5 King VarianceCITY OF
PC DATE: Febnmry 18, 2003
CC DATE: March 10, 2003
REVIEW DEADLINE:
CASE #: 2003-2 VAR
STAFF
REPORT
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Lot Area, Front Yard Setback, and Hard Surface Coverage Variances for
the construction of a single family residence on a nonconforming lot of
767 Carver Beach Road
Jeffery King
767 Carver'Beach Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 470-5456
Itl
PRESENT ZONING:
Single Family Residential District - RSF
2020 LAND USE ~: Low Density Residential
ACREAGE:
8,562 square feet
DENSITY:
SUMMARY OF REQ~:
The applicant is requesting a front yard and a hard surface coverage variance to build a single
family home on a nonconforming lot of recxnd. Staff is recommending approval with
modifications.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet on
February 6, 2003.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MA KING:
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 bmden of proof is on the applicant to show that they
meet the standards in the ordinance.
Im
Po
Jeffery King Variance
m -SMarch 2003
Page 2
On February 18, 2003, the Planning Commi _ngton reviewed this application ami
recommended approval with conditions. One of the concerns dealing with the applicant's
proposal deals with the requested front yard setback variance. The ordinance requires a 30
foot front yard setback. The applicant is propoga~ to locate the house 20 feet from the front
property line. The site is a corner lot and the house, as proposed, will interfere with the sight
distances and could jeopardize safety. Engineering staff evaluated this issue and
recorded the house design be modified to minimize encroachment into the front yard
setback for safety reasons. Staff recommended the applicant flip the proposed structure so
that the livable area of the residence is located to the west and the garage is to the east.
The Planning Commi _asion adopted the following motions:
"l~he Planning Commlasion approved Variance Request g2003-2 to allow 29~% hard
surface coverage, a variance to allow a 26 foot front yard setback, consistent with staff's
proposal, for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as
shown on the plans dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Show ali the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, Le. sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
watermalm
2. Show all proposed and existing contour lines along with the pro~ house elevations.
3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk, etc.
4,
The applicant will work with staff to maximize sight distances for motorists on
Carver Beach Road when siting the new house on the lot.
5. The applicant shall flip the home as shown in staff's layout.
6. The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback."
The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Comminsion and wishes to build the
house as originally proposed. Some of the reasons for this decision involve views of Lotus
Lake. On March 4, 2003, staff met with the applicant. Some of the issues that were
discussed and explained included variance requirements, Planning Comminsion's decision,
staff's role, publishing of a Public Hearing based upon variances requested in an
application, nonconforming uses and lots of record, appeals to the City Council, among
other issues. Staff sympathizes with the applicant and is in full agreement that variances
are needed to build on the subject lot. However, we are recommending the design of the
home be modified to address the safety concern.
During the meeting with the applicant, he expressed that he is having difficulty finding a
house plan that can fit on this lot. He also explained the importance of having the livable
area of the house facing the lake. Staff explained that we will work with him with the
understanding that the safety issue must be addressed. We suggested an "L" shaped home
that would move the garage closer to the front lot line. Thin option would allow for a larger
house buHdable area and increase the green space on the site. We suggested searching for
a plan that fits within the limitations of the site. The applicant suggested using the same
Jgffery King Variance
2OO3
Page 3
house plnn but instend of encronchlng into the front yard, the house would encronch Into
the required side ynrd setbncks. We explnined to the applicant thnt the varlnnce
advertisement did not Include eneronchment Into the side ~ setlmcks. Stnff ndvertised
the vnrinnce based upon the design submitted by the nppHcant which Included front ynrd, ·
lot nrea nnd hard surfnce covernge vnrtances only. Staff advised the nppHcnnt thnt If he
chose to pursue this optlon~ n publicnflon of n new henring thnt Inchules a side ynrd setback
vnrinnce would be required along with notification of property owners within 500 feet. The
appHennt chose to proceed with his nppenl ns presented.
Again, staff is in full ngreement thnt the site requires a vnrinnce~ however, we strongly
believe thnt modiflcntions to the design of the proposed plnns or even a continued senrch
for alternntive plans is beneflcinL It will address the safety Issue and reduce the level of
varinnces. Also, to provide the npplicnnt nn opportunity to revise his design, we prepared
nn nlternntive set of recommendations for the City Council to consider. These conditions
address the safety issue without requiring the applicnnt to flip the layout of the house.
APPLICABLE REGUI~TIONS
Sec. 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an '~RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and Chapter 18:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(4)
The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25%)
percent
(5)
The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
BACKGROUND
The subdivision of Carver Beach was created in 1927. It a~ that the majority of the lots do
not meet today's standards. The same is true for s~ on those lots.
Jeffery King Variance
~March 10, 2OO3
Page 4
SITE ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing nonconforming single family home that was
constructed in 1954 and replacing it with a new single family structure. The existing non-
conformities include encroachment into two side yards (9.5 and 8.75 feet), hard surface coverage
(29.5%), and a substandard lot area (8,562 sqtmre feet). The lot gains access off of Carver Beach
Road.
The proposed new smacua-e will maintain the required 10 foot side yard setbacks; however, the
applicants intends to maintain a 20 foot front yard setback (the ordinance requires 30 feet). The
proposed residence encroachment into the front yard will in~ere with sight distances and could
jeopardize safety. There is an option that staff is recommending that will accommoda~ the
applicant's request and greatly reduce the level of non-conformities. Staff is recommending the
applicant flip the proposed stmcua~ so that the livable area of the residence is located to the west
and the garage is to the east. The length of the driveway will be shorter, which will reduce the
hard surface coverage.
Applic~t's ~s~ layout
Jeffery King Variance
an tSMareh 2003
Page 5
Staffs Proposed Layout
~ce Existing Applicant's StatPs Proposal
proposal
Lot Area 15~000 sq. ft. 8,562 sq. ft. 8,562 sq. ft. 8,562 sq. iL
Setback from Carver 30' 41.9' 20' 26'
Beach Road
Side Yard Setback 10' 9.5 10' 10'
West
Side Yard Setback 10' 8.75' 10' 10'
South
Hard Surface 25% 29.5% 33.45% 28%-~-_
Coverage
SIGHT DISTANCE
After visiting the site, it is apparent that the location of the proposed house will affect the sight
distance of motorists on Carver Beach Road. Due to the close proximity of the road to the
property line and the narrow pavement width of the mad, sight distance around the road curve is
greatly affected by the placement of the house. The proposed house on the survey is protruding
approximately ten feet into the required 30-foot setback. Staff estimates that this protrusion
results in a sight distance of 185 feet. This estimate assumes that there is a clear line of sight
around the curve. In reality, there are two significant trees (a 24" maple and a 12" pine) in the
front yard area that further obstruct the line of sight. The trees can be assumed to decrease the
sight distance by a minimum of five feet, which results in a sight distance of 180 feet around the
curve. AASHTO's (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
Jeffery King Variance
t~e~,al~Mareh 10, 2003
Page 6
minimum stopping sight distance for 30 mph streets is 188 feet. As such, staff would
recommend that the house location be revised to stay within the required 30-foot setback.
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an tmdue hardship. Undue tuaxtship
means that the property cannot be put to ~le use Ixcause of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable ~ within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to reco~ that there are pre-existing stan~ in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-e~g stan~ without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The applicant is requesting to demolish a house located on an existing lot of
record and build a new residence. Staff is not opposed to the rebuilding of the home;
however, there are alternative layouts that will minimi?e the level of variances req~
Hipping the layout of the house will reduce the hard surface coverage and the front yard
setbaclc It will minimi?~ interference with sight distances. Staff agrees that there is a
reduceA setback standard in this neighborhood (staff found homes that were built over
property lines), however, structures on these other parcels are not directly impacting safety.
Furthermore, the ordinance prohibits intensification of non-cxmformities (i.e. setbacks, hard
surface coverage, etc.) and allows s~ changes in cases when these non-conformities
are reducexL
bi
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other propemj within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to ~es in
the RSF zoning district
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposed variation will i .reprove a nonconforming setback and allow it to
become more in compliance with staff's recommenrlation~
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self~ hardship.
Finding: The applicant has chosen a layout that claes not work on this lot. It encroaches
into required front yard setbacks and increases the hard surface coverage. There are
alternative designs that can work on this sim that will allow the applicant reasonable use of
the pmpe~.
ee
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.
Jeffery King Variance
r, an oo, gMarch 2003
Page 7
Finding: Approval of the variances as recommended by staff will i ,reprove a
nonconforming situation.
The ~ variation will not i ,mpah- an adequat~ supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increaise the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially ~minish or ira?air ~ values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adeqn_at__e supply of light and air to
adjacent ~ or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets with staff's
reco~d_afion.
Based upon these findings, staff is recording approval of this variance with conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On February 18, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with
conditions. Staff originally recommended the applicant reduce the hard surface coverage on the
site to 28%. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant be permitted to maintain
29.5% hard surface coverage to allow the applicant some design flexibility.
They commended the applicant on the house design but they unanimously agreed that the safety
issue cannot be compromised.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Variance Request g2003-2 to allow 29.5% hard surface
coverage, a variance to allow a 26 foot front yard setback, consistent with staff's proposal,
for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on
plans dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
.
Show all of the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, i.e. sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and
watermain.
2. Show all proposed and existing contour lines along with the proposed house elevations.
3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk, etc.
.
will work with staff to maximi?~ sight distances for motorists on Carver Beach Road
when siting the new house on the lot.
5. The applicant shall flip the home as shown in staff's layout.
6. The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback."
Jeffery King Varian~
~Mnrch 10, 2003
Page 8
To nccommodnte the npplicnnt's concerns, staff prepared nn alternntive motion thnt allows
for nn alternative design without requiring the gnm~ to be iocnted along the ensterly portion
of the site.
'ffhe City Council approves Variance Request g2003-2 to allow 29_q% hard surface
coverage, a v~ce to allow a 26 foot front yard setback, for the construction of a single
fnmily home on a non-conforming lot of record ns shown on plmm dnted January 3, 2003,
subject to the following conditions:
le
Show all of the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, Le. sanitary sewer, store sewer,
and watermain.
®
Show all proposed and ext~ing contour lines along with the proposed house
elevations.
3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk, etc.
®
The applicant wm work with staff to maximize sight distances for motorists on
Carver Beach Road when siting the new house on the lot.
2. The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback."
A~TACHMENTS
Application and Notice of Public Hearing
Plans.
Planning Commission minutes dated February 18, 2003.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
..JEhcF.~y' P,.
TELEPHONE (Day time)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
/-/70 -,,-~/'~6
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Re. zoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdk, ision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
x Vadance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost**
($50 CU P/SP R/VAC/VAR/WAP/IVletes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
~-~:-; _ .:., :~' each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NDTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETI./~IDS PRESENT
~ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQ~ LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
YES X NO
-i'his application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly pflnted and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer wtth the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
ra3tice of application.deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
Thi~ is to certEy that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or ! am the authorized pemon to make
~is applica~on and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I ~al keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application: I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are tree and correct to the best of
rn.V ~owiedge. .
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed wtthln 60 days due to public hearing
~:iulrements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development mdew shall be completed wtthin 120 days unless additional review
axtenslons am approved by the applicant.
Date
Sig~m ~ Fee Owner
Date
AppTma~on Recelv~ on
Fee Paid Receipt No.
'i'he applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be ma,ed to the applicant's address.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
2002 MEETING DATES AND
APPMCATION DEADLINES
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 14, 2001
JANUARY 15, 2002
FEBRUARY 11,2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION (Work session on 2J5)
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 18, 2002
FEBRUARY 19, 2002
MARCH 11,2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 1,2002
MARCH 5, 2002
MARCH 25, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 15, 2002
MARCH 19, 2002
APRIL 8, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 1,2002
APRIL 2, 2002
APRIL 22, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 15, 2002
APRIL 16, 2002
MAY 13, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 5, 2002
MAY7, 2002
MAY 28, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DEADLINE
APRIL 12, 20O2
MAY 21,2O02
JUNE 10, 2OO2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 3, 2002
JUNE 4, 2002
JUNE 24, 2002
DEADLINE
MAY 17, 2002
JUNE 18, 2002
JULY 8, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 31, 2002
JULY 2, 2002
JULY 22, 2002
DEADLINE
JUNE 14, 2O02
JULY 16, 2OO2,
AUGUST 12, 2OO2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
JULY 5, 2002
AUGUST 6, 2002
AUGUST 26, 20O2
DEADLINE
JULY 19, 2002
AUGUST 20, 2002
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 2, 2002
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 16, 2002
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
OCTOBER 14, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 30. 2002
OCTOBER 1,2002
OCTOBER 28, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION (Wod( session 11/5)
CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002
OCTOBER 15, 2002
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CFrY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 18, 2002
NOVEMBER 19, 2002
DECEMBER 9, 2002
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 1, 2002
DECEMBER 3, 2002
JANUARY 13, 2003
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
cn'Y COUNCIL
DECEMBER 6, 2002
JANUARY 7, 2003
JANUARY 27, 2003
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 20, 2002
JANUARY 21,2003
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
DEADLINE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 3, 2OO3
FEBRUARY 4, 2003
FEBRUARY 24, 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
a. Minor MUSA line for falling on-site sewers
Conditional Use Permit (Does not Include site plan review)
a. Single family residence
b. All others
Grading Permits
a. Under 50 cubic yards
b. 50-1000 cubic yards
c. Over 1000 cubic yards - proce~ as IUP-use UBC
Interim Use Permit
a. Single family residence
b. NI others
Notlflcetlon Signs
a. Rental
b. Damage deposit
Planned Unit DevelopmentJFlezonlng
a. Minor Amendment
b. Major Amendment
$500.00
$100.00
$75.00
Not required
$75.00
$50.00
$100.00
$750.00
$100.00
$750.00
Rezonlng $500.00
Sign Permit
a. Permanent
b. Temporary
Sign Plan Review $150.00
Site Plan Revlaw
a. CommercialAndustrial districts
b. Residential districts
c. Administrative
Subdivision
a. Create 3 lots or less
b. Create over 3 lots
c. Final Plat
d. Metes and Bounds Division
e. Consolidate lots
f. Administrative Subdivision
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-way/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
a. Single family residence
b. ,All other uses
Monumentation required for all wetland buffer strip locations
(city will install signage and monumentation)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
$250 + $10 per 1,000 sq. ft. of
building area
$250 + $5 per dwelling unit
$100.00
$150.00
$400 + $15 per lot
Included in one time fee
$150 + $50 per lot over 3
$100.00
$100.00
$35.00
$100.00
$75.00
$150.00
$275.00
$20.00
Filing Fees/Attorney Costs
(Attorney's time to ensure proper drafting & documentation)
a. Recording Documents
b. Recording Plats & Related Documents 1) 1-3 lots
$10 + County Fees
$100 + County Fee
$125 + County Fee
2) 4-10 lots
3) 11-30 lots
4) 31+ lots
$200 + County Fee
$,350 + County Fee
Flood Zone Information and written zoning requests. All requests
must be made in writing.
Consultant Fees Cost will be billed to developer
.leff ery A. King
767 Carver Beach Road · Chanhas~n ~. Minnesota ~ 55317
January 15, 2003
TRANSMITrED VIA HAND DELIVERY
Sharmcen AI-Jaff- Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Post Office Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: 767 Car~er Beach Rgad~ Chsmh__sssen~ Minnesota 55317 -Variance Rzquest
Dear Sharmeen:
I have assembled a brief synopsis in support of my variance request for 767 Ce-vet Beach Road. My synopsis is as
follows:
Home History
The existing Carver Beach residence was constmot~ in 1957 as a vacation cottage without the intent to be utilized as a
full-time year round residence. For the past eleven years, I have oc~ttpied the hmne as my only residence. Ov~ the years, I
have discovered the original home construction did not tnke into ncconnt or nnfici/mte current building code restri~ons
requiring minimum lot sizes, setbacks, plumbing, electrical and ~ code standards.
Bnildlng Obstacles
Thc home has numerous obstacles making it practi~y infi:asible fur me to justify a remodel. These otmndes include (0 a
deteriorating foundation lacking a drain tile system, (h') a single car garage limitntion due to the gnrage plncement on the
lot, (iii) an outdated and ungrounded electrical system requiring signification upgrades, (iv) a non-individually vented
plumbing system making it extremely difficult for any kind of kitchen or bath remodel and (v) unusual lot dimensions
including a ninety degree curve cutting through the lot. As a result, every primary design and stmcixual aspect of the home
creat~ a si~ificant barrier for a remodel. This plac~ me, or any potenthl futnre owner, in a position to tear down the
home s~ould they desire to improve or exp~d the residence.
Rebniid Design and Varianee Request
The rebuild I have proposed is appropriate for thc lot dimensions, neighborhood and mmmd enviromnent of the
community. The home I have researched and selected has a 62' · 32' foot-print contnln~g 1915 total square feet, modest
by today's new construction standnrds, but a significant improvement to the current 863 total living square feet availnble.
The existing house is below current minimum squnre footage requirements by the City of Ch~n ~lumen. The proposed new
home is a two-story contemporary "A' frame thnt would complement the surreund~g log homes, wooded lots and lake
views. I have considered many options including altmmfive house plncemmts, home designs, neighboring home styles and
sight lines. In attempting to deal with the lot's curve, I have found it difficult, if not impossible, to find a practical rebuild
design, given Chanhassm's thirty foot front setback requirement. In an effort to compliment the lot's size and stt8~
limitations, I propose the new garage be placed on the west end of the lot, due to the'fn~t that the sewer, water, gas and
electric ate accessed off the south east side of the lot. Consistent with many of the neighboring homes, the new home
design require a modest setback variance due to the original home's history, current building obstacles and limited rebuild
design options~
I sincerely hope the committee takes into account the careful and deliberste resesrch I have undertaken in my effort to
improve the 767 Carver Beach Road residence. I have truly enjoyed the _comm~ and neighboring surroundings for the
past eleven years and want to remain at my current location. Please contact me st any of the above referenced numbers
should you have any questions or request additional inform,alon.
Sincerely,
December 27, 2002
Mr. Jason Angell
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: King Reaidence, 767 Carver Beach Road
Dear Jason:
This letter is follow up to our meeting Tuesday, December 27. I have completed a hard
surface analysis of both my existing house and proposed home. I used the dimensiom
from the survey to calculate the footprint of my house. To measure the front stairs and
well cap I ~ a 25' tape measure. To measure tbe driveway, ~ smd co~ slab
(on the side of the garage) I used a measuring wheeL
My existing house was buitt in 1957 and originally had a foundation footprint of 666
square feet. Sometime in the last twemy years an addition for a second bedroom and a
single car garage was added to the west side of the house. This add~tlon is 29' deep by
15'T' wide for atotaladditionof452 square feeC The current house and garage has a
total footprint of 1,118 square f~et. My understanding is thtt ~ building code would
not allow a house this small to be htilt in Chanhassen today.
My proposed residence is larger, the main part of the house is 32'x30', thh includes a
17'x6' fixmt porchthat is cut imo the front ofthehouse. The house is connected to the
garage by an 8' wide link. The gaxage has outside dimension.~ of 24' wide by 26' deep. I
scaled a 20' wide driveway from the garage to the lot line to calculate the square footage
of driveway. The sidewalk was figured from the front steps .turning at 90 degrees and
connecting to the driveway. I assumed the sidewalk and garage apron will be 40' wide.
The new house will not have a well or any ~ditional concrete slab~
Please feel free to contact if you need furtlx~ informm~m
Sincerely,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL: Variance for the
Construction of a Single
Family Home
APPLICANT: Jeffrey King
LOCATION: 767 Carver Beach Road
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant, Jeffrey
King, consider a request for front, lot area, and hard surface coverage variances for the construction of a
single family residence on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, located at 767 Carver Beach Road.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office houm, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmean at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 6, 2003.
25-1601350
DWIGHT E & ALICE M IMKER
810 PONDEROSA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9562
25-1601370
ROBERT C MACFARLANE
6850 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9554
25-1601390
BRUCE & CHARLENE BURRINGTON
6869 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9554
25-1601400
KLEVE L & LORILEE ANDERSON
760 PONDEROSA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9419
25-1601410
HARLAN KOEHNEN
7263 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9454
25-1601420
ROBERT JOHN MOORE
6839 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9554
25-1601430
JEAN E LOPEZ
6859 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9554
25-1601440
BRUCE & CHARLENE BURRINGTON
6869 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9554
25-1601450
MARGARET D ROSSING
130 CYGNET PL
LONG LAKE MN 55356-9734
25-1601460
TROY D STOTrLER &JESSICA R
TSCHIDA
6800 RINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9558
25-1601470
ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA
751 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601480
DAVID W WORKMAN
745 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601490
RICHARD E ROSSINGC/O MARGARET D
ROSSING
130 CYGNET PL
LONG LAKE MN 55356-9734
25-1601500
RICHARD E ROSSING
739 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601510
ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA
751 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601520
ROBERT S & KIRSTEN P ROJINA
751 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601530
GERALYN J HAYDEN
749 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601550
GREGORY J CARLSON &KATHLEEN M
NYGAARD
760 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601560
TODD L FROSTAD
6728 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8573
25-160158O
STEVEN K OIEN
6780 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8573
25-1601590
STEVEN K & BONNIE JO OIEN
6780 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8573
25-1601600
GERMAN D SEGURA-GOMEZ
750 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601601
GILBERT W & SHERRY L SIEVERS
746 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601610
PAUL R & CATHERINE M DOLS
730 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601630
STANLEY R CRONISTER &JOANNE
MUGGLI-CRONISTER
6730 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8573
25-1601640
STEVEN K OIEN
6780 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317~73
25-1601650
JANICE MARIE HAZELTON
o
740 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-0600020
DARRYL K & CARA H JONES
833 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9599
25-0600030
STEVEN J & JOAN M CRONSON
801 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9599
25-1600510
DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES
6680 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9546
25-1600570
HERMINE R LUSTIGTRUSTEES OF
TRUST
6699 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9546
25-1600890
ROBERT A WIEST
840 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9432
25-16OO9OO
RYAN C & SANDRA L MOSLEY
6710 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-1600910
MICHAEL A & ROBBIE WOITALLA
6712 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-16O0950
TIMOTHY C & LORNA L GORNY
800 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9432
25-16OO97O
KEITH M VOLK
790 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1600980
DANIEL T RUTLEDGE
6711 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-16O1OOO
RUTH E LUNDE
6721 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-1601010
DENNIS R & MARY K OLDS
6727 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-16O1020
DENNIS R & MARY K OLDS
6727 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-16O1O4O
LARRY L & MARY E BARRE'I-I'
6741 HOPI RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9427
25-1601050
JASON A & CINDY E BOLDENOW
6890 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9559
25-1601060
IRMA HEYDT DEGLER
6711 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9431
25-16O1O7O
BRUCE ROBERT JOHANSSON
6701 MOHAWK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9431
25-1601110
LAWRENCE & PAULA VELTKAMP
6724 LOTUS TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8573
25-1601170
ANGELA M PRUISNER
841 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9420
25-1601180
THOMAS L & JUDITH L RAYMOND
834 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9599
25-1601190
ANDREW G & NICOLE M SIEMENS
678O YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9541
25-1601200
MELVIN G HERRMANN
795 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601210
MARTIN P & AMY E JENSEN
770 CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9464
25-1601220
RICHARD J SPARTZ &KELLY I AMES
777 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601230
JAY D HOPIA &ROBIN L MOSCHOGIANIS
76O CREE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9464
25-1601240
JEFFERY A KING
767 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601250
MICHAEL F & BARBARA A COYLE-
757 CARVER BEACH RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9422
25-1601270
JONATHON P RADEMACHER
820 IMPERIAL DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9418
25-1601280
KURT P & SHELLY LANGHEINRICH
6800 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9541
25-1601290
DOUGLAS H & CORAZON KALLEVIG
6830 YUMA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9541
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
NOTICE OF PUBLIC ttF, ARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
holdapublickaringonTumday, F_dmu~.
18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m_ in th= Council
Chlttnber~ ill Ch~nhs~-~8~Zl City HnlI; 7700
Market Bo~. Tl~ pmlx~ of thia
lot aw, a, and hard suffac~ cov~
vaxian~ for the con~u~on ofa ain81~
family reaidm~ oa ~ zoned RSF,
Rtai~ Single Fitmily, located ~ 767
C, arv~ Beach Road, Tcf~y Kin_=.
A phm showing the location of thc
c~ ~ durias =Sa]at ~ ~ou=:
Phon=: 952-227-1134
?lday liahed ia the Chanhaaa~ Villagar ~
, January 30, 2003; No. 4853)
Start Rolfsmd. being duly sworn, on oath says th~ he, is the pubEsher or ~ nnthmized ageat of
the publisher of th= new~tpe~ known as the, Chaaka Heatld and the, Chimhasse~ V'dlager and
has full knowledg~ of the ~ tm'e~ smmd as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requilm:nents constitming Clunlificafion as a l~ml
newspaper, as Ix~vid~d by ~ota Stam~ 331A.0'2, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
(B) The prin~ public notice that is amcbed t~ this Affidavit and iden~ed as No. '~~
was published on the cl~ or d~.~ and in the newspaper stated'in the a~ached Notice and said
Notice is heiv, by incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the column, of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to 7,, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind ~ of type used in the composition
of /
Subscribed and sworn before me on
Notary Public
RATE INFORMATION
Maximum rate allowed by law for the abow mam~ ................................ $21.00 p~ co]m'nn ~
Ram actually chazged for th~ above mal~' ............................................... $10.63 po- co]nmn inch
cFrYOF
CHIldrEN
/700 Mark~ Boulevard
PO ~ 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
P'none: 952.221.1100
Fax:. 95Z227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 95,?..227.11ffi
Fax:. 952.2~1.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.2~7.1160
Fax:. 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreatim~ Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Netaml Resource~
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 F%'k Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senlm' Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.221.1110
Web Sl~e
www. d.cfmhas~n.mn.~s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmeen A1-J'aff, Senior Planner
FROM: Matt Saam, Asst. City F~n~ncer i1~
DATE: February 5, 2003
SUBJ: Review of Variance Request for Jeffrey King
767 Carver Beach Rd. - Variance l~_lc No. 2003-2
Upon review of the certificat~ of survey dated November 18, 2002 prepared by DeMars-
Gabriel, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
SIGHT DISTANCE
After visiting thc site, it is apparent that thc location of thc proposed home will affect the
sight distance of motorists on Carver Beach Rd. Duc to thc close pro~dmity of thc road
to thc property linc and thc narrow pavement width of the road, sight distance around the
road curve is greatly affected by thc placement of thc house. Thc proposed house on thc
survey is protruding, approximately, ten feet into thc required 30-foot setback. Staff
estimates that this protrusion results in a sight distance of 185-feet. This estimate
assumes that there is a cie, ar linc of sight around the curve. In reality, them arc two
significant trees (a 24" maple and a 12" pine) in thc front yard area that further obstruct
thc line of sight. Thc trees can be assumed to decease thc sight distance by a minimnm
of five feet, which results in a sight distance of 180-feet around thc curve. The
AASHTO (American Association of State I~ghway and T~on Officials)
minimum stopping sight distance for 30 mph streets is 188-feet- As such, staff would
recommend that thc home location be revised to stay within thc required 30-foot setback.
RECOMMENDED CONDITONS OF APPROVAL
Show all of the existing utilities adjacent to the, lot, ie. sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, and watermain.
,
Show all proposed and existing contour lines along with thc proposed house
elevations.
3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk, etc.
,
The driveway for the new house must stay within 20-feet of either of the side lot
lines to provide the maximum sight distance for motorists on Carver Beach Rd.
5. Revise the house location to stay within the required 30-foot setback
c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
Dan Remer, Eng. Tech m
g:~eag~matt~nemm~staff mImr~g vafian~.d~c
The CIty of Chanha#en · A growing community wi~ clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding bails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play.
9~7.2 x I
FOR:
CERTIFICATE OF. SURVEY
J~FF
x
fi,
14.J
Denotes iron monument
X 000.0 Denotes existing 61ev.
~ Denotes surface dminoge
DEMAR$-GABRI~L
,LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
BENCHMARK: Invert Santb3ry Manhole ~90
Elevotion--979.50/Rim Flevoflon=994.4,5
.........................................................................
'1 hereby certtfy that this survey, plan or report wce prepared by me or under
my direct eupervflMon ond thor I am a duly ReglstenKI Land Surveyor under t~e
Lawa of the St(]te of Mlnnesoto.
Dcrvid F_.. Crook
D(]t~ Minn. Reg. No. ?';'~, ':'
Book-Page
-'. ' C,- · ~;;~.
Scale
·
f '._...~:.;
!
~OR: JEFF ICING
PROPERTY DESC~IO~: ~ 14~I ~d 14~1-14~4, ~~R B~CH, ~~R COUP, ~.
--~r 17e7 ~ ...... / I
.~ I ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 14 / /
~ 997.0 ~ i ~ ~nt~ 1.36
Ix 9g~5 ---
Ii
0 Denotes iron monument
X 000.0 Denotes existing el~. BENCH~K: Inve~ ~nitu~ Monhole .~90
~ Denotes sudace drainage ~ation=g7g.50/Rim El~tion-gg4.~
i
Rle No.
I hereby cedi~ ~ot this suwey, plon or m~ was prepo~ ~ me ~ under
DEM~-GAB~EL ~v d;~ aupe~e;on and ~o[ I Gm ~ duly Regi~er~ ~,d Su~r und~ the 116~
~ND SURVEYOr. INC. ~,~~, Uinne,o~. Book-Page
5050 Herbor Lene No.k~~ ~ 410-68
Plymouth, MN 55447 Devld· _~E' C~k ScQle
Phone:(765)
559-0908
Dote: ~ Minn. R~. No. 22414 1"=~0'
I I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
RF~~ MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2OO3
Chairwoman Blaekowiak called the meeting to order at 7.'00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve LiHehaug, Uli Sacchet and Craig Claybaugh
~ERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik, Lu~rm Sidney, and Rich Slagle
I~TAFF PRE~ENT: Karo Aanens~ Community Development Director, Sharrmen A1-Jaff,
Senior Planner, Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Assismm City Engineer
PUSLI¢
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Jeff Bores
Jason Boldenow
Ed & Janet King
Jeff King
7305 l_amdo Drive
7302 l_aredo Drive
7199 Frontier Trail
6890 Lotus Trail
7252 Cmrdon Drive
767 Carver Beach Road
PIjBLIC HEARING:
CON~mER A REQU-~T FQR FRONT, LOT AREA AND HARD b~JRFACE
COVERAGE VARIANCE~ FOR ~ CONSTRUCTION OF A s.~INC~I.F. FAMILY
R~$mENGE ON PRQPERTY ZQNED RSF, RF~IDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII.Y~
LQCATED AT 767 CARVER BEACH RQAD, JEFFREY KING.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt S~_gm presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commiasioners, are ~ne any questions of either Sharmeen or Matt?
Claybaugh: Question. Sharmeen, has the reversal of the plan that you're proposing hea~ been
discussed with the applicant?
AIJaff: We initially talked about it when the applicant first submitted the application. One of
the first things that we discussed was if you ~p flop the house, you will be able to reduce the
front yard setback And them are issues on the, one of the applicant's concerns, and maybe he
should address this issue in more detail, was a privacy issue for both his neighbors as well as
himself.
Blackowiak: Tha~'d be a good question for the applicant I think.
Claybaugh: I'm more after the city's perspective on it. If there's any down side on the city's
analysis for reversing that plan with respect to the reversal causing additional hardship or how it
affects the applicant beyond the privacy issues.
AI-Jaff: I'm not aware of any other. You would have to remove the existing driveway. Push it
over to the.
Planning Commission Meeting -Fehnmry 18, 2003
Claybaugh: It was my understanding though that was going to be removed as a part of the
proposed plan as is. Am I correct?
A1-Jaff: My understanding was the driveway was going to remain.
Jeff King: It would be either way...but it would be in a similar spot.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have for staff.
Blackowiak: Alright- Steve.
Lillehaug: No questions.
Blackowiak: Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a quick question or two. Yon mentioned that maple that is to the east.
There's also an oak right in front of the house, about the same size. About a 24 inch oalc Is the
plan to maintain that or, if you don't know maybe it's a question for the applicant. I don't think;
and I wonder whether it gets affected by one plan versus the other.
Jeff King: Do you want to see a picture? I've got a picture.
Blackowiak: You know what, we'll.
Sacchet: We'll have you up in a few minutes.
Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll ask that when you come on up and you can have the microphone.
Sacchet: Hopefully being considered so far. Okay, well Fll ask that question of the applicant
then when you come up. Another question that I'm curious whether you know the answer.
Maybe it's also an applicant question. When you ~p flopped the floorplan, put the garage to the
east side, would you envision the driveway to be to the east or to the north?
Al-Jaff: I was envisioning it to the east and that was based upon a discussion that Matt and I had.
Jeff King: It says north on the board...
Al-Jaff: I think it says.
Saam: Southerly site line.
AMaff: North of the southerly property line.
Saanr Which would be east. Corning out to the east.
Sacchet: Coming ont to the east because it also can come out to the north, couldn't it?
Saam: Not if it was, well maybe we should touch on that. Let me go up to the. One of the, well
the proposed condition is driveway for the new house must stay within 10 feet of the southerly,
which would be right here, sorry. Right here. Southerly side lot line to provide maximum sight
distance for motorists on Carver Beach Road. That's one thing that I didn't mention. If you do
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
go out there, we want to try to get this driveway to hug one of theae lot lines to provide the
maximum sight distance for people coming around this comer. We don't want, as you were
maybe alluding to Commissioner Sacchet, the driveway coming out to the north. People would
kind of come around that comer and then nm right into it so that's why we want to get it to hug
one of these lot lines to provide the maximum distance for motorists to see oncoming traffic.
Sacchet: Thank you. That is a good answer.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it? Okay, I don't have any questions at this time. Now would the
applicant like to make a presentation? If so, come to the microphone and state your name and
address for the record.
Jeff King: Hello. My name is Jeff King. I live at 767 Carver Beach Road. Fve been a resident
for 11 years. Well in 2 weeks Fll be a resident 11 years. I'd like to stay at this location but the
house was built in the mid-50's and it was built as a cottage. I have a 1 car garage, 1 bathro~n.
Remodeling, it would be so extensive that I believe it's basically cheaper to rebuild. Right now
my main problem is that my house is 57, or my lot is 57 percent the standard of a minimum lot.
So right now between, I'm kind of, I have a problem that Fm short to begin with and that curve
that you saw creates problems with the front setbacks and the side setbacks. So right now my
house, even as it is, you couldn't build my house because it doesn't meet minimum standards.
You couldn't build a 2 bedroom, I car garage house in Chanhassen so, and right now I'm over the
limit of hard surface, which that's my problem right now and that's why I have to ask for
variances. I'd like to address some of the safety issues because I've been thinking about that a lot
too. Right now Carver Beach Road at my turn, it's roughly 23 feet wide and the speed limit is 30
miles per hour. So if you ever have 2 cars passing on my curve, both going 30 miles per hour, no
one can blink because either one car's going to hit the other car or one car's going to be off the
road. I nrnm it's extremely fast for that curve. Right now on the o~ side of that curve it's a
steep bluff going down to the lake. I believe it's considered a bluff. I think it's more than,
Sharmeen is it 30 degrees?-
Al4aff: Yeah, and I'll be passing out a photo.
Blackowialc 10 percem, I mean yeah. If you blinked on that curve you'd be down in the
neighbor's bedroom or something.
Jeff King: And our neighborhood has requested speed bumps~ and things in the past beea~
really the speed limit should be a minimum 25 if not 20 going through there. My concern is
there's no, you really, well you safely can't park. There's no on street parking because the road is
so narrow. It's only 23 feet wide. I would like to have a longer driveway so when I have guests
come over, it kind of comes back to that sight line thing again. Can I have the overhead? I drive
a pickup truck and that's that square right here is the same size as my pickup truck As you can
see it's still encroaches the 30 feet, but if you put the driveway down here, I mean it's even going
to make it worst. There's a 5 foot drop from one comer to the next so you know a lot of the
neighbors have their cars out. In fact the Carlson's who live in the, they live on this comer lot,
they actually, they don't use their garage. They always park, it's not on the street but it's, they
always park right there so if my driveway comes out there, I'm fight where they always park their
car constantly.
Blackowialc Excuse me. Could you point out, just on that picture where they normally park.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
left King: They park fight here, well that's the edge of their garage though. Right about here is
where they usually park. They've got, it's class V gravel. It's about as wide as a car and they
always park 1 or 2 cars right there. I would really prefer to come out this side, for sight lines, and
because I could have a long~ driveway so when I have 2 or 3 people over, they're closer to the
house. The other factor I've, all my utilities come in from this side over here. Cms, electric,
sewer and water right now. I have a utility pole and everything comes in on that side. Otherwise
I'd have to mn all my utilities, sewer, water. I don't know what the invert elevation of my
plumbing is. I haven't done enough research to know but since utilities come in that side, I'd
rather have the house on that side. The house right now, I'd like to have the garage on the other
side because if you look at the sight lines of my neighbors, it kind of creates a buffer having the
garage there. And that's the way the current house is right now too. Right now this is all woods
on that curve and it's a ~ view and I'd prefer, I look at the tre~ than my car. You were
inquiring about a tree. They call this an oak tree. It's actually a maple tree. Right now it's, the
bark is starting to peel off. It's not a bad tree, but it's not a good tree. It's leaning about, I'm
guessing somewhere between 5 to 8 degrees towards the house. Every time tlam~'s a rain storm
and a wind storm I get nervous because if it falls over, it goes directly across my bedroom, h's a
nice tree and I'd like to save it but in all reality it's not, it's not a great tree and it's not a very
strong tree. Is there any questions you have of me on this?
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, Matt I'd like to ask you one quick question. Just quick do
some math here for us and then I'll come to you on this. Can you sort of estimate, driveway
lengths on both the, hugging the southerly side lot line and hugging the westerly side lot line.
Can you give me an estimated driveway length on both of those? And you don't have to give it
me right this second but.
Saam: So just so I clarify. The driveway...
Blackowiak: It would be the staff option, yeah.
Saam: And what the applicant's proposing.
Blackowiak: Yeah. I'd like to know what both of those lengths would be. Okay, that's my kind
of question for in a moment or two. But let's now, for applicant questions. Craig, I think you had
a couple that maybe you wanted to ask the applicant.
Claybaugh: Actually I didn't have any new questions. I have comments so.
Blackowiak: Okay, well we'll wait for that. Okay.
Lillehaug: I do have some questions. C. nxxi evening Mr. King. And my questions would be,
you've indicated that you're really not too agreeable on staff's layout of how they flip flopped the
garage and house, is that a safe assumption?
Jeff King: That is safe. I mean Sharmeen mentioned it earlier. I got my packet with the staff
report on last Friday so I really haven't had a chance to talk to her about it because I think you
were closed yesterday.
Lillehaug: Okay. You indicated the utilities are placed at the south, southeast comer of the
property. Do you see any significant i .mpacts of putting your house on one side or the other?. I
mean other than maybe a small increase in cost due to the length.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
Jeff King: Like I said, I don't know the invert elevation dictates for plumbing how far it can go.
I don't know how deep the sewer is at my house, I mean I could find out. I didn't have ~ to
call Gophers State and site everything and check it but it's possible to do everything. Obviously
electricity and water is no problem. The sewer'd be the only one I'm not positive on.
Lillehaug: So legitimately there may not be any resuictions of the placement of the house due to
the underground utilities? It's just more of a convenience than probably a cost reduction. Okay.
Jeff King: Yeah, and the current house is that way fight now.
Lillehaug: And then one other question I have here is, you, in the drawings I see, they're pretty
vague but there's an 8 foot wide length between the house and the garage. This kind of comes
into play on the whole house pad, garage pad size. Could you kind of explain what this 8 foot
wide length would actually be.
Jeff King: What he's referring to is right here between the garage. Actually the garage doors will
be on this side. But between the garage and the house there's a bathroom and actually that'd be a
stairs. It's kind of a wet area. The house that I'm currently interested in building was the 1999
Life House. It's kind of has a co~ look. It's kind of a modified A-frame. Around me I've got
about 6 lot homes and a lot of rustic looking homes and I'm trying to figure something that will
fit in the area. The neighbors next to me have a 2 story and the neighbors next to me have a split
entry and the people with the log home kind of kitty comer, they have a 2 story also so I'm trying
to get something that will fit in and that's just an architectural you know, part of the house to
break up the front.
Lillehaug: So that is part of the footprint of the house?
JeffKing: Itis, yeah.
Lillehaug: That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli, questions.
Sacchet: Yes, two questions, and I'm still unclear about the trees. Them are 2 trees. One of the
oak by the front of the house and the other one's the maple further east.
Jeff King: Correct.
Sacchet: Now, you were co--ting about the oak or the maple when you were expressing that
it was...
Jeff King: It's labeled an oak but it's a maple. Since I've moved in I've planted 2 more maple
trees that are probably 4 inch diameter now. So I have, I've known that the, Fm trying to make
accommodations for the tree I'll have to take out.
Sacchet: One is labeled and one is labeled oak. Fm still not sure which one you're talking about
Jeff King: The one that's labeled oak would have to come out.
Sacchet: The one that's labeled oak would have to come out That would, and that's the one
that's leaning?
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
Jeff King: It's leaning and it's heaving at my driveway right now and the bark is falling off of it.
Sacchet: Okay. And the other one that's labeled maple, which you say is an oak.
Jeff King: No, that is a maple.
Sacchet: That is a maple?
Jeff King: That would stay.
Sacchet: That would stay, okay. Okay. Just to be clear about that. Okay. So.
Jeff King: The other reason Fd like to have the driveway on the side I do is because on that
southern lot line, that is a row of oak trees and if I put in a driveway, that's going to cause a lot of
s~.ss on those trees. It's, they didn't label it on my plan but there's about, approximately 5 to 6
oak trees at least 17 inches or more in diameter along there.
Sacchet: Just across the lot line?
Jeff King: Yeah. Obviously whoever built my lot took all the trees out right to the lot line.
Sacchet: Okay. But it could be done. It could be done with the flipped footprint It's just it's
not your preferred solution.
Jeff King: Well the orientation, the windows of the house and everything like that, I'd probably
have to find a new plan and come back to the city with a new plan. I can't imagine having all my
windows look at the neighbors house. That wouldn't make any sense to me.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I have just a couple questions. Number one, it looks like at some
point in time there was a deck on the house you're living in right now, and I don't see any plans
for a deck on your new home. Is that something you're considering or I mean, that also plays into
hard surface coverage.
Jeff King: If I did something it would be a patio and it would be something that world be brick
or something. It wouldn't be considered hard surface. I don't believe, I would do something.
Blackowiak: It is.
Jeff King: Okay.
Blackowiak: Sorry.
Jeff King: No I wouldn't, the house actually has a porch on the front of it and I would see myself
using the porch more than I would.
Blackowiak: A deck per se. Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
SeffKing: It's all shade there. You wouldn't be sitting out and sunning yourself right them. The
tree canopy is really...
Blackowiak: No, just as I drove by I just noticed that the~ was a header tm the house so I mean
there was a deck there at one point in time.
Jeff King: The d~k was so rotted I took it out 2 years ago.
Blackowialc Okay. Alrighty. That's my question. Matt, before we, does anybody else have any
questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Fm going to open this up for a public hearing in
just a moment. Matt, can you give me those lengths on the driveway?
Saam: Yeah. Now theze are approximate on a scale but they're probably within a foot or two.
The applicant's proposal where the garage is on the west side, that driveway length from the
garage out to the street would be approximately 55 feet. And what staff is recommending with
the driveway coming out to the east side, that driveway's approxirr~tely 57 feet
Sacchet: Is longer?.
Saam: A couple feet.
Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, it doesn't sound right. I was thinking that the east should be
significantly shorter. That's why I wanted to ldnd of get a feel for that. And I don't know, it
might just be an optical illusion but.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we comparing the original driveway versus the new or the
two options?
Aldaff: A couple of things going on. What I did was, I scanned ~, the original survey and on
a very primitive program if you will, I basically changed the layout. Also there are two different
scales between what the applicant's.
Saam: This one's a 30 scale I believe. Yeah, I guess I assume the width, the total width of the
house would be the same whether the garage was on the west side or the east side. The width is
going to be the same so you measure the width of the lot, and then from the setback on the west
side over to the street, you just subtract the width of the lot and then you get. I can show it up on.
Blackowiak: Yeah, you know what, that would be helpful because as I looked at the survey, I
just, it looked different to me.
Claybaugh: We want to check your work.
Saam: That's fine.
Blackowiak: Well we just want to make sure we know what we're talking about here.
Jeff King: ...it's fairly flat. That edge elevation...on the oth~ side is more ora hill.
Blackowiak: But it goes down towards the road.
Jeff King: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
Blackowialc So it would be like draining and getting sun and those are not necessarily bad things
in this climate.
Jeff King: It's all oak trees fight there.
Saan~ Okay so just, his proposal with the driveway coming up out thi~ way, measuring from the
edge of the garage out to the street, you have approximalely 56 feet. 55-56 feet
Blackowiak: Okay.
Saam: Now, well. Hold on a second. Let me just, the width of the house is going to remain the
same. That's 63 feet so you go from the setback line, which is the farthest that the house can be
pushed to the west, out to the street. That's about 120-121 feet. Subtract off the 63. You have
57, 58 feet left. So as I said, they're approxirru~mly the same.
Blackowiak: It's an optical illusion. It looks so different. But we're trusting you on this one.
Thanks. Right, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this
issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Jeff Borns: Jeff Borns. I'm at 7199 Frontier Trail and JeWs been a neighbor of mine for years
and I understand what he's trying to do with the home and observing the lake. What I had
noticed, if I could get this overhead. The wad tums this direct and from a safety standpoint, from
what I understand, the elevation of the home is considerably higher than the edge of the wad.
And with the consideration of the driveway and the parking conditions and if you see what's
going on with the neighborhood, I can see where coming out with a driveway in, with the
elevation, with ice and that sort of thing, you know I just question the safety issue with this
elevation and actually if a car is coming in thia direction, you'd have to take an awful lot of
momentum to actually, really create any problems in regards to the home or what have you so. I
guess I'd like to see Jeff stay in the neighborhood and I know what he's trying to accomplish with
his views, but as far as the whole thing fitting inW what's happening with the homes next door
and that sort of thing, from what I understand of the neighbors and that, I think thi.~ is probably
the preferable plan. I know I would like to keep him as a neighbor and you know I would like to
have the same considerations for safety and that but I don't know if you folks have taken a look at
that elevation there but sliding out the driveway inW the traffic situation just doesn't seem like an
option. If you look at the demographics of the lot, and you walk the property for some time, this
really does seem like the logical applicatiom And to me it's just a beataJfial addition to the
neighborhood so that's my only comment. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else be in~ in saying anything tonight?
Jeff King: I just have one comment.
Blackowiak: You know, if you'd like to come on up to the microphone. That way we can get it
on the record. Thanks.
Jeff King: I guess I just don't understand the math because' from my proposal to the city's
proposal, how can we have a difference of 28 percent to 33.45 percent if the driveway's the same
length. I just don't, I don't understand this.
Blackowiak: Good question.
Planning Commission Meeting -February 18, 2003
JeffKing: It's new math but.
Blackowiak: Let's, yedL Good question. No, I understand and maybe Sharmeen and Matt, we
can kind of hash through this one more time because that's why I was asking about driveway
length difference because if there's a hard surface difference, that means the driveway's shorter
on one side or the other and I was, what I was trying to get at by going through those numbers
was parking. In other words, does it make sense. Are we going to be able to really get another
full car in or is that not even an issue on the southern versus the westerly driveways. That's kind
of what prompted my question. As I look at it, it seems that the southerly, I don't know if you
guys will agree with me or not, it seems that the southerly driveway is shorter than the westerly.
That would account for the difference in the hard surface coverage. Matt just told us it was a
little bit longer and I'm thinking we've got a scale problem or what's, help us out here please.
Saam: No. Just as you look at it though, depending on where you are on the curve. Depending
on where you are on this curve and you're me. amnSng back to the driveway. I mean if you're up
here and measure back to the house, obviously that distance is shorter than is you measure down
here where I was aL So it's all subjective. To me they're approximately the same.
Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, if we could just look, I mean let's look at the, as I look at it, the upper
left comer of the garage as is, that to the 185 mark that you have up on the street. That distance,
let's call that distance number 1 looks shorter to me than, let's go to the lower fight comer of the
house to the street. Distance number 1 looks shorter to. me than what I would call distance
number 2.
Saam: Right here.
Blackowiak: Yes. From there to the street. And if you're assuming that the area that the house
covers is going to be the same, which we've made that assu%nption, isn't distance 2. The
southerly distance shorter than distance 1.
Saam: And this is your distance 2 where my pen is?
Blackowialc There to the street, correct. Can you give me that distance?
Saam: 62 feet.
Blackowiak: Why does it look so much shorter?
Lillehaug: I concur. I mean I measured it and I scaled it.
Blackowiak: You got the same thing?
Lillehaug: ...same as he, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. I guess it's just an optical illusion then. Okay, then Fll go back to Sharmeen
question. Where do we get the hard surface coverage discrepancy between flip flopping the
proposals?
AI-Jaff: One of the things that I did was pushed the garage so it's at the 10 feet to reduce the
front yard setback variance.
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
Blackowiak: Okay, so that accounts for part of the hard surface coverage because it's coming out
of the front yard setback. Got it, okay. That nmkr, s sense to me now.
Al4aff: I should have explained that...
Blackowiak: Okay. No, that's...
Sacchet: I don't follow it yet to be honest.
Blaekowiak: Okay Sharmeen~ let's let Shatmeen get up there and explain to everybody so we can
all understand. All get on the same page where we're at here.
Al-Jaff: Olle of the things that I did was rather than, I'm hoping that this shows. Okay. One of
the things I did was I pushed the garage so it was parallel to the southexly properW line and
maintains the 10 foot setback. This in turn reduced the encroachment into the front yard setback.
As you push this back to maintain the side yard setbacks, the 10 feet side yard setbacks, you
incteame the length of this driveway. That's where you come up with the difference.
Blackowialc Okay, talk to me about hard surface coverage. So that has to do with the setback.
Front yard setback.
Al-iIaff: You increase the length of the driveway from, Matt may I borrow your scale.
Blackowiak: I'm sorry to be doing this Sharmeen but I just want to make sure I'm understanding
where you're coming from here.
Al4aff: It's approximately 10 by, the driveway I believe is 20. 10 by 20 so that's 200.
Blackowiak: So that's going to figure into your hard surface coverage right there.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay.
AI-Jaff: Versus if you move it in this direction. So now.
Saam: You're going to the propexty line though Sharmeen.
AI-Jaff: And I should be at the street?
Saam: Yeah. For the full length of the driveway. That's what I measured.
Al-Jaff: Okay. So now it's at 7 feet. Well then it's how I measmed both.
Blackowiak: Okay. Then can you give us.
Al-Jaff: 70 versus 50. I'm sorry, less. I need to do this one more time. I apologize.
Claybaugh: Point of clarification?
Blackowiak: Sure.
10
Planning Commission Meeting- Felmmry 18, 2003
Clayhaugh: Sharmeen, what we're actually comparing is the proposed survey submitted by the
applicant, which would be the 55 feet.
Claybaugh: Okay. Here's the alternative plan so there isn't, in my mind it's not necessary to take
that westerly measurement. That's not part of what he's proposing.
Blackowiak: No. I'm asking, I asked for that. Just for my own head. I mean I want to figure out
parking. We're talking parking issues. We're talking safety. I kind of want to know.
Al4aff:. But hard stu'race is measured on the site itseff.
Blackowiak: Yeah, but I'm also looking at driveway length too. I'm thinking parking. You
know it's.
A1-Jaff: You should have enough length for the parking. That shouldn't become an issue.
Blackowiak: No, but I'm just saying if he's having guests over, you know is it going to be
significantly less parking doing the southerly versus westerly, that was kind of my question. You
know if there's no parking on Carver Beach Road, which makes sense, what are the options and
how do we accommodate this.
Al4aff: There will be room for 2 cars within the front yard, on the driveway.
Blackowiak: Like 2, 2 by 2, so 4 cars?
Saam: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Plus parking in the garage, okay.
Al4aff: Yes.
Blackowiak: That's reasonable. Thank you. Does anybody have any other questions of
Public hearing's still open. Last chance if anyone wants to comment.
Jeff King: I have one more, two more comments.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Jeff King: I want to re-address Steve's question about redoing the utilities if the driveway's
there. I'm going to have to redo all my site utilities. I don't think they'll let me have all my
sewer and water under a driveway so everything will have to be moved over and re-tapped into
the street. Second of all I could also square up my. The reason I cocked it a little bit was just an
architectural thing to try to blend the house into the turn. I mean it can be put on, mine can be put
on, my proposal can be squared up also. I think it gains you somewhere around 4 inches on the
encroachment. You know, I think it just looks better if it was kind of faced the curve a little bit
so, but it will be a financial, a more substantial financial imp, act to redo all the utilities. The site
utilities because the, I don't think they're going to let me nm sewer, water gas and all that under a
driveway.
II
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
Blackowiak: Okay.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Just a conunent. I think the issu~ of the
coverage is a critical one here because it's shoreland, and I realize he's exceeding it to a cecuiin
degree. I think it'd he helpful just from the 'standpoint of me pic~ng up this repot, if they had a
matrix showing the coverage of the house, the garage and the driveway and where the driveway
was located. It was difficult for me to see how much coverage ~ was or where the driveway
was a single driveway, a double driveway or something.
Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. I think we've got a few options floating around tonight so, part of
the issue. One more comment?
Jeff King: I'm not on the water. I know anything in that neighborhood ends up in Lotus Lake but
I'm not on the shoreline. And that whole bluff down below me is all lxees. There's no
development. I don't think it's, any of that is developable land. In fact the neighbors next to me
are on an unbuildable lot that they built on since I've been there so I know you know things have
changed.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. At this point Fm going to close the public beaxing. It's time for
comments. Steve would you like to start?
Lillehaug: Sure. Let me start with an easy comment. I don't have a problem with the surface
coverage area. We're talking a few percentage differences depending on which option we're
looking at. I don't have a problem with that. I guess the point I want to draw further attention to,
and it's a single point that I have a problem with is the sight line distance. The ideal case, this is
the ideal case why the city has a 30 foot setback on a front yard property, is to maintain a sight
line in this particular case. 26 feet seems reasonable. However this option, it doesn't appea~ that
this is an option that's acceptable to you. I would support the 26 feet. I don't support a 20 foot.
That seems, you're i ,mpeding the setback by 10 feet and that's too much in this case. The sight
distance is important in this case because it is a safety issue. And around this curve to maintain as
much safety as possible I think it's very i ,mportant, and without increasing it in this case, because
right now your house does not encroach into that setbaclc Therefore I think this is one particular
point that we need to maintain and withhold and that we cannot encroach upon because if we do
encroach upon it, it's going to increase negative impacts to safety and I'm not willing to go
forward with that. There are other obstacles such as trees and bushes in the sight line also. By
further putting a house in that sight line it kind of increases the safety obstacles two fold because
you're really impacting that sight line to provide absolutely almo~ no sight line because there's
trees, bushes and then you're moving that house in that area also. So I think that this option
would really be a potential detriment and I don't support it. And I really do want to reiterate
again that a 30 foot setback is ideal. One other comment I guess or question I'd like to make is,
can we break this variance up?
Blackowiak: We can do anything, sure. What would you suggest? Give me a suggestion.
Lillehaug: Well there's two variances...
Blackowiak: Do you want 3 separate?
Lillehaug: ...hard surface coverage and then one for the front yard setback.
12
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
Blackowiak: Okay.
Lillehaug: Then I would also, I don't want to throw other options out there but I would be more
in support of impeding the rear yard or side yant setback than anything with the front yard
setback at this point.
Blackowiak: Alright. So then your suggestion would be to break this into two motions. Number
one, for the front yard setback- Number two, for the hant surface coverage.
Lillehaug: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, with the goal of what?
Lillehaug: With the goal of what? Well, I guess there really wouldn't be a goal that would
probably be acceptable to the applicant if they weren't both approved.
Blackowiak: But just sort of what the direction that if you were going to go into a setback, you'd
prefer it more to the back than into the front?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments?
Claybaugh: Yes. For the variance it's not a question in my mind that the applicant needs a
variance. I think that goes without consideration. It comes down to a question, typically in all
these cases, the degree or the extent of the variance. And as Commissioner Lillehaug stated, it
needs to be looked at in relative terms. But my fellow commissione~', I don't struggle necessarily
with the percentages on the ha_rd surface core,ge. It's a consideration, absolutely but my
primary concern is the public safety associated with the sight lines. The variance that you're
asking for on that is a 33 percent variance. 10 feet doesn't necessarily sound like a lot. 33
percent does, in my mind. And as such, with respect to poss~ly splitting the motions, I would be
in favor of that, but with respect to the 33 percent variance on the setback, I could not support
that.
Blackowiak: Alright. Uli.
Sacchet: Well I agree with the comment that it's definitely a variance in order. I mean the
applicant needs a variance in this particular case a variance is necessary, by all mean.~. However,
when we have a change of a non-conforming situation what we look at is the non-conformance
increased, is it very much increased or is it ~. Ideally fi'om the city's point of view we
like to see the non-conformance decrease. On that basis I first thought that the staff proposal was
very good because it made an effort to balance the different aspects of non-conformance. Getting
the side yard setbacks respected, which before were a little bit encroached upom Get front, well I
don't know whether you call that front yard. It's the side yard towards the street or the front yard
setback. Maintain that as much as possible. It's a safety concern. I think that's very significamL
It's a second aspect that needs to be looked at. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the fact, I feel
this hasn't had enough time to be discussed and thought through from the applicant's side for one
thing. It's my understanding from the applicant's comments that you just got this alternative
proposal on Friday. And then on top of that seems to be, I think it would be really helpful in
order to pin this down to make clear decision, to be very clear in terms of how are these
calculations made for the hard cover surface coverage. Even though that is 8ecol~. That got a
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February lS, 2003
little muddied here in the discussion. That was unfommate so I personally, and I don't know
whether that's fair to the applicant, I would want to give this more time to really bring it a little
bit more into sync with what the situation is. What can be done. I don't think this has been
cooked enough so therefore I would want to ~ we table this.
Blackowial~ Thank you. I don't know if I agree we need to table this. I agree that there's some
room for impmvetmnt and some mom fine tLrning, but I think that within the paran~ters that staff
has set, in terms of the setback from the road at 26 feet for a maximm~ No, minimuu~ That'd
be a minimum setback. That's kind of my ~ point I really think the sight lines are
i~t like my fellow commissioners have agreed. Those I think are things that we need to,
those sight lines are things that we have to preserve, especially in this area because it's a tough
area to build. The variance, you need a variance to build. We don't want you to leave
Chanhassen. That's not our intent here. We're just trying to make it the best possible layout for
this piece of ~, and you don't have a lot of property to work with. I mean it's tough and
the design you have is gorgeous. That'd be a great addition to the neighborhood. I certainly
agree with that. We just have to figure out how we can maintain the sight lines. I think the
parking issue is huge. I meau I want to make sure that if you're going to do a house, that you're
going to be able to have people, over and be able to have them park on your driveway. I mean
you have to take that into consideration. I like Steve's thoughts about maybe changing a little bit
on the side yard setbacks and the west and the south. We could even look at pmse~wing what's
existing. In other words not increasing what's increasing by tweaking it a little bit, shifting the
house ever so slightly. I mean I think we've got some options here so I don't think we need to
necessarily table this. I think I would feel comfortable moving forward with staff's proposal.
Setting those 26 feet, 28 percent, setting those numbers and then having staff work with the
applicant to fine tune the project because I think we can do it. I think we can do it. I think it can
be done within the numbers that we have and so I would cenainly vote for going ahead with this
proposal and moving it along this evening. So since Steve wanted to split these motions into two,
I will let him make the motion this evening.
Lillehaug: I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve a variance request to allow,
well I'm not sure if I can make a motion re. ally because I don't have specific pementages. So let
me withdraw my motion.
Al4aff: How...for you.
Lillehaug: Say again.
Al4aff: Do you want me to split the motion for you?
Lillehaug: Well the problem I'm having is I don't have a certain percentage for hard surface
coverage.
Blackowiak: Or not to exceed? Or maybe we give a liffle. I mean I don't, split the differe~
between the existing and the applicant or you know, give him a little more room to work as long
as you maintain the front setback. Because I think that we've all agreed that that is, in our minds,
one of the most important.
Lillehaug: Well then let me ask a question here. The existing hard surface coverage is 29.5
percent. Do we need to approve, do we need a variance to approve an existing condition? To
maintain that...
14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003
Blackowialc I think we do. I think yeah. we still need a variance because it doesn't meet cuzmnt
standards. The goal is to not to increase the non-conformity. So if we went with 29.5, that would
be within our.
Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves a variance request for
a 29.5 percent, which is the existing hard surface coverage arem That wbuld be ic
Blackowiak: Okay. And do you want to do a separate one for the setback? Is that what you're
looking for? Or do you just want to put them all together? It's up to yom
Lillehaug: I guess I would like to keep them separate.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. So we'll, there's been a motiom Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Lillehaug moved, Sacehet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance
Request g2003-2 to allow 29.5% hard surface coverage for the construction of a single
family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on plans dated January 3, 2003.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Blackowiak: A second motion please.
Lillehaug: I guess I don't think I have a seco~ motion.
Blackowialc Well we need to do something. The staff's proposal is at 26 feet. So you're
comfortable with that, which would give you sight lines of 100 and, no. 200 feet, is that ~
Matt? So the 26 foot setback would give you 200 foot sight lines.
Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that we approve a variance request to allow a maximum of a
26 foot yard setback.
Sacchet: Minimum.
Lillehaug: Minimum? Minimunx Okay.
AI-Jaff: Would you also eliminate condition number 8 please.
Lillehaug: Yep, eliminate condition number 5 and eliminate condition number 8.
Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, we'll do that.
Lillehaug: Boy I struggled through that, sorry.
Blackowiak: That's okay. So that would be a 26 foot front yard setbac~ correct?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: Clarification. Condition number 4 stays as is?
15
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
AI-Jaff: Matt? Condition number 4 stays as is?
Saam: Are you asking?
Lillehaug: I would like to withdraw condition number 4 also.
Sacchet: I wondered about that.
Blackowiak: So the applicant work with staff to sight the driveway as to maintain
distances?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Blackowiak: Okay. We'll sort of redo number 4.
Sacchet: Mean not saying work with staff, you just take it off?.
Blackowiak: No. Put condition number 4, I'm saying that they will work with staff to.
Sacchet: Will work with staff.
Blackowiak: In an effort to maximize sight distances. I think that's what we've all been saying
is that safety's important on this road so, let's let them work with them and.
Lillehaug: Before approving this and before I finalize my motion, can I ask a question on this?
Okay say the applicant goes ahead and wants to go to this 26 foot poinL Does he, if he was
within the setback of the side and rear yard, would he have to come in front of this board again to
get approval for those variances? If there was one required because existing conditions, I mean
they don't meet.
Blackowiak: Oh you mean so if be was, oh if he encroached into.
Lillehaug: If he encroached into the side and rear, he would have to come in front of this board
again for a variance. Would this be an appropriate time to table this so he doesn't have to redo
this? That's why I'm kind of leaning towards...
AIJaff.' There is one issue with tabling. We're running into a deadline, unless the applicant.
March 4~ we mn into the 60 day deadline to process this application. We're going to need
additional time.
Blackowiak: Do you have a comment for us Kate? Is that why you're coming up here?
Aanenson: You didn't notice for any other s~dditional variances so you can't grant them at this
time. They were not noticed. Legally you have to notice those. We can ask for additional 60
days for additional information. He doesn't have to, you can signify that you need additional
information. Therefore we get the additional 60 days.
Blaekowiak: Okay. Or else we can just go ahead and grant this evening, what's been requested
and should plans change or should something else happen, then we can just come back and, so
that's certainly up to you. You're making the motion.
16
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
Lillehaug: I maintain my motion with the deletions.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion regarding the 26 foot front yard setback. I think we
need to vote first. So I have the motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: Yes, I can second thac Without 4, 5 and 8. With 4 stating will work with staff to
maximize sight distances.
Blackowi_ak: Okay. Friendly amendment?
Claybaugh: Friendly amendment would pertain to the orientation of the sUuctum on the lot as it
sits right now. The way the m~tion i~ proposed, it calls for a 26 foot ~nirrmm setback, but
doesn't address the square footage that goes beyond the 30 feet. So the house changed with
respect to the orientation on the lot, you could have substantially more square footage.
Blackowialc It's already been addressed in the hard surface coverage figure. I think we're okay
with that. I mean you wouldn't be ~_dding anything that isn't already there.
AI-Jaff: And you can just reference.
Blackowiak: The staff's layout.
Al-$aff: Staff's proposal. Staff's layout
Clayhaugh: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe you just want to make that amendment.. Just reference staff's
proposal.
Claybaugh: Is that sufficient?
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept that?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Lilielmug moved, Saethet seconded that the Planning Commtgglon approve Varian~
Request ~,003-2 to allow a 26 foot front yard setbael~, congigtent with staff's propogal, for
the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on the
pla~ dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Show all the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, i.e. sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
watermain.
2. Show all proposed and existing contour lines along with the proposed house elevations.
3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk: etc.
4. The applicant will work with staff to maximize sight ~ for motorists on
Carver Beach Road when siting the new house on the lot.
5. Deleted.
17
Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003
,
,
The applicant shall flip the home as shown in staff's layout.
The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback.
Deleted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimo~y with a vote of 4 to 0.
·
Blackowiak: So what happens next?
Al-Jaff: It's been approved.
Blackowiak: Mr. King, please talk to Sharmeen. In a nutshell. Just hammer it out. I really think
it's a great looking house. I think you can work something OUt, and I'd hate to have you see, I
mean we'd love to see you again but you probably don't want to see us again so work it out and
build a nice house. It will be a nice i .mprovement to the neighborhood.
APPROVAL QF MINUTE~: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated January 21, 2003 as presented.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjollrned the ~ Commission meeting at 8:0~ p.m,
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opbeim
18
Ms~ Sharmeen AI-Jaff
Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Ctmnhassen, MN 55317
RE: King Residence- 767 Carver Beach Road
Dear Sharmeen.'
I wish to appeal the decision ofthe planning 'comm~e (meeting of Tuesday February
18, 2003) on my property at 767 Carver Beach Road. I would like to receive the staff
report on this meeting before going furthex into my reasons for this nppea]. I undet~m~
commRtee for one year.
1-15-2002
Page 1 of 1
http://www.mamosian, com/paul/1-15-2002.hah1
3/6/2OO3
. House Plans and Home Design Services at www. orderhomeplans.com
Page 2 of 3
UPPER FLOOR
·
BED OM 3
·
MAIN FLOOR
· .,; .... ~,-- I
.,
·
ROOM
ltOOM
O EXTI3~0R
This dream home was designed with
modern-day living in mind. The living room
hosts a fireplace fianked by window seats,
while a cabinet hides the entertainment
system. The island kitchen offers a serving
bar, a windowed sink and easy access to
the dining room and the built-in buffet. A
quiet Away Room is a great spot to sleep
guests; it also serves as a perfect study.
Specifications
Style: Country
Bedrooms: 4
Baths: 3
Floors: 2
Garage Two Car
Stalls:
Master Suite: Second
Laundry: Basement
Foundation: Full
Slab
Blueprint Pricing & Options:
Finished sq. ff.
First
Second
Total:
953
962
1915
Detailed Specs
http://www.orderhomeplans.com/main.asp?hspos=SKNET&action=plandetail&hssvTMI&:sc... 12/8/2002