The URL can be used to link to this page

1g. Tom Schwartz Variance Request CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227. 1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us .:kj MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician O~. DATE: August 28, 2006 SUBJ: Tom Schwartz: After-the-Fact Variance request for a Gazebo and Patio structure within the wetland buffer setback Planning Case 06-22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After-the-fact Variance request to allow a gazebo and patio structure within the wetland buffer setback. A variance in the amount of 45 feet from the wetland buffer setback for the Gazebo and 52 feet from the wetland buffer setback for the Patio is needed to bring the non-conforming structures into compliance with ordinance. City Council held a hearing on July 10, 2006 and voted requests in order to give the applicant time to work and building permit issues. All voted in favor and t unanimously withav 14to o. Based on direction fr emergency overflo meets engineering requirements or an applicant has applied for a building working with the building department ACTION REQUIRED RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council consider approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The existing structures mll conformity. The City 01 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. Todd Gerhardt Tom Schwartz Variance - Planning Case 06-22 August 28, 2006 Page 2 2. An encroachment agreement from the engineering department must be obtained for the gazebo and patio structure in the drainage and utility/conservation easement areas. 3. Building permit for the gazebo structure must be obtained. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 20, 2006. 2. July 10, 2006, City Council Minutes. 3. June 20, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-22 schwartz variance\executive summary ii.doc PC DATE: June 20,2006 w CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: July 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 30, 2006 CASE #: 06-22 BY: DA STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: After-the-fact Variance request for a Gazebo and Patio structure within the wetland buffer setback. LOCATION: 7376 Bent Bow Trail Lot 6, Block 3, The Meadows at Longacres 4th addition APPLICANT: Thomas and Paula Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: .93 acres DENSITY: NA -< ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ rLJ. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief from 40-foot wetland buffer setback to allow after-the-fact placement of gazebo and patio structure in the wetland buffer setback on property zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R). 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. Location Map Schwartz Variance Planning Case No. 06-22 7376 Bent Bow Trail CityofChanhassen 8~AN"t;O Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback requirement for an existing gazebo and patio/fire pit structure within the wetland buffer setback. The gazebo and patio/fire pit have already been constructed without obtaining permits APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-406. Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks. Buffer and setback requirements for lots on record between December 15, 1992 and May 24, 2004: . Principal and accessory structure setback of 40 feet from edge of buffer. . Buffer Strip minimum average width for Natural Wetland is 20 feet. . Minimum buffer strip is 10 feet. BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of The Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition in 1998. The Schwartz home was built in 2000 on Lot ~ 6, Block @ 3. The delineated wetland is identified on The Meadows of Long acres 4th Addition plat map and the wetland buffers determined around the entire basin were monumented as indicated on the March 10,2000 and May 17, 2006 survey (see Attachments 7 & 9). According to the applicant, the wetland buffer signage was never installed at the monumented locations as required with the Longacres development. The wetland buffer setback is measured 40 feet from the monumented wetland buffer. During the storm events of September and October 2005, concern over structures within the emergency overflow easement on the applicant's property initiated a staff investigation into the structures at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. Upon further inspection a non- permitted gazebo and patio/fire pit within the wetland buffer setback were identified near the wetland at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. Both structures, as they currently exist, encroach into the 40- foot wetland buffer setback, wetland buffer, drainage and utility easement and conservation easement area. The wetland at 7376 Bent Bow trail is identified as a natural wetland area within the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20, 2006 Page 3 Gazebo and Patio Structure at 7376 Bent Bow Trail The wetland is a .6 acre Type 3, deep marsh wetland. This wetland is considered a jurisdictional wetland protected by the Wetland Conservation Act and City Code. The southwestern portion of the Schwartz property lies on a drainage and utility easement for the purpose of serving as an emergency overflow for the wetland to the north. The applicant is currently working with an engineer and the City Engineer to ensure the emergency overflow issue is adequately resolved (removal of garden beds) separate from this variance process. ANALYSIS The Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition was platted in 1998 with a drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of the lot including the wetland area. The wetland is classified as a natural wetland basin in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. Wetland buffer requirements at the time of platting were a 20- foot average buffer around the wetland basin with a minimum buffer distance of 10 feet in addition to the 40- foot wetland buffer setback. The applicant's wetland buffer varies from 25 feet near the gazebo to 50 feet in width closest to Bent Bow Trail. See buffer comparison table below for buffers that exist around the entire wetland basin. Buffer Comparison Table for Natural Wetland adjacent to 7376 Bent Bow Trail Lot Block Minimum Width of Buffer Max Width of Buffer Location from Applicant 3 6 6 3 25 50 Applicant 1 1 10 10 Across Wetland 2 1 10 10 Adjacent to Southwest 5 3 35 55 Adjacent to North 7 5 10 25 Across Wetland The wetland buffers for the wetland were monumented on the applicant's property and are identified on the 2000 and 2006 surveys. The 40-foot wetland buffer setback is located 40 feet from the wetland buffer monuments. The City became aware of the non-conforming structures during inspection of the emergency overflow on the applicant's property during the storm events of September and October 2005. Upon investigation ofthe emergency overflow easement, staff became aware ofthe non-conforming gazebo and patio/fire pit structure which encroach into the wetland buffer, wetland buffer setback, conservation easement and drainage and utility easements. Staff also realized that the wetland buffer signs indicated on the 2000 survey were not in place. The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback on his property to bring a non-conforming, non-permitted, 175-square foot gazebo and a 230-square foot patio/fire pit structure into compliance with city ordinance. Currently both structures are located Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20, 2006 Page 4 within the wetland buffer requiring a variance of 52 feet from the 40-foot wetland setback for the patio/fire pit and a variance of 45 feet from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback for the gazebo. The subject property has buildable area outside of the wetland buffer setback available for the structures. Staffhas indicated on a copy of the 2000 survey areas where structures could be relocated on property to bring structures into compliance (Attachment 8). The applicant has indicated that moving the structures would be too costly and would constitute a hardship. Although a zoning permit is a new requirement for Chanhassen residents, the applicant at the time of the improvement would have needed a zoning compliance review to ensure that proposed improvements complied with city ordinances. Back Yard Area suitable for structure placement Should the Plarmillg C0mmissisll City Council choose to approve the variance request, the structures would also require encroachment agreements for the patio/fire pit and/or gazebo within the conservation easement and drainage and utility easements as part of the variance approval. The encroachment agreements should specify that no additional structures or expansion of existing structures shall be allowed in the easements. 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: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20, 2006 Page 5 comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the need for a variance. Suitable areas exist on the subject property to allow the applicant to comply with the required wetland buffer setback. 2. That 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 on which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty is a self-created hardship. The applicant did not obtain a building permit or zoning compliance review for the gazebo er a zemllg IHlft11it fer tlH~ and patio/firepit. 5. That 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 of land is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 6. That 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 decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variance will not endanger public safety or diminish property value in the neighborhood. Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20, 2006 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommends that the Plmmiag Cemmi88iea City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plmmi>>g Cemml88iea City Council denies the 52-foot variance for the 175-square foot gazebo and the 45-foot variance from the 230-square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant's hardship is self-created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by City Code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. Final inspection and approval will be necessary from the building department for the gazebo. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations." Should the Planniag Cemmissiea City Council choose to approve the request, staff recommends the Planniag Cemmissiea Council adopt the following motion: "The Plarmiag Cemmissiea City Council approves the 52-foot variance for the gooooe and 4~ -met yaft8R@@ fer the patte sw@Wr@ te alle~.i' the 175-square foot gazebo .!Hid 2Qg 8qtiaf@ -met ~ to remain in place based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. An encroachment agreement shall be issued for the gazebo structures within the drainage and utility easement and conservation easement area. 2. No expansion or addition@ito the structures shall be allowed. 3. The applicant shall place wetland buffer signs provided by the City at monumented locations. 4. A building permit with {"mal approval from the building department shall be obtained for the gazebo. 5. The patio/firepit shall be moved to an area outside easements meeting all setbacks or removed from the property. Schwartz Variance Planning Case #06-22 June 20,2006 Page 7 6. All gardens areas within the monumented buffer area must be re-established with a native, non-invasive wetland buffer seed mix. (Staff recommends BWSR U8,U12 or similar upland MNDOT mix) 7. Remove raised-bed gardens from wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Development Review Letter dated May 15, 2006. 4. Affidavit of Mailing. 5. November 2, 2005 Letter to Thomas and Paula Schwartz. 6. November 15, 2005 Letter in response to November 2, 2005 letter. 7. 2000 Proposed Survey. 8. 2000 Proposed Survey with acceptable structure locations. 9. 2006 As-built Survey. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-22 schwartz variance\cc update.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of Thomas and Paula Schwartz for an after-the-fact Variance request for relief from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback for an existing gazebo and patio structure - Planning Case No. 06-22. On June 20,2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Thomas and Paula Schwartz for an after-the-fact Variance request for relief from the 40-foot front yard setback requirement to allow after-the-fact placement of gazebo and patio/fire pit structures in the wetland buffer setback on property zoned Planned Unit Development- Residential (PUD-R). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances 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 Planned Unit Development- Residential (PUD-R). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Block 3, The Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. .Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. That 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 of land is located. 1 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 #06-22 Variance dated June 20, 2006, prepared by Don Asleson, et ai, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback for the existing gazebo and patio structures. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 20th day of June, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-22 schwartz variance\findings of fact.doc 2 Planning Case No. 0(0 - da. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Ghanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 CITYOF CHANHASSI:'N. f RECEIVED It "" MAY 1 7 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING OEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Aqpress:. n I . "77/0/11,4-8 .~tJ;V~ ..j~ 11f.(./1'I-1'fTZ..- '7J7? -<3~~r 6....., .~ t! #,t.v ,4,4-r;s -e-iQ , 1?7"J ~ 17 Contact: ~o,,",.,....$ Phone:?/.z. ?/'Ct> #091'1 Fax: Email: f.LScJ.I#Q.~TZ-€?;?7S.;v.Co-. Owner Name and Address: ~. Contact: Phone: Email: Fax: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements -k- Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign** - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit x Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*** - $50 CUP/SPRNAC~AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB . Site Plan Review* Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ ~50 ~ ~ cK:..-:I:i:. 1013/0 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. * Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diqital coov in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif)fotmat. ** Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. *** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. .CANNeD ';'t.~' PROJECT NAME: Sc- hv.:>Cl.( A-L \J Cly\~r(lCG LOCATION: l?Jl ~ ~"-+ ~u) \r~ll LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L 0+ ~ 1S to c.\::- 3 Me6JiUu.'l-s ':f.' lL-\- ~~~cr-e~ >t4+h AdclY'\ TOT ALACREAGE: ~ q~ 6-c.,-e So 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, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your applica.tion. A determination of completeness of the applica.tionshall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicantwithin 15 business days of application: This is to certify that lam making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to'make this application and thefee'owner has also signed 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. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ' ~~!/4 Signature of Fee Owner . Date G:\plarnflJiMW)8veJopment Review Application.DOC Rev. 4/05 Mav 15.2006 Development Review Application City of Chanhassen 7700 M~rk-pt RhTfl Chanhassen, MN 55317 ReQuest of a variance for Gazebo and adioining fIre oit located at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. In August 2000 we purchased the above mentioned property from Lundgren Bros. Development. We were told at the time of purchase that a 10 foot wetland buffer existed around the oond shared with fIve other home sites. We adhered to the buffer restriction as disclosed at purchase. Unfortunately we had no knowledge of a 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback aligned with a Drainage and Utility Easement which we had no knowledge of. SubseQuentlv. as part of our overall comorehensive landscaping plan we placed a gazebo and tire pit within this area. Before placing the gazebo and fire pit we applied for and received approval from the association's architectural committee. In olacing a call to the city of Chanhassen's regarding a oermit I was informed that a "kitted" gazebo didn't require a permit. No mention was made at that time that there was a concern as to the placement. So the gazebo and fire pit were built in 2001/2002 and were out within the Drainage &Utilitv Easement and the adioining 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback. It was after the changes that occurred to the orooertv north of the Longacres Development and the abnormal water runoff entering the pond adjacent to and shared within our property did we find out about both restrictions. We have since conducted exhaustive research. spent thousand of dollars and hired an indeoendent survey comoany to determine what we really have as a property. In addition, we have received several bids regarding the destruction, moving or takedown and rebuild of the gazebo and pit only to have those alternatives Drove to be financially imoractical and prove to be too burdensome. Lastly. we are aware that a permit for the Gazebo will be reQuired if the variance is approved. A subsequent permit will be requested should variance be approved. Tho and aula Sch 6 Bent Bow Trail Q?O- iRO-l1 ';'; F.nc~ ~Nr\j\SSiN 011'< ~E~E,\)EO "^~'{ 1 1 '2.000 C\-Ift..N\-Ift..SSE.N PLf>.NNING OE.Pi SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT 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 June 8, 2006, 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 Thomas Schwartz Variance - Planning Case 06-22 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sw\rn to before me this <6+''''' day of ~ Lt. (\ ~ , 2006. ~\~<\, ~ . - Notary Public I KIM T. MEUWISSEN j Notary Pu.bllc-Mlnnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 o :::T m :J :::T m en ~z :JO - "tJ -. _0 m(l) :JO :J-... 5. "tJ c.cc C" o=: o 0 3J: 3(1) -.m en -,: en -. _.::S Oc.c ::J s: (I) (I) ~ ::J c.c . .. ..0 00 a:e r"tl ~ "tI r C w~~~~~~~~~ooro~~~W~~~W~ o c 0'" ... 0 QI ~~~~.~~a~~'~~~8mmil~~~&~ 3 CD ....:::r n 0 '2. 0 n .... :::rQl QI'O " QI CD ~8~~~~'iomm033i~~~ff~.g~~ 3~ CD.... e.CD C:;' 0 .... Ro ~~~;8~~~;~gi~~.~~~~~~~t CD 0 s::I: o~ QI UI o' ~~:;: ~~ Q Q.cirCirO> ~ 0"5.<5 ;-g-g :J osn g :E :J :J CD QI :J'< :J !. :J -I 8oroQ)~g~~~~:~w~:J~~~~o~~ utUl CD '0 ~ 3' :J~:Jmo~ w~ w:~a.ww 0 0 ....'0 gi~~.~a.~~R~~;ggw~Q)!~3~n "Ro -'CD CD 5':J:J:JoWcOQ)m~o_m;~@-'W~:J~ :J :J n02.S3~~~a~-~OWOQ)~~~~:Jc ~UI E~~~m~~~' ~i S" o~o. :Ii!; ~ c2l 0 ~ ~ m 0':: (f) CD ~ ~ CD ~ 3 ~; )>. :J c.. a.Q)O&~i~mOm:J:JQCD~cr:J~Q~:J I'Q 0 (')lll 0"0 )>lii~::f::;; !>- ~ '" :-""0 III III -I :J>-....J -I ::E:D (') C:-I 5'a3~~~g:J3~5~~O:J~-_.~~~ -~3CD~~m~m~~~ooa.criao~o "':Joo.o:::rw- <D'< C CT"O :::r -(..:) :::r <D <D ~ ac ::J'<e-....,-:JOCDW<o00 3a,< m-,_CD 0'=3 ~ 3 g (j)::::E (')0 _ CTO"O <D O-....J 0 d.o =<D =~l~i~~~~~~?g~g~~~~~l :::r"'U(')-I(J)=c="O go> 3 lllc I [~ :';3:J3<D~oo;::;:c <Dco:::r-o-o =OJ :J <D ~ <D g *ffi~ o=rcrZ ~:o~.~. .g~ro~ >.g o -.0 <D 1ll:J W ~.,< ::E 'CCT3<Da:::r-lllC III o.w ~ ~lll o~~-~CDooacwre~~~moa.o33 .... 0 ~ <D ~ _ 0 0 w' III =: -+0 :::::T:J"'" 0<D w - -.,< ~~2' ::rm~~~'~'&o~:Ji~;im~m ... 0 3 III ::E <D en' _"0 ::J:J (J) CT - (') ::J . :::r :J -. 0 w co CT 3:::r :J ~. :::r <D ~ = ~"O w- ~ 3- cO -c.... ~ffi gaa~w0~~~~~ ~~~Qa CD....o.......01'< lll-o- III OJ 0 -... 0 i5c m~g ~~-g~~~~~Em~~~~~~ :::r:J - -. I\) <D <D :J a - <D <D:J - -. ... <D :::r CD III . :::r - 0 0 o _ =(0 ::l a <D "0 ::E C <D:J WOro o<~roro~~~~~3~~ws~~ "tI CD <D -. I 3 :J :::r or :-+ ~ w ~ _.<0 ~..o 0 iii'::E .....< :J <<D CD ~"O R~. CD ~ .-"0 3 ii)'< g ~. CD ~ S" m en <t iii'O -I w I\) III <D ~ 0 W -. < - <D c - III Q. 8~.g ~w~g~~.CD~OCD=~g~ww~ :J...:::r3:::r~=IllWcng: :J~~<D:;U<D- 0-1 :4- Will ~I\) <D ... a~~ ~~~mffi~~~gg~~g~~aii) :J.E.CD <D ~ I III CT<D _ (O<D 1ll0' W:!. ::J... N - -. (') ~'9 -. ::E:J - W -Ill CTlll ~CD~ ~8 0~'g3oo~CDo~a_~o~ -'CD Ul <D"O ......-0:J::E:::r wco= J50111"O ::T _. III :J :::r -I\) .- -. CD 9: c en (") =' CD CD =="0 "0 S" _. o..g 0 JJ ~ n ....!:!:............o.c. <D <D 111- o 0 III ~8 g5~ ~~ 5ocn~~3~~~5~CDQ~ ....QI:J!:..01ll-3o- Q.o"O~:::rc:Jc ~ 7\<D 3 CDE~ ~~ c38W&W=CDOE=~CD_. O:e =~ - ?> ~ ::f ? "0 "2- o !1!.... <D - S' 0. CT . - :Q g.!=t s: ~ a:~ rr a (') ~ ~ :: 0 0. ~ ~ )> ~ CT <DO> o CD'" O_<D_'Cllllll W<<D.....:::r 0= III 0 <D a III ~o.g ~8 ~~.CD3&~mQ~~~~~~ <D<DW<Cl)(O 0 " 3 CD :::r-WWw(O:J 0. 0. <D (5' ...... - 0 :::r 0 ~ ... ~'::i ~SCD"O CD~~'~CDCD~--'~~~~O C'" S!? III '< 0"0 en- <D W III !fl S" ~"O n OCDW~~~cn=CD~o.O 1ll_:J::Eo:::rCT<D 0' Ii' ~ 9 .g ~ "" ~ ~ 5: 31ll1O ~ 5'al 3 ~ ~ 5- 3U10111<0:J"'<D CT 0 -'~-<DC@O lllCl) :J.....- =<D-lll is: ::E -....J 00 ~~'< g~ ~'<~CD~w~C~~mDa~ -. ..... ~ '--........ ...-+ 0.0"OO03111... -....J :::l0 w~g ~CD ~WCDaQ~o.g35=rocng UlCD_::EOOo<D~"O _ 3 ji) ::: ::E S' S' III W 0 9'"0 ~oc . w S:ffio.~33~nm~~CDroW !!!.=o-.:J:::r~'Ul2: ... :::r _ :J :::r S' g: _. (0 0 - 0 OUl"'=<DOO' ji) <D - ... <D. CD::5 sag m(J) ;;.o~ 0 ~ o~~.' (;.g;- <D :::r W <D <0 _.g _. - C s:: Q 3 :J S'...."O 0 g:::r"O:J ::f <D -. W ::T 0 ~o= w~ ~CD~(")S~C(J)~~ -_.~ (')"0 g ~ !icE S - iii' - III 0. . 0-0. =sr ii)(iiS'o_3~"O- Q :fiDe. 3o.=.aO<D~(j)o <D c ~-1 ~ffi~ cnu 5w~3~o_m~3 CDW~ Oc_oCl)' _0 ... QlUl<"O_:::rlllo> ::J ... 7\ ~o(J) ~~ 5'-o3CD9:i~~w ~"Os CD _. 0:'< 0 III W I 3 3 CT:::r"O"O - ... -. 0 <D <D a:2: 3~~ ~~ ~3~~w~~~~g ~g~ ~C'S'<Doww<D1\) <D 3=<D0~~~a - W - _00 CD '< _ =r 0 0 '< Q. U) :E CD 0 =: :::::J CD =: -.03 cwo I\) <D _. 0"0 W 0 i')' ::E OJ ::T::T ~O' ~CD CDaU)~~=r3c-w UOc ~< o::fCT<DO~ !:!: ~.' .2 ~ Q::f3 !D <" <D <D gg~ ~~ ii~~~~~;~.~ ~.i~ ;::;: ~ ~. CD:e0<D3:J:J- :J :::r p.. g.5E ~':< ::+oarg.CDo~CDCDQ) cD~!P . ...."0 . -3 <0 o <D'"O III <D '< S' <D :::l CD~S ~o j8~~~~3~:~ o~'~ :::r=(5'0.;::+:3111- . :J ua :::;':JO :::l(Q CD- 0'"0 - 0.3 5 :;:: 0 ~ a 3 9= ~o' w ~.g ~ g g C" ~ C'w~::E?-::;; - 0. .~. ::E <D c :::r !l' $ll ::!'.,<.., .., ~ a "'0 CD' 3: a CD 0 C" 3 CD IU -I CD 0 III ~ c 0,< ~ en' <D =<0' III <D '< g:g~ ~~ co~~ '<~Q)~~3 5Q~ :::r _:4-_WOO W o U -:::rCT .j:>. :::l ~:E~ I~ ~~~ ~i ;~~ ~CD> c~:::r3<Do:JC <D c ' -CTO 0 ~ W <Doc O~CD CD ~>ff cD U)CD~ CD9~ ... <D :J... en lll..._ I 00 ! !!!. <D CT ::E ::::. - ?=r:::::J 9=0 c5~w 0::2 w<w ~CD~ <D o.::T_ 0 S" o~ CD~ ;::;:'< a =~ i ~'g. So ~ -:J -. W 0 QI QI _ '< W _. W -o:::r ;:!. i~ ~ U) i~. ~o? 2 g '<C' -. :::r- :::r0<D - _:J _ <Do. CIi co g.- Y' CD 0 o :::T m ::J :::T m en mZ ::Jo - "tJ -. -0 m (I) ::Jo ::J-... -. ::J"tJ c.cs::: 02: o -. 3 0 3~ -.m en -,: en -. -.::s Oc.c :J s: (I) !1 -. ::J c.c r"tl~1 "tI r C o ... ... 0 QI n 0 0 n .... a'O=" a CD _.CDn 0 -. Ro O~QI !!! 0 -I :J '<:J ::. :J _. " ~""3 ~ a:e ....:::r :::rQl CD.... 3::1: CD QI CD '0 ....'0 -'CD cE:J " UI 00 o c 3 CD 3~ CD 0 :J :J utUl "Ro O(')IllO"O)>lii::E::f::;; .j:>.(..:)I\)......"OIllIll-l:J>-....J-I::E:DOs-l ... :J 0 0. 0 :::r W - < <D '< ..,. C CT"O :::r -0 (..:) :::r <D <D ;::;: _ C o' = 3 < 3 0 (j) " <; 0 0- 0"'C <D n -....J o!:!:.o = <D ...:J 1113:JW-0~(')c::f"'U(')-I(J)g-co."01ll0>3111CI~W ....CD3:J <Do 0;::;: CO:::r- - C=OJIll:J<D ~o. 00~g~Ill:JW~~::ECl)CT3Cl)a:::r::f~...g<DWO'!i~~~ ...._W _-......OOWlll = lll-Cl)en'-"O :J CT- :::l. :::r~-0.owco~3:::r_:J...003_<1ll ~03-(J)co(')-c.... CD.... _. 01...... lll....- <D....<..."O W 0_"'0::T :::r?::f;::;:~<D~:Jao~~:J"2-~~.....~Cl)~0J:::rCDIllC<D5 "tI CD <D -. . 3 :J :::r (0' 0 III - o' <0 <0 .Q..o 0 -. ~ ::E ... < :J ~ <D iii'O-I w~Ill<D~O~:-+~wlll~::f~C:::~ lllwlll~~1\) :J...:::r3:::r-....J=IllWcn<D :Jlll:J<D..._<D:::r::J-I:4-<D...--o :J .E. CD <D ~ I III CT <D _ <0 ~ - III O' !i -. _... N Ef ii)' (') :::l . =. CD Ul <D "0 ...... - 0 ::l ::E:::r en' ... ~. :J C 0 III W ::T ~ 1ll:J:::r - I\) ~n"":::!"'-"""o.c' <D<D <D- <0 "0111 00 III 0.0 C....QI:J!:..01ll-3CT oo~o:::r~~c~ 7\<D3<Do o:e = ~ - ?> ~ ::f ? "0 "2- 0' !1!.... ~ ::f S' _ Q: < . - CT <D 0> OCD'" O-<D-Cllllll w<<D"'<D<Oo~~ o<Dalll 3-CD :::r......WWW(O:J <D<DW< 0 lll.....-- V'O~Ill'<O-O~<DW 0.0.<D~~::f0:::r1ll =!fl:::l~ ~I!~~g~~~~i ~g~::E~<D~m~ ~~go ~CD_::EOOo<D~ 0 0.3-~::E3:J~1ll wo_o -. = 0 -. :J o:::r ~. U <D'" - ~ _ S' <D<D _. <0 0 ~ 0 15"0 OUl"'=<D 0- ii5" :::r-.....:::r :J - C . :J CD.... ...."0 0 $;! :::r"O::l - <D:J'<D W <D <0 :;'"0 en' st 0 s:: Q 3 :::r... wlll-.......:::r 0 w.....c -. -Ill c.. 3o.-OO<D:J<Do <D (')_:J"O-<O_00 C...<D UI<"O_ lllo> 0.... "'<D- -::J "'7\"-1 CDQI -'<o:::rw 3 3c-o"O-...-0 <D<DO::T CDC'~o._ 1ll<D~ CT:::r"Ow:::rO:J_ w_-~ e.oCD3<D0~~01\) g: 3g-<Dg"<D3~2' ::EOJ~::T :J < 0 - CT <D 0 ~ !:!: en""0 <D (') -"'3 . ;::;: <" lE CCD<0:::r3:J:J- ::l W "'00. :J':J' :::ro.$ll~ . .... c:;"O ~ . . - 3 <Q _.~. III <D '< -'. <D:::l :::r = <D~' 0. ;::;: 3 III - ~. 0 <D "0 -. ~ 0 :J:::l (Q CD- o. - :J 0'" .......... - 0.3 C'W<D::E::l_- ~ -0 <<DC :::r $ll -I CD 0 -g ~ i::: 0 ~ <D 9: . (D' ~ <0' III <D' ~ :::r _:4-_WOO ~ ~ 0 -:::rCT .j:>.:::l C~:::r3~0:Jc <D C :-+ (j)CTO 0 0 ~QI<D<D'" < W lllQS ~; 0.= :J CT ~ - W o.::T_ 0 S" ~QI _ '< W W <D -o:::r O;:!. '< C' -. :::r;::;: W :::r 0 <D - ~:J 0 <D~ · .. ..0 U)wro"'Ow>~"'O:E~OOroS:S:~oo~~~w~ ~~~~.ro~a~~s~~gCDCDil"'O~~~~ ~8~~~~'ioCDio33i@m"'O~ag~~ ~~~;8~w~~!g~3~~@ro~~5'~.~ gm-~co&~2S:::::J~.~5'~"'Oigoi~~ _"'0 =r =r D3 3- U) =r U) W go a. co w 0 .., _. 0 - :::::J og~~~8g5'aSCD~~~~im:::::J3gY'~ gi~,<a.~&~:::::JS~roggw~W~.~3::2g 5':::::J 5 a 0 ~ 5. ~ g (f)~ 8 - m @ m CD g m ~ ~ & ~~5'~30s~a!~3~~8~~~~~i~ a..., co m CD ~<O 5". c m 3 i ~ 3 ~. ~ ? CD ~ ~ m~o~52.U)o:EW$"~CD =r3mo)> ~c" ~Wo~:E~"'wo3m2.&QCDCD~:::::J~Q~'2. ~a3"'O~~S::::::Jco~:::::Jw~O&CDgs.,<CD- ~~~~~oro~W~igo03$ll~@SQ~i coCO U) en =r~03"O <oW:::::J 0 ::!'.'< U) """I ~w < "'9~OCD~~ "'O~:::::J' c3g~cm,~:::::J~ ~ CD g ~ a; ~ ~ ~ ff ~ ~ JJ 5. ~" ~ ~ <D ~ >.g oW~~~'~ooeCwCD~5'~CDnao33 ~~~ ~m~~gi&~~:::::Ji~;im!~ i~'U) Qig~::i5'i~~>~~CDi~ w~g ~~3~c=co~O~3=ff-'~CO~ mgCD oCDro~CD~~~~o~ie~,~'a~ (") ~""O ~ _. m. """I 0""0 3 J).) U) == 5':::::l CD en CD g~~ @:~'~g~~&g!~~~~~~~ Si~ ig. m~.~~i~i~~ia.~~~ U _. i 9: g U);;; g co co &"0""0 5'~. o.g 'cf :n s::::::JJ).) :::::J.., ~0U):::::Jw3CCDco:::::JwCDaCD CD~~ ~~ 03~S:::::lw~io~=~CD~. ~ a.t5 s: CD &"'0 0 =t 0.,< o' ~ 0 a. CD '< > CD -ro- ~~ ~mcroo~~-3ro5-~3~ ~~9= ~S ~~CD3&~~Q3U)_~CD~ ~5'CD ~"'O ~~~~:~~9~'~i~&g o~2 ~~ ~~Q~3~~~5'i3g~& ~~~ ~a ~'<~CD~w~C:::::Ja~o~~ J).)~g ~CD ~Sco~~~~g3:::::J~roU)o ~oc . w ~^a~33a.OCD~~CDm~ g =~ ~8 co ~ ~.S~ 0 grog::-. - c;.g; @o== w~ ~CD~nS..,cU)coa ---~ o_a. ::t:S- i>>cB:i"0_3U)"'O- 0 ::Tro~ ~ii ~U ~@m3~0~m~~ CDW~ ~oCf) ~- 5'-o3CD&i^~e ~"'Cro 3~:::::J U)Q co3a~w,<_.w 5' C"a-~' ro'<?a- ~~ og~Q.!!?~rog~~ m'=3 ~g ~CD ~~Cf)~353S~~ u~~ :::::Jc~ =:Q. wU)~~~=J).)g~a. ~CDCD g~.~ ~~ ;:+OCDg.CD~aCDCDJ).) (j)~..U) CD~cD CD ~8~~~"""I3~~m o~~ 5:;:Cf) og a3 g'ii3'o'~~.g ~ 8 C"C"52. =t:"a ~ ro ~ ro "2. CD ~ 3: a CD ~ g 3 ~ Qt m ffc <a. ~m.w ~'<ww-3 oo~ J).) ji) (ii'co WCD"'C <9 -Om =--@ ~~^ :E< a.~ ~CD w<~ ~_> g ~~ _CDO- :j")>~r co ~ ~ ~ g ~ifif . - Q) i"O co ~ .:::::J So ii5" "'C (ii-::!" 0 @ ~a ~ ~ - g~ ~~g ~ g ~ Cf) CD~' o~. CD ~ ro -- Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hannless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnfonnation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disciaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hannless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. CARTER W & CARRIE A MUENCH 7284 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6401 THOMAS M & KATHLEEN M KUHL 7289 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7562 JAMES A CHRISTIANSEN & JENNIFER L CHRISTIANSEN 2435 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8431 STEPHEN NIKRANT & LISA KAY NIKRANT 7300 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 STEVEN C & ANNE R FORSLUND 7301 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 CHAD A & JENNIFER L ERICKSON 7315 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 DAVID C & SUSAN L KIBLER 7329 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 WILLIAM D DOCE-HEIAM & SUZANNE M DOCE-HEIAM 7348 BENT BOW TAL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 KEVIN P & JEAN ANN THAYER 7351 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7549 RANDALL L & SHELLY A CHRISTY 7377 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7550 ERIC V & BARBARA F DOREMUS 7371 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 DAVID M & JENNIFER S FRITZ 7385 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 MATTHEW M & SUSAN B QUINN 7397 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 STEVEN M & CAROLYN B WElBY 7398 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 TERRY L & KAREN F RADIL 7415 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6400 / BRIAN A & AMY R WUEBBELS 7400 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7551 JOHN R & STACEY L BOSACKER 7428 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6400 JOHN KEITH & COURTNEY J BRYAN 7406 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7551 DALE F & JO ELLEN MUELLER 2529 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7553 ROBERT & AMY F BUTTERFIELD 2537 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7553 ALLISON L CRAIG & ROBERT W CRAIG 2547 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7553 BRIAN P & DIANE M LARSON 2427 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8431 DOUGLAS L & EILEEN H PETERSON 7320 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6402 KENNETH & KIMBERLY SWITALSKI 2563 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7553 DANIEL J & KRISTlE M WIGGER 2419 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8431 MARK S & PAMELA J GOLENZER 7334 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 KURT W & MICHELLE K ODDSEN 7325 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7549 KARLENE A JOHNSON 2403 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8431 JAMES W & STACIA L SPEIGHT 7361 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7550 DAVID M & ELIZABETH D KUCERA 2572 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7547 MICHAEL J NELSON & COLLEEN I D NELSON 7357 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6402 MICHAEL T & MARY T K MAESER 2584 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .7547 MICHAEL P SMITHSON & JULIE R LARSON SMITHSON 7389 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7550 ROBERT M & KATY S KEELER 7399 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7550 JON E FREEMAN 2575 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7547 WILLIAM E & KIM M WHITE 2585 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7547 DAVID JOE & PAULA M WARD 7483 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN ,MN 55317 -7552 BART JAY & REBECCA LYNN EDDY 7433 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6400 GEORGE E II & JACQUELINE TYSON 7414 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7551 MICHAEL W & JENNIFER APPANEAL 7424 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7551 THOMAS B & LAURA E PAPAS 7434 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN ,MN 55317 -7551 JOHN 0 ESCH & LEAH HAWKE 7444 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7551 ALLAN D & ELIZABETH D REDING 7457 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6400 DAVID G & STACEY R HURRELL 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6400 PAUL D & ELIZABETH S MILLER 7473 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6400 MATTHEW JEFFREY THOMAS 2555 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN ,MN 55317 -7553 DAVID E & CONNIE S MOORE 7330 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7549 TIMOTHY J & JENNIFER A LORGE 2589 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7554 LEONIDAS & KRISTINE CHECHERIS 2411 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8431 BRIAN A & KIMBERLY A WELLMAN 7343 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6402 CHARLES ARNOLD BOBERTZ & MARY BOWAR BOBERTZ 2401 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8431 PATRICK S & SHERYL M ROGERS 2596 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7547 MICHAEL E & ANNE M RYAN 2595 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7547 NEAL R & NANCY J SIMON 7490 MOCCASIN TAL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7552 JAMES L & LISA R COLBERT 7454 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6400 KHAI & HEATHER TRAN 7474 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7552 JOSEPH RANDY WILLIAMS & ANN L WILLIAMS 7476 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -6400 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Schwartz Variance Planning Case No. 06-22 7376 Bent Bow Trail City of Chanhassen \: ,;Ii- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.11 DO Fax: 952,227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227,1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227,1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952,227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952,227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us November 2, 2005 Thomas and Paula Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Structures within Easements and Setbacks at 7376 Bent Bow Trail (Lot 6, Block 3- The Meadows at Longacres) Dear Thomas and Paula: The City of Chanhassen experienced significant rain events during the month of September. As a result of those rain events, the City became aware of some issues with its storm water conveyance system. One of the issues that became evident to City staff involves your property has been aggravated by landscaping and construction activities at the Currently, a garden area with timber walls, gazebo and a patio on your property. These are located within drainage and utility easements and/or wetland buffers and setbacks. There are sev 1. The garde was desig north of y niise to an' the wetland. 2. The gazeb?~; wetland bu~f. the conservatio structures are a your property Ji has not bee 1 Restore all associated and the drainag removal, you,mus garden installation. Asin ; to the proper functioning of the; Without the capacity to overf1q;~~; likely to cause flooding probleil;i~i .~~.As ~,Ved as as removed is critical !;.pur neighborhood. .~~hS, the wetland is more fieighborhood. The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play, .~ fV 2) Relocate the patio alld.2:aZebo. The gazebo and patio must be moved outside the drainage and utility easement, conservation easement and the 40 foot wetland buffer setback (please see enclosed survey for details) or removed from the property. Additionally, a permit shall be obtained from the Chanhassen Building Department for the construction and/or moving of the gazebo. If you do not wish to move or remove the structures, you may apply for a variance from the 40 foot wetland setback and wetland buffer requirements. The variance process is a public process that allows public input before the Planning Commission and/or City Council make a decision. As part of the variance process, you will be required to submit an updated survey illustrating the gazebo and patio locations, the drainage and utility easements, conservation easements, wetland buffer setbacks, edge of wetland and wetland buffer monuments as currently shown on your survey. This process does not guarantee that you will be able to keep your structures in place if the Chanhassen City Council decides to deny the request for a variance. In order to leave the structures in place, you would also need to receive relief from the conserVation easement requirements. This would occur immediately following, or concurrent with, the variance process. 3) Replace wetland buffer monuments. The wetland buffer monuments must be replaced to the locations shown on your lot survey. If you do not have the buffer signs, the City has them available at a cost of $20 per sign. I have enclosed a copy of your property survey, the portion of Chanhassen City Code that addresses wetland buffer and setback requirements, and the documents that you will need to apply for a variance if you decide that you would like to pursue a variance or variances. In the future, please submit any proposed improvements for a zoning compliance review with the Chanhassen Planning Department to avoid violation of City Code. A zoning compliance review is free and essential to ensure that the proposed improvement complies with all city ordinances. If you have questions, feel free to contact me at 952.227.1106. I appreciate your cooperation in addressing this issue. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN ...----:-J'~--) - ./7 .,t~~ (/-2 Don Asleson Natural Resource Technician ; t'~ Enclosures: 1) 7376 Bent Bow Trail (Lot 6, Block 3, The Meadows at Longacres 4th) Lot survey dated March 2000. 2) Section 20-406 of Chanhassen City Code 3) Variance application documentation Thomas and Paula Schwartz - 7376 Bent Bow Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 November 15, 2005 Don Asleson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Asleson; This communication is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2005 and the subsequent telephone call on November 14, 2005. You have requested that we remove the garden area which allegedly interferes with the natural swale of the pond. I am requesting that the City of Chanhassen grant us additional time (Spring, 2006) to research our options; review with legal counsel the requests that you put forth; have time to apply for variances (if necessary); and if necessary, prepare and budget for the significant changes you have requested in our property. You have requested that the garden area be removed to return the "emergency overflow swale to its original state". I wish to reiterate that we have made NO CHANGES to the original grade of this swale. The garden has been in existence since 2001 with no adverse effect on drainage throughout our property. Secondly, you are requesting that we put in place the "wetland monuments". These monuments did not exist when we purchased this property in 2000, nor were we informed of such monuments by Lundgren Bros (the seller) or the City of Chanhassen which granted us certificate of occupancy without these monuments in place. These changes have initial estimates in excess of$15,000! The financial hardship you proposed is rather staggering and I hope the city understands I am still very uncertain as to the implications of what' s being requested and therefore need time to do my homework and to seek advice from those who are better versed in these matters. With these considerations I think it best if we cancel our meeting which was scheduled for Friday, November 18. It is our hope that we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. . ' SURVEY .FOR: LUNDGREN BROS. I EXfSl1NG L BUILDING I --~.J .,;..:, .& I , -.~ I SCHOEl-L 8( MADSON,INC.' ENGINEERS . SU~S . PlANNERS sOIL lESnNG . ElMRON!,IENT1I. SERVICES I0580wAYlATA BOULE.VARD,SUITE 1 MlNNEToNKA, MN 1l5J05 (612) 546-7601 ' ~Al(:546-9065 VAcmT - CURB, DESCRIPTION:. .. .. .. Lot. 6; Block 3, THE MEADOWS, AT LONGACRES , . 4TH ADDlTIo.N, .13ENCHMARK: . Top.ot iron monument: as. shown , Elevati.on =992.4$ (NGVD-19.29Datum) CITY OF CHANHASSEN llm@mY[i;i@ MAR 2 'llOOO ENGI\'IEERING OEPr. ~~i':~W~Y. ha~8.~hhock~a~ /YJ~~/f. ~*Ja()1:>. by. .~ . <f~ . 40.0. ~ _ .' 40. 80. I. 60120~619 569/28, .. (10.1-52) ~.. -4fr.... . .N.. ., , , ~ , 1 ~ '. A' / .~ < "- "' > ",o,r; / t;J;,<f.~~ / .",oS <' . LEI\OS'Ol! CON~'l~DIO'R INSTA1.J.. TYPE OWN ON TJil: PLfo . I'lMCI~G ~;E ~F SUll-V!:'" PR~~ll.u~nn.. LOt IS. c'\ill.'{\~ICPi tA INtEIt IiKCNoIA'fIO ~JNG W IlJl"LES. MA'(, fU1..\..'( KED t\A Y. ~ONS,{R\lCi\~~ ~f FENCING . 1>1: I.lSED IN U" . GENERAL NOTES: 1. .. - Den.otes iron monument. 2. x890..0. ~,Denotes. existing spot. ~Iev<ition; 3. x(890.0.) ~ Denotes' proposed spot elevation. . 4. ~ - Denotes direction of surface' drainage. , 5. Proposed garage floor, = 994,0. ' (DROP GARAGE 1. COURSE) .. Proposed top of foundation = 99,5.6 Propos~d 'baSement floor = 987.0.. :- ,Denotes wetland buffer moriument.' 6. 7: .8. 00 I hereby' :c~rtlfY that this survey was . prepared ',under. my superVision and that I ama Licensed. Land Surveyor' under :' the laws of the State of, Minnesota. . . .: /;ItttaHl ~ Bruce W. Skipton Date: 3-9-00. : 'License No; 17768 120 Feet ,I , EXIsnNO l SUILOINO I --~...J . 60120~619 569/28 . (101-52) SURVEY ,FOR: LUNDGREN BROS~ I . -.- I SCHOEI..L . 8c MADSON,INC.. ENGINEERS . SURVEl'ORS . P\,\NNERS SOIL TESnNO . ElMRON~ENTAl. SERVICES , 1 0580' WAYlATA BOULEVARD. SUIlE 1 MINN.roNKA. MN 58305 (612) 546-7601 . fAl<:546-9065 ~... ~.'Ni . . ( 1 ~ l;..:, k EMERQE:N~Y-~~ERFLOW SWME/ '- VAC~T 98J"_''-~J . -8, R""Z5() . _/ 4""080 . 00 44'S ~ AI' (1 Ii'~ ~ 4';'r 0 ~1~ '.S, '00 (I. :. MI__'_ O>~ . "'Jh_ -' ._'~ A- / .~ < "- .'- > .-t$:~~"" / / ~~.j' <' --.::--". ~ €.tS~~<, - ~~II1II.trr- LEROSION C~~R~O:Oll. TYPE VIM ON THE P AA ~051.l!l.I/E; iii~RlJ~~ll.. 1.01 Ii A~il NlA,jIl WIt~IElt ATE\), i>\J'R\N~I\Y llA\.E5. MAY, N STAKED n . CONS1R\JCTlO U Of fENCING - ell USE\) IN l.IE .... l!i6"../0 V'~ 'S.., 0",-"" vo~ Jr - CURB, . , GENERAL NOTES: DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Block 3, THE MEADOWS:, AT LONGACRES . . 4Tt-f ADDITION, - 1. . - . Denotes Iron monument. 2. x8l:!O.0 -, Denotes existing spot elevation; 3. x(890.0) ~ Deriotes proposed, spot elevation. 4. ~ - Denotes direction of surface, ,drainage. , - 5. Proposedgarqge' floor, = 994.0 ' (DROP GARAGE 1 'COURSE) _ Proposed top of foundation' = . 99,5.6" Proposed 'basement floor = 987.0: ',- .Denotes wetland buffer moriument. 6. 7. 8. 00 BENCHMARK: - Top, of' iron monument. as shown Elevation = '992.48 (NGVD-19~~ Datum) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1mll!@mfB)' ~AR 2 7 2000 ENGINEERING DEPT. I hereby' 'c~rtifY ,that this survey was' , prepared '.under my supervision and that I am a Licensed" Land Surveyor., under :the laws of the State of. Minnesota. ':~HI~ Bruce W. ,Skipton This drawing has '>>'~hheck.d and ro.lowed this 'I. day of /YJ~,!/f ~: *JOIYD by . ~ <1...-14 40 ~ o - .r 40. I 80 I Date: 3-9-00 120 Feet , I 'license No: 17768 ...-:--, ; I LJ s i < ; < ~ ~ o i~ ICl l!i !O B ~ i; II~ o !-~ if:- ~ z ~j:; ~~ t~ ~- ~ < > ~ ~ J i ,l,~ ~ 8' Ii ~ ~ e. ~ " ! j " I. , r I' , ~ nc .' ~ ~. tl H i" ,I i: i"i Ii: 2.~ .n ~~ ~; i! .. ffif.?: ~ ~ ~ m i f it & :- ~l ft ~i H ~~ i6 ;c=' ! ~ ~ ilr m Iii Ii U it ii If ,. -, H ~, ~~ ~ JI !~ Hi [ki fn U ~ 1.- 11 j~ ll1!. gAl 1~- Hi B.J. 'u [~ ~) ~ ~ i~ ~.! II [8 HI ~;? I.. ,. /, ! ~ r~ s'I;: q : I :;: l I I i ~: , ( /.. 'v, . " ~ '; r7 ,~~ " " .... h' " " ~ ~ ., '. \ \ \ \ \ (] ~, " " ::: ': '; " " G') " J. to 1:0 '; o () ;'" ~~,. >:) J, ( -'t, J. "': '""" ). / / / /, , / ,/, / / / / / / () / -'to / r., I~ c') II ~ 1--.. 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 '-? "..) \J .;~'" () \.) ........~ c') J. ,) 1:0 '; I:J 'i "',0 () ..~ ..,-:- '-) J. :ll m < en (5 z (f) ~f " . , ~ ~ o ~ SATHRE-BERGQUiST,INC. 150S0UTH BROADWAY WAYZATA. MN. 55391 (952)476-6000 -{'i~} "';~~~s' ..'.t-<i><i!' , , BOUNDARY. LOCATION, & TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PREPARED FOR TOM SCHWARTZ 7376 BENT BOW TRAil CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~ ~ o - ~~g ~~ ~~ 0 2~ ~ m ~ ~~~ ~r.; ~;;: ~ '~ ~ c ~ ~ City Council Meeting - July 10,2006 residents. Both to the east and the west, and I think it would still be my suggestion to make sure we get it right. Councilman Peterson: And I would think we should be able to turn it around in 2 weeks. Mayor Furlong: I mean we can. I mean there are issues here that need to be addressed and if we can do that, that'd be great. Let's turn it around as quickly as possible would be our recommendation. Other thoughts and comments at this point or issues to, I mean I don't want to start repeating and, repeating and being redundant. Councilman Lundquist: Given even the, ask the questions about the height of the other buildings with the other things that have been brought up and the changes of the conditions, I don't want to have one where we're you know, you know what she said. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, no. No, absolutely. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-26 for Lakeside development. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. THOMAS SCHWARTZ. 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK. Public Present: Name Address Eric V. Doremus Paula & Thomas Schwartz Michael Nelson 7371 Bent Bow Trail 7376 Bent Bow Trail 7357 Bent Bow Trail Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I just wanted to point out to the council, I did hand out conservation easement. I just wanted to explain that. There is a conservation easement that's associated to this application and that's some standard language for a conservation easement. So I'll go through that in a minute after we go through the staff report. The variance request before you tonight is, the Schwartz case on 7376 Bent Bow Trail, located here in the Longacres subdivision. This is the lot itself. While the lot is very large, it's actually encumbered by a couple different types of easements and I guess that's one of the reasons why I pulled out the 39 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 easements for you tonight. What brought this to our attention, in going through the staff report in the storm last summer, October. Excuse me, last fall. September-October, 2005 it was noticed that there was some plantings and structures in the drainage overflow areas, so I'm going to refer to the site plan. Again this was an exhibit in your packet, and there is a wetland on the site. It's a little confusing with all the colors but I'll try to walk through this slowly. The subject site, it's a building permit application that shows the home on the site, and then there is an area that's called the buffer, wetland setback area. The pink area shows the drainage and utility easement, and then there is a wetland with a vegetative buffer requirement. So this is supposed to be the planting area and this is supposed to be the no build area. In this instance what you see is about 75 feet for the wetland setback and to reduce that setback increased the landscape requirement next to the wetland to reduce some of the material that was going into the pond, and then allow the houses that. . .closest to the pond. And part of our investigation of the site, when the storm events occurred, it was noticed that there was some structures in the site itself so staff did approach Mr. Schwartz and ask them about how they got there, and that sort ofthing, so this is the house itself. The back of the house. And this is the gazebo. The gazebo and then the patio, and then this is the planting area on the side. I'll show you where that is in just a second here, and then the gazebo with the patio blocks. So looking at the site itself, this is the last pages here, and it's really small so it's kind of hard to go through it, but if you were to follow areas where they were supposed to build.in, this is where the gazebo sits. It's not all in the no build area. Actually falls into that kind of that buffer setback, as did some of the stones. Now it's not solid, but there's stepping stones through there. And then the planting area, that is being removed and resolved as we speak, so that should be a non-issue. What the Planning Commission did...and again the issues are one, there's a 12 foot encroachment into the wetland buffer, then a 5 foot into the 40 foot setback, so it'd be for these structures here. The Planning Commission did recommend denial of the variance request, and did ask for staff to work with the applicant. Again they're working to resolve this. This is the drainage overflow from the pond, so we certainly, based on the storm events in that area, want to make sure that's really been met since we had an issue. We did work with the applicant and try to come up with some scenarios that we thought might be acceptable, and obviously it's pretty onerous when you look at the...so we did recommend that that be.. .that might be a little onerous, so he's still pursuing that and we weren't able to reach compromise because... So I just want to go through the recommendations that we have in front of you tonight if there's no questions on the variance itself. One... to approve the variance for the encroachment of the gazebo, and to make sure that that gets a building permit. And gets inspected and approved. And then also, there'd be no additional expansion of the structure. That wetland buffer signs, the markings are there and they show up on the survey, but the posts aren't there... taken care of... And then possibly, and I think this is the area that.. .removing of the fire pit area. And then also that all the garden areas be re- established and those would be the areas that were targeted specifically in here that were supposed to be more vegetative, and that would be just on the other side of the gazebo. Between the gazebo. If you're looking at this picture between the gazebo and the wetland, that will increase to kind of mitigate that and the vegetation, and then again, number 7.. . get resolved. So with that, be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Kate, I guess going back to the colored survey. Just for clarification. 40 City Council Meeting - July 10,2006 Kate Aanenson: The multi colored one? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the multi colored one. And you did a good job staying within the lines. The pink area is storm water drainage and the problem was to the, I guess to the middle on the left of the survey. The less point there below the pond. No, move your hand. Right in there, yeah. That's where the problem occurred last fall, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: With that, the pond over flowing? There was no place for it to go? Todd Gerhardt: It over exceeded the pond banks and went directly south where the arrows are. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But that was obstructed by the, that was obstructed, that emergency overflow. Todd Gerhardt: By the garden, yeah. Mayor Furlong: By the garden? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What does it, to the upper right of the survey, to that area up in there. What does that provide in terms of surface water drainage and flow? Kate Aanenson: That's actually the taller grassy area. That's supposed to be the area that actually the vegetative, so what that's going to reduce is supposedly pick up some ofthose sediments. The tall grassy area. Where you have, this is your buildable area. This is the area that you can just, you can use the grass...1ot area but it's not that impervious, and that's where that conservation easement comes in, because we've had... Mayor Furlong: And that area up there has a conservation easement across it? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Up in that area? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it clearly says conservation easement on here. And then just to be clear, this is a drainage easement which is different than a conservation easement, and they're two different documents so maybe the conservation easement, and we've been using, actually I think you've probably...subdivision when we started doing conservation easements. These are really an iteration of when we looked at the different approaches for tree preservation. And this was one of the subdivisions, one of the first ones that we did a significant amount of tree preservations along the Woods of Longacres and the Meadows at Longacres to save trees so the conservation easement actually became an umbrella for both of those. Which is different than a drainage and utility easement. So if you look at the document, description of how they tend to be 41 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 used is different. And we always check on those because if we want to use it for public purpose or something, we would check to see what the use would be prescribed for the guiding. So I did give you that and that's pretty much, we made some minor modifications.. .that doesn't work for me but we've had problems with people putting in a lot of hard surface in there that, sport courts, sometimes a lot of the play structures that we try to keep out of that area. Again that's to help us with, the green area provides an area for additional drainage and then also to help reduce the velocities.. . Mayor Furlong: Absorption. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: It allows the ground to absorb it rather than accelerate the runoff. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And is that then the purpose in the blue area for the setback from that buffer is again for the non-impervious component is key there? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Mayor Furlong: Because that does not have that conservation easement in the blue area. That is strictly a setback. Kate Aanenson: Yep, it's a wetland setback. It doesn't have the restrictions of. Mayor Furlong: Of the pink area. Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. So the issue is, you know when we look at this lot, it looks like almost an acre lot, but it unfortunately is encumbered by a lot of easements. And this is, there is a different application in the subdivision of the PUD. The mix of the lot size, so that may, some of the lots that got bigger ended up bigger because they were burdened with some of the, yeah. There's different ways to approach it. You could have made that public outlot, which we've done on some, and just called it a drainage swale and let it in an outlot. In this circumstance the buyer gets the duty of maintaining that, but not getting the benefit of. . . Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this lot specifically, where does the storm water drains on that.. .trail? There's not much, as I remember, there's not much space. It's pretty steep from, if you're at the north. Kate Aanenson: Then it goes up here. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. 42 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: It's going this way. Mayor Furlong: It falls off to the pond? Councilman Lundquist: Right. It might flow, but it falls off pretty steep into that pond, right? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And is there storm water drains along Bent Bow there? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: For my guess that's gravity flow down the road and the catch basins are. Kate Aanenson: Somewhere at the bottom of the slope, yeah. And looked at the overall material. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that, you look at that pink and blue area between the pond and the house, and you really, that's mainly shedding runoff essentially from it's own area. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: It's not like you've got half of the neighborhood flowing. Kate Aanenson: No. No. Councilman Lundquist: Over the curb and through there. Kate Aanenson: No. Right, and again it's the, it's that we don't want people in general to, and that's really what it's about. And it's not encouraged, or what people think that they can just build in those areas.. . higher events, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: If you look at that lot area as a whole, and with the house, the deck, the gazebo and the fire pit area, did you figure out what the total hard cover is? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that's not the problem. I agree. It's a big lot. Right, so in this instance I would concur. It's probably not the impervious. So really. Councilman Lundquist: Just for curiosity. Kate Aanenson: No. I mean I don't know, you know that's a good question and I'm not sure that we have it in there, the total impervious. Because it probably would be pretty minimal because it's got such a large lot. Councilman Lundquist: Less than 20% probably? 43 City Council Meeting - July 10,2006 Kate Aanenson: Probably, yeah. Because it's .93. Yeah, so really I guess what we came down to is trying to find a way to mitigate this, measure outside of that into this area more. Councilman Lundquist: And the area from the gazebo and the fire pit to the pond is also pretty, we don't have any danger of the pond flowing up that high and not blocking any drainage out of the pond? Right, that's got to be 10 feet above the. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and there's a significant grade change from the gazebo down towards the lake. Councilman Lundquist: So it's really that part ofthe drainage and you know flooding the neighbors houses and all that, that the garden is...and the rest is the building in a conservation easement and not having a permit for the gazebo and those things. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Peterson: Are the, is any of the paver walkways in the area or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes they are. They're also in that, if you look on this survey. You can see this is supposed to be the area where the limited hard cover, but it shows this as a stone path but when you look at the photo you can see it's not solid. Mayor Furlong: I think there are some, and maybe we can ask the applicant but I think up by the driveway it's. Kate Aanenson: More solid. Mayor Furlong: Y eah. Yeah, there are some other pictures as they said but I don't know if you have those or not. It varies I guess is the point. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Has there been any communication between you and the applicant since the Planning Commission meeting? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that's what I'm saying. I think you know the Planning Commission, and so we thought maybe taking that out, and obviously that seems pretty onerous. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Taking the fire pit out? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Seemed pretty onerous and I understand that so. Their request was to appeal it. Mayor Furlong: Question on the, I'm looking somewhere in the report here but I thought I saw some effect that when Longacres was approved, that was a PUD, correct? 44 City Council Meeting - July to, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And some of the setbacks from wetlands were averaged across. Kate Aanenson: And that's typically how we do all wetland buffering. You can average it. It's built right into our ordinance, and that's based on the fact that when we're doing a subdivision, and using this as an example, sometimes the wetlands pinches on a lot and you just have an odd piece trying to get it to layout with the streets, so somebody on the other side might get the burden of a larger portion of the buffer... Mayor Furlong: So you try to average it out there? Again trying to get that overall. Kate Aanenson: Right, and sometimes it's difficult and why we keep the markings in is so people can see that physical barrier. The post. The posts are in so if you just look at the property of your neighbors and make an assumption... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the same process used for impervious surface? Using averages across the development. Was that done here? Kate Aanenson: Not in this. This is a per lot basis. We do do that commonly on commercial and industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That would be... Mayor Furlong: I know we've done that so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, on commercial industrial. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Let me take that back. We also do it on multi family, but not on the single family detached. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm sure there's a but for somewhere. I think we just did that on the Preserve perhaps. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, where we used. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Which was single family detached. 45 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: And that was... yep. A new zoning application, correct. But under this PUD, single family detached, you could not average it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Even though it was a PUD? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Single, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we averaged the setbacks were averaged across the wetland buffering. Kate Aanenson: We averaged the buffering. Mayor Furlong: And then wherever the buffer was, there was 40 feet beyond that. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yes. Mayor Furlong: And obviously Lundgren... Kate Aanenson: ... yeah, and really it worked out on how you tried to get the streets and if you've got a steep slope and how, there was a lot of push pull. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: So I would concur. This is probably one of the bigger lots out there. We have lots as small as 11,000 up there. This is probably one of the bigger lots. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff right now? Maybe some follow up questions. The applicant I know is here. Good evening. Tom Schwartz: Good evening Mr. Mayor or council members. My name is Tom Schwartz and I live at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. I'm actually kind of humbled to be up here after listening to what you had to endure for the last 2 hours previous. Mayor Furlong: With your permission. Tom Schwartz: I'm just going to kind of go through a history of events that kind of led me to standing here in front of you today. I'll try to make this brief. To begin with we signed a purchased agreement with Lundgren back in January of 2000. We subsequently closed on that house on August 29th of the same year. At the time that we purchased the property we were informed of the 10 foot wetland setback. We knew of that. We knew that we had to stay away from that, and we knew that that was the no cut, no mow, no touch zone. What we didn't know at the time were all the other restrictions that you see on this map. Because truthfully had we known at the time, and I think it's pretty common, I don't think anybody would have really put a house there. I think it would have been an outlot. Should have been an outlot, but with that being said, we went through, afterwards I looked at all the covenants before we did our landscaping. Before we did everything else and nowhere within those covenants does it state 46 City Council Meeting - July 10,2006 that we couldn't put gardens, gazebos, fire pits or any other surfaces. So with the lack of a map, without the lack of any covenant indication that we had these restrictions, we moved forward. In the spring of 2001 we worked with designers and landscapers. We created a pretty intensive and pretty expensive layout. You saw some of it on the garden, which we'll get into. That was within the overland swale. It's been removed. It had existed there pretty successfully for 5 years. In March of 2003 we submitted to the planning commission for the Longacres Homeowners Association to put in the gazebo and the fire pit. Subsequently upon approval from then, I called the city and asked if a permit was required or necessary to put these structures on my property. At the time, and unfortunately it was by a phone. It was not hand written or over a formal mode, I was told nothing else was required by city code. That I could go ahead and put the gazebo on my property. So consequently in April of the same year I put it in. I had the landscaping designed around it, of which you saw some of the pictures. And again trying to make this brief so I apologize. Another view. Another view. You get an opportunity to see the extensiveness of the landscaping that was designed around this gazebo and fire pit. The idea was to minimalize the intrusion if you will to any neighbors. In other words, if they looked at this from the front of the property, you virtually because of the pine trees that you see here, it creates a natural buffer on the Bent Bow side. On the Moccasin Trail side, along Moccasin Trail we've also put in pines. By the time that those mature, and with the advent of this landscaping, we felt very confident that no one's really going to see it. Nor would it be effected. You know it wouldn't harm them in other words. In the fall of 2005, and you heard some of this already, the storms created a series of events that led us to know that these things are in the wetland conservation easement. There's overflow swales. We think, not knowing ahead of time but finding all this out in the fall, that you know I guess we'd like to just be able to leave it there. It's first of all it's not creating a hardship to any neighbors. It's not affecting the values of the neighbors. It's not affecting the flow of water to or from the pond. There is, and I think Kate mentioned on the back side of this gazebo, there is an area, and I'm not sure that you see it clearly but there's clearly a 10-15 foot area between the water's edge and what I knew to be the water's edge at the time that these were built. There is 15 feet of vegetation back there. Okay. And we maintain that, not only behind the gazebo and the fire pit, but behind the garden that was recently reconstructed. So we maintained what I thought was a pretty safe level of distance from the pond, and that would allow any runoff from any of the hard surfaces that we do have to readily be absorbed. I think what I'm going to do is jump ahead very briefly. I wanted to show some pictures of the before and after. This is the before pictures of the garden area that existed within the overflow swale. What that looks like today, and as of last Thursday, and what I proposed with this picture. Somewhat similar in nature and view. What has been done is all the garden has been eliminated and there is literally a 3 to 4 foot trench between the pond itself and the beginning of what was natural grass area. By engineers, they indicate to me that that swale and the way that it exists right now will guarantee for the next 30 to 40 years that should this pond ever flood again, that that swale will take care of whatever needs there may be. I guess with that, and I kind of jumped around. I apologize but this has kind of got away from me. I think in, lastly. With all the covenants and with all the restrictions and so forth, what has been indicated to me is that clearly the area in blue is what I get to play with so to speak. Everything else in that 9/l0ths of an acre is what I'm being told no touch. I can't alter it. I can't remedy any problems within it. I shouldn't have put anything in there to begin with. And again I think that it just you know, what's there.. . restricts any use or utilization of this property in hind sight. And some bad decisions were made and I'm hoping I don't have to pay the price for those today. 47 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Schwartz. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Did the reconstruction of the drainage swale, staff saw those plans or designs or those things? Did you guys see that before that? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure. Tom, has Don looked at those drainage? I don't believe so. Tom Schwartz: I don't know that he has. He was notified that that work was being done last week. I was told by the Lundgren representative which had a hand in that reconstruction, that he had been in contact with engineering staff here and he was confident that what they had created as an end result will, would suffice for many years to come. Councilman Lundquist: So you Mr. Schwartz, you used Lundgren's engineer or the engineering firm that, or someone that was recommended by them? Tom Schwartz: Recommended by them. Yeah. Yeah, we paid to have a complete re-survey done as well as then, as I said and you can kind of see what we've done with what was a garden. Councilman Lundquist: You did that work at your cost? Tom Schwartz: Yeah. Well we're in negotiations with Lundgren as to how that all comes about. And due in part because of the fact that we weren't properly notified of the restrictions that exist on this piece of property. Councilman Lundquist: I guess what, we didn't, the city did not contribute any money into that basically? Kate Aanenson: No. Tom Schwartz: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Thoughts? Comments or questions at this point for either staff or Mr. Schwartz. Councilman Peterson: Kate, I assume that you haven't, nobody on your staff or Paul's staff has gone out and inspected this yet? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. So that would be a condition that we would just want to verify that that, it seems like it would work but just to verify the design and that it works. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Discussion. On this or other follow up. Councilman Peterson: My immediate reaction is that I'd like to have staff, before I decide to do anything tonight, is to verify what they've done and see if it meets what we're looking for. Then let staff and the applicant work together to try to figure out something creative. If they truly 48 City Council Meeting - July to, 2006 have accomplished the goal of getting one ofthe issues resolved, let's see if we can have them work to get the other ones as well too. Mayor Furlong: Okay, my thought, I think that's reasonable. I think there is, while we're not overall on the property dealing with an impervious surface coverage issue, it's the location of the pit and the gazebo that is the, the location is an issue and I'd like to see if the Schwartz' and staff could look at that and see what options might be there as well. But I do give the Schwartz' credit. One of the big issues that we have in this city is storm water management and making sure that the system works when we need it, and the night that we needed it, it wasn't working so I'm glad that that was taken care of, or is in the process of being taken care of and obviously I agree with Councilman Peterson that that's something that staff needs to be, see what's happening. Make sure they concur with what's done there and work together with them on that. So other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree Mr. Mayor, but I do feel, I mean Mr. Schwartz, obviously it was painful to remove his gardens and it was not something he intended to intentionally do something to damage his neighbors or the neighborhood or the water flow or anything. I believe it was just an attempt to create an atmosphere that was desirable for their family and their back yard so, I'm hoping that when this issue is resolved, it's not as painful as it was having to remove the gardens. They were gorgeous gardens and now you have something that's as nice so I'm hoping we all can come to some sort of resolve where they don't have to have $15,000 to have stuff removed and that yet still we can protect our surface water management flows. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist, thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilwoman Tjornhom that you know having talked to Mr. Schwartz, I didn't get the feeling that there was a malicious intent to subvert the process where if somebody saw a survey and said you know, you can't build anything in here so I want to build something there. If I just pretend that I didn't know that and build it, you know maybe they won't catch me. Didn't get that. Clearly the issue arose there with the overflow and the fact that the applicant worked to mitigate that piece, obviously as I looked at it, that was the one that concerned me the most. That overflow. That affects the neighbors and the rest of the neighborhood and you know has the potential to create some damage to property there in a big way so, being that that was corrected, and the fact that, is the gazebo and the fire pit in an area it's not supposed to be? Yeah. And nobody's going to argue with that, but given the rest ofthe topography around the neighborhood road, the steepness of that, by that, I'm willing to give some credit to the applicant to, you know for the absorption of the cost of the rest of the changes that were made with the removal of the garden and doing that piece, I would concur that I'd like to see I guess that verified. Either engineering drawings or inspection or both or however that works out to make sure that that is in fact going to work if we need it to work. Todd doesn't want to go out there and dig another trench so. But that I, I think I'm comfortable with where it's at. I know I'm comfortable with where it's at right now, and you know to obviously go back, do the conservation easements as staff suggested. Get the permit both for the gazebo. Get it inspected. Make sure it's safe and everything's good there. But then I'm comfortable with the level of changes that have been made and the things that have been done, that I'm willing to grant the after the fact for the gazebo and the fire pit. 49 City Council Meeting - July 10,2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts? I guess my overall, you know I, again I commend the work that's been done. I agree with you Councilman Lundquist on that. The issue of, if this wasn't an after the fact, I'd be surprised if the council would be granting the variance to locate these there, and I don't have a sense that there was, as you said, any malicious attempt. At the same time I think you know the location of the impervious surface coverage is something I guess I'd like to have staff spend a little more time and work with the residents and see if something can be done there before we go forward but. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to suggest something on that line, is to look at the overall impervious for the entire. That seemed to be some of your discussion. For kind of a rational basis for the findings. To look at how much impervious, or how much coverage on there right now so, see where we're at. It is a peculiar lot in the fact that it's encumbered by the large drainage swale. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Kate Aanenson: And that makes it a little bit different, which again would be another kind of thing, looking at the findings. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think as part of the findings, I think traditionally you know in terms of continue to look and see what more might be done is just the location of where it is. Other thoughts or. Councilman Lundquist: I wouldn't dig my heels in to take you know a couple weeks or whatever to look at that. I think that's fair and reasonable. We've gone through this much so yeah it's. Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Gerhardt, you can guarantee we're not going to have another 100 year storm? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Don't want to go through that again. Any comments regarding the inspection of the gazebo? Getting a permit. Getting that inspected included. Mayor Furlong: Yes, I think that's part of it and making sure that everything's done right. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: I'll agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We table. There's a motion to table? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Let staff and the applicant work together. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 50 City Council Meeting - July 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-22, Variance request at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. GARY CARLSON. 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR-STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1.000 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Dale Keehl Gary Carlson Luke Melchert Maureen and Molly Carlson Megan Moore 3841 West 62nd Street 3891 West 62nd Street 112 2nd Street W, Chaska 3891 West 62nd Street 3891 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson's variance request is located on 3991 West 62nd Street. Megan Moore: 3891. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Yeah, I believe that's what I said. Megan Moore: You said 39. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please. Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62nd Street. Located on the northern end of the city, north of Highway 7. This is the subject site. You can back out a little bit Nann. This photo is a little bit outdated. I'll go through the current site plan here in a second. Request is for the variance of the garage. This garage located right here. A 20 foot front yard setback for 1,000 square foot garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 20th, 2006 to review the variance and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny this. In the staff report there's a background. This did appear before the Planning Commission, in the background, and that date in, let's see. Oh, on April 4th and they had 10 days to appeal that variance and that did not occur so it, they had to start the process back over, and that's the same application that you're seeing before you. This property, in the background, this property is zoned residential, although it's been, has non-conforming agricultural rights. It also has a non-conforming as far as additional a 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 1. The development shall comply with the site plan requirements approved as part of Planning Case #06-24. 2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 3. The drop-off location for damaged vehicles will be limited to the parking stalls in the southwest comer of the lot behind the evergreens. 4. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. 5. No exterior public address system is permitted. 6. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. 7. Disposal of vehicle fluids shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. 8. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS SCHWARTZ: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-22. Don Asleson presented the staff report on this item. Papke: What's the material of the decking around the fire pit area there? Is that gravel? Pavers? Asleson: This right here is actually, I believe it's a paver. The applicant could correct me, if I'm wrong. Papke: Okay, so it's impervious. Okay. Asleson: They are under their impervious coverage. Papke: Right, but the actual incursion into the wetland setback is impervious. Asleson: Right. McDonald: Debbie. Kevin. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Dillon: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Mark? Dan? Keefe: Can you give us your view of how this condition created itself? I read something I think in the letters maybe attached that they talked about they weren't aware from the developer or what's your understanding of that? Asleson: From what I understand the applicant has said that he spoke with somebody at the City, however we weren't able to verify any sort of documentation that the conversation existed. Obviously if we would have had the zoning permit, I think the issue would have been avoided. So I guess a brief conversation with the building department, however we weren't able to verify any sort of conversation or documentation. McDonald: Is this something that would now have been caught by our zoning compliance? Asleson: Yes. The zoning compliance. McDonald: How entrenched is this into the property? I mean are we talking about footings being sunk for the gazebo or is this something that floats on a base? Asleson: That would be a question probably better answered by the applicant. The construction of the actual gazebo and structure, the patio and fire structure were never in our discussion so I guess I would forward that to the applicant. McDonald: Okay, and then when you had talked about the 2000 I guess survey. Is it the yellow area that all of this could be moved to, which would be more or less directed behind the house instead of off to the side? Asleson: That's correct. That would be an acceptable area for the structures on that particular property. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. If the applicant is here, if you would come forward. Thomas Schwartz: Good evening Chair McDonald, commissioners. My name is Thomas Schwartz. I live at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. To answer that one question, the gazebo itself is on standard footings. The fire pit is free standing. It stands at maximum height 18 inches off ground on one level. Ground level at the intersection... The intersection of the base of the gazebo and here so basically ground level here. What isn't shown as part of when we did this comprehensive landscaping plan, what isn't shown here is just to the east of the gazebo are additional landscaping and trees that currently stand about 10 to 12 feet in height. They're filling in very naturally creating a natural buffer from Bent Bow as far as the views to the gazebo. As far as that side of the property, we also have pine trees that are now growing and filling in that should create an additional buffer, visible buffer I should say for anything that we do as far as 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 landscaping. Originally when the gazebo was built and when I went to the property association initially with my request and received approval from them at that time the gazebo was built, it was under the understanding that there weren't any restrictions. The only thing that I was aware of at the time that the gazebo was built is a 10 foot buffer to the actual, or to the, or for the wetlands. Nothing else. Unfortunately in my investigation at the time was disclosed as far as any restrictions or any barriers, I went through all of our documentation that was given to us at the time of purchase of the property and in there nothing is disclosed relative to barriers that would prohibit me from placing the gardens where they've been placed, or the gazebo, etc. So we became aware of the fact that this was encroaching a wetland buffer setback when Mr. Asleson contacted me in November of last year after those rains. So we're asking for is in fact an after the fact, not knowing that I put them in a place they shouldn't be. I hope you can appreciate and seeing the picture, that these are natural set, within a relatively distance to the pond because that would be the best place. I mean if you're going to put something, you know on this property, you'd want it aesthetically pleasing and visible and it lends itself off of my deck directly to the gazebo, within in the landscaping plan that was created. McDonald: Okay, any questions of the applicant? Papke: Ah yes sir. At the time you constructed it, did you have a copy of this plat drawing? Thomas Schwartz: I did not. Papke: Okay. And you didn't attempt to get a plat of your lot? Thomas Schwartz: I used what I received from, at the time it was Lundgren development. What they gave me within the packet. That also disclosed all of the restrictions if you will within the development. What you could or couldn't do. Where you could or couldn't do them. They list specifically by lot, by block what is allowable. My property isn't mentioned within those documentation. With that, and with the understanding or when I bought the property that there was that 10 foot, no touch, no fuss, no muss. Don't go near the 10 foot and I got that real loud and clear. I stayed away from it. Everything else was developed, I mean the landscaping, the gardens, you know all of it was with the aid of local landscapers. Local contractors who I entrusted would follow up anything that I found out. I personally made a call after going through the building process for the deck, I called the same individual that I had on my list of approving the deck stages. Told him I was buying a gazebo kit. Putting it in a comprehensive landscaping plan. Were there any issues and unfortunately undocumented the answer was no. Larson: Did, when you closed on this property, did you get title insurance or title packet? What do you call those? Thomas Schwartz: Yes. Larson: Typically in one of those they will have a surveyor a plat drawing within that. But I guess maybe upon looking you know at the plat drawing that would be in there, what I don't know is, I'm assuming that the, on the plat drawing you're going to show all easements that 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 happen to be on the property. Including the conservation easement but I don't know if that is shown or not so therefore. Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately it is not, and what I can tell you is that I used, I used what I submitted to the development and then consequently used as kind of, when I went to the landscapers and went to the contractors they, you know this is what I want to do. You know it just didn't appear on anything I received unfortunately so I went, at this time finding out blindly along thinking that I was okay putting it where it was. It's been a heck of an education. Larson: Why don't we put conservation easements on plat drawings? I mean truly, I mean because this could have been completely avoided if something like that had been put on there... Thomas Schwartz: And truthfully, and you know Don is probably, I hope he can support me on this. The comment, and as well as going back now to the folks who bought Lundgren Development, two things would have been obvious in my opinion at this point. One is I would have never put it where it is. It would have made no sense. With or without a permit, irregardless of how that answer came about, it would have never made sense to put where it is had anybody stood up and said can't put it there. Okay. Secondly, and kind of off the beaten path here, I've actually.. . property with as many restrictions as that are on this piece of property, I don't think anybody in their right mind would have ever put a house on that property. And let alone put any time or money or effort into putting in a garden. I hate to mention the dollars I have involved in putting in that garden that's got to come out. I mean that, this thing has been a disaster, is the only way I can state it. It's been a disaster. Larson: Yeah, well is there any consideration, I don't know Bob if this is for you but, if he were to, if it was the pavers, would you guys consider allowing just that little piece of the gazebo? I mean it's really, it's not the whole gazebo. It's like one-third of it, you know. Generous: That's up to you. Larson: Okay. I mean truly it's absolutely gorgeous and I just, you know when I read this my heart went out to you because I thought you know, what a bummer. Thomas Schwartz: I appreciate that. Larson: But okay, I guess that's all I have at this point. Thomas Schwartz: And I think partly, if I can try and defend, if I can a little bit of where I believe maybe Lundgren and their sales staff came from. At the time that I bought this property, and true I believe if I understood it correctly, May of 2001 the restriction stated that it was primary resident only, and it was only after May that there was a new change to that to include all, I mean you call it impervious surfaces. And if I understand that correctly, and again I'm unable to verify it on the web site. I was unable to get anybody within city staff to say you know what, yeah you're right. But I have a gentleman who has offered some advice and his comment was, that that's in fact the case. Is that was only adopted after unfortunately the gazebo was actually put in place. So that may be why Lundgren never mentioned it. I can only assume that. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: And I don't know if this question is for you for the staff but if the structures were to remain, what, is there harm to the wetland that they're there? I mean is the construction damage like already been done or I mean what's the down side to leaving them there? Besides the legalities and not getting the variance... Asleson: You know as far as increase impervious surface was, which I think would be, has been covered, it doesn't appear that the wetland vegetation has been cleared around the wetland like the applicant has stated. It appears that he has stayed back about 10 feet from what would be the wetland edge. Unfortunately you know I don't know. I can't really answer that with any certainty that anything has changed within the wetland because I haven't seen it before the structures were there. McDonald: Okay. Undestad: It just looks like you had contacted the city but it was back in the building department issue again? Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately, and unfortunately it's not in writing. McDonald: No questions? Keefe: No questions. McDonald: I guess at this point I'll probably hold all of my questions and comments too until the very end. Thank you for coming up. This is a public meeting so at this point I'll open up the floor to anyone wishing to make comment or ask questions to come forward to the podium. Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Start with Dan. Keefe: Yeah. I empathize with the applicant. Unfortunately I think... pretty clear in this matter and I'm not, you know I think we'd end up getting into trouble if we end up giving variances, especially when it comes to wetlands. That's all. Undestad: You know, we've been through these before and unfortunately the applicant went through the building department process and again, trying to find out what's required and what's needed and I think we've changed that problem by putting our zoning reviews into place at this point. It looks like he's done a great job with landscaping back there. Preserving the wetland areas back there and the hard surface coverage, he's not expanding that at all. He's well within that. It looks very nice back there. The issue still remains is us as a commission, you know looking for hardships in these types of things and again, coming into these, I always get kind of tom up because I think the hardship, it looks beautiful back there. To try and tear this up, move it and it would be difficult. I'm still kind of in the middle here but again, I mean he's done a fantastic job landscaping back there. It looks very nice. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: You know it's...and we shouldn't be out...but by the same token if someone can...tell me what the real negative impact is to the wetland, or the down side, I don't, I mean you know, if there's sludge bubbling up from underneath the gazebo or it's causing a problem, that's a different story but no one can tell me that that's the case. So there's no clearly identified negative impact. Asleson: Can I say something? McDonald: Yes. Asleson: Okay. The only down side I would see is that you lose a net buffer area around the wetland. You know maintaining a 20 foot average buffer around the area as part of the PUD was part of that PUD' s requirement. Certain lots received smaller buffer areas. Certain lots received larger buffer areas, so as far as impacting the wetland through decreased buffer area, that would be maybe a potential impact for that. I just wanted to throw that out there because there is the buffer area and 20 foot average that would be decreased. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Larson: My take on it is, I guess maybe the only part would be the decking, if that could be moved, I would be all in favor of leaving the gazebo, just because it's not that much. And if the deck could maybe be pushed around to one side, out of the conservation easement then I'd be more than.. . McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: This one's a prime example of why we put the zoning compliance into the city code. I mean it's just, it's classic. Every time we get one of these, it's just classic. In terms of the impact if this was just incurring a couple of feet into the setback, you know I'd be inclined to give a little bit here but the fact that it goes all the way into the conservation easement I think it just way too egregious of a variance here. And the fact that you have impervious pavers as well, and there's, in cases we've had a couple cases, I remember one distinctly we had a couple years ago where we had an accessory structure near Lotus Lake and there was almost no place to move the shed, okay. We get these from time to time where there's no recourse. Where in this particular case there's a big back yard and it's a gazebo kit. It's a bunch of paver blocks. You get out the wheelbarrow and you move so you know it's regrettable but I think in this particular case it's, there are viable alternatives at play here so I would recommend that we uphold the code. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I do have one question of staff. I guess I forgot to ask you as you were going through this. You said the reason that we found this was because of a water event that came through. What happened exactly? What was the nature of that? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Asleson: Well if you can recall the storm events we received in late September and October there, we had some pretty significant rainfall and there was some drainage issues in the Longacres development. And inspecting for those they took a look at some of the other storm water ponds in the Longacres development and wetlands. This one particularly. They did know that there was the emergency overflow, and they, that's how they came across it. They were more looking to make sure the storm water system was functioning and that people weren't threatened with wet basements. McDonald: Oh okay. Yeah, I'm always tom when these come up here. We've had a lot of them. You know it isn't always a gazebo. Sometimes it was Sport Courts. There was another applicant that came before us that fixed up their back yard but unfortunately in the process of doing that they exceed the impervious surface requirement. The harm done is that again we set these buffers up and since you start to encroach into them, that's the harm in and of itself. Is that we set a limit and we've gone through this a number of times as to how much that should be and we've kind of reached the conclusion as to how much of a setback is required for the buffers for wetlands. I always hate to sit here and try to tell you that well, you've just got to take it apart and move it but, you're in a little bit better position than some people who come in here and we make them tear up a slab of concrete or you know a very permanent structure that's encroaching into an area where it shouldn't be, but again the only way that according to the zoning that we could grant anything is to showing of a hardship and Ijust don't see it here so I guess, I also would have to very reluctantly vote against the variance. Undestad: One quick question. On the gazebo, like the wetland setback area, you had shown on the other drawing what moving this stuff up on this side of the house. If it just comes inside of that wetland setback? Asleson: Yeah. Undestad: So you were showing it as an alternate to keep it up in the yellow. Asleson: The wetland buffer setback line actually runs like this, and so the blue area is the 40 feet from the wetland buffer line. The wetland buffer has iron monuments in the ground to delineate where that's. Undestad: So it's got to get all the way out of that blue area. Larson: Oh... McDonald: Did you have anything else you wanted to say? Thomas Schwartz: I guess just in kind of respect to a comment that was made, it's just a gazebo. It's easy to tear it down and move it and you know it's not a big deal. It is a big deal. If I were to tear it down, I already have $5,000 into this thing. I've got another $3,500 in having this property surveyed, just to stand before you today. Okay. If I were to move it, tearing it down is simple. Pulling out the qualified pilings, disrupting the landscaping, rebuilding the landscaping and rebuilding the gazebo, minimum is $21,000. Irregardless of my ability to pay that or not, 48 l Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 that's a hardship on anybody. I mean we're talking potentially $40,000 to $50,000 of cash just to move it. By the time I'm all said and done, including permits. Now I'm willing, and I've already disrupted a garden that was associated to this, okay to put in a better overland, overflow swale because we were told that those raised beds that were in that garden jeopardized that. With the engineers that came out and did the survey, they've confirmed that swale works. Without disrupting the garden. But we're willing to do what we have to as a compromise in hopes that with the significant costs that I may have to incur, with the fact that it is part of a very extensive landscaping project, and the fact that we're willing to do what we have to on that overland, overflow swale to make it, I mean we want to cooperate. But we're hoping that you know there's somewhere in the middle here that we can be met. One of the comments that does it create a hardship on the wetlands? Has it or will it in the future? Mr. Asleson has even stated so directly to me that if it had caused any damage, that damage would have been caused already. There will be no future ill effect by leaving the gazebo where it is. So I'm hoping with... truly a financial hardship here, and in addition to that if in fact the city code had been changed interim to this being built, I would not have been aware that that code existed as it is relative to the gazebo. So I ask that to be considered as part of your decision. McDonald: Well first of all I'd like to address your comment about it's only a gazebo. None of us up here think it's only a gazebo. We may have said that as an illustration, and again what we're trying to get across is you're not the only resident of this city that has come before us and has suffered a financial hardship. I feel for you and I understand that and the finances are a hardship. Unfortunately the way the code is written, and we have to look for a hardship, financial hardship is not one of the criteria that we're allowed to judge by. My suggestion to you is that once we have taken our vote, if this does go before the city commission, and between now and then you have an opportunity to talk with staff and if you can convince them as far as a compromise, things could change once you get up to the commission meeting. You still have an opportunity to try to reach an agreement, but again that's why our only role is to look at what the ordinances and the subdivision rules allow us to look at. We are not allowed to change them and the problem is is that with these setbacks, you are so deep into them, we just can't grant that type of a variance because of the impact it has on the rest of the city. It's not just you. It's the rest of the city, and that's why the ordinances were put together the way they were and we have to judge everything based upon that. So I do feel your pain and everything and I do understand that it is a financial hardship, but again we can't use that criteria as part of our evaluation up here. And I do apologize for that. We as a commission did recognize this as being a problem and did ask city staff to do something so that homeowners have some way of knowing beforehand that they're encroaching upon something. And I'm just hoping that in the future we can save someone else from going through all this misery but again, I'm afraid that the way the ordinances are written, our only role is to judge things based upon that. With that, I'd like to get a motion. Actually did we discuss this yet? Yes we did. Papke: Yeah, we all had comments. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and conditions 1 through 3. In addition I make a motion that we order the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant's hardship is self created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. McDonald: And again, what I would encourage the applicant to do is that between now and the City Council meeting, offer city staff some of the plans that you brought up. If those would be acceptable, I'm sure that they will propose that to City Council when you plead your case before them. They have the power to actually make adjustments to the city code. Thank you. Thomas Schwartz: Thank you for your time. PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1.000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET. PLANNING CASE 06-23. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. 50