G-1. Variance 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Planning Case #2014-270
CITY OF
CHANgASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Administration
Phone 952 2271100
Fax 952 2271110
Building Inspections
Phone 952 2271180
Fax 952 2271190
Engineering
Phone 952 2271160
Fax 952 2271170
Finance
Phone 952 2271140
Fax 952 2271110
Park & Recreation
Phone 952 2271120
Fax 952 2271110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone 952 2271400
Fax 952 2271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 952 2271130
Fax 952 2271110
Public Works
7901 Park Place
Phone 952 2271300
Fax 952 2271310
Senior Center
Phone 952 2271125
MEMORANDUM
TO- Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern
DATE. February 9, 2015
SUBJ. Variance 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Planning Case #2014 -27
PROPOSED MOTION
"The Chanhassen City Council denies a 5 0 percent hardcover variance to
permit the expansion of an existing patio and denies a 39 -foot shoreland
setback variance and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision,"
Or
"The Chanhassen City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage
variance to permit 28 5 percent hardcover to permit the expansion of an
existing patio on the property and denies the additional shoreland setback
variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of
Fact and Decision "
City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A vote by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that is less than three fourths of the
members present shall serve as only as a recommendation to the city council, who
shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request
The applicant is requesting relief in the form of a hardcover and shoreland setback
variance from the zoning ordinance to expand on an existing patio These variance
requests would expand on existing approved hardcover and shoreland setback
variances attached to the property (Planning Case #2005 -10) As a part of their
application, the applicant submitted an alternative plan that reduces the hardcover
variance request and does not require a shoreland setback variance. They now prefer
the alternate proposal
Fax 952 2271110 The property owner is proposing the patio expansion to create a connecting handicap
accessible access to the outdoors The small lot size of the property hinders the
Web Site property owner's ability to create a handicap accessible outdoor access and outdoor
wwwci chanhassen mn us space. The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot lot
size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square feet) If the
property met this lot size requirement, the proposal would not require a variance.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
February 9, 2015
Page 2
Staff is supportive of the alternate plan to permit the expansion of the patio to provide access to
the patio via the garage
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, held a public hearing
on January 6, 2015 to review the proposed variance The Planning Commission was unable to
support the shoreland setback variance request, but did discuss the applicant's alternative plan,
which had a reduced hard cover expansion variance request The alternative plan does not require a
shoreland setback variance
The Planning Commission discussed the issue of increased storm water runoff and were concerned
about the ability of the City to require the property owner to maintain storm water mitigation
strategies. Staff believes that the installation of a landscape area of shrubs or other plant materials
can reduce the amount of runoff going into the lake by providing an area for water to percolate into
the ground. Furthermore, the Planning Commission was split on accepting the small lot size and
inability to have handicap accessible access from all rear exits to the outdoors as a practical
difficulty and that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the landowner
The Planning Commission voted two for and three against a motion approving the alternative
variance request to permit the construction of 354 square -foot patio expansion that would put the
property at 28 5 percent hardcover and would not further encroach into the shoreland setback The
motion failed
The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on October 7, 2014 to review the proposal
The Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant and staff to further discuss the
proposal These discussions lead to the revised plan prepared by the applicant
The Planning Commission minutes for January 6, and October 7, 2014 are attached
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council denies the original variance requests and adopt the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision for denial,
Or
City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28 5 percent
hardcover on the property, and denies the additional shoreland setback variance and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions-
The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City
This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a
completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for
the permit
Todd Gerhardt
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
February 9, 2015
Page 2
2 Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A
landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application
ATTACHMENTS
1 Letter from Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowsk> dated January 20, 2015.
2. Email from Rosemary Kelly to Bob Generous dated January 15, 2015
3 Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial)
4 Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval).
5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 6, 2015 (revised)
6 Planning Commission Minutes for January 6, 2015.
7. Planning Commission Minutes for October 7, 2014
g \plan\2014 planning cases\2014 -27 9015 lake riley blvd variance \executive summary doe
January 20, 2015
Denny Laufenburger, Mayor
Bethany Tjornhom, Councilwoman
Jerry McDonald, Councilman
Elise Ryan, Councilwoman
Dan Campion, Councilman
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P O Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Laufenburger and Members of the City Council:
We appreciate the opportunity to present our revised variance request directly to the City Council and
to identify pertinent information that was not addressed previously. We have worked directly with the
Chanhassen Planning Staff and are in complete agreement with their recommendations
As residents of Chanhassen, we have appreciated the thorough attention given to the variance process
and the commitment to protect the nature of Lake Riley However, at the January 6, 2015 Chanhassen
Planning Commission meeting, I left the meeting with the feeling that our rationale for the variance
request was not clearly presented. Perhaps there were misunderstandings between our original request
and the revised and recommended variance request In order to be as clear as possible in regard to our
variance, I am submitting this letter.
The revised site plan in front of you this evening was developed directly with Chanhassen's Planning
Staff, at the request of the Planning Commission, in order to be responsive to city requirements and
neighboring precedents The Staff supported this plan, and provided a Resolution with Findings of
Approval to the Planning Commission. The updated site plan was submitted with our revised variance
request At the meeting, I believed that the Commission supported the revised plan as well as I was not
asked any questions and we met their previous request to find a solution with city staff Without
receiving questions I was unable to address the planning commission's concerns or clarify the details of
our changes I did not elaborate at the time as I felt the revised request was reasonable, supported by
staff, and clear Surprisingly, it was denied and moved to the City Council agenda for review
Following are critical elements of our revised variance request that we, as homeowners, felt were not
made clear to the Planning Commission:
1 We DO NOT request an addition to our current setback from the OHW (The original request
was for a 39 foot setback.)
2 We REDUCED the hard surface request to 350 sq ft (2 7 %) This amount was requested to
connect the existing patio with the garage access, for wheelchair accessibility The original
request was for 551 sq. ft. (4.3 %)
3 We REDUCED the total site hard surface ratio request to 28 1% (12,900 sq ft ) This
percentage is in alignment with our existing neighbors' homes (The original request was for
30%)
4 We REDUCED the full site /hard surface area to 3,619 sq ft by correcting an error of 55 sq ft of
retaining walls per the City Planner's review, which is a 25 3% of hard surface area
5 Our impetus for requesting a variance is to be able to provide site - compliant ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act) accessibility The interior of the home is built for wheelchair accessibility,
but the site is not accessible My mother is 90 years old and dependent on a walker and
wheelchair for mobility Our home is equipped with an elevator and on -grade access from the
garage level that provides her full participation on the upper level of our home for all family
gatherings However, she is not able to participate with us during the warm months when we
are outdoors and lake -side. The two current patio thresholds leading to the lake are non-
compliant in height (1/2" maximum vs 2" existing, the existing grade exceeds the 1' 20' slope
limit (i e., rise per run), and access to the existing lower level exit doors do not meet
maneuvering /a clear path of travel requirements We consulted an MN ADA specialist to
review our existing conditions in terms of federal requirements and options
6. Our revised plan adds a pad in front of the garage to facilitate access to the lakeside through the
on -grade garage. The pad would be connected to the patio at appropriate slopes In addition,
doorways would be made ADA - compliant for maneuverability needs and provide access to the
site. Our revised variance does not provide full access to the lake, only to the lake -side of the
house thereby allowing persons with disabilities to participate in all activities
7 We would be agreeable to incorporate appropriate landscaping materials, as recommended by
Staff, to absorb additional runoff if necessary
Thank you for your consideration
Respectfully,
Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowski
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
2
Page 1 of 1
From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly071 @gmail com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2.03 PM
To Generous, Bob
Subject: Re- Variance request - 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Mr. Generous,
I am requesting that the review of our variance request be delayed until the February 9, 2015 meeting I
waive the city's review timeframe through that date
Rose Kelly
On Jan 15, 2015 1.34 PM, "Generous, Bob" <b enerous ,ci chanhassen mn.us> wrote
Rose,
I'm sorry you are unable to attend the Jan. 26 City Council meeting You may submit a written request
delaying the review to the next City Council meeting on Feb 9, 2015 As part of your request, please
note that you are waiving the city's review timeframe through that date
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
:e1
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
7700 Market Boulevard
P O Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227 -1131
bRenerousnci chanhassen mn us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life —
Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
file. / / /G./PLAN/ 2014 %20PIanning %20Cases / 2014 -27 %209015 %20Lake %20Rlley %20B1v 2/2/2015
_b��,YIA_OL �
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE.
Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland
setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property
zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27.
On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application. The Chanhassen City Council makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF)
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3 The legal description of the property is
P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE
1293 86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247 87' TH N89 *E 714.51'
TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11 86TH N44 *E 64.01' TO INTERSECT
WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N
4 Variance Fmdinas — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance-
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan
Finding: The subject site is zoned Single - Family Residential District. The purpose of the
request is to permit a 39 -foot shoreland setback variance and 5 0 percent hard surface
coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion While multiple properties
in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting
additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use
of the property The property also has a functioning 13 5 -foot by 13 -foot patio on the
property that currently serves as an outdoor space.
b When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems
Finding: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting
with City Code The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and
shoreland setbacks. The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere
convenience
c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone
The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use
d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner
Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth; however, the property has
already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of
the property. Any additional expansions of this non - conformity would be created by the
property owner
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the
locality. Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback. However,
since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface
may increase the runoff problem
f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C 06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5 The planning report #2014 -27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is
incorporated herein
DECISION
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #2014 -27 a 39 -foot setback
variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage
variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned
Single - Family Residential District "
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of February, 2015
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY
Mayor
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE
AppcDoell
Application of Phillip J Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland
setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 354 square -foot patio on property
zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27 property address 9015
Lake Riley Boulevard
On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application. The City Council makes the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 The property is currently zoned Single- Family Residential District (RSF)
2 The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3 The legal description of the property is.
P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS - COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE
1293.86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247.87' TH N89 *E 714 51'
TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11.86' TH N44 *E 64 O1' TO INTERSECT
WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N
4 Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance•
a Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan
Finding: The subject site is zoned Single - Family Residential District The purpose of the
request is to permit a 3 5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 354 square -
foot patio expansion Multiple properties in this area have hard surface coverage that
exceeds the 25 percent maximum for shoreland properties Furthermore, the construction
and use of a patio of this size within the building envelope is a normal use of the property
in a residential district, therefore, it is keeping in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the RSF district
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems
Finding: The small lot size hinders the property owner's ability to create usable outdoor
space on their property The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000
square -foot lot size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square
feet) If the property met this lot size requirement, the applicant would not require a
variance
c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone
The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use.
d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner
Finding: The small size of the lot restricts the property owner's use of the property The
lot does not meet the required lot size for shoreland properties and has a much smaller
maximum hard surface coverage allowed than a property that meets this requirement
e The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality
Multiple properties in the area have outdoor patios and hard surface coverage that
exceeds the 25 percent maximum To mitigate flooding and environmental concerns, the
property owner will provide landscaping that will reduce storm water runoff from the
hardcover expansion
f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter
Finding: This does not apply to this request
5 The planning report #2014 -27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is
incorporated herein
2
DECISION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2014 -27 a 3 5 percent hard
surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square -foot patio
expansion and denial of the a 39 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback
requirement on property zoned Single - Family Residential District "
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of February, 2015
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY
Mayor
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PROPOSED MOTION:
PC DATE: Deteber 7, 2 January 6, 2015
CC DATE: Oeteb er- 27 2014 (f f fie,.,,ssai..
innuar-y 26,2015
February 9, 2015
REVIEW DEADLINE: Deeem ber- 12 201 4
(extended 60 days fr-atii 10/14,114)
Febrummy 3,-2W
February 9, 2015
CASE #: 2014 -27
BY: AF, RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS
"The Chanhassen Beafd of Appeals aiid Adjustments City Council denies the hard surface
coverage and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision "
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage
variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage The property
owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32 -foot
shoreland setback variance This item was tabled at the October 7, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting.
LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
(PID 25- 0240300)
APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and
Rosemary F Kelly
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
P.O Box 490
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential
(RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low
Density (Net density 12 — 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0 29 acres (12,632 squar-e feet)
(12,900 square feet)
DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION - MAKING: The City's discretion in
approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the
standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards This is a quasi - judicial decision
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014 -27
015 February 9, 2015
Page 2 of l l
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow
the applicant to work with staff Additional information was provided that showed the original
requested hard coverage was underestimated Following is the original staff report with
revisions shown in strikethrough and bold format.
The property currently has 3,324 square feet of hardcover (25.8 percent). The property
owner is requesting an a variance to add an additional 4-9 4.2 percent hard surface coverage
vaffa-nee to the property This is in addition to an appr variance, if approved, would
expand the approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage to a 5.0 percent variance
from the 25 percent hard surface coverage maximum (° total °r°° of 2 9 "°H° °Nt) The
addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at X130.0 percent The
property owner is also requesting to encroach an additional 7 feet into the shoreland setback
an additional three feet set-baek vaf This is in addition to an appfeved 32 feet sher-elt
setbaek vafianee (35 feet sher-eland sethaek vaftanee fn total) This request ts being made to
lae t° ° rat,° 40 feet f e the ofdi ar- y high . ,,,t°« level If approved, this request would
ivvucc.
increase the approved 32 -foot shoreland setback variance. The expansion would put the
new shoreland setback at 36 feet (a 39 -foot variance from the required 75 -foot shoreland
setback.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District
Section 20 -480, Zoning and water supply /sanitary provisions
Section 20 -481, Placement, design, and height of structure
Chapter 20, Article XII "RSF" Single- Family Residential District
Section 20 -615. Lot requirements and setbacks
BACKGROUND
The Single- Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for
all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent " The Shoreland Management District Chapter of
City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be setback 75
feet from the ordinary high water level.
On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five -foot front yard setback variance, a 32-
foot shoreland setback variance and a 1 percent hard surface coverage variance for the demolition
and construction of a new single- family home (Planning Case #2005 -10) The applicant originally
requested a 7 68 percent hard surface coverage variance and 41.3 -foot shoreland setback variance,
but the Planning Commission reduced these variance requests for approval The proposed patio
would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27
Oeteber— 7, 2014 I°-- 61 2015 February 9, 2015
Page 3 of 11
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing a 240 551 square -foot patio to be leea4ed expansion to an existing 176
square -foot patio in the rear yard This expanded non - conformity would put the property over the
allowed hard surface coverage maximum by 2-9 5.0 percent The applicant is also proposing to extend
the patio beyond the existing setback by three 7 feet, locating the patio within 40 36 feet of the
lakeshore's ordinary high water level The proposed patio would encroach into the required 75 -foot
shoreland setback by -3-5. 39 feet
The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair- accessible patio and to pefint
maintain aesthetic alignment with the house Hewevef, The existing property has an approximately
13.5 -foot by 13 -foot (176 square foot) concrete patio beneath the four - season porch. This area currently
can be used as a wheelchair - accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images eirthe next page-
below) The door located beneath the deck has a 3 -foot by 8 -foot pad and the door off the garage
does not have a landing pad. The property owner is concerned that neither of these two doors can
be used by someone with physical limitations. The applicant's request is to connect the patio
beneath the porch to the area in front of the door beneath the deck and the area in front of the
garage door with a concrete patio (see door locations and proposal on the next page).
Jr r
�i
JT1 in
AN
.i�iAllrr Z,
sI rr,
Existing wheel chair
accessible patio
(approximately 13 5' x 13')
beneath 4- season porch
�`i�II I' It'll
�r
{ t�o, '
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
Oeteber- 7, 2814 February 9, 2015
Page 4of11
House Exits /Entrances I
•55.1""_Ddot
hMN D.* 54" i
Stay F
P_
Nrd 5,t—
it mv>id iMa�gm
u e�eW g�wh� � � e7roigard rani 9auuod vwQ WHna d be .
Lhpeeed �.+ii�
�9 hnm drk to kke Na !�
Ad lean Dab b Ns MMk 9tig MA
6c Lnin 6. Lwn
� S
' s SCANNED
The euFfe t building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring
building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a
drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater
pond across the street Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley.
This location has a recent history of stormwater issues On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused
the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard
Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement The city's Public Works Department
sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage
The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural
resources through limiting runoff into public waters Allowing a setback and hard surface
expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area
and increase surface water runoff issues
This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and
hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non - conformity
of the presently functional property
As seen bele on the next page, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that
have requested variances Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance
requests Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27
weber– 7, 2014 J_-Hu-_—.y 5 February 9, 2015
Page 5 of 11
Variance
Number
Address
Description
Action
Request for an addition to a non -
VAR 85 -21
9005 Lake Riley Blvd.
conforming building (encroaching into
Withdrawn
front and rear yard setbacks)
VAR 90 -07
9051 Lake Riley Blvd
10 35 -foot shoreland setback variance for
Approved
the construction of a new home.
36 -foot shoreland /rear yard setback for
VAR 92 -09
9021 Lake Riley Blvd.
the construction of a deck and hot tub to
Approved
be located 39 feet from the lake
5 -foot front yard setback variance, 10
percent hard surface coverage variance and
CAS 05 -10
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
a 32 -foot shoreland setback variance for the
Approved
(subject property)
demolition and rebuilding of a single -
family home on a non - conforming property
(minimum area)
(continued on next page)
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
Oeeberz2914 February 9, 2015
Page 6 of 11
Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject site, three properties have hard
surface coverage that exceeds 25.8 percent (the subject property's hard surface coverage),
with the largest being at 29.3 percent hard surface coverage (the subject property is
proposing 30.0 percent hard surface coverage). Additionally, four properties in this area
have a shoreland setback that extends within the required 75 -foot setback; however, none
of these properties have a shoreland setback less than 43 feet (the subject property is
proposing a 36 -foot shoreland setback).
NOW- r -
Hard Surface Coverage and Shoreland Setbacks of Shoreland
Properties within 500 feet of the Sublect Property
:t
9 5% HSC
- r� ----� 75' Setback
F
w v. 22 9% HSC
!� • 60- Setback
(Subject Site)
4 = • �L 25.8% HSC
s
43` Setback
271 %HSC
r r 43 = Setback
.. 0
29 3% HSC
43: Setback
• k 16 0% HSC
4 °' f---- 75" Setback
r I • `'
27 1 °10 HSC
1 58- Setback
j � '
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
nc-teber- 7,-2-044 ianuaFy 6, February 9, 2015
Page 7 of 11
The subject property has an area of 12,900 square feet. This is significantly smaller than
the 20,000 square -foot minimum required by city code for single - family riparian lots (Sec.
20 -480). Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property, there are three
other properties that do not meet the minimum square footage requirement for riparian
lots (see yellow outlined properties in the image below).
+ a
i - Lot Sizes of Shoreland Properties within 500 -feet of the
Subject Property
t`.
42,602 s f
ItR
"
•; 12,900 s f
Subject Property
.i� 18,731 s f
20,909 s f
T
i 14,37 s f.
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
eteber7, 244-4 january 6, February 9, 2015
Page 8of11
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation
(OHW) of 865 3 feet The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city
code A variance was granted to allow for the construction of the house This variance allowed
for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently setback 43 feet from
the OHW at its closest point. The pfavtded „'an no dimensions and was ineanststeiA - .t&
the ueriui photograph shown to the right
A review of the plans indicates that a four - season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to
extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan
provided This is shown in green on in the figure -2 below The porch addition was consistent
with the approved hard surface and setback variance The approved deck was to continue as the
east wall of the four - season porch extended northward 19 feet. The gar-age wall, lae ted in the
northeast eefnei: of the house, is the one eanstant between the two plans and was ttsed as the
5 Palo Wed ka'F '
5 SaLn Aavm Dedd
EJtiq Ded
.d W_C _
Pael Bat49 if � � uuac
Oaa.[al Pdn Ba — �+
x.dae lyo-aam
4)Iran 1}c ISlae 3ilry H9
Slate arc Bb�ftr.nwt `\ , Bbd SNGg wf
may y�'� �'� 16iNMdlrem 8ermd \ Pwv X60
7"'4"
+� �. `�
Ji•
.aJ Iran dal bpe Slav Sttg Hf
b kan pdbbba ����
Ex tan 6. Lan
MCWT
_ I>
S.
MCWT
The proposed patio extends an additional
7 feet towards the lake from the existing
deck. This equals a setback from the
OHW of 36 feet.
Residential properties are allowed one water - oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in
area within the setback, provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW Water- oriented
structures are included in hard surface coverage calculations for the property. However,
the proposed patio is not considered a water - oriented structure as it is attached to the
primary structure. Furthermore, Tthe size of this patio (existing and proposed) isestima4ed
to be 11 exe ess of 730 feet o fly th e times lafger- than allowed 751 square feet, over three
times larger than what is allowed for a water - oriented structure. A deck is not considered
impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface (besides the concrete door
step pad) This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to
the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake
Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be
attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area.
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014 -27
Oetabef 7,-24 4 january 6, February 9, 2015
Page 9of11
ALTERNATIVE PLAN
Through conversations between city staff and the applicant, a reasonable alternative plan
has been created in case the Planning Commission City Council finds that a hard surface
coverage variance request is acceptable; however, no further encroachment into the
shoreland setback is supported by staff. The alternative plan, favored by staff, reduces the
hardcover variance request and does not require an additional shoreland setback variance
(see image below). The alternative proposal would expand the patio under the existing deck
and to the northerly patio door in line with the existing setback. The addition will add 354
square feet (2.7 percent) of hard surface coverage to the property, but will maintain the
existing 43 -foot shoreland setback. The hardcover expansion will put the total property
hardcover at 28.5 percent. The hard surface coverage expansion (see gray area in the image
below) will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent
hardcover maximum for shoreland properties, a 2.5 percent expansion from the approved
26 percent hardcover variance (bringing the total hardcover to 28.5 percent).
An issue expressed by the property owner is the lack of usable outdoor space. To add
outdoor space without adding hard surface coverage, the property owner can install a
retaining wall within the shoreland setback (it must be set back at least 10 feet from the
OHW) and complete earthwork in the rear yard to make a flat grass area to the east of the
patio (between the patio and the lake -see green area below). Any grading and retaining
wall installed will require a permit and plans to be submitted to the City.
i
i
Existing
Hardcover E House i� .I ►
FFT
-• -
Patio Expansion
Ilk
;'I Hardcover Removed from Plan, Green Space—
Retaining Wall I -: ,- I ._ !. _ _ _
Patio Expansion
will maintain
existing 43'
( shoreland setback
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27
o tober— 7 2014 February 9, 2015
Page 10 of 11
SUMMARY
it appea-r-s that the vaff a-nee fr-am the 014W setbaek r-equifements is for- 4 5 feet to be withl" 3 0
root of the OH3A1 The variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 39 feet,
extending an additional 7 feet from the existing approved variance setback of 32 feet. The
current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 25 percent maximum for
shoreland properties The deck is not eeiisidefed h,,,.,a,,, ver- so the aiily existing h,,,.,a,,, ve f
where the fiew pa4f a f s proposed eansists of the 13'x 13' four season por-eh and the effiefete Pad
in ffon4 of the Fr-eneh doefs it is estima4ed that the -proposed patio is in exeess of 730 squar-e
feet meaning they ai-7e r-equesting mer-e than 525 sqiiar-e feet of additfonal ittffaee
w thi the setbaek f am the 0144 The proposed expansion will add 551 square feet of
hardcover to the property (a 4.2 percent expansion). If approved, the total hardcover for
the property will be 30.0 percent. This will put the property 5.0 percent over the 25 percent
hardcover maximum for shoreland properties.
This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring
properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional
impervious surface would create additional untreated stormwater runoff discharging to Lake
Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To
avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation
of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious
surface variance
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission City Council denies the variance requests and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision
Should the Planning Commission City Council approve a hard surface coverage variance,
it is recommended that the approval be for a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to
permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and deny the additional shoreland setback
variance and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the
City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio
addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other
plans required for the permit.
2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property.
City Council
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27
r3ctebef 7201-4 015 February 9, 2015
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
1 Findings of Fact and Decision
2 Development Review Application
3 Landscaping Plan.
4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014.
5 Letter from Joan Ludwig to Chanhassen Planning Commission, Bob Generous, and Rose
Kelly dated September 9, 2014
6 Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice.
7. Extension request dated October 7, 2014.
8. Extension request dated November 3, 2014.
9. Letter from Rose Kelly dated December 22, 2014.
10. To scale drawing of proposal from Rose Kelly.
11. Sketch Map
g \plan\2014 planning cases \2014 -27 9015 lake riley blvd variance \cc staff report 9015 lake riley blvd doe
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE.
Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland
setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property
zoned Single- Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27.
On January 6, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF)
2 The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
3 The legal description of the property is
P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS. COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE
1293 86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249 23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247.87' TH N89 *E 714 51'
TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11.86' TH N44 *E 64 O1' TO INTERSECT
WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N
4. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following cntena for the
granting of a variance.
a Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The subject site is zoned Single- Family Residential District The purpose of the
request is to permit a 39 -foot shoreland setback variance and 5 0 percent hard surface
coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion. While multiple properties
in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting
additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use
of the property. The property also has a functioning 13.5 -foot by 13 -foot patio on the
property that currently serves as an outdoor space
b When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems
Finding: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting
with City Code. The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and
shoreland setbacks The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere
convenience
c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use
d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth, however, the property has
already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of
the property Any additional expansions of this non - conformity would be created by the
property owner.
e The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality
Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the
locality Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback However,
since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface
may increase the runoff problem
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C 06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter
Finding: This does not apply to this request
5. The planning report #2014 -27, dated January 6, 2014, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is
incorporated herein
2
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment,
denies Planning Case #2014 -17 a 39 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback
requirement and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to
allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single - Family Residential District "
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chairman
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address — P O Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone (952) 227 -1300 / Fax- (952) 227 -1110
CITY OF CHMHASSEN
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Date Filed `T 60 -Day Review Deadline C-
' Section 1: Application'
•• •
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ... $600
❑ Minor MUSA line for fading on -site sewers $100
❑ Conditional Use Permit
❑ Single -Family Residence $325
❑ All Others $425
❑ Interim Use Permit
❑ In conjunction with Single - Family Residence $325
❑ All Others.. $425
❑ Rezoning
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) $750
❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD $100
❑ All Others ............................. ... $500
❑ Sign Plan Review $150
Planner
❑ Subdivision
Case #
❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Zoning Appeal $100
❑ Administrative $100
❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts* ............ $500 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area NOTE When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
Include number of existing employees the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application
and number of new employees
❑ Residential Districts ............ .... $500 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal
Plus $5 per dwelling unit information that must accompany this application)
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES-
Notification Sign $200
(City to install and remove) .-39
(� Property Owners' List within 500' $3 per address
\ (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting)
Escrow for Recording Documents 5er document
(CUP /SPRNAC/�AP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision)
TOTAL FEES: $
Received from Rf ss.r o a fi
Date Received .�. It.S11 ILt Check Number
Project Name Patio Proposal
Property Address or Location. 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parcel # 250240300
Total Acreage
Present Zoning
22
Residential
Legal Description Lot 3, Sec 24, T 116 North, R 23
Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes 21 No
Present Land Use Designation Residential
Existing Use of Property Residential
Description of Proposal See separate narrative
0 Check box if separate narrative is attached
Requested Zoning Residential
Requested Land Use Designation Residential
❑
Create 3 lots or less
$300
❑
Create over 3 lots
$600 + $15 per lot
❑
Metes & Bounds
$300 + $50 per lot
❑
Consolidate Lots
$150
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
$150
❑
Final Plat*
$250
*Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs
Escrow will be required for other applications through the
development contract
❑
Vacation of Easements /Right -of -way
$300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
❑✓
Variance
$200
❑
Wetland Alteration Permit
❑
Single - Family Residence
$150
❑
All Others ... ....
$275
❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Zoning Appeal $100
❑ Administrative $100
❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts* ............ $500 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area NOTE When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
Include number of existing employees the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application
and number of new employees
❑ Residential Districts ............ .... $500 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal
Plus $5 per dwelling unit information that must accompany this application)
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES-
Notification Sign $200
(City to install and remove) .-39
(� Property Owners' List within 500' $3 per address
\ (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting)
Escrow for Recording Documents 5er document
(CUP /SPRNAC/�AP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision)
TOTAL FEES: $
Received from Rf ss.r o a fi
Date Received .�. It.S11 ILt Check Number
Project Name Patio Proposal
Property Address or Location. 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parcel # 250240300
Total Acreage
Present Zoning
22
Residential
Legal Description Lot 3, Sec 24, T 116 North, R 23
Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes 21 No
Present Land Use Designation Residential
Existing Use of Property Residential
Description of Proposal See separate narrative
0 Check box if separate narrative is attached
Requested Zoning Residential
Requested Land Use Designation Residential
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period If this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct
Name Contact
Address Phone
City /State /Zip Cell.
Email Fax
Signature Date
PROPERTY OWNER. In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct
Name Rosemary Kelly and Phillip Sosnowski Contact Rose Kelly
Address 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Phone (952) 353 -4691
City /State /Zip Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell (612) 360 -8700
Email rkelly071 @gmail com Fax- (612) 467 -1920
Signature ' 1-� Date 8/11/14
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all
information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions Before filing this application, refer to the
appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and
applicable procedural requirements
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name
Contact
Address
Phone
City /State /Zip
Cell
Email
Fax
Section 4: Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
*Other Contact Information.
Q
Property Owner Via
F/� Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name
❑
Applicant Via
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address
❑
Engineer Via
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy City /State /Zip.
❑
Other* Via
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email.
` SCANNED
Proposal Patio Construction
Location 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317
Variance Request
We are requesting the construction of a patio (see attached design) be allowed as an addition to
our single family home in Chanhassen The planned construction plan is attached We are
requesting a 240 sq ft variance for allowed hard space to build a wheelchair accessible patio.
In addition, as the original construction of the house was permitted a 32 feet variance
from the required 75 foot setback, this proposal was designed to stay within that
limitation. The proposed patio is setback 43 feet from the lake, within the limitation of
the current variance However, we are also requiring a variance to allow for an
additional 3 feet setback to allow construction a curve of the patio for 8 4 feet to permit
aesthetic alignment with the house
The current hard space for the house.
Overall Gross area to OHW = 14,650 sq ft
Right of way
= 1,750 sq ft
Net area
= 12,900 sq ft.
Building area
= 2,225 sq ft
Concrete pad
= 27 sq ft
Retaining walls
= 55 sq ft
Stoop area
= 89 sq ft
4 season porch area
= 176 sq. ft.
Sidewalk area
= 170 sq ft
Driveway area
= 612 sq ft
Total current impervious surface area = 3,354 sq ft
Rationale
This variance request is to ask for an additional 240 square feet of hard surface to allow
continuity between existing hard space and wheelchair accessibility to the patio The reason for
the patio construction is to make the lake and lawn on the lakeside of the house handicap
accessible in alignment with the overall concept and construction of the house The previous
owner clearly designed the house to be handicap accessible. However, financial limitations
kept the original owner from constructing a reasonable access from the house to the lake even
though the setback permitted such a construction and the additional hard space is minimal (240
sq ft ) Lack of a level, even surface to exit the house limits the usability of the lake and lawn to
anyone who is handicapped. This is because the lawn immediately slopes and is uneven
There is no means of outside handicap access to the lake except directly onto sloping lawn.
There is already hard surface immediately under the deck and the four season porch, but these
surfaces are not connected and under constant shade This proposal requests permission to
simply connect these two areas with a level material to improve safety and access It is a
limited extension of current patio construction in keeping with the aesthetics of the house design
and within the original construction setback variance This request for 240 sq ft. variance of
additional hard space is in harmony with the handicap accessible construction that was not
SCANNED
completed by the original builder This construction deficiency has become more apparent as
we witness my 90 year old mother being unable to safely get out of the house to enjoy the being
outside at the lake
Conditions meeting variance requirements
1 We are requesting a 1 9 % variance to the current hard space zoning in order to construct a
limited, level patio to improve our home handicap accessibility In addition, we are requesting a
set back of an additional 3 feet for 8 4 feet in length to provide an aesthetic aspect to the
construction This construction is consistent with the design and intent of the original
construction of a handicap accessible lake home but not completed originally due to financial
limitations of the homeowner We bought the house 4 years ago because the design was
entirely handicap accessible As we made small changes to our house, it was always in
alignment with this design Now, as we look to accommodate my elderly mother and our own
health limitations, these features of the house are particularly important We plan to stay in this
home the rest of our lives and we purchased it with that intention. We wish to improve design
and accessibility of the house to the lake by completing a handicap accessible patio on the lake
side of the house In addition, the current concrete patio has a step down that is not level with
the doors making is impossible to navigate with a wheelchair so we wish to resolve this
technical problem at the same time. This request to increase hard surface is by a very limited
amount and is extended beyond the already existing hard surface to include a small area that
allows for sun This proposal benefits handicapped and wheelchair bound individuals and
remains consistent with the comprehensive plan of the original house design
2 The practical difficulty with compliance of the current zoning is that the hard space limitations
keep us from completing a level, connected, safe patio area in order to make it wheelchair
accessible Currently, it is not possible for a handicapped person to get outside the house
safely onto a level surface We wish to correct this problem in an effort to align the house with
its original handicap accessible design and facilitate access for ourselves and handicapped
family members We believe this proposal is a request to use the property in a reasonable
manner not currently permitted by limitations on hard surface for this property
3 This proposal is not based on economic considerations It is based on personal consideration
for handicap accessibility for current family members and ourselves
4 The house design was left incomplete by the original owner We are asking for the variance
to hard surface allowance by only 240 sq. ft. to improve the overall design of the house and to
comply with the original intent of handicap accessibility Inability to provide access to the lake
will create a current and ongoing hardship for full utilization of the property that we did not
create
5 This is a very small scale patio that will only increase the hard surface of the house by 240 sq
ft The proposal is designed to create an aesthetically appropriate addition while improving the
function of the house The variance, if granted, would not alter in any way the essential
character of the locality
6 This house is not an earth- sheltered construction
SCANNED
V, Zagreb Coreopsi5
3 Barberry 'Orange Rocket'
Boulders in the
I Felix 5preme Peony
Fx tree / bed edging coLild
cp arourd tHb tree . . . . . . .
13 Walker's Low Catbffrvt
Ex I-or-,&IscqPe Ex Landscape
x.
AC
Stone Eckjwi2 1
Paver Bancing
Street
,,, Mail Box
steps
replace damaged
throughout 5tctrc(
La Ex Hall
qSidewalk
replace
Wall
Ex Hall
entry
gar-den
hose
5 Feather Reed Ka-I Foerster'
" 5 Sedum Auturm DeW
Existing Deck Steps
Daurspait Drain Box I
-1 MI—MIT TIT�
43' from lake A
2 Pralne Dropseed
25 5q' of patio added atside Stone- or Block Nomment
the exi5tirig vatIor-ice 11 CbLogol" Green Boxwood
45' from deck to lake
4CO From patio to lake
Ex Law
•
Ex. LctUri
Rm. KV&_
RII.V VD
Ctvtrxwen
D.. F&
SCALF N FEET
Driveway
repair sunken slab
Uaraye
Current HOFd Surface Coverage
Ex. Lawn
F
Note• Patio would only odd 2404
to P-AMIng harclsirface square footacr-
SCANNEN
1 Annolaelle Hydrangea
Stone Sitting Hall
or
Block 5itbnq Wall
Paver Baking
Ex
0--
Stone Sitting Wall
or
Block Sitting Hall
,
'e
Fx
Ex Lown
SCANNEN
Generous, Bob
From N R [nsmith3587 @msn com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12 35 PM
To Generous, Bob
Subject: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Hi Bob,
We have no issues with the variance Rosemary Kelly is requesting. The water issue is really
more the holding pond that created the flooding this year. This should be addressed by the
city.
Thank you,
Nancy Smith
9051 Lake Riley Blvd.
TO. Chanhassen Planning Commission
Bob Generous
Rose Kelly
FROM- Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN
9/16/14
RE. Requested Variance at 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
I am the neighbor to the north of this address. My concern about the proposed variance is
regarding to the drainage to my property at 9005 Lake Riley Blvd
When the property at 9015 was re constructed, a drain swale was eliminated between that
property and my own The two properties used to be at the same level, and with the
increased height and drainage of 9015, as well as all of the additional construction up hill
from here, things have changed dramatically The drainage onto my property has been
significantly increased Each year, the storm drains have had issues in heavy rain as well
as in freezing periods in the winter. Additionally, my property has been suffering from
standing water in the yard and on my back patio that is much greater than it had been
prior to the re build next door and the density of ground cover in the general area.
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Rose Kelly having the improvements to the
property that she desires. However, I do seek assurance and oversight from the city to be
certain that my property will not be further compromised by additional water drainage I
seek assurance from the city planning department and the city engineering department
that steps that have already been discussed will be implemented and that mitigation of
future flooding to my property is being adequately addressed
The city engineering has stated that they will
1 Clean the storm drains to assure that they are functioning properly and to
capacity. And to make this area a first priority to mitigate for draining issues.
2. Clean the holding pond across the street from our properties to assure that it is
holding the needed amount of storm water and draining properly
3. Re implement the drain swale between the two properties to properly direct
excess storm water (This includes removal of the tree at the yard line to
accomplish the Swale, and I am currently assisting in getting bids.)
4. Accomplish other re landscaping as needed to protect my property (including
home and yard) from becoming over burdened with drain water
Again, I am not opposed to homeowners having the improvements that they desire
However, proper care and assurance must be given to assure that my property is not the
recipient of water due to the addition of impervious surfaces and drainage that will again
put me underwater again Further, I dust want to assure that professionals evaluate the
variable lake level to assure that additional structures and improvements will not bring
the lake level up to a level that will flood my property during heavy storms
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
September 4, 2014, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance Request — Planning Case 2014 -27 to the
persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United
States marl 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.
Kar J Enge qrt, Deput Jerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this c�h day of s`, be r , 2014
iJ1ElJV41SSEN Nota ry ublrc N1 - Minnes
ota
ry Public
2015
MY Com
mission Expires Jen 31,
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7 00 p m This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda
Location
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd
Request for Variances to exceed the impervious surface
Proposal
limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a
patio on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF
Applicant
Rosemary Kelly
Property
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Location
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps
at the Meeting
1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project
2 The applicant will present plans on the project
3 Comments are received from the public
4 Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at
www ci Chanhassen mn us/2014 -27 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by
Questions &
email at bgenerous(a�ci Chanhassen mn us or by phone at
Comments:
952- 227 -1131 If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting Staff will provide copies to the Commission The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting
City Review Procedure
• Subdivisions Planned Unit Developments Site Plan Reviews Conditional and Interim Uses Wetland Alterations
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission s recommendation Rezonings land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial
• Minnesota State Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s)
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council If you wish to have
somethin to be included in the report please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 7 00 p m This hearing may not
start until later in the evening depending on the order of the agenda
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd
Request for Variances to exceed the Impervious surface
Proposal
limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a
patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF
Applicant
Rosemary Kell
Property
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
Location
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps
at the Meeting
1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project
2 The applicant will present plans on the project
3 Comments are received from the public
4 Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses
the project
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at.
www cI Chanhassen mn us/2014 -27 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by
Questions &
email at bgenerous(cD_cl Chanhassen mn us or by phone at
Comments
952- 227 -1131 If you choose to submit written comments, it Is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting Staff will provide copies to the Commission The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s)
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification
ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY DAVID L ANDERSON DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH
9079 SUNNYVALE DR 290 GREENLEAF CT 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650
GREGORY R RENBERG
282 GREENLEAF CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631
NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT
9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650
PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI
PO BOX 490
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -0490
STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING
281 GREENLEAF CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631
JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL
291 GREENLEAF CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631
PAUL JNESBURG
9093 SUNNYVALE DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639
REV TRUST AGREEMENT OF JOAN
M
9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650
TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE
275 GREENLEAF CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631
JUDITH N LEWIS
9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650
PETER DAVID MCINTOSH
287 GREENLEAF CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631
RYAN D MAJKRZAK
9001 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650
ev I * ) 1
4
i �a
Generous, Bob
From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly071 @gmail com]
Sent Monday, November 03, 2014 3 28 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject Extension
I-
Please extend the city review through Jan 26, 2015 for the variance request for property 9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thank you,
Rose Kelly
December 22, 2014
Mr Robert Generous
Senior Planner
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Generous,
Thank you for your time to meet with me and explain the city's position for wanting to reduce the amount
of hard surface requested on the variance We do understand the desire to minimize run off into the lakes
in efforts to control erosion and we appreciate staffs willingness to allow us added hard surface under our
porch. Although this helps, it does not fully provide the handicap accessibility we need for the home
Since meeting with you, we have considered several revisions to meet the concerns you presented. As
our biggest consideration is handicap accessibility, we have removed 144 square feet toward the lake but
kept the portion along the house toward the garage as well as including hard surface to allow for a
connection to the rear of the garage
The garage was built with garage doors in both the front and the back This allows a handicap person to
enter the garage in the front and then have access to the back yard and patio without maneuvering a wheel
chair through the home (see attached image #1) A person can simply use the rear door for easy wheel
chair access to the back of the home and lake. Having the additional hard surface extend from below the
porch to the garage is essential in providing handicap accessibility to the lakeside of the house. In
addition, it allows the most level access to the lake We request for a total of 350 square feet for the patio
(see attached image #2) This revised plan meets the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of 5
feet width along the garage door that was not in the original proposal This addition was noted to be
necessary to be handicap compliant and facilitate the access to the lake and patio through the garage with
any type of mobility device
We believe this revision is a compromise to our original request that would not negatively impact the lake
or neighborhood and is a reasonable consideration for handicap access The surrounding neighbors are
supportive of the request The only issue raised was an overflow problem from a pond across the road that
drains along our lot line This issue is not related to added hard surface but to regional ponding which is
being resolved by city staff In addition, the city has supported hard surface variances on several
occasions, most recently for the Fretham project that was heard the same night you first considered our
request (October 7, 2014) and which had higher percentages of hard surface than us Although they all
have their individual meets it does show that minimal impacts are not detrimental to the lake.
Since our last meeting we have a clearer understanding of the city's rules regarding shoreland We share
these concerns as homeowners on Lake Riley and value what lakes provide. We do not want to harm any
lake but simply enjoy them We hope this compromise to not extend any surface toward the lake but still
extend toward the garage as access for our handicapped family members can be supported as a reasonable
request
Thank you,
Rose Kelly
9015 Lake Riley Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rose Kelly Sketch Plan SK 1.0
OW E"
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 6, 2015
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and
Lisa Hokkanen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al -Jaff,
Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern, and Alyson
Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Steve Hansen
Minnetonka
Mike Hoagberg
17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044
Bernie Gaytko
521 Mission Hills Drive
Karla Thomson
8524 Mayfield Court
9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK
LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT /OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014 -27.
Ingvalson. For those that don't know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson I'm a planning intern at
the City of Chanhassen Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members.
So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request As you
might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was
tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided
that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also dust did some
other calculations with that Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an
alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing
shoreland setback The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the
northwest side of Lake Riley Looking at the picture, image on the right we'll specifically be
looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there's two
actually requests for this Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent
variance for hard surface coverage This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard
surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent
maximum allowed Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance
to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4
feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property,
like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission This approved
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance One
percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances
were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These
variances actually reduced the non - conformities with the property. The property had a larger
hard cover percentage It was at 26 4 It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the
shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet So this is an
image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005 The setback was 37 feet and
the hard surface coverage was 26 A little over 26 percent And this is the existing property It
has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8.
These are images of the subject site The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the
porch. It's about 13 by 13 I/2 feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house
There are 3 exits from the rear of the property One underneath the porch. One underneath the
deck and then one to the far right So here's an image of the request that's being made The blue
you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion There are 3 house exits.
The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed
onto hard surface coverage The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is
a 4 2 percent hard surface expansion Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot
shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500
feet of this property One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were
passed Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a
fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface
variance, there's also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface
coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed Three properties actually have hard surface
coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties
hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent Four properties have setbacks that
extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is
what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under
the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots It is 12,900 square feet.
The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet There are 3 other properties within 500
feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there's some
hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that
this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it's size
exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we'd still include that area in
the hard surface coverage and that's what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion.
Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff
volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase
drainage issues for adjacent properties So the alternative plan that was, came to between a
conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet,
which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion The addition will require a 3 5 percent hard surface
coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you're looking at here in blue is
the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion This patio expansion will not encroach
any further into the shoreland setback It will maintain that 43 feet Another part of this
alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space Due to the
grade it's, there's very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property What we've
communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn't be hard
cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that
can be used outdoors The recommended motion The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts
the Findings of Fact However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to
approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3 5
percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further
encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan And be subject to the
following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit
required from the City This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the
patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans
required for the permit And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional
runoff on the property
Aller• Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew It was a
great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you
At this point in time we'll hear from the applicant If you could come forward State your
names and addresses for the record, that'd be great. Thank you
Rosemary Kelly Good evening My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley
Boulevard in Chanhassen
Aller• Good to see you again Ms Kelly
Rosemary Kelly Yeah It's been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff
for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements
of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially From my aspect we had
worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to
make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is
not, actually they didn't never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair
and we'd like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this
design and so we eliminated that completely Finally we expanded only to the really the
minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28 5.
Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn't
allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent
accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project I had no
other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the
landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with
that
Aller Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any
discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage
issues and...
Rosemary Kelly. Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I
actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that
because we knew the ground was going to freeze So that's been completed and that was kind of
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street It wasn't really from hard surface so
much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior So
that's been completed
Aller- Great Any additional questions based on? Thank you Sir, did you have any comments?
I know you came up together Are you moral support or9
Phillip Sosnowski• No additional comments I'm just here to support the, to Rose and address
any questions that the commission may have of us
Aller. Okay, thank you Nothing right now? Okay We'll open the public hearing portion of
the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time.
No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner
comments and discussion
Yusuf• It seems like they've reached a consensus
Aller- Well I'm not, I don't know whether it's a consensus When I first looked at this I saw the
package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the
numbers were wrong Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable.
So I'm glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate
posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn't meet the variance
requirements and that's what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite
your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them.
Weick Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was
another one Yeah. The only thing I'm, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was
included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you
know if the house slants that way I know there's runoff from the street that comes down
between the houses is the way I understand it I dust didn't know if the landscape was pitched
such that it also runs you know into that yard as well But it doesn't. I mean everything looks
like it's pitched down to the lake I don't know that adding you know concrete, hard surface
against the house there and I'm certainly not an engineer but it doesn't look like it would add
significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think?
Hokkanen I don't know if it meets the requirements of a variance The legal Maybe you can
explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance
Undestad That's kind of the issue I have too I mean it's nice we're trying to move things back
and all that but what's been granted previously on here and I just don't think it meets the
requirements that we could say yes My opinion
Aller When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non - conforming in the
first place and it wasn't, my understanding it wasn't their property at the time but the builder
came in Took away a lot of those non - conforming uses and issues but they still needed a
variance It's still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I
think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the
variance, and it's still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new
construction as well So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues9 I
mean that's
Tom Goodrum- Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum.
Aller. Thank you
Tom Goodrum. The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County
and Minnetonka Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and dust to address a couple of
comments that you made. First of all, again we're thanking staff They're supporting the request
after we met with them with this alternative plan One that we felt was reasonable for this site
and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked
us to go back Talk to staff. Work with staff We did that We came up with the plan
supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working
on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up Again the property line,
between the property owners, that's not part of this proposal That's a whole different issue and
that's going to be solved so now we're just looking for what's a reasonable use for this site
We're not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing Similar to the two lots
next to us They're both 43 feet back as wise so we're not doing any more impacts to the
neighborhood that already exist We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to
what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one dust next to us is 27 point something
The one next to that, he's more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we're still in that ballpark.
We're still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason
we're doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family
The house was built for that need Now that the family is reaching that age or have family
members that have those needs, they're now discovering some of the flaws with this property
and that's what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned
earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it
was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility Now that we have that need we're finding
out that there's some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request
Don't know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would
support it as they supported the other uses on here The hard surface we're requesting is for
access You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a
wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage Don't even have to maneuver within the
house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of
that house With the expansion we're asking for, you're pulling into the garage You get out of
the car You go out the back of the garage and you're in the back of the patio, you know
envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake You're not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering
through the doors in the house Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio So the,
again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before To work with staff Come up
with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with
the rest of the neighborhood Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as
the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project There was a variances for hard
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
surface coverage for two lots One at 28 and one was at 30 percent There's one in 2013 for a
hard cover I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar
in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a
reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to
come up with something that everybody could support I sure hope that the Planning
Commission understands where we're coming from Our request and that you can support us as
well so thank you
Aller Thank you
Weick. Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that's underneath that deck, that's not,
that's currently considered hard cover?
Ingvalson No.
Weick. No.
Ingvalson• Incorrect It's underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage
as long as water can penetrate through them
Weick- Through, okay
Ingvalson• So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that's right
outside the door
Weick Got it Thank you
Undestad Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the
existing? Yeah, that red There you go So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk
The patio coming out of the garage back there What, is that about 4 feet?
Ingvalson• 5 feet
Undestad 5 feet And that transitions across the entire garage door back there?
Ingvalson. Correct.
Weick I think that's the minimum, right9 For wheelchair access.
Ingvalson• For any
Aller The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot,
correct9
Undestad The 12,900
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
Aller• So we are dealing with apples to apples? It's not something because of the reduced lot
size, they're doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers
Generous- Correct.
Undestad• And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk
about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked
before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we're asking them
if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we're kind of back to the
how do we monitor there? How do we know?
Generous- Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's basically with the initial design we'd be able to
determine whether or not there would be benefit And the idea actually came up with the
original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are
perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that's
coming off of that hard surface.
Undestad. So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design
into that plan
Generous. Exactly
Aller Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control
that process?
Generous- We do.
Weick. I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the
homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are.
Hokkanen. Shrubs or landscaping.
Weick Right. I mean there's no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is
maintained, correct?
Generous That's correct We don't take any securities or anything like that for that We would,
the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they're going to
Weick- Understood.
Generous Right
Weick Understood but again as we've talked about before if someone else were to move into
the house, if something were to change there wouldn't be anything that would prohibit anybody
from changing that landscaping, I don't think is there?
N
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
Hokkanen- It does
Weick- So it does? I guess that's my question
Aller The condition would be there
Hokkanen. The condition does but enforcement is the issue.
Weick- Okay
Aller- Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there's
something going on next door.
Hokkanen Right
Aller Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you're going to
dog
Yusuf Not really wrestling I appreciate that they've been able to work with staff to come up
with an alternate plan Seems like a nice agreement there Provided that the conditions are met
of course.
Aller Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one
Yusuf I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014 -17, a 3 1/2 percent hard surface coverage
variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a
property zoned Single Family Residential District.
Aller I have a motion, do I have
Yusuf. And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there.
Aller I have a motion which includes conditions Do I have a second9
Weick Second.
Aller Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014 -17, a 3.5 percent hard
surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio
expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of
Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions:
Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015
The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City.
This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a
completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for
the permit
2 Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property
Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and
Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Aller. So do we have a date for that9
Aanenson• Yes we do.
Aller- January 26th
Aanenson. Correct
Aller So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City
Council to be heard on January 26, 2015 So anyone wishing to follow this item to it's final
conclusion should do so at that time Thank you one and all
PUBLIC HEARING:
MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT,
SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT
SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING
UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION
HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015 -01.
Al -Jaff• Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is
for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan The site is located at
8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86th Street,
Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area
that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that
type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses The first one being neighborhood
commercial Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the
second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically
apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that
the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as
independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had
meetings with property owners within that area and It was mainly people, or property owners that
had vacant land We just wanted to make suggestions We studied the area quite a bit and we
needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we
recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider At that
time, and while we were going through amending PUD's and cleaning up different applications
9
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2014
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson,
Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK
LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT /OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014 -27.
Generous- Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners The request before is Planning Case
2014 -27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are
Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners The property's located at 9015
Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a riparian lot on Lake Riley It's in the northwest corner of the lake
The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it's guided for residential low density uses
The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2 9 percent above what the 25
percent minimum requirement When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1
percent variance that was approved and they're adding 1 9 percent to that so a total of 2 9 percent
variance The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet
allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a
single family home located on that. There's a patio under a porch area and then there's a deck
area in the middle of the house and on the northeast corner there's an open space. The applicant
would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of
this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe
the applicant has under estimated what they're actually requesting for a variance Their notes
show that they're looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio We believe they meant in
this area However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange
on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it's unclear
from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an
additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75
shoreland setback In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the
environment or the water resources in this area By increasing hard surface we will increase the
stormwater runoff in this neighborhood The property to the north was inundated this June with
one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only
exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending We looked at other variances in the area
Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014
There were 4 other requests One of them was for this property. It's the bottom one on that and
that's the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the
75 shoreland setback It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the
previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also
reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home The other applications
were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the
lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it
under our shoreland accessory structure thing In that case you're limited to 250 square feet
However we believe that there's approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that
would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would
actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into
Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent
properties The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the
shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to
the staff report With that I'd be happy to answer any questions
Aller. I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives
like wood decking or anything like that?
Generous We hadn't directly brought that up but that is a possibility Under the City's
ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained
as ground area
Aller Okay. I don't have any further questions based on the report Anyone? Okay Any from
this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address
for the record that'd be great
Rosemary Kelly Okay. I'm Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen
Aller Welcome
Rosemary Kelly Thank you And thank you for the time this evening I have a few comments
to make in regard to the application and then the staff's reviewal of our application In the first
application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the
time it was submitted in July I think both individuals at the date of submission were not
available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding
and the measurements The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance
is as you saw with the property it's the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult
directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the
four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface,
particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has
been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we
wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home It's one of the reasons we
bought the home and it's also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is
90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area The, in response to the
staff's concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is
Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014
accurate However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood The
original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for
the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would
have counted that as hard space because it's part of the home. In addition I kind of just went
around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design
we're expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface There would be
approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the
variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition
for say a shed or something within the setback allowance We're requesting approximately a 200
square foot variance of a setback My main point in all those numbers is to point out I'd be
happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate
construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is Finally
the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the
neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind The biggest problem that we faced this spring was
that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a
consideration of my neighbor There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems
needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers
to reconstruct That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that's coming
down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that
has occurred in that area dust north of us of multiple homes So my request I guess is to dust state
I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility
that we plan to use the rest of our lives And I believe that we are within both the setback
consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard
surface area Thank you.
Aller Thank you Just as a quick question So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe you
need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you're saying that you fit
Rosemary Kelly No, no.
Aller You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage
Rosemary Kelly Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet
approximately still needs the variance approval I believe the setback requirement for like a shed
or would fit, the amount we're requesting would fit in that allowance already And I'd be happy
to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case Our intent is not to make an
extensive patio. It's to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side
Aller- Okay Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck?
Rosemary Kelly- Yeah, actually we had discussed that The main reason to not do that, actually
we just had, we're a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we
had stucco pillars for the deck and what we're finding is because they're wood core, it's allowing
water to come up into the core of the columns Where it's the concrete, those pillars are fine
It's more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that's going to be durable I think
Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014
if we use wood deck again the water's going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so
that was an unfortunate discovery.
Aller Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you At this point we'll
open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item So anyone in the
audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium State your
name and address and speak either for or against Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could
state your name and address for the record, that would be great.
Joan Ludwig Hi, I'm Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard I'm Rose's neighbor.
Aller Welcome
Joan Ludwig I'm the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that
my situation is, I don't care what they have in their yard In fact I encourage everyone to have
whatever works for them What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is
going in the right direction and isn't going to put me under water again The City is working
with us Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I'm happy with that My
concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we've
got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I dust
want to make sure we've got the infrastructure to handle it. That's all I have to say
Aller Great, thank you
Joan Ludwig Thanks.
Aller- Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I'll close
the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners Any comments?
Questions? Further questions
Undestad. My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a
little more time to work with staff.
Hokkanen Or revise it
Aller. Maybe it's premature
Hokkanen. Maybe revise the plan and come back
Aller- Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point?
Aanenson• There's a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an
accessory structure it's over the hard cover It would still need a variance so I think there's
some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements Make
sure we've got those correct.
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014
Aller So it's just a matter of amount that we're still going to need the variance. Still going to
have to
Aanenson- That's correct. But that doesn't mean we would be happy to work with the applicant
Aller Sure
Aanenson. If that's okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time Give an extension
on the application we'd be happy to do that
Aller I guess that's what I would be inclined to recommend Is, the applicant's here, are you
interested in doing that? What I see, I think it's just a little bit premature and I don't, I just don't
want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I'd rather give you the time to
work with them and see whether there's some alternatives and move it forward with the
extension on the application and that way you're moving forward with hopefully something that
will be satisfactory to you in the future.
Rosemary Kelly And that sounds
Aller Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion.
Aanenson Before you do that Chairman, we're at the end of the 60 days so before we do that
Aller- Oh, so you need a waiver.
Aanenson- We'd like to get a letter right now, if that's okay before you make the motion
extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I'm dust looking for a blank piece of
paper here
Aller. How about we do this If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being
received Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend
the application past the 60 day because she's waiving the requirement that we rule because the
alternative is that we deny
Hokkanen. Do we have to put a time on the extension?
Aanenson She's going to give us 60 days
Aller- or grant but I'm inclined to.
Campion Alright I'll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days.
Aller. Well subject to receipt of the waiver
Campion Subject to the receipt of the waiver
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014
Aanenson That's fine I think you're technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may
Campion- Yes
Hokkanen Second
Aller. Any further discussion?
Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and
shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the
60 -day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote
of6to0.
Aller. Good luck Ms Kelly.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE -FOOT ONE -STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY
STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4TH ADDITION
APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT
COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 2014 -29.
Aller- We have received some alternate pages.
Generous- Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There's pages and 5 and 18, there were
some minor changes A strike through and bold format There's nothing really substantive to
them but it's for accuracy and consistency in the report.
Aller. Thank you
Generous. Planning Case 2014 -29, Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail
building that's being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass
Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company As you said it's located at the
northwest corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site
they'll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one
time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went
forward so At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run
it hasn't worked out that way Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits
commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses It's zoned Planned Unit Development so
there are specific design guidelines That's the part of the reason why there's a variance in the
request Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the
Ponds 11 th Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to
the sign letter size Under the PUD standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The
2