The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Papedis Variance CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us If MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: \)~ September 24, 2007 SUBJ: Papedis Variance Request - 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition Planning Case #07-19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is appealing a denial of their variance request for an after-the-fact 5.3% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 4,2007. The Planning Commission voted five for and one against a motion denying the hard surface coverage variance. Planning Commission discussion brought up the importance of the 25% hard surface coverage maximum due to past flooding situations in the adjacent neighborhood directly south of Pinehurst. The 25% maximum hardcover was addressed when Pinehurst was being platted. At that time, staff was concerned about the lack of available buildable surface due to the size of homes being proposed on the lots. As a result, Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst 2nd Addition and reduced the number lots from 43 to 41. A homeowner from Manchester Drive, directly south of the site, expressed concern for his home flooding a third time due to the runoff produced from the Pinehurst Development. The applicant representing the homeowner is the landscape architect. He proposed a dry well system and other storm water infiltration applications which are designed to collect runoff and allow it absorb into the ground before it reaches the storm water pond. The applicant also brought a letter of reference from Westwood Professional Services for an alternate runoff application for the subject site which consisted of a trench drain. The concern of the Planning Commission regarding these alternative applications was if they would work with the soils in Chanhassen. The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play Todd Gerhardt September 24, 2007 Page 2 of 2 The City Council has had discussions regarding credit for pervious applications and has not yet reached a conclusion with regard to the monitoring, installation and maintenance that would be required to ensure the applications are in fact pervious. A second issue brought up in the discussion was the fact that the hardscape was put into place without a permit. The City requires a Residential Zoning Permit for all improvements to a parcel. It is up to the homeowner and/or contractor to contact the City and inquire and apply for such permit prior to installation. The Planning Commission expressed their opinion that if a homeowner is going to spend the time and money on a project, then they should at least call the City to inquire about city ordinances. The permit information is also available on the City's website. A third issue brought up in the discussion was whether or not to include the deck in the impervious coverage. The decking used on the site has small drainage holes rather than a straight slatted decking, which clog easily with debris leaving pools of water; however, as a policy, staff has excluded standard slatted decks from the hard surface coverage calculations. Based on that policy the deck was approved prior to the variance request; therefore, the deck is eliminated from the impervious surface calculations, and the staff report has been revised to reflect that change. The Planning Commission minutes for September 4, 2007 are attached to this report. RECOMMENDA TION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion as specified on page 8 in the staff report dated September 4,2007 denying the hard surface coverage variance with the condition to bring the property into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage and adopt the attached Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Southview Design Appealing Planning Commission Denial. 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 4, 2007. 4. Planning Commission Minutes for September 4, 2007. g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc variance\executive summary.doc September 10, 2007 Dear Angie, I am writing to inform you that I am appealing the denial decision made by the planning commission on September 4th regarding the variance request at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. The planning case for this site is 07-19. I understand that we will need to meet in the near future and review this project with the City Council. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday IW,;E. I. ~~~thview Design ;,[J):'L..)_~ September 11 th to start discussions on how we might be able to work 1875 East 50th Street Inver Grove Heights Minnesota 55077 I,'JJ::"]! together to better understand any opportunities to correct run off with the current hardscapes on site. If you have any further questions or need any East Met.ro 651.455-8238 Northwest Metro 763~422-018 Southwest Metro 952.881.229 1:,\ 651.455.1734 jin C:TEC:~ additional information, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you. . Outdoor Living . Commercial & Residen tial . Professional Planning . Greenscapes . Waterscapes . Irrigation . Hardscapes . Concrete Pavers . Custom Services \'.~iX:!E www.southviewdesign.com /'- ~~~~I ~l:~~~ l~J.;~~~~~~_I~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Southview Design for a 5.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape - Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 4, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Appeal of South view Design for a 5.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single- Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, which had been denied at the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed variance. The City Council reviewed the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission minutes, heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residc:ntial (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. 1 d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 24,2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the construction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24th day of September, 2007. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc variance\cc findings offact.doc 2 ~ z < u ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ < Q ~ ~ ~ 00 PC DATE: 9/4/07 CC DATE: 9/24/07 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/2/07 CASE #: 07-19 BY: AA STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an, after the fact, 5.3% +4% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. LOCATION: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition APPLICANT: OWNER: Ojar Papedis 2101 Pinehurst Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Tim Johnson South view Design 1875 East 50th Street Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.44 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 5.3% +:4% hard surface variance for the addition of patios and hardscape. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. ~ 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 2 of9 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 30.3% ~ hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. The property is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). It is located on Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. The City received a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 23.2% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. The contractor received notice by a building inspector on July 30,2007, that the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 25% and that all hardscape improvements require a Residential Zoning Permit. At the time the contractor was notified the installation of the deck and patios was nearly complete. The contractor then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property with adequate outdoor expansion area and approval of this application could set a precedent. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 3 of 9 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 23, Block 1, in the Pinehurst 2nd Addition which is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The subject property is 19,423 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 108 feet and approximately 265 feet in depth. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square-foot lot, 90-foot lot frontage and 125-foot lot depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the property was approved on January 16, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 23.2%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 23.2% coverage allowed for future improvements, such as a patio. Based on the building permit application, the homeowner would have had an additional 345 square feet of hard surface for future expansion. ! I I ,o!<~~<' (~~ r: ~.~, . ~.#,~,:>...... ~-<"t'!' ..~..'" ..:(~(" i ~ .~ i t , l.a.:...... m':;:::.~.. ~.I ;--- ~ ~I 1=-' ~END j .~, ~/~?m- ~ W[~r;-~l ~";~1 :.:. ! ~;~-:::~:.:: "':"'f~.,.._v..._..._.____t-_. ;!'V-'^;~~~- D::rd;:: "r... 1oI;:;1I'A""lVt 1l1l!",olw::oo.r1..Y-L1n::I'04' t'~oUl ::'(I":I~ E..,:m.-'! !'l.....~~~ ".I..!!,.. '"'_.~-.. DI!!"'c.t.!!~ rey .,;, f'l"l_ O:l'lot:! ....~... II;' lIodl !.M1I:.u. ~t'l'c..:lI.;u:o..I' Llln ~N+-N ~L"1.1l ~'~-.""( :;(1':. ....~~tl ~...... Itln Ylol'fT "!('!",r, ~, I ... ;: ~ ~^r~ r T~'" -~!~ ll'~~':";=-' :.::':~~ C:():0', .~~."...~. ....)...~. ,. ..._-: Hill ~"....,.., '..t~, ...;lo'lr."r-.~ I T.',._ . ~~~...~>:;t.'~; l. 1 :.....1 "!\E'f.,"~.,. ;'''A.rr''Tri C l.IIl".I...........t,....,...-tr....."'.MoI:;...'t.,'.i:,f'lt "1'.E-Hl'lffl-iC ",tl"liO('1'i' . L~f,," ...:( n .. '11'"" "."'''"I..,too.. I'"'' T".~.......,"'.~.......l... "......... rvr" ....~.'::~.:;:.:;..~~~~ ..~.'.~l;...".......1....I.If;_'-}' Ub. . J ....J...I'...."'~i'I.'I.."'...tc....I'......',.....~..........I.:;.:.:bI..\oI...fU.................... t.rv.: :.*.....,~,..r:.IL.. """..,. ." '~""".I .......'N: .... '...I.,......_....'.............'........'..fl.Jl,..'UIU.a_.J..I(...'C:__I..I.,.,...' ............r;Jl "~.,, ~''''.; .....~."' 10..... '.I"......l ::...,.....", NJ'''I'~ 1. r...t-o"........'.'H tr,~ .h'_.....~'li!...:t~~. ~2'I......lo.....il~ti,.r.............. ..",...........\. ;.iM. ...1<-.), :.,;;:.:~;7~.".,'.......I""..... )r.Gft',: ""'(fII;:OX ~~ ..."......., 10 ...Ul..f'.,r,;........ lOt /1; i!"<o,J -. " "Of>'_,..,.,........(....,._ -,~:t.~ ,......~031,,&-L....~I_.."I....I....I...... ..11.. ...,.._ ,...."........,' I.'H. ... ~.lf...~1 ,. ""'~I ,"r~- t~e..x."TIC~ t... :"''''' ~t""M I, ~~~~~n:t;:::~::r ;:~.~;4;:...".::,~ ~~:;.~;: ;:."~; ~=:,=~_h...:N~".~1 :....,.. ..,.," '1..'D4_'~ '.T~ C;.';' f~l. ',:'f' .1'. '. 'r' I)',t-'.... ;:....."-:a.l....,to"., c.7'! ~ "'L~ J)I,;:..c." t-~~~~...r...~ i ""-~"r..' ..." .....-~f:\v.".,:t.. ,;,'.l<,"'lXr....t.Ul: ,I '4" I k ~"ll" li.ii:'s;!IE:-;:l",c'..' i""ojoo:l "':'~" f':>_--.__...-'-t'"..-: }~f~I~} kD .u:.:>m(li '~". 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4,2007 Page 4 of 9 At the time the Pinehurst Development was going through the public hearing process in 2006, hard surface coverage was a concern on these lots. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. Pinehurst was replatted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the lot size on some of the lots. Due to the size of the homes proposed by the developer, the developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for any further improvements or additions on these lots. In an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten-feet by ten-feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 5.3% +A% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. The lot area is 19,423 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, etc. may occupy 4,858 square feet. The original building permit occupied 4,513 square feet of hard cover, the remaining impervious surface allowed was 345 square feet. The proposed hard cover additions occupy 1,374-l-,+8{:) square feet, which is 1,029 ~ square feet over what is allowed by ordinance for this parcel. Much of the impervious surface is currently installed on the site. i ~!; ~l ~J ~5:U; ~ a ~ mlm! fi~~~ " n!HTITFPT~ ~ ,~U' " t t f - r ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ 'r I ! f . -,.1 j ':_j ,-<,-,:;.( ,-',:J:S:~~- '~-;l.-::~-.' -."~,.~~""}_? ~- - ; ,.~" <<-:" ~-'>', :-.l:.' -r;t..~lI:t:, (1- ,~: ,"'.. ,.' . ').,..-~,. " . ",.~, -', . .."g; .~.'~ <:;-::L-. . /:.~~~ r<; i I I I r. ..'.... <Jo/;-., g;' . i I'; ,::.....~-~.-4.~~~. ...~-~y.~ ! ~;i-J (- i 0;:-, r .~-;-:;'1)~,! "",~,' ; ; !, I-'~''i: ~:~' . .,,::.t..u~,J~;~~".5y;r , _..:t..__ _ ,_._,t._ ".~ ..... I", r .j. '. i j li i 1 i! Ii' , I I~ ~ ;i! ~L : i\~\' i- l / r / j:"" ! I I' i-..J r, I f! It' i Mlh< i (,:] .o~~';;;-::~::gl~t' f I \ \ ~;" I I 'I ,I ..' i-'" 'cti - --I f \ \ \' :(:'f' \;g_J \ \ \ -f (. <;" <':) \ I \ \. 'J ~ :_'~eo.:..;) \. \ 1,' ., 0- . [Ill II ,j ~ t I j i r: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 5 of 9 Surface Building Permit Proposed Square Feet Square Feet House/GaragelPorch 3,232 3,232 Driveway 1,281 1,281 Front Sidewalk 170 Upper Patio 445 Fire Pit 225 Fire Pit Boulder Ring 16 Stone Steps 28 ~ 4Ge Lower Wall 160 Upper Wall 205 Steppers 125 Total 4,513 or 23.2 % 5,887 or 30.3% G,293 or 32.4 % (Note: As a policy staff does not include standard slatted decking as hard cover; ho'.vever, upon inspection of the site the decking is a composite material that interlocks, leaving only a small drainage opening for rain to fIo'.',' through. These small drainage holes get blocked with debris and do not allow ',','ater to run through. Impervious surface is defined as "any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water." Due to the lack of drainage permitted by this type of decking, staff is including the decking as hard cover.) There is not an exiting door under the deck and the applicant has communicated to staff that this space will remain green and will not have any impervious surfaces. Staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process. Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst 2nd Addition to eliminate two lots in 2006. It is the developer and real estate agent's duty to inform the prospective homeowner of any and all limitations on the site. Since Lennar Homes is also the builder, they were aware of the constraints on the property. Due to the nature of the homes in this development, the expectation is to improve the exterior of the property with landscaping and hardscaping. Prospective homeowners should have been made aware of the impervious restrictions prior to building on these lots. In addition, all hardscape improvements require approval of a Residential Zoning Permit obtained by the homeowner or contractor. A building inspector was conducting an inspection at a different site and noticed the improvements. He informed the contractor of the 25% hard surface coverage restrictions on the site and that the contractor must discontinue the installation of the deck and patios and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit prior to resuming construction. A residential zoning permit acts as a safety net to identify any potential code violations, such as setback encroachments and hard cover requirements, prior to construction. This permit is at no 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4,2007 Page 6 of9 cost to the homeowner and allows the City and the homeowner an opportunity to correct any encroachments before installation begins. It is the contractor/homeowner's responsibility to contact the City prior to construction and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit to ensure compliance with city code. If a variance is granted from the 25% hard surface maximum, it may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes significantly in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1051.3 to 1034, which constitutes a 17.3-foot drop in a matter of 70 feet. A storm water pond is located outside of the property lines, just to the west of the rear yard of the property. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square-foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types Band C, soils containing non-permeable material, such as clay. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two-car garage. A single-family home with a three-car garage is currently constructed on the property. Even after the initial construction of the home, there was 345 square feet of additional hard cover allowed on the property. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 7 of 9 downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two-car garage, and the addition of a ten-foot by ten-foot patio could be constructed without a variance. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self- created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variance Request Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 8 of9 Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that and the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopts the following motion: ''The City Council Planning Commission denies Variance 07-19 for a 5.3% +:4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%." A TT ACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of hardscape design. 5. Pinehurst Hydrograph Report-Drainage Area 10. 6. Drainage Map for Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 7. Hydrology Guide for Minnesota, figure 3-2. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-]9 210] pinehurst hsc variance\staffreport.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Southview Design for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape - Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 4, 2007, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of South view Design for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 210 1 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single-Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/ Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. 1 d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 4,2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the construction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 4th day of September, 2007. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc variance\findings offact.doc 2 Planning Case No. Of --l9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 erfY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 0 2 2007 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION tt' ~~, .":~t~N PLANNING DEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: -:::O~'ct\j\C vJ ""DeSI ~.J D~~ "-fyPcO\ S. \<&1'5 E. 50~ sT Z\Ot B~\-\-V~S\ ~\\J~ \N"~~e ~~\-\-\S M~ SS011 ~+\~~ MtJ SS'~I"1 Contact: \ t-I\ ~~ON Contact Phone: Fax: (G\ ~SS 1-'3a Phone: lDl"2. '3cfl 'Z..\ 11 Fax: Email: \~~~P_~~\J\~\'I1'CotA Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) L Variance (VARru ~ .06 Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) c $ \. r;v A J x ~ for Filing Fee~At.tQ!ney Cost" - $50 UP/SPRNAC@BJWAP/Metes & Bounds - o MinorSUB (,)_.~. I "\SA *] E"'A (5%:> ~l \Je'Cl V Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ ~::>u, yVlOt\t-- y I zJo 7 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. . Site Plan Review (SPRY *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diQital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged farAtltlED each application. Jul 31 2007 6:07PM OJARS PAPEDIS 9528449823 p.3 PROJECT NAME: _LJp...-.J'Dsc ffiN b f'd2- o~M- LOCATION: 2-l0 \ -Pttu\2'l~S, :Dt2lV'c? LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PAPEOt C;. L.etJtJl\1Z.{~ t)ev. N i>'\ / .Jet-vol t-J & 15 uJ D NO A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This Is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of OWners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of TrUe or purchase agreement), or I am Ihe authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. ) further understand that additional fees 1'l)El}' ~arged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to lf6ceed with t/st y. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowled I J. I I. 1ft/07 Date I;P7 G:\pLAN\fonns\Oevelopmenl Review Application.DOC Rev. 12105 GCAtltlEO ,,:;3~ g;,~,~ ' .~l.~ ,.~'t<~J;r.l:. f-~~ ~ D >: "C ~ ~ C ~ C ~ 0 ~ :;; ~ ~ E ~ ~ '" '0 o 1; .... '" a: => I W Z a: ai "C C G < . ~ c5 ~ ~ > <; ~ ~ ~ z '" <Il ,..: fI) ....... D. ...:@ = UJ ~~~ = c ;iC'; '" Cl :r:~ CN z 0'" .... 0: g;~ 'U :z UJ r:: <( z ....., a 0 z IlJ r en 's ~ ,1j il .... 1: ~ ~ ;0 E c ,g~ ~= ~- ~.2 ol';- ~~ C G o~ ~ ~.Q xG G~ t* ~~ ~5 g= 51; . C ~ "C ~ .>< u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l _0 _ ~[ g ~o~ : ~~ ~ ~. ~B ~ I! g >.0:; ..: ~~ ~J2 .. ~~ ,,~ Do; -ga ~~ ~~ cG .g~ ~: ~ ~ '- c 4).,2 oS <<l 0"0 fiB .c ~ .J: 0 o.~ .!! ~ ~~ ~~ "'~ z o >= o o < o 1; .... '" a: => J: W Z a: c o u ~ . c o u r':;~:: tJ -$~ ( 1'1 *,.4 : t ttJ g g g fi ~ ?? ~ u ~ :as "0 E. ~o~ 5~ ~o ~~ EJ!! ". D~ ~~ G. [~ .~ ;: t:~ &.'g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(I) D ~E ~ ~;: 0 .2! ~ '0 -5 It: >. _~ G 5~ ;; of~ ~ B<<l ~ 1i'~ ~ ~= ! =5 0 ~ o~ .2! e 0- "C o ~ ~ J2 "C ~ . ~ 1: "C i i~ ~~ 4)0!.'! u~ o!.'!~ ;;0 CC ~~ O~ ~; o=~ ~G =~ cu -c "CG CD .2~ ~- ~- ;;~ ;'~ og~ ~~ ~~ ~ u 00 :O:o~ MD I :; f u .: .>< u o iii ,.; S .IH" t t " " "!~CO -.........: "''''''' 000 ;;; " D "C ! c ~ o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ . -g~ ~~ ~"C ~* <D "C g~ .:::~ ~a ~.EU') _l';-CJ) .Q~oi ~~;g *1-; :~> ~~w ~O'" _~w C"C OG Q::g ....~ Ma. ~ . ~ ~ u c .. ~ .. ~ ~ u Z o >= o o < o z ~ ~ a: < => u I u: W >= z a: a: w .: 0 .>< !'l u a: ii5 ~ ~ ~ o => .., '" ~ " "C C ~ ~12 ~u oG "DOl ~~ .><. u~ ~~ ~~ "", o o "C "C G ~ " ~ > o CG ~~.Q cG- .2~j ~~~ .o~ ~OO 00= 0 ,,~'" cat) s~j "c"c"c ~~~ ... 000 e-g.g. o..n:c: :g~ 0,"': U:g ;;;- ~ " . . ;;> ~W 0'" ",W r z ,.: II I ffi :r > ~ fi 8 :I: > o Cl ~ a l1. <r 0 ;;; 'i !; . g g ~ ~ " ~ :I: J- ~ E 0- o . ~ :> E ~ ~zUJ IO z~ "';0 .0 N< s B $ ~ t.@ -..... Q~E-< 'i~~ ~ I~~j Q~ C ~ ~ cg-g:8 .3 0 C)EvOO= ~ E e GJ i';.Q.~ ~ .....- ~o"OCla.. 0 z ~gH+~~ ~ ~1ig-:!!~2 8.~ffi~ .!::Uld:xOU f ~:c """ w....a:: CL. (/)z ~~I)::" G)Ul:>-=C ~~~rdi~~~ oooa~~~ti~~ z o >= 0- il: u '" w o ~ a: w 0- o 0: 0- ..: Cl Z w c.? W ..J o N J:1 i m N ~ Vie w"C ...."C 0< oz""': 0- ~\))~ ~iS~ '?o"'~ \)).s- ~ .> "1"~~ "l-" C$;.,ct, -'\PV ,<",~~ ~o '?,j> V'~ d'6- ~ ~]..I~ NOf..! 110 i\1 ON \1'.)07 3 ';/ 1J1r!O'r! lJ]k\}1I\1I1S 711\' ..$"" ..O:L,) ,,\1'..I/A. . VJ.NO~"'r!S ,\~ 10 ..- 'm NN ~ ~i f ~~U .. J., ~ ;~~ f ~ "Ii. I 05 rl-- J' \ V~/ "'-J I ..._- -~ - ... " y \ \ \ ~;I~;I~ I>: ... 2- ~ o~ ... ""'... 0 ,).: !i~ ... ~ 8.:J/2;::~'" 'l.Cl<:i!:t:!"'-i ~!J!o:::'!f:5 ;;;"'Oi~S- o::Q,~ >.. f}fo:...~!i5!1:J ~~~ii?Q~ " Is!J :,: :::. !:J ~ 12 ~)!J ~:!:t ;::",..."'-fiJ"'''' ~'" 0 ......~ 0 ......t:!~:!o:::. :::}gJg~cS ~~~~41.::J::- ~ vi:::::"; :::;'r,K ~ ~ ~ ~ V >.. ~ r; ~tj~g~~ "'<<:8~ ... bp"3SV8-1llnJJ = ~""".ro.INTJJ_ - lm9J.:1n - Loat 't~' Hydrograph Report 13 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Jul6 2005,9:12 AM Hyd. No. 11 DA-10 Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 16.66 ac Basin Slope = 3.5% T c method = LAG Total precip. = 6.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Peak discharge = 49.96 cfs Time interval = 3 min Curve number = 72 Hydraulic length = 1100 ft Time of conc. (Te) = 23.2 min Distribution = Type II Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 4.052 act! Hydrograph Discharge Table Time -- Outflow (hrs cfs) ( Printed values >::::t 100% of Qp.) 12.10 49.96 << ...End .... .... ~ NO . W ~~ Z 'N 0'. M ~ I8 ~ ~~ f5 ~! it U2 8 !i ~~ P'L\-~~~~if::::~. j..~.;.r~rl';~'~'::--"""'_~_ /"'-' c::....:;:\=;,i:;~!~~~~J;. "'-~," "~/;;~'-'.:::':} '(Ii/{/";~,_,~ ~ ,>....~ ':'.~' . y::'::,:,::;o:_,-~ ~ '\ v ;~ / ~ '\ \ I, :-~ ". ....- , .," , '",' . I '('t''': W ~;~j}t;f~;i ,J'\~ .... ".-- // ~ff ,n , <: '\ '-. '.::;::-~:>.::;:::~=--_.. \\~\. ;!'.::;\.~ ~ '- I '. \ --'-.." ';'..\"".. r'""1" \ \ ~ - -"/-'~'~~:':'~'-" ',"', ;:.:~..I/''''..1 .,::.:,\. ~o .:;~:::-'- . ~ ~ ./ ,..../,; .... ~ .! )/ 'i/ ! j/ " . ,I,: : /JV .f ,'I I I I I i f ( ; . ,. ~ ~ il ClIp.. S .. g.::s :;: .. .. bO 0" ..!..~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ b .... ~ J ~ I Il.. u ,..J ,..J , .... l:: Q.I El II" 0..' 51 o J/j Qjl ~ il o~ [Gli I-< cd ~ <I) ~ o !ii: I III j l~ l~ " II Lh ~I t l ~I ~ J oJ g '" ~ 1 J!! of: g !H 2 'H " t- ~ ul );;~?< SOUe.Cf~" j{~dro\~ Gu',de. -m.- MII'\re-~" - U ,S,'I?..4. Soil LOYlsenn.'fif\ 'So"V I c: "'mM~' ~ ,"","""M II SOIL CONSERVAnON SERVICE , MN-ENG-73 9-76 (File Code ENG-13) FIGURE 3-2 HYDROLOGIC CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION SHEET LAND USE FOR URBAN AREAS Present or Future Watershed Site D.A. Acres Computed by Date Checked by Date Curve Numbers Acres Moisture Condition II LAND USE DESCRIPTION Per A B C D Practice Soils Soils Soils Soils Product Cul ti vated Land: without conservation treatment 72 81 88 91 with conservation treatment 62 71 78 81 Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89 good condition 3q 61 74 80 Meadow: good condition 30 58 71 78 Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 77 83 , good cover 25 55 70 77 Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, ceme- teries, etc. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 39 61 74 80 fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 49 69 79 84 Corrnnercial and .business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95 Industrial districts (72:% impervious) 81 88 91 93 Residential: Average lot size Average % Impervious 1/8 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92 1/4 acre 3B 61 75 83 87 '1/3 acre (I<t\520S~) 30 57 72 81 86 1/2 acre (2.l17Bo5,f.) 25 54 70 80 85 1 acre 20 51 68 79 84 Paved parking lots, roofs, dri ve\'lays, etc. 98 98 98 98 Streets and roads: p~ved with curbs and storm sewers 98 98 98 98 . , gravel 76 85 89 91 dirt 72 82 87 89 t1arsh !:J5 !:J5 !:J5 85 Other Total Acres Weighted Runoff Curve No. Product Total Total Acres Product Total 3-4 II II II II II JI I II ~ II II - I II , II CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 23, 2007, 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 2101 Pinehurst Variance - Planning Case 07-19 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thi~ day of --.AUCJl ~h+- , 2007. ~INII ---r ~" n ~A"- '-' Notary Pu ic ~~x~ ~1~1~,~!~,~~~:~~~~ta I ~, /. ,,'" ~ ."';;,:,:. :"', ';orno',lc'''Of' "'AjillesJan 31, 2010 I- ... CD CD ~ tnS r::: I- I- U) ~ U) Cts,_ CD E ::I: o E .- 0 :CU :Jtn c..c: .... ,- o 2 Q) Cts 0- .- a.. ~ o c: ZQ) U) U) Cts .r::: r::: Cts .r::: U tn r::: .- ... Q) Q) ~ c: tno r::: .- ._ U) ~ U) Cts.- ~E o E ._ 0 -u ,Q :Jtn c..r::: .- ....r::: o r::: Q) Cts 0- .- c.. ... o c: ZCD U) U) ctS .r::: c: Cts .r::: U tn c: (5 C >- o:l E oi ~-g -;: ~ ~ o:l J::.Q) en -E "'C :c-~ f-::cn8 B . Q) ..... c: ;::; ~ ~ ~ -~ g O'Q)......ctl Ul 0J::.~ > ~ o~ 0::: ~ "oou '0 I'- S:! 0 ctl CO -~ I'- Q5 ~ I'- -g I'- E; iii o~(/)U ~ 0Q)Q5Q) ... C\I-O.oU ~ .,;gE{g f! Q5 -~ ~;jl ~ ~ E~O~ ~~~ Q) ,- ctl _~, 0 Q) J::. U J:: 'iij - Ul Q.~ C Q) ~,- Q) ';: ~ ~ 0 :J g. U)ElOO~~E ~.!!1 _ ::: Q) C I: Cll ';:; Cll en '5 a:.2 -OCIQ)J:: OJ (/)::l>a-..-u ~@~Q)~~.s! I- ti () a: (J) C\I <C G) E i= ~ G) - III C .. .. .;.: .. s:: III s:: >-s:: Oenlllt::O .- 0 U G);:; ili c. =a a. III ge~eg ..JQ.<CQ...J (5 C >- o:l E oi Cl-O C C -;: ~ ~ Cll J::.Q) (f) -E "'0 ~O~Q) . <D ..... g ~~~ ,~ 0.Q) ...... ctl or:. ctl > o~~ ~ .. 0 0 ~, I'- S:! 0 ctl CO ,~ I'- Q5 I'- -g I'- > 0~(/)8 OO)......Q) C\I -0 Q) U .,;gE{g Q5 -~ ~ ;jl E ~ () ~8: Q) Q) '13 ctl.- .....-Ec..c:cn o.c :J ctl Q) Q) -;: 0 ...... 0 (J)20.E ~ ~.!!1 _ Q) ctl 'E ctl (/) '5 -g5I>~=: ~@~Q)~ I- ti 0 a: (J) G) E i= ~ G) - III C .. .. .;.; .. s:: III s:: >-s:: Oenlllt::O ;:; 0 .~ G);:; III I 0 0. a. III ge~eg ..JQ.<CQ...J o G) Q)~~ (/) _ ~ E ~>- J::O- Q) (/) (/) - III III -J::-o (/) '>- ~ C_~ -......ctl (/) >Q)>- Q)Q)lllen :J0Q) :J Q) :J-'OcEJ::>...... 0.0_ ~ U (/) oO)......~t-lll~ ~~~ ~ (/) ctl >-~O~ctloG)~ :J~~ ~U ~ ~ ~u~~g;~G) ~~~ o.~ ~ ~ctl~~-o~=J:: E J:: J:: "0 e 'iij g> _ c E E Q) g-:: -; ~ ...... - () ~ 0. "~ ~ J:: 0 ~ .g =: U E > s:: ~~~OO&~~EE w ~~~cnBm~~~ -......-O'o-:J E ~(/)(/)0>-~-1llG) 0..... - Q) ...... cO.o Q) ,- ctl ctl - 0. > en E -~O)~o.o 0 J:: QQ)J::~oe~~ ,~ 0. ii _ Q) (/) ~ Q) - C 0. C 0 U 0. _ _ s:: C u, J:: J:: Q) ctl _ ctl 0 Q) - ...... en 0 0).- Q) C - C - _ ...... :0 - J:: C = 0 .- .- 'E .~ E ':i: '0 ~ ~ -0 .E.. ~ ~ ,~"5 0 ~ - a; ~ ctlctl o~ ......C Q)coQ)~u:JQ)=t::~'E- Q)EQ)~ c.....ctl .oQ)(/)~@o>~oen J:: 0 =: ..... ,~ Q) -0 -0 (/) --...... >- ctl (J) a. J:l E uoO)Q)~(/)~Q) cO)(/)(/)=:.....J:: G)G) = - C J:: Q) ~ .- (/) ~ ~ ~ :c ~ -: 0 . ~ :: 8 .0 -0 '': - > 0. Q) .2 0..0 C - :J ..- - 0)_ :JC:JJ::O ~u Q)Q)E~ctlM~Ellln2 ~ctlO~c~"""~ J::~~Octl~a~~G)~ .- ~ ,0 ctl ~ 0) ~ Q) ~ co r..:. Q) Q) G) '0 s:: =:Q)_......Q)CctlC Q)~~ _C\lJ::EJ::......s:: .....:J~=:~ctl(/)~~(/)~ctlQ)~C\I(/)Q)I-a.~ o 0"'0 0) 0) g - ffi U o'~ J:: ~ E ' ::: J:: ,G) Q. Q)Q)......c-o.c Q)_OCQ) C\I__cJ:: gj _~ ~.~ ~ g- E ~ 'e c 0. ~ E ~ ~ en '0 .Q ~ ~ O'--Q)..... E=5ctl~uo.o-CQ)~O- ~~s~E~o~Q)~~~enJ::ctlmu-E-G)S o.U-U(J)I-()o..J:::JO .0~Q)EC c...... Q)~g~ -0 ~;(/)~E~E=~ J:: o..o:J . >- Q) ~ - :J J:: 0 -0 0 s:: ...... I-ctlctlO'..-NM~ ~=:~~~o.Uctlooa enOl s:: s:: G)._ a.- a.G) III G) J::2: _G) 1llJ:: J::- 3:ili ci ,2 '0 r::: Ul ~ - o CIl -0 iii CIl Ul ... CIl > CIl ... Q)CIl .?= oS ......1: 00 -Ul (/)- ......0. :Jra ~E cr::: .- 0 0..:;:; ..-ra og ..- - C\I<C Q)~~ J::O- (/) -J::-o Q) .....~ctS (() .8~~ ~ ~ ctl 0)= U ~ - '-Q) ~ Q) :;::; ~ .0....... '-' o C.!::: ...... U C >-Q) ctl 0.Q) 0 E J:: J:: -0'0 'iij ......-0 Q)...... (/) o E Q) .. (/) 0. U 'E- COJ::(/)OQ)= .- ~ -_ g g- =: .g E 0_ 0)- ...... Co.O ; 5,.!: (/) 0. 0 Q) 0 .- C - 0) Q) (/) J:: Q) 0).- ~.~ =: C - =: 'E .~ E ~ '0 ~ E -0 ctl~ .2 o.e C Q).o~O~C""'ctl J:: 0 _ ......~ Q) -0 -0 UOO)Q)~(/)Q)Q) =-cJ:: Q)>(/) .0 -0 .- - Q) ...... 'Q) 0 :J c:;J:: E; o.uu o.ctlO 0) Q) (/) :J c.:;:...... (/) ,- ~ ,0 ctl > Q)'- =:Q)U..cQ)ciog' ..... :J Q) - > ctl .- o O".~ 0)'- U (/) io ~ Q) ~ e.~ ~ = c Q) ~ gj _(/) 0. io:S; 2:: Q) J:: '0 0. - .~ Q) > ctl E .2 ~ :;@=:J::=Q)E:o'" o.u-u~J::o:JQ) Q)'6.~:5(J)I-Oo..=: J:: 0..0 :J I- ctl ctl 0.,....: C\I M '<t ~Ol G).= a.- a.G) III G) J::2: _G) 1llJ:: J::- 3:ili ~.. enJ!l s:: s:: o G) ;:;E ~ E ~ 0 00 .8 c ~ _ J:: J:l >- (/) (/) C III III > Q) =~ '5 .;: Q) >- Q) III en Q) :J .- .0 C E J:: > ...... (/) oO>......Q)t-lll~ ctl >-co:::::ctloG)J:: Q) ~ ~ (/) '': 0. - J:l I- 0. U:J~Q)(/)_G) 0) ~ ctl ~ E -0 ,~ ~ :5 c -:=:c~.o~o G)2 :;:::; ~oc:J-uE>s:: Q) o>uQ)(/)oQ)G)O;:; Q) ..-Q)(/) --o-J:lG) E ~ (/) (/) 0 >-.- .- III G) ,- ctl ctl - 0. > en E Q) 0Q)J::Q)00'-~ =: co.c gj U 0.:5.& s:: Q) ctl _ctl 0Q)-...... en 0 ...... :fiUJ::J:: c= 0='- .E..'S; Q).~ U 0 ~- G) ~ Q) co \:... '0 U :J Q) = t:: ~ .- .0 ~......@o>ctloenE ~ ~Ci5 ~=:~~U5 g.J:l E ~ ~~:c ~-: 0 .~ ~8 c.. c....... =' ,.- ....... O)~ Q) {E E ~ ctl M ~.~ ctl n ~ J:: ~ ~ 0 ctl~a~~ G).= .... Q)Ll.... 1- Q) .-c Q)(/)(/)ctlctll'-Q)EG)Os:: Q)- (/) -C\lJ:: J::...... (/) ~ ctl ~'(lj C\I (/) Q) I- a. ~ o '~J:: 0 E I .- J:: G) Q. -ecQ)Q)~~-~J::G) c 0. ~ E >- 0> en '0 .Q ~ J:: ctl(/)uo.o-- (/) - ",.-. ctlc Q)(/)O 0 > .?:-'13 (/) J:: Q) U 'E- G) - :J 0'- . 0 ~ Q) E c s::...... o ~ - (/) c E ctl E'- 0 >-Q):;::~:J,g oii oe'': ~=: ~ ~~ o.u ctlO 0 C. ~.. enJ!l s:: s:: OG) ;:;E ~E ~ 0 00 Ql ~ ID ~~ .~ID 00 ~ .Q ~ g~~ c~ _ ~ ~ ~~ 1tl 0 :0::; .~ 0. ~ -5 c: ~'o, g. ~ ca .9 ~~i ~~: ~2 ~<~ ~i ~~.~ ~~~ w~~ ~~ o.ID~ ~w ca rn c .E g ~ ni ~ ro ~ ~ g- $ g> ~ .~ ; 6.g ~'" ~ ~ 0 e 8.~ t'g ~ J? o.E ~ 2;; ~ ~~ ~ ~~ecaa'~E;o~ - oo-c ~i~ ~:~~~~~;~~ ~~ ~~~ m~'~ ~.~6ro=a.~~00~ ~~ ~~g ~Eg~ ~~~~~.~~~~~ J?~ ~~i 'c.g"E g!.g'~~ca~.f5E~ ~~ c~E ~~~ E~~6:g~~g~'~ 1:5: ~~2 "Ow~ 0 _~~E-o.~W~ 19:: .g~g E'~=o ~~0~~~U~~~ c~ -000 ~U- '-'~o~oco~oo 0_ 'G-~ ni fir 1i> r:n C ID - .- E w:: :I: Q) J? U (f) 5 "5 ~ c '- <l> C Q) <l>.2"'O = E ca "0 ~ - m --= 0 0.::= E~-~.~E~~~~~m196 ~~ U!19 i5 a5 8 Q) ai g a ca ~ <l> ~ ~ ~.~ 'S; 0 :?:- <l> (f) CE~E~-Ql~~E~UE~ ofr G~2 O"'OCQ)=~~.~~m<l>e 0 ~~ -.~ Ua5~5m'~~~~~~o.~~ o~ ~~~ ~E'~"O~ES~~oEQ)~o ~~ ~i~ ~ < >- a5 -g 0"0 0 >.~,g ~ o..~ Q):5 g-g 0- ~~~~~~~~~~~;~E ~g .~u~ a: 0 g- 0 .- C 2i a== <l> a5 c: 0 00 ~ ~ Q).~ :: ~~~;~.~~~~~~~~~ .~~ ~~~ ~i~~~~~;8~a5gs~.~:~ ~~g Q) en Q) c.Q == en m E o.,g ~ ID .- "0 0.;3: 0 ~~'~'~rn~3:g:?:-~cag-Q)o.Q)Q)o Q)gm ~Q)~.-.2::EoGenQ)=~Q)E~~ ~:o::;co enEQ)>'o..<Q)~ ~0m"05_ca~ -mQ) ~"O'-~o. ~~~'2~en~~'G~B ~ga Q)a5~a.~~~g~2~.~Eg~~~.~R~ [Egi~~~'~~Q)~~rne8~'~~~m8 g<ca-~rr..~g~"OQ)~5>.a.c~gQ)Q) Q)C:~~~!C:E~ .C'-o. ~!wo'~:5'- a;~"E ID en >.g E 0 5 ca~ g-~uc::5 ~.~ ~~ O~O~Q)D~OU;~~ :<1>0~Q)E.5- ~~~.-6~cU~~E~~c:S~~o.E~.~ C:'-G>,c:~Q)Q)Gc:C:~om'-o.3:iam"O .. => g? ..i 0 ~ E ~ Q) 2 2 (f) ;:.2 en Q) t) 0 ~ Q) ~"OQ)~ t'~E~~EQ)~ a~Q)Q)<l>~'-"O ~~~Er:n&~8~;E~rn~~.~~E~.~~~ -g ~ ~.~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ - 8 g. U5 ~ ~ ~ g-.9.~ ~ c.~ 8~EE~~m~g5!~2C:rnQ)"O"O>'~~~ ~ oE ooen"O'-~enIDmmC~owco-c ~~uo.~~tc:o.m~==U5t)~~B~~IDO,g :: .2 go g ~ & ~ .~ ~.~ g !9 ~ .~ -g 0 :; E :5 ~ g ~.~~~~~~a~E.~gg-;:m~8~~~~ >2c-~~Ql~QlEEUQl0C0~CU::lO- ~E2~~=~!~oE>.~~~2'~w.~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~8B~~~~~~~~~g <3.. ... ~ ID ~~ .~<l> ~ o :5 g;:~ c~ en t "O~ ~ 0 .- Q) a. ~ = ~ ~~ a. ID ~ ,g ~ ID "0 m .~ m ~ ~ ~ < c 0 6 c ~ c ~:5Q) ~IDW ID- g ~ ~~ ~.~.Q ~ ~ =E Q) ~ ~ :5 ~ R 2 ~ ~ .~ 19:1 ~ c:.Eg Eni~~~~ ca~~ cID IDa::;:: ~Ql 2 9:? ~ e 8.~ ~"g (ij 1? c..:: 2;; ~ ~~ :> ~~o ~ ~ e ca a.'roE :: ~ c", 0 - en - C >c_ ~coQE'-E0~OE -Q) ~'W ~.~.~ m Q) ID ~ ~ Q).g ~ ,g t ~:g ~ g :; en ~ W ~ .~= co =0 o..~ ~ ~ ~ '0 7J ~ g 5 =>.2~ m_~E~Enien-Q) <1>> .0"0 E:c.-. c:~aQ)~'~'C3~5Q :5~ 15>.Q) 'C~~ ~=.g~~ca~"OEg o~ c:~E ~~~ ~~~6~~~g~'~ 1:5: ~~2 "0 ~ 6 0 ~ ~ ~ E - 0 .5 Q) ~ ~ .- .g 6 5 C.-_ ~~en~'-~O~~~ ~~ ~u-,g~ ~~o .=~a~OC,g~0Q) 0_ ~ - Q) - ~ C <l> -.- E Q) _ > Q) ~ 0 (J) 5 to ~ 2'-~cQ)Q).2U.=Emi~~ ~ = .Q~-~.~E~~~~~0-_ ~~ 8~19 i5 a5 8 ID ai 5 a ca ~ Q) ~ ~ ~.~ 'S; ~ :?:- Q) (f) cE~E~~Ql~~E~UE~ e~ GS~ 8~~1?~~6~~:!K>.~ a.~ Q)C:'~ ~~j~~~~~~~EQ)!~ ~.~ ~~~ ~ < >. a5 -g a"O 0 >.~,g ~ o..~ Q):5 ~"O 0- 'S;<l>t=-U<l>=mcw-Eo ~~ 'c~ID Q)u~mg~~-gEcacena.c ~c: cogs a: 0 0 0 .- C 0. a.== ID Q) c: (,) en ~ ~ <l>._ _ cO'--m~oIDg0Eg~w 8~ ~Q)~ ~~~2:5~~:5g~~~~~rna5~ g~~ O-mm's;cO--WUC:<l>=-g.500,- -g'~o Q) w <1> c: .Q == 0 ca E a. g ~ Q) .- "0 0. 0 ~~'='~rn~~g~~m~IDo.Q)Q)O Q)am ~Q)~.-.2::E~G~ID=~~E~B :5~co wEQ)>'o..<Q)==<l>c:enm"O_-m~ caQ) ~"'O'-~o. ~~~'2~ww~'0~E ~g~ Q)~~o.~~~g~2-g"~~g5~~.~~~ KEg~~~~~~Q)~~~e8~~~~m2 B<ca-"Err..~gOC"Owg:5>.o.c~5Q)~ IDc~~~~gE~ .c'-o. ~~Q)O"~S~ a;~"E ~ en >.'';:: E a g m~ g-~Uc:5 f!?~ ~~ Oao~Q)~~oO~~~ ~Q)o~Q)E.5- _Q)>..-:5Q)co>.mc~Q)Ec:.c~~o.E"Oc 'c.~~ >'c:::C Q) Q).-=:-g"2 ~ m~ Q);3:"O 0 ~.- ..:J ~U ~ o~ E~~ Q) 2 $c7);:.2 5tCi},* 0 ~i ~-g~~ .~~~I-SE!2 .gg~Q)~ ~,--g ~c:~~go.cao~o~_19"E.E=~E2'2~U -g i a. en; ! w ~ ~ - U g. (J) ~ o.g en.9.~ c: c .5 8~E'~'~co~cag5~~2C:~Q)"Ou>,~~~ ~~8Ec~~~~~~Q)~;.5~g8~~go c: ~O.- ~ a ca ~"O a=o en~ 0-E ~~.c o.~ :: .Q ~ U g 0. o.t.5 a5'~ c 19 ~ .~ -g a ~."t:: - ~ c' ~.~"5~~!!a~E~gg- ca~8~~~~ ~~g'2.~a.~~J?EEo~~a~.~~~~8~ ~~~~~~~Q)<l>8~~.~~~E~~'~g~~ ~OO~~",oo~SS~UU~;:~0<Cll~rn"'0 <3.. ... " Ii 2 Disclaimer This map is neither a legaily recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation 01 records, inlormation and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error Iree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction 01 geographic leatures. II 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 shail not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives ail claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Irom any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties w1hich anse out of the use~s access or use of data provided. " Ii 2 Disclaimer This map is neither a legaily recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic leatures. II 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 shail not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives ail claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Irom any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties w1hich anse out of the use~s access or use of data provided. WILLIAM V & NANCY M SWEARENGIN TRUSTEES OF FAMILY TRUST 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8007 JUDITH ELAINE ALEXANDER 2122 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6705 XUEBING FENG & XIAOGUANG DENG 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6700 JAYSON C DREHER 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6705 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6700 SANDRA L WELLS 2051 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6704 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8009 TIMOTHY P & HEIDI S LARKIN & LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION 2150 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8009 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6700 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER 6710 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6700 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8008 ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -6704 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS 2151 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8010 ROBERT A JR & BRENDA KNESS 2121 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8010 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8008 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE CLAFLIN 1106 55TH AVE S FARGO. ND 58104 .6456 JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & HELENA B STAFKO 2028 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6704 DANIEL J DOHSE & MAR IT S LEE-DOHSE 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -6704 U S HOME CORP 935 EASTWAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA. MN 55391 -1849 THOMAS J WOODS 2031 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -4577 ANDREW & DANA LUING 2020 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -4577 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 1851 WEST LAKE DR STE 550 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -8567 US HOME CORP & PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 935 EASTWAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA. MN 55391 -1849 OJARS A PAP ED IS TRUSTEE OF 0 PAPEDIS TRUST 2101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -4579 BEN & MARGARET L1AO 3645 FORESTVIEW LN PLYMOUTH. MN 55441 -1336 RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS 2021 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4577 TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8743 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) 2101 Pinehurst Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case 07-19 est 65th Street r-.. ..- ..- co (9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PAPEDIS VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT. SOUTHVIEW DESIGN. PLANNING CASE 07-19. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design Scott Boeddeker 1875 E. 50th Street, Inver Grove Heights 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: We'll start to my left this time. Kurt. Papke: What are the lower, there's a table on page 5 that shows the differences from what, the issues with the building permit and there's two items on there I couldn't quite make out from the plan. They're the lower wall and upper wall. Are these the retaining walls? The boulder retaining walls in place. Auseth: Yes, those are the retaining walls. Papke: That's all. Larson: Okay. I have a question. McDonald: Go right ahead. Larson: If they had used a different material rather than brick pavers. Something that was, what do you call it? McDonald: Permeable? Larson: That will accept water, would this have been an issue? Auseth: Yes. Currently we don't give any credit to any other types of material. Things that are pervious, and we appreciate the fact that people are putting those in but at this time we don't give any credit for those. Larson: What if it had been grass as opposed to brick pavers or you know something that was maybe harder surface however you know something, an example would be like a putting green type of grass surface where it would accept water. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: The difference would be. Larson: Well because that to me, it's, it will accept water. Generous: A grass surface would have been acceptable but. Larson: It would have? Okay. Generous: It's just the council has resolved the issue about pervious pavers and that. It's still part of the discussion that they're having at the council level. Larson: I see. Papke: Is pervious, these pavers? Auseth: When we were at the site the contractor was showing us how the water went through, telling us that they're pervious but there again we don't have any way of gauging that at this point. It's what we would give credit for. Larson: Because typically the brick pavers, if they are pervious they're put on sand and they do drain quite well. I don't know, that's all I had. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: So in the table on page 5, all of those items you know besides the house and the driveway that are proposed, are they all done? Or are they still proposed? Auseth: I believe just about everything is already done. The deck wasn't quite finished when I was out there. And as far as the patios, they're done and the fire pit's done. The retaining walls are in. The front sidewalk is in. Dillon: Alright. And so, so the staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process so Lennar was fully aware of all of this? Auseth: Correct. Dillon: And was the company that was doing these proposed improvements, were they aware? Auseth: I'm not sure if they were aware or not. Dillon: Okay. And was the homeowner aware? Auseth: There again I'm not sure. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Dillon: Alright. So again, what was their reaction when they were told to stop the improvements? Auseth: I believe they were upset and came in to City Hall with their proposal going for a vanance. Dillon: Okay. Alright and so, I expect the applicants will be up so I'll save the rest of my questions for them. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Do you require in our development agreements any sort of disclosure from the builder and/or the developer in terms of the limited amount of additional, the available hard surface coverage because we knew that this was going to be an issue on this. In this development. Of we had a pretty good idea because we talked at length about it. Generous: We have in the past but not specifically on this one. However even with that when 340 some square feet of additional impervious surface after they built their house and put the driveway and sidewalk seemed like a sufficient amount. Keefe: Right. Well and Ijust wondered about, you know how did it get from...to Lennar, you know landscaping to the homeowner and the homeowner's, I don't know who's at risk in this one. It remains to be seen but what we did on this one... Generous: On the city code there's 25% site coverage. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: With only a handful of homes built out there now, . ..did they look at what they did the first time in changing some lots around or is there an opportunity to add onto the outlots somewhere or... buy a park lot out there or something? Generous: Well, not a park lot per se. The City owns an outlot behind them. There's always that opportunity to acquire additional land from your neighbor but then that makes that lot smaller and if they took the same size house, it just pushes it down. You know where the variance would come in. Again when we looked at the expansion we though this would accommodate them. And it did. It accommodated the house and the basic house and driveway and sidewalk and it allows for 300 some square feet of expansion for the homeowner to come in. So you know if they reduce it a hair, they could have made it up there. Lots of trade offs that people have to make. Keefe: One additional question. On the decking, you noted in the report that this particular decking seemed to be more impervious the way that it is. I mean is cedar decking we allow or? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: Typically the slated decking that has the full length open inbetween each slate is, by policy is pervious. This one has the tiny holes which I've seen in other cases... pond pretty much on the decking. McDonald: I kind of remember when all this came in. What kind of discussions, I mean I know that that was one of the reasons why they expanded what, decreased the lots so we had bigger lot sizes because that was one of the issues that we brought up because of the type of homes that were being built on the smaller lots. What discussions did you have with the developer to get that point across that okay we have an ordinance of 25% and you take the home, the footprint, the property, 25% can be covered. Did they fully understand that? How did this get passed on? We have this problem consistently and I know that was the reason for the ordinance, a lot of the things that we've got now because we have, we had people tear things out so was this fully communicated? Generous: I believe it was and at one time the developer actually wanted to do a variance, a blanket variance for the development and we said no, we wouldn't support that and that's when the larger lots came into play. However as you, the house plan worked. The site worked when they came in for their building permit. It's when they started to create this extensive outdoor space with pavers. Now if they had the fire pit on grass with just the pit, we wouldn't have counted any of that as hard cover. So there's ways that they could utilize it. It would have been the retaining wall and they could have had a paved patio or brick patio up next to the house if they wanted a harder surface. But by expanding it out that they sort of ate up their green area. McDonald: Have you had discussions with the homeowner about the rationale for this and why it is the way it is and suggestions for alternatives? Generous: I haven't had personally. I don't know if they talked to our Water Resources Coordinator and she left that position so it's kind of open. McDonald: Okay. Larson: I've got a comment if I may. I was just noticing in here that the map you've got a couple of dry wells. It's got drain tile and all sorts of ways to help ward off the, a flood situation so it seems, I mean is there any way that those can be credited I suppose towards sort of the other stuff that they've got and then the brick pavers question too is, how does the city determine how pervious or impervious a brick paver is? Generous: Well the current policy is any time they put in a paver system, it's considered impervious. Because there's, even with those pervious systems there's maintenance responsibility. Over time they do become, unless you clean them out and keep them working, it becomes clogged and then it's just like. Larson: Even if it's like a sand or gravel underneath there? Generous: Yeah, because you're going to get fine particles that eventually go into those hole systems and clog them up. And so, but again that's part of the discussion that council's working 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 on is, if they go along with these different pervious systems, how do we, how are we going to administer them? Larson: It looks to me like they made effort to help offset that and so that's why I didn't know if there was any way to give them some consideration as far as that goes but. McDonald: Okay, is the applicant present? Okay, if you'd like to come up and address the commISSIOners. Tim Johnson: Hi. I'm Tim Johnson and I am a landscape design contractor with Southview Design and I am the applicant obviously for the first property and actually the applicant for the second property as well so I will apologize ahead of schedule if I do comment back and forth on both properties because they are kind of similar applications where we have a hard cover issue that we are obviously here tonight to talk about. So first I'd like to just begin by thanking you all for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my clients. My goal tonight is obviously to work with the Planning Commission, the City Council and my clients to make the results of the circumstances that we're under this evening, work for all of us. And obviously I've worked with Angie and getting her some of the information and kind of discussed with her some of the findings that was basically brought up to us during the construction phase. You'll find that my goal obviously tonight is to put in place, I believe Debbie was commenting on the drainage application that I've spent some time with and you'll find that I've got a few recommendations from engineers and other applications that we've actually used in similar systems in place where we needed to control drainage and water quality in other cities and developments. But before I begin with the drainage concept I just would like you to get up to date as far as the history of where I've kind of come into on this project at 2101. The hard cover code, as Angie mentioned was basically to our finding after construction began. This is definitely something new to a 30 year old company that does not exist on a non-lake property. A non-waterfront property. Typically we do understand that there is hard cover issues on application where there's a lake or river, but where there is a typical standard lot not fronting, not including you know drainage ponds or retention ponds, these applications typically don't arise on other situations. Landscaping in the state of Minnesota is a non-licensed trade which means that we basically don't need to pull any permits for any installations that we do as far as landscaping and patio work. Most of the hardscapes Angie mentioned are installed. The only application, just as a review is the patio underneath the current deck, which is this patio here. All of the hardscapes, including the retaining wall is in place as per the plan you see in front of you this evening. This was not installed due to the recommendation by the building department when they brought us up to speed as far as the current code or you know restrictions that the City had for the amount of hard cover, especially on this development. We cooperated by stopping all construction and cleaned the site as best to our ability during the construction site and we have not been back since in compliance with the request from the city building department. My clients has expressed the interest that we had in multiple areas to entertain and has a goal of improving his property along with the entire community, as you can see with his goals and ideas as far as the landscaping. They, like I are very discouraged of where we're at today and as I mentioned earlier are willing to work with you to get this corrected. Actually I received a stoppage of work. We were then informed on the current decking system that was approved, or excuse me, I can't speak on what decking system was approved because that wasn't contracted by me but that was to our 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 knowledge, that the decking system that's installed is non-permeable which was already approved by the city well after the case, which was well after we started. We started the construction of our hardscapes prior to the deck construction. So the deck permit and all of that was accepted during the time of our construction, which then means that the hard cover issue, which is stated here at 23.2% I believe on this site before any improvements are made. If that's the case we already are over with the construction at that time so just to review that at 23.2% basically we have about 172 square feet, if my math is correct, before we hit the 25%. The deck is 406 square feet as it stands today and I believe, and Angie might need to comment on this but I think it's the main decking because the quantities I have on the specific plan in front of you just consist of the main decking part, not the landing and the steps because at that time Angie explained that the decking was a non-pervious surface because of the weep holes that are in the decking system. The steps and landing have the gaps inbetween the decking so we didn't include that as a hard cover quantity so I believe the 406 square feet is only the decking space itself. So after this was brought to our attention, that obviously made the rest of the hardscaping and the landscape plan that was put forth to this point even more difficult to succeed with. Since then I just wanted to you know just confirm that we've been under cooperation with the request at the City of Chanhassen of not doing any work. The concept that I would like to talk about, both properties now, and I'll try to stay specific here at 2101 is a concept that we've used before. What we've done and when we've opened up. I think I've got to apologize. I've got a larger scale drawing that we can put down. What we would do at each. Auseth: Upside down. Tim Johnson: At each downspout on each home, I believe there is 1,2,3,4,5,6 downspouts that currently handle all the water that runs off the current foundation footprint. What we would do is take the water from the downspouts and collect those into 12 or 14 inch catch basins. Run those into a French drain. A French drain consists of drain tile with holes in it. I would recommend putting a sock around it to prevent any soil or any other debris to fill or clog those weep holes, but this would allow the water to get into the catch basins. Run into the drain tile and allow the water to come out of the drain tile slowly at it's current pace, depending upon the amount of rainfall. Around the rocks, or excuse me, around the drain tile you would have a gravel. Typically it's 12 inches in space around it. Around the actual drain tile. And then from there the drain tile would run the whole distance of the side of the home, I believe back to this one, but here's a catch basin that would go out into the property. Staying out of utility and drainage easements and running within the property boundaries and they would connect and then run into dry wells. The dry wells we're proposing right now are two dry wells, one here and one here. And then this would collect the one side of the home, and this would collect the other side of the home. The drain tile application would run into the dry well. They are 5 feet in width right now, and then they're going to be about 6 feet in depth. Basically this will allow us to get below frost line which will allow for any of those freezing rains or freezing conditions to allow us to handle that under grade. The property, if you haven't visited it has a walkout so there's at least a 9 foot drop from the front foundation of the home to the back foundation of the home. Therefore reducing the chance of these pipes freezing in the winter months. The drain tile applications would be sized per the requirements from an engineer firm. I had a letter of recommendation, and I have individual copies if you all want but I can put that up for you to see. I don't know if you want a copy of that. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: If you could go ahead and pass those out while you're talking so we can read those. Tim Johnson: This is from Chris Merrill at Westwood Companies. I'm not sure if you're familiar. Chris is, worked with Pinehurst development and is familiar with the exact development that we're talking about this evening and he is in favor of the recommendation that I have in front of you this evening. There are several extra steps which will cost several thousands of dollars of getting their approval and their time to get this approved as far as sizing the pipes and then also determining the size of the dry wells. That is something that we are willing to get nailed down for you in the next week or so. However that does cost several thousand of dollars that both my client and I and Chris feel that we need to present this concept before we take that next step as far as getting that put in place. It doesn't make sense to do that you know if this isn't going to work but this is an application that he feels very strongly about that he's used in the past. I also have copies of another project similar to this that we have installed, and I've got copies for each of you. This is a project that we've worked with that we've got an engineering firm that was basically presented to us and a developer had to present as part of another. So we've had a drainage concern. It wasn't a hard cover concern. This is basically a drainage catch area to reduce the amount of stress on a bluff line in the city of Minnetonka. This application has been used through that whole entire development and this is one of the last homes that is being installed as we currently speak and it's a similar drainage system in most the lots that overlook this bluff line. This is a very similar situation where we've got a drain tile application here and a drainage area around that drain tile. This application is calling for a 3 by 3 area. The length of the back of the home and these are tied in with the catch basins from the gutters, boxes at the comers of the home. This example is going to be put in place and it's available to be used seasonally so the winter months is not a concern as far as you know any freezing and thawing. This I see as a similar concept that Chris has talked to me about and would recommend for the 2101 residence. We basically would base it off a 1 inch rain storm per Angie's comments a few weeks ago as far as how we would calculate the amount of rainfall that these basins and drain tile systems would be able to afford to handle. The system that we would put in place would be obviously finalized and reviewed and we could present that at that time if need be. Otherwise we could just ask for Chris' recommendations to be approved once those pass your desk. Those concepts along with, I've got another concept that I can keep going on about but I don't want to waste your time, but these are other concepts that we have used in similar applications. The other thing that we want to talk about is, obviously on both properties we are installing retaining walls. These properties are very steep as far as grade in the back yard so the water that you currently have, whether we do improvements or not are going to get down to that retention pond faster than what they would today. The retaining walls that are in place actually level off the back yard which slows the water runoff from getting to the pond and actually makes the back yard that my clients have purchased more usable for their entertaining sizes of their families and their property needs. Along with the retaining walls and the dry wells, we also are installing several key plantings opportunities with other plantings. Over story trees and shrubs. I believe on this property we've got roughly about 13 trees going in, which is a major upgrade from the development trees that are approved by the city, as well as several under story plantings as per the plan. Along with this as mentioned by another city official that sometimes sod is considered a non-permeable application because of the compaction of the traffic, as far as equipment traffic under construction. So if we design the standard sod and soil installation, we'll work up the 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 ground and put in the minimum 3 to 4 inches of good, pulverized top soil below the sod...but also allow for saturation for any rain runoff. The improvements that I have in front of you, we'll take roughly 3,200 square feet of water runoff from the foundation and capture that below ground instead of having that run to the retention pond, whether there's sod there or not. That basically means that I'm actually reducing the amount of runoff from the current property as the plan sits today with all the hard surfaces, i.e. meaning the driveway, the walkway, the patio, the decking system, and the fire pit application and the lower deck application because we basically will take 3,200 square feet of runoff and I believe my quick calculations were that all the hard runoff was roughly about 1,600 square feet. We believe that the 3, a couple examples that I've provided you tonight as far as similar concepts, in the future landscaping is our goal to support better runoff plan than most lots in the current development. The drainage examples are a great way to help support the proposed landscape and hardscape plans that are have been proposed this evening. These concepts come recommended by the city officials and engineers for the letter of recommendations that I have in front of you. And then I strongly believe that with good engineering and patience we can all come to some compromise to help develop a good community for all to enjoy. I, like most of you in this room don't want to have any great fight over this development with future projects. I'm going to be in this development hopefully working with other plans and I want to be able to start off a relationship with you on good circumstances. Finally I ask for your consideration of this concept with the recommendations by Westwood to help build a good drainage plan for my clients to have their exterior dreams be fulfilled. I'm eager to work with you on coming up with a good plan to help us today so with that, and these projects that are in front of us tonight can go forward to keep all happy. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Undestad: Your letter from Westwood here, did they, have they used this? And actually have these installed and provide these for runoff areas? Tim Johnson: Yes. Yep. Undestad: And do these, it's another way of them, instead of rather than putting in their own... retention pond with these, does this work for that too? Tim Johnson: I can't comment on it working for retention ponds, but I do know that, I can comment on it actually collecting the actual runoff from the lot areas and reducing the amount of runoff in those specific areas that we want to prevent it from happening. Undestad: And then they ask your, and again all this is kind of concepts and ideas. Tim Johnson: Yep. Undestad: .. .referring to on here but the overflows on the end, is that potential failure in the system... ? Tim Johnson: Well the overflow is basically to handle, let's say you get more than a 1 inch rain storm that you know if it did fill up for whatever reason, there is a way for it to exit. But the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 system that he would have in place that it would handle a 1 inch rain storm and then some for the areas of drain tile and the dry well areas. The 1 inch overflow we typically put in just because if it does, the water's going to seep up one way or the other but that's where it sizes it according to the lot, the hard cover that we have in place. Undestad: How did you pick a 1 inch rainfall, just out of curiosity. Tim Johnson: Well I spoke with Angie, I don't recall, I believe it was you know in the last month as far as how we would calculate that. That was one question that they wanted to know, you know was it a 5 year rainfall? Was it a 24 hour rainfall? You know there's different limitations that they can follow to determine that and whatever the city would require, that's what they would follow basically. Undestad: You mentioned were you, or did somebody else pull the permit for the deck? A contractor of your's in this? Tim Johnson: It's a contractor that the homeowner. He's contracted with another decking company. We don't do the deck work in-house. Undestad: You don't coordinate any of that? You had nothing to do with that? Tim Johnson: Well I'll give them a couple names and we kind of worked with the decking company you know and this is actually the first city this decking system's been installed in several other cities. I've been in this for over 10 plus years and you know we're, I'm doing projects like this several of these a month and this is the first application where we found out that this kind of decking system is a concern to any city that we work on. Undestad: You've never come across the zoning ordinances...anywhere else? Tim Johnson: Other than working on an application, for instance like the City of Minnetonka, their health codes cover...is 30%. So that's what, we do check in with the city in river situations where we come across that. But not on a standard lot where you know retention ponds or NURP ponds, whatever you know the drainage system is in a specific development. Those are typically handled and one of the things that you know has brought up from another engineer is how has the 25% come up? Has it, you know where is the drainage report to support that? Is it a 25%? Is that where we want to start out at? Can the development handle 30%? You know those are some concerns. We all believe that you know, we all come into this at the wrong time. You know whether it was communicated, you know my clients all state that they were not communicated, that this was not communicated to them so we're standing here today you know the next property we have not started any construction on. We're basically following the steps. We're willing to work with you, you know as a planning commission that the city council of how we can you know get this to be better. We could basically walk in here and just ask for a hey, can we get this done the way it stands but we're willing to be realistic and say okay, we're willing to do some extra steps and measures to correct the runoff, concerns that have been brought up in front of us. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007 Keefe: The problem is you can't stop 5 inch rains and the mud that comes sliding down the hill into people's houses and that type of thing. That's you know, I think we could do something to mitigate some of that but, yeah. I mean we came out a couple years ago pretty tough rain situation and runoff situations here and that's sort of, you know that's... people and developers all you know, there's all sorts of you know situations because of the amount of rain we had... Two of them back to back, it's. Tim Johnson: It's been very unique the last couple years with the amount of rainfall so, and you know can do the rain gardens, which a lot of people propose but as a contractor I'm not a big fan of those because you take the last year or two where there hasn't been any rain. You put the plants in there that are supposed to be able to saturate the water. Plants don't live because we don't have rain. You know therefore that's system, exactly. Now I guess my only comment on how do you, you've got to calculate for the 5 year rain storm. Currently the rain system that we would put in place is going to handle the water better whether this client has nothing that's proposed on this property and walks away and just puts sod in. He could walk away and then all that water's getting down there faster. At least we're taking that water and we're walking away from it. Putting it in the ground and we're still having less runoff. Hard cover concerns, if you take the 3,200 square feet that we're taking of the house.. .and still handle about 1,600 square feet of hard cover. You know with the patios and so forth. Keefe: You know I guess kind of what I was just going to ask you a couple questions just in relation to how this slipped through the cracks. You know I mean, it's surprising to me because I'm... some other cities too and they also have hard surface coverage. I mean it's pretty normal for a lot of cities and so I'm a little surprised to hear you say you've never run into it before but setting that aside, you know it seems to me that if you're working with Westwood or you're working with Lennar, you're working with anybody else you would have somehow come across that particularly given the work that you guys do and so I'm, and at some point you've got to come to the city. I mean I think, and maybe you don't. Tim Johnson: We're basically a landscaper of choice by Lennar. We do base packages that I'm typically not involved with. I do more extensive projects, but these packages are rock and poly and a few plants around the house and sod and irrigate it and walk away from it. Now clients typically can have a choice of improving their properties and taking the next step on the front side of their actual construction of their landscaping and the two clients that I'm representing this evening have chose to do so. Therefore they're the first two clients that have come across this but you can kind of walk around that development and see some other work that's been done and kind of question the amount of hard cover that's actually in the development. So those are some concerns. This is the first, this is really the first time that we've ever run across a situation where the 25% is a situation. Keefe: Yeah. Tim Johnson: City of Minnetonka, as I mentioned earlier, is 30% and they're on a lake so. Keefe: Yeah. So in working close with Lennar, they never indicated to you guys I mean that it was you know. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: No. We have not basically you know, this is something that's been, it's on the surveys. I'll admit to that. That's something that after going through all this, you know Angie and Bob here, this is obviously a situation we don't want to be in but we're here. Keefe: It's in the code, and yeah. Tim Johnson: But you know as I mentioned earlier, we don't need to pull any permits so the question you know not to come across in the wrong way is how can we communicate this to our industry better? You know if we don't as an industry don't have to come into you know the city hall to pull a deck permit, to pull a patio permit, you know like we do with a deck permit, how do we do that for a retaining wall? Keefe: Every city is different. I mean every city. Tim Johnson: Well when you're working from Minnetonka to Big Lake to Elk River you know to Chanhassen it's... Keefe: It's different, right. Tim Johnson: Every city has got their own codes and their own recommendations so. Keefe: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I mean Dan stole my questions. I mean I was, I'm still a little surprised that it did slip through the cracks like this, and this is a question maybe for the staff. So if this variance is, we go along with your recommendation not to grant it and then at the end of the day you know we're not over ruled or whatever by the City Council, what then happens to the work that's been done? Generous: It would need to be removed. They would have to bring it into compliance with the 25% coverage. Dillon: Okay. And I. Tim Johnson: Can I make one comment on that? The investment that my, obviously it goes back to trying to find out all this out now but the investment that's in place right now is over $40,000 of my client's hard earnings so there. Dillon: That's a lot of money. Someone should have done a little more due diligence on this thing. That's like you know kind of the bottom line on this. You or the customer or both. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007 Larson: I'm going to save my comments for discussion. McDonald: Okay. Kurt? I've got a couple of questions. You made some statements about yeah, you're a non-licensed professional and you don't pull permits and everything. Did you do the overall design for all this landscaping which would have included the decking and all that? Did you put that together or what part of the overall design did you do? Tim Johnson: I worked on the overall design of this specific project. This project was handled by another sales representative prior to me taking over, so it was already contracted over the winter months I believe back in January and December. Then that individual, for a couple reasons it was turned over to me so everything was basically in place and Ijust basically, the deck design was a concept and the deck contractor said okay, this is what the client's looking for. McDonald: Do he ended up doing the details of it and selects the material. Tim Johnson: Exactly. McDonald: Well you know again as you say you've got $40,000 at this point tied into this. With all this money, why don't you check with city ordinances because I do know that there are a number of cities that do have restrictions. Maybe more or less than our 25% but there are restrictions within these cities and I have to tell you, $40,000 I don't think sets the record for what we've made people correct so don't tell us how much it costs. That's not going to get at our hearts on any of this. Why don't you check with city ordinances? Tim Johnson: I'll, it's definitely going to be one of the things that we do from here on out so, especially in, you know newer developments where this is obviously becoming more of a concern. Some of the older developments, you know the drainage and some of that other reports aren't as available because of the surveying at the time wasn't as adequate as it is today so. McDonald: Okay. The other thing that I'm intrigued about is the dry well concept. I mean you mentioned all that. What studies or you know scientific data do you have to back all that up that you present to the city engineering and maybe persuade them to change our ordinances? Tim Johnson: We've got several sites. I mean you could start with the sites that we've actually installed these applications on and you know some that are a year old and some that are 5 to 6 years old. They work, especially when you get down below the frost line. You get down to you know some of the better soils that we can get into where the water can actually basically seep into the ground. The development that I showed you, well these aren't just drawings that we put into place here. This is recommendations from construction, you know Schoell and Madsen engineering service you know pioneers just like Westwood is. And they've got you know the knowledge and the test studies to be able to determine the void in the rock for the amount of rainfall. You know all the drain tiles. They're the ones that you know the ones that are educated to make those decisions. McDonald: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Shamla: Chairman McDonald, may I make a comment? McDonald: Yeah, please do. Shamla: I'm Joe with the City of Chanhassen engineering department and the soils in the city of Chanhassen are a lot different than other communities so something.. . quarter inch of sandy soil, this is probably, could be a good way to mitigate some of this water but in the city of Chanhassen having clay soils, the infiltration isn't good here and that's why the City Council is undetermined on whether permeable pavers are a good alternative. McDonald: Well that's where my comment was. I know the soils are different and that's why I'm asking for what studies have been done. What works good in one area may not work in another and again all of our stuff, you ask where 25% comes from. It comes from these studies. It comes from the U.S. Hydrology Guide for the State of Minnesota you know looking at soils and permeability. This was not just a number we picked out out of the blue sky. You talk about other city officials and engineers who I guess have adapted all this and seen great. Who are they? What cities? What engineers? Is there a list of people besides Minnetonka that have adopted this because again I'm intrigued by it but I haven't heard that much about it. Tim Johnson: Well Westwood would have to do a soils test which they probably have all the documentations since they did all the actual development work. They would, and you know that's why I'm closely working with them because they do know the development. There's got to be some comfort level for you know any department with the city of Chanhassen, obviously the Planning Commission and the City Council to make those decisions with the right people making the right recommendations for this application. I do understand the soil conditions are definitely different here. They're heavier soils but what we would do is require their testing as far as the soil types to make those decisions as far as that goes. I do have another project that I could show you where in the City of Inver Grove Heights where we had to do a permeable paver driveway application and I do have an email from. McDonald: Well okay, let me stop you right there because you're talking to the wrong people. We're not engineers and anything you would tell us, it sounds great but you know, I would defer everything to the city engineering staff anyway. What I'm trying to get at is, yes this is probably information that needs to be shared. It needs to be shared with the engineering group and then it percolates up to us. They will explain it to us and we'll all feel great about it. I mean the other comment that I would ask you about, you say this is designed around a 1 inch rain storm. How typical is that around here? Where did you come up with the 1 inch rain storm? Tim Johnson: That was you know, I kind of presented a concept to Angie a month or so ago, or right after this was stopped. Kind of asked her, you know some of our thoughts that we came up with in talking with Westwood and that's where you know I got the 1 inch rain storm from as far as okay what calculations I come up with. What would you require as far as me determining the size of these basins or tiles and so forth and that's where I got that information from. McDonald: Okay. I don't mean to give you such a maybe rude reception and everything but a couple years ago in that general area where you're at, we had a very bad event and it wasn't just 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 that. We've had a couple of them in that area and people get rather upset and then they get upset with us and they get real upset whenever their property floods and it is a big concern within this city. Soil probably plays a big part in it and so yeah, you're going to get a lot of questions and there's going to be a lot of issues. The whole thing that I am surprised about is how this slipped through the cracks. I mean this was a big deal a couple years ago. We put a number of things in place about you know stopping this before people invest a lot of money and stuff in and then we come along and tell them, sorry you've got to tear it out. I would like the staff to find out what went wrong because these things should not be happening. Keefe: Jerry can I ask one more question? McDonald: Sure. Keefe: Just in passing Ijust wanted to revisit it for me. You said that Lennar is selling a couple different landscaping packages along with the custom or recommending a couple of different ones which is a real limited approach and one is more of a custom approach and that's who it ended up getting to you. Is that kind of how that works? Tim Johnson: The single package, yeah the base package that is put in front of them is just basically green goods. You know sod. No. Keefe: A couple shrubs. The shrubbery. Tim Johnson: A couple trees, sod and irrigation and if the client says well you know we want to expand upon that. They want to basically, they want this to be you know the Bearpath application and that's where I do get involved. I'm not contracted with Lennar. We're basically contracting directly with the homeowner of the specific properties so the package. Keefe: You get a referral from them essentially is what happens and... Tim Johnson: Exactly, yep. Keefe: Okay. Alright. McDonald: Actually that was all my questions. Does anyone else have anything they want to add or okay. I guess unless you have someone else who wants to speak first. Tim Johnson: We'll just wait til the next one I guess. McDonald: Then I guess we'll open it up for the public meeting at this point. We thank you for your comments and everything. At this point I would open it up for the public to come up and make comments. Again I ask you to come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commissioners. Sir. Scott Boeddeker: Good evening. Scott Boeddeker, 6710 Manchester Drive. Downstream. I'm on the south side of that pond. I would recommend you agree with the staff, that you don't do 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 anything over 25%. My property's been flooded twice during the construction of this housing development. The first time was in June of 2005. Second time was Labor Day weekend of 2005. I had to take Plowshares to court because they failed to stand behind their subcontractor. They would stand behind the 5 inches of rain application for 100 year storm. Totally bogus statistics I believe. I was able to convince a judge of that. That the granite is flat and if 5 inches of rain happens way too often, this has happened 5 times, or 3 times in the last 5 years. I've got concerns about this pond every time it rains. In the spring when it's going to be frozen and the spring runoff and everything. I've got big concerns with this. You setting a precedence here. Allowing this to continue throughout the 41 lots. These lots are way too small for the houses they're building and I'm not surprised these homeowners don't know the situation. I'm disappointed in Plowshares and Lennar for letting this get like this but I would strongly urge you not to allow anything over the 25%. That would increase your liability of that pond overflowing into my property for the third time. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Well, seeing no one come forward. Scott Boeddeker: Just to add to that. That pond is full of springs already so the water level never goes down. I've told people this millions of times. I've told city staff. I've told developers. That pond is not going to hold a 100 year storm when it happens. McDonald: Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close the public meeting again and I'll bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Start down here. Papke: Okay. I think we've been pretty consistent as a planning commission on these sorts of items. We've had other remediation efforts like you know rain gardens and so on that have been proposed in the past and I think we've been pretty good as a planning commission about not re- writing city code on the fly here. This one is way, way over the top in terms of the variance that they're looking for. The brick pavers, I have a brick paver driveway and it is impervious when it rains and the low spots, the puddles stay there until they evaporate so, you know it's only my one data point and that's certainly not an engineering study but I certainly am convinced that a brick paver patio or driveway is not a permeable surface so I really wouldn't support using that particular argument to give any leeway to the homeowner here. I guess the only, there's a couple things where they do go over the limit here that I would support. I think you could make a case for leaving the boulder retaining walls there. You know those are pretty small quantities. We're only talking 200 square feet. 150 square feet of boulder wall and that is making the ground quite a bit more level and should help the infiltration across the board. And the decking one is, that's the first time I've seen decking come up as being a permeable. I walked underneath it today and you look up, you don't see any daylight so I understand city staffs position on it, but you know it is a new one from my perspective so I guess I would be in favor of pretty much going with the city staff with leaving a little bit of leeway for the boulder walls. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Okay. Well, on the other side of the fence. I truly believe that the work was done innocently and I don't think that they, I think that it is a lack of due diligence. I really think it 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 should have been checked out either by the contractor or developer or the owner before $40,000 was spent just because that would be smart. However, the work has been done. It looks like it's a very beautiful job. They've taken some steps to do French drains and drain tile and I mean they've gone over and above what you normally see around here. The landscaping I think is all around the house, it really adds, first of all the homes in this area really make a nice statement about Chanhassen. I like to see homes that are done well and I like to see landscaping that's done beautifully. What I would also like to see, and I don't know if the city wouldn't consider this but maybe they do need to relook at impervious 25% if it can be offset and I'd like to find out you know maybe it's an engineering thing again. You know if they did drain tile and dry wells that can handle a 5 inch event as opposed to a 1 inch event like they were designed. Maybe that's something that could be looked at or discussed. But I think neighborhoods like this are an asset to the city and I like that people really do want to take pride and ownership in their homes and put in these sort of things. I didn't know that the rain gardens don't work. That was news to me so like you said if it's dry, I guess the plants that are in there obviously aren't going to live. So maybe the dry wells are better and perhaps maybe this property could be considered, I hate to see all of the, all the landscaping pulled out if we don't have to do it. If there's some way to get around it, I'd like to see the city try. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I think it's an unfortunate situation but one that could have been easily avoided you know with a phone call. It's just you know unfortunate that it got this far but that's the way it goes and so. I agree with everything Debbie said. You know it's a nice neighborhood and it's, but that's not to say it couldn't be just as nice and still live within the guidelines that are set forth. They're freely available for anyone to ask and learn about. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: You know I just know too many incidences personally of people who have had issues with runoff in this city and I've got an issue and that's part of the reason why the ordinance is as it is. We let these through then we've got 39 other ones that we have to deal with up at the top of this hill where the water will run off of and it's not only here. It's in other locations in the city and I agree with Kevin that it's an unfortunate situation. My understanding Lennar needs to sell homes and they're going to recommend some things but at the same time there's a reason why we've got this thing in place and I think we've got to... McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah I think, I mean again it is a very nice design on it but we have to go back to what we're here for again and that is what, why we allow certain things and why we don't allow certain things. I guess my only comment would be if the applicant and engineering and that, I mean if there was some way they could come back and find some way to contain their storm water runoff within that site, you know be it a pond or if they could convince engineering, and obviously the council.. . but again looking at what it is right now, no. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is that I was here a couple years ago when this development was put together and it was a very big deal about the number of lots. It was a very big deal about the runoff. It was a very big deal about the 25% and we went through that in great detail. I am sorry that the homeowner doesn't know about it. It is not the city's fault. There is a duty I feel upon whoever goes in there and as a contractor there is a duty upon a homeowner to know. You live within a city. We have ordinances. It's in the paper. It is everywhere. We have made people go in and tear out works that are worth more than $40,000. We have gone through this repeatedly. We have got areas within the city that cause big problems. This is one of them. Another area was Lake Riley where we fought over this. The whole thing about giving credits for certain pavers and certain ways of doing landscape to offset the 25% has been looked at. I will defer to city staff. That is one of the things that they have been tasked to do to come up with some relief for all of this. I like the plans. I like the whole thing about what you're coming up with here about this dry well concept but again as has been stated, I don't know if that's sufficient for this area and that's where I would defer to city staff. That's why I asked what research do you have on that because we need to have ordinances that basically say for this amount of runoff to negate it you need this type of a dry well. I don't know if a 1 inch rainfall is a sufficient model to design to. Again, that needs to be stated within the ordinance if we're going to start giving leeway to the 25%. It's just we have been through too much within the past few years about flooding as Mr. Boeddeker brought up. He's not the only one. I am sorry as I can be that the homeowners have spent $40,000 and again I am sure that they will go through this and fight it all the way up but good luck on that. Again it's just I think the way to do this as an industry, if you want to do further work in this area you need to basically lobby our city staff. Bring them up to speed on other ideas and ways to do things and we will be more than willing I think to address this issue because we don't want people spending all this money and then we tell them, you've got to be in compliance. Tear it out. Sorry about the $40,000 but either you tear it up or we'll tear it up and we'll charge you for it. That's not the position this city wants to be in. That's why I'm a little upset about the fact this fell through the cracks because a couple years ago I made a big issue out of this. We have been through this. We have gone through a couple of ordinances to make sure this doesn't happen and I am very surprised that it is happening again. I'd like to know why. You know what do we need to plug up because I don't like voting against these variances but there's a reason why they're there and I will continue to vote again them. That's just, you know there's just too much that's happened within the city to just be granting these things. So I guess at that point, and the only reason I make such a big deal about this again, and I'm sorry to pick on you as the developer and the landscaper but a couple years ago whenever I became Chairman, this was a big issue for me because I've got a lot of friends, a lot of neighbors who have had a lot of damage because of this and I'm just determined we're going to solve this problem. Whatever we have to do, I'm not against giving credits for the 25%. I'm not against offsets but that's not my job to determine that this is sufficient. That's city staffs job and that's where this needs to be done. My recommendation to you all would be to ask us to table this and basically work with city staff and see if you can't come up with something. Otherwise I don't think this is going anywhere. But based upon that I am ready to accept a motion from the council. Undestad: I'll make a motion Planning Commission deny Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2nd Addition with condition 1. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Can I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-19 for a 7.4 % hard surface coverage variance from the 2S % maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2nd Addition with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of S to 1. McDonald: And again, you do have the right of appeal to take this up to City Council and present the issue there. City Council does have the ability to waive our city ordinances as they see fit. So okay. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHROEDER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-20. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design Scott Schroeder Scott Boeddeker 1875 E. 50th Street, Inver Grove Heights 2081 Pinehurst Drive 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No questions. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Well in this case anything hasn't been built yet, is that correct? Auseth: Correct, it's not installed. Keefe: Yeah. McDonald: Kevin. 30