The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-04_BANGASSER FAMILY GARAGE - DAVE BANGASSERCARVER COUNTY AUDITOR'S SHEET TO COMBINE I DELETE Taxpayer # This request has been Taxpayer Name & Address: Approved (provided current year fixes ar�eyag.;,,n full) Rejec e Pps a/ ��ice� p Date: 3- /(e-0 (o By: l( CdrriIn,415 - 5/%— 5�3a Copies to: Surveyor. r/ Owner. City[Twp: Zoning: Assessor: • -. i Combine PID c7z o 0,;/go GG 0 0 376 Dist Code ;Z5'/5- aS/ $ TIF Dist Avt� /YLs n--e- Del Taxes Pd Curr Taxes Pd Special Assessments Code/Balance Code/Balance Code/Balance ARE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN SAME SECTION OR BLOCK? ,Qairnt - YE ! NO LCO Effective Roo Assessment Year MBINE TO PARCEL#aS-/a�0 D 3�0 90a7 Payable YearQ New Legal Description: �t � SCREEN PRINT? /! �a o cLtZ �Jr TIF?' t R To Deputy Auditor on: Deleted PID#'s Date �iS- GGO D `7�90 'Al N' a70 0 4 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. WE 0 0 0 0 c 3 m ,i C� Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Foci J. jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Craig R. McDowell Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 ,51-452-5000 Faz 651-452-5550 nsw.ck-law.com 0 a CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial (651) 234-6222 E-mailAddress: snelson@ck-l".com August 3, 2006 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RE: CRANHASSEN— MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS ➢ Variance #06-04 — Dave Bangasser Property (Lot 16, Blk 4 and Lot 1, Blk 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #06-04 which was filed with Carver County on May 12, 2006 as Abstract Document No. A441075. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association B S an R. Nelson, Legal ssistant SRN:ms Enclosure SCANNED 4 • • Document No. OFFICE OF THE A 4 410 7 5 COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fee $ 46 00 Check# 15733 Certified Recorded on 05-12-2006 at 03:00 ❑ AMaPM 441075/ 1111111111111111111 County Recorder r CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, NHNNESOTA VARIANCE 06-04 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials maybe stored within the protected root area. 1 SCANNED 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 13, 2006 (SEAL) STATE OF M04NESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: l_ 4. Thomas A. Furlong, %MMfay�gz:::, ) AND: '� Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Y 1 � , 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. N�rOf1 ARY PUBLI DRAFTEDBY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 VJM T. MEUWISSEN NotaryPublic-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3/13/06 Variance 06-04 Dave Bangasser) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Meuwissen, Kim • • From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:44 AM To: 'Sue Nelson' Cc: Metzer, Josh Subject: RE: RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS - Variance #06-04 Sue, I have made the corrections and will send you a new copy of the variance for recording. Kim Meuwissen Planning Secretary 4rtff 952-227-1107 From: Sue Nelson [mailto:SNelson@ck-law.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:39 AM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS - Variance #06-04 Kim, Last week you sent the above referneced variance to me for review and recording. The variance needs to be revised to use the correct plat name. You currently have the legal description as Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. The plat name should be Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. The plat name needs to be corrected in #2 on the first page and in #10 on the second page. Susan R Nelson Legal Assistant CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1360 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222 Fax: (651) 452-5550 E-mail Address: snelson@ck-law.com 4/ 10/2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, N11NNFSOTA VARIANCE 06-04 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Procertv. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 0 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 13, 2006 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1'._ZLI� BY: 4 Thomas A. Furlong, May AND: az-jo Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Y � l , 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. &OI-T n-A A I A X A ARY PUBLI DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-I100 KIM T. MELMSSEN r Notary Public -Minnesota My canmissW E)Vm Jan 31, 2010 2 r CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 4/4/06 2006-04 Variance ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3/13/06 Variance 06-04 Lot 16, Block 4 & Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints l SIGNED: ILt�u ¢ CI CI�r- im uwiss n,(952)227-1107 I1 enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. $CANNED r E CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MMESOTA VARIANCE 06-04 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. r- 6 • 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 13, 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN M (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _4_�ay of 2006 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 '# KAREN J. ENGELHARDT Notary Public -Minnesota 0o" ` My commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 2 E CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952227.1100 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 952.2271110 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 She exw.ci.chanhassen.mn.us March 17, 2006 Dave Bangasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Re: Variance, 3633 South Cedar Drive — Planning Case #06-04 Dear Mr. Bangasser & Mrs. Anding Bangasser: This letter is to formally notify you that on March 13, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following motion: "The City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified Three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials maybe stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Dave Bangasser & Mary JoAnding Bangasser • March 17, 2006 Page 2 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded." If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, 2Gf� osh er Planner I gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser varmce\letter of approval.doc CM OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1190 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227,1110 Pads & 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:952227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227,1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mn.us March 15, 2006 Clerk -Auditor Carver County Auditor's 600 East 0 Street Chaska, MN 55318 Re: ZONING LOT DESIGNATION Lot 16, Block 4 & Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point To whom it may concern: At the owner's request, this letter is to request that these two parcels be placed under a single Parcel Identification Number. The City of Chanhassen has no objection, pursuant to Chanhassen City Code Section 20-903, to combining Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, PID#: 25- 6600370 and Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point, PID#: 25-6600490, into a single zoning lot. These two lots are under single ownership. Please revise the legal description for the property to include both parcels' legal descriptions and combine under a single parcel identification number. The lot may not be subdivided without complying with the city's subdivision ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or jmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Please send verification with the new PID# to me once the property has been combined. c: Dave Bangasser and Mary Jo Anding Bangasser Dan Remer, Engineering Technician III Steve Torell, Building Official gArdanxzoning Iots\116-b4 & 11-b5 red cedar pointdoc SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnial place to live, work, and play 0 cf�-Oq CTTY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage — Planning Case No. 06-04. On February 7, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. 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 does not 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. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation may 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 !CANNED 0 endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-04 Variance dated February 7, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setbacks and impervious surface restrictions for the construction of a three -stall garage. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7'° day of February, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING II-W gAplant2006 planning casest06-04 bangassef varianceUindings of factdoc 0 Referral Comments Staff Reports i • `t MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I O CITY OF DATE: Febt March 13, 2006 OV CMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard SUBJ: Dave Bangasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser Variance PO Box 147 Planning Case #06-04 Chanhassen, MN 55317 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952 227.1110 This is a request for a 49 61 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 49.915.8-foot front yard setback variance (double frontage lot) and a 6.85 2.39% (3�$3 27.39%) hard surface Building Inspections coverage variance, to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a modified three- Phone:952.227.1180 stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record located in the Single Family Fax: 952.227.1190 Residential District (RSF) at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Engineering Drive (3633 South Cedar). The staff report has been revised to reflect these changes. Phone:952.227.1160 Fax:952.227.1170 ACTION REQUIRED Finance City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax :952227,1110 PLANNING COMMISSIONXITY COUNCIL SUMMARY Park & Recreation Phone: 952.2271120 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 7, 2006, to review the Fax:952227.1110 proposed development. Planning Commission voted in a 3-3 tie, thus, with no Recreation Center recommendation. Planning Commission did advise staff to survey City files for the Red 2310 Coulter Boulevard Cedar Point neighborhood to estimate the average impervious surface coverage in the area. Phone: .227.144W Faz:952.227.1404 The finding of the survey was 29% for impervious surface and is attached along with a g Y Pe g history of variances granted by the City on Red Cedar Point. Planning & Natural Resources The City Council held a public hearing on February 27, 2006, to review the proposed Phone 2227.11 Fax: 95252227.1110 development. City Council tabled action on the request directing the applicant and staff to work together by exploring options for reduction in the hard surface coverage Public Works variance request. Staff met on March 3, 2006 with the applicant who supports the 1591 Park Road proposed change. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952,227.1310 RECOMMENDATION Senior Center Phone:952227.1125 Staff recommends adoption of the revised motion approving a variance for a twe-stall Fax:952227.1110 modified three -stall garage as specified on pages 9-8E-1910 & 11 of the staff report dated Frcvidar5,7 March 13, 2006. Web Site www.achanhassen.mn.us ATTACHMENTS 1. Suf vey Results Revised plans. 2. Findings of Fact for City Council. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated Fabituaff March 13, 2006. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 2006. 5. City Council Minutes dated February 27, 2006. g:xplan\2006 planning ca a \06-04 bangas a variancetexecutive summary.dim The City of 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. `J, �R�Er�NAL yEStgi.l Y. A°f/ IV all —_`� 55&sF CEDAR EDGE IN DT -ROAD 00rn ., » EDGE of BtT gyp 'S23 4`'3�"E , !_ � AT-35.57 { o , T 1.00 M 1 4 NE -� T' k XIS IN: RAGE $ Y 1 SE 3� E GE CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED WAR 0 3 ZOOS CHANHASSEN FIANNING M" 0 4 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Dave Bangasser for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a modified three -stall garage — Planning Case No. 06-04. On March 13, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Dave Bangasser for a 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8- foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a modified three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lott, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. 4. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 11 0 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. 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 #06-04 Variance dated March 13, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The City Council approves the Variances from the front yard setbacks and impervious surface restrictions for the construction of a modified three -stall garage. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 13's day of March, 2006. ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN Todd Gerhardt, City Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser variancetfindings of fact for city council.doc i r/ 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC D*: February 7, 2006 CC DATE: March 13, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 5, 2006 CASE #: 06-04 BY: Metzer, et al PROPOSAL: Request for a 19 6122.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 44..815.8-foot front yard setback variance (double frontage lot) and a 6.05 2.39% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a modified three -stall garage (three -stall ¢ara¢e with only a two -stall earnee door requiring less driveway to service it) on a nonconforming corner lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive. (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3633 South Cedar APPLICANT: Dave Bangasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one -stall existing garage and build a modified three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record. The proposed garage will require front yard setback variances of 19 61 22.5 and 4". 15.8 feet from the minimum 30-foot front yard setback requirement and a 6-05 239% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface restriction. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. • Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Febraary:7 March 13, 2006 Page 2 of 11 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and is located on Lake Minnewashta's Red Cedar Point at the southwest comer of the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive, and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting front yard setback variances of 19 6122.5 feet (north property line) and 49415.8 feet (south property line) from the required 30-foot minimum front yard setback requirement and a 6$5 2.391/6 hard surface coverage variance from the 25% impervious surface restriction for the construction of a three -stall garage. The zoning ordinance states that eaves may not encroach into the required setback if a variance is granted. Therefore, all setback distances for variance consideration will be measured from the eaves of the structure while the foundation is recessed 1.5 feet from the eaves. Staff is recommending denial approval of this variance request. Cede. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side yards, 10 feet. Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two feet, six inches; Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: (c) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction, or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be Bangasser variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Febmary March 13, 2006 Page 3 of 11 erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within 12 months. Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: d. A two -car garage must be provided with the single-family structure. BACKGROUND The existing garage that the applicant is proposing to demolish has nonconforming setbacks of -11.8910.39 feet to the north property line and 44-.7 10.2 feet to the south property line. The subject property was platted as part of the Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Subdivision which was recorded on August 30, 1913. Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 (subject property) are both owned by the applicant but are separated by South Cedar Drive and have separate Parcel Identification Numbers (PID). Both properties are nonconforming lots of record in that they do not meet minimum lot size requirements, Lot 16 does not meet lot frontage requirements, and Lot 1 does not meet lot depth requirements and contains an accessory structure without a principal structure. Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Feb 7 March 13, 2006 Page 4 of 11 ANALYSIS Lot 16, Block 4 is a riparian lot and contains a single-family home. Lot 4, Block 5, the subject property, contains an accessory structure without a principal structure. City Code does not permit an accessory use without a principal use; therefore, if the variance is granted staff is recommending that Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 be combined under one PID number and an affidavit be recorded stating that the two lots may not be sold separately, thus eliminating the accessory use without a principal use situation. Because the lots will need to be combined, the hard cover percentage must be combined as well. Due to the proposal for additional hard cover it becomes necessary for the applicant to request a hard cover variance also. The existing garage is 254.31 square feet in area and has nonconforming front yard setbacks of 11.8910.39 feet from Red Cedar Point Road and 44-.710.2 feet from South Cedar Drive. The proposed modified three -stall garage will be located 2.89 feet closer to Red Cedar Point Road than the existing garage and 4 feet further from South Cedar Drive than the existing garage. The proposed garage has an area of 871.31720 square feet which is under the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure maximum for the RSF district. The requested modified three -stall garage is proposed to be located outside the comer sight triangle of the Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive intersection. Ordinance Existing Proposed Detached Accessory 1,000 sq. ft. 254.31 sq. ft. 871.31 sq. ft. Structure Area (RSF) maximum Setback from Red Cedar 30' 10.39' 1039' 7.5' Point Road Setback from South Cedar 30' 10.2' 4$421 14.2 Drive Hard Surface Coverage ° 25 /0 3.72 °/o 19-N° ° 12.66% Lot 1, Block 5 Hard Surface Coverage 25% 43.4% 43.4% Lot 16 Block 4 Hard Surface Coverage 25% 22.73% 31.05-04 27.39% 1, B5 & L16, B4 combined Distance from Oak N/A 1 It 3' The subject property is 7,920 square feet in area and has a hard cover percentage of 3.72%, and Lot 16, Block 4 has an area of 7,276 square feet and a hard cover of 43.4%. The hard cover percentage for Lot 16 is so high due to its relatively small area. Also the lot was platted in 1913 and all improvements on the property were constructed before current regulations existed. The existing combined hard cover of the two lots is 22.73%. With the applicant's current request for a modified three -stall garage, and a driveway sufficient in size to accommodate it a two -stall garage, the hard cover percentage would rise to 4-9.412.661/6 on the subject property and 31.05 27.39% on the two lots combined. Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Feb March 13, 2006 Page 5 of 11 A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two -car garage. The subject property combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one -stall garage. Staff recommended denial of the previous request because the applicant was proposing the construction of a three -stall garage which is one more than that which is required by City Code. At that time the proposed hard surface coverage was 31.05%. Staff was willing to recommend approval of a two -stall garage and any increase in hard surface coverage necessary to accommodate it. With a two -stall garage and additional driveway the combined hard surface coverage percentage for the two lots would have been 27.28%. The applicant has revised the plans and will be able to construct a modified three -stall garage (three -stall zaraee with only a two -stall ¢araee door requirine less driveway to service it) with a hard surface coverage of 27.39%. The proposed access for the garage has been moved from Red Cedar Point Road to South Cedar Drive. reasonable use due to the laek of a two stall gafage, staff would be vAlling to r-eeewAnend weWd be oaeeeever-agevffln an 0 , , The subject property has a buildable area of 808.5 square feet; however, due to the shape of the lot, the buildable area is triangular which would make it difficult to locate a two -stall garage on the property without a setback variance. 'fhe applicant considered rebuilding the garage further into the buildable area of the lot but chose not to because he wanted to limit the visual obstructions imposed on neighboring properties that the proposed changes would bring. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted on Red Cedar Point That review found the following cases: RED CEDAR POINT VARIANCE HISTORY Address Variance File Number Variance 19.3-foot front yard setback, 6.2-foot lakeshore 3637 South setback and a 15% hard surface coverage Cedar Drive 04-07 variance (built to 31.66%) for the expansion of a single-family home 3628 Hickory 13-foot front yard setback, 2-foot front yard Road 02-5 setback and 5-foot side yard setback variances for the construction of a garage. 7201 Juniper 98-7 11.5-foot front yard variance for the construction Avenue of a home addition 3705 South Two 7-foot side yard setback variances, a 31-foot Cedar Drive 96-4 lakeshore setback variance and a 25% hard surface coverage variance. 0 0 Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February? March 13, 2006 Page 6 of 11 Address Variance File Number Variance 3618 Red Cedar 15-foot lakeshore and 8-foot side yard setback Point Road 93-6 variances for the construction of a porch and deck 3841 Red Cedar 2-foot side yard setback variance for the Point Road 93-3 construction of a two -stall garage 1.5-foot side yard and 14.5-foot lakeshore setback 92-1 variances for the construction of an attached two - car garage 3607 Red Cedar Point Road 7.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a deck and a 13.5-foot lakeshore 81-8 setback variance for the construction of a 6' x 6' stairway landing pad 3727 South 79-foot lot frontage variance for the construction Cedar Drive 91 of a single-family home 3605 Red Cedar 4-foot & 2-foot side yard setback variances and a Point Road 88-11 26-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a garage and home addition 3725 South 12-foot front yard, 3-foot side yard, 40-foot lot Cedar Drive 87-I5 width and 13, 000 sq. ft. lot area variances 3629 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard setback and two 3-foot side yard Point Road 87-13 setback variances for the demolition of an existing cabin and the construction of a new home 3601 Red Cedar 45-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 87-10 construction of a single-family home 3701 South 5-foot front yard and 35-foot lakeshore setback Cedar Drive 85-27 variances for the construction of a single-family home 3713 South 15-foor front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive 85-26 construction of a two -stall garage 3624 Red Cedar 4.8-foot side yard and 1.8-foot front yard setback Point Road 85-20 variances for the construction of a garage 3707 South 84-18 20-foot front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive construction of a garage 3613 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard, 2-foot side yard and 7-foot Point Road 83-05 lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single-family home 3732 Hickory Two 2-foot side yard, 50-foot lot width and 33- Road 82-12 foot lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single-family home 0 Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Febi March 13, 2006 Page 7 of 11 Address Variance File Number Variance 3607 Red Cedar 13.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 81 08 construction of a deck It is worth noting that due to the age of the Red Cedar Point neighborhood, most structures were built long before current regulations existed and thus have nonconforming front, side and lakeshore setbacks. HARD SURFACE COVERAGE SURVEY In review of City building files for properties located on Red Cedar Point staff found 16 properties with updated registered land surveys. Hard surface coverage for these properties were calculated and averaged. The average hard surface coverage for the 16 lots is 29.05%. The highest hard surface coverage found was 50% and the lowest was 20.7%. GRADING & STREETS The site currently sheet drains to the west. The proposed garage will require some grading to achieve the 958 floor elevation. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. It appears that the site grading will not require the removal of any significant trees, as identified on the plan. Staff anticipates that the streets in this area will need to be reconstructed within the next five years. Reconstruction projects within older areas such as this are challenging because, typically, the right-of-way widths are substandard. The existing right-of-way for Red Cedar Point Road and Cedar Drive South is 30 feet. The current minimum right-of-way requirement for a local street is 60 feet. The applicant does not pFepese is proposing to construct the garage any 2.89 feet closer to the Red Cedar Point Road right-of-way than the existing garage; thomfefe however, the proposed increased encroachment is not so significant that should the City obtain additional right-of- way/roadway easement with a reconstruction project, the proposed garage would not further encumber the right-of-way/roadway easement. TREE PRESERVATION There are three mature trees near the existing garage structure located at 3633 South Cedar Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a modified three -stall garage. Of the three nearby trees, two of them should remain unaffected by the construction. The third tree, a 28" red oak, is located along South Cedar Drive between the street and the proposed addition. After construction, the base of the tree would be approximately nine feet from the base of the garage Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Pebruafy7 March 13, 2006 Page 8 of 11 wall. This situation is very similar to variance granted for the construction of a garage at 3628 HickoryRoad. There the garage addition was located within ±10 feet of a large (29" DBH) oak tree. The following advisory statements were made about that tree and also apply to the oak at 3633 South Cedar Drive: Construction damage to trees depends on three variables: the extent of the construction activities, the species of tree, and the plant's health. To build the garage, compaction and minor excavation (6 —12 inches deep) within 1 % feet of the tree's trunk is necessary. Red oaks are tolerant of root severance, but sensitive to root compaction meaning that this activity can cause damage to the tree. The proposed garage will be built upon approximately 50% of the tree's root area. The tree's health, good to fair, will help to alleviate the impact, but the fact that the construction will be extremely close to the trunk of the tree increases the risk of damage. The timing of the construction is also important. During the growing season when moisture and nutrient requirements for the tree are at their greatest, a major disruption of the root area will have a negative effect on the tree. To protect the tree during construction, the following practices will be necessary: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. • To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. • The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. • The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. • Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. The tree is an excellent specimen and adds value to the property. If the homeowner is committed to preserving the tree, the above -mentioned measures will help to ensure the future health and longevity of the tree. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two -car garage. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary. The subject property combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one - stall garage. Because the property currently cannot be put to reasonable use due to the lack of a two -stall garage, staff would be willing to recommend approval of a variance granting the construction of a two -stall garage. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 0 Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 Febmaiy 7 March 13, 2006 Page 9 of 1 I modified three -stall garage. This would leave the property with a three -stall garage; one stall more than that which is required for reasonable use. However, because the plans have been revised proposing a modified three -stall garage the amount of hard surface coverage requiring a variance has been significantly reduced. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By proposing the construction of a three -stall garage rather than a two -stall garage, the applicant's request exceeds that which City Code defines as a reasonable use of the property. A two -stall garage, which is required by code, is reasonable. However, the applicant has revised the plans significantly reducing the proposed hard surface coverage. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. There are numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances from setback and hard surface coverage restrictions. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed development will increase the value of the property. However, construction of a two steal modified three -stall garage would bring the property into compliance with City Code. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is not self-created because the property only contains a one -stall garage. garage: At minimum a two -stall garage is required by City Code. Bangasser Variance • Planning Case No. 06-04 PebfuaFy 7 March 13, 2006 Page 10 of 11 e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located Finding: The granting of a variance for a three -stall garage would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located because by combining the lots further impervious on Lot 1, Block 5 has been limited. . The granting of a variance for at least a two -stall garage would be necessary to bring the site into compliance with City Code. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood Finding: The proposed three -stall garage may will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The construction of a two -car garage would minimize such impacts. RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning GonurAssien Gity Couneg eheese to approve the garage; Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commiss City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 19 61 22.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 49.815.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.28 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a Ewe stall modified Three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. Bangasser Variance • • Planning Case No. 06-04 F'ebmasy 7 March 13, 2006 Page 11 of 11 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping ortearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Dave Bangasser stamped "Received January, 4, 2006". 4. Registered Land Survey. 5. Building Plans and Elevations. 6. Photos of Subject Property. 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser valianceXcc upda[e.doc 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage — Planning Case No. 06-04. On February 7, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point. 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 does not 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. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation may 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 0 endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-04 Variance dated February 7, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setbacks and impervious surface restrictions for the construction of a three -stall garage. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 71b day of February, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M. Its Chairman gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser variancefindings of factdoc 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 Planning Case No. Vb'0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 0 4 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSENPLANNIN(iDUT nt Name and Address: Contact: Phone: 9 Z 656 -4U�Fax: R5b 352- S'7 Email: "b0.V, ,Z8,xx tsserPau carP,Co+� Name and Address: v �6 AKibiki& 13, — SAME Contact: Phone: 952 3 - (,-I Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (]UP) Nonconforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) _X_ Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEES a50 ao pa Cry 3ci2 (o 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. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: 1--AAA L-i Ctrt- trc— LOCATION: 3 (P 33 .Sou %q Cepa LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LAY GLOM 5t ICED C1;DlrQ."P0)NT- Lk MIN4EVAq 1-4 TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES X NO PRESENT ZONING: `'/SC REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: LAI off REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Lp W l�1 f�Sl�Qttti REASON FOR REQUEST: VARtANCL fA YA4 SETRACK-- RU—U— M-ENTS `io -�hL4 SDI w rx(s-r/0 G Aow &AFM M n-1 '4 gMllte :MLr_. &hM415 IN QM,- 1-0 CoN ST2UCT A 'T{( F :2LALL_ WOE lld r - ft.-Aee- QROVOSQ SE'P131 c-K< To C-ACl-1 WV V-E To tVll%-6161 --MO EkISTIO k: 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 application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 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. ( j ,i.. Signature of Applicant Signatur"o FM Owner' k2 I oto s Date I SCANNED Date 111 G:tpLAMfb ms\Development Review Applimtion.DOC Rev. 12/05 Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 3633 South Cedar Drive- Variance Request Dear Sharmeen, CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAI 0 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PUNNING DEPi Per our meetings on this subject, attached are materials required for our application for a variance from the front yard setback requirement on both Red Cedar Drive and South Cedar in order to demolish our existing single stall garage to construct a three stall garage. The proposed setback are the existing setback of approximately 11-1/2 feet. Attached please find the following materials: 1. Development Review Application- Variance 2. Check in the amount of $ 250.00 3. Certificate of survey prepared Engineering Design Services- 12 sets at l lxl7, one 8.5xl 1. 4. Proposed floor plans and elevations- 12 sets 8.5xl 1. I ask that the planning staff as well as the Planning Commission and City Council consider the following relative to this request: • My wife's family has owned the lakeshore property for over 60 years. While the property is not our full time residence, we plan make it our full time residence within 2 to 6 years (when Catherine, our youngest child, is in college or when we are done paying for her college.) • The property was platted in 1913 which predates the current zoning ordinances. The individual lots are smaller than current minimum sizes and as a result, nearly all of the properties in the area have similar setbacks to what we are proposing and in a number of cases much smaller setbacks. • The variance we are requesting is an existing condition that will not be any closer to either road right of way than the existing garage. The majority of the addition will be further from the road than the existing. • The single stall garage is not big enough to meet our storage needs. With a boat, trailer, personal watercraft, etc. we feel we need 2 stalls for recreational equipment. Hopefully this is not surprising for lakeshore property. In addition, we have no car storage. Over the Labor Day weekend we sustained hail damage to our minivan which was parked outside since we choose to store the boat trailer, etc. in the garage. With two children driving, we own 4 cars, three of which are often at the property when we are there. We believe a three stall garage is a reasonable request. scnNNeo • Due to the unique triangular shape with roads on two sides, there is no area we could build a reasonable sized garage without a variance. While constructing the garage further to the west would allow a somewhat greater setback than the existing condition, this would be further away from the lake home which we would have to deal with for many years. In addition, a more westerly location would be directly in front of our neighbors, the Johnson's. Tom and Jackie would have a better view from their front door if we maintain the view of our lawn area rather than our garage doors. • At your suggestion, I have met with you and Jill Sinclair on site to discuss the proximity of the existing elm and oak trees near the garage. We have already incorporated similar measures in our plans to that which Jill suggested to our neighbor to the north, the Gunther's, on their garage variance two years ago which has resulted in their oak tree surviving quite well. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at my office, 952/656-4457. incerely, Dave Ban ass SCANNED 9 00 E��y V en x � � � t� 3 LO n �•~5 z � a z pco a x°3 \ J q I «:' S57'30'17'W 103.76 =y\ s\ 4 A A . I< cW S58'00'23-W _._ _— — Ca' a ,o 126.30 c, a E7 W .ti U uI a O I N V W 1 "'►F//�� x z ELLrLLGeozo z�8 P r^ V, y y < wz 1� ZU Y,y-1y K� J OUYM mN p g.6 6 -y� O> 2pW2- m O p E c 4 Ty ZZF 2�SKayI O tIV W_ mOi2NyO<ZVw'1 .2 rYY U ZBMZZT8 34. F_Nn d�2� N TO4.6 0>O 3�Z ~ 0d3• rrLLO ppVWF7372WOQK=_p<OzFmy- Y 16�i 3 Z=0o 7 pW02 U Z- z O oFo �ri�waN YmWoN o 0o$aLL`�0RCpOri��° aE _.EYmV UO112'CLF��j rNo W o N 0�o mOdONoSU¢wSWZwWz�J Y2OF LCppjn O mH¢2 UyFFFWT-yI' _OaO yaV¢T WFWFYWaI�WWWN� W N N� O 00JLLgj0O $r�OpG 0z zzwOO 0 0 w 0 W< F¢< FZ06K�1¢?J POR (OV mY5 0i0000 E 1*�NND lWdQ1FW¢i K ¢W690 C Z m OZw � 2<QZ«x t�,O 2 py$62 W O Z U 0 T I. 1 ,' it 1' H � �n�li.��}Ii 1'.•LTflw� - ---. waalec'i-w� 1 r, 9 if WN�. i p �i .�l1Y�.-�'�, ?6? • ice_ '1 I r, �; ,, . _ r , ;: r_ ;� 'r;�. S* W w _ '4 S�_.. � �a ,.� .> CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF M NNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on January 26, 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 the Bangasser Variance Request — Planning Case No. 06-04 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thillaeday o 2006. Notary P blic �� . �� Clerk KIM I MEUMSSEN Notary Public -Minnesota " MY Commission EVm Jan 3.2m0 !CANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: ity Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Variances for the construction of a three -stall garage Planning File: 06-04 Applicant: Dave Bangasser Property 3633 South Cedar Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stab person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Proposal: Variances for the construction of a three -stall are e Planning File: 06-04 Applicant: Dave Bangasser Property 3633 South Cedar Location: I A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alteratio Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVlndustdal. • Minnesota state Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification, 11 Lake Minnewashta 1 SUBJECT SITE I Lake Minnewashta utsciatrner This map is posher a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me. This Met) is a conpilatim of records, infomation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shovm, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does hot v,nanant Nat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data usetl to prepare this map are error tree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data car be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depotim of geographic features. n enors or dwWarcies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map ackn mledges Nat de City shall not be liable for any carmges, and a presely waives all darts, aid agrees to defend, indenndy, and hod harnaess Me City Fran my laid all dairrt brought by User, its errployeas or agents, or Nirtl parties which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta This nap is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me. This map is a corrpilation of records, informaion and data located in venous city, county, state ark federal otlkres and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for raeveas purposes only. The City does ant warrant Nat the Geographic IMonnation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this amp are error Ime, and the City does not represent Nat the GIS Data can be used for navigational, (reciting or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or dirsctim or preasion in Me depiction of geographic features. If enors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuart to Minnesota Statutes §4W,03, Subd. 21 (2"), ark Me user of INS amp WleloMedges that the Ciry snail not INS liable for any coinages. arrul expressly waives all darn, and agrees to defend, indermity, and hdd hornless Me City from any and all Gans brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of tie users a¢Bss or use of data provided_ CHRIS & KRISTINE WEDES ALFRED & CARLOTTA F SMITH GREGORY BOHRER 3716 HICKORY RD 3714 HICKORY RD 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 TRUE VANG ROGER L & DOROTHY P DOWNING ELIZABETH J NOVAK 3715 HICKORY RD 7200 JUNIPER 7210 JUNIPER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9769 PO BOX 651 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9613 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -0651 STEPHEN M GUNTHER & GARY ALAN PETERSON & GARY PETERSON HELEN KATZ-GUNTHER KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 176920TH AVE NW 3628 HICKORY RD - 1769 20TH AVE NW NEW BRIGHTON , MN 55112 -5433 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9766 NEW BRIGHTON . MN 55112 -5433 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON ARLENE KAY HERNDON PAMELA ANN SMITH 225 CAMPBELL DR 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3720 RED CEDAR POINT DR HOPKINS , MN 55343 -9235 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN DEBORAH S LOCKHART & EDW IN L & LIVIA SEIM 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD DIANE LEESON ANDING TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7720 3610 RED CEDAR POINT RD 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7720 SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA 93401 -9204 PAMELA A SMITH JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE LUMIR C PROSHEK 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3630 HICKORY RD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 JEAN D LARSON DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON JOHN R MARX & 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD HEIDI A RIGELMAN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7721 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9676 GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING 7201 JUNIPER PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 MINNEAPOLIS , MN 55410 -1606 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER KEVIN A & LISA A MONTY BIRUTA M DUNDURS B321 VIEW LN 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1430 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 PETER J & KARRI J PLUCINAK EMIL & PATRICIA SCUBA THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3631 SOUTH CEDAR 14025 VALE CT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 56331 -9686 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 -3017 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9686 u RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -9688 GREGORY P ROBERTSON & LESLIE M ROBERTSON 3701 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -96BB TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9687 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9688 AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3711 SOUTH CEDAR TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 - 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Bangasser Variance Request Planning Case No. 06-04 3633 South Cedar City of Chanhassen Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta Planning Commission MeeeRg — February 7, 2006 • 13. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff -Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. The easement width shall be reduced to approximately 24 feet wide on Lot 22, Block 1, so that the easement lies only 10-feet east of the storm sewer." 16. Remove curb stops and install spot liners at Manchester Drive services and the services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Troy Bader: Mr. Chair, if I might. There was the one question ... is there more or less area being drained into this, into the riverine in regards to this change? We're not ... we need to know if there's more less going in. Have they answered? McDonald: Well again, we don't have the answer for you and what I suggest is that you talk to city staff and that's where you'll have to get the answer. Troy Bader: I understand. I think that is the point that was relevant just for the record, or for off the record but again that is a question that is relevant in terms of what's going ... but have a great day. We'll do our best. McDonald: Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: STALL GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3633 SOUTH CEDAR — PLANNING CASE NO.06-04: Public Present: Name Address Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kurt, would you like to start? Okay, Dan. m Planning Commission Medilfig — February 7, 2006 0 Keefe: Just a quick question on depth of the garage that's existing now. Is the one that they're proposing is no deeper, it's the same depth, is that correct? Generous: It's a little bit deeper to provide a work area where the two joined and then it jogs. And then it's actually slightly smaller. It's 24 feet deep instead of 26, or 24 �/2. Keefe: Okay. So if we were to go to the 2 car alternative they'd be looking at the 241/2 depth or what do you? In terms of that alternative, what are you recommending for depth? Generous: Well I don't know that we have a preference. They could cut it off and maintain the existing garage and just extend that over, or they could just use the new area. In either case they would be at the minimum they would maintain the existing... because it's a corner, it's a triangular lot so the lot lines go away from the structure as it goes farther to the west. Keefe: So it's toward the west you get a little bit deeper. You'd be alright with the deeper. Generous: Yes. Keefe: Alright. I want to get a handle on the, you know it looks like we're going to end up with a variance either way, and the 2 car, the 3 stall wouldn't be as severe I guess. How do you think of it in terms of. Generous: The 2 stall variance is approximately 2.3% impervious cover variance as opposed to a 6% variance with a 3 car option. And so that's really the difference between the two alternatives. Again the ordinance, if they were building new they wouldn't be able to do this but we would require that they have the 2 car garage and so we think providing that is good. However going beyond it with the 3 car garage is, we think it slightly excessive because of the configuration of the existing house on the lot and then this parcel. Keefe: Alright. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: The hard surface coverage Bob that both lots combined after? Generous: It would still be over the 25% by combining them. Because the house is way over but by adding the two together you, they currently meet it but with the expansion they would exceed the 25%. Undestad: Okay. Larson: So they're willing to, or has it been suggested that they combine them? The lots. Generous: Yes, and he doesn't have a problem doing that part of it. His preference would be the 3 car garage. 19 Planning Commission Me*g — February 7, 2006 0 Larson: Of course, it'd be mine too but. McDonald: Deborah? Zorn: Out of curiosity Bob, do you know what is that small little parcel of land next to the subject site? Is there actually a home on that site or is that an open lot? Generous: I'm not really sure. It's open. Zorn: Okay. No further questions. Papke: The lot that the proposed garage will be on, it states in the staff report that it currently sheet drains to the west. Does the surface water runoff from the garage eventually end up in Lake Minnewashta? Does it eventually drain into the lake? Is that a safe assumption? Fauske: I would believe that would be a safe assumption in this area. Papke: Okay, so from a hard surface coverage perspective, that's really the consideration here is how much runoff we're introducing into Lake Minnewashta. Generous: Yes. Papke: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay, I have a couple questions for you because I'm confused by your graph on page 4 of 10. If I read through that, in the one column I have the ordinance requirement. I have the existing requirements and the proposed requirements. As I go down and I look at all of this, it appears that even going with the 3 car garage on this parcel, he meets all the requirements. So where I'm confused is why would we deny him a 3 car garage? I understand the setbacks and we can deal with that separately but the hard surface coverage area is only 19.7%. That's under the 25. Generous: For the one lot but the existing is at 43%. McDonald: But at this point they're two separate lots. Okay that's where my confusion is because you make the recommendation that as part of this that we combine and once you combine that, at that point he can't meet the hard surface coverage between the two lots. But if they're two separate lots and what he's bringing before us is the lot at the corner and that's what he's asking for and these two lots are not currently joined, then at that point it would appear he meets the requirements. Am I missing something here? Generous: For that, except for you can't have an accessory structure without a principle structure. McDonald: Okay. K11 Planning Commission Me*g — February 7, 2006 0 Generous: So they combine the two, then we bring it into conformance with that portion of the code. McDonald: Okay, so it's because that's viewed as being an accessory structure that cannot stand alone that we now get into the issue of combining the two lots so that the garage can go up and then at that point now the hard surface coverage area is exceeded by the 25%. Generous: Right. But overall it's down from the 43%. McDonald: Okay. Generous: It's a compromise by most variance situations. McDonald: Well yeah. It seems as though he's got plenty of room on that lot, that's the question I guess I have but okay. You addressed that now. I understand the problem there. That's all the questions I have for staff. Do we have an applicant here to present his case? Dave Bangasser: Good evening members of the commission. I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm the applicant, and my wife Mary Jo is with me this evening. Too chicken to come before you to talk herself so I'll talk for her. This property has been in Mary Jo's family for well over 60 years. There's been quite a bit of history on Lake Minnewashta for the Anding family. There's a number of Anding's that have had property in that area, including the lot immediately to the east which up until 2 years ago was owned by her aunt and uncle, so there's a lot of history there. And I might say that we're one of the few property owners in this subdivision that owned the property prior to the current zoning ordinances being established. So these zoning ordinances were imposed after we owned the property whereas most of the current property owners have purchased after the ordinances were put in place. What we'd like to do is basically protect our property. One of the issues that is asked in the staff report is why is the applicant feel that proposing the structure and are they doing it to increase the value. We're doing it to protect our property. A single stall garage is clearly not adequate as the staff has also agreed with. That it's not adequate and we thought about this for quite some time. I think 4 years ago I talked to Sharmeen informally about, we wanted to do something. We desperately need more storage space. Quite frankly I didn't know that I wanted to go through the brain damage of this variance process. It's not a lot of fun to most of us. Maybe it is to those that are responsible for dealing with it all the time. What brings us here tonight is that this year we had a severe hail storm come through while we were out there and everything that was out got pretty well hammered and vehicles, whatever was out got hammered and obviously you know with one stall garage we happen to try to keep as much of what we have inside that single car garage so vehicles were out and trailers were in. I wish it would have been reverse that night but, that's the reason that we're here is to protect the property. We do have two driving age children and with that we have 4 vehicles that often times with different schedules, are out there at any given time, which end up being rather expensive to operate is more reason for needing storage. It seems that the crux of the issue here is obviously what's a reasonable sized garage. I mean that's really I think the basis for granting a variance, is it reasonable or is it not. As Bob's already pointed out, the city code has a minimum requirement for 2 cars. That's a minimum. I don't believe there's a maximum, but it's a minimum and I believe that the intention of having a minimum requirement 21 Planning Commission Meng — February 7, 2006 • on up to 2 cars is to minimize the need for outside storage. Anybody that's been around this neighborhood for any period of time knows that there's issues with lack of garage space in the area because of the relatively small parcels and therefore there's also something stored outside in this area. Our intention is to try to improve upon that situation. If you looked at any of the new subdivisions, anybody that builds a house today in Chanhassen, and I'll bet particularly the Lundgren development that just came through here, they're not going to build a house today with a 2 car garage. I think the minimum standard today, I can safely say is 3 cars. Now I know that there's complications here with, because of the long history and the small parcels here but I would suggest to you that the 3 car garage is today's minimum standard. It's, people just need more storage space than they used to. And I would also suggest to you that lakeshore property owners need more storage space than the average property owner because we all have boats. We're not going to live on the lake. Pay the kind of property taxes we do unless we're there to enjoy the lake, so we all have boats and water toys and so I would suggest that our storage needs are probably higher than the average. I mentioned that there's a great deal of issues with outside storage. I've got lots of pictures I'll share you, or I'll spare you most of them. Or just give you a few examples. This is just a couple of pictures but here's a property that has essentially a 2 car garage. They have 2 sheds. One that's in view and one that's not in view. They have an RV stored outside. They have a pontoon boat stored outside. And because of the way they're utilizing garage space, they typically park their vehicles outside when they're there as well. Here's another example in the area of someone that does have a 3 car attached garage, and obviously they can't fit all of their, they've got their pontoon boat outside. I think it's pretty typical, a lot of outside storage in the area and again I could show you more pictures but if you've driven by there, I won't need to. The trade off here is clearly, between the 3 car and the 2 car is outside storage. You can certainly limit to 2, you know whatever restrictions you want but the fact of the matter is, people have these storage needs and if you choose to restrict this to 2 car, it means that there's going to be more things stored outside. That's clearly not what the neighborhood wants. I've gone out of my way, we both have gone out of our way to communicate to our neighbors what our plans are. We've staked multiple locations. We've talked to all the neighbors about what our plans are. I'm not aware of anybody, and there might be somebody here that I'm not aware of that has some issues but I'm not aware of anyone that objects to what we're talking about. I believe everybody in the neighborhood wants to see more garage space, aesthetically appealing garage space as opposed to the outside storage and I understand that at least 2 of the neighbors have taken the time to actually send a -mails or letters, I'm not sure which it was, to staff supporting this. But I know that all the other neighbors I talked to are also supportive of what we're proposing here. I'd like to just, if I could, and I think that several of the, I think that was included in your package but we've got drawings of, renderings of what we're proposing which I believe are aesthetically appealing. That was certainly our intent. I've got some photo drawings which I'm having trouble locating right now. Here it is. No. Well I've misplaced the drawings so I'll use the black and whites that Bob had in the package. I think what we've done is try to break this thing up so it doesn't look like one massive structure. We've tried to make it aesthetically appealing. If you notice from the shape, there are no long, straight walls. The walls are broken down. Reduces the scale. We've shown windows into the structure to make it look less like a garage and more like, and something a little bit more appealing. If you notice the roof line along the adjacent South Cedar Drive, which is where our nearest neighbors would be, we've planned that that roof line be lowest right at the southern edge of the structure, again to kind of bring that scale down some so we hope, and it's Planning Commission Mee*g — February 7, 2006 • certainly our intention that this is something that's done in a very nice manner and it looks like something other than just a storage shed. Something that I don't know if it's been talked about quite as much as has been talked about with some of the other variances that have taken place in the area, is some of the more unique features of our situation here. They've been mentioned you know somewhat the fact that we've got this road subdividing our property but I know in other variances, and I'll maybe talk about that a little bit more in a minute. There's certainly been more effort on the staff's part to present some more positive sides of what we're trying to do as well. Certainly we have a unique situation because of the triangular shape you know nature of this back lot. There are very few properties that have the benefit of a back lot. None of the properties that are, can I get the, none of the properties that are along South Cedar here have the benefit of a back lot, and so a majority of those properties, Bob's correct in saying that there aren't very many two stall garages in that area, but they also don't have the benefit of having this back lot that we have. But in addition to that many of those properties, even though they have two garage doors, do have over sized garages even though they don't have the benefit of a back lot. If we had, if we only had the lake lot, this is very typical of surrounding properties that are very similar to our's. We have a relatively narrow lakeshore lot. We have 40 feet in the front which both of these properties also have 40 in the front. We have 50 in the pack and I don't know if they have 50 in the back or not, but this is very typical of what is approved or has been approved on these narrow lots, and so if we only had a lakeshore lot, there certainly is precedence, not only precedence but city requirement that we'd have to build 2 stall garage on that lake lot. What I don't understand is why are you holding us to the same requirement if we only had the lake lot. You're saying you can only build two garage stalls. Why are you holding us to that same requirement that others have built when they only have a lake lot? We have this whole back lot. It seems to me you've kind of taken the benefit of having that back lot away from us, if you won't allow us to do anything more than the 2 stalls. One other topic that I apologize to staff that we really haven't talked about before but I feel compelled to bring up now after having some discussion with Kate Aanenson this afternoon. I frankly called Kate because we've been out of the country and I really have only seen the staff report and had a chance to think about it the last 24 hours and I frankly was quite surprised and disappointed that it wasn't more positive, particularly given what I've seen in variances for adjacent properties within the last 2 and 3 years, so I called Kate and said you know, what's up with this? Why is this? And I think it became clear to me after I talked to Kate that what I think may be staffs concern is that, if we go ahead and build a 2 stall across the road like there's already been precedence to do, and we have 2 stalls, if we were to come back later and build 2 stalls on the lake lot, which there's also precedence to have 2 and 2, I'm wondering if that's not the concern. It seemed to me that Kate was concerned about setting a precedence for going to 3 stalls on a back lot and then coming back and wanting another 2 stalls on the front lot. We don't currently live at the property full time but we think that we plan to move out to the property sometime in the next 2 to 6 years, which is basically based upon when our youngest daughter is either in college or hopefully when we're done paying for college. And we don't know what we want to do. If we would move out there, the house would need work. It's not a full time house. It's a relatively small house and it would need some work. We don't know what exactly we would like to do if we did move out there, but what we do know is that this, if I could have that camera back up here. This is not what we want. Is to approach a house that all you see is garage. These people didn't have any choice. They had a 40 foot lot. They didn't have any back lot. They needed to have garage and so they didn't have any choice but to put basically all the garages as you 23 Planning Commission Meng — February 7, 2006 • approach the house. It's not very welcoming as you approach the house and that's certainly not what we would like to do with the lake property. And so by building 3 stalls across the street, our hope was that we would avoid having to do this where all you do when you see, when you approach the house is seethe garage space. Again I just have been, really just saw the report within the last 24 hours and went out this moming and saw that there is, there are quite a few houses or properties within the 500 foot area that the notification went out to, that do exceed 2 stalls. I've got examples of that. I'm not even going to take your time but there are quite a few properties out there that have in excess of 2 stalls. I would however like to just focus a little bit on the immediately adjacent properties because I think what we've asked for us quite reasonable. The setbacks we've asked for are probably greater than a lot of the setbacks relative to front yard setbacks, etc, and certainly hard surface coverage, even when you combine that 3 1 % I believe is well below the typical property out there. Again I understand it exceeds the 25% coverage, but everybody out there exceeds the 25% coverage. There was a question about where does the, what happens to the drainage. The drainage does go to Lake Minnewashta. However it drains, it drains to the west across the property to the west here and there's a culvert going underneath Red Cedar Drive there that is a relatively small culvert so what happens is, when you get a big rainfall, this lot here is basically a wetland and what happens is, the culvert backs the water up and it slowly drains across Red Cedar Drive and follows a ravine all the way across and over, and dumps into the lake at this point so there's ample opportunity but no, it's not an engineered treatment system. That culvert in effect acts as a treatment system because the water backs up into the wetland. Even once it crosses through the culvert it runs through a considerable length of drainage ditch. It's slowing things down and dropping out a lot of particulates that might be in it, etc.. Again I wanted to just talk a little bit about what's happening in the surrounding properties. This property right here is our neighbor to the west, the Johnson's who, their variance was just approved 2 years ago to add onto the garage, basically lengthen the garage by 6 feet, as well as build another story on top of the garage and on the lake side to expand the house. McDonald: Excuse me Mr., if I could just interrupt you for a second. What I'd like to do is move onto questions because at this point I'm not sure how the relevance begins to fit in and we have several questions for you and this is a limited time period that we have with a majority of your case, you've answered most of that. If you would allow us to address you with some questions and then at that point if any of the rest of this comes up, then you can expand upon it. Thank you. Questions from commissioners. Papke: I've got a couple. I'd like to start with staff. Bob, if the applicant were to put, to substitute say a carport/awning with a gravel base for the third stall, what from a city code perspective, what does that do for the hard surface coverage? Generous: We would count that as hard surface area. Papke: With the awning? Because of the awning or? Generous: Both. By putting in the gravel and compacting it appropriately you're creating an impervious surface and by the use of the roof structure you're concentrating it and that's part of the issue that we have to determine this. 24 Planning Commission Me*g — February 7, 2006 • Papke: So there's no way for them to, you know I appreciate the applicant's desire to protect their cars and boats and so on, so is there no alternative type of structure that could be substituted for that third stall that would afford protection for their boats and cars yet not incur a hard surface coverage penalty? Generous: Not a permanent structure, no. Papke: Even if it was a canvas awning type arrangement or something like that? Generous: No, we prohibit those. Papke: Okay. Okay, I thought I'd try. Both for the applicant and city staff, you have a fair amount of concrete pavers and concrete sidewalk on your primary resident structure. In some other similar cases we've had applicants that have removed part of their paver, patio, sidewalks and so on and substituted something that was pervious to bring back into compliance. Have you considered or contemplated any of those alternatives? Dave Bangasser: We have not discussed that up to this point. Again I think at 31% coverage as with what we've proposed, we're well below the norm. The property directly to the west where a variance was just granted 2 years ago was approved at 44% coverage after they reduced some of what you're talking about. And I don't think that 44%, I don't throw that out like it's you know way too high. I think that's more typical to what we find in this area, and some of the pictures I would have shown you, if I'd have kept going would have shown that there is a lot of hard surface out there and I think at 31% we're probably well below the typical. Part of the other issue is on the hard surface, we have a steep slope on our lake lot, and a good deal of that slope is so steep that we've got it covered in rock in order to stabilize it, so really the only thing we maybe have to talk about is we've got a patio kind of midway down that slope, but we use that. I can't say I'd be excited to give up my patio. I wouldn't want to take the rock off the slope... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Papke: ...the commission has to either approve or deny a request. Now city staff has put an alternative in here which is for a 2 car garage. At the end of the day are you going to, would you be willing to settle for the 2 car alternative? If that's your choice at the end of this session. Dave Bangasser: I am not prepared, I would go to council to appeal for the third car. Who knows if they deny it but, and again my reason for that is, is more thinking about the lake lot that if you restrict me to two stalls, then I may well be forced to try to add 2 stalls to the lake lot and that's not, I don't think that's in anybody's best interest. Zorn: I have two questions. Staff, on page 5, do we know what the percentage for hard coverage surface ratio for the variances that were granted and is that something that we might take into consideration? Generous: We were looking at one, I think 3507 South Cedar was 51%. That's actually the one that led to our change in our ordinance. 25 Planning Commission Meg — February 7, 2006 • Dave Bangasser: Let's see, Johnson's which, there's several variances that are not, there's at least 12 variances, as I look back at the Johnson's staff report, there were 12 variances, 12 additional variances listed on the Johnson report that had previously been granted that aren't listed in this report and again the Johnson variance was approved at 43.9%. Zorn: So it seems like 51% is probably the greatest? Okay. Second question for the applicant. This subject site, so the back lot that you refer to, was that at one time part of the current lakefront property and that the road came later and divided it or, was this a piece of property that was purchased later just from the context of. Dave Bangasser: We purchased the back lot about 4 years ago and basically the reason for it was to try to mitigate some of these issues of you know again having a relatively small lake lot and with what had subsequently been, you know in place. You put these zoning ordinances in place in terms of restrictions. We had the opportunity to buy it 4 years ago and we did and clearly that has helped mitigate some of the issues with having such density on the lake. McDonald: Debbie. Larson; I've got one question for staff. In looking at these lots that are on the same side as the garage site, not all of them are developed. Is there any way like averaging in, I think we probably came across this once before. Because truly what he's doing, he's not taking up a very big chunk of that land. Looks like the piece adjacent... will never get built on and then there's that larger piece that he said where the water drains in. Is that something that could be looked at perhaps? Generous: You can always look at it. Fortunately a lot of these areas develop prior to our having all the building permits and stuff so we don't have surveys of it. With the photometric system we may have a better ability to estimate that. Larson: Just a thought. It could possibly be an option, I don't know. Dave Bangasser: It's my understanding those are unbuildable lots. Larson: Unbuildable? Dave Bangasser: Right. They are not buildable lots. Generous: If it's a wetland then yes. They would have to fill it and then do a mitigation. Larson: That's not what I'm saying. Dave Bangasser: And I think it's too small. It would be too, even the bigger of the lots is too small to be considered buildable. W Planning Commission MeleNg — February 7, 2006 • Generous: You want to, if they have the ability to look at the entire area and see if overall they have 25%. Larson: Right. Generous: Yes. Currently we don't have the capabilities. Larson: Okay, that was my question. Generous: It may come up with the new photometrics system that we're getting. Larson: Okay. That's all I have, thanks. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: So can either of those parcels on either side are for sale or available just to use as green area? Dave Bangasser: The property immediately to the west is Mary Jo's cousin. I don't think he's got interest in selling it, and we actually did just talk to the owner of what I'll call the wetland of that piece here this spring. That's actually who I, who we bought this back lot from 4 years ago. And you know at this point he's not selling. Undestad: Because you don't really need a buildable lot. You need more green area. Dave Bangasser: Right. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: I have a question for you. Do you have a lot of examples of other riparian lots where we granted hard surface coverage variances for 3 stall garages? I mean at least in the ones that you have here, it doesn't mention 3 stall and I know city code kind of defines 2 stalls as the sort of normal, despite what you're saying. I know there's definitely a trend toward 3 stalls, but I think the city code still defines it as 2 stall. Generous: In the list that I have it only discusses 2 stall garages. Keefe: So the question would be, there would be sort of taking... precedence of granting. Certainly if we grant a 2 stall... McDonald: Okay, just to clear up at this point, I don't have any questions for the applicant. I'll reserve that til the end. What I'd like to do now is throw it open to the floor, if anyone has any comments on this as part of the public meeting portion, come forward and state your case. Thank you sir. 27 Planning Commission Me*g — February 7, 2006 Janet Paulsen: Again Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I would just like to clarify that these two lots are not contiguous and they're separated by a street. In our code, definition of a lot is, when a separate parcel, tract or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private street. So how is that going to be reconciled? With another variance? McDonald: I guess that's what we're trying to determine. I don't know. Anyone else have any questions or comments wishes to come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public meeting portion of this case and I'll bring it back up to the council for comment and discussion. Who would like to start? On my right or my left? Dan, why don't you start because you had some comments. Keefe: Yeah, you know I came in here sort of a firm idea of what I wanted to do and now when I hear the case, I'm not sure. You know it's a riparian lot so I mean my feeling and my general thinking on these things is to be a little bit tougher on this variance issue than non -riparian lots... variances that tend to come up on these lots in a lot of places in Chanhassen because the neighborhoods were developed before the big ordinance was put in place so while the lots tend to be smaller. I'm struggling a little bit with the two separate lots. I mean as I look at putting 3 stalls on that one lot on top, you know given the fact where it drains, it doesn't even drain out onto the same property. So the water goes somewhere else so are we really, is it fair to combine the hard surface coverage for those two lots since the water drains in different directions. I'm not so sure about that. So I'm still thinking about all this. McDonald: Okay, Mark. Undestad: I think with again the older neighborhoods, you brought up a good point. A lot of those houses are in 40, 51% in worst case scenario hard surface coverage. Granted if any of them come in and want to add more garage space onto their lots, they'd all be over the 40% probably that wouldn't happen. But I think again the fact that he does have the lot and drainage in different directions, I kind of agree with Dan. We've got two different drainage areas on there. We're combining two lots on each side of the street. ...separate lots. McDonald: Okay. Deborah. Larson: I'm kind of on the same. McDonald: Still thinking? Larson: Thinking, well yeah. I mean if there was a way that he could either purchase the lot next door, then the problem is solved or if he could have the capability of combining all of that area, it throws it right into the home but it's not at this point so I don't know. McDonald: Well we move down to Debbie. We'll throw it her. Zom: I see the issue to be less of an outdoor storage space and more of the additional hard surface coverage that we're adding and the water quality of this additional drainage to the lake ultimately. I feel like we don't have very good information. On page 10 I really would have m Planning Commission MeeZTfig — February 7, 2006 • liked to have percentages of these variance files before me because it seems there is a precedence right now in the neighborhood to be higher and, but once we continue that precedence it becomes very difficult and there might be larger issues down the road. So I guess I'd probably lean towards denying this request. Trying to break from the precedence at this point. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: The drainage direction is an interesting question but I think if you look at the previous hard surface coverage variances that have been requested, that's never really been an issue, so if you put in a Sport Court, it doesn't make any difference what direction it drains off the Sport Court. It's still over the hard surface coverage. So I don't know that we can really take that much into account. I think the point about this being an issue of hard surface coverage is really well taken. I think if you drive down that street, the setback issues aren't a major issue. People aren't going to do 60 miles an hour down this street. These are pretty darn narrow streets so I'm not too concerned about the setback issues here. But I think clearly from a variance perspective, giving a homeowner the right to and properly utilize their property and bring it into city code with the 2 car garage is perfectly justified but I think going for a 3 car just takes it over the top and as you mentioned before, I think brings up some nasty precedence that we really don't want to set. I think it's also worthwhile noting that all three of the cases we've heard tonight have had surface water issues with them and Monday night we're going to meet with the City Council to look at our plan for the next 10 years for surface water management, which is likely to get even more and more strict in this area as we try to protect the natural resources like Lake Minnewashta so I think that's our primary goal here is to do the right thing for the lake at this point so I would recommend denial. McDonald: Okay. I'm really torn on this thing because what it reminds me of is problems that we went through with Lake Riley and all those homes up and down through there. I agree with Debbie from the standpoint, or from Deborah, I'm sorry. From the standpoint of I'd like to see what the hard surface coverage is in this neighborhood. That was one of the things that we looked at at Lake Riley and then begin to base decisions around that because it is common usage within the area. I also do not see the big deal about the setbacks because of the particular area. It is a hard surface coverage problem. I'm not sure that we're setting a precedence. That's why I'd like to see the numbers because at that point this may be totally within bounds of what's normal for that particular neighborhood. I mean if I have to vote on it tonight, I probably would vote to deny only because I'm not sure that we have the freedom to make a lot of these changes. Again that's not within our prerogative but my feeling is that this probably is within the norm for that particular neighborhood. I have received the e-mails. There's not, I haven't received any that spoke against this. In fact everybody seems to be pretty much in agreement with it. You know the way the water flows, does that make a difference? I don't know. You know, I mean we're at one end and it's going to the other. What's the impact on all the other houses as it makes it's way toward the lake? You know we do have a water is a very big deal. I mean we're hearing about it constantly about drainage flows and the things that people do. No problem and then all of a sudden a guy's got a flood coming down and washing out his driveway. So I do think that we do need to look at this a little bit more. I'm, it's just, I would vote in favor of you doing a 3 car garage. I really would, but the way that everything is written and the way the code is, I feel that I have no choice except to vote against that. I would be willing to support the 2 car 29 Planning Commission Meeetg — February 7, 2006 • approach, which you've said you can't live with, and at that point yes. Your alternative is to take this and appeal it to the City Council. The City Council can make those kind of variances and grant those, you know grant what you're looking for. This commission I'm afraid can't do that without further information that we just don't have time to get. At Lake Riley we had requested this and the applicant in that particular case I'm thinking of, withdrew their application so that between city staff and us we could go back and re -work everything. It came out not exactly the way they wanted but I think they got something that was very livable and was better than what they had before. If the applicant wish to do that and negotiate a little bit with city staff and work on those things, we could certainly look at that. Otherwise I'm afraid the only alternative you're going to have is to go up to City Council and ask for other variances there where they can be granted. With that said, does anyone wish to make a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance number 06-04 for a 19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following. Number 1, the applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two stall garage. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #06-04 for a 19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05 % hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two stall garage. All voted in favor except Commissioners Keefe, Larson and Undestad. It was a tied vote of 3 to 3. McDonald: So we have a split, 3-3. Okay, at that point then this needs to go to the City Council and what they can do is resolve the dilemma at that point. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: GATEWAY NORTWGATEWAY PLACE: SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY ZONED PUD-MIXED USE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 101 AND FUTURE 212, CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PLACE, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-05: U City Council Meeting — Fe• ary 27, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can make one motion based upon staff's recommendation in the reports. Do I hear such a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I would make that motion that the City Council approve all the recommendations supported by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following: a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst, Vacation #06-07. b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2'd Addition, Planning Case 06-07. c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. DAVE BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REOUEST FOR A HARD Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located out at Red Cedar Point. It is actually two lots. This is where the actual variance is on, where the existing garage is and I'll show you that in a second. There is existing home on the site and existing single car garage on the north property. The applicant is requesting to receive a variance to add a 3 car garage. The variance involves a front and rear yard setback for the garage, as well as the impervious surface, hard cover. Can you zoom in on that just a little bit Nann? Thank you. So the existing lot with the house on it, I've got the hard surface shown in yellow on this. The gravel driveway in the front, which provides access to the existing dwelling and the garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this on February 7's and recommended, or voted for a 3-3 tie, which is why it's before you tonight. It didn't have a super majority vote. One of the things that the Planning Commission did ask for was some of the surrounding impervious surface coverage in the area, and that was at 29%. This would be at 31%. In looking at the 3 car garage, staff looked at the existing situation regarding the driveway. Could some more hard surface coverage be removed? We also recommended that the lot be combined. I know there was that question regarding whether or not you could combine two lots when the street goes through. You can under the City's code. Under lot, definition of zoning lot you can combine lots and we have no requirements of how that would happen. We have other circumstances in the city of why we would do that. Have it under one ownership so you can sell them off and try to allow somebody, if this was in a separate, it's a lot of record and there is some legal standing for someone should ever get a permit on there. So one of the conditions that you can apply when someone asks for 0 City Council Meeting — Fe(iruary 27, 2006 • variances, things to mitigate that impact and certainly having them under one ownership would be more of the idea would be one thing that we feel would be better than someone else trying to come in and maximizing that lot. So in discussing and looking at this itself and looking at some of the surrounding properties, there is a wide range of lot sizes. If you were to go back, and I know the applicant's concerned. This is a narrower lot with the existing home. There's a wide range of some homes have garages on the lot. Some have homes, garages across the street, so some have 3. Some have 4. And again in this circumstance, going back to what we have for, there is parking convenient. While it's not covered, to the property in itself, and looking at the hard surface coverage, as outlined in your staff report at the tying the two together. The 31°%, they felt that that's exceeding, or it's on the higher end so we recommended against the second stall, or the third stall and just recommended the two. And the Planning Commission struggled with that too, so with that we did put the findings in there. There are, there is a motion for the alternative in your staff report. If you were to approve it. But we believe again that's reasonable use with the 2 car garage. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, a question for you. The issue of combining the two lots is something that I think you said we've done before and in fact I think in this particular area that occurs too where there are individual parcels that public roads cross. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It is defined in the code. You could have, and we have in the city 3 or 4 different lots under separate, that are under one ownership, so it's the lots that are under one ownership combining them. And the purpose of that is if someone doesn't, if it's a lot of record, it has certain legal rights to it and if someone wants to sell it, they may try to come in and try to maximize the building and the circumstance. Building... accessory structure. As it sits today it's an accessory structure on a separate lot which would be in violation of the city code, so again doing as many things as we can to bring it into compliance as part of that mitigation for the variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that's what, condition number 10 does by making it in the same parcel... Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: ... parcel identification number, then it becomes a single lot of record. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And to say that it helps impervious may or may not. Someone might try to put even more on there. Do a single car garage and put a loft above it and then try to make it a dwelling unit. It may end up being something else. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So again if you look at number 11, it's the affidavit of the lot combination and that's, it's a combination lot. It's a zoning lot is different than just a regular lot is defined. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that, would then that create a single parcel? 10 City Council Meeting — Fe• ary 27, 2006 • Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's the right word. Parcel is the right word as opposed to lot. If you look at other definitions of. Mayor Furlong: It would be called a single parcel. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And so if there is any desire to do, to separate them, then they would have to come through the subdivision process. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And that's the hook that you want. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then you mentioned something this evening that I didn't see in the Planning Commission minutes. Maybe it was in there and I missed it, with regard to their drive gravel... Kate Aanenson: Well I think that was a discussion in fairness to Mr. Bangasser that really wasn't talked about at the Planning Commission and that's the fact that there is a lot of hard surface, so if there's a way to try to get a 3 car garage, if the council felt strongly about that, what could you do to improve the amount of hard surface and that would be to remove some of the driveway. I know it provides access to the house for parking, to getting things in and out, but we saw that as an opportunity to again mitigate the amount of hard surface. I don't believe Mr. Bangasser would like to do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess in looking at that, right now if they went with the. Kate Aanenson: Actually if you took the driveway out, which —of the front and I know this is shared portion over here. It will actually get you right about to 25% so it meets code. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it looks like there's a way to do it. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, it's whether or not that that's acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Just one last one Kate. Just so I understand, if we do this as one parcel, then we don't have to go after some kind of easement for the road? Kate Aanenson: No. We have this circumstance if you go up and down Minnewashta Parkway, we have lots on the other side of Minnewashta Parkway. We have other lots in actually the Carver Beach area that also have structures so, no. It is allowed. A zoning lot is allowed by city code. 11 City Council Meeting —February 27, 2006 • Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there's no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here this evening? Like to address the council. Good evening sir. Dave Bangasser: Hello. I'm Dave Bangasser and this is my wife Mary Jo. Our lakeshore property's been in Mary Jo's family for 60 years and as you may be aware, the property was originally platted in 1913, nearly a century ago and as a result of that nearly all of the properties in this area either have variances or some kind of non -conforming use. This past year a hail storm caused severe, came through and caused severe damage to our vehicles, and we're here tonight to try to avoid future damage, as well as minimize outside storage. There's a well known shortage of storage space in this area, and a high amount of exterior storage. City staff has cited multiple property owners for excess storage of boats and trailers and as a result there are many cars parked outside. We would like to store 2 cars and a boat. The key issue here is the definition of a reasonable sized garage and a reasonable amount of impervious surface. We believe the council has already established definitions for both of these issues by recently granting variances for neighbors on either side of us, and that we are well within these definitions. Three years ago the council granted a variance to the Gunthers, our neighbors to the north to build a garage that increased their total to 4 stalls. In reviewing the staff report and the minutes from the council meeting for the Gunther variance, the staff, nor the council questioned whether 4 stalls was reasonable. Further down the point, the council also approved a variance for the addition of a third and fourth stall at 3605 Red Cedar. That's this picture here. At least 7 variances that were listed on the staff report, at least the executive summary that just came out, at least 7 of those variances involved 3 stalls or, 3 or 4 stalls and 3 of those 7 were for properties that were immediately adjacent to our parcel. The staff has stated that the majority of the property owners in the area have 2 stalls and that is the basis for the recommendation for 2 stalls tonight. We disagree with that assessment. This drawing here, the pink areas show properties that have in excess of 2 stalls. 22 of 38 lakeshore property owners have in excess of 2 stalls, which I believe is a majority have more than 2 stalls. The staff in coming up with their numbers is only counting the number of garage doors, not the total storage capacity of the garages. If we look at the properties that are immediately adjacent to our property, two of these properties have the capacity of 5 stalls with 4 doors. And 3 of the properties have capacity of 3 stalls with what's in excess of 30 feet with 2 doors. We own significantly more land than all 3 of the neighbors with 30 foot wide garages. Why restrict us to a smaller garage than they have? Based upon the council's past variances and the existing conditions in the area, we feel that our proposal for a 3 stall garage is well within the definition of reasonable. Concerning the second issue, impervious coverage, 2 years ago the council granted a variance to the Johnson's, our neighbors to the west, for an identical front yard setback and 40% impervious coverage. Three lots further west the council granted a variance for 50% coverage. We have proposed 31. Looking again at the adjacent properties, our proposed 31% coverage is well below the surrounding properties of 40%, 52%, 54%, 35% and 46%. You can see from the drawings, pictures from the road, how much hard cover they have. These figures are somewhat different then what the staff figured in their 29% calculation. The staff had limited information to work with and we believe they're miscalculation of 29% average hard cover is a gross misrepresentation of reality. I could show you many pictures to illustrate my point. However 12 City Council Meeting - Jor ary 27, 2006 • allow me two quick examples. This survey was one of those used by a staff in calculating the 29% average hard cover. They figured the impervious surface for this property at 20.7%, which was the lowest of all that they looked at. If that were true, that would mean that there would be 4 times as much white as pink inside the blue lot area. Clearly this is not the case. The pink area divided by the lot size is 41.4%, exactly twice what the staff figured. Also the staff does not count sidewalks, rock, or the roof over the main entrance off to the side of the house. They have to walk around the garage to get to their entry. In fact I listed all of the staffs surveys, in many cases they excluded sidewalks, patios, and rock. Our second example involves the Johnson variance granted at 40%. However the staff used 31 % in determining their calculation of 29% average cover. Tom and Jackie are doing the majority of the work themselves and simply have not finished their project. Nobody called them to ask if they were done, and yet the 31 % was used. With the inaccuracies I just described, it's easy to see how the 29% average becomes skewed dramatically. If we use the staffs method calculating only footprint and driveway, our proposed 3 1 % coverage would be reduced to 20%, which would be lower than any of those that the property, that the staff looked at. We purchased this back lot 4 years ago in order to mitigate these types of issues, which we believe the council encourages. Our goal was to transfer density from the lake lot to the back lot, which we believe is also a desirable goal. The neighborhood supports this plan and would rather see a well designed garage than outside storage. The 3 closest neighbors have taken the time to write letters of support which I believe Kate handed out right at the start of the meeting. Kate mentioned the existing driveway which was brought up about 3:00 this afternoon. The possibility of giving up the existing gravel driveway in order for staff to support this. We did consider that possibility. However I need to make you aware of some facts. The entrance to the house is 9 feet above the road, and I'll take back the survey that Kate... It may be difficult to show all the detail but there's 9 feet of grade change between the road and the front door, and you'll notice there's a retaining wall basically all along the road, except right at the driveway, and that retaining wall curves as it approaches the driveway. With 9 feet of grade change, that's a very steep driveway. In fact the curve is there because you can't go straight up that driveway without bottoming out in a normal vehicle. You have to take that curve and get a little bit of run at it to get up that relatively steep portion in order to get up into a flatter area in which to park and get out of the vehicle. With that steep grade it's very difficult to provide access. It's difficult for people to walk up the elderly, the handicap. We had a handicap daughter in a wheelchair that could not have made this. There's been other times when we've had people in wheelchairs that had a difficult time getting up that driveway. In fact, Mary Jo's uncle lived next door in the property to the east, basically on the other side of the house. Lived there for many years and in his elderly years he used to park in this driveway because it was easier for him to get across and into his house from there, then to park in that shared area where there's a stairs and get up. We have no stairs. The stairs belongs to our neighbors. In addition the access issue, we also think we need to be able to drop things off that are closer to the house. The new driveway that we're proposing with the 3 stall garage is approximately 140 feet from the front door. It's a long ways to travel if you're trying to carry groceries or whatever. At some point we hope to be able to improve the access to try to deal with that 9 feet. I don't know exactly how we'll deal with that but at some point we hope to be able to deal with the access and when we do deal with that, we are willing to give up the gravel driveway and put sod there, but it's not something we can do at this time. We did, as Kate mentioned, that they were trying to find ways to mitigate and, mitigate the situation. We are open to that. We have proposed to staff providing a permeable pavement design. It's a design, there's a number of alternatives. 13 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 Ecostone is one of them. The Minnesota DNR endorses the use of permeable design. The Landscape Arboretum has a demonstration installation of this, and both the cities of Mound and Minnetonka accept permeable pavement as an acceptable solution. With that, before I close, do you have any questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? No? Alright, very good. Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: You bet. Ms. Aanenson, any I guess quick response in terms of some of the information that he provided. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the nexus that we're looking at is between, it's hard when you segment it, the variances and on every variance that we do, we always try to find mitigation, so that was a component that was left out in each of these. Sometimes we achieved a greater setback from the lake, so we would have to go back through and find out, and that's a key component that was missing because each one we try to put, is there something else that we can achieve by giving here. Is there something else that we're gaining? Maybe it was lakescape or maybe it was a reduction of a non -conforming setback so that component was left out by this part. We just did follow through what the Planning Commission had asked us to do. Again, I'm not going to argue the percentages. There might have been a few that were off, but I don't think in generalities, if you want to talk about the Johnson's. That lot's a lot bigger. They also took down the existing structure and made sight tines better, so again we look at each case individually as you're supposed to on a variance request. As we did on this one, we said is there other things that we can do to try to get, making the situation better. So in this circumstance they're saying well, we added more pervious but what did we do to make the situation better? And that's what we're trying to find. That area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: The only other one Kate was the question of 3 stalls versus 2. It's not a stall issue... Kate Aanenson: Exactly, thank you. It's not a stall issue. If you could get 4 on there, great. That's not the issue. We didn't look at it to say it was a hard surface coverage issue. That was really the nexus to say, that third stall is what pushed over the impervious. This is already over so we said okay, well two is reasonable. And if we weren't so far over on the impervious, or we could get some better setbacks or something else that we could compromise or find some mitigation to say well we got something back to improve the lake, maybe we would have gone that way but it wasn't because we always felt 2 was what we should get. It's the hard surface coverage. And that number we cast the difference between the 2 and the 3 and... Mayor Furlong: And I guess a clarifying question there, the alternative motion includes a 2.28% hard surface coverage variance, which was some estimate with regard to what the. 14 City Council Meeting — Fesruary 27, 2006 • Kate Aanenson: The third stall I believe. Mayor Furlong: Or the difference between what was being requested and that number was the third stall. Or in the area. Councilman Peterson: ... 31 and we're recommending 27. Mayor Furlong: As the alternative. Kate Aanenson: Right, so that would give you the additional, yeah. Councilwoman Tjomhom: In the Planning Commission minutes of their meeting, and I read the notes and watched the meeting actually, some of the commissioners you know were having, were struggling because they're were saying water runoff would be going different directions. What do you say about that? The fact that you know, some, the house, the runoff from the house would be going down to the lake, but with the garage it'd be going an entirely different direction. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't know if that's actually going to make a difference because the house itself which is adjacent to the lake isn't changing. It's just what's behind. I mean we could put gutters on the garage and mitigate that so I'm not sure that that was really. The Chairman of the Planning Commission's here if you wanted to ask him to kind of summarize, if you had any questions for him, I'd be happy to. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, given the topography I guess my question is even if it starts out on the triangle piece where the garage is now to the west, it's going to north or south. Todd Gerhardt: It's going to make it's way to the lake. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then just the one other comment. You know when we talked about the driveway, I certainly recognize that that's a good access to the house. Nobody can dispute that. I guess our concern was that, you know if you went with a 3 car garage, what would be the ... that there still would be storage there for convenience sake to park next to the house and if the goal is to get 3, then could you get a commitment that they're going to be outdoor storage. Or some parking out there, you know because that would be the goal, as I understood for the 3, the boat and 2 cars, would there not be storage or parking that's occurring now. Councilman Peterson: If we got that though, how enforceable is it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, exactly. That'd be a good will or good faith. Mayor Furlong: That's the challenge. Okay. Alright, well let's bring it to the council for discussion then. Thoughts or comments. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I still have one more question. 15 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjomhom: How does the applicant feel about the proposal of a 2 stall garage? Kate Aanenson: They want the 3. Councilwoman Tjomhom: They don't want to compromise. Kate Aanenson: They would like 3, certainly. Dave Bangasser: Well what's the definition? You're talking... what's the definition of a 2 stall. I don't know what that is. I mean one, if we go down to a 2 stall garage, you're just encouraging us to have, almost forcing us to store outside, and so are we flexible? Yes, to a point but we've got to be realistic too. There are certain storage needs. We live on a lake. You've got boats. You've got other you know water toys, what not. Why not put it inside? That's what the neighborhood wants. The neighborhood wants us to put it inside and not have all this storage outside. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Council members, discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist A tough one, as Mr. Bangasser was giving his presentation, which was very well done. Obviously I always try to strive to be fair and reasonable to everyone. But the, the thing that keeps striking me is that for exactly the same reason why the neighborhood may be higher is precisely why you should try to limit it whenever possible because, just because everybody else has a 50% hard cover variance, you know that's essentially why you want to try to minimize when possible. The thing that strikes me with the lateness of the, talk about the driveway and other things is, is I would be okay to considering it a 2 week delay to allow staff to work on that a little bit more rather than you know after 3:00 thing, unless the Bangasser's have a construction deadline they're trying to meet or something like that, to at least give that some due. If it comes back that it doesn't work, then you know that's fine. At least we tried. To mitigate that, so I guess I'd like to explore that a little bit more. At the end of the day I think there's some give and take. I'd be interested to see what the other members, I think I'm still on the fence here. If I had to make a decision tonight, I'm not sure so I'd like to explore that driveway piece a little bit more potentially. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I too would be willing to give them an extra 2 weeks to work things out and figure out a more creative way to handle it. But it's a hard thing to decide on. I guess the whole issue is the hard surface coverage and, what I'm confused about is, obviously 2 stalls are better than 1. 3 is even better than 2, I understand that but during the season, and maybe I'm wrong about this but usually your boats and your jetskis are up on the dock or they're not in the garage, so that's when you can park your cars in the garage when you're using your lake home. During the winter, when the season is over, that's when you put your boats in the garage and you 16 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • don't need to be too worried about protecting your cars as much. So that's the argument I have that they still would have reasonable use of a 2 stall garage and you wouldn't necessarily have to be storing things out in their lot, so I'd like to see the 2 week, 2 weeks to kind of hammer things out. If they... otherwise I think I'm more inclined to vote in favor of staffs recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah this is all about keeping the lake as clean as possible. I think we kind of lose sight of that on occasion. And the variances that were cited this evening, as Kate reinforced, you don't want to, I hate to say we negotiated something for the betterment of the lake but that's essentially what we've done in those other cases. Where those variances and the impervious surfaces might be higher, we did get, we did better the lake making those decisions. And in this case I'm struggling with the thought that we're bettering the lake by making that decision. And that's what I'm struggling with. I quite frankly don't know what 2 weeks will do, but I'm certainly willing to do that and I think if there's something creative that we haven't found, I'm certainly amenable to affording the opportunity to search for that but you know I just come back to what's the lake getting here, and without being overly punitive to our residents but you know I don't like the feeling of horse trading here but I don't know a different alternative to maintaining the lake so, I'll struggle with that so. I would look to staff to see if it would benefit by a 2 week delay. If not, I'm ready to vote on it tonight. Mayor Furlong: I guess my thoughts are similar in that each time we receive these requests you look to see what else can be done to avoid providing a hard surface coverage variance. I never enjoy approving these because it's a storm water runoff issue, especially for properties this close to any of our lakes. It's important. I think here there's an opportunity, because the property owner owns property and the intensification here is further away from the lakeshore than it would be near the lakeshore. That's good when we can do that, but it is an intensification. It's whether they go from 1 to 2 or 1 to 3, they're going and having driven by there, the one that's there now is not a very large one so whatever they do with is going to be an intensification. ...that there's an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that they're looking for, by talking about number of stalls, and with other mitigation across the combined parcel or the two parcels becoming one, and not, and be in a situation where we don't have to provide a hard surface variance coverage at all, I think we should pursue that. If that's 2 weeks, if that's longer, just looking at the staff report, the application was received January 0, so that tells me if we've got 60 days plus another 60, if that counts here, we've got time. But I would not be inclined tonight to approve either of these given that there may be an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that he's talking about and avoid a hard surface coverage variance at all. And so I would be hesitant going forward tonight. I'd like to, for reasons that some of you stated, Councilman Peterson I think in particular, where's the advantage here? Of the examples that were mentioned that I was involved in, I know that there was mitigation as well. That driveways were taken out or reduced or there were setbacks from the lake that didn't exist before that we increased. There were changes to it and here it is, it's an expansion and so, while I believe there's an opportunity here to provide the inside storage that the applicant's looking for, I don't know that we're there yet and I'd like to spend some time to find a way to work together with staff and the applicant to see what they can do to even eliminate the need for hard surface coverage at all across the two parcels. That would be my 17 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • recommendation because knowing that that might be out there, I couldn't see moving forward with either of these two this evening. Other thoughts or are people consistent with that or is there? Councilman Peterson: Well I mean Kate, do you think that there's value in getting you guys some time to continue pursuing or do you think? Kate Aanenson: Yes, be happy to meet with Mr. Bangasser. Come up with some other solutions. Mayor Furlong: With the extent that we've got some newer information, let's dig into it and let's make sure that everybody understands what's available and maybe there's an opportunity here. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the request for hard surface coverage and two front yard setback variances to construct a 3 stall garage at 3633 South Cedar Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE, NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF 1 OUTLOT AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I have a few exhibits here. This is the subject site. We talked about this most recently in your work session. The new 101/212, so this application includes a couple of things. One, the subdivision. Creating a parcel, a lot for this to be built on. And then also site plan approval with a variance. In your staff report we went through the history of this property, this area in itself. We did a PUD for the entire piece. Again the property's actually on both sides of the new 212. The property that we're talking about specifically is this piece right here with the apartment building. When we did this PUD it was always anticipated that that would be apartment building. On the property immediately to the west will come in at a future date. This property right here is being built by the Sand Company. As I indicated, this will be the one lot that will be built on. It's, the building itself will be 47 units and will include multifamily, excuse me. 48 apartments and will include 2 and 3 bedroom units. In the architecture itself, where we looked at putting this again, while we looked at the apartment building in this location, the fact that it's close to the park and ride we felt had a lot of benefits. A nice transition as you come from the 101. Easy access. Some of the issues that we changed in the staff report, which I know the applicants have some disdain with is the sidewalk being built 1 0 _L CITY OF CIIANNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 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.cha ihassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I o� DATE: February 27, 2006 SUBJ: Dave Bargasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser Variance Planning Case #06-04 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance (double frontage lot) and a 6.05% (31.05%) hard surface coverage variance, to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage on a nonconforming corner lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive (3633 South Cedar). ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 7, 2006, to review the proposed development. Planning Commission voted in a 3-3 tie, thus, with no recommendation. Planning Commission did advise staff to survey City files for the Red Cedar Point neighborhood to estimate the average impervious surface coverage in the area. The finding of the survey was 29% for impervious surface and is attached along with a history of variances granted by the City on Red Cedar Point. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the revised motion approving a variance for a two - stall garage as specified on pages 9 & 10 of the staff report dated February 7, 2006. ATTACHMENTS 1. Survey Results. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 7, 2006. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 2006. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser variance\executive su ary.dm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A neat place to live, work, and play. • HARD SURFACE COVERAGE SURVEY In review of City building files for properties located on Red Cedar Point staff found 16 properties with updated registered land surveys. Hard surface coverage for these properties were calculated and averaged. The average hard surface coverage for the 16 lots is 29.05%. The highest hard surface coverage found was 50% and the lowest was 20.7%. RED CEDAR POINT VARIANCE HISTORY Address Variance File Number Variance 19.3-foot front yard setback, 6.2-foot lakeshore 3637 South setback and a 15% hard surface coverage Cedar Drive 04 07 variance (built to 31.66%) for the expansion of a single-family home 3628 Hickory 13-foot front yard setback, 2-foot front yard Road 02-5 setback and 5-foot side yard setback variances for the construction of a garage. 7201 Juniper 11.5-foot front yard variance for the construction Avenue 98 7 of a home addition 3705 South Two Moot side yard setback variances, a 31-foot Cedar Drive 96-4 Lakeshore setback variance and a 25 % hard surface coverage variance. 3618 Red Cedar 93-6 15-foot lakeshore and 8-foot side yard setback Point Road variances for the construction of a porch and deck 3841 Red Cedar 2-foot side yard setback variance for the Point Road 93-3 construction of a two -stall garage 1.5-foot side yard and 14.5-foot lakeshore setback 92-1 variances for the construction of an attached two - car garage 3607 Red Cedar Point Road 7.5-foot Lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a deck and a 13.5-foot Lakeshore 81-8 setback variance for the construction of a 6' x 6' stairway landing pad 3727 South 79-foot lot frontage variance for the construction Cedar Drive 91 4 of a single-family home 3605 Red Cedar 4-foot & 2-foot side yard setback variances and a Point Road 88-11 26-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a garage and home addition 3725 South 12-foot front yard, Moot side yard, 40-foot lot Cedar Drive - 8715 width and 13, 000 sq. ft. lot area variances • 0 3629 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard setback and two Moot side yard Point Road 87-13 setback variances for the demolition of an existing cabin and the construction of a new home 3601 Red Cedar 45-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 87 10 construction of a single-family home 3701 South 5-foot front yard and 35-foot lakeshore setback Cedar Drive 85-27 variances for the construction of a single-family home 3713 South 15-foor front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive 85 26 construction of a two -stall garage 3624 Red Cedar 4.8-foot side yard and 1.8-foot front yard setback Point Road 85-20 variances for the construction of a garage 3707 South 20-foot front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive 84 18 construction of a garage 3613 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard, 2-foot side yard and Moot Point Road 83-05 lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single-family home Two 2-foot side yard, 50-foot lot width and 33- 3732 Hickory 82-12 foot lakeshore setback variances for the Road construction of a single-family home 3607 Red Cedar 13.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 81-08 construction of a deck CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC D)&: February 7, 2006 [3] CC DATE: February 27, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 5, 2006 CASE #: 06-04 BY: Metzer, et al PROPOSAL: Request for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance (double frontage lot) and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an existing one -stall garage and construct a three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive. (All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure) LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3633 South Cedar Gvht APPLICANT: Dave Bangasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one -stall existing garage and build a three -stall garage on a nonconforming comer lot of record. The proposed garage will require front yard setback variances of 19.61 and 19.8 feet from the minimum 30-foot front yard setback requirement and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum impervious surface restriction. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 0 Location Map Bangasser Variance Request Planning Case No. 06-04 3633 South Cedar City of Chanhassen Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta SCANNED Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 2 of 10 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and is located on Lake Minnewashta's Red Cedar Point at the southwest comer of the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive, and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting front yard setback variances of 19.61 feet (north property line) and 19.8 feet (south property line) from the required 30-foot minirnrmr front yard setback requirement and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% impervious surface restriction for the construction of a three -stall garage. The zoning ordinance states that eaves may not encroach into the required setback if a variance is granted. Therefore, all setback distances for variance consideration will be measured from the eaves of the structure while the foundation is recessed 1.5 feet from the eaves. Staff is recommending denial of this variance request because the applicant is proposing the construction of a three -stall garage which is one stall more than that which is required by City Code. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side yards, 10 feet. Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions (variances granted from a required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments): a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, comices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two feet, six inches; Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: (c) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction, or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 3 of 10 removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within 12 months. Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: d. A two -car garage must be provided with the single-family structure. BACKGROUND The existing garage that the applicant is proposing to demolish has nonconforming setbacks of 11.89 feet to the north property line and 11.7 feet to the south property line. The subject property was platted as part of the Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Subdivision which was recorded on August 30, 1913. Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 4 of 10 Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 (subject property) are both owned by the applicant but are separated by South Cedar Drive and have separate Parcel Identification Numbers (PID). Both properties are nonconforming lots of record in that they do not meet minimum lot size requirements, Lot 16 does not meet lot frontage requirements, and Lot I does not meet lot depth requirements and contains an accessory structure without a principal structure. ANALYSIS Lot 16, Block 4 is a riparian lot and contains a single-family home. Lot 4, Block 5, the subject property, contains an accessory structure without a principal structure. City Code does not permit an accessory use without a principal use; therefore, if the variance is granted staff is recommending that Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 be combined under one PID number and an affidavit be recorded stating that the two lots may not be sold separately, thus eliminating the accessory use without a principal use situation. Because the lots will need to be combined, the hard cover percentage must be combined as well. Due to the proposal for additional hard cover it becomes necessary for the applicant to request a hard cover variance also. The existing garage is 254.31 square feet in area and has nonconforming front yard setbacks of 11.89 feet from Red Cedar Point Road and 11.7 feet from South Cedar Drive. The proposed garage will not be located any closer to front property lines than the existing garage but will increase the area of garage located within front yard setbacks. The proposed garage has an area of 871.31 square feet which is under the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure maximum for the RSF district. The requested three -stall garage is proposed to be located outside the comer sight triangle of the Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive intersection. Ordinance Existing Proposed Detached Accessory 1,000 sq. ft. 254.31 sq. ft. 871.31 sq. ft. Structure Area (RSF) maximum Setback from Red Cedar 30' 10.39' 10.39' Point Road Setback from South Cedar 30' 10.2' 10.2' Drive Hard Surface Coverage 25% 3.72% 19.7% Lot 1, Block 5 Hard Surface Coverage 25% 43.4% 43.4% Lot 16, Block 4 Hard Surface Coverage 25% 22.73% 31.05% 1, B5 & L16, B4 combined Distance from Oak N/A l It 3' The subject property is 7,920 square feet in area and has a hard cover percentage of 3.72%, and Lot 16, Block 4 has an area of 7,276 square feet and a hard cover of 43.4%. The hard cover percentage for Lot 16 is so high due to its relatively small area. Also the lot was platted in 1913 and all improvements on the property were constructed before current regulations existed. The existing Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 5 of 10 combined hard cover of the two lots is 22.73%. With the applicant's current request for a three -stall garage, and a driveway sufficient in size to accommodate it, the hard cover percentage would rise to 19.7% on the subject property and 31.05% on the two lots combined. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two -car garage. The subject property combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one -stall garage. Because the property currently cannot be put to reasonable use due to the lack of a two -stall garage, staff would be willing to recommend approval of a variance granting the construction of a two -stall garage and any increase in hard surface coverage necessary to serve the garage. If the applicant were to build a two -stall garage rather than the requested three -stall garage, staff estimates the total hard cover for the two lots would be 27.28%; therefore, a hard surface coverage variance of 2.28% would be necessary. The subject property has a buildable area of 808.5 square feet; however, due to the shape of the lot, the buildable area is triangular which would make it difficult to locate a two -stall garage on the property without a setback variance. The applicant considered rebuilding the garage further into the buildable area of the lot but chose not to because he wanted to limit the visual obstructions imposed on neighboring properties that the proposed changes would bring. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. That review found the following cases. Address Variance File Number Variance 13-foot front yard setback, 2-foot front yard 3628 Hickory 02-5 setback and 5-foot side yard setback variances for Road the construction of a garage. 7201 Juniper 98-7 11.5-foot front yard variance for the construction Avenue of a home addition 84-2 3705 South Two 7-foot side yard setback variances, a 31-foot Cedar Drive 96-4 lakeshore setback variance and a hard surface coverage variance. 3618 Red Cedar 15-foot lakeshore and 8-foot side yard setback Point Road 93-6 variances for the construction of a porch and deck 1.5-foot side yard and 14.5-foot lakeshore setback 92-1 variances for the construction of an attached two - car garage 3607 Red Cedar Point Road 7.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a deck and a 13.5-foot lakeshore 81-8 setback variance for the construction of a 6' x 6' stairway landing ad 3629 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard setback and two 3-foot side yard Point Road 87-13 setback variances for the demolition of an existing cabin and the construction of a new home C] Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 6 of 10 It is worth noting that due to the age of the Red Cedar Point neighborhood, most structures were built long before current regulations existed and thus have nonconforming front, side and lakeshore setbacks. GRADING & STREETS The site currently sheet drains to the west. The proposed garage will require some grading to achieve the 958 floor elevation. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. It appears that the site grading will not require the removal of any significant trees, as identified on the plan. Staff anticipates that the streets in this area will need to be reconstructed within the next five years. Reconstruction projects within older areas such as this are challenging because, typically, the right-of-way widths are substandard. The existing right-of-way for Red Cedar Point Road and Cedar Drive South is 30 feet. The current minimum right-of-way requirement for a local street is 60 feet. The applicant does not propose to construct the garage any closer to the right-of-way than the existing garage; therefore should the City obtain additional right-of-way/roadway easement with a reconstruction project, the proposed garage would not further encumber the right-of- way/roadway easement. TREE PRESERVATION There are three mature trees near the existing garage structure located at 3633 South Cedar Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a three -stall garage. Of the three nearby trees, two of them should remain unaffected by the construction. The third tree, a 28" red oak, is located along South Cedar Drive between the street and the proposed addition. After construction, the base of the tree would be approximately nine feet from the base of the garage wall. This situation is very similar to variance granted for the construction of a garage at 3628 Hickory Road. There the garage addition was located within f 10 feet of a large (29" DBH) oak tree. The following advisory statements were made about that tree and also apply to the oak at 3633 South Cedar Drive: Construction damage to trees depends on three variables: the extent of the construction activities, the species of tree, and the plant's health. To build the garage, compaction and minor excavation (6 —12 inches deep) within 1'h feet of the tree's trunk is necessary. Red oaks are tolerant of root severance, but sensitive to root compaction meaning that this activity can cause damage to the tree. The proposed garage will be built upon approximately 50% of the tree's root Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 7 of 10 area. The tree's health, good to fair, will help to alleviate the impact, but the fact that the construction will be extremely close to the trunk of the tree increases the risk of damage. The timing of the construction is also important. During the growing season when moisture and nutrient requirements for the tree are at their greatest, a major disruption of the root area will have a negative effect on the tree. To protect the tree during construction, the following practices will be necessary: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. • To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. • Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. • The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. • No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. • Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. The tree is an excellent specimen and adds value to the property. If the homeowner is committed to preserving the tree, the above -mentioned measures will help to ensure the future health and longevity of the tree. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two -car garage. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary. The subject property combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one - stall garage. Because the property currently cannot be put to reasonable use due to the lack of a two -stall garage, staff would be willing to recommend approval of a variance granting the construction of a two -stall garage. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a three -stall garage. This would leave the property with a three -stall garage; one stall more than that which is required for reasonable use. Therefore, staff must recommend denial of this request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 8 of 10 a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By proposing the construction of a three -stall garage rather than a two -stall garage, the applicant's request exceeds that which City Code defines as a reasonable use of the property. A two -stall garage, which is required by code, is reasonable. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed development will increase the value of the property. However, construction of a two -stall garage would bring the property into compliance with City Code. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created because the applicant is requesting a three - stall garage rather than a two -stall garage. A two -stall garage is required by City Code. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance for a three -stall garage would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the proposed increase in hard surface coverage. The granting of a variance for a two -stall garage would be necessary to bring the site into compliance with City Code. 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 fine or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed three -stall garage may impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The construction of a two -car garage would minimize such impacts. 0 Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 9 of 10 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #06-04 for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a three -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two -stall garage." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance for a two -stall garage, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #06-04 for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.28% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a two -stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 — 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. Bangasser Variance Planning Case No. 06-04 February 7, 2006 Page 10 of 10 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Dave Bangasser stamped "Received January, 4, 2006". 4. Registered Land Survey. 5. Building Plans and Elevations. 6. Photos of Subject Property. 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser varim=\staff report.dm • HARD SURFACE COVERAGE SURVEY In review of City building files for properties located on Red Cedar Point staff found 16 properties with updated registered land surveys. Hard surface coverage for these properties were calculated and averaged. The average hard surface coverage for the 16 lots is 29.05%. The highest hard surface coverage found was 50% and the lowest was 20.7%. RED CEDAR POINT VARIANCE HISTORY Address Variance File Number Variance 19.3-foot front yard setback, 6.2-foot lakeshore 3637 South setback and a 15% hard surface coverage Cedar Drive 04 07 variance (built to 31.66%) for the expansion of a single-family home 3628 Hickory 13-foot front yard setback, 2-foot front yard Road 02-5 setback and 5-foot side yard setback variances for the construction of a garage. 7201 Juniper 98 7 11.5-foot front yard variance for the construction Avenue of a home addition 3705 South Two 7-foot side yard setback variances, a 31-foot Cedar Drive 96-4 lakeshore setback variance and a 25% hard surface coverage variance. 3618 Red Cedar 15-foot lakeshore and 8-foot side yard setback Point Road 93 6 variances for the construction of a porch and deck 3841 Red Cedar 2-foot side yard setback variance for the Point Road 93 3 construction of a two -stall garage 1.5-foot side yard and 14.5-foot lakeshore setback 92-1 variances for the construction of an attached two - car garage 3607 Red Cedar Point Road 7.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a deck and a 13.5-foot lakeshore 81-8 setback variance for the construction of a 6' x 6' stairway landing pad 3727 South 79-foot lot frontage variance for the construction Cedar Drive 91-4 of a single-family home 3605 Red Cedar 4-foot & 2-foot side yard setback variances and a Point Road 88-11 26-foot lakeshore setback variance for the construction of a garage and home addition 3725 South 87-15 12-foot front yard, Moot side yard, 40-foot lot Cedar Drive width and 13, 000 sq. ft. lot area variances v • • 3629 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard setback and two Moot side yard Point Road 87-13 setback variances for the demolition of an existing cabin and the construction of a new home 3601 Red Cedar 45-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 87 10 construction of a single-family home 3701 South Moot front yard and 35-foot lakeshore setback Cedar Drive 85-27 variances for the construction of a single-family home 3713 South 15-foor front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive 85 26 construction of a two -stall garage 3624 Red Cedar 4.8-foot side yard and 1.8-foot front yard setback Point Road 85 20 variances for the construction of a garage 3707 South 20-foot front yard setback variance for the Cedar Drive 84 18 construction of a garage 3613 Red Cedar 12-foot front yard, 2-foot side yard and Moot Point Road 83-05 lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single-family home 3732 Hickory Two 2-foot side yard, 50-foot lot width and 33- Road 82-12 foot lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single-family home 3607 Red Cedar 13.5-foot lakeshore setback variance for the Point Road 81 08 construction of a deck Aanenson, Kate From: Tom Furlong [tfurlong@apexfsi.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:32 PM To: Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: February 27, 2006, City Council meeting, New Business: Bangasser variance Tom Furlong (952) 238-1315 -----Original Message ----- From: paulseng@juno.com [mailto:paulseng@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; slabatt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; blundquist@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; cpeterson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: February 27, 2006, City Council meeting, New Business: Bangasser variance Dear Mayor and Councilors: According to city code a lot cannot be divided by a street: Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions. Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private street, which has been established by plat, metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, and which is occupied by or intended to be developed for and occupied by a principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are designed and arranged or required by chapter 20 for such building, use or development. Staff proposes to join together two lots separated by a public street (for the purpose of providing more impervious surface.) Combining these two lots is prohibited by city code. Neither staff nor the planning commission addressed this issue as I had requested in the public hearing. This proposal would set a bad precedence. Because both these nonconforming lots are in Shoreland and if combined would make one riparian lot a still more serious precedence would be established. Where would this end? Hypothetically, lots separated by a greater distance could be combined. Respectfully, Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 934-7032 Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month! Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage. Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today! 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1-2 Lot line, side means any lot line other than a front or rear lot line. Aside lot line separating a lot from a street is a side street lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from another lot or lots is an interior side lot line. (20) Lot, nonconforming, see Nonconforming lot. (20) Lot, parking, see Parking lot. Lot of record means any legally recorded lot which at the time of its recordation complied with all applicable laws and ordinances. (20) Lot, riparian means any lot abutting the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or wetland. (20) Lot width means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. (20) ,.Lot, zoning; means a single tract of land which consists of one or more lots of record and which, at the time of filing for a building permit, is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a separate unit under single ownership or control. A zoning lot may or may not coincide with a single lot of record, but in no case shall a zoning lot include only a portion of a lot of record. (20) Low profile business Sign, ground, see Sign, ground low profile business. Manufactured dwelling see Dwelling, manufactured. Marquee sign see sign, Marquee. May not, shall not. "May not,' 'shall not,' and similar phrases have a mandatory negative effect and state a prohibition. (1) May. The word "may" is to be construed as being permissive. (1) Medium texture shall mean the USDA classification's sandy loam, silt, silt loam, and sandy clay loam. Fine texture is USDA classification's clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay. (19) Menu board sign see Sign, menu board. Merchant, transient see T-ansient merchant. Mineral extraction see Excavation or mining. Mining or excavation see Excavation or mining. Mini -warehouse means a building or group of buildings in a controlled -access, screened and secured fenced compound that contains varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled -access storage spaces of varying sizes which are leased or rented on an individual basis. (20) Minor street means a street of limited continuity which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. (18) (20) CD1:29 Received via email February 13, 2006: Good Afternoon Mr. Metzer, My name is Peter Plucinak and 1 live a 3631 South Cedar Drive. I am writing regarding the variance proposed by Dave and Mary Joe Bangasser to build a new garage at 3633 South Cedar Drive. As you can see the Bangasser's are our neighbors; I have reviewed with Dave his garage proposal and am very comfortable with his plans and how it will look in our neighborhood. As you know the property for the proposed garage is on an adjacent parcel and will in no way effect the aesthetic value of our home or those homes around us. The Bangasser's have been on the lake for a long time and have always worked to improve the property; I feel the garage will be consistent with those property improvements. Thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Pete Plucinak 474-6183 Received via email January 31, 2006: Hi Josh, I wanted to send a note of support for Dave Bangasser's variance requests due to come before the Planning Commission on February 71". I live in one of the houses that will directly view Dave's structure. I am aware of the situation he has with the property in question and have reviewed Dave's proposal with him. I request that Dave's proposal be supported and his requests for variance be approved. Thanks very much Steve Gunther 3628 Hickory Road Chanhassen (Excelsior) MN 612.859.3729 (cell) Received via email January 31, 2006: Josh, This email is in reference to the proposed 3 car garage project that Dave and Mary Jo Bangasser are planning to put up directly across the street from our home at 3637 South Cedar Drive. Since the project is directly in front of our house Dave has been in contact with us since the beginning of his planning. I think the project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and am in full support of what they would like to build. Since I will be out of town for the planning commission meeting next Tuesday, I wanted to email you with my support of the project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Thanks, Tom Johnson VP of Operations Viking Collection Service, Inc. 800-745-5504 :CANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: January 9, 2006 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: DAVE BANGASSER: Request for two front -yard setback Variances for the construction of a three - stall garage on property located at 3633 South Cedar. Planning Case: 06-04 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on January 4, 2006. The 60-day review period ends March 5, 2006. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than January 27, 2006. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Mmnebaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint(United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other - F- Carver County GIS Mapping Application Legend IYMTot RM/wrg W N I Map Created on: cu m 1-9-2006 ww Carver PNOW County �rwrrrsn This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. 9 40 z 0 0 m w 90 J C N 0 11 • City Council Meeting —M13, 2006 • o(a-oq forward to seeing the report come back. We're pleased to see the highlights and the number of areas where we made progress this year. I'm sure to Councilman Lundquist's standpoint, we're not going to see any motors being rebuilt in the CIP, or at least hope that we're not as a way to reduce our oil discharge. And I'm sure that's not the case, but to the city staff we thank you for all your efforts on this and we look forward to seeing that report come back in June. Thank you. Any other, to my knowledge there is no action required for the council this evening, other than what we've completed. Lori Haak: No, that's all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Lori Haak: Thank you. DAVE & MARY. O BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A 22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK CORNER LOT OF RECORD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again you did look at this at your last meeting on February 27 b and you asked the staff to work with the applicant to see what we could do to reduce the hard surface coverage. Just a reminder, the two lots on Minnewashta will, one of the conditions we're doing is combining those so they have one lot of record, which we believe is prudent. So that's one mitigation strategy would be to combine the two lots. And then in working with the applicant, the issue was the garage across the street. The original proposal had the garage coming out Red Cedar Point Road, and a three car garage. In working with the applicant, we reduced the hard surface coverage and the garage size itself so it's a modified three car garage. There will be two door and the actual access will be off of, so we reduce the hard surface coverage on the driveway itself. So if you look in the staff report, we went from the 31.5 down to the 27, so ultimately again looking at the other side where the house sits with the grades and the retaining walls and the driveway that they used to get to the house, it seemed at this point ultimately there's changes we would look at trying to reduce that. They do do some shared parking with the neighbor next door that we believe this is the best way to get those numbers down and did recommend approval of that. And those conditions of approval are found in, on page 10 of your staff report. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, you feel like as you've worked through this in the last couple or three weeks that this is a good compromise? It looks like we've made some significant improvements here and the applicant's supportive of it and gets them at least closer to what they're looking for? i SCAM" City Council Meeting —March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think the goal was to get a garage that they can put you know more than a single garage, which is there in place, which was their goal, and because of the topography next to the house, so I think in good faith the goal's always to try, as we stated before with the variances that we try to get those movement towards compliance and we believe this was what they... Councilman Lundquist: And this leaves the driveway and the stairs. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Next to the house so that they can get to the house without having to build some stairs and all that? Kate Aanenson: Right. That became too complex and ultimately they made the other modifications we looked at making some changes at that time. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So everything around the house stays the same. The only changes are around the garage. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bangasser, Mrs. Bangasser, are you in agreement with the proposal here or is there anything you'd like to address council with? Dave Bangasser: I'll be real brief. We are, we do find the compromise acceptable. Of the 7 I just might point out one fact. Of the 7 properties in the immediate area, this reduced plan would be the second smallest garage and we have the second largest amount of land there, so we do think that that fact, along with the facts that we presented 2 weeks ago make it very clear that we aren't deviating from the established standards for the neighborhood. We do think there are a couple of positives as far as from the city standpoint, as Kate mentioned. We're combining two non -conforming lots into one lot that does conform to the minimum lot size. In addition currently don't have a garage that meets the minimum standards and we will have one that meets that standard so with that we just ask your approval of this revised plat and we thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions of Mr. Bangasser? Very good. Thank you for taking the time over the last week, or couple weeks to work with staff on this. We appreciate it. Any other items? Questions on this. I'm sorry. Councilman Lundquist: Did you want to ask for more comment on the. Mayor Furlong: Public comment? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. OS/HNR ^x 29 City Council Meeting —M• 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Certainly, if there's a desire for public comment. If anybody in the public would like to provide comment on this. Mrs. Paulsen, did you want to, have a question. Raise a comment. Janet Paulsen: I'm Janet Paulsen again. I certainly support Mr. Bangasser's request for a larger garage. That's not my question. My question is combining the lots and their impervious surfaces, and I'm wondering what are the parameters of doing something like that. Mayor Furlong: For combining two lots into one? Janet Paulsen: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is that a legal question? Kate Aanenson: I believe we addressed that last time too. It's a zoning lot so even though it is allowed by ordinances to combine the two, and we believe that it's prudent therefore, obviously Mr. Bangasser bought this lot. Somebody else could buy it and not attach to it. It is a lot of record which would have some rights to it so by combining it, we've eliminated the possibility of a separate structure on one. Janet Paulsen: So would this be applicable to any lot in Chanhassen that wanted to enlarge their impervious surface? They could buy a lot. I mean what are the parameters? The geographic parameters. Across the street or kitty corner or down the street? I just don't know. Kate Aanenson: Well we have those existing conditions. Lake Minnewashta, if you go on Minnewashta Parkway where the lots have been segmented by the road. It happens. Again it would be a lot of record. By doing, by combining it, making a zoning lot it gives you, affords the city actually greater protection so. Janet Paulsen: So this would only apply to a lot of record? Kate Aanenson: Well you can always buy a part of the property next door to you or attach it to your lot administratively. We've had that. Somebody wants to buy some of their neighbor's property and attach it to their lot administratively, that doesn't require a subdivision. That's another way to get more impervious surface too. Janet Paulsen: But those are adjacent lots. I'm just wondering what are the parameters. Kate Aanenson: Well it's defined in the city code and that'd be the definition of a zoning lot. I believe what you asked me last time was combining a lot, and there's a separate definition for lot and a zoning lot as defined in the city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. These are separate parcels I think, and I don't want to get into nomenclature because I'm going to screw that up but this issue, when you raised it I know Mrs. Paulsen at the Planning Commission and I think we talked about it last time too, having a street divide a parcel, which is what this will become is a single parcel, Ms. Aanenson mentioned all City Council Meeting —March 13, 2006 some, to my knowledge, just looking at the County GIS system, that situation occurs directly to the north of this parcel. I think is that Hickory that angles up to the north? There are 3 or 4 properties that have the same type of situation where the single parcel is divided by the public street. Janet Paulsen: So does that mean they're right across the street from each other or down the street? I just don't know. Mayor Furlong: In those that I've mentioned, I believe they are straight across the street from each other. Kate Aanenson: So the intent would be not to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it. There has to be some nexus there and proximity. We wouldn't allow someone to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it under zoning law. Councilman Lundquist: Is that within our jurisdiction to determine? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: If they have to be. Kate Aanenson: Adjacency, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean reasonable people would say you have to, you know they'd have to be adjacent for it to make sense. We have jurisdiction to. Kate Aanenson: I believe so. I'll double check with the City Attorney, yes. Roger Knutson: Yes, what we're saying is, but for the street they're abutting and when you use the definition of abutting, it's very common to say even if you're divided by a street you're still abutting. If it's down the street and around the corner, then certainly it wouldn't meet our criteria. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. It's an interesting question, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or is there anybody else who wanted to make public comment? I'll bring it back to council for our discussion then. Seems that we've made some progress over the last 2 weeks since we first heard this. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff with the findings of facts presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 31 City Council Meeting —M• 13, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY: REOUEST FOR 32 I • City Council Meeting — Fe�ary 27, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can make one motion based upon staff's recommendation in the reports. Do I hear such a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I would make that motion that the City Council approve all the recommendations supported by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following: a. Resolution #2006-18: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Pinehurst, Vacation #06-07. b. Preliminary and Final Plat for Pinehurst 2nd Addition, Planning Case 06-07. c. First Amendment to Pinehurst Development Contract, Project No. 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONSTRUCT A 3 STALL GARAGE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located out at Red Cedar Point. It is actually two lots. This is where the actual variance is on, where the existing garage is and I'll show you that in a second. There is existing home on the site and existing single car garage on the north property. The applicant is requesting to receive a variance to add a 3 car garage. The variance involves a front and rear yard setback for the garage, as well as the impervious surface, hard cover. Can you zoom in on that just a little bit Nann? Thank you. So the existing lot with the house on it, I've got the hard surface shown in yellow on this. The gravel driveway in the front, which provides access to the existing dwelling and the garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this on February 7d' and recommended, or voted for a 3-3 tie, which is why it's before you tonight. It didn't have a super majority vote. One of the things that the Planning Commission did ask for was some of the surrounding impervious surface coverage in the area, and that was at 29%. This would be at 31%. In looking at the 3 car garage, staff looked at the existing situation regarding the driveway. Could some more hard surface coverage be removed? We also recommended that the lot be combined. I know there was that question regarding whether or not you could combine two lots when the street goes through. You can under the City's code. Under lot, definition of zoning lot you can combine lots and we have no requirements of how that would happen. We have other circumstances in the city of why we would do that. Have it under one ownership so you can sell them off and try to allow somebody, if this was in a separate, it's a lot of record and there is some legal standing for someone should ever get a permit on there. So one of the conditions that you can apply when someone asks for 9 SCANNED • • City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 variances, things to mitigate that impact and certainly having them under one ownership would be more of the idea would be one thing that we feel would be better than someone else trying to come in and maximizing that lot. So in discussing and looking at this itself and looking at some of the surrounding properties, there is a wide range of lot sizes. If you were to go back, and I know the applicant's concerned. This is a narrower lot with the existing home. There's a wide range of some homes have garages on the lot. Some have homes, garages across the street, so some have 3. Some have 4. And again in this circumstance, going back to what we have for, there is parking convenient. While it's not covered, to the property in itself, and looking at the hard surface coverage, as outlined in your staff report at the tying the two together. The 31%, they felt that that's exceeding, or it's on the higher end so we recommended against the second stall, or the third stall and just recommended the two. And the Planning Commission struggled with that too, so with that we did put the findings in there. There are, there is a motion for the alternative in your staff report. If you were to approve it. But we believe again that's reasonable use with the 2 car garage. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, a question for you. The issue of combining the two lots is something that I think you said we've done before and in fact I think in this particular area that occurs too where there are individual parcels that public roads cross. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It is defined in the code. You could have, and we have in the city 3 or 4 different lots under separate, that are under one ownership, so it's the lots that are under one ownership combining them. And the purpose of that is if someone doesn't, if it's a lot of record, it has certain legal rights to it and if someone wants to sell it, they may try to come in and try to maximize the building and the circumstance. Building... accessory structure. As it sits today it's an accessory structure on a separate lot which would be in violation of the city code, so again doing as many things as we can to bring it into compliance as part of that mitigation for the variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that's what, condition number 10 does by making it in the same parcel... Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: ...parcel identification number, then it becomes a single lot of record. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And to say that it helps impervious may or may not. Someone might try to put even more on there. Do a single car garage and put a loft above it and then try to make it a dwelling unit. It may end up being something else. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So again if you look at number 11, it's the affidavit of the lot combination and that's, it's a combination lot. It's a zoning lot is different than just a regular lot is defined. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that, would then that create a single parcel? nAn+,tar 10 City Council Meeting — Feliruary 27, 2006 • Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's the right word. Parcel is the right word as opposed to lot. If you look at other definitions of. Mayor Furlong: It would be called a single parcel. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And so if there is any desire to do, to separate them, then they would have to come through the subdivision process. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And that's the hook that you want. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then you mentioned something this evening that I didn't see in the Planning Commission minutes. Maybe it was in there and I missed it, with regard to their drive gravel... Kate Aanenson: Well I think that was a discussion in fairness to Mr. Bangasser that really wasn't talked about at the Planning Commission and that's the fact that there is a lot of hard surface, so if there's a way to try to get a 3 car garage, if the council felt strongly about that, what could you do to improve the amount of hard surface and that would be to remove some of the driveway. I know it provides access to the house for parking, to getting things in and out, but we saw that as an opportunity to again mitigate the amount of hard surface. I don't believe Mr. Bangasser would like to do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess in looking at that, right now if they went with the. Kate Aanenson: Actually if you took the driveway out, which ... of the front and I know this is shared portion over here. It will actually get you right about to 25% so it meets code. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it looks like there's a way to do it. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, it's whether or not that that's acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Just one last one Kate. Just so I understand, if we do this as one parcel, then we don't have to go after some kind of easement for the road? Kate Aanenson: No. We have this circumstance if you go up and down Minnewashta Parkway, we have lots on the other side of Minnewashta Parkway. We have other lots in actually the Carver Beach area that also have structures so, no. It is allowed. A zoning lot is allowed by city code. 11 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there's no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here this evening? Like to address the council. Good evening sir. Dave Bangasser: Hello. I'm Dave Bangasser and this is my wife Mary Jo. Our lakeshore property's been in Mary Jo's family for 60 years and as you may be aware, the property was originally platted in 1913, nearly a century ago and as a result of that nearly all of the properties in this area either have variances or some kind of non -conforming use. This past year a hail storm caused severe, came through and caused severe damage to our vehicles, and we're here tonight to try to avoid future damage, as well as minimize outside storage. There's a well known shortage of storage space in this area, and a high amount of exterior storage. City staff has cited multiple property owners for excess storage of boats and trailers and as a result there are many cars parked outside. We would like to store 2 cars and a boat. The key issue here is the definition of a reasonable sized garage and a reasonable amount of impervious surface. We believe the council has already established definitions for both of these issues by recently granting variances for neighbors on either side of us, and that we are well within these definitions. Three years ago the council granted a variance to the Gunthers, our neighbors to the north to build a garage that increased their total to 4 stalls. In reviewing the staff report and the minutes from the council meeting for the Gunther variance, the staff, nor the council questioned whether 4 stalls was reasonable. Further down the point, the council also approved a variance for the addition of a third and fourth stall at 3605 Red Cedar. That's this picture here. At least 7 variances that were listed on the staff report, at least the executive summary that just came out, at least 7 of those variances involved 3 stalls or, 3 or 4 stalls and 3 of those 7 were for properties that were immediately adjacent to our parcel. The staff has stated that the majority of the property owners in the area have 2 stalls and that is the basis for the recommendation for 2 stalls tonight. We disagree with that assessment. This drawing here, the pink areas show properties that have in excess of 2 stalls. 22 of 38 lakeshore property owners have in excess of 2 stalls, which I believe is a majority have more than 2 stalls. The staff in coming up with their numbers is only counting the number of garage doors, not the total storage capacity of the garages. If we look at the properties that are immediately adjacent to our property, two of these properties have the capacity of 5 stalls with 4 doors. And 3 of the properties have capacity of 3 stalls with what's in excess of 30 feet with 2 doors. We own significantly more land than all 3 of the neighbors with 30 foot wide garages. Why restrict us to a smaller garage than they have? Based upon the council's past variances and the existing conditions in the area, we feel that our proposal for a 3 stall garage is well within the definition of reasonable. Concerning the second issue, impervious coverage, 2 years ago the council granted a variance to the Johnson's, our neighbors to the west, for an identical front yard setback and 40% impervious coverage. Three lots further west the council granted a variance for 50% coverage. We have proposed 31. Looking again at the adjacent properties, our proposed 31% coverage is well below the surrounding properties of 40%, 52%, 54%, 35% and 46%. You can see from the drawings, pictures from the road, how much hard cover they have. These figures are somewhat different then what the staff figured in their 29% calculation. The staff had limited information to work with and we believe they're miscalculation of 29% average hard cover is a gross misrepresentation of reality. I could show you many pictures to illustrate my point. However 12 City Council Meeting — Fury 27, 2006 • allow me two quick examples. This survey was one of those used by a staff in calculating the 29% average hard cover. They figured the impervious surface for this property at 20.7%, which was the lowest of all that they looked at. If that were true, that would mean that there would be 4 times as much white as pink inside the blue lot area. Clearly this is not the case. The pink area divided by the lot size is 41.4%, exactly twice what the staff figured. Also the staff does not count sidewalks, rock, or the roof over the main entrance off to the side of the house. They have to walk around the garage to get to their entry. In fact I listed all of the staff's surveys, in many cases they excluded sidewalks, patios, and rock. Our second example involves the Johnson variance granted at 40%. However the staff used 31% in determining their calculation of 29% average cover. Tom and Jackie are doing the majority of the work themselves and simply have not finished their project. Nobody called them to ask if they were done, and yet the 31 % was used. With the inaccuracies I just described, it's easy to see how the 29% average becomes skewed dramatically. If we use the staffs method calculating only footprint and driveway, our proposed 31 % coverage would be reduced to 20%, which would be lower than any of those that the property, that the staff looked at. We purchased this back lot 4 years ago in order to mitigate these types of issues, which we believe the council encourages. Our goal was to transfer density from the lake lot to the back lot, which we believe is also a desirable goal. The neighborhood supports this plan and would rather see a well designed garage than outside storage. The 3 closest neighbors have taken the time to write letters of support which I believe Kate handed out right at the start of the meeting. Kate mentioned the existing driveway which was brought up about 3:00 this afternoon. The possibility of giving up the existing gravel driveway in order for staff to support this. We did consider that possibility. However I need to make you aware of some facts. The entrance to the house is 9 feet above the road, and I'll take back the survey that Kate... It may be difficult to show all the detail but there's 9 feet of grade change between the road and the front door, and you'll notice there's a retaining wall basically all along the road, except right at the driveway, and that retaining wall curves as it approaches the driveway. With 9 feet of grade change, that's a very steep driveway. In fact the curve is there because you can't go straight up that driveway without bottoming out in a normal vehicle. You have to take that curve and get a little bit of run at it to get up that relatively steep portion in order to get up into a flatter area in which to park and get out of the vehicle. With that steep grade it's very difficult to provide access. It's difficult for people to walk up the elderly, the handicap. We had a handicap daughter in a wheelchair that could not have made this. There's been other times when we've had people in wheelchairs that had a difficult time getting up that driveway. In fact, Mary Jo's uncle lived next door in the property to the east, basically on the other side of the house. Lived there for many years and in his elderly years he used to park in this driveway because it was easier for him to get across and into his house from there, then to park in that shared area where there's a stairs and get up. We have no stairs. The stairs belongs to our neighbors. In addition the access issue, we also think we need to be able to drop things off that are closer to the house. The new driveway that we're proposing with the 3 stall garage is approximately 140 feet from the front door. It's a long ways to travel if you're trying to carry groceries or whatever. At some point we hope to be able to improve the access to try to deal with that 9 feet. I don't know exactly how we'll deal with that but at some point we hope to be able to deal with the access and when we do deal with that, we are willing to give up the gravel driveway and put sod there, but it's not something we can do at this time. We did, as Kate mentioned, that they were trying to find ways to mitigate and, mitigate the situation. We are open to that. We have proposed to staff providing a permeable pavement design. It's a design, there's a number of alternatives. 13 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • Ecostone is one of them. The Minnesota DNR endorses the use of permeable design. The Landscape Arboretum has a demonstration installation of this, and both the cities of Mound and Minnetonka accept permeable pavement as an acceptable solution. With that, before I close, do you have any questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? No? Ahight, very good. Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: You bet. Ms. Aanenson, any I guess quick response in terms of some of the information that he provided. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the nexus that we're looking at is between, it's hard when you segment it, the variances and on every variance that we do, we always try to find mitigation, so that was a component that was left out in each of these. Sometimes we achieved a greater setback from the lake, so we would have to go back through and find out, and that's a key component that was missing because each one we try to put, is there something else that we can achieve by giving here. Is there something else that we're gaining? Maybe it was lakescape or maybe it was a reduction of a non -conforming setback so that component was left out by this part. We just did follow through what the Planning Commission had asked us to do. Again, I'm not going to argue the percentages. There might have been a few that were off, but I don't think in generalities, if you want to talk about the Johnson's. That lot's a lot bigger. They also took down the existing structure and made sight lines better, so again we look at each case individually as you're supposed to on a variance request. As we did on this one, we said is there other things that we can do to try to get, making the situation better. So in this circumstance they're saying well, we added more pervious but what did we do to make the situation better? And that's what we're trying to find. That area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: The only other one Kate was the question of 3 stalls versus 2. It's not a stall issue... Kate Aanenson: Exactly, thank you. It's not a stall issue. If you could get 4 on there, great. That's not the issue. We didn't look at it to say it was a hard surface coverage issue. That was really the nexus to say, that third stall is what pushed over the impervious. This is already over so we said okay, well two is reasonable. And if we weren't so far over on the impervious, or we could get some better setbacks or something else that we could compromise or find some mitigation to say well we got something back to improve the lake, maybe we would have gone that way but it wasn't because we always felt 2 was what we should get. It's the hard surface coverage. And that number we cast the difference between the 2 and the 3 and... Mayor Furlong: And I guess a clarifying question there, the alternative motion includes a 2.28% hard surface coverage variance, which was some estimate with regard to what the. 14 City Council Meeting — Fe�fuary 27, 2006 • Kate Aanenson: The third stall I believe. Mayor Furlong: Or the difference between what was being requested and that number was the third stall. Or in the area. Councilman Peterson:...31 and we're recommending 27. Mayor Furlong: As the alternative. Kate Aanenson: Right, so that would give you the additional, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the Planning Commission minutes of their meeting, and I read the notes and watched the meeting actually, some of the commissioners you know were having, were struggling because they're were saying water runoff would be going different directions. What do you say about that? The fact that you know, some, the house, the runoff from the house would be going down to the lake, but with the garage it'd be going an entirely different direction. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't know if that's actually going to make a difference because the house itself which is adjacent to the lake isn't changing. It's just what's behind. I mean we could put gutters on the garage and mitigate that so I'm not sure that that was really. The Chairman of the Planning Commission's here if you wanted to ask him to kind of summarize, if you had any questions for him, I'd be happy to. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, given the topography I guess my question is even if it starts out on the triangle piece where the garage is now to the west, it's going to north or south. Todd Gerhardt: It's going to make it's way to the lake. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then just the one other comment. You know when we talked about the driveway, I certainly recognize that that's a good access to the house. Nobody can dispute that. I guess our concern was that, you know if you went with a 3 car garage, what would be the ... that there still would be storage there for convenience sake to park next to the house and if the goal is to get 3, then could you get a commitment that they're going to be outdoor storage. Or some parking out there, you know because that would be the goal, as I understood for the 3, the boat and 2 cars, would there not be storage or parking that's occurring now. Councilman Peterson: If we got that though, how enforceable is it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, exactly. That'd be a good will or good faith. Mayor Furlong: That's the challenge. Okay. Alright, well let's bring it to the council for discussion then. Thoughts or comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I still have one more question. ilk City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjomhom: How does the applicant feel about the proposal of a 2 stall garage? Kate Aanenson: They want the 3. Councilwoman Tjomhom: They don't want to compromise. Kate Aanenson: They would like 3, certainly. Dave Bangasser: Well what's the definition? You're talking... what's the definition of a 2 stall. I don't know what that is. I mean one, if we go down to a 2 stall garage, you're just encouraging us to have, almost forcing us to store outside, and so are we flexible? Yes, to a point but we've got to be realistic too. There are certain storage needs. We live on a lake. You've got boats. You've got other you know water toys, what not. Why not put it inside? That's what the neighborhood wants. The neighborhood wants us to put it inside and not have all this storage outside. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Council members, discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: A tough one, as Mr. Bangasser was giving his presentation, which was very well done. Obviously I always try to strive to be fair and reasonable to everyone. But the, the thing that keeps striking me is that for exactly the same reason why the neighborhood may be higher is precisely why you should try to limit it whenever possible because, just because everybody else has a 50% hard cover variance, you know that's essentially why you want to try to minimize when possible. The thing that strikes me with the lateness of the, talk about the driveway and other things is, is I would be okay to considering it a 2 week delay to allow staff to work on that a little bit more rather than you know after 3:00 thing, unless the Bangasser's have a construction deadline they're trying to meet or something like that, to at least give that some due. If it comes back that it doesn't work, then you know that's fine. At least we tried. To mitigate that, so I guess I'd like to explore that a little bit more. At the end of the day I think there's some give and take. I'd be interested to see what the other members, I think I'm still on the fence here. If I had to make a decision tonight, I'm not sure so I'd like to explore that driveway piece a little bit more potentially. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I too would be willing to give them an extra 2 weeks to work things out and figure out a more creative way to handle it. But it's a hard thing to decide on. I guess the whole issue is the hard surface coverage and, what I'm confused about is, obviously 2 stalls are better than 1. 3 is even better than 2, I understand that but during the season, and maybe I'm wrong about this but usually your boats and your jetskis are up on the dock or they're not in the garage, so that's when you can park your cars in the garage when you're using your lake home. During the winter, when the season is over, that's when you put your boats in the garage and you 1[: City Council Meeting — Fetary 27, 2006 • don't need to be too worried about protecting your cars as much. So that's the argument I have that they still would have reasonable use of a 2 stall garage and you wouldn't necessarily have to be storing things out in their lot, so I'd like to see the 2 week, 2 weeks to kind of hammer things out. If they ... otherwise I think I'm more inclined to vote in favor of staffs recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah this is all about keeping the lake as clean as possible. I think we kind of lose sight of that on occasion. And the variances that were cited this evening, as Kate reinforced, you don't want to, I hate to say we negotiated something for the betterment of the lake but that's essentially what we've done in those other cases. Where those variances and the impervious surfaces might be higher, we did get, we did better the lake making those decisions. And in this case I'm struggling with the thought that we're bettering the lake by making that decision. And that's what I'm struggling with. I quite frankly don't know what 2 weeks will do, but I'm certainly willing to do that and I think if there's something creative that we haven't found, I'm certainly amenable to affording the opportunity to search for that but you know I just come back to what's the lake getting here, and without being overly punitive to our residents but you know I don't like the feeling of horse trading here but I don't know a different alternative to maintaining the lake so, I'll struggle with that so. I would look to staff to see if it would benefit by a 2 week delay. If not, I'm ready to vote on it tonight. Mayor Furlong: I guess my thoughts are similar in that each time we receive these requests you look to see what else can be done to avoid providing a hard surface coverage variance. I never enjoy approving these because it's a storm water runoff issue, especially for properties this close to any of our lakes. It's important. I think here there's an opportunity, because the property owner owns property and the intensification here is further away from the lakeshore than it would be near the lakeshore. That's good when we can do that, but it is an intensification. It's whether they go from 1 to 2 or 1 to 3, they're going and having driven by there, the one that's there now is not a very large one so whatever they do with is going to be an intensification. ...that there's an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that they're looking for, by talking about number of stalls, and with other mitigation across the combined parcel or the two parcels becoming one, and not, and be in a situation where we don't have to provide a hard surface variance coverage at all, I think we should pursue that. If that's 2 weeks, if that's longer, just looking at the staff report, the application was received January 0, so that tells me if we've got 60 days plus another 60, if that counts here, we've got time. But I would not be inclined tonight to approve either of these given that there may be an opportunity for the property owner to achieve the inside storage that he's talking about and avoid a hard surface coverage variance at all. And so I would be hesitant going forward tonight. I'd like to, for reasons that some of you stated, Councibnan Peterson I think in particular, where's the advantage here? Of the examples that were mentioned that I was involved in, I know that there was mitigation as well. That driveways were taken out or reduced or there were setbacks from the lake that didn't exist before that we increased. There were changes to it and here it is, it's an expansion and so, while I believe there's an opportunity here to provide the inside storage that the applicant's looking for, I don't know that we're there yet and I'd like to spend some time to find a way to work together with staff and the applicant to see what they can do to even eliminate the need for hard surface coverage at all across the two parcels. That would be my 17 City Council Meeting — February 27, 2006 • ` recommendation because knowing that that might be out there, I couldn't see moving forward with either of these two this evening. Other thoughts or are people consistent with that or is there? Councilman Peterson: Well I mean Kate, do you think that there's value in getting you guys some time to continue pursuing or do you think? Kate Aanenson: Yes, be happy to meet with Mr. Bangasser. Come up with some other solutions. Mayor Furlong: With the extent that we've got some newer information, let's dig into it and let's make sure that everybody understands what's available and maybe there's an opportunity here. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the request for hard surface coverage and two front yard setback variances to construct a 3 stall garage at 3633 South Cedar Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE, NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF 1 OUTLOT AND SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I have a few exhibits here. This is the subject site. We talked about this most recently in your work session. The new 101/212, so this application includes a couple of things. One, the subdivision. Creating a parcel, a lot for this to be built on. And then also site plan approval with a variance. In your staff report we went through the history of this property, this area in itself. We did a PUD for the entire piece. Again the property's actually on both sides of the new 212. The property that we're talking about specifically is this piece right here with the apartment building. When we did this PUD it was always anticipated that that would be apartment building. On the property immediately to the west will come in at a future date. This property right here is being built by the Sand Company. As I indicated, this will be the one lot that will be built on. It's, the building itself will be 47 units and will include multifamily, excuse me. 48 apartments and will include 2 and 3 bedroom units. In the architecture itself, where we looked at putting this again, while we looked at the apartment building in this location, the fact that it's close to the park and ride we felt had a lot of benefits. A nice transition as you come from the 101. Easy access. Some of the issues that we changed in the staff report, which I know the applicants have some disdain with is the sidewalk being built EEC • Ucam-( 'q Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 13. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff -Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. The easement width shall be reduced to approximately 24 feet wide on Lot 22, Block 1, so that the easement lies only 10-feet east of the storm sewer." 16. Remove curb stops and install spot liners at Manchester Drive services and the services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Troy Bader: Mr. Chair, if I might. There was the one question ... is there more or less area being drained into this, into the riverine in regards to this change? We're not ... we need to know if there's more less going in. Have they answered? McDonald: Well again, we don't have the answer for you and what I suggest is that you talk to city staff and that's where you'll have to get the answer. Troy Bader: I understand. I think that is the point that was relevant just for the record, or for off the record but again that is a question that is relevant in terms of what's going ... but have a great day. We'll do our best. McDonald: Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: DAVE BANGASSER: REOUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO FRONT -YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE - STALL GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3633 SOUTH CEDAR — PLANNING CASE NO.06-04: Public Present: Name Address Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kurt, would you like to start? Okay, Dan. 8CANNl0 IN • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 9 Keefe: Just a quick question on depth of the garage that's existing now. Is the one that they're proposing is no deeper, it's the same depth, is that correct? Generous: It's a little bit deeper to provide a work area where the two joined and then it jogs. And then it's actually slightly smaller. It's 24 feet deep instead of 26, or 24'/2. Keefe: Okay. So if we were to go to the 2 car alternative they'd be looking at the 24 %2 depth or what do you? In terms of that alternative, what are you recommending for depth? Generous: Well I don't know that we have a preference. They could cut it off and maintain the existing garage and just extend that over, or they could just use the new area. In either case they would be at the minimum they would maintain the existing... because it's a comer, it's a triangular lot so the lot lines go away from the structure as it goes farther to the west. Keefe: So it's toward the west you get a little bit deeper. You'd be alright with the deeper. Generous: Yes. Keefe: Alright. I want to get a handle on the, you know it looks like we're going to end up with a variance either way, and the 2 car, the 3 stall wouldn't be as severe I guess. How do you think of it in terms of. Generous: The 2 stall variance is approximately 2.3% impervious cover variance as opposed to a 6% variance with a 3 car option. And so that's really the difference between the two alternatives. Again the ordinance, if they were building new they wouldn't be able to do this but we would require that they have the 2 car garage and so we think providing that is good. However going beyond it with the 3 car garage is, we think it slightly excessive because of the configuration of the existing house on the lot and then this parcel. Keefe: Abight. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: The hard surface coverage Bob that both lots combined after? Generous: It would still be over the 25% by combining them. Because the house is way over but by adding the two together you, they currently meet it but with the expansion they would exceed the 25%. Undestad: Okay. Larson: So they're willing to, or has it been suggested that they combine them? The lots. Generous: Yes, and he doesn't have a problem doing that part of it. His preference would be the 3 car garage. 19 • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Larson: Of course, it'd be mine too but. McDonald: Deborah? Zorn: Out of curiosity Bob, do you know what is that small little parcel of land next to the subject site? Is there actually a home on that site or is that an open lot? Generous: I'm not really sure. It's open. Zom: Okay. No further questions. Papke: The lot that the proposed garage will be on, it states in the staff report that it currently sheet drains to the west. Does the surface water runoff from the garage eventually end up in Lake Minnewashta? Does it eventually drain into the lake? Is that a safe assumption? Fauske: I would believe that would be a safe assumption in this area. Papke: Okay, so from a hard surface coverage perspective, that's really the consideration here is how much runoff we're introducing into Lake Minnewashta. Generous: Yes. Papke: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay, I have a couple questions for you because I'm confused by your graph on page 4 of 10. If I read through that, in the one column I have the ordinance requirement. I have the existing requirements and the proposed requirements. As I go down and I look at all of this, it appears that even going with the 3 car garage on this parcel, he meets all the requirements. Sc where I'm confused is why would we deny him a 3 car garage? I understand the setbacks and we can deal with that separately but the hard surface coverage area is only 19.7%. That's under the 25. Generous: For the one lot but the existing is at 43% McDonald: But at this point they're two separate lots. Okay that's where my confusion is because you make the recommendation that as part of this that we combine and once you combine that, at that point he can't meet the hard surface coverage between the two lots. But if they're two separate lots and what he's bringing before us is the lot at the corner and that's what he's asking for and these two lots are not currently joined, then at that point it would appear he meets the requirements. Am I missing something here? Generous: For that, except for you can't -have an accessory structure without a principle structure. McDonald: Okay. 'Fill Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Generous: So they combine the two, then we bring it into conformance with that portion of the code. McDonald: Okay, so it's because that's viewed as being an accessory structure that cannot stand alone that we now get into the issue of combining the two lots so that the garage can go up and then at that point now the hard surface coverage area is exceeded by the 25%. Generous: Right. But overall it's down from the 43%. McDonald: Okay. Generous: It's a compromise by most variance situations. McDonald: Well yeah. It seems as though he's got plenty of room on that lot, that's the question I guess I have but okay. You addressed that now. I understand the problem there. That's all the questions I have for staff. Do we have an applicant here to present his case? Dave Bangasser: Good evening members of the commission. I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm the applicant, and my wife Mary Jo is with me this evening. Too chicken to come before you to talk herself so I'll talk for her. This property has been in Mary Jo's family for well over 60 years. There's been quite a bit of history on Lake Minnewashta for the Anding family. There's a number of Anding's that have had property in that area, including the lot immediately to the east which up until 2 years ago was owned by her aunt and uncle, so there's a lot of history there. And I might say that we're one of the few property owners in this subdivision that owned the property prior to the current zoning ordinances being established. So these zoning ordinances were imposed after we owned the property whereas most of the current property owners have purchased after the ordinances were put in place. What we'd like to do is basically protect our property. One of the issues that is asked in the staff report is why is the applicant feel that proposing the structure and are they doing it to increase the value. We're doing it to protect our property. A single stall garage is clearly not adequate as the staff has also agreed with. That it's not adequate and we thought about this for quite some time. I think 4 years ago I talked to Sharmeen informally about, we wanted to do something. We desperately need more storage space. Quite frankly I didn't know that I wanted to go through the brain damage of this variance process. It's not a lot of fun to most of us. Maybe it is to those that are responsible for dealing with it all the time. What brings us here tonight is that this year we had a severe hail storm come through while we were out there and everything that was out got pretty well hammered and vehicles, whatever was out got hammered and obviously you know with one stall garage we happen to try to keep as much of what we have inside that single car garage so vehicles were out and trailers were in. I wish it would have been reverse that night but, that's the reason that we're here is to protect the property. We do have two driving age children and with that we have 4 vehicles that often times with different schedules, are out there at any given time, which end up being rather expensive to operate is more reason for needing storage. It seems that the crux of the issue here is obviously what's a reasonable sized garage. I mean that's really I think the basis for granting a variance, is it reasonable or is it not. As Bob's already pointed out, the city code has a minimum requirement for 2 cars. That's a minimum. I don't believe there's a maximum, but it's a minimum and I believe that the intention of having a minimum requirement 21 • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 on up to 2 cars is to minimize the need for outside storage. Anybody that's been around this neighborhood for any period of time knows that there's issues with lack of garage space in the area because of the relatively small parcels and therefore there's also something stored outside in this area. Our intention is to try to improve upon that situation. If you looked at any of the new subdivisions, anybody that builds a house today in Chanhassen, and I'll bet particularly the Lundgren development that just came through here, they're not going to build a house today with a 2 car garage. I think the minimum standard today, I can safely say is 3 cars. Now I know that there's complications here with, because of the long history and the small parcels here but I would suggest to you that the 3 car garage is today's minimum standard. It's, people just need more storage space than they used to. And I would also suggest to you that lakeshore property owners need more storage space than the average property owner because we all have boats. We're not going to live on the lake. Pay the kind of property taxes we do unless we're there to enjoy the lake, so we all have boats and water toys and so I would suggest that our storage needs are probably higher than the average. I mentioned that there's a great deal of issues with outside storage. I've got lots of pictures I'll share you, or I'll spare you most of them. Or just give you a few examples. This is just a couple of pictures but here's a property that has essentially a 2 car garage. They have 2 sheds. One that's in view and one that's not in view. They have an RV stored outside. They have a pontoon boat stored outside. And because of the way they're utilizing garage space, they typically park their vehicles outside when they're there as well. Here's another example in the area of someone that does have a 3 car attached garage, and obviously they can't fit all of their, they've got their pontoon boat outside. I think it's pretty typical, a lot of outside storage in the area and again I could show you more pictures but if you've driven by there, I won't need to. The trade off here is clearly, between the 3 car and the 2 car is outside storage. You can certainly limit to 2, you know whatever restrictions you want but the fact of the matter is, people have these storage needs and if you choose to restrict this to 2 car, it means that there's going to be more things stored outside. That's clearly not what the neighborhood wants. I've gone out of my way, we both have gone out of our way to communicate to our neighbors what our plans are. We've staked multiple locations. We've talked to all the neighbors about what our plans are. I'm not aware of anybody, and there might be somebody here that I'm not aware of that has some issues but I'm not aware of anyone that objects to what we're talking about. I believe everybody in the neighborhood wants to see more garage space, aesthetically appealing garage space as opposed to the outside storage and I understand that at least 2 of the neighbors have taken the time to actually send a -mails or letters, I'm not sure which it was, to staff supporting this. But I know that all the other neighbors I talked to are also supportive of what we're proposing here. I'd like to just, if I could, and I think that several of the, I think that was included in your package but we've got drawings of, renderings of what we're proposing which I believe are aesthetically appealing. That was certainly our intent. I've got some photo drawings which I'm having trouble locating right now. Here it is. No. Well I've misplaced the drawings so I'll use the black and whites that Bob had in the package. I think what we've done is try to break this thing up so it doesn't look like one massive structure. We've tried to make it aesthetically appealing. If you notice from the shape, there are no long, straight walls. The walls are broken down. Reduces the scale. We've shown windows into the structure to make it look less like a garage and more like, and something a little bit more appealing. If you notice the roof line along the adjacent South Cedar Drive, which is where our nearest neighbors would be, we've planned that that roof line be lowest right at the southern edge of the structure, again to kind of bring that scale down some so we hope, and it's 22 • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 certainly our intention that this is something that's done in a very nice manner and it looks like something other than just a storage shed. Something that I don't know if it's been talked about quite as much as has been talked about with some of the other variances that have taken place in the area, is some of the more unique features of our situation here. They've been mentioned you know somewhat the fact that we've got this road subdividing our property but I know in other variances, and I'll maybe talk about that a little bit more in a minute. There's certainly been more effort on the staff part to present some more positive sides of what we're trying to do as well. Certainly we have a unique situation because of the triangular shape you know nature of this back lot. There are very few properties that have the benefit of a back lot. None of the properties that are, can I get the, none of the properties that are along South Cedar here have the benefit of a back lot, and so a majority of those properties, Bob's correct in saying that there aren't very many two stall garages in that area, but they also don't have the benefit of having this back lot that we have. But in addition to that many of those properties, even though they have two garage doors, do have over sized garages even though they don't have the benefit of a back lot. If we had, if we only had the lake lot, this is very typical of surrounding properties that are very similar to our's. We have a relatively narrow lakeshore lot. We have 40 feet in the front which both of these properties also have 40 in the front. We have 50 in the pack and I don't know if they have 50 in the back or not, but this is very typical of what is approved or has been approved on these narrow lots, and so if we only had a lakeshore lot, there certainly is precedence, not only precedence but city requirement that we'd have to build 2 stall garage on that lake lot. What I don't understand is why are you holding us to the same requirement if we only had the lake lot. You're saying you can only build two garage stalls. Why are you holding us to that same requirement that others have built when they only have a lake lot? We have this whole back lot. It seems to me you've kind of taken the benefit of having that back lot away from us, if you won't allow us to do anything more than the 2 stalls. One other topic that I apologize to staff that we really haven't talked about before but I feel compelled to bring up now after having some discussion with Kate Aanenson this afternoon. I frankly called Kate because we've been out of the country and I really have only seen the staff report and had a chance to think about it the last 24 hours and I frankly was quite surprised and disappointed that it wasn't more positive, particularly given what I've seen in variances for adjacent properties within the last 2 and 3 years, so I called Kate and said you know, what's up with this? Why is this? And I think it became clear to me after I talked to Kate that what I think may be staffs concern is that, if we go ahead and build a 2 stall across the road like there's already been precedence to do, and we have 2 stalls, if we were to come back later and build 2 stalls on the lake lot, which there's also precedence to have 2 and 2, I'm wondering if that's not the concern. It seemed to me that Kate was concerned about setting a precedence for going to 3 stalls on a back lot and then coming back and wanting another 2 stalls on the front lot. We don't currently live at the property fiill time but we think that we plan to move out to the property sometime in the next 2 to 6 years, which is basically based upon when our youngest daughter is either in college or hopefully when we're done paying for college. And we don't know what we want to do. If we would move out there, the house would need work. It's not a full time house. It's a relatively small house and it would need some work. We don't know what exactly we would like to do if we did move out there, but what we do know is that this, if I could have that camera back up here. This is not what we want. Is to approach a house that all you see is garage. These people didn't have any choice. They had a 40 foot lot. They didn't have any back lot. They needed to have garage and so they didn't have any choice but to put basically all the garages as you 23 • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 approach the house. It's not very welcoming as you approach the house and that's certainly not what we would like to do with the lake property. And so by building 3 stalls across the street, our hope was that we would avoid having to do this where all you do when you see, when you approach the house is seethe garage space. Again I just have been, really just saw the report within the last 24 hours and went out this morning and saw that there is, there are quite a few houses or properties within the 500 foot area that the notification went out to, that do exceed 2 stalls. I've got examples of that. I'm not even going to take your time but there are quite a few properties out there that have in excess of 2 stalls. I would however like to just focus a little bit on the immediately adjacent properties because I think what we've asked for us quite reasonable. The setbacks we've asked for are probably greater than a lot of the setbacks relative to front yard setbacks, etc, and certainly hard surface coverage, even when you combine that 31 % I believe is well below the typical property out there. Again I understand it exceeds the 25% coverage, but everybody out there exceeds the 25% coverage. There was a question about where does the, what happens to the drainage. The drainage does go to Lake Minnewashta. However it drains, it drains to the west across the property to the west here and there's a culvert going underneath Red Cedar Drive there that is a relatively small culvert so what happens is, when you get a big rainfall, this lot here is basically a wetland and what happens is, the culvert backs the water up and it slowly drains across Red Cedar Drive and follows a ravine all the way across and over, and dumps into the lake at this point so there's ample opportunity but no, it's not an engineered treatment system. That culvert in effect acts as a treatment system because the water backs up into the wetland. Even once it crosses through the culvert it runs through a considerable length of drainage ditch. It's slowing things down and dropping out a lot of particulates that might be in it, etc.. Again I wanted to just talk a little bit about what's happening in the surrounding properties. This property right here is our neighbor to the west, the Johnson's who, their variance was just approved 2 years ago to add onto the garage, basically lengthen the garage by 6 feet, as well as build another story on top of the garage and on the lake side to expand the house. McDonald: Excuse me Mr., if I could just interrupt you for a second. What I'd like to do is move onto questions because at this point I'm not sure how the relevance begins to fit in and we have several questions for you and this is a limited time period that we have with a majority of your case, you've answered most of that. If you would allow us to address you with some questions and then at that point if any of the rest of this comes up, then you can expand upon it. Thank you. Questions from commissioners. Papke: I've got a couple. I'd like to start with staff. Bob, if the applicant were to put, to substitute say a carporttawning with a gravel base for the third stall, what from a city code perspective, what does that do for the hard surface coverage? Generous: We would count that as hard surface area. Papke: With the awning? Because of the awning or? Generous: Both. By putting in the gravel and compacting it appropriately you're creating an impervious surface and by the use of the roof structure you're concentrating it and that's part of the issue that we have to determine this. 24 • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Papke: So there's no way for them to, you know I appreciate the applicant's desire to protect their cars and boats and so on, so is there no alternative type of structure that could be substituted for that third stall that would afford protection for their boats and cars yet not incur a hard surface coverage penalty? Generous: Not a permanent structure, no. Papke: Even if it was a canvas awning type arrangement or something like that? Generous: No, we prohibit those. Papke: Okay. Okay, I thought I'd try. Both for the applicant and city staff, you have a fair amount of concrete pavers and concrete sidewalk on your primary resident structure. In some other similar cases we've had applicants that have removed part of their paver, patio, sidewalks and so on and substituted something that was pervious to bring back into compliance. Have you considered or contemplated any of those alternatives? Dave Bangasser: We have not discussed that up to this point. Again I think at 31 % coverage as with what we've proposed, we're well below the norm. The property directly to the west where a variance was just granted 2 years ago was approved at 44% coverage after they reduced some of what you're talking about. And I don't think that 44%, I don't throw that out like it's you know way too high. I think that's more typical to what we find in this area, and some of the pictures I would have shown you, if I'd have kept going would have shown that there is a lot of hard surface out there and I think at 31 % we're probably well below the typical. Part of the other issue is on the hard surface, we have a steep slope on our lake lot, and a good deal of that slope is so steep that we've got it covered in rock in order to stabilize it, so really the only thing we maybe have to talk about is we've got a patio kind of midway down that slope, but we use that. I can't say I'd be excited to give up my patio. I wouldn't want to take the rock off the slope... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Papke: ... the commission has to either approve or deny a request. Now city staff has put an alternative in here which is for a 2 car garage. At the end of the day are you going to, would you be willing to settle for the 2 car alternative? If that's your choice at the end of this session. Dave Bangasser: I am not prepared, I would go to council to appeal for the third car. Who knows if they deny it but, and again my reason for that is, is more thinking about the lake lot that if you restrict me to two stalls, then I may well be forced to try to add 2 stalls to the lake lot and that's not, I don't think that's in anybody's best interest. Zorn: I have two questions. Staff, on page 5, do we know what the percentage for hard coverage surface ratio for the variances that were granted and is that something that we might take into consideration? Generous: We were looking atone, I think 3507 South Cedar was 51%. That's actually the one that led to our change in our ordinance. Fly 0 Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Dave Bangasser: Let's see, Johnson's which, there's several variances that are not, there's at least 12 variances, as I look back at the Johnson's staff report, there were 12 variances, 12 additional variances listed on the Johnson report that had previously been granted that aren't listed in this report and again the Johnson variance was approved at 43.9%. Zom: So it seems like 51 % is probably the greatest? Okay. Second question for the applicant. This subject site, so the back lot that you refer to, was that at one time part of the current lakefront property and that the road came later and divided it or, was this a piece of property that was purchased later just from the context of Dave Bangasser: We purchased the back lot about 4 years ago and basically the reason for it was to try to mitigate some of these issues of you know again having a relatively small lake lot and with what had subsequently been, you know in place. You put these zoning ordinances in place in terms of restrictions. We had the opportunity to buy it 4 years ago and we did and clearly that has helped mitigate some of the issues with having such density on the lake. McDonald: Debbie. Larson; I've got one question for staff. In looking at these lots that are on the same side as the garage site, not all of them are developed. Is there any way like averaging in, I think we probably came across this once before. Because truly what he's doing, he's not taking up a very big chunk of that land. Looks like the piece adjacent... will never get built on and then there's that larger piece that he said where the water drains in. Is that something that could be looked at perhaps? Generous: You can always look at it. Fortunately a lot of these areas develop prior to our having all the building permits and stuff so we don't have surveys of it. With the photometric system we may have a better ability to estimate that. Larson: Just a thought. It could possibly be an option, I don't know. Dave Bangassen It's my understanding those are unbuildable lots. Larson: Unbuildable? Dave Bangasser: Right. They are not buildable lots. Generous: If it's a wetland then yes. They would have to fill it and then do a mitigation. Larson: That's not what I'm saying. Dave Bangasser: And I think it's too small. It would be too, even the bigger of the lots is too small to be considered buildable. 26 Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Generous: You want to, if they have the ability to look at the entire area and see if overall they have 25%. Larson: Right. Generous: Yes. Currently we don't have the capabilities. Larson: Okay, that was my question. Generous: It may come up with the new photometrics system that we're getting. Larson: Okay. That's all I have, thanks. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: So can either of those parcels on either side are for sale or available just to use as green area? Dave Bangasser: The property immediately to the west is Mary Jo's cousin. I don't think he's got interest in selling it, and we actually did just talk to the owner of what I'll call the wetland of that piece here this spring. That's actually who I, who we bought this back lot from 4 years ago. And you know at this point he's not selling. Undestad: Because you don't really need a buildable lot. You need more green area. Dave Bangasser: Right. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: I have a question for you. Do you have a lot of examples of other riparian lots where we granted hard surface coverage variances for 3 stall garages? I mean at least in the ones that you have here, it doesn't mention 3 stall and I know city code kind of defines 2 stalls as the sort of normal, despite what you're saying. I know there's definitely a trend toward 3 stalls, but I think the city code still defines it as 2 stall. Generous: In the list that I have it only discusses 2 stall garages. Keefe: So the question would be, there would be sort of taking... precedence of granting. Certainly if we grant a 2 stall... McDonald: Okay, just to clear up at this point, I don't have any questions for the applicant. I'll reserve that til the end. What I'd like to do now is throw it open to the floor, if anyone has any comments on this as part of the public meeting portion, come forward and state your case. Thank you sir. 27 0 Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 Janet Paulsen: Again Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I would just like to clarify that these two lots are not contiguous and they're separated by a street. In our code, definition of a lot is, when a separate parcel, tract or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private street. So how is that going to be reconciled? With another variance? McDonald: I guess that's what we're trying to determine. I don't know. Anyone else have any questions or comments wishes to come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public meeting portion of this case and I'll bring it back up to the council for comment and discussion. Who would like to start? On my right or my left? Dan, why don't you start because you had some comments. Keefe: Yeah, you know I came in here sort of a firm idea of what I wanted to do and now when I hear the case, I'm not sure. You know it's a riparian lot so I mean my feeling and my general thinking on these things is to be a little bit tougher on this variance issue than non -riparian lots... variances that tend to come up on these lots in a lot of places in Chanhassen because the neighborhoods were developed before the big ordinance was put in place so while the lots tend to be smaller. I'm struggling a little bit with the two separate lots. I mean as I look at putting 3 stalls on that one lot on top, you know given the fact where it drains, it doesn't even drain out onto the same property. So the water goes somewhere else so are we really, is it fair to combine the hard surface coverage for those two lots since the water drains in different directions. I'm not so sure about that. So I'm still thinking about all this. McDonald: Okay, Mark. Undestad: I think with again the older neighborhoods, you brought up a good point. A lot of those houses are in 40, 51% in worst case scenario hard surface coverage. Granted if any of them come in and want to add more garage space onto their lots, they'd all be over the 40% probably that wouldn't happen. But I think again the fact that he does have the lot and drainage in different directions, I kind of agree with Dan. We've got two different drainage areas on there. We're combining two lots on each side of the street. ...separate lots. McDonald: Okay. Deborah. Larson: I'm kind of on the same. McDonald: Still thinking? Larson: Thinking, well yeah. I mean if there was a way that he could either purchase the lot next door, then the problem is solved or if he could have the capability of combining all of that area, it throws it right into the home but it's not at this point so I don't know. McDonald: Well we move down to Debbie. We'll throw it her. Zorn: I see the issue to be less of an outdoor storage space and more of the additional hard surface coverage that we're adding and the water quality of this additional drainage to the lake ultimately. I feel like we don't have very good information. On page 10 I really would have 28 Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 liked to have percentages of these variance files before me because it seems there is a precedence right now in the neighborhood to be higher and, but once we continue that precedence it becomes very difficult and there might be larger issues down the road. So I guess I'd probably lean towards denying this request. Trying to break from the precedence at this point. Papke: The drainage direction is an interesting question but I think if you look at the previous hard surface coverage variances that have been requested, that's never really been an issue, so if you put in a Sport Court, it doesn't make any difference what direction it drains off the Sport Court. It's still over the hard surface coverage. So I don't know that we can really take that much into account. I think the point about this being an issue of hard surface coverage is really well taken. I think if you drive down that street, the setback issues aren't a major issue. People aren't going to do 60 miles an hour down this street. These are pretty dam narrow streets so I'm not too concerned about the setback issues here. But I think clearly from a variance perspective, giving a homeowner the right to and properly utilize their property and bring it into city code with the 2 car garage is perfectly justified but I think going for a 3 car just takes it over the top and as you mentioned before, I think brings up some nasty precedence that we really don't want to set. I think it's also worthwhile noting that all three of the cases we've heard tonight have had surface water issues with them and Monday night we're going to meet with the City Council to look at our plan for the next 10 years for surface water management, which is likely to get even more and more strict in this area as we try to protect the natural resources like Lake Minnewashta so I think that's our primary goal here is to do the right thing for the lake at this point so I would recommend denial. McDonald: Okay. I'm really torn on this thing because what it reminds me of is problems that we went through with Lake Riley and all those homes up and down through there. I agree with Debbie from the standpoint, or from Deborah, I'm sorry. From the standpoint of I'd like to see what the hard surface coverage is in this neighborhood. That was one of the things that we looked at at Lake Riley and then begin to base decisions around that because it is common usage within the area. I also do not see the big deal about the setbacks because of the particular area. It is a hard surface coverage problem. I'm not sure that we're setting a precedence. That's why I'd like to see the numbers because at that point this may be totally within bounds of what's normal for that particular neighborhood. I mean if I have to vote on it tonight, I probably would vote to deny only because I'm not sure that we have the freedom to make a lot of these changes. Again that's not within our prerogative but my feeling is that this probably is within the norm for that particular neighborhood. I have received the e-mails. There's not, I haven't received any that spoke against this. In fact everybody seems to be pretty much in agreement with it. You know the way the water flows, does that make a difference? I don't know. You know, I mean we're at one end and it's going to the other. What's the impact on all the other houses as it makes it's way toward the lake? You know we do have a water is a very big deal. I mean we're hearing about it constantly about drainage flows and the things that people do. No problem and then all of a sudden a guy's got a flood coming down and washing out his driveway. So I do think that we do need to look at this a little bit more. I'm, it's just, I would vote in favor of you doing a 3 car garage. I really would, but the way that everything is written and the way the code is, I feel that I have no choice except to vote against that. I would be willing to support the 2 car FIE • Planning Commission Meeting — February 7, 2006 approach, which you've said you can't live with, and at that point yes. Your alternative is to take this and appeal it to the City Council. The City Council can make those kind of variances and grant those, you know grant what you're looking for. This commission I'm afraid can't do that without further information that we just don't have time to get. At Lake Riley we had requested this and the applicant in that particular case I'm thinking of, withdrew their application so that between city staff and us we could go back and re -work everything. It came out not exactly the way they wanted but I think they got something that was very livable and was better than what they had before. If the applicant wish to do that and negotiate a little bit with city staff and work on those things, we could certainly look at that. Otherwise I'm afraid the only alternative you're going to have is to go up to City Council and ask for other variances there where they can be granted. With that said, does anyone wish to make a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance number 06-04 for a 19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following. Number 1, the applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two stall garage. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: I second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #06-04 for a 19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two stall garage. All voted in favor except Commissioners Keefe, Larson and Undestad. It was a tied vote of 3to3. McDonald: So we have a split, 3-3. Okay, at that point then this needs to go to the City Council and what they can do is resolve the dilemma at that point. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE: SUBDIVISION REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND A SITE PLAN REQUEST WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-M XED USE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 101 AND FUTURE 212, CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PLACE, LLC, PLANNING CASE 06-05: i CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on January 26, 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 the Bangasser Variance Request — Planning Case No. 06-04 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thisa'?jeday o 2006. 'Notary P blic � ►fit%i I*uty Clerk �I KIM T. MEUWISSEN �., ai Notary Public -Minnesota �/NH.vvxn.H Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Variances for the construction of a three -stall garage Planning File: 06-04 Applicant: Dave Bangasser Property 3633 South Cedar Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview, of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/iintlustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Proposal: Variances for the construction of a three -stall garage Planning File: 06-04 Applicant: Dave Bangasser Property 3633 South Cedar LOCatIOn: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: • What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/webliri the Thursday prior to the Planning Comm salon meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alters Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this stantlartl. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. 11 Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a wrvey 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 Sayer, 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 Me depiction of geographic feal If mom or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The precedng disclaimer is provided Wisulm to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and etpressly waives all claim, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold hamness the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. Lake Minnewashta 1 SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta 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 Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error him. 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, ff emom or dacrepancies are found please contact 9 -227-1107. The preceding disclamer is provided pumuam to Minnesota Statutes §466 03, Subd- 21 (2000). and the user of this nap acknowedges that the City Shall not be liable for any damages. and expressly waves all darts, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hdd harmless the Chy from any and all darts brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties iehich arise oul of the users access or use of data provided. CHRIS & KRISTINE WEDES ALFRED & CARLOTTA F SMITH GREGORY BOHRER 3716 HICKORY RD 3714 HICKORY RD 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768 TRUE VANG ROGER L & DOROTHY P DOWNING ELIZABETH J NOVAK 3715 HICKORY RD 7200 JUNIPER 7210 JUNIPER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9769 PO BOX 651 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9613 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -0651 STEPHEN M GUNTHER & GARY ALAN PETERSON & GARY PETERSON HELEN KATZ-GUNTHER KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW 3628 HICKORY RD 1769 20TH AVE NW NEW BRIGHTON , MN 55112 -5433 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9766 NEW BRIGHTON . MN 55112 -5433 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON ARLENE KAY HERNDON PAMELA ANN SMITH 225 CAMPBELL DR 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3720 RED CEDAR POINT DR HOPKINS , MN 55343 -9235 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN DEBORAH S LOCKHART & EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD DIANE LEESON ANDING TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7720 361BRED CEDAR POINT RD 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7720 SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA 93401 -9204 PAMELA A SMITH JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE LUMIR C PROSHEK 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3630 HICKORY RD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 JEAN D LARSON DOUGLAS B & JAMEE ANDERSON JOHN R MARX & 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD HEIDI A RIGELMAN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9676 GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING 7201 JUNIPER PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657 MINNEAPOLIS , MN 55410 -1606 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER KEVIN A & LISA A MONTY BIRUTA M DUNDURS 8321 VIEW LN 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55347 -1430 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7721 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7721 PETER J & KARRI J PLUCINAK EMIL & PATRICIA SCUBA THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3631 SOUTH CEDAR 14025 VALE CT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 65331 -9686 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN SS344 -3017 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -%W RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 JEFFREY L& MICHELLE AJOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 GREGORY P ROBERTSON & LESLIE M ROBERTSON 3701 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9688 TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9687 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9688 AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3711 SOUTH CEDAR TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 • 0 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Bangasser Variance Request Planning Case No. 06-04 3633 South Cedar City of Chanhassen Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. W-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GI V EN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearingonTuesday, February7, 2006, at TOO p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Variances for the construction of a three -stall garage on property located at3633SouthCedar. Applicant: Dave Bangasser. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons areinvited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzerC"i ch h sen mn Phone: %2-227- 1132 (PublishedintheChanbassenVillager on Thursday, January 26, 2006; No. 4597)_ Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 115 9 `1 was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdetghUkhnnopgrs vwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this toxt day of 2006 Notary Public [didodd do off of 0 - - - 0 --- ff_oofdfd____ GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARY ftft C - 6WM50TA 40 MY Comn'melm EWM JFA 31, 7D10 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for hard surface coverage and two front -yard setback Variances for the construction of a three -stall garage on property located at 3633 South Cedar. Applicant: Dave Bangasser. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 26, 2006) Carver County GIS Mapping Application yy e• t i. Copgright ®2005, Gnrr ('a�iuy, Minresola Legend Rod Teal US Koh"Ye N MOMY+ N oAx Map Created on: CNMV pwdl 1-9-2006 makes Carver °iu s County Aerial PMo 7007 This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 553 02/01/2006 10:19:17 AM Receipt No. 0000422 CLERK: danielle PAYEE: Mary Jo Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie MN 55347 GIS list 06-04 ------------- - ------ GIS List 114.00 Total 114.00 Cash Check 4149 Change 0.00 114.00 0.00 SCANNED n City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CM OF (952) 227-1100 To: Dave Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 1/26/06 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 38 Property Owners List within 500' of 3633 South Cedar (38 labels) $3.00 $114.00 TOTAL DUE $114.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for February 7, 2006. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #06-04. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Mr. Josh Metzer Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request- 3633 South Cedar Drive Dear Josh, RECEIVE® JAN 19 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN i/181p(o Per your request, enclosed please find the original signed Certificate of Survey for the revisions you requested. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at my office, 952/656-4457. Please note I will be out of town from January 30a'to February 5`h. ce elly, C/ Dave Bangasser {CANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN • • P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 O1/05/2006 9:58:29 AM Receipt No. 0000232 CLERK: Danielle PAYEE: Mary Jo & David Bangasser 8321 View Lane Eden Prairie MN 55347 06-04 Bangasser Variance ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total Cash Check 3926 Change 250.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 SCANNED PLEASE PRINT • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 Planning Case No. 36 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 0 4 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNIN MW and Address: Owner Name and Address: rA<i C70 1 MACY 3o 13, Contact: Phone: 952 b56-4US1 Fax: q 352-NS-I Email: �GIJ!!,3c�hgzsf�oPc.sc rP,(o+� — SAME Contact: Phone: 952 3 - ! Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) _X_ Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ a50 2-- pa C0L 3g3L/, 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. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED • PROJECT NAME: bhlk- Et f-W(L-f 6VW6rC LOCATION: 3(o 33 5 �R Cepke. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LAY LOf.�', 5� 9E7) CC'-TkK.'?L9INT- LlkVk MIN4L-VAsTy} TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: C YES C NO PRESENT ZONING: 9,5 r REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: LI)w Aeu fewYl -w - REASON FOR REQUEST: VAPRimWe fAiNA 'C o 64t,)T YA4 se'rwy-- RuuIRCMFNtS '(o Lash R3 awr/06r 9oN-&ARW(F14 siNCTLL :TTALf_. �-&Mk IN 00LI To IoNsTQUCT A 'Tk&6 STALL "P-AdE W rrS DACE. PRo4aSiaD To E-WA 'R.f)lu v-e To AkrcN .iie �k�sT�c�Cr CONIIoN of Alf akimAiTL-� Wei FC-GT 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 application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 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. (: Signati ure of Applicant Signatur o Fhb Owner i2 I 1 �p s Date 1 I, I' I Io SCANNED Date GApL.AMforms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 E Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 3633 South Cedar Drive- Variance Request Dear Sharmeen, CITY RECEIVEDSSEN JAN 0 4 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Per our meetings on this subject, attached are materials required for our application for a variance from the front yard setback requirement on both Red Cedar Drive and South Cedar in order to demolish our existing single stall garage to construct a three stall garage. The proposed setback are the existing setback of approximately 11-1/2 feet. Attached please find the following materials: 1. Development Review Application- Variance 2. Check in the amount of $ 250.00 3. Certificate of survey prepared Engineering Design Services- 12 sets at l lxl7, one 8.5xl 1. 4. Proposed floor plans and elevations- 12 sets 8.5xl 1. I ask that the planning staff as well as the Planning Commission and City Council consider the following relative to this request: • My wife's family has owned the lakeshore property for over 60 years. While the property is not our full time residence, we plan make it our full time residence within 2 to 6 years (when Catherine, our youngest child, is in college or when we are done paying for her college.) • The property was platted in 1913 which predates the current zoning ordinances. The individual lots are smaller than current minimum sizes and as a result, nearly all of the properties in the area have similar setbacks to what we are proposing and in a number of cases much smaller setbacks. • The variance we are requesting is an existing condition that will not be any closer to either road right of way than the existing garage. The majority of the addition will be further from the road than the existing. • The single stall garage is not big enough to meet our storage needs. With a boat, trailer, personal watercraft, etc. we feel we need 2 stalls for recreational equipment. Hopefully this is not surprising for lakeshore property. In addition, we have no car storage. Over the Labor Day weekend we sustained hail damage to our minivan which was parked outside since we choose to store the boat trailer, etc. in the garage. With two children driving, we own 4 cars, three of which are often at the property when we are there. We believe a three stall garage is a reasonable request. SCANNED 0 Due to the unique triangular shape with roads on two sides, there is no area we could build a reasonable sized garage without a variance. While constructing the garage further to the west would allow a somewhat greater setback than the existing condition, this would be further away from the lake home which we would have to deal with for many years. In addition, a more westerly location would be directly in front of our neighbors, the Johnson's. Tom and Jackie would have a better view from their front door if we maintain the view of our lawn area rather than our garage doors. At your suggestion, I have met with you and Jill Sinclair on site to discuss the proximity of the existing elm and oak trees near the garage. We have already incorporated similar measures in our plans to that which Jill suggested to our neighbor to the north, the Gunther's, on their garage variance two years ago which has resulted in their oak tree surviving quite well. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at my office, 952/656-4457. incerely, Dave Bangas�� s�k SCANNED 0 0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE FOR: DAVE BANGASSER 3633 SOUTH CEDAR CHANHASEN, MN BENCHMARK El. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH, 200 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH k RED CEDAR POINT CEDAR --�vcc aF 61T------,• 5' EASEMENT PERPETUAL ITTROAD 15' EASEMENT PERPr1LL LEGEN FOUND IRON MONUMENTS 0 DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENTS ", Lg DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 999.99 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION Os DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE WYOFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED uo DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE JAN 0 4 2006 MQ DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE PLANNING DEPT MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT STREET 30 FT. REAR YARD 30 FT. INTERIOR SIDE YARD 10 FT. HMDC0�IER AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1 1397.5 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1 7920.30 SQ. FT. HARDCOVER OF LOT 1 17.6% NO 1Q IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATION ' ALL LOT LINE BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED • CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS • NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and the east 1O.DO feet of lot 17. Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota CER�CA�ON I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor �under the Laws of the State of Minnesota Dated: J 2 9 0- 5-Vladimir Sivriver MN Reg. No. 25105 1 11 19 F4 958.00 1 UNE C E D A R P L A K E OF /J ✓ dT A EAST LINE OF 1.0 16 SCALE 1'='D' r 15 5 EAS f HW% 4.55 AO EAST UNE OF LOT 15 �9 , / / Ap • scAmNEE) 648Q Wayzata Boulevard, N ianeapohs, MN 55426-1710 EDS PLNie: {763}545-2800 Fax. (932) 37?-7700 lrmafl: nfo�r[reds mi com Web Site: http ' estsmn cam Ers7C IXEERINc. DESIGN & SujaviEvzKc CL CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE FOR: DAVE BANGASSER 3633 SOUTH CEDAR CHANHASEN, MN BENCHMARK El. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH, 200 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH k RED CEDAR POINT LEGEND DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENTS O DENOTES SETIRON MONUMENTS - DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 999.99 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION Qs DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE CQ7 DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE ARMOM SETBACKS FRONT STREET 30 FT. REAR YARD 30 FT. INTERIOR SIDE YARD 10 FT. HARDCOVER AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1 1560 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1 7920 SQ. FT. HARDCOVER OF LOT 1 19.7% AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 16 3159 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 16 7276 SQ. FT. HARDCOVER OF LOT 16 43.4% HARDCOVER OF COMBINED LOTS: 31.0% NOTE 1O IT IS POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATION ' ALL LOT LINE BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED ` CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS * NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and the east 10.00 feet of lot 17, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota CER�CATION I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota �q Dated:? Vladimir Sivriver MN Reg. No. 25105 EASEMENT PERPETUAL _ 40.00 15' EASEMENT PERPETUAL I N 1A Y 00 CD fU ° o N W .' RECEIVED JAN i 1. 20s03 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2 EDGE OF BIT. CEDAR _ OINT,ROA— Co m } EDGE OF BIT. r o M 958.00 10 — ti F — 1 Ln J o W W o V .= £ 4 SETBA LINE / A R j SCALE 1'-30' 0 ' 15 / S A H(XMM �4 m 'iEP _ � nwsE MX' 563 i \ W ( N EXISTING N -_aNausE m 455 AA r \ 1,7 � A 10 EAST LINE OF 1-0 17 29 EAST LINE OF LOT 16 OH W- p,: 150 M OWNED ER, SC h 6430 Wayzata Boulevard, Mituteapolis, Phone. (6e)545-2800 Fux. \iti 55425 10 (932) 37-700 it E-mdl: info,&dsmn:com Web Site: lion !edsnut.cam E-*,c,INiEE12IitiG Es9IGN be SuRviriviiNG CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE FOR: DAVE BANGASSER 3633 SOUTH CEDAR CHANHASEN, MN BENCHMARK El. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH. 200 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH h LEGEND CEDAR POINT 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENTS Q DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENTS 9 99.99 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION W DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION Qs DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE 'e DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE 0, DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE MIND" SETBACKS FRONT STREET 30 FT. REAR YARD 30 FT. INTERIOR SIDE YARD 10 FT. AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1 1560 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1 7920 SQ. FT. HARDCOVER OF LOT 1 19.7% <— AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 16 3159 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 16 7276 SO. FT. HARDCOVER OF LOT 16 43.4%-N*— HARDCOVER OF COMBINED LOTS 31.O.T, NOTE 1Q IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATION • ALL LOT LINE BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED • CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS • NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MWEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesoto Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and the east 10.00 feet of lot 17. Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota CER�ICA�ON I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota I/eft ! S'lJ'kDated: lbIDrc Vladimir Sivriver MN Reg. No. 25105 0 CE_ Lnr WWT.—.____ EASEMENT KWEIVAL )) Q EDGY Or `xL - - s - 13' EAS ur pvnTuA x d5 (p q7 23 49'3 •E n F� 5.57 < AS.i 1p I� • Nana :6 �/ / 2 UI 1 - "PR SE 8 Lon _ m o I GAR a 4�/ �mOA99�.9 K&E 1'=M' /IT v o I lON 00, N,y 15 „:.. t 5 bra ' 0 40, \ % 11g616J+ 1 R P R E C E D A w D LAKE IdiNE \7 \ 7 W o1N T\ �r EAST DNE OF LQT 17 EAST UNE OF LOT 15 10 X S X - DHW=944.50 L+(111�yi �1 y 6486 Wayzata Houtevnrd, Iv5mreapohs. MN 55426-1710 PLuaa: (763) Y15-.2800 Fax: (93T) 377.-7700 C E-Mail: 1E! 07f'ed=LhTIR Well) Site: 111t�_Itd9nMCO1Tt EN''GINEERIINTG DESIGN & SVI2YE`YING SCANNED � I,olt.bo 839�0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ' sa RESIDENCE FOR: V 1 DAVE BANGASSER- 3633 SOUTH CEDAR 5' EASEMENT PERPETUAL CHANHASEN, MN RED BENCHMARK agQo E • El. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH, 200 FEET WEST OF 15' EASEMENT PERPETUAL INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH & j RED CEDAR POINT n � LEGEND 958.00 • DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENTS I 1 I O DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENTS i 10,� 999.99 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 2 1 999.99 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION ILI'l o e Qs DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE IcaI W W w1c; V a' DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE fU DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE cCh DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE £ I ISETBA uNE MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT STREET 30 FT. I 6 a T REAR YARD 30 FT. INTERIOR SIDE YARD 10 FT. HARDCOVER j v AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1 1560 SQ. FT. Z9`1.31 Z6% �'P AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1 7920 SQ. FT. HARDCOVER LOT 1 18.7% AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 76 3159 SO. F7. / AREA TOTAL OF LOT 16 7276 SQ. FT. I S,14b -1 at.L HARDCOVER OF LOT 16 43.4% I HARDCOVER OF COMBINED LOTS: 31.0%, ZZ.'f�j7 T NOTE 1� IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC Q Q PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATIONALL LT Os ` CONTROL IINEMBEARINGS ARE ASSUMED UST PROPOSED ELEVATIONS4W�er w/0 &rowzj �S.(O7-+1/0 '$ , * NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN \r w COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota - Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and the east 10.00 feet of lot 17, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota --. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor underthe Laws of the State of Minnesota (C 1&d >'w'I"✓ovDated: Vladimir Sivriver MN Reg. No. 25105 M CO EDGE OF BIT. .4 0 EXISTING y _ a HOUSE 0 EE �4 - tidy .31 Zyy. `l I g11.31 » �b � N.1 \`17 1 \ \ COMF \ s 10 \ X VEY L EAST LINE OF LOJ 17 Qg� 40, g0 C i � g0 ro K _ \ / 4v) SCALE 1'=30' 15 HMM l EKIVI 4.53 J �o 2 EAST LINE OF LOT 16 X Y OHW=944.50 }� Y a SCANNED - f{ 6480 WayzatnBoulevaTd,.N1=eapoiis, MN ti5426-F!IU PtiLme (76+) 515-2800 Fux. (932) 37 -7700 r tt rW-C EmailinSo�iecismiLelm Web Site: httR'/'ed =cozn Et TNC=INEJEI2IXC- DESFGZ°d �c ��Jfl2R E�i'IN I olt.So �39.go CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RESIDENCE FOR: V� DAVE BANGASSER_------ 3633 SOUTH CEDAR 5' �EEy�ASEMENT PERPETUAL CHANHASEN, MN ,,¢_" nn•AO/C AC BENCHMARK EI. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH, 200 FEET WEST OF 15' EASEMENT PERPETUA INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH & RED CEDAR POINT r�'S�oal. IEGEND W a 3 J I DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENTS O DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENTS 10 999.99 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 999.99 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION Qs DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE 00 �� L � 'AO1p5 jl00 a DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE r_'�f '� ,�•�tp w i N DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE VV ' �Z� 3A CD1 C(D� DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER P0y 1 MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT STREET 30 FT. REAR YARD 30 FT. L J1 INTERIOR SIDE R YARD 10 Fr. HARDCOVE U AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1 1560`SQ. FT. 29'I3I AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1 7920 SQ. FT. ; HARDCOVER OF LOT 1 19.7%• 3•►L% AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 16 3159 SQ. FT. AREA TOTAL OF LOT 16 7276 SQ. FT. 15,146 -T t-t HARDCOVER OF LOT 16 43.4% HARDCOVER OF COMBINED LOTS: 31.0% 22.13r MOTE 1D IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATION . ALL LOT LINE BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED ■ CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 410 --1 V • NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN �t1 COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR ' S/ RED CEDr1R l�p�� n , - » J EDGE OF BIT, d," v / GAR ti I 'vim j Y / ISETBA IJNECj 0`S O LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE L MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and the east 10.00 feet of lot 17, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County, Minnesota -- CERMCA�ON I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota V&d 1�11A)hi✓041 Dated: Vladimir Sivriver MN Reg. No. 25105 WA C Fj -D A R 14 1 .14 V, V I 10 e7 10 EAST LINE OF 1-0 17 2sy y� 0 15 5 1, NWSE 4.53 10 x 121 SCALE 1'=30' EAST LINE OF LOT 16 -,�(o F--- OHW=944.50 WAWMf '/Z3 N1-7' �Izs s� 3sb st3 �z3 4�og ups �sy �A Li01 5 7 3c8 3 S29 3 S z,4 qy( �pOS ?j �,0 q Z� 3 S2� yz� L� Z% 307 Sd3 313 Z-SY 2 S-t 3�r Sly 3Zo yob 3 3b -7Zy 3� 6480 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, Phone. (763) 545-2800 Fax: NIl3 55426 1710 (952) 377-7700 E-ma11: infanedsrmLct1m Web Site: hi !eGsrin.cazn I�::°4'GLNEERII,G I�ESIGIV 8c �iJRZ'EYI:^di1G 0 0 2,(e C � m E, E L 3 N 17 x P VA Mil ` � Iz 7. I• n N b9 id' p IK IOIF rca \ / Q Oc S57'30'17'W ` W 103.76 U W v] d S58'00'21W 126.30 ~ �mCw �n Wz o VI Wo 3z1� 0 ONNO VOiO <n ZO wjO `^I` m n a y� 401 yy11 Fz� 32 O��yy W lO`IW mjFS ggqqw <V=1 Y� j0 PLON w zp� z1 ii<3 w rc �� f� ao ivyioz 5: o_js p o mONt NWyNy 32j �2 0 V1 F O J<$5 m Oj 2[ 10,05 o w� J O wOO OJMK�<m 2 Z U < [T] onu ego z m "�'rc oO w oJmmfi o�ioN4uFio ac <ojo" o E e - vzFifo�'i awiiioi�c'pp r= - e U�V �NwdN O U W yOJ OyOjOV m�2< J Op OO�< O o oFWK�6<OU O-Oyffz<ON�wNw32 £ ONIzo 2 �oOPwRKpV z Jm Z00 rcWOFOo g-O`syOyz Z<JJ EY OoCJp _rO W z zW m dp c0u NV E WWO¢«<ZFZ 'OrX4 ZW •O FGN<OOO wzu z .. i YEoGe3a 0 D 43 lid N gtltl a 6 C�1 x w lsl "t A " b b9 E E I'! Q 6 J F! W / x x I ioe 4 en I IS57'30'17'W �� i • w _103,76 n1 S58'00'23_W — — — --# S 126.30 E b lam' AuFnnZ2zWNU )Z'dfOb7O�z17.IOFyyZV ZF8<WxJi W°Nl yYKm i 0dyyd'l ^ArONpFp.�0wn KOrq'wOifIthnn 1N OdBNo5<)OW�WNzZNS!"jmmo dd<pG 2mu<-^�v=oo�V =FPW 1 97<LL5UM 9 6wmO < i0im<d o E W FZ �O Q )o €wi_N'z p< o ZNia°o - u� oN w mN o N�oEo OOf 00z2m W w 046 l � xOO 0Z. _Ooim <,O<Wrcz U e p �<"•e�0op-:i°°- 6N<2L3w3Z ... w 031 02 — 126.30 i H E. 3 r N O d P� W d x W � V W W d � a z .o �C 0o z Mid =O MW n '^.nm jo F�WQj �j �WO OF W W R- PN� �� O,ZJ Nxw nOSVNi�ZF wVyN O�F< zd ~ �8rc M.>!J o w o V u�ay GFJtg azuti.c� 0 o Rno o iosrd om OFa�UOJ i.F�r W .O0 U pjB NUF Orii W N LL Y N11�� J4UK 2w NVpW HJ� Z aka NN N o N N o W �V� wF mJOw m� 000zo uw==2 2 g =a Woa <a I� a W� 0� ¢V- N<V< UW Om000 O m U FYO =aa V V. ZD�F VWW Vj KNd mVa" ¢u� W<U y,F2 Fz 3 0 u�Src olu •O OQ*� ��yy( Wrc? .4m aax -ar �nwj•oo a$=m O 4 �( no ZU a=ao� €aas o -a � 'm P `o �8 0-`j a o riJ �1 8s v go j N • myMY o;;a'' H z 3 T3 l gg �y cF M Ag N ICJ ppp � ria LoCP 0 e a \ X ram: 13'CRAvol m \ m 3b4p\ a� I f1 G�'L•`PW B / omW it v � � .� dUC6... or � S57*30'17'V W 103.76 tp CQ cs\ A Y S58'00'23'N 126.30 >1 r ° W98g 4mw3 v y o Nui ev,� ur o No• ooFO Jw ma a.; ° E c o€i r € �wz F� w W.2� e'c om� c N OUZJbl Q�� ziFao dw y�j nI mom. wZ HZ 0NQ 1° E=QwJZ F i �7QdOF Fam3 wqq Tz e i '��'� z'6 w' m o a � - o"''6wK rcFr 6:¢� L zbo' ¢ omi o8rc O�w� J O U o0o ZJp3Q�'tQPm no z"'m �oomrc yak nn o4Fr rc�� U mE F a Oa Z OQ U li �Qo(NJ ��ei owzea "' yJ� rc o00 "'LL3 cuirc Si Sm 88 cWip"prr= 1� U m W dN m U W 6 m mOWQ NJF U W8 ai rHrI O a>> OO d O O O O O O zo O W U K J ¢ W W z m ♦" Z - O O i N zz z zz z z z OLL $<u< ff��JJ 0000c o 0 o Rio 32o imtr ��k'ovoW g o �i -w Ww zxMo wwo R"i�QaJ m =' o;' o mua" p�jy oQk' a fl $ o d E -z�m o�� 4¢b aai �im�z6 oo i -i�z `o `° > �1 ¢ W Wo?c • O © o . .. 's 9 e5a S i U p ... f 4R\!g►NAL-s+�� eA kciL 5. Ce dQf ICI n�'' . ..,..,.. CEDAR EDI M _...._,__.._..._..__ DINROAD, 3 r7 , 2 q1 3 Ao oo �. ........... I NE L I1 i U I o M� • EDGE OF 131T. 557 XISTI a RAGE, i IFF" m, wAd 00 1 0 V .• yJ✓ CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN MAR 0 3 Z006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT n SCANNED SCAN'i'^ Location Map Bangasser Variance Request Planning Case No. 06-04 3633 South Cedar City of Chanhassen Lake Minnewashta SUBJECT SITE Lake Minnewashta SCANNED x Si v �I . LD N x y 151 \6'.41 f i -� b� 51 • 9 6931 a , Y �x cl.. tp a$I b S57.30'17w — -- » O W 103.76 _ 7 avad z sse•ara3_y — _ a, a i - 1z6.30 9 0 y Z. $u4 °•N$+^ oN o''�• mw as W t�i i-yy§ O w nci < m§= fzL.>2 §nZ $oW1 ox=.e�O•_: FZZF. to 2S°m. .0 <c O _• E e c o �� <OW �W NO2 O � W V ��f0�f� w�;U��2_Z_N iS (S t�•a< �O �� IV�NV N W 1<N O V 6 Ny VJ Nyy VJV O�Wy<1-�_F 0•' Op"� � t � N U O 2 NNNNN N N N F Y 3k.1pV NFOmO w �'�y ✓ V k'k'k'�'k' r w o rc og o$ axsw�voiI .r •• z $a a o0000 0 0 0 0� w?zu<p .h... E n< rc. wzuzW o o Ni0 aoomO ob zROJ�uk� o` er^i} a Ui Qq<� o000o Sa _CC 35 7 (�'y aiircL ¢o¢ pazaw w66wrcwZ6w y{oy{ a{{ "<Fo�Zranu m< _ '�•, T., s $ O P� .�mayy a 42 .22 OwN�•'dN�p 00 O <ozo 9i �°e5a Ss