The URL can be used to link to this page

1h Variance 05-10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 t:: Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ilL MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I bW' DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJ: Approval of One-Year Extension to Variance #05-10 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura Cooper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a one-year extension to Variance #05-10 for a 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard-surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Section 20-57 of the Chanhassen City Code states, "Avariance, except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon." Due to personalcircumstances, the applicant has been unable to begin work on the proposed demolitionofthe existing home and construction of a new home. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a simple majority of City Councilpresent. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY On May 17,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved Variance #05- 10 for a 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard-surface coverage variance and a 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with conditions 1-12. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed variance. RECOMMENDA TION There havebeennQamendmentsto the.City Code that would affect the conditions of approval of Variance #05-1 0, therefore, staffis recommending approval of the applicant's request for a one-year extensiontoVariance#05'" 1 O.The extension shall become void May 8, 2007 unless substantialactionhas been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff~eportclatedMay 17, 2006. 2. May 17, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-1 0 sharratt variance\extension.doc PC DATE: May 17,2005 w CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/11/05 CASE #: 05-10 BY: JM, LH, MS, JS STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Sharratt Design 464 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Laura Cooper & Tim Walker 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre DENSITY: NA -< ~ -< ~ ~ ~ 1-4 00. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing legal non-conforming single-family home built on a legal non-conforming lot of record and build a new single-family home. The proposed single-family home will require hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variances because the existing non conformities would be intensified. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This application first appeared before the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 15, 2005. The proposed design of the new house at the time of that submittal was drastically different from the current proposal. The applicant had originally proposed to substantially increase the existing hard surface coverage from 26.4% to 32.7%. The original proposal also called for a reduction in the shoreland setback from 36 feet to 33.7 feet. The amount of hard cover encroachment on the shoreland setback was also significantly increased from the existing encroachment. Planning Commission chose to table this application and advised the applicant to redesign the proposed home and submit new plans at a later date. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Lyman Boulevard on Lake Riley Boulevard and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance, a 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage permitted in the RSF district and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance from the required 75 foot minimum shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruction of a nonconforming structure to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconforming structure. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Structures Sewered Lakes Recreational development 75 Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 3 Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (RSF) (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. BACKGROUND The subject property is located just south of Lyman Boulevard on Lake Riley Boulevard in the Shoreland Management District on the northwestern shore of Lake Riley. The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Lake Riley is a Recreational Development Lake. The minimum lot area for a sewered riparian lot on a recreational development lake is 20,000 square feet. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with a lot area of 12,936 square feet. However, the lot does meet the minimum depth and width requirements with an average depth of 127.51, 96.35 feet of street frontage, and 101.18 feet of lake frontage. The topography of the site is relatively flat and slopes very gradually from a high elevation of 873.7 at the southwestern front property comer to a low elevation of 865.3 at the OHW level. _ *Note: Person in picture is standing at the lake shore. *Note: Picture illustrates the distance from the existing deck to the lakeshore. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 4 Staff reviewed city records to determine if front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property and also properties along Lake Riley Boulevard which lie outside of the 500 foot radius. This review turned up the following cases: Variance Shoreland Address File Variance Setback Number 9235 Lake 1986-1 25 foot shoreline setback variance 50 ft Riley Blvd 89-1 Setbacks: 14 foot front yard, 7 foot rear yard, 4.5 foot west side yard, 10 foot east side yard 98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot 9247 Lake 1989-1, area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width Riley Blvd 1998-12 variance (lake access), 10 foot front yard setback variance, 57 ft 3 foot side yard setback variance, 4 foot shoreland setback varIance June 28, 1999: Single family home: 13 foot front yard setback variance,7 foot shoreland setback variance 923 1 Lake 1989-13 6 foot side yard setback variance 27.7 ft Riley Blvd 9051 Lake 1990-7 10.35 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction 64. 65 feet Riley Blvd of a new home 9203 Lake 1991-16 2.5 foot side yard setback variance 80 ft Riley Blvd 9221 Lake Garage setbacks: 14 foot front yard setback variance, 6.5 Riley Blvd 1992-2 28 ft foot side yard setback, 70/0 hard surface coverage 9021 Lake 1992-9 36 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of 39 feet Riley Blvd a deck 9243 Lake 1993 -8 Addition setbacks: 9 foot shoreland variance, 7.9 foot front 66 ft Riley Blvd yard variance 9225 Lake Setbacks: 3 foot east side yard variance, 5 foot west side Riley Blvd 1996-9, yard variance, 33 foot shoreland variance, 25% hard 42 ft surface coverage variance; 9223 Lake 1997 -11 97-11-setbacks: 7 foot rear yard variance 68 ft Riley Blvd 361 Deerfoot 1997 - 3 Deck setbacks: 1.6 foot front yard variance N/A Trail 9217 Lake 1998-6 Addition setbacks: 7 foot front yard variance 115 ft Riley Blvd 9249 Lake 1999-14 18 foot shoreland setback variance 57 ft Riley Blvd Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 5 Variance Shoreland Address File Variance Setback Number 9221 Lake 6.6 foot side yard setback variance, 5 foot side yard Riley Blvd 2003-07 setback variance, 18 foot shoreland setback variance for 57 ft construction of a new home 9203 Lake 2003-12 7 foot side yard setback variance for a home addition N/A Riley Blvd *Items in bold italics are within 500 feet of the subject property. r li N \ l,'~t... ~I, I 1;/11 J '- ~'~ ~ J .../" · .. " ../. .... ,. -- I~'.... '\. '.. ..... I ""-. - GJ-Su.. b~CEji i:, ~ ----....... ... J... I s' :. ',-- j 1 I ... - l.. -' 1te _~ .. .I ......... ':&..... ~....'" ..... t -.....' f '.. f / ..... /.... . .,~ -~\,..\ \.~ ~ . - . Q""'13 '~-/ r !'~, \ ~/~ ('0 ,tj hi _ ."- ~ ~""'-1'.. ..... . .)../.' -:/. ..... -.' - '\ .. .' """'- , ../ '. -. ...' I .......... .........( l' \ . _. '\ \. ~ \ ~....' /~"" 1..1--,.7' . L j" \ ~-~ ~ .~:,~/r:: ---- . -l""1~ ' --- I ~ -I ~,\ /" 1:-1 L....... j 1 ~-~ 'ff:-j ~, ,.. - L f 1 b-... /1 . _r- /,,' . A". 'dil5"'~1 ~t1.b,' ~i;:a... '1 ) , , ,~~/ ..... ~~t :ttotlt y~'>d , 'J~' ~ vatlImli:e 61~ ~ ~~~ :selb:acks: l4 ~ f'CQt a~m y".:4 ::;:~t\tC'!II;-]-= ~' 'r.j,iM'i.snc:e. 0.5 foot ~td.t: ... . 'y,m:'d setb'ack" 7*. ha["d Adiliti~n setbacks:; 9 .... ~ce !;O'ile:-ag~ [Qot sbQrPeland. " v~e~i'.:9 Dot Ditcli:. se;b:M:ks.: ]. 6 ro~t :&oB1: front .yard. 'v,an..-:mce: jaJ:d \!';ar"ian::e ......... ? Sing! e falmy bOO1le:: j 13 ,fi,!t~~: ~~fJt, :y~4 s~fh~i!;!k 1ilMM ce ,.7 roo.t sh.:Jre]fIJld setb~tI:k variance Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 6 ANALYSIS N 89L5~2" E - 128.92 ~ ~ ~tv ~ , ~ , ~ ~1!f .~ ~O) ~ "I '~ ~ I ~ ~ [] ~~~~AnLE --'2~ 10-- N 88J7~6~' W Original Proposal N 897532" F --128.92-- ~ \:f "I ~ ~~ ~ t .. t ~ '(::)!!J ~. ~ . ~ ~()) ~ '" I ~ ~ I 126.10 . ~ New Proposal .., ~~ t~ ~\:j JJ~ ~ iiilI i!fi(J If j M '7 ~ ,.. . ilif R I I The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). Given a 30-foot front yard setback, 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a 75-foot shoreland setback, there is a buildable area of approximately 2,045 square feet Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 7 on the subject lot. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-car garage, already exists. However, staff would support a variance to allow the applicant to demolish the existing home for the construction of a new home which would reduce the existing non-conforming hard surface coverage and shoreland setback. Shoreland The shoreland setback is measured from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Lake Riley which is 865.3. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing legal non-conforming single family home on a riparian lot. The existing home, which was built in 1978, has a non-conforming shoreland setback of 36 feet from the OHW. The applicant is planning to reduce the existing non-conformity by increasing the shoreland setback from 36 feet to 43 feet from the OHW. The proposed structure will reduce the hard surface square footage encroaching on the shoreland setback from 1,350 square feet of the existing structure to 1,315 for the proposed structure. - ...... ...-......--- ~ - -......:.L. ~ ~~~-~--!!>:: ---. - . - ------..-- .. - . - - - - - . - ~ - - --~-...~_:...::.a.~ ~ ~:;-~:~.:;::.;. ;;-~~',:. ~;.~ "-Y'~~~-~r~ .;. ~ ~~~ ~~_ ~.;::.-~-= - _-~ ..-:~.:~~:~- __~ -~ - -~ ~ -=: ~~ ---:-- ~ ..... ~~~ ~~_' -=~ ,,~...'. -.'_'- _........---.,...",-, '-:.;" :::::.-.;. _ _ _ 'l.~..o" ~ .... -z-::;:-.=. - -.-~ ...:~.-...-~. ............... _ . -~, -Y'I. ~.'I--- -,. - ~~-"--.-- ---: - _...-..........-- -- ~-~~ . __~ '::i Hard Surface Covera2;e The subject property has an eXIstIng legal non-conforming hard surface coverage of 26.4%. The applicant is proposing to remove all existing hard surface and rebuild with a hard surface coverage of 26.0%, thus reducing the hard surface cover as it exists today. This is a major improvement from the original proposal which had a hard surface percentage of 32.7%. The applicant achieved this reduction by altering the design from a one-story walkout with a two-level four stall garage to a two-story walkout with a one-level three stall garage. The new garage design and placement greatly reduced the proposed driveway area. Chanhassen City Code does not consider wooden decks hard surface as long as there is no hard surface beneath the decks. Because of this the applicant has agreed to either sod or place landscaping mulch or Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 8 rock with a fabric liner beneath the deck areas. Proposed hard surface coverage for the subject site is calculated as follows: Proposed House & Stoop: Proposed Driveway: Proposed Stoop: Proposed Patio: Proposed Retaining Wall: 2,547 sq. ft. 818 sq. ft. o sq. ft. o sq. ft. o sq. ft. Total Hard Cover: 3,365 sq. ft. Lot Area: 12,936 sq. ft. % Hard Surface Coverage: 26.0% Front Yard Setback Chanhassen City Code requires minimum front yard setbacks of 30 feet in the Single Family Residential District (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance. The encroachment into the front yard setback would be 62.5 square feet of garage area (comer of garage). The existing front yard setback is 36.5 feet making the proposed front yard setback variance a new deviation from ordinance. There have been five front yard setback variances granted in this neighborhood since 1992. The Planned Unit Development of Sunny Slope located on the west side of Lake Riley Boulevards south end has minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet. Staff conducted a field survey of existing front yard setbacks on Lake Riley Boulevard. The field survey was necessary because many of the older homes on Lake Riley Boulevard do not have registered land surveys. The field survey revealed that as many as 12 of the 26 homes on Lake Riley Boulevard appear to be setback less than the required 30 feet from the right-of-way. The Chanhassen City Code states: Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. This evidence of existing non-conforming front yard setbacks suggests the current proposal is consistent with pre-existing neighborhood characteristics and does not depart downward from them. Lakes The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Riley and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district. Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. The structure setback requirement is 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level (865.3 MSL). The existing house and deck are set back 36 feet from the OHW; the proposed setback is 43 feet. Intensive vegetation clearing is not allowed within the shore impact zone (the land between the OHW Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 9 and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback (37.5 feet in this case)). The current plan proposes grading the width of the property within 20 feet of the OHW. Grading should be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. The applicant must determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits should be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Imuervious Surface Covera2e The amount of impervious surface on any site profoundly affects the physical and biological characteristics of the site and areas downstream. This is one reason the City regulates impervious surface coverage. Generally, increasing the amount of impervious surface: J a. Increases the temperature of water flowing into downstream water resources; b. Prevents surface water from infiltrating into the ground; c. Increases the velocity of runoff water; d. Increases the likelihood of flooding; e. Increases the area upon which pollutants can settle; and f. Increases the potential for erosion, especially in sensitive shoreline areas. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-485 states that "Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25% of the lot area." The current impervious surface coverage of this lot is 26.4%; the proposed impervious surface coverage is 26.0% including retaining walls. Erosion Control Type III silt fence on the lake side must be provided during demolition and during construction. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not activelv beiI1l! worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Area Hard Surface Shoreland Front Yard Side Yard Coverage Setback Setback Setbacks Ordinance 20,000 25% 75 feet 30 feet 10 feet Existing 12,936 26.4% 36 feet 36.5 feet 23.5 & 16 feet Proposed 12,936 26.0% 43 feet 25 feet 16& 16 feet N ei2:hborhood Characteristic The existing home was built in 1978 making it 10-15 years outdated from neighboring homes. The new design proposal is comparable to that of neighboring structures. The characteristics of the subject property are unique from that of neighboring properties in that it has a much smaller lot size. 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard 12,936 square feet (subject property) 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard 16,552 square feet :~- - ---I -----11.,-::...... _' ~.~1.-'--:-'.J1~~--.. . .. ,.. -- ~; .oc~~, . ,,'f ,4Ilr~, j1~~ ~bS~ ~~ 1t..ry~"-:l.t'~'!i'~"!tr~~~.~ ~.Iir==t ~.lI_:..:.r.;~ /" ....,. 9021 Lake Riley Boulevard 20,473 square feet 9051 Lake Riley Boulevard 19,166 square feet This has made it difficult for the applicant to find a design that is consistent with the neighborhood while at the same time appeasing the City. 290 L YMA"N BL VD 296 9054 9082 Lake Riley Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 12 Chanhassen City Code states, "There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity." The applicant has worked very hard to find a design that reduced the previous proposals intensification of non-conformities. The new design proposal goes beyond that by actually reducing non-conformities that exist today. In light of the evidence and facts discussed in the staff report we are recommending approval of this variance request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. Having a substandard size lot that is significantly smaller than neighboring properties has made it difficult for the applicant to design a home that is consistent with neighborhood characteristics while meeting ordinance requirements. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within both the Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management Districts. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed development will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole purpose of the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The subject property has a substandard lot size, significantly smaller than that of neighboring properties making it difficult to design a home that is consistent with neighborhood characteristics while meeting ordinance requirements. Therefore, the hardship is due to the lot size and is not self-created. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 13 Finding: The variance will be less detrimental to the public welfare or less injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located than existing conditions. The proposed house lessens both the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage non-conformities, thus reducing the impact on Lake Riley and surrounding properties. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales are required to be graded In along each side of the house. 2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the northwest side of the proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply. 3. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 4. Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey. 5. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection. 6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. 7. The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. 8. Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. Planning Case #05-10 Sharratt Variance May 17, 2005 Page 14 9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively bein2 worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 10. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Sharratt Design dated February 11,2005, Revised February 25, 2005, Revised May 2, 2005. 4. Letter from Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN. 5. Lot Survey of existing conditions stamped "Received May 2,2005". 6. Lot Survey of proposed conditions stamped "Received May 6, 2005". 7. Building Plans. 8. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharratt variance\staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEpIN cOUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of Sharratt Design for variances from hard surface coverage, shoreland setback and front yard setback restrictions for a new house - Planning Case No. 05-10. On May 17, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Sharratt Design for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/ Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: That part of Government Lot 3, Section 24, Township 116, Range 023. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management districts. c. The construction of a new home will increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will be less detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located than existing conditions. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-10 Variance dated May 17,2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the variances from hard surface coverage, shoreland setback and front yard setback restrictions for a new house. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 17th day of May, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Planning Commission Chairperson g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-10 sharratt variance\findings offact.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17,2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet and Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-10. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions from any of the commissioners? Papke: I can start here. Under applicable regulations, point (e). The issue of destruction of non- conforming to the extent of more than 50%. Is this particular proposal more than 50% of it's estimated value? So is this regulation enforced? Metzer: Well yes, by demo'ing their existing home. Papke: So this thing is. Metzer: It's 100%... Papke: It's 100% gone so it's like 99%. Okay. Given that, what is the precedent for allowing a conformity under that particular situation. The non-conformity. How many times before have we allowed someone to bypass that limit of the 50% demolition and then allow them to have a variance, the non-conformity. Al-Jaff: In the past we have ran into situations when, and it was in that exact same neighborhood. They maintained existing and there was another situation where they exceeded what originally was on the site as far as hard surface coverage and setback. Papke: So there is precedence for doing this? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 AI-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Okay. The reason I bring that up, because I know in that same neighborhood there are some homeowners that have gone to great extent not to exceed that 50% to not lose that grandfather clause, and my concern here is, you know are we establishing a precedent here that these lots along Lake Riley Boulevard, we can mow them down as long as we can build them back up and make it a little bit better than it was before. Okay, that's the concern. I'mjust wondering, have we done this before or are we doing this for the first time? AI-Jaff: We have done this before. McDonald: Next? Deborah, do you have any questions? Zorn: No. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Okay. No questions of staff from the council at this point. I will ask that the applicant come forward. Tim Walker: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see at least some of you again. Recognize some new faces. I don't think we have anything to add other than the staff report, unless there are any questions. Would like at this time to express thank you to Josh and Sharmeen. Laura Cooper: And Matt Saam. Tim Walker: And Matt, yeah. We spent quite a bit of time and worked very closely with them. Appreciate them putting effort into it all. McDonald: Okay. Any questions of the applicants? Keefe: No, I guess what I'd like to say is I appreciate your willingness to work with staff and consider the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission and really work on your design because I know you guys kind of went through a wholesale change from where you were before and we appreciate that. Tim Walker: Thanks. McDonald: Okay. Well with that I'll throw it open to the floor. This is an open meeting. Anyone that would like to come forward with any comments on this matter, please do so now. And when you come up to the mic, would you please identify yourself and tell us where you live in relation to this home. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I live down the street on Laredo Drive in a house very near Lotus Lake. So I'm very interested in what happens to our shoreland. I have to apologize to staff because I was not able to look at this until late this afternoon and there's a finding that I think is important. And that is, you list applicable regulations, Section 20-73. Non-conforming use of structures and Kurt asked some questions about that today. But there's also another section that's relative when a home is totally eliminated and that's Section 20-73. Non-conforming lots of record. And point (b), I'll just read this. It's hard I know when you don't have it in front of you but I couldn't copy it either. I should have probably printed this off at the office. Anyway, no variance shall be required to construct a detached single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record excluding platted outlots, provided it fronts on a public street or approved private street, and provided that the structure meets the minimum requirements of this chapter. The minimum requirements it's speaking about are the shoreland regulations, zoning setbacks. So this was re-written, it was enacted as a new ordinance on May 24,2004. So one year ago this was changed. And one year ago it used to read 70, it had to meet 75% of the ordinance. Now it reads it must meet the minimum requirements of the chapter. Not 75%. The minimum requirements of the entire chapter. So that's important. It's also important in light of, if you look at the other homes that are listed in your report, if you look at 1999, the last one on the first page. Number 14. And 2003, number 7. Those variance files. The shoreland setback for those properties was set at 57 feet. Which is 75% of the setback as the code was written then. But now the code was changed last year. No more 75%. It means 100%. So Ijust think you need to realize that. That yes, variances were enacted over time but the code was strengthen last year and you can look at all these items but the purpose of it is to protect the shoreland. Also the first 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of these items highlighted in yellow were all variances granted before 1994, before we re-wrote the shoreline code in Chanhassen. So I think you kind of have to kind of disregard that too. Not that I'm like against these people or anything. They've made some progress. I think maybe more progress could even be made. That impervious surface number is outstanding, and that's why it's hard to stand up here and say anything because that is really outstanding. But I was contemplating all of this and I was thinking, you know it's society. We all want what our neighbors have. These big homes or whatever. I've never in what, 5-6 years here have ever heard anyone say, I have a substandard lot. It's small. I'd like to build a small, quality home. May I have a variance please for a single car garage. A single family with one car, they do exist. This property, lovely. 3 car garages. I mean a 3 car garage. I think there's room here for a more, even though progress has been made, you know and I applaud them for that, and if I owned that piece of property I'd want to put the best home on it too, but I think there is opportunity here for improvement. And to Kurt's point, you know where do you hold the line? You keep making variance, variance, variance. You know I write the City Council and I do crazy things and I kind of dubbed our little development by St. Hubert's, I don't even remember the real name. What is it? Pond? What's that supposed to be called? AI-Jaff: Villages on the Pond. Debbie Lloyd: Villages on the Pond. I've kind of dubbed that, you've never heard this before, sorry. I've kind of dubbed that Variancea. I don't want our whole town to become a variance. I 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 mean we have standards and that's why I continue to come up here, embarrass myself and, but I try to bring forth what's in the code and make it valuable to you as well. Keefe: I have a question for you. Just you know the thing that I like about this is they're actually improving the hard surface coverage from the existing home. And I don't know, what year was the existing home built? Metzer: '78. Keefe: '78 so I mean they're improving the hard surface coverage. And so you know, in regards,. And they do have a very small lot so I'm sitting here going, at least so I'm kind of sitting here going, okay. Since '78 we've been living with a situation where it's been non- conforming and now they've come back and they're actually, yeah they are making a bigger house, but they're improving the hard surface coverage so, I'm not sure whal type of an improvement we could suggest on that particular property, particularly in light of a smaller. Debbie Lloyd: I think the setbacks on the lake is really vital because the 75% with that 57 feet back, the requirement is 75 feet and this one is at 43 feet. Keefe: So what does that leave on this lot? AI-Jaff: If I may, the 75% from before applies to the lot area. Lot width. So these were the non- conformities that the 75 applied to. Not the setback. Debbie Lloyd: Well the setback is at 75, for both of those other lots that were approved, they were approved with the 75% deviation of the 75 foot setback from the lake, and I know that's vital to our Minnesota shoreland regulations. That's where the regulations came from, State of Minnesota. I don't want to debate anything. It's not my job to debate it. I just wanted to present it. Thank you. McDonald: Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak on this? Okay, seeing no one else I will now throw it open to the council for discussion. Papke: I really respect what the issues that Debbie brought up here, but I think in this particular case they're, you know at the end of the day what we really care about is forward progress here, and every time we approve a variance, it seems important to me that we're making the city better in some way. And in this particular case I think these applicants are doing that and you know, we can debate the fine details of the city code and how we interpret them, but I think in this particular case it's well warranted from my perspective. It's my two cents worth. Zorn: Josh or Sharmeen, could you talk a little bit about the variance that is being proposed. What that is equating to size wise? That little portion of the garage. Metzer: It's 62.5 square feet total. 5 foot variance, but that's just for the very outside comer. Zorn: It kind of looks like it's 2 feet by, kind of narrow. Angles in. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 Metzer: Right, it's this section here. That shaded in the front. This is the front of the garage running down this line. And the setback line runs on a line like this. Zorn: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I had. McDonald: Next. Keefe: You know I'll just re-state briefly, I think that they've improved the situation. I'm happy to see that. I mean I think really to Debbie's point as well, you know we tried to improve the code last year and strengthen the code but, and that's a good thing. I think it's also a good thing to see proposals come in which actually improve the situation where they're at in terms of you know runoff potential, in terms of the hard surface coverage from the existing situation so I'm in favor of approval of this particular proposal. Undestad: I guess my comment, I didn't, wasn't here the first go around, but looking at the two, it's a great job. Revisions and I think you did great. McDonald: Okay, I guess what I would add to the record is that I do want to congratulate you. I know that when you left the last time it did not seem as though that it was going to be possible to build a house on that particular lot. And I am, I guess I'm very encouraged by the fact that yes, the lakeshore setback has been increased from what it was, and it doesn't seem to affect the quality of the home. This will be an improvement for the neighborhood. One of the things that we talked about variances is that if a literal enforcement caused an undue hardship, that is not the fault of the owner, that we can grant a variance. In this particular case we're dealing with a lot that, if we enforce the variances about all they could build on there would be a pup tent. I think this is a case for where the variances need to be given, and again this home improves, and this is what we asked. The home improves all of the setbacks. Improves the encroachments. It takes away from the hard surface areas. I think they did everything that we asked in order to build this new home there. I hope that in the process of doing so that they are getting a home that they can live with and that meets their requirements and everything, but I believe that kudo's for you all for working with the staff. We really appreciate that. So at this point I guess we will vote. Do I have a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve Variance #04-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1 % hard surface coverage variance and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance for the demolition and re-building of a single family home on a riparian lot zoned single family residential with conditions 1 through 12 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I second. McDonald: Having the motion made and it being seconded, we will now vote. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #05-10 for a 5 foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance (26.0% coverage) and a 32 foot shoreland setback variance (43 foot setback) for the demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a riparian lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Drainage swales are required to be graded In along each side of the house. 2. Maximum side slopes greater than 3:1 are not allowed. There is a slope along the northwest side ofthe proposed home that is greater than 3:1. Revise this slope to comply. 3. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachnient agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 4. Show the top and bottom wall elevations on the survey. 5. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the existing sewer and water locations and submit revised service tie cards upon connection. 6. Grading shall be revised to avoid intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone. 7. The applicant shall determine whether permits will be required from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the project, including the shoreline riprap. All necessary permits shall be obtained and all conditions of approval should be met. 8. Type III silt fence shall be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. 9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10:1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not activelv beilll!: worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 10. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to any construction activity. 11. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback area. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2005 12. The areas beneath decks must either be sodded or landscaped with mulch or rock with a fabric liner. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BUILD A STORAGE SHED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7450 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT. TIMOTHY & DIANE MCHUGH. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-17. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Papke: In terms of the storage available on the site here, the garage, the dimensions are listed here. I take it this is a two car garage, is that correct? That the occupant currently has. Timothy McHugh: Yes. Papke: Okay. And is there any storage above, maybe I'll hold this for the applicant. Okay, that's all I have. Keefe: Can you speak briefly to the other variances that you found on that area of the lake. You've got 2 listed in here. Is Hill Street nearby? Metzer: Yeah, it's to the southwest. Keefe: Oh I see it, south of the property. So there are a couple of them. Metzer: Hill Street is here, Subject property is here. Keefe: Alright. And then in terms of 27 foot front yard setback variance. Construction, expansion of garage so that was actually going towards the street, correct? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: And then is that, 1985. Is that what I'm looking at? Okay. 9 foot side yard setback. Construction of a one car garage. Okay. And those are the only two that you found in regards to variances which have been granted along the sort of east and south of Lotus Lake? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: Okay. And then another question, what does the fire department say about access in regards to this? 7