessibility. The original request was for 551 sq. ft. (4.3%). 3. We REDUCED the total site hard surface ratio request to 28.1% (12,900 sq. ft.). This percentage is in alignment with our existing neighbors' homes. (The original request was for 30%.) 4. We REDUCED the full site/hard surface area to 3,619 sq. ft. by correcting an error of 55 sq. ft. of retaining walls per the City Planners review, which is a 25.3% of hard surface area. S. Our impetus for requesting a variance is to be able to provide site -compliant ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility. The interior of the home is built for wheelchair accessibility, but the site is not accessible. My mother is 90 years old and dependent on a walker and wheelchair for mobility. Our home is equipped with an elevator and on -grade access from the garage level that provides her full participation on the upper level of our home for all family gatherings. However, she is not able to participate with us during the warm months when we are outdoors and lake -side. The two current patio thresholds leading to the lake are non- compliant in height (1/2" maximum vs. 2" existing, the existing grade exceeds the 1' : 20' slope limit (i.e., rise per run), and access to the existing lower level exit doors do not meet maneuvering/a clear path of travel requirements . We consulted an MN ADA specialist to review our existing conditions in terms of federal requirements and options. 6. Our revised plan adds a pad in front of the garage to facilitate access to the lakeside through the on -grade garage. The pad would be connected to the patio at appropriate slopes. In addition, doorways would be made ADA-compliant for maneuverability needs and provide access to the site. Our revised variance does not provide full access to the lake; only to the lake -side of the house thereby allowing persons with disabilities to participate in all activities. 7. We would be agreeable to incorporate appropriate landscaping materials, as recommended by Staff, to absorb additional runoff if necessary. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowski 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 • Page 1 of 1 From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly071@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:03 PM To: Generous, Bob Subject: Re: Variance request - 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Mr. Generous, I am requesting that the review of our variance request be delayed until the February 9, 2015 meeting. I waive the city's review timeframe through that date. Rose Kelly On Jan 15, 2015 1:34 PM, "Generous, Bob" <bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Rose, I'm sorry you are unable to attend the Jan. 26 City Council meeting. You may submit a written request delaying the review to the next City Council meeting on Feb. 9, 2015. As part of your request, please note that you are waiving the city's review timeframe through that date. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. M Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1131 b enerouskci.chanhassen.mn.us Chanhassen is a Community for Life — Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow file:///G:/PLAN/2014%20Planning%20Cases/2014-27%209015%20Lake%20Riley%20B1v... 2/2/2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014-27. On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Chanhassen City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86' TH N89*E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89*E 49.60' TH N 247.87' TH N89*E 714.51' TH N20*E 304.42' TH N14*E 470.OT TH N13*E 11.86TH N44*E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13*E FROM N 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to permit a 39-foot shoreland setback variance and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property. The property also has a functioning 13.5-foot by 13-foot patio on the property that currently serves as an outdoor space. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting with City Code. The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and shoreland setbacks. The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere convenience. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth; however, the property has already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of the property. Any additional expansions of this non -conformity would be created by the property owner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback. However, since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface may increase the runoff problem. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2014-27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "T'he Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #2014-27 a 39-foot setback variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback requirement and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single -Family Residential District." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9s' day of February, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Mayor 2 • Ape (-D oel-k CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND IIENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 354 square -foot patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014-27 property address 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86TH N89*E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89*E 49.60' TH N 247.87' TH N89*E 714.51' TH N20*E 304.42' TH N14*E 470.07' TH N13*E 11.86TH N44*E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13*E FROM N 4. Variance Findines — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to permit a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 354 square - foot patio expansion. Multiple properties in this area have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent maximum for shoreland properties. Furthermore, the construction and use of a patio of this size within the building envelope is a normal use of the property in a residential district; therefore, it is keeping in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the RSF district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The small lot size hinders the property owner's ability to create usable outdoor space on their property. The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot lot size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square feet). If the property met this lot size requirement, the applicant would not require a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The small size of the lot restricts the property owner's use of the property. The lot does not meet the required lot size for shoreland properties and has a much smaller maximum hard surface coverage allowed than a property that meets this requirement. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area have outdoor patios and hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent maximum. To mitigate flooding and environmental concerns, the property owner will provide landscaping that will reduce storm water runoff from the hardcover expansion. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2014-27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 • DECISION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2014-27 a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square -foot patio expansion and denial of the a 39-foot setback variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback requirement on property zoned Single -Family Residential District." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9a' day of February, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Mayor 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC E: Aeteber- 7, 2014 January 6, 2015 CC E: January 36r3019 February 9, 2015 REVIEW DEADLINE: Deeember 13 2014 February j, 2019 February 9, 2015 CASE #: 2014-27 BY: AF, RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS "The Chanhassen Beefd of Appeals and Adjustmm4s City Council denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage. The property owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. This item was tabled at the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd (PID 25-0240300) APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. P.O. Box 490 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acres (12,632 squme feet) (12,900 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. City Council • 0 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 9eteber-, 14 danuaFy-6, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 2 of 11 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Additional information was provided that showed the original requested hard coverage was underestimated. Following is the original staff report with revisions shown in strikethrough and bold format. The property currently has 3,324 square feet of hardcover (25.8 percent). The property owner is requesting an a variance to add an additional 479 4.2 percent hard surface coverage vefienee to the property. This is variance, if approved, would expand the approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage to a 5.0 percent variance from the 25 percent hard surface coverage maximum (a teW varianee of 2.9 Hefee~'). The addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at 2-7-.9 30.0 percent. The property owner is also requesting to encroach an additional 7 feet into the shoreland setback This i in addition to a approved 32 foes ..6e..el:ne ,- (35 feet shefelend sett ek . �..l n ♦e)This request is being made to le n patie nn feet aem the e-d:~ _.highwater- le.. 1 If approved, this request would increase the approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. The expansion would put the new shoreland setback at 36 feet (a 39-foot variance from the required 75-foot shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20-480, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. BACKGROUND The Single -Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent." The Shoreland Management District Chapter of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be setback 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five-foot front yard setback variance, a 32- foot shoreland setback variance and a 1 percent hard surface coverage variance for the demolition and construction of a new single-family home (Planning Case #2005-10). The applicant originally requested a 7.68 percent hard surface coverage variance and 41.3-foot shoreland setback variance, but the Planning Commission reduced these variance requests for approval. The proposed patio would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation. • City Council • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 ^e' 014 January-6, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 3 of 11 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 240 551 square -foot patio to be lesated expansion to an existing 176 square -foot patio in the rear yard. This expanded non -conformity would put the property over the allowed hard surface coverage maximum by 2 9 5.0 percent. The applicant is also proposing to extend the patio beyond the existing setback by three 7 feet, locating the patio within 40 36 feet of the lakeshore's ordinary high water level. The proposed patio would encroach into the required 75-foot shoreland setback by 3-5 39 feet. The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair -accessible patio and to pennit maintain aesthetic alignment with the house. However—tThe existing property has an approximately 13.5-foot by 13-foot (176 square foot) concrete patio beneath the four -season porch. This area currently can be used as a wheelchair -accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images on the next page below). The door located beneath the deck has a 3-foot by 8-foot pad and the door off the garage does not have a landing pad. The property owner is concerned that neither of these two doors can be used by someone with physical limitations. The applicant's request is to connect the patio beneath the porch to the area in front of the door beneath the deck and the area in front of the garage door with a concrete patio (see door locations and proposal on the next page). f'}sl �` LL Existing wheel chair accessible patio (approximately 13.5' x 13') beneath 4-season porch City Council 0 • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteber 7,2014 daeuary 6,2013 February 9, 2015 Page 4 of 11 I House Exits/Entrances I w. vvow a wnmmm �n. vs„w '' n�rrm a.�9u,w 6wn 61an w ky , SCANNED ti�ri•. ''� �. 61iL The euff building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond across the street. Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley. This location has a recent history of stormwater issues. On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement. The city's Public Works Department sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage. The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural resources through limiting runoff into public waters. Allowing a setback and hard surface expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area and increase surface water runoff issues. This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non -conformity of the presently functional property. As seen bole ry on the next page, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that have requested variances. Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests. Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property. City Council 0 • 9/�0,,1�,5� Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oetebe-m'v, 2014 deeuer-y6, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Variance Number Address Description Action Request for an addition to a non - VAR 85-21 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. confornring building (encroaching into Withdrawn front and rear yard setbacks). VAR 90-07 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 10.35-foot shoreland setback variance for Approved the construction of a new home. 36-foot shoreland/rear yard setback for VAR 92-09 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. the construction of a deck and hot tub to Approved be located 39 feet from the lake. 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and CAS 05-10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved (subject property) demolition and rebuilding of a single- family home on a non-confornung property minimum area). (continued on next page) City Council 9 • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteber- 7,2914 January-6,2&15 February 9, 2015 Page 6 of 11 Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject site, three properties have hard surface coverage that exceeds 25.8 percent (the subject property's hard surface coverage), with the largest being at 29.3 percent hard surface coverage (the subject property is proposing 30.0 percent hard surface coverage). Additionally, four properties in this area have a shoreland setback that extends within the required 75-foot setback; however, none of these properties have a shoreland setback less than 43 feet (the subject property is proposing a 36-foot shoreland setback). City Council • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteber- 7,2014 danuegy-6,2015 February 9, 2015 Page 7 of 11 The subject property has an area of 12,900 square feet. This is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot minimum required by city code for single-family riparian lots (Sec. 20-480). Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property, there are three other properties that do not meet the minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots (see yellow outlined properties in the image below). City Council • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 9e4ebe 7, 2014 danue" 6, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 8 of I 1 MORELAND MANAGEMENT Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 865.3 feet. The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city code. A variance was granted to allow for the construction of the house. This variance allowed for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently setback 43 feet from the OHW at its closest point. The provided plan gave no dimensiom and was ineensis4ent with the aerial pheteff"h shown to the right. A review of the plans indicates that a four -season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan provided. This is shown in green on in the figure 2 below. The porch addition was consistent with the approved hard surface and setback variance. The approved deck was to continue as the east wall of the four -season porch extended northward 19 feet. The garage wall lReAtea in the neftheast eemer- ef the heuse, is the one eenstant between the two plans and was wed as die- �Y..rwwr ..„. w sia,w r�w.w This distame . rrr`w.w. k� Y W,w The proposed patio extends an additional 7 feet towards the lake from the existing deck. This equals a setback from the OHW of 36 feet. - Residential properties are allowed one water -oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in area within the setback, provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW. Water -oriented structures are included in hard surface coverage calculations for the property. However, the proposed patio is not considered a water -oriented structure as it is attached to the primary structure. Furthermore, Tthe size of this patio (existing and proposed) is estirnated to be in exeess of 730 feetor- neady times larger- dma all, wed 751 square feet, over three times larger than what is allowed for a water -oriented structure. A deck is not considered impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface (besides the concrete door step pad). This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area. City Council • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014-27 ^..�,'-, 2014 January 6,3015 February 9, 2015 Page 9 of 11 ALTERNATIVE PLAN Through conversations between city staff and the applicant, a reasonable alternative plan has been created in case the Planning Commis City Council fords that a hard surface coverage variance request is acceptable; however, no further encroachment into the shoreland setback is supported by staff. The alternative plan, favored by staff, reduces the hardcover variance request and does not require an additional shoreland setback variance (see image below). The alternative proposal would expand the patio under the existing deck and to the northerly patio door in line with the existing setback. The addition will add 354 square feet (2.7 percent) of hard surface coverage to the property, but will maintain the existing 43-foot shoreland setback. The hardcover expansion will put the total property hardcover at 28.5 percent. The hard surface coverage expansion (see gray area in the image below) will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties, a 2.5 percent expansion from the approved 26 percent hardcover variance (bringing the total hardcover to 28.5 percent). An issue expressed by the property owner is the lack of usable outdoor space. To add outdoor space without adding hard surface coverage, the property owner can install a retaining wall within the shoreland setback (it must be set back at least 10 feet from the OHW) and complete earthwork in the rear yard to make a flat grass area to the east of the patio (between the patio and the lake -see green area below). Any grading and retaining wall installed will require a permit and plans to be submitted to the City. I Existing I_! i -j I i j i i! Hardcover �-_I I House 1 �- Patio Expansion i 7Hardcoveroved from;an,en SpaceRetain. _ Patio Expansion will maintain —�_ _t_ existing 43' _f_�- shoreland setback City Council • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oete'fff ,., 2014 January6, 20.15 February 9, 2015 Page 10 of i l SUMMARY feet of the O W. The variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 39 feet, extending an additional 7 feet from the existing approved variance setback of 32 feet. The current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 25 percent maximum for shoreland properties. ..,here he new patio is .._,._, sed ,.,.. lists of the 134E14' s:.....season _,.-,.h aFA the ,.enefete pad in &� efthe FFeneh door-s. 14 is estimated that the proposed patio is in e)ieess ef 730 sqtwe- feet meaning they e&e reques4ing iner-e than 525 square feet of additional ifflpefYiOus SHFfaft v.Adiia the sethaek ffem the 011W. The proposed expansion will add 551 square feet of hardcover to the property (a 4.2 percent expansion). If approved, the total hardcover for the property will be 30.0 percent. This will put the property 5.0 percent over the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties. This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional impervious surface would create additional untreated storinwater runoff discharging to Lake Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Genimiss City Council denies the variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission City Council approve a hard surface coverage variance, it is recommended that the approval be for a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and deny the additional shoreland setback variance and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. City Council • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 9eteber- 7, 2014 dseusFy6, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. I Landscaping Plan. 4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014. 5. Letter from Joan Ludwig to Chanhassen Planning Commission, Bob Generous, and Rose Kelly dated September 9, 2014. 6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 7. Extension request dated October 7, 2014. 8. Extension request dated November 3, 2014. 9. Letter from Rose Kelly dated December 22, 2014. 10. To scale drawing of proposal from Rose Kelly. 11. Sketch Map g:\plan\2014 planing cases12014-27 9015 lake riley blvd varimicelcc staff report 9015 lake riley blvd.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014-27. On January 6, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86' TH N89*E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89*E 49.60' TH N 247.87' TH N89*E 714.51' TH N20*E 304.42' TH N14*E 470.07' TH N13*E 11.86' TH N44*E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WTTHLINE BEARING N13*E FROM N 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to permit a 39-foot shoreland setback variance and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property. The property also has a functioning 13.5-foot by 13-foot patio on the property that currently serves as an outdoor space. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting with City Code. The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and shoreland setbacks. The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere convenience. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth; however, the property has already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of the property. Any additional expansions of this non -conformity would be created by the property owner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback. However, since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface may increase the runoff problem. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2014-27, dated January 6, 2014, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, eta], is incorporated herein. 2 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, denies Planning Case #2014-17 a 39-foot setback variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback requirement and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single -Family Residential District." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6 h day of January, 2015. leiIW&C-94129LIMUMMM BY: Chairman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,aQ� 17G O COS—tO APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date Filed: IS I 60-Day Review Deadline: l0— l I Planner. D 6V Y Case Al —a ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ All Others ......................................................... $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 ❑ All Others ......................................................... $425 ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others .......................................................- $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative..................................................$100 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts` ...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area 'Include number of existing employees: and number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: ® Notification Sign................................................._$200 (City to install and remove) t� j 3 L39 I Property Owners' List within 500......... $3 per address (City to generate — fee determined at pre -application meeting) Escrow for Recordin Documents..�er document (CUP/SPRNAC/`J/AP/Metes & Bounds Subdivision) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300 ❑ Create over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Metes & Bounds .........................$300 + $50 per lot ❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat* ........................................................ $250 'Requires additional WO escrow for attorney costs. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way................... $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑� Variance ............................................................... $200 ❑ Weband Alteration Permit ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ............................ $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) TOTAL FEES:!!$��4g Received from :9�S marl Ve IN Date Received: t5 1 Check Number: _Q44--Z__ Project Name: Patio Proposal Property Address or Location: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Parcel #: 250240300 Legal Description: Lot 3, Sec 24, T.116 North, R 23 Total Acreage:.22 Present Zoning: Residential Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Land Use Designation: Residential Existing Use of Property: Residential Description of Proposal: See separate narrative Requested Zoning: Residential Requested Land Use Designation: Residential 21 Check box if separate narrative is attached Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Email: Signature: Contact: Phone: Cell: Fax: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Rosemary Kelly and Phillip Sosnowski Address: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd City/state/ZiD: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Email: Signatt Contact: Rose Kelly Phone: (952) 353-4691 Cell: (612) 360-8700 (612)467-1920 8/11 /14 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, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. 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. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Who should receive copies of staff reports? Information 'Other Contact Information: El Property Owner Via: i] Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other' Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: SCANNED Proposal: Patio Construction Location: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance Request: We are requesting the construction of a patio (see attached design) be allowed as an addition to our single family home in Chanhassen. The planned construction plan is attached. We are requesting a 240 sq. ft. variance for allowed hard space to build a wheelchair accessible patio. In addition, as the original construction of the house was permitted a 32 feet variance from the required 75 foot setback, this proposal was designed to stay within that limitation. The proposed patio is setback 43 feet from the lake, within the limitation of the current variance. However, we are also requiring a variance to allow for an additional 3 feet setback to allow construction a curve of the patio for 8.4 feet to permit aesthetic alignment with the house. The current hard space for the house: Overall Gross area to OHW = 14.650 sq. ft. Right of way = 1,750 sq. ft. Net area = 12,900 sq, ft. Building area = 2,225 sq. ft. Concrete pad = 27 sq. ft. Retaining walls = 55 sq. ft. Stoop area = 89 sq. ft. 4 season porch area = 176 sq. ft. Sidewalk area = 170 sq. ft. Driveway area = 612 sq. ft. Total current impervious surface area = 3,354 sq. ft. Rationale: This variance request is to ask for an additional 240 square feet of hard surface to allow continuity between existing hard space and wheelchair accessibility to the patio. The reason for the patio construction is to make the lake and lawn on the lakeside of the house handicap accessible in alignment with the overall concept and construction of the house. The previous owner clearly designed the house to be handicap accessible. However, financial limitations kept the original owner from constructing a reasonable access from the house to the lake even though the setback permitted such a construction and the additional hard space is minimal (240 sq. ft.). Lack of a level, even surface to exit the house limits the usability of the lake and lawn to anyone who is handicapped. This is because the lawn immediately slopes and is uneven. There is no means of outside handicap access to the lake except directly onto sloping lawn. There is already hard surface immediately under the deck and the four season porch, but these surfaces are not connected and under constant shade. This proposal requests permission to simply connect these two areas with a level material to improve safety and access. It is a limited extension of current patio construction in keeping with the aesthetics of the house design and within the original construction setback variance. This request for 240 sq. ft. variance of additional hard space is in harmony with the handicap accessible construction that was not SCANNED completed by the original builder. This construction deficiency has become more apparent as we witness my 90 year old mother being unable to safely get out of the house to enjoy the being outside at the lake. Conditions meeting variance requirements: 1. We are requesting a 1.9 % variance to the current hard space zoning in order to construct a limited, level patio to improve our home handicap accessibility. In addition, we are requesting a set back of an additional 3 feet for 8.4 feet in length to provide an aesthetic aspect to the construction. This construction is consistent with the design and intent of the original construction of a handicap accessible lake home but not completed originally due to financial limitations of the homeowner. We bought the house 4 years ago because the design was entirely handicap accessible. As we made small changes to our house, it was always in alignment with this design. Now, as we look to accommodate my elderly mother and our own health limitations, these features of the house are particularly important. We plan to stay in this home the rest of our lives and we purchased it with that intention. We wish to improve design and accessibility of the house to the lake by completing a handicap accessible patio on the lake side of the house. In addition, the current concrete patio has a step down that is not level with the doors making is impossible to navigate with a wheelchair so we wish to resolve this technical problem at the same time. This request to increase hard surface is by a very limited amount and is extended beyond the already existing hard surface to include a small area that allows for sun. This proposal benefits handicapped and wheelchair bound individuals and remains consistent with the comprehensive plan of the original house design. 2. The practical difficulty with compliance of the current zoning is that the hard space limitations keep us from completing a level, connected, safe patio area.in order to make it wheelchair accessible. Currently, it is not possible for a handicapped person to get outside the house safely onto a level surface. We wish to correct this problem in an effort to align the house with its original handicap accessible design and facilitate access for ourselves and handicapped family members. We believe this proposal is a request to use the property in a reasonable manner not currently permitted by limitations on hard surface for this property. 3. This proposal is not based on economic considerations. It is based on personal consideration for handicap accessibility for current family members and ourselves. 4. The house design was left incomplete by the original owner. We are asking for the variance to hard surface allowance by only 240 sq. ft. to improve the overall design of the house and to comply with the original intent of handicap accessibility. Inability to provide access to the lake will create a current and ongoing hardship for full utilization of the property that we did not create. 5. This is a very small scale patio that will only increase the hard surface of the house by 240 sq ft. The proposal is designed to create an aesthetically appropriate addition while improving the function of the house. The variance, if granted, would not alter in any way the essential character of the locality. 6. This house is not an earth -sheltered construction. 16 Zagreb Cargr. 3 Barbary b9-n Rcrket' BaAdas h the l-u�Pe 1 I Fe5x Sprare Peary atree / bed edgrg Iodd go arard f}s tree B K*er4 Low CalrrrL Ex. Lmdxrpe n Ex 4"bccpe a Stare Edyq Pw Bard Dnuepak Dm Box 'ArfA . r-d Box t.a 5teP9 O 5 p n JI4 SCA E N FEET / replace dvrnged Ex LardSayc 5fdeadk �re Fx Wd Drveway SPY repar'strken � � 9sden Fiose 5 Feathaf Rord Kari Foersta' i ` 5 Seem Ai DeW 5%trg Deck steps Cr mt "xd 5rfo C ffoge \ Ex Lour I Fa, Note: Patio amid a%, add 240sq' to e&tig Fa&Lrfa a 5qa a footage. Amd>dle ftydvrgw 5tax %tiq Wdi�1.�" Bbd; ittig Wdl Poic Bardrq .aiq dP SW�e Sdtig Wd .e• - trg Woo SCANNED Generous, Bob From: N R [nsmith3587@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:35 PM To: Generous, Bob Subject: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Hi Bob, We have no issues with the variance Rosemary Kelly is requesting. The water issue is really more the holding pond that created the flooding this year. This should be addressed by the city. Thank you, Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission Bob Generous Rose Kelly FROM: Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 9/16/14 RE: Requested Variance at 9015 Lake Riley Blvd I am the neighbor to the north of this address. My concern about the proposed variance is regarding to the drainage to my property at 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. When the property at 9015 was re constructed, a drain swale was eliminated between that property and my own. The two properties used to be at the same level, and with the increased height and drainage of 9015, as well as all of the additional construction up hill from here, things have changed dramatically. The drainage onto my property has been significantly increased. Each year, the storm drains have had issues in heavy rain as well as in freezing periods in the winter. Additionally, my property has been suffering from standing water in the yard and on my back patio that is much greater than it had been prior to the re build next door and the density of ground cover in the general area. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Rose Kelly having the improvements to the property that she desires. However, I do seek assurance and oversight from the city to be certain that my property will not be further compromised by additional water drainage. I seek assurance from the city planning department and the city engineering department that steps that have already been discussed will be implemented and that mitigation of future flooding to my property is being adequately addressed. The city engineering has stated that they will: 1. Clean the storm drains to assure that they are functioning properly and to capacity. And to make this area a first priority to mitigate for draining issues. 2. Clean the holding pond across the street from our properties to assure that it is holding the needed amount of storm water and draining properly 3. Re implement the drain swale between the two properties to properly direct excess storm water. (This includes removal of the tree at the yard line to accomplish the swale, and I am currently assisting in getting bids.) 4. Accomplish other re landscaping as needed to protect my property (including home and yard) from becoming over burdened with drain water. Again, I am not opposed to homeowners having the improvements that they desire. However, proper care and assurance must be given to assure that my property is not the recipient of water due to the addition of impervious surfaces and drainage that will again put me underwater again. Further, I just want to assure that professionals evaluate the variable lake level to assure that additional structures and improvements will not bring the lake level up to a level that will flood my property during heavy storms. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being fast duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 4, 2014, 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 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance Request — Planning Case 2014-27 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. _ : a Subscribed and sworn to before me this" day of &pk&jbe r , 2014. '� 'tom..1, X.0049- Notary blic , KIWI T:�P�b UWISSENNotaryio-MumesotaMyrpmmaa,)en 31, 2075 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface Proposal: limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Rosemary Kell 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 W 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 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 visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by email at baenerous(a)ci chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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 on the project web site listed above 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. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date &Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. This nearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface Proposal: limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a do on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant Rosemary Kell 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: • 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 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 visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at baenerous(cilici chanhassen minus or by phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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 on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Intedm Uses, Wetland Alter. Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Mr Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified e 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. ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8639 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI PO BOX 490 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0490 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 DAVID L ANDERSON 290 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 PAULJNESBURG 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-8639 REV TRUST AGREEMENT OF JOAN M 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 JUDITH N LEWIS 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 PETER DAVID MCINTOSH 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 RYAN D MAJKRZAK 9001 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 0 (x[w S' n (I ut Y�- A it adA.fl v%4d f,,/ �, *(,� ✓ ZV 1 ZC,J , New Bulzinesses Issu ign Permits JULY-SEPTEMBER.2014 / \\ Business Name Site A ss T pe of Business Kindermusik with Friend 560 Market S Music School gAplan\forms\sign permits issu 2014-3.doc Generous, Bob From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly07l@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 3:28 PM To: Generous, Bob Subject: Extension ICBM Please extend the city review through Jan 26, 2015 for the variance request for property 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thank you, Rose Kelly December 22, 2014 Mr. Robert Generous Senior Planner Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Generous, Thank you for your time to meet with me and explain the city's position for wanting to reduce the amount of hard surface requested on the variance. We do understand the desire to minimize run off into the lakes in efforts to control erosion and we appreciate staffs willingness to allow us added hard surface under our porch. Although this helps, it does not fully provide the handicap accessibility we need for the home. Since meeting with you, we have considered several revisions to meet the concerns you presented. As our biggest consideration is handicap accessibility, we have removed 144 square feet toward the lake but kept the portion along the house toward the garage as well as including hard surface to allow for a connection to the rear of the garage. The garage was built with garage doors in both the front and the back. This allows a handicap person to enter the garage in the front and then have access to the back yard and patio without maneuvering a wheel chair through the home (see attached image #1). A person can simply use the rear door for easy wheel chair access to the back of the home and lake. Having the additional hard surface extend from below the porch to the garage is essential in providing handicap accessibility to the lakeside of the house. In addition, it allows the most level access to the lake. We request for a total of 350 square feet for the patio (see attached image #2). This revised plan meets the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of 5 feet width along the garage door that was not in the original proposal. This addition was noted to be necessary to be handicap compliant and facilitate the access to the lake and patio through the garage with any type of mobility device. We believe this revision is a compromise to our original request that would not negatively impact the lake or neighborhood and is a reasonable consideration for handicap access. The surrounding neighbors are supportive of the request. The only issue raised was an overflow problem from a pond across the road that drains along our lot line. This issue is not related to added hard surface but to regional ponding which is being resolved by city staff. In addition, the city has supported hard surface variances on several occasions, most recently for the Fretham project that was heard the same night you fast considered our request (October 7, 2014) and which had higher percentages of hard surface than us. Although they all have their individual merits it does show that minimal impacts are not detrimental to the lake. Since our last meeting we have a clearer understanding of the city s rules regarding shoreland. We share these concerns as homeowners on Lake Riley and value what lakes provide. We do not want to harm any lake but simply enjoy them. We hope this compromise to not extend any surface toward the lake but still extend toward the garage as access for our handicapped family members can be supported as a reasonable request. Thank you, Rose Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 L T1i_ n LAKE RILEY J �e Y641 IF • • ' 4-Z-7 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2015 Chairman Alter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hansen Minnetonka Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044 Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27 Ingvalson: For those that don't know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson. I'm a planning intern at the City of Chanhassen. Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members. So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request. As you might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also just did some other calculations with that. Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing shoreland setback. The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the northwest side of Lake Riley. Looking at the picture, image on the right we'll specifically be looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there's two actually requests for this. Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent variance for hard surface coverage. This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent maximum allowed. Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4 feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property, like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission. This approved SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 • variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback. A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance. One percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These variances actually reduced the non -conformities with the property. The property had a larger hard cover percentage. It was at 26.4. It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet. So this is an image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005. The setback was 37 feet and the hard surface coverage was 26. A little over 26 percent. And this is the existing property. It has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8. These are images of the subject site. The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the porch. It's about 13 by 13 Meet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house. There are 3 exits from the rear of the property. One underneath the porch. One underneath the deck and then one to the far right. So here's an image of the request that's being made. The blue you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion. There are 3 house exits. The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed onto hard surface coverage. The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is a 4.2 percent hard surface expansion. Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500 feet of this property. One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were passed. Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface variance, there's also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed. Three properties actually have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent. Four properties have setbacks that extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots. It is 12,900 square feet. The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet. There are 3 other properties within 500 feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there's some hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it's size exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we'd still include that area in the hard surface coverage and that's what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion. Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase drainage issues for adjacent properties. So the alternative plan that was, came to between a conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet, which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion. The addition will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you're looking at here in blue is the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion. This patio expansion will not encroach any finther into the shoreland setback. It will maintain that 43 feet. Another part of this alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space. Due to the grade it's, there's very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property. What we've communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn't be hard cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that can be used outdoors. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact. However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan. And be subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Alley: Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew. It was a great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you. At this point in time we'll hear from the applicant. If you could come forward. State your names and addresses for the record, that'd be great. Thank you. Rosemary Kelly: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Good to see you again Ms. Kelly. Rosemary Kelly: Yeah. It's been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially. From my aspect we had worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is not, actually they didn't never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair and we'd like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this design and so we eliminated that completely. Finally we expanded only to the really the minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28.5. Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn't allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project. I had no other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage issues and... Rosemary Kelly: Actually they got the Swale construction completed. We actually, she and I actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that because we knew the ground was going to freeze. So that's been completed and that was kind of Chanhassen Planning ComTiiission — January 6, 2015 • the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street. It wasn't really from hard surface so much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior. So that's been completed. Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on? Thank you. Sir, did you have any comments? I know you came up together. Are you moral support or? Phillip Sosnowski: No additional comments. I'm just here to support the, to Rose and address any questions that the commission may have of us. Aller: Okay, thank you. Nothing right now? Okay. We'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Yusuf: It seems like they've reached a consensus. Aller: Well I'm not, I don't know whether it's a consensus. When I first looked at this I saw the package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the numbers were wrong. Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable. So I'm glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn't meet the variance requirements and that's what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them. Weick: Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was another one. Yeah. The only thing I'm, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you know if the house slants that way. I know there's runoff from the street that comes down between the houses is the way I understand it. I just didn't know if the landscape was pitched such that it also runs you know into that yard as well. But it doesn't. I mean everything looks like it's pitched down to the lake. I don't know that adding you know concrete, hard surface against the house there and I'm certainly not an engineer but it doesn't look like it would add significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think? Hokkanen: I don't know if it meets the requirements of a variance. The legal. Maybe you can explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance. Undestad: That's kind of the issue I have too. I mean it's nice we're trying to move things back and all that but what's been granted previously on here and I just don't think it meets the requirements that we could say yes. My opinion. Aller: When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non -conforming in the first place and it wasn't, my understanding it wasn't their property at the time but the builder came in. Took away a lot of those non -conforming uses and issues but they still needed a variance. It's still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the variance, and it's still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new construction as well. So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues? I mean that's. Tom Goodrum: Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum. Aller: Thank you. Tom Goodrum: The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County and Minnetonka. Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and just to address a couple of comments that you made. First of all, again we're thanking staff. They're supporting the request after we met with them with this alternative plan. One that we felt was reasonable for this site and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked us to go back. Talk to staff. Work with staff. We did that. We came up with the plan supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up. Again the property line, between the property owners, that's not part of this proposal. That's a whole different issue and that's going to be solved so now we're just looking for what's a reasonable use for this site. We're not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing. Similar to the two lots next to us. They're both 43 feet back as wise so we're not doing any more impacts to the neighborhood that already exist. We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one just next to us is 27 point something. The one next to that, he's more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we're still in that ballpark. We're still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason we're doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family. The house was built for that need. Now that the family is reaching that age or have family members that have those needs, they're now discovering some of the flaws with this property and that's what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility. Now that we have that need we're finding out that there's some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request. Don't know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would support it as they supported the other uses on here. The hard surface we're requesting is for access. You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage. Don't even have to maneuver within the house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of that house. With the expansion we're asking for, you're pulling into the garage. You get out of the car. You go out the back of the garage and you're in the back of the patio, you know envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake. You're not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering through the doors in the house. Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio. So the, again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before. To work with staff. Come up with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project. There was a variances for hard Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 surface coverage for two lots. One at 28 and one was at 30 percent. There's one in 2013 for a hard cover. I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to come up with something that everybody could support. I sure hope that the Planning Commission understands where we're coming from. Our request and that you can support us as well so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Weick: Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that's underneath that deck, that's not, that's currently considered hard cover? Ingvalson: No. Weick: No. Ingvalson: Incorrect. It's underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage as long as water can penetrate through them. Weick: Through, okay. Ingvalson: So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that's right outside the door. Weick: Got it. Thank you. Undestad: Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the existing? Yeah, that red. There you go. So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk. The patio coming out of the garage back there. What, is that about 4 feet? Ingvalson: 5 feet. Undestad: 5 feet. And that transitions across the entire garage door back there? Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: I think that's the minimum, right? For wheelchair access. Ingvalson: For any. Aller: The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot, correct? Undestad: The 12,900. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Aller: So we are dealing with apples to apples? It's not something because of the reduced lot size, they're doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers. Generous: Correct. Undestad: And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we're asking them if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we're kind of back to the how do we monitor there? How do we know? Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's basically with the initial design we'd be able to determine whether or not there would be benefit. And the idea actually came up with the original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that's coming off of that hard surface. Undestad: So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design into that plan? Generous: Exactly. Alley: Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control that process? Generous: We do. Weick: I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are. Hokkanen: Shrubs or landscaping. Weick: Right. I mean there's no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is maintained, correct? Generous: That's correct. We don't take any securities or anything like that for that. We would, the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they're going to. Weick: Understood. Generous: Right. Weick: Understood but again as we've talked about before if someone else were to move into the house, if something were to change there wouldn't be anything that would prohibit anybody from changing that landscaping, I don't think is there? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 9 Hokkanen: It does. Weick: So it does? I guess that's my question. Aller: The condition would be there. Hokkanen: The condition does but enforcement is the issue. Weick: Okay. Aller: Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there's something going on next door. Hokkanen: Right. Alley: Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you're going to do? Yusuf. Not really wrestling. I appreciate that they've been able to work with staff to come up with an alternate plan. Seems like a nice agreement there. Provided that the conditions are met of course. Aller: Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one. Yusuf. I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014-17, a 3 '/z percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District. Alley: I have a motion, do I have. Yusuf- And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there. Aller: I have a motion which includes conditions. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Alley: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-17, a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller: So do we have a date for that? Aanenson: Yes we do. Aller: January 26m. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it's final conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REOUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3. MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01. Al -Taff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86'" Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD's and cleaning up different applications 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 Chairman Auer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY PLANNING CASE 2014-27 Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The request before is Planning Case 2014-27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners. The property's located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a riparian lot on Lake Riley. It's in the northwest corner of the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it's guided for residential low density uses. The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2.9 percent above what the 25 percent minimum requirement. When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1 percent variance that was approved and they're adding 1.9 percent to that so a total of 2.9 percent variance. The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a single family home located on that. There's a patio under a porch area and then there's a deck area in the middle of the house and on the northeast comer there's an open space. The applicant would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe the applicant has under estimated what they're actually requesting for a variance. Their notes show that they're looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio. We believe they meant in this area. However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it's unclear from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75 shoreland setback. In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the environment or the water resources in this area. By increasing hard surface we will increase the stormwater runoff in this neighborhood. The property to the north was inundated this June with one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending. We looked at other variances in the area. Chanhassen Planning Co • sion — October 7, 2014 • There were 4 other requests. One of them was for this property. It's the bottom one on that and that's the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the 75 shoreland setback. It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home. The other applications were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it under our shoreland accessory structure thing. hi that case you're limited to 250 square feet. However we believe that there's approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent properties. The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives like wood decking or anything like that? Generous: We hadn't directly brought that up but that is a possibility. Under the City's ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained as ground area. Aller: Okay. I don't have any further questions based on the report. Anyone? Okay. Any from this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record that'd be great. Rosemary Kelly: Okay. I'm Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Rosemary Kelly: Thank you. And thank you for the time this evening. I have a few comments to make in regard to the application and then the staff's reviewal of our application. In the first application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the time it was submitted in July. I think both individuals at the date of submission were not available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding and the measurements. The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance is as you saw with the property it's the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface, particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home. It's one of the reasons we bought the home and it's also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is 90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area. The, in response to the stabs concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 accurate. However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood. The original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would have counted that as hard space because it's part of the home. In addition I kind of just went around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design we're expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface. There would be approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition for say a shed or something within the setback allowance. We're requesting approximately a 200 square foot variance of a setback. My main point in all those numbers is to point out I'd be happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is. Finally the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind. The biggest problem that we faced this spring was that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a consideration of my neighbor. There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers to reconstruct. That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that's coming down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that has occurred in that area just north of us of multiple homes. So my request I guess is to just state I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility that we plan to use the rest of our lives. And I believe that we are within both the setback consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard surface area. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Just as a quick question. So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe you need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you're saying that you fit. Rosemary Kelly: No, no. Aller: You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage. Rosemary Kelly: Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet approximately still needs the variance approval. I believe the setback requirement for like a shed or would fit, the amount we're requesting would fit in that allowance already. And I'd be happy to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case. Our intent is not to make an extensive patio. It's to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side. Aller: Okay. Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck? Rosemary Kelly: Yeah, actually we had discussed that. The main reason to not do that, actually we just had, we're a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we had stucco pillars for the deck and what we're fording is because they're wood core, it's allowing water to come up into the core of the columns. Where it's the concrete, those pillars are fine. It's more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that's going to be durable. I think Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 if we use wood deck again the water's going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so that was an unfortunate discovery. Aller: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you. At this point we'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item. So anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium. State your name and address and speak either for or against. Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Joan Ludwig: Hi, I'm Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm Rose's neighbor. Aller: Welcome. Joan Ludwig: I'm the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that my situation is, I don't care what they have in their yard. In fact I encourage everyone to have whatever works for them. What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is going in the right direction and isn't going to put me under water again. The City is working with us. Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I'm happy with that. My concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we've got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I just want to make sure we've got the infrastructure to handle it. That's all I have to say. Aller: Great, thank you. Joan Ludwig: Thanks. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners. Any comments? Questions? Further questions. Undestad: My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a little more time to work with staff. Hokkanen: Or revise it. Aller: Maybe it's premature. Hokkanen: Maybe revise the plan and come back. Aller: Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point? Aanenson: There's a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an accessory structure it's over the hard cover. It would still need a variance so I think there's some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements. Make sure we've got those correct. • Chanhassen Planning Co • sion — October 7, 2014 • Aller: So it's just a matter of amount that we're still going to need the variance. Still going to have to. Aanenson: That's correct. But that doesn't mean we would be happy to work with the applicant. Aller: Sure. Aanenson: If that's okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time. Give an extension on the application we'd be happy to do that. Aller: I guess that's what I would be inclined to recommend. Is, the applicant's here, are you interested in doing that? What I see, I think it's just a little bit premature and I don't, I just don't want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I'd rather give you the time to work with them and see whether there's some alternatives and move it forward with the extension on the application and that way you're moving forward with hopefully something that will be satisfactory to you in the future. Rosemary Kelly: And that sounds... Aller: Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion. Aanenson: Before you do that Chairman, we're at the end of the 60 days so before we do that. Aller: Oh, so you need a waiver. Aanenson: We'd like to get a letter right now, if that's okay before you make the motion extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I'm just looking for a blank piece of paper here. Aller: How about we do this. If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being received. Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend the application past the 60 day because she's waiving the requirement that we rule because the alternative is that we deny. Hokkanen: Do we have to put a time on the extension? Aanenson: She's going to give us 60 days. Aller: ...or grant but I'm inclined to. Campion: Alright I'll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days. Aller: Well subject to receipt of the waiver. Campion: Subject to the receipt of the waiver. Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 • Aanenson: That's fine. I think you're technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may. Campion: Yes. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60-day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of6to0. Aller: Good luck Ms. Kelly. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SOUARE-FOOT ONE-STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS LLC OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 2014-29. Aller: We have received some alternate pages. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There's pages and 5 and 18, there were some minor changes. A strike through and bold format. There's nothing really substantive to them but it's for accuracy and consistency in the report. Aller: Thank you. Generous: Planning Case 2014-29, Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail building that's being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company. As you said it's located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site they'll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went forward so. At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run it hasn't worked out that way. Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses. It's zoned Planned Unit Development so there are specific design guidelines. That's the part of the reason why there's a variance in the request. Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the Ponds 11m Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size. Under the PUT) standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The • 0 14-z7 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Mary;m Yusuf, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hansen Minnetonka Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044 Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27. Ingvalson: For those that don't know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson. I'm a planning intern at the City of Chanhassen. Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members. So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request. As you might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also just did some other calculations with that. Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing shoreland setback. The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the northwest side of Lake Riley. Looking at the picture, image on the right we'll specifically be looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there's two actually requests for this. Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent variance for hard surface coverage. This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent maximum allowed. Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4 feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property, like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission. This approved SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 • variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback. A I percent hard surface coverage variance. One percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These variances actually reduced the non -conformities with the property. The property had a larger hard cover percentage. It was at 26.4. It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet. So this is an image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005. The setback was 37 feet and the hard surface coverage was 26. A little over 26 percent. And this is the existing property. It has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8. These are images of the subject site. The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the porch. It's about 13 by 13 Y2 feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house. There are 3 exits from the rear of the property. One underneath the porch. One underneath the deck and then one to the far right. So here's an image of the request that's being made. The blue you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion. There are 3 house exits. The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed onto hard surface coverage. The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is a 4.2 percent hard surface expansion. Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500 feet of this property. One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were passed. Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface variance, there's also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed. Three properties actually have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent. Four properties have setbacks that extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots. It is 12,900 square feet. The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet. There are 3 other properties within 500 feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there's some hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it's size exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we'd still include that area in the hard surface coverage and that's what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion. Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase drainage issues for adjacent properties. So the alternative plan that was, came to between a conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet, which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion. The addition will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you're looking at here in blue is the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion. This patio expansion will not encroach any further into the shoreland setback. It will maintain that 43 feet. Another part of this alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space. Due to the grade it's, there's very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property. What we've communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn't be hard cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable `A Chanhassen Planning Co •ssion — January 6, 2015 • through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that can be used outdoors. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact. However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan. And be subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew. It was a great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you. At this point in time we'll hear from the applicant. If you could come forward. State your names and addresses for the record, that'd be great. Thank you. Rosemary Kelly: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Good to see you again Ms. Kelly. Rosemary Kelly: Yeah. It's been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially. From my aspect we had worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is not, actually they didn't never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair and we'd like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this design and so we eliminated that completely. Finally we expanded only to the really the minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28.5. Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn't allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project. I had no other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage issues and... Rosemary Kelly: Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that because we knew the ground was going to freeze. So that's been completed and that was kind of Chanhassen Planning Co•ssion — January 6, 2015 • the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street. It wasn't really from hard surface so much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior. So that's been completed. Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on? Thank you. Sir, did you have any comments? I know you came up together. Are you moral support or? Phillip Sosnowski: No additional comments. I'm just here to support the, to Rose and address any questions that the commission may have of us. Aller: Okay, thank you. Nothing right now? Okay. We'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Yusuf: It seems like they've reached a consensus. Aller: Well I'm not, I don't know whether it's a consensus. When I first looked at this I saw the package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the numbers were wrong. Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable. So I'm glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn't meet the variance requirements and that's what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them. Weick: Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was another one. Yeah. The only thing I'm, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you know if the house slants that way. I know there's runoff from the street that comes down between the houses is the way I understand it. I just didn't know if the landscape was pitched such that it also runs you know into that yard as well. But it doesn't. I mean everything looks like it's pitched down to the lake. I don't know that adding you know concrete, hard surface against the house there and I'm certainly not an engineer but it doesn't look like it would add significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think? Hokkanen: I don't know if it meets the requirements of a variance. The legal. Maybe you can explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance. Undestad: That's kind of the issue I have too. I mean it's nice we're trying to move things back and all that but what's been granted previously on here and I just don't think it meets the requirements that we could say yes. My opinion. Aller: When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non -conforming in the first place and it wasn't, my understanding it wasn't their property at the time but the builder came in. Took away a lot of those non -conforming uses and issues but they still needed a variance. It's still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the 4 Chanhassen Planning Co•ssion — January 6, 2015 • neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the variance, and it's still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new construction as well. So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues? I mean that's. Tom Goodrum: Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum. Aller: Thank you. Tom Goodrum: The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County and Minnetonka. Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and just to address a couple of comments that you made. First of all, again we're thanking staff. They're supporting the request after we met with them with this alternative plan. One that we felt was reasonable for this site and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked us to go back. Talk to staff. Work with staff. We did that. We came up with the plan supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up. Again the property line, between the property owners, that's not part of this proposal. That's a whole different issue and that's going to be solved so now we're just looking for what's a reasonable use for this site. We're not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing. Similar to the two lots next to us. They're both 43 feet back as wise so we're not doing any more impacts to the neighborhood that already exist. We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one just next to us is 27 point something. The one next to that, he's more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we're still in that ballpark. We're still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason we're doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family. The house was built for that need. Now that the family is reaching that age or have family members that have those needs, they're now discovering some of the flaws with this property and that's what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility. Now that we have that need we're finding out that there's some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request. Don't know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would support it as they supported the other uses on here. The hard surface we're requesting is for access. You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage. Don't even have to maneuver within the house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of that house. With the expansion we're asking for, you're pulling into the garage. You get out of the car. You go out the back of the garage and you're in the back of the patio, you know envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake. You're not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering through the doors in the house. Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio. So the, again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before. To work with staff. Come up with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project. There was a variances for hard Chanhassen Planning Co •ssion — January 6, 2015 • surface coverage for two lots. One at 28 and one was at 30 percent. There's one in 2013 for a hard cover. I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to come up with something that everybody could support. I sure hope that the Planning Commission understands where we're coming from. Our request and that you can support us as well so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Weick: Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that's underneath that deck, that's not, that's currently considered hard cover? Ingvalson: No. Weick: No. Ingvalson: Incorrect. It's underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage as long as water can penetrate through them. Weick: Through, okay. Ingvalson: So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that's right outside the door. Weick: Got it. Thank you. Undestad: Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the existing? Yeah, that red. There you go. So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk. The patio coming out of the garage back there. What, is that about 4 feet? Ingvalson: 5 feet. Undestad: 5 feet. And that transitions across the entire garage door back there? Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: I think that's the minimum, right? For wheelchair access. Ingvalson: For any. Aller: The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot, correct? Undestad: The 12,900. 6 Chanhassen Planning Co•ssion — January 6, 2015 • Aller: So we are dealing with apples to apples? It's not something because of the reduced lot size, they're doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers. Generous: Correct. Undestad: And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we're asking them if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we're kind of back to the how do we monitor there? How do we know? Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's basically with the initial design we'd be able to determine whether or not there would be benefit. And the idea actually came up with the original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that's coming off of that hard surface. Undestad: So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design into that plan? Generous: Exactly. Aller: Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control that process? Generous: We do. Weick: I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are. Hokkanen: Shrubs or landscaping. Weick: Right. I mean there's no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is maintained, correct? Generous: That's correct. We don't take any securities or anything like that for that. We would, the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they're going to. Weick: Understood. Generous: Right. Weick: Understood but again as we've talked about before if someone else were to move into the house, if something were to change there wouldn't be anything that would prohibit anybody from changing that landscaping, I don't think is there? Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 • Hokkanen: It does. Weick: So it does? I guess that's my question. Aller: The condition would be there. Hokkanen: The condition does but enforcement is the issue. Weick: Okay. Aller: Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there's something going on next door. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you're going to do? Yusuf. Not really wrestling. I appreciate that they've been able to work with staff to come up with an alternate plan. Seems like a nice agreement there. Provided that the conditions are met of course. Aller: Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one. Yusuf I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014-17, a 3 'h percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aller: I have a motion, do I have. Yusuf: And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there. Aller: I have a motion which includes conditions. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-17, a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 • The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller: So do we have a date for that? Aanenson: Yes we do. Aller: January 26`". Aanenson: Correct. Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it's final conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REOUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01. Al -Jaffa Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 8& Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD's and cleaning up different applications • 0 ►4 - a�t CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IIM3 Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014-27. On January 6, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86' TH N89*E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89*E 49.69 TH N 247.87' TH N89*E 714.51' TH N20*E 304.42' TH N14*E 470.07' TH N13*E 11.86' TH N44*E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13*E FROM N 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to permit a 39-foot shorcland setback variance and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property. The property also has a functioning 13.5-foot by 13-foot patio on the property that currently serves as an outdoor space. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this SCANNED Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting with City Code. The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and shoreland setbacks. The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere convenience. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth; however, the property has already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of the property. Any additional expansions of this non -conformity would be created by the property owner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback. However, since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface may increase the runoff problem. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2014-27, dated January 6, 2014, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, denies Planning Case #2014-17 a 39-foot setback variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback requirement and 5.0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single -Family Residential District." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of January, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman • CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC �14 January 6, 2015 CC E: January 26, 2015 (if neccessary) REVIEW DEADLINE: Desember-13,22014 February 3, 2015 CASE #: 2014-27 BY: AF, RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage. The property owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. This item was tabled at the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd (PID 25-0240300) e APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. P.O. Box 490 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acres (12,632 squffe feet) (12,900 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteher7, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 2 of 11 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Additional information was provided that showed the original requested hard coverage was underestimated. Following is the original staff report with revisions shown in strikethrough and bold format. The property currently has 3,324 square feet of hardcover (25.8 percent). The property owner is requesting ae a variance to add an additional 3-9 4.2 percent hard surface coverage vafianee to the property. This is variance, if approved, would expand the approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage to a 5.0 percent variance from the 25 percent hard surface coverage maximum (e teW vefianee of 2.9 pe_,.eo The addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at 247-.9 30.0 percent. The property owner is also requesting to encroach an additional 7 feet into the shoreland setback Thiq i in Addition to a approved 32 feet she..eline setback varianee (35 feet she -eland setb ek varianee in teW) This r- est is be:..g made t.. leeate a patio en feet hem the e-,,kwy high water- le., l If approved, this request would increase the approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. The expansion would put the new shoreland setback at 36 feet (a 39-foot variance from the required 75-foot shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VH, Shoreland Management District Section 20-480, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. BACKGROUND The Single -Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent." The Shoreland Management District Chapter of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be setback 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five-foot front yard setback variance, a 32- foot shoreland setback variance and a 1 % hard surface coverage variance for the demolition and construction of a new single-family home (Planning Case #2005-10). The applicant originally requested a 7.68% hard surface coverage variance and 41.3-foot shoreland setback variance, but the Planning Commission reduced these variance requests for approval. The proposed patio would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation. Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 9etabef !7� , 4 January 6, 2015 Page 3 of 11 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 240 551 square -foot patio to be leeated expansion to an existing 176 square -foot patio in the rear yard. This expanded non -conformity would put the property over the allowed hard surface coverage maximum by 2115.0 percent. The applicant is also proposing to extend the patio beyond the existing setback by three 7 feet, locating the patio within 40 36 feet of the lakeshore's ordinary high water level. The proposed patio would encroach into the required 75-foot shoreland setback by 3-5 39 feet. The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair -accessible patio and to Hermit maintain aesthetic alignment with the house. MeweveF47fhe existing property has an approximately 13.5-foot by 13-foot (176 square foot) concrete patio beneath the four -season porch. This area currently can be used as a wheelchair -accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images age below). The door located beneath the deck has a 3-foot by 8-foot pad and the door off the garage does not have a landing pad. The property owner is concerned that neither of these two doors can be used by someone with physical limitations. The applicant's request is to connect the patio beneath the porch to the area in front of the door beneath the deck and the area in front of the garage door with a concrete patio (see door locations and proposal on the next page). Existing wheel chair accessible patio (approximately 13.5' x 13') beneath 4-season porch Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteber- 7, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 4 of 11 The euffext building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond across the street. Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley. This location has a recent history of stormwater issues. On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement. The city's Public Works Department sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage. The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural resources through limiting runoff into public waters. Allowing a setback and hard surface expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area and increase surface water runoff issues. This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non -conformity of the presently functional property. As seen belew on the neat page, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that have requested variances. Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests. Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property. Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 9eteber-: 014 January 6, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Variance Number Address Description Action Request for an addition to a non - VAR 85-21 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. conforming building (encroaching into Withdrawn front and rear yard setbacks). VAR 90-07 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 10.35-foot shoreland setback variance for Approved the construction of a new home. 36-foot shoreland/rear yard setback for VAR 92-09 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. the construction of a deck and hot tub to Approved be located 39 feet from the lake. 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and CAS 05-10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved (subject property) demolition and rebuilding of a single- family home on a non -conforming property minimum area) - (continued on next page) Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oete'•er ?, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 6 of 11 Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject site, three properties have hard surface coverage that exceeds 25.8 percent (the subject property's hard surface coverage), with the largest being at 29.3 percent hard surface coverage (the subject property is proposing 30.0 percent hard surface coverage). Additionally, four properties in this area have a shoreland setback that extends within the required 75-foot setback; however, none of these properties have a shoreland setback less than 43 feet (the subject property is proposing a 36-foot shoreland setback). Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 moo `e��4 January 6, 2015 Page 7 of 1 I The subject property has an area of 12,900 square feet. This is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot minimum required by city code for single-family riparian lots (Sec. 20-480). Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property, there are three other properties that do not meet the minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots (see yellow outlined properties in the image below). Planning Commission 0 • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oeteber- 7, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 8 of 11 MORELAND MANAGEMENT Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 865.3 feet. The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city code. A variance was granted to allow for the construction of the house. This variance allowed for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently setback 43 feet from the OHW at its closest point. The pfekded plan gave no difneasions and ii*ffilq ineensistent with A review of the plans indicates that a four -season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan provided. This is shown in green on in the figure 2 below. The porch addition was consistent with the approved hard surface and setback variance. The approved deck was to continue as the east wall of the four -season porch extended northward 19 feet. The ,..._..,.e • all 1......ted :., the noAheast eemer of the house, is the one eeffitafft between the two plans and was used as 4w w��y ilrW �U.1we.�1sl �1i �w. I s.+ — The proposed patio extends an additional 7 feet towards the lake from the existing deck. This equals a setback from the OHW of 36 feet. Residential properties are allowed one water -oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in area within the setback, provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW. Water -oriented structures are included in hard surface coverage calculations for the property. However, the proposed patio is not considered a water -oriented structure as it is attached to the primary structure. Furthermore, Tthe size of this patio (existing and proposed) is estifated 751 square feet, over three times larger than what is allowed for a water -oriented structure. A deck is not considered impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface (besides the concrete door step pad). This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area. Planning Commission 0 • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 ""`�'+2014 January 6, 2015 Page 9 of 11 ALTERNATIVE PLAN Through conversations between city staff and the applicant, a reasonable alternative plan has been created in case the Planning Commission finds that a hard surface coverage variance request is acceptable; however, no further encroachment into the shoreland setback is supported by staff. The alternative plan, favored by staff, reduces the hardcover variance request and does not require an additional shoreland setback variance (see image below). The alternative proposal would expand the patio under the existing deck and to the northerly patio door in line with the existing setback. The addition will add 354 square feet (2.7 percent) of hard surface coverage to the property, but will maintain the existing 43- foot shoreland setback. The hardcover expansion will put the total property hardcover at 28.5 percent. The hard surface coverage expansion (see gray area in the image below) will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties, a 2.5 percent expansion from the approved 26 percent hardcover variance (bringing the total hardcover to 28.5 percent). An issue expressed by the property owner is the lack of usable outdoor space. To add outdoor space without adding hard surface coverage, the property owner can install a retaining wall within the shoreland setback (it must be set back at least 10 feet from the OHW) and complete earthwork in the rear yard to make a flat grass area to the east of the patio (between the patio and the lake -see green area below). Any grading and retaining wall installed will require a permit and plans to be submitted to the City. Existing -—� Hardcover l �_I House 1 1 I 1 1 i i I, Hardcover Removed from Plan, Green Space Patio Expansion will maintain existing 43' Retaining Wall shoreland setback _ Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Aeteber- 7, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 10 of 11 SUMMARY f e` of the The variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 39 feet, extending an additional 7 feet from the existing approved variance setback of 32 feet. The current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 2544 percent maximum for shoreland properties. The week is not eonsiae-ed he-deove- so the only eidsting 1 a fdeeve- ve.J ........:... .. f the 1 4>..1 2' f ..- season per -eh and the ee..efete pad feet meaning they aFe fequesfing mef;e than 525 squafe fM of additiefW impenious sw&ee The proposed expansion will add 551 square feet of hardcover to the property (a 4.2 percent expansion). If approved, the total hardcover for the property will be 30.0 percent. This will put the property 5.0 percent over the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties. This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional impervious surface would create additional untreated stormwater runoff discharging to Lake Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance requests and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve a hard surface coverage variance, it is recommended that the approval be for a 3 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and deny the additional shoreland setback variance and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 Oetebe w.- 7, 2014 January 6, 2015 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Landscaping Plan. 4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014. 5. Letter from Joan Ludwig to Chanhassen Planning Commission, Bob Generous, and Rose Kelly dated September 9, 2014. 6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 7. Extension request dated October 7, 2014. 8. Extension request dated November 3, 2014. 9. Letter from Rose Kelly dated December 22, 2014. 10. To scale drawing of proposal from Rose Kelly. 11. Sketch Map gAplan\2014 planning cases12014-27 9015 lake riley blvd varimm\stafrreport 9015 lake riley blvd.doc 4 ' 0 014-a� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The request before is Planning Case 2014-27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners. The property's located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a riparian lot on Lake Riley. It's in the northwest comer of the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it's guided for residential low density uses. The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2.9 percent above what the 25 percent minimum requirement. When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1 percent variance that was approved and they're adding 1.9 percent to that so a total of 2.9 percent variance. The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a single family home located on that. There's a patio under a porch area and then there's a deck area in the middle of the house and on the northeast corner there's an open space. The applicant would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe the applicant has under estimated what they're actually requesting for a variance. Their notes show that they're looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio. We believe they meant in this area. However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it's unclear from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75 shoreland setback. In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the environment or the water resources in this area. By increasing hard surface we will increase the stormwater runoff in this neighborhood. The property to the north was inundated this June with one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending. We looked at other variances in the area. SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Co • sion — October 7, 2014 • There were 4 other requests. One of them was for this property. It's the bottom one on that and that's the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the 75 shoreland setback. It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home. The other applications were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it under our shoreland accessory structure thing. In that case you're limited to 250 square feet. However we believe that there's approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent properties. The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives like wood decking or anything like that? Generous: We hadn't directly brought that up but that is a possibility. Under the City's ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained as ground area. Aller: Okay. I don't have any further questions based on the report. Anyone? Okay. Any from this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record that'd be great. Rosemary Kelly: Okay. I'm Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. RosemaryKelly: Thank you. And thank you for the time this evening. I have a few comments to make in regard to the application and then the staff s reviewal of our application. In the first application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the time it was submitted in July. I think both individuals at the date of submission were not available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding and the measurements. The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance is as you saw with the property it's the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface, particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home. It's one of the reasons we bought the home and it's also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is 90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area. The, in response to the staff's concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 • accurate. However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood. The original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would have counted that as hard space because it's part of the home. In addition I kind of just went around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design we're expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface. There would be approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition for say a shed or something within the setback allowance. We're requesting approximately a 200 square foot variance of a setback. My main point in all those numbers is to point out I'd be happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is. Finally the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind. The biggest problem that we faced this spring was that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a consideration of my neighbor. There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers to reconstruct. That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that's coming down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that has occurred in that area just north of us of multiple homes. So my request I guess is to just state I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility that we plan to use the rest of our lives. And I believe that we are within both the setback consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard surface area. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Just as a quick question. So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe you need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you're saying that you fit. Rosemary Kelly: No, no. Aller: You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage. Rosemary Kelly: Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet approximately still needs the variance approval. I believe the setback requirement for like a shed or would fit, the amount we're requesting would fit in that allowance already. And I'd be happy to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case. Our intent is not to make an extensive patio. It's to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side. Aller: Okay. Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck? Rosemary Kelly: Yeah, actually we had discussed that. The main reason to not do that, actually we just had, we're a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we had stucco pillars for the deck and what we're finding is because they're wood core, it's allowing water to come up into the core of the columns. Where it's the concrete, those pillars are fine. It's more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that's going to be durable. I think .n Chanhassen Planning Co •ssion — October 7, 2014 • if we use wood deck again the water's going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so that was an unfortunate discovery. Aller: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you. At this point we'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item. So anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium. State your name and address and speak either for or against. Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Joan Ludwig: Hi, I'm Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm Rose's neighbor. Aller: Welcome. Joan Ludwig: I'm the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that my situation is, I don't care what they have in their yard. In fact I encourage everyone to have whatever works for them. What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is going in the right direction and isn't going to put me under water again. The City is working with us. Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I'm happy with that. My concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we've got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I just want to make sure we've got the infrastructure to handle it. That's all I have to say. Aller: Great, thank you. Joan Ludwig: Thanks. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners. Any comments? Questions? Further questions. Undestad: My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a little more time to work with staff. Hokkanen: Or revise it. Aller: Maybe it's premature. Hokkanen: Maybe revise the plan and come back. Aller: Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point? Aanenson: There's a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an accessory structure it's over the hard cover. It would still need a variance so I think there's some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements. Make sure we've got those correct. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 • Aller: So it's just a matter of amount that we're still going to need the variance. Still going to have to. Aanenson: That's correct. But that doesn't mean we would be happy to work with the applicant. Alley: Sure. Aanenson: If that's okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time. Give an extension on the application we'd be happy to do that. Aller: I guess that's what I would be inclined to recommend. Is, the applicant's here, are you interested in doing that? What I see, I think it's just a little bit premature and I don't, I just don't want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I'd rather give you the time to work with them and see whether there's some alternatives and move it forward with the extension on the application and that way you're moving forward with hopefully something that will be satisfactory to you in the future. Rosemary Kelly: And that sounds... Aller: Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion. Aanenson: Before you do that Chairman, we're at the end of the 60 days so before we do that. Alley: Oh, so you need a waiver. Aanenson: We'd like to get a letter right now, if that's okay before you make the motion extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I'm just looking for a blank piece of paper here. Aller: How about we do this. If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being received. Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend the application past the 60 day because she's waiving the requirement that we rule because the alternative is that we deny. Hokkanen: Do we have to put a time on the extension? Aanenson: She's going to give us 60 days. Aller: ... or grant but I'm inclined to. Campion: Alright I'll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days. Aller: Well subject to receipt of the waiver. Campion: Subject to the receipt of the waiver. Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 • Aanenson: That's fine. I think you're technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may. Campion: Yes. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60-day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of6to0. Aller: Good luck Ms. Kelly. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH__ VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE -FOOT ONE-STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B. VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4Tn ADDITION. APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 2014-29. Alley: We have received some alternate pages. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There's pages and 5 and 18, there were some minor changes. A strike through and bold format. There's nothing really substantive to them but it's for accuracy and consistency in the report. Aller: Thank you. Generous: Planning Case 2014-29, Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail building that's being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company. As you said it's located at the northwest comer of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site they'll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went forward so. At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run it hasn't worked out that way. Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses. It's zoned Planned Unit Development so there are specific design guidelines. That's the part of the reason why there's a variance in the request. Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the Ponds 11 t' Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size. Under the PUD standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage. The property owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd (PID 25-0240300) pK,<001 APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly P.O. Box 490 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acres (12,632 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 October 7, 2014 Page 2 of 6 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting an additional 1.9 percent hard surface coverage variance. This is in addition to an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage (a total variance of 2.9 percent). The addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at 27.9 percent. The property owner is also requesting an additional three-foot setback variance. This is in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreline setback variance (35-foot shoreland setback variance in total). This request is being made to locate a patio 40 feet from the ordinary high water level. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XI1. "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The Shoreland Management District Chapter of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The Single -Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent" On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five-foot front yard setback variance, a 32- foot shoreland setback variance and a I % hard surface coverage variance for the demolition and construction of a new single-family home (Planning Case #2005-10). The applicant originally requested a 7.68% hard surface coverage variance and 41.3-foot shoreland setback variance, but the Planning Commission reduced these variances requests for approval. The proposed patio would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation. F\.._�/;\ �W K There are existing surface water runoff issues in this area. Increasing hard surface coverage would only intensify this problem. The applicant is proposing a 240 square -foot patio to be located in the rear yard. This expanded non -conformity would put the property over hard surface coverage by 2.9 percent. The applicant is also proposing to extend the patio beyond the existing setback by three feet, locating the patio within 40 feet of the lakeshore's ordinary high water level. The proposed patio would encroach into the shoreland setback by 35 feet. The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair -accessible patio and to permit aesthetic alignment with the house. However, the existing property has an approximately 13-foot by 13-foot concrete patio beneath the four -season porch. This area currently can be used as a wheelchair -accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images on the next page). Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 October 7, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 October 7, 2014 Page 4of6 The current building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond across the street. Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley. This location has a recent history of stormwater issues. On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement. The city's Public Works Department sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage. The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural resources through limiting runoff into public waters. Allowing a setback and hard surface expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area and increase surface water runoff issues. This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non -conformity of the presently functional property. As seen below, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that have requested variances. Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests. Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property. Variance Number Address Description Action Request for an addition to a non - VAR 85-21 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. conforming building (encroaching into Withdrawn front and rear yard setbacks). VAR 90-07 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 10.35-foot shoreland setback variance for Approved the construction of a new home. 36-foot shoreland/rear yard setback for VAR 92-09 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. the construction of a deck and hot tub to Approved be located 39 feet from the lake. 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and CAS OS-10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved (subject property) demolition and rebuilding of a single- family home on a non -conforming property minimum area). Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 October 7, 2014 Page 5 of 6 MORELAND MANAGEMENT Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 865.3 feet. The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city code. A variance was granted to allow for the construction of the house. This variance allowed for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently set back 43 feet from the OHW at its closest point. The provided plan gave no dimensions and was inconsistent with the aerial photograph shown to the right. A review of the plans indicates that a four -season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan provided. This is shown in green on figure 2 below. The porch addition was consistent with the approved hard surface and setback variance. The approved dec WSI Rkyf k was to continue as the east wall of the four - season porch extended northward 19 feet. The garage wall, located in the northeast comer of the house, is the one constant between the two plans and was used as the reference for all scaled measurements. The patio, as best that can be determined with the use of an engineer's scale, extends an additional 21.25 feet towards the lake from the garage wall. This equals a setback from the OHW of 30 feet. However, given the lack of dimensioning on the drawing and the disparity between what is shown on the provided plan and the aerial, it is difficult to determine with any clarity. It does not appear to be 43 feet as stated in the application as that is the distance to the four - season porch from the OHW. This distance is consistent with what was scaled from GIS. Residential properties are allowed one water -oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in area within the setback provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW. The size of this patio is estimated to be in excess of 730 feet or nearly three times larger than allowed. A deck is not considered impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface. This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area. Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 October 7, 2014 Page 6 of 6 SUMMARY It appears that the variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 45 feet to be within 30 feet of the OHW. The current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 25%. The deck is not considered hardcover so the only existing hardcover where the new patio is proposed consists of the 13'x13' four -season porch and the concrete pad in front of the French doors. It is estimated that the proposed patio is in excess of 730 square feet meaning they are requesting more than 525 square feet of additional impervious surface within the setback from the OHW. This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional impervious surface would create additional untreated stormwater runoff discharging to Lake Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance application and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Landscaping Plan. 4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014. 5. Letter from Joan Ludwig to Chanhassen Planning Commission, Bob Generous, and Rose Kelly dated September 9, 2014. 6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. g:\plan\2014 planning cues\2014-27 9015 lake riley blvd varianc6staff report 9015 lake riley blvd.doc C-1 1Lf-a� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Chairman Atler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick and Dan Campion STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Jerry & Karon Story 6281 Teton Lane Marcus Zbinden 6460 Bretton Way Dan Feller 6430 Bretton Way Naomi Carlson 6411 Bretton Way Marty Campion Campion Engineering Chris Solie Johnson 6421 Bretton Way Robert Rabe 6305 Teton Lane Aller: Tonight we have three items before us. I'm going to move the second item on the agenda up to the front. Item number 2, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard request has been made to table that. Is there any opposition to that by anyone? We have received the 60 day waiver so with that, make a motion to table. Hokkanen: I'll move to table. Aller: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Second? Campion: Second. Aller: No discussion. Weick: No sir. Aller: Okay. Hokkanen moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the request for variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: Rosemary Kelly, Planning Case 2014-27. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. SCANNED PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage. The property owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreland setback variance. LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd (PID 25-0240300) 615rCe. APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F. Kelly P.O. Box 490 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acres (12,632 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 September 16, 2014 Page 2 of 6 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting an additional 1.9 percent hard surface coverage variance. This is in addition to an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage (a total variance of 2.9 percent). The addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at 27.9 percent. The property owner is also requesting an additional three-foot setback variance. This is in addition to an approved 32-foot shoreline setback variance (35-foot shoreland setback variance in total). This request is being made to locate a patio 40 feet from the ordinary high water level. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article JUI. "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. BACKGROUND The Shoreland Management District Chapter of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The Single -Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent." On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five-foot front yard setback variance, a 32- foot shoreland setback variance and a 1 % hard surface coverage variance for the demolition and construction of a new single-family home (Planning Case #2005-10). The applicant originally requested a 7.68% hard surface coverage variance and 41.3-foot shoreland setback variance, but the Planning Commission reduced these variances requests for approval. The proposed patio would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation. ANALYSIS There are existing surface water runoff issues in this area. Increasing hard surface coverage would only intensify this problem. The applicant is proposing a 240 square -foot patio to be located in the rear yard. This expanded non -conformity would put the property over hard surface coverage by 2.9 percent. The applicant is also proposing to extend the patio beyond the existing setback by three feet, locating the patio within 40 feet of the lakeshore's ordinary high water level. The proposed patio would encroach into the shoreland setback by 35 feet. The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair -accessible patio and to permit aesthetic alignment with the house. However, the existing property has an approximately 13-foot by 13-foot concrete patio beneath the four -season porch. This area currently can be used as a wheelchair -accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images on the next page). Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 September 16, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 September 16, 2014 Page 4 of 6 The current building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond across the street. Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley. This location has a recent history of stormwater issues. On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement. The city's Public Works Department sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage. The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural resources through limiting runoff into public waters. Allowing a setback and hard surface expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area and increase surface water runoff issues. This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non -conformity of the presently functional property. As seen below, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that have requested variances. Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests. Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property. Variance Number Address Description Action Request for an addition to a non - VAR 85-21 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. conforming building (encroaching into Withdrawn front and rear yard setbacks). VAR 90-07 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 10.35-foot shoreland setback variance for Approved the construction of a new home. 36-foot shoreland/rear yard setback for VAR 92-09 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. the construction of a deck and hot tub to Approved be located 39 feet from the lake. 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance and CAS 05-10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved (subject property) demolition and rebuilding of a single- family home on a non -conforming property (minimum area). Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 September 16, 2014 Page 5 of 6 MORELAND MANAGEMENT Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 865.3 feet. The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city code. A variance was granted to allow Co, the construction of the house. This variance allowed for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently set back 43 feet from the OHW at its closest point. The provided plan gave no dimensions and was inconsistent with the aerial photograph shown to the right. A review of the plans indicates that a four -season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan provided. This is shown in green on figure 2 below. The porch addition was consistent with the approved hard surface and setback variance. The approved dec k was to continue as the east wall of the four - season porch extended northward 19 feet. The garage wall, located in the northeast corner of the house, is the one constant between the two plans and was used as the reference for all scaled measurements. The patio, as best that can be determined with the use of an engineer's scale, extends an additional 21.25 feet towards the lake from the garage wall. This equals a setback from the OHW of 30 feet. However, given the lack of dimensioning on the drawing and the disparity between what is shown on the provided plan and the aerial, it is difficult to determine with any clarity. It does not appear to be 43 feet as stated in the application as that is the distance to the four - season porch from the OHW. This distance is consistent with what was scaled from GIS. Residential properties are allowed one water -oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in area within the setback provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW. The size of this patio is estimated to be in excess of 730 feet or nearly three times larger than allowed. A deck is not considered impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface. This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area. Planning Commission • • 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014-27 September 16, 2014 Page 6 of 6 SUMMARY It appears that the variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 45 feet to be within 30 feet of the OHW. The current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 25%. The deck is not considered hardcover so the only existing hardcover where the new patio is proposed consists of the 13'xl3' four -season porch and the concrete pad in front of the French doors. It is estimated that the proposed patio is in excess of 730 square feet meaning they are requesting more than 525 square feet of additional impervious surface within the setback from the OHW. This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional impervious surface would create additional untreated stormwater runoff discharging to Lake Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance application and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Landscaping Plan. 4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014. 5. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. g:�plan\2014 planning cases\2014-27 9015 lake riley blvd variance\sW1T report 9015 lake riley blvd.doc TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission Bob Generous Rose Kelly FROM: Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Blvd., Chanhassen, MN U1151JU RE: Requested Variance at 9015 Lake Riley Blvd I am the neighbor to the north of this address. My concern about the proposed variance is regarding to the drainage to my property at 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. When the property at 9015 was re constructed, a drain swale was eliminated between that property and my own. The two properties used to be at the same level, and with the increased height and drainage of 9015, as well as all of the additional construction up hill from here, things have changed dramatically. The drainage onto my property has been significantly increased. Each year, the storm drains have had issues in heavy rain as well as in freezing periods in the winter. Additionally, my property has been suffering from standing water in the yard and on my back patio that is much greater than it had been prior to the re build next door and the density of ground cover in the general area. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Rose Kelly having the improvements to the property that she desires. However, I do seek assurance and oversight from the city to be certain that my property will not be further compromised by additional water drainage. I seek assurance from the city planning department and the city engineering department that steps that have already been discussed will be implemented and that mitigation of future flooding to my property is being adequately addressed. The city engineering has stated that they will: 1. Clean the storm drains to assure that they are functioning properly and to capacity. And to make this area a first priority to mitigate for draining issues. 2. Clean the holding pond across the street from our properties to assure that it is holding the needed amount of storm water and draining properly 3. Re implement the drain swale between the two properties to properly direct excess storm water. (This includes removal of the tree at the yard line to accomplish the swale, and I am currently assisting in getting bids.) 4. Accomplish other re landscaping as needed to protect my property (including home and yard) from becoming over burdened with drain water. Again, I am not opposed to homeowners having the improvements that they desire. However, proper care and assurance must be given to assure that my property is not the recipient of water due to the addition of impervious surfaces and drainage that will again put me underwater again. Further, I just want to assure that professionals evaluate the variable lake level to assure that additional structures and improvements will not bring the lake level up to a level that will flood my property during heavy storms. SCANNED 1 a--7 w . • CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 15, 2014, 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 RESCHEDULED Public Hearing for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance Request — Planning Case 2014-27 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. Subscribgd and sworn to before me this- day oflexv`l�o.r 2014. ANWAAMAMAWWA ,� y� I 1 JWKIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Publicotary Pubic-MinnesotaCemn�M E�M®Jw 91. 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING Dear Property Owner: On September 4, 2014, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant: Rosemary Kelly. The public hearing was originally scheduled for September 16, 2014; however, at the request of the applicant it has been RESCHEDULED for October 7, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or by email at bgenerousCo)ci.chanhassen.mn.us, or visit the project web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING Dear Property Owner: On September 4, 2014, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant: Rosemary Kelly. The public hearing was originally scheduled for September 16, 2014; however, at the request of the applicant it has been RESCHEDULED for October 7, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or by email at benerous(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us, or visit the project web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27 DUSTIN & JESSICA BRABENDER 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8639 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI PO BOX 490 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0490 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 DAVID L ANDERSON 290 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 PAULJNESBURG 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8639 REV TRUST AGREEMENT OF JOAN M 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 JUDITH N LEWIS 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 PETER DAVID MCINTOSH 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 RYAN D MAJKRZAK 9001 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 MN SS4. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 VM.ri rk- 1n.mn.us 3.4 Cr •- 1D 08��/ 55i 5EMdE 0�E55E4 �lnje RET11 ijvleto E cfl1p*1"' 8-04-41 119 TThsbmap sDislaimerneithr %0T DeIj A:5 t-E TO *261,--2,,`, ov il��raat wunty, st Ite and if, 3.y7 01p7 1 �taan%"a\,1��,a,,,`," be sed for referer 5 5 �� ar, 1 "eographic lion System 6 �� `�``,t„ , _„ur tree, and the City does present that tl .,,, navigabonal, tracking or any other purpose requiring ex ,,,,nent of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geograph,_ matures. 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 claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agens. or third parties which arse out of the user's access or u 02 1P ------�P 000.9'II- 0003195036 SEP 04 2014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 /y gr2led �� la's `' I1j� Ai EMEaf=� 1 9079 SUNNYVALE DR ! CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8639 i Y Irittrliul'trt�ll'�nflll�'t�'r11r11ilrLnliilJrlit�rrt��f �ttt Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the aclenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface Proposal: limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on prop6fty zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Rosemary Kell 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 What Happens publi aring through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. 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 visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bbc enerousaci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1131. 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 on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Intenm 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 commerciaUlndustnal. • 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 reportreportr please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. • 49 rI .0 September 12, 2014 Bob Generous Chanhassen City Planning Chanhassen, MN Mr. Generous, Due to my inability to make the upcoming Planning Committee meeting for the City of Chanhassen, we would like to postpone the presentation of our patio variance request until the October 7, 2014 meeting. We agree to waive the 60 day required time for response from the City. Please let us know if there is anything you need from me prior to this meeting. Sincerely, Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowski 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN. 55317 612-360-8700 (mobile) 952-353-4691 (home) Rkelly07l@gmail.com SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) CITY OF CHANHASSEN )SS. eARVCOUN INSA EPCounty of Carver ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.2014-27 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized Commission will hold a public agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- hearing on Tuesday, September lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: 16, 2014, at 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33IA.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as consider a request for Variances amended - to exceed the impervious surface 00 limitation and the shoreland (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. setback limitation to construct was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said a patio on property zoned Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of Single Family Residential (RSF) the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both and located at 9015 Lake Riley inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: and publication of the Notice: Rosemary Kelly. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available abcdefghUklmnopgrs[u ryz for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/2014-27 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited Laurie A. Hartmann to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Subscribed and sworn before me on Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intem Email: dingvalsonCa ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 this day of 2014 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, September 4. 2014; No. 4008) =Wy ARK -A Public r.8 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch SCANNED 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.2014-27 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2014, 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 exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: Rosemary Kelly. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-27 or 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. Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern Email: din¢valson(@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 4, 2014) SCANNED Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 4 Staff reviewed city records to determine if front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property and also properties along Lake Riley Boulevard which lie outside of the 500 foot radius. This review turned up the following cases: Variance Shoreland Address File Variance Setback Number 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 121999: 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 Rile Blvd of 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 Rile 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 SCANNED 0 • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET EXISTING AND PROPOSED HARDCOVER Property Address: L R, � j A. House X = 2,2 z 5 S.F. -S X = — S.F. X = I S.F. X = S.F. X = S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. X = S.F. C. Driveway X = (o I Z S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalks X = l S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck X = S.F. X = S.F. F.Other cs_c• p,Ls x S.F. (i.e. shed, etc.) X = S.F. X = S.F. \ l TOTAL HARDCOVER: �.�Zy S.F.367g 3ge5 30.07_ TOTAL LOT SIZE: I Z, g c L� S.F. ` c s _ HARDCOVERPERCENTAGE: 25 `X 0 q�fj ' MAXIMUM%ALLOWABLE: 26 c % Prepared by: Date: Signature: Reviewed by: Comments: Date: SCANNED G:\PtAN\Forms\Hardcover Calculation Worksheet.xls 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET EXISTING AND PROPOSED HARDCOVER Property Address: A. House X = Z 2.5 S.F. c ep X S.F. ( p. X = / - E S.F. X = S.F. X — S.F. B. Garage X = S.F. X = S.F. C. Driveway X = r2 S.F. X = S.F. 3 �9 o� D. Sidewalks X = 170 S.F. 'IT 5b6 X = 2 $ S.F. E. Patio/Deck x _ Z j S.F. X = S.F. (� " F. Other Yf u5 �- T A, 3 s`"e ` Xc W 3a1 S.F. (i.e. shed, etc.) T ,pi X — j Zaj, S.F. � x = S.F. u p 2 Cq ZY b TOTAL HARDCOVER S.F. I "Zr r 3� 1 TOTAL LOT SIZE: 2 , 32 S . d p Tf r�Kl HARDCOVER PERCENTAGE: % It 3% MAXIMUM%ALLOWABLE: % 3T,5° �S Signature: Reviewed by: Comments: Date: Date: SCANNED G:\PLAN\forms\Hardcover Calculation Worksheet.xls iI I ' � � •. I i i i I I__l _I I 1 I I ! ! 1 i`I ''��Dl I !�I Of� , I IYI I I I I I I I I I i L L I- I I I I I j 1- 11 I _I ! h �, I I I I I I j I �I I -I I- J '_.1�;.�� .. _ ,.-- - I y • ' g�• VT ,o n 31Va d3a .AS 30 Z7 A8 : 'IVa a ••1d3a [�`[',� SAS Q V ki dory N01 b3 lbH j03S S1by A1Jvn co n r pZ �b9 C6 i,h o m I o x Q �( m m coin I ai 11% a ` m w Lj J i (a33o 3 r�i r ;t— /n � Lq co j c w � x j W Y YN aam e nm P m =on U j W aWmew I9L9 � L1,/ � < a 3 BLS � w Oxoe7�eW ' na <`T fit: k008 &3d 1 N3ry3S y3 Alnun 0Nb 133 5 �1� -10 IH S(73- 08�d V1� V m v w Z a1 co OW W - g7 4r \ N -H O I NoCN 00 � U) N LLIm w� m O I- V J Lu �O m LL am Z /\ / n cow 5M5N3d :0 Mil Ni com 39 CO i.YW SMS AVH 93AViS NOInnuiSi405 WUNIM 9NIURG f(MV1393A miw 0� 1; 5I im li1Nn Niti1NlVW ONd NOIi7AVDX3 - II 01 ?]OWd MAiins 3E3 3!t/ minn tiolaNY Nirld 3Hi NO NMOHS SY 9NI5N33 1 1OXIM01 NOfS N1 13dki llViSNI io33p — _ (0330 3_ b �.�gQ z tiS.Sy o _ S,SboLON) ZS VC , gSo�ON M(09 p1S3M) rm' 0 O w w W GI 0 — is ib Zagtb COIBDIM 3 Bc b 'Or g Racket' Balder n the LaAcope I Felix Peony C 6c tree / bed edgg codd <F awm ft free B Woker4 Lau ColrriM1 Ex La,d-xc m a Lordscrye El AC store Edjrg Pare- Bm3g / Streot • MN Bac w6 ile��w Om F6 �•l SCALE N FEET thn� d aA Orastains teps Ex Ex Id Side xik Lice JJrI 9aidm to>e 5 Fedhw Reed Kai Faasta' 5 Sedm Mwm Dd* t FAUN lack Steps / 2 Prairie Dropseed 25 yq! of Pd+o adds a,<�ae Sax or Block m oruo at / the exatrg vattxe l Qikaplad C4ea. 9oxoxnd 45fF deck to Joke 4d From patio to Ise Ex Lain Ex Wd",N� I Dwa y reps sakes skb I W-ww-n1i. 1 � FFA ' Stone Snfig Wd Block 5dlig Wd Paer Bw&g Block 5ttig Wd Ex Lo= mod•: 16 f,T vise �✓+... OHW 11w( E.L� SCANNED 0 ZZg7 _ 27 qv Sb-P TZ J3 f �zs 2 / O� e A ,�,C1,�,— sd-k�(,�y /Z (� 3 2. V �5- 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: August 20, 2014 SUBJ: Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Planning Case: 2014-27 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment. 6.'TLAN12014 Planning Ca \2014-27 9015 lake Riley Blvd Variance%uildingofficialwm ents.doc • City of Chanhassen • 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: August 20, 2014 Review Response Deadline: September 4, 2014 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern Subject: Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: Rosemary Kelly Planning Case: 2014-27 PID: 25-0240300 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on August 15, 2014. The 60-day review period ends October 14, 2014. 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 September 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than September 4, 2014. 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 E 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 7. Carver County 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 SCANNED Property Card Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI ROSEMARY F KELLY Mailing Address PO BOX 490 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0490 Property Address Address 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD City CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Parcel ID Number 250240300 Parcel information Uses Res 1 unit GIS Acres 0.29 Tax Acres 0.22 Plat Lot Block P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS: COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE Tax Description 1293.86' TH N89'E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89'E 49.60' TH N 247.87' TH N89'E 714.51' TH N20'E 304.42' TH N14'E 470.07' TH N13`E 11.86' TH N44'E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13'E FROM N Building Information Building Style 1 STORY Finished Sq Ft 2395 Bedrooms 4 Year Built 2007 Other Garage Y Bathrooms 2.50 Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0112 WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF Y N N CREEK Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2013 Values 2014 Values Last Sale (Payable 2014) (Payable 2015) Land $337,700.00 $344.100.00 Date of Sale 04123/2010 Building $436,500.00 $485,500.00 Sale Value $950,000.00 Total $774,200.00 $8P9,B00.00 Qualified/ Q Unqualified Disclaimer. This mfonnatwn is to be used for reference purposes only. Carver County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this service acknowledges that the County shall not be liable for any damages. and CA expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the County from any and all claims brought by User CARVER its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. COUNTY Wednesday, August 20, 2014 Carver County, MN Page 1 of 1 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN • • P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/18/2014 3:38 PM Receipt No. 00260097 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Rosemary Kelly Phillip Sosnowski 5532 Knox Ave S Minneapolis MN 55419- 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Planning Case 2014-27 ------------------------------------------------------- Variance 200.00 Notification Sign 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 GIS List 39.00 Total Cash Check 5405 Change 489.00 0.00 489.00 0.00 SCANNED 11 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014-27 $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign $39.00 Property Owners List $50.00 Escrow for filing fees (Variance) $489.00 TOTAL $489.00 Less Check 5405 from Rosemary Kelly $0.00 BALANCE SCANNED