The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-14_3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD 25-6600270I 11 I I I 1 I' 1 I �I 3O' i SETBACK I —' 3603 ED CEDAR PO INT DRIVEEXISTIN G HOUS1992 S.F 0 BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALL SETBACKS ARE ENFORCED - 387 S.F.) " LAKE MINNEWASHTA M ANi SITE OF } PREVIOUS FUEL - OIL TANK — PROPOSED GARAGE - 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, SLAB ELEVATION 947.3 HEIGHT: 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE I/ -4 � 1 Ut I LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 w OSITE PLAN _L 1 1"=70'-0" - north 6CHNNEC In z h J F m 7 VI W U z a a Q Em 61].220.6190 MACKEYMALIN. COM W V w 0 WZZ �OZ 1 W W QN a o= p�uz Win= ('=U W o 0 ,0 M GROIECI � Sd.1ic Design PROIER NJM - ISSUE DA16 ISSUE DATE 4Y: PM SITE SITE PLAN 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER I I I i I I I 21'-8" AT PEAK I I I i I l I 1 I I EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3b' j (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. SETBACK TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. NEW GARAGE: 621 S.F. j NEW DRIVE: 185 S.F. EXIST' I TOTAL IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED = 7997 S.F. (24.97%) i BITUMI US DRIVE I I I I I I I/ -4 � 1 Ut I LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 w OSITE PLAN _L 1 1"=70'-0" - north 6CHNNEC In z h J F m 7 VI W U z a a Q Em 61].220.6190 MACKEYMALIN. COM W V w 0 WZZ �OZ 1 W W QN a o= p�uz Win= ('=U W o 0 ,0 M GROIECI � Sd.1ic Design PROIER NJM - ISSUE DA16 ISSUE DATE 4Y: PM SITE SITE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 225 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedor Point, Carver County, Minnesota. Except the West 25 feet thereof. GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing system used is assumed. FHSJ BENCHMAR7I I TOP OF NAILIt, ELEV.=946.3 `\ K. UNE LOT 1, SLOCK 4 1 ` $+l `No 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, � ♦♦ are approximate only. PURSUANT TO MSA 2160 CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY 9a6.9X t EXCAVATION. I 3. Site area total = 32025 square feet = 0.735 acres. area within survey line = 25910 square feet = 0.595 I acres.ocres. 947.!X 4. This survey was made on the ground. I 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this I survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and encumbrances are subject to revision upon receipt of current 947.0>k title work. I 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data. Bench mark is located Top of Nall (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) 47 OXO 94 Elevation = 946.33 I 7. Extreme snow and ice cover of subject survey area may cause some improvements to be non visible at time of survey. 8. Impervious Area details. Total Site Area: 32025 square feet Total Structure Impervious Area: 7191 square feet House Areo(s): 1992 square feet Other Structure Area(s): 0 square feet Driveway/Paved Areas: 3922 square feet Potio/Deck Areo(s): 316 square feet Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet Percent of Total Site Area that is Impervious: 22.45% BUILDING DETAIL r----------------------- i 1 3603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE I 1 -STORY BUILDING I FOOTPRINT AREA - 1992 SO. FT. I L----------------------- J 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 Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: March 1 2015 h T mos E. Hodorff Minn. Reg. No. 236 Revision History. 947.3X LEGEND MW FOUND Found Property Monument SET IRON Set Property Monument IRON (Minn. Reg. No. 23677) Concrete Concrete Curb 19 Electric Meter 0 Gate Valve 60 30 0 60 ® Air Conditioning Unit www Window Well (' ) Deciduous Tree (Dia. in In.) SCALE IN FEET � IN X946.2 X946.5 946.1) X946.7 X946.3 o 94F 46.8 i / i X946 V/ ..e- -WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB 23, 2015 D< tKN. ; i -SURVEY LINE - _ _ _906 -lee 1\ X 934.3 18'1 leia�� F _ g4 45� � 944.2 �� Cb � 4.2 y�-ROCK -7 WALL-�jt � X946.3 M��""" 4 946.3 %\ X946.1 46.5 X946.8 4.6 .5 0 FINISHED FLOOR 46.4 ELEV.=94640 46.7 �>C946.6 xg2m.-a- 9R� X X946 s\ 1 ,XS 46.0 X946.7 Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) Gas Meter Hydrant Existing Contour Existing Spot Elevation tK L i 942 Xg48- X9\46. 947-8 Fol, x946.5 9460-'i �s a X948.1 ,a \ i l6.5 L -947 X946.3 6 946.3 X946.6 18'1 leia�� F _ g4 45� � 944.2 �� Cb � 4.2 y�-ROCK -7 WALL-�jt � X946.3 M��""" 4 946.3 %\ X946.1 46.5 X946.8 4.6 .5 0 FINISHED FLOOR 46.4 ELEV.=94640 46.7 �>C946.6 xg2m.-a- 9R� X X946 s\ 1 ,XS 46.0 X946.7 Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) Gas Meter Hydrant Existing Contour Existing Spot Elevation tK L 9p' , 46 '-- Fol, ?4aS9��! k� X946.947 94 ad FINISHED FLOOR LL X946.3 ELEV.=946.39 0 8.4, FINISHES FLOOR iI�" _ r ELEV.=951.29 m FINISHED FLOOR / _ - 39.5 ELEV.=951.46 j R9 1 I �_ 18'1 leia�� F _ g4 45� � 944.2 �� Cb � 4.2 y�-ROCK -7 WALL-�jt � X946.3 M��""" 4 946.3 %\ X946.1 46.5 X946.8 4.6 .5 0 FINISHED FLOOR 46.4 ELEV.=94640 46.7 �>C946.6 xg2m.-a- 9R� X X946 s\ 1 ,XS 46.0 X946.7 Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) Gas Meter Hydrant Existing Contour Existing Spot Elevation tK L CID a 46 '-- 7+/- / ?4aS9��! k� X946.947 -�Ng`47 to LL X946.3 vk 0 � C% X9a6.5 iI�" X946.7 -94)� X942 / \ \ X946.8 X946.5 946.4X z1 \947 46.T � � \ '942� ^O 4 /j ¢ 94$_ BITU4fNOU$4447.1==� a 950.E -.;;:r950 ?1I\ 9�49_ 94 - _948- L950- 949.8 -X9&g--X94 9.0 X948_8 \949.3X849 -949- - _ , X94$0` X949.5 v- 949--, '5- ♦dy -948- vs3 X948.7 94049.9X Ily = ht _94= 94 ♦C J X9a5.b `' j 84•31'Ofi �a66203.88 8 -9!L6- X94(4>4�' _ 4 t X946.1 _ /tea n ♦ o 'O R_ 9 Q. X946. bb`3 \X946,8 X946.0 a' X946.1 x hb N\ X,9415 f F .2 J ♦♦♦ *--SURVEY LINE 71 Ln e- - E. LINE OF W. 225 FT. OF LOT iLp rn I I 1 I WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB 23, 2015 12+/ - SCANNED z CJjr E u �Z0 o Ci 0 (n h VU �� x0 QJ w Z O Q v a y S� MM n Ow -1��v, ��n N �°vaE-c vi 0 �' a, 00 0) 3 } ,n _, c CIOas 3 WZn ON C14 -6 =JaOi 121v 2 to to w3 W > 0=0� LU Z 0 za Jaz Z-. < 2 0 CLow W HO adWQ L Wcc= J O Z F- Y M _ U H F5 = r CAD File: 2015125.OWG Path: J: \2015125\DWG\ CID a IfO 04a to LL rn 0 � C% T E r N z° T _ - o 3 CAD File: 2015125.OWG Path: J: \2015125\DWG\ 0 Generous, Bob 0 From: Generous, Bob Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 2:57 PM To: 'Pat Mackey Subject: RE: Preliminary Garage siting - 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive Pat, The garage location is not acceptable. When we looked at this previously, we anticipated a garage approximately in line with the existing structure. While our preference would be attached at the northwest corner of the structure, something to the east of the house may also be possible, with a variance. Setbacks are 75' from the ordinary high water (OHW) of lake Minnewashta, which is an elevation of 944.5. Technically, the front yard setback of 30' would be from the west property line. In reviewing a variance, the following criteria are used: A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Please note that the graphic scale and the drawing scale do not match. If you have additional questions or need more information, please contact me. :.. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1131 baenerousPci.chanhassen.mn.us :SCANNEC Chanhassen is a Community for Life— Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow From: Pat Mackey rmailto:patCalmackeymalin.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:15 PM To: Generous, Bob Cc: kj geigerCabyahoo.com; Gregg T. Geiger Subject: Preliminary Garage siting - 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive rnsm As we discussed last week, here is a preliminary site plan for a 2 -car garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive (single family home). There is currently no garage on site on the property. We are seeking a variance to build one, but want to understand our chances of success with that, so we are sending this preliminary plan. We have placed the garage due north of the house. The garage is designed with 621 s.f. footprint, and will be slab -on -grade with a studio space above. The diagram shows about an additional 340 s.f of asphalt driveway, and there will be a small subtraction of existing driveway, so net impervious increase of just under 1000 s.f. It's possible that we could slide the garage further to the west, but we want to understand the setbacks and what criteria you and City Staff are looking at. Please take a look and let me know if you have any comments or how we proceed from here. If you want, I can easily get some dimensions on the plan or send a scale -able .pdf. The attached .pdf is an overall with a graphic scale from the Surveyor. Pat Mackey Mackey Malin Architects 5200 Washburn Avenue S Minneapolis MN 55410 612-220-6190 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Th. West 225 feet o1 Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Carver County, Minnesota. Except the West 25 feet thereof. W. UNT Lar 1, BLOCK 4, GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing system used le assumed. 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, if anyy ore approximate only. PURSUANT TO NSA 2160 CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 3. Site area total - 32,025 square feet - 0.735 acres. within survey line - 25,910 square feet - 0.595 area 4. This survey was mode on the ground 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey, legal descriptions recorded or unrecorded easements and encumbrances are subject to revision upon receipt of current title work. 6. Elevation datum Is based on NAVD 88 data Bench mark le located Top of Nall (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) Elevation - 946.33 947.0( X846.594f.a wV 947.OX X946 X946.5 9416 46.0 X948.1 X9/8.0 46 0 4 X946.7 46.3 X946.0 X94: S X948.3 47.OX 'o ae a ,,,e X946.6 X846.3 GARAGE -821 S.F. FOOTPRINT, SLAB ELEVATION 947.1 7. Extreme snow and ice cover of subject sur"y area may " "' --- X946.7 X946.5 cause some Improvements to be non visible at time of survey. 947.3X 46.5 B. impervious Area details. X947'0 XM r 946.5 0 X946.8 X946.7 Total Site Arco: 32025 square feet .Z A w Nip "1 46.4 X947.2 X946.5 Total Structure Impervious Area: 7191 square feet O !O e _ .-..Q 46J House Areo(s): 1992 square feet � so X948.8 „ i 48.8 848.4X Other Structure Are s: 0 square feet Q ,s. o Patio/ Driveweck Ard Areae: sq square teal U 11NISIIEp R -9 ' 46] B1 ].1 a^D Other Imps vious ): Surface square feet k - D2vsw.w 0. >V INOUS Other of Total S e Area Area: 961 square feet W ¢ � Percent of Total Sife Area that Is Impervious: 22.45E1 �I p Y 1 Few 50, mow, ' " `Jrd-.sRl... X49'9 X949.0 X94g9 BUILDING DETAIL 10 , 1 fQidN-"' uT'49.8 XBL 2 49.2 a a�. vl X9495 968.3X 3803 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE X949.0 1 -STORY BUILDING C9468 X9 .5 X946.7 949.£ FOOTPRINT AREA - 1992 SO. FT. ,a,� r veno q Itall v X94 ' X946.6 8431' 469 9 x'4pJ5 to X946.3 X946.6203.88` 44.2 0 9 y CERTIFICATION: 4.2 R aa• X948.3 X946.1 X948.3 w{J � O � S� www I hereby certify that this survey plan or report X946.1 X946.1 yw NP 'J '9 was prepared by me or under my direct supervision 0 '3 and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor as X946.8 X9 7 J RVEY LINE under the lows of the State of Minnesota. 9 X948.1 - Date: March 3. 2015 Thomas E. Hodorlf Minn. Reg. No. 23677 m LINE AS LOCATED FEB 23, 2015 0 J Z ZryZ$ pF �O�N SU UU o< Q�k V) a pNe NN�'q �a,ca,yea<ppEVi; L EI awe aa'a'3 agg�� x mm°O� .• i J LEGEND W ill FOUND Found Property Monument > F < SET IRON Set Properly Monument IRON (Minn. Rag. No. 25677) Za��Z C) of Q 0 Concrete U L. w 0 a- O� U N Concrete Curb U D Electric Meter L LL1 = 0 Gate Val" 60 30 60 ® Air Conditioning Unit ww Window Well It Dedduoue Tree (Dia. In In.) SCALE IN FEET p1 Coniferous Tree (Dia. In In.) WATER UNE AS LOCATED FEB 23, 2015 Q Gas Meter Hydrant 0 URVEY UNE - 905 Existing Contour X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation 947.0( X846.594f.a wV 947.OX X946 X946.5 9416 46.0 X948.1 X9/8.0 46 0 4 X946.7 46.3 X946.0 X94: S X948.3 47.OX 'o ae a ,,,e X946.6 X846.3 GARAGE -821 S.F. FOOTPRINT, SLAB ELEVATION 947.1 7. Extreme snow and ice cover of subject sur"y area may " "' --- X946.7 X946.5 cause some Improvements to be non visible at time of survey. 947.3X 46.5 B. impervious Area details. X947'0 XM r 946.5 0 X946.8 X946.7 Total Site Arco: 32025 square feet .Z A w Nip "1 46.4 X947.2 X946.5 Total Structure Impervious Area: 7191 square feet O !O e _ .-..Q 46J House Areo(s): 1992 square feet � so X948.8 „ i 48.8 848.4X Other Structure Are s: 0 square feet Q ,s. o Patio/ Driveweck Ard Areae: sq square teal U 11NISIIEp R -9 ' 46] B1 ].1 a^D Other Imps vious ): Surface square feet k - D2vsw.w 0. >V INOUS Other of Total S e Area Area: 961 square feet W ¢ � Percent of Total Sife Area that Is Impervious: 22.45E1 �I p Y 1 Few 50, mow, ' " `Jrd-.sRl... X49'9 X949.0 X94g9 BUILDING DETAIL 10 , 1 fQidN-"' uT'49.8 XBL 2 49.2 a a�. vl X9495 968.3X 3803 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE X949.0 1 -STORY BUILDING C9468 X9 .5 X946.7 949.£ FOOTPRINT AREA - 1992 SO. FT. ,a,� r veno q Itall v X94 ' X946.6 8431' 469 9 x'4pJ5 to X946.3 X946.6203.88` 44.2 0 9 y CERTIFICATION: 4.2 R aa• X948.3 X946.1 X948.3 w{J � O � S� www I hereby certify that this survey plan or report X946.1 X946.1 yw NP 'J '9 was prepared by me or under my direct supervision 0 '3 and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor as X946.8 X9 7 J RVEY LINE under the lows of the State of Minnesota. 9 X948.1 - Date: March 3. 2015 Thomas E. Hodorlf Minn. Reg. No. 23677 m LINE AS LOCATED FEB 23, 2015 0 J Z ZryZ$ pF �O�N SU UU o< Q�k V) a pNe NN�'q �a,ca,yea<ppEVi; L EI awe aa'a'3 agg�� x mm°O� .• i J W > F < co:} LLJ?O V) s �aW Z E $ Za��Z C) of Q LL D VE OF W.F- FT. OF LOT 7 U L. w 0 a- O� U N V w U 0 -dLoi <n L LL1 = c L J."'' J I.7 Z U 3 w(C 2 Q YOUa J �j 0(n m U toU 3 0) N LO 0 I+T i ON P'- n kini HNIVP CM . inn"... Pea: JA20e125\axO\ OSIDE ELEVATIONO FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 3116"= 1'-0" Scale: 3/16"= 1'-0" 23' OSIDE ELEVATION Stab: Wlls J 1'-0" 2T G -- - --C� - P�MAW�118q�qq 9 'Vol h h m V Z Q SCANNED Q E 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W W V Z W Z Z 0Oz N O_ W Way Qa IXuz LU a 0 U W p M Sd.wk Design PM Al GARAGE u Rpm AK I - gas •REAR • I I 9 'Vol h h m V Z Q SCANNED Q E 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W W V Z W Z Z 0Oz N O_ W Way Qa IXuz LU a 0 U W p M Sd.wk Design PM Al GARAGE 0 a The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. i5- iq CITY OF C HANHASSE N Chanhassen is a Community for Life -Providing forToday and Planning for Tomorrow November 10, 2016 Gregg & Kellie Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331-7721 Re: Garage Expansion - Driveway Dear Gregg and Kellie Geiger: On September 9, 2016, I sent you a letter advising you that the driveway realignment does not comply with what was approved as part of the variance approval and building permit issuance. Please expand the driveway as shown in the building permit application to accommodate access to your property and the property to the east. We will not be able to issue a certificate of occupancy until the driveway is expanded to accommodate access around the garage. This improvement should be completed prior to winter to permit sufficient access during snow situations. I have attached a copy of the plan for your use. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 952.227.1131 or by email at bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Don Johnson, Fire Chief Steve Lenz, Engineering Tech Jerry Mohn, Building Official Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner SCANNED G:IPLAN12015 PLANNING CASES12015-14 3603 RED CEDAR POINT VARIANCE\RPSUBMITTAL 8-17-15UHrrER REGARDING DRIVEWAY 2ND 11- 10-16.DOCX PH 952.227.1100 • www.d.dmnhassen.mn.us • FX 952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 225 het of Lot 1, Bluak 4, Red Cede, Point Addition, Lok. PROPOSED LEGEND MMnewaehla. ncapl the West 25 last thereof, Ce,var Court, Minnento.GARAGE DETAILS: .. C.Acreta Comer = GENERAL NOTES: _ GARAGE SLAB - "" Concrete Curb 3 s F Nerlfy dimensions and elevates per latest house p Electric Meter 3 U 1, The bearing syet" used Is ossumsd. N5.! �ifll�HMA)fK�', Plan Prior to construction. 0 Gate Volvo o' HN 2. The location of the Underground red utPURS shown TOP OF NAILi1. ® Air Condltioning Unit + hereon, If on, aro approgmats only. PURSUANT M �_ ELEVn946.3�j Ir caw Will Well 4d i`0 c e MSA 2160 CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT ; E)(ISTNG HOUSE DETAILS ny'� jy g� u- 2 612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, t(ej4cf Oaciduaus Tree (Dia. In In.) r7i 5 I 7603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE . Slle area total - 32,025 square fast - 0.735 1 1-STORY HOUSE ate" I, FOOTPRMT AREA - 1,992 SO. FT. Coniferous Tres (Ola. In In.) m w w area within survey fine - 25,910 square bet - I M�- n i o v I S 0.595 Dace. sP' 1 Goa Maier a o 4. T1,18 surest' waa made on Me ground. I 1 Hydrant 5. No current title work was fumle .d for the A 11 J" --- EalsNng Contour >g• "i 5p praporallon of db survey, 10901 description, recorded !!l 946.9X` '� e� I'WA� UNE AS LOCATED FEK 23. 2015 X 934.3 Ewlelln9 Spot Elevation or unrecorded enaements and ncumbronaes ore ( " I 9 _ Sanitary Manhaly i7m�m.M..O1..w3 s ^x� 1 --- Sanllary Sewer sub77eeel fa .datum upon red an .f current title wore. ( ^""Ot I S. f]ewtlon datum b based on NAVD 86 data. i 1 a b �91RVEY UNE �� Propmed Contour Bench mark 1, located Top OI Nall w teE er a plod a _ f I 48: w, v X (8450) PrapoeAd Spot Elewtlan (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) 9471X t,�i ' s JgB4 , ee = Prop....Mage Mow (2.0E MIN.) Elevation - 946.33 I �'�, 7. Existing Imp"ous Area detoa&r 2 �!1 - - - - - - EKletlnq Drainage Arrow Tocol Sib Arab: 32,025 square feet ) _ i i`94p� �� T' _10 FOOT WATERMAIN EASEMENT Total Structure Impervloue Area: 7,191 spume feet I X946.2 i 729e6d f' PER BOOK 113 OF DEEDS, PAGE SM House Area(.): 1,992 square feet I X946.5 ^.l y91ag'y- 94 . �947� - s p+a g OMr Structure Araa(s): 0 square het ��1 tS 947.01E --------- \ L4 X945.5 gCT6� ex Oriveway/Poved Areas: 3,922 equar�bM__,-� C7 �� ___�_ I It X948.18 � Patio/back Aroci1 316 square feet �.._ Q _ �, t4' Jb• `y 4 ( 0 x9_9�4) L 7+- Other Ie, .Mous JV11Cas Area: 961 square feet ��.}, 7'c _ ger' 15 i �`\ -E4614Q��P�$� CO Percent of Total Site that Is ImpnrNaue: 22.45% �tT'-y4� 16' / 1a54�.0 " CO O S. Proposed Impervious Area details, n-7w �.', 'Q�.umeay,5 L --947 X946.7 P v X94St8a7 1 2 g Total Sit. Are.: 32,025 W. feet E,7y a T� 'b'= �_3 1(946.6 � �� X946.3 ¢ a Tolyl Structure Ie,JJ��.ua Area: 7,202 eov.r. fast .{ I-TU (NOUS w '`9 w _ v �r �i`�.E. UNE OF W. House Araa(s): (1',9927 square fast N,7 47.3X b f h rel y v5(956�7 X946.5 223 FT. OF LOT 1 7 Q t Prepared Garage A n: 4BO square fast,.. T 3 . - u qx s SS (n 91( L W lest i5rIvnay/Pawd Areas: 3,822-490,, 3,431 sque,e I J m dg47r2 1 1 v46 ST !P !7�-� X946.3 = Z Propond D lwA.y Addition: 501 square feet \ \ �i /I r n GMA _rna9lm moos 046 /` 4Xgaj,2 awl N V Z Potio/Oeck AW(a): 316 square fast I I 1 1 J R _ fin-sae.w g.{g K JO \ on E Other Imp"oue Surface Area: 961 aqua.. feet / II f r 48.6 / \ X946.5 aa r�yG P... At of Total Site that is Impervtous 22.495 ✓ j (./ ^e.4, 946.4X �t cX? W Z 9. Verify dimensions and alewll.na per latest house ,( s I �j947. s 1 nxl5Im ROM plan poor to construction, this survey relied .,an (' ` / U neY.a4e.A' re �� 61 ea); qP Q 4i plane from Mackey Molin Amhltact, Geiger Residence vVJ I i I -y all, NOUS �ftl s In R�I W Pro7ec4 Permit Set dated 3/23/16. f "' rex 110,8 r �s 4B- \ ACCESS MENT tt i} } ir i 9. Frapaaea grw it sometime to be field wrifled b I�' 9e� ¢sysal.2v g. _ _ q' APPROVED ¢v lL contractor for drainage. y li I _-25- / ��s51n'�� 950 �yp30. -949 ` + 9Y :(% x 10. Sol Fence Erosion Central: use City of Chanhassen �� ,g 1(� _89�4 -_- DEpT, �a� U Q. V specifications IM mhlmum standards, rof.." Plate q I w I )(9p9:9_ -' -046- OATF: rW7f/li U No. 53 W. 15 FOOT PERPETUAL EASEMENT i t'9 9 92 s wq, L950- IBB tg X549.0 X946,9- BY' S k RICHT OF WAY TO 15' DRIVE-V I 949_ - 498 W49.0 t9 9'3X848 DEPT, PER OOC. NO. 601231 -9483/ .� 48 9 5 X948.7-' 49`9 i DATL 5-3 y -947 94 Rad 948- - fay, �w'gj7 BY, �!Y k`ya - ,M/�: - 1��J%6-5?4�3T06 1u=_ i ^1�=b DMMr10 Q \ sP' ,P' ,o X946.] v 1c946.62D3.88+rC CERTIFICATION Rtcrsrt� 9� 9 + 4.2 442 q q A X94 - =4lD- _ ,,42+ t� t ev I hereby certify that this survey. play er apart (µp h q,, 1X946.1 48.3 X9I6.X948.1' ' �' •• - / °' ... was prepared by me or under my d per��pppppprrrrrr......(}� (? and that I am a duly Reglete..d L. eyo '�. 80146.8 X946.0 /.7 caw aeJ vvv \\-SURVEY LME under the Iowa o/ Ne Stole of "'n' till, X13677 q v F IS Q I X945.1 `y *\� 30 ,k- \\ 46.6 I .1 WATER UNE AS LOCATED FEB. 26, 2015 UL Dab: Aero 22 2016 F- \ (j . q 'gO ..qt' Sall av building nntl correction for Minn. Rey �Nio. 2- SCALE IN FEET ci � .. w � primary Dulltling (hou9o) may not qx ( MCOMMOODIa tuterc CRpD0510n. deck at Rwlrl-, xinwY a Iratl 1 ^ 9 for the conelruc lion of a future atl0itlan. na ne: 2me222.ow: Parra\2me222\on\ Engineering ►S-I� Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 the site and are concerned that there may be access issues. Additional space will be September 9. 2016 CITY OF as shown in the building permit application to accommodate access to your property CHOHASSEN and the property to the east. Fax:952.2271110 Gregg & Kellie Geiger 7700 Market Boulevard 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Pe Chanhassen, N MMN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331-7721 Phone::952.2271120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Garage Expansion AdministrationRe: PFax:952. 2271100 Dear Gregg and Kellie Geiger: Fax: 952.2271110 Building Inspections During inspections of the garage expansion, the driveway realignment does not Phone: 952.227.1180 comply with what was approved as part of the variance approval and building permit Fax: 952.227.1190 issuance. Engineering The Fire Chief and Construction Manager/Engineering Tech IV have both inspected Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 the site and are concerned that there may be access issues. Additional space will be necessary to assure emergency access around the garage. Please expand the driveway Finance as shown in the building permit application to accommodate access to your property Phone: 952.227.1140 and the property to the east. Fax:952.2271110 I have attached a copy of the plan for your use. If you have any questions or need Park Recreation additional information, please contact me at 952.227.1131 or by email at Phone::952.2271120 Fax: 952.227.1110 bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Recreation Center Sincere 2310 Courter boulevard y� Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Robert Generous, AICP Natural Resources Senior Planner Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Enclosure Public Works ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director 7901 Park Place Don Johnson, Fire Chief Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.2271310 Steve Lenz, Engineering Tech Jerry Mohn, Building Official Senior Center Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer Phone: 952.227.1125 MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Fax: 952.227.1110 P,CF55\CFS5'SHARFD_DATA\PLAN\2015 PLANNING CASES\2015-14 3603 RED CEDAR POINT VARIANCE\RESUBmn'rAL 8-17- www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us We6as15U ETTM REGARDING DRIVEWAY 9-9-16.DOCX SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 225 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedor Point Addition, Lake Minnewashta, except the West 25 feet thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES. Driveway/Paved Areas: 3,922 squaresfeet ,,--`- Patio/Deck Area(s): 316 square feet FHSJ BENCHMARK�i 1. The bearing system used is assumed. I TOP OF NAILIl, 2. The location of the underground utilities shown ELEV.=946.331] tl hereon, if any, are approximate only. PURSUANT TO L_ 1 MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT Total Structure Imvious Area: square -A 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 1 3612) . Site area total = 32,025 square feet = 0.735 047.3X ti acres. area within survey line = 25,910 square feet = } �- 1i kN. 11 �•� 1 0.595 acres. 4. This survey was made on the ground. �` 94 11 5. No current title work was furnished for the 946.9X' preparation of this survey, legal description, recorded r$Z;!94 or unrecorded easements and encumbrances are I X'45 subject to revision upon receipt of current title work. 4> 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data. I Bench mark is located Top of Nail W. LINE LAT 1, BLOCK 4-J (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) 947.1X Elevation = 946.33 I 7. Existing Impervious Area details. ' Total Site Area: 32,025 square feet ii Total Structure Impervious Area: 7,191 square feet I I X946.5 House Area(s): 1,992 square feet >A 947.0)k Other Structure Area(s): 0 square feet ,-1 I 94 Driveway/Paved Areas: 3,922 squaresfeet ,,--`- Patio/Deck Area(s): 316 square feet Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet Percent of Total Site that is Impervious: 22.45% 7' ��..` �Q,4>, 47.0JCg B. Proposed Impervious Area details. �� feet 7A Total Site Area: 32,025 square L7 7,202 feet I �� INO US Total Structure Imvious Area: square -A House Areo(s): 1.892 square feet 0 047.3X ti Proposed Garage n: 490 square J,eet` TO -11 Driveway/Paved Areas: 3,922-490='_25,432 square ' feet Proposed Driveway Addition: 501 square feet I1 Z 6 r Potio/Deck Areo(s): 316 square feet j O 1' Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet i �,� v/ Percent of Total Site that is Impervious: 22.49% t/ a W947 9. Verify dimensions and elevations per latest house this upon I U plan prior to construction, survey relied plans from Mackey Malin Architects, Geiger Residence Project, Permit Set dated 3/23/16. 9. Proposed ground elevations to be field verified by ii contractor for drainage. j� _-q5-25- 10. Silt Fence Erosion Control: use City of Chanhassen I X95 specifications for minimum standards, reference Plate U No. 5300. 15 FOOT PERPETUAL EASEMENT i X94= & RIGHT OF WAY TO 15' DRIVE -7 I -g48� PER DOC. NO. 601231 -947- t. HQOt �r��OMpS 45' 44. CERTIFICATION: ; REGIMRED " r` I hereby certify that this survey, plarc or eport AD was prepared by me or undern m diSM u ;W, 1� and that I am a duly RegisteredyLaeyolNO under the laws of the State of Minney�lt2�, Zn Ib 30 Date: April 22. 2016 mas E. Ho Minn. Reg. No. 236 - SCALE IN FEET I 1 / PROPOSED 0 LEGENDPropertyCorner GARAGE DETAILS: Concrete GARAGE SLAB = 947.1 Concrete Curb 'Verify dimensions and elevations per latest house Electric Meter plan prior to construction. 0 Gate Valve A' C d't' . U 't 1 a t: 44.2 0t` ot` 6 Es Ir on I on nI ww Window Well EXISTING HOUSE DETAILS 1s Deciduous Tree (Dia. in In.) 3603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE 1 -STORY HOUSE Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) FOOTPRINT AREA = 1,992 S0. FT. �L® Gas Meter Hydrant - - - -906- - - Existing Contour r- WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation I ® Sanitary Manhole a - - -y<- Sanitary Sewer 6 /--SURVEY LINE 845 Proposed Contour X (845.0) Proposed Spot Elevation Prop. Drainage Arrow (2.0% MIN.) r+7 �T�3 _��• yak 'D - . - - - - - - Existing Drainage Arrow X946.2 i 1 94>� X94-6-4- .1 947.8'� I X914\ \ X946.5 O' 'r�A:946^O- 7I I1 X948.1 -47 X946.3 X946.6 94 .'�-%_ 4_6.3 4 1 _--- n`Or 18.7 FINISHED FLOOR 46-2r ry - ELEV.=946.40 946. i0'e ., \ 46.6 i a FINISHED FLOOR 947 ELEV.=946.39- X8.4 \\I, i Ch b` 0at` ti ti 446 0 PAAT OF LOT y X946.3 i i A946.7 10 FOOT WATERMAIN EASEMENT PER BOOK 113 OF DEEDS, PAGE 534 X946.5 r Z F E Z N o E _ONO `U OVV (D xT� ZJdC u_> u lf) 11i 0- 0 ° vi § o, CO CO a } N J C aD co" 3t �onE �Z to aN u)a6 7+/_ y W �4 . Q Q k >g f�.cr (-S E. LINE OF ,� 225 FT. OF CLOT 1 D f0 r , 94 _ X946.7 -947 %0 X947\ c Ln / \ X946.8 946.4X W 7.1 \\\ O j BIT 3 94j\ �1. PMINo, m FlNISHEDFLOCYi ACCESS EI SEMENT ?? ELEV. 951.29 N _949_� \ FINISHED SO, .J. ELEV.D 95006 _=8.ga 95D.� 9 �i� 9� �l _ _ - _ _ -L� ' ��j 9 - -948- L4 �� ,i16.y ^ 7j C950- 4/10 949.8 X943'9`49.0 X948949.3>c949 rn -949- - - _ - -X914$0-X94 5 1 94 � X94E,6 X9418.5 X948.7 X49\ X i r�`�E� g V li VPS Y --948-- _ �.- a i-L�/1A' yg � X946.6 `; 4ZZ!Z 6.9\_9 94B i13�j Xsas.3 84'31 06"X�as.6203.88 - �= .....�g47e�--T45- - '946.3 X946.1 '\ X946.1 X946. 1X946.8 X946.0/' \ \ X945.1 JC9�4. N. \\X946.6 / kb: xF O� R 1p R -SURVEY LINE ,-WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 Soil evaluation and correction for primary building (house) may not accommodate Siltlne expansion, deck or .. --;. may be required Wz U0.z 0��z Q 0 aQ0JUW lc�-cOS RSL '� a a v 0 W APPROVED w 0 UJI z IAT 0 fM V cQ PT: ��- - 0 Q(h 2 E: V14fti. O = LLI U BY: SKLZ J H DEPT: {LIja- U DATE: -j-/ BY: DEPT: DATE; $ 2+ / eT sU a LL COQ � o O W C =N ar : a i KKT�MILF K _ for the construction of a luture addition. CAD File: h\2012.DWG Revision History. Path: J:\2016222\DWG\ like Giar R I oil -1:_'_i: 0 • CAMPBELL KNUTSON November 12, 2015 FIs. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Miscellaneous Recorded Documents Dear Ms. Meuwissen: CITYOFCyANH WCEIVEDAEN NOV 16 2015 PWAINN(:OIn Please find enclosed, for the City's files, the following original recorded documents: 1. Variance 2015-14 for Lot 2, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta, recorded October 19, 2015 as document number A618279; 2. Encroachment Agreement with Bradley and Karin O'Hara, recorded October 9, 2015 as document number A617852; 3. Certified Resolution No. 2015-56 Vacating Public Right -of -Way, 225 W. 77' Street, Block 4, St. Hubertus, recorded October 19, 2015 as document number A618280; 4. Encroachment Agreement with Jeanne Burke Trustee of the Jeanne Burke Revocable Trust, recorded October 19, 2015 as document number A618281; and 5. Grant of Permanent Easement For Public Drainage and Utility Purposes with Jeanne Burke Trustee of the Jeanne Burke Revocable Trust, recorded October 19, 2015 as document number A618282. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Profession at Associatdon Legal Assistant /jM0 Enclosures SCANNED 183816 • Documen•o. A618279 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on -October 19, 2015 2:01 PM Fee: 346.00 1111111111111111111 John E Freemyer 618279 County Recorder CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2015-14 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2015-14 for a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage on property zoned Single -Family Residential District. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as the West 225 feet except the West 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. b. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. c. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. d. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. 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: October 12, 2015 SCANNED .4 0 1* �r.MN•,��I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Denny �ffenbur, jer, MayoW AND: 01� d Gerhardt City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this LO&y of Dc," - 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, 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 t Kt -t- in: Knw%ar" W rat I YBLIC #/KIM T. M I UWISSENNotary P b MinnesotaGamm�,b"e:d .3.2M October 16, 2015 CITY OF CIIAUSEN 7700 Market Boulevard Maria Knight and David Bishop PO Box 147 3605 Red Cedar Point Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Administration Re: Planning Case #2015-14, Variance Request Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Ms. Knight and Mr. Bishop, Building Inspections The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, Phone: 952.227.1180 approved Planning Case 2015-14 (3603 Red Cedar Point Road) on September 15, Fax: 952.227.1190 2015. This decision was appealed by you to the Chanhassen City Council. On Engineering October 12, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council heard Planning Case #2015-14. The Phone: 952.227.1160 Chanhassen City Council decision on this case is as follows: Fax: 952.227.1170 "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a Finance 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage." Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at Park & Recreation (952) 227-1132 or by email at dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.2271110 Sincerely, Recreation Center 2310CoulterBoulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Drew Ingvalson Fax: 952.227.1404 Assistant Planner Planning & Natural Resources ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Phone: 952.227.1130 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place g:\PIan\2015Planningcases\2015-143603 red cedar point variance\msubminalb-17-Mapprovallcter(appeallant).doc Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow •' CITY OF CHAASEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA Grand Oak Office Center 1 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER O1TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 10/14/15 2015-14 ATTENTION Jean Olson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 10/12/15 15-14 Setback Variance 2015-14 for Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3603 Red Cedar Point Road THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ® For Recording ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO: Kellie Geiger, 3603 Red Cedar Point Road SIGNED. Kim ftuwissen, 52)227-1107 3CANNEC N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2015-14 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2015-14 for a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage on property zoned Single -Family Residential District. 2. Proaerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as the West 225 feet except the West 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. b. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. c. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. d. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. 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: October 12, 2015 0 0 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN rW Denny fenburier, MayooF 001. AND: � �- ( d Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this f 0iay ofG1' 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, 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. III DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 KIM T. MEMSSEN Notary PudWMinneeote �,, CM�yW� Eram .IMi 01.2020 0 0 October 13, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard Kellie J. Geiger PO Box 147 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Administration Re: Planning Case #2015-14, Variance Request Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Ms. Geiger, Building Inspections This letter is to inform you that on October 12, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council Phone: 952.227.1180 approved a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback Fax: 952.227.1190 variance to construct a two-story, attached garage subject to the following conditions: Engineering Phone: 952.2271160 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide Fax: 952.2271170 drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. Finance 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. Park & Recreation 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.2271110 The City will record the variance on the property with Carver County. The variance Recreation Center is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must be applied for 2310 Coulter Boulevard prior to October 12, 2016 through the City's Building Department or the variance Phone: 952.227.1400 becomes void. Fax: 952.227.1404 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) Planning a Natural Resources 227-1132 orb3' �' email at din alson ct chanhassen.mn.us. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.2271110 Sincerely, Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Drew Ingvalson Fax: 952.227.1310 Assistant Planner Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Fax: 952.227.1110 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us g Apla„\2015 planning cum\2015-14 3603 red cedar point varianceVesubmittal 8-17-151approval letter.doc Chanhasse n is a Cam munity for Life - Providing for Today and Planning forTomorrow SCANNED Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 Darin Perry: We are shooting for November 16th. Mayor Laufenburger: Write it down folks, November 16th. Pre -holiday. Pre -Thanksgiving. For all of you marathon runners who are going to run on the 17'h stop by Noodles Company and carb up, is that right? Darin Perry: Noodle up. Mayor Laufenburger: Noodle up, exactly. Darin Perry: Thank you guys very much. Appreciate it. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Darin. Item G(1) under New Business was tabled. We have next item 2 under new business. 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD; LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA; APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Kate Aanenson: Yes Mayor, members of the council. This is actually an appeal of a decision that was made by the Planning Commission so that's a quasi judicial and then the appeal comes before you as part of the legal process. I also just want to note that a majority would be required on this decision too since there's only 3 of you here, all 3 would have to vote in the affirmative so you may want to take that into consideration if you wanted to proceed or not. But I'll begin then with just giving you the background. This did go to the Planning Commission on September 15'h. The public hearing was held at that time and I'll give more detail of that but it was tabled at the request of the applicant to get some additional information that the Planning Commission had directed and some of the comments that were raised so it then reappeared on the 15'x' of, the 15th. While the public hearing was held some additional comments were added and I'll go through those as we move along too. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson can I just. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Before you proceed can I just clarify a couple of things? You said that this appeared before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission gave a decision on September 15'h, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. 12 SCANNED Chanhassen City Council • ober 12, 2015 • Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, and what was their decision? Kate Aanenson: I'll go through that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: But their decision, their decision essentially granted the variance, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They granted the variance with conditions, that's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And so under normal circumstances this would not be in front of the City Council. Kate Aanenson: There's a couple ways it would come before you. If they didn't have a super majority vote or if any person aggrieved of the decision, whether it was the applicant or somebody else aggrieved of the decision that was made can appeal that decision and because this is quasi judicial then the process would be, it would appear before the City Council. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so if it were not for this appeal this decision would be a final decision from the Planning Commission? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. That's what I needed clarification. Okay, proceed. Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Okay so the subject site is 3603 Red Cedar Point. You can see it's surrounded on water on both sides so that is some of the factors coming into play on the variance request. So a little bit more detail then. The July 21 ' meeting there was a number of applications, or locations proposed by the applicant of where to put a garage and that's what the purpose of the variance was to request was for a garage. The staff had always kind of steered towards one. What they believe was the best location as far as the least amount of impact and the applicant originally wanted something a little bit larger and as it moved along it became smaller and moved to the direction that staff had always recommended. So the public hearing was held on July 21'. On September 15'h additional comments were taken but it wasn't opened as a public hearing so that decision was made on September 15' to approve it with conditions and here we are with the appeal. So this is the view of the subject site from the east. And from the west. There was an older home that was located on the site and they applicants bought it so the request for the order again is to construct a 2 story attached garage on the property. There is an existing legal non, the structure's existing non -conformity because of it's proximity to the lakeshore setback and I'll go show that a little bit more detail. So the legal non -conformities are, try to show this here. So there's a 75 foot 13 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • setback would be on both sides because it's adjacent to a lake so the Shoreland District says 75 feet. The house is already non -conforming because it sits within that 75 feet. Mayor Laufenburger: But it was built prior to, it was built and in place prior to these setback requirements. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Well it was built with non -complying. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it's 31 feet setback from this side so instead of putting something on this side of the street staff was always trying to reduce that non -conformity by keeping it on the existing structure so there were some factors that led into the location that staff had recommended which I'll go through in a little bit. So the other issue is that its 9.8 feet away on the side structure here so the principle structure encroaches 44 feet into the 75 foot setback. This is this area here and then it also encroaches into the front yard setback and that was the other thing that had changed from the original. Back in, the original setback, interpretation of a side yard setback was when, this was all serviced by a private street, was that this was considered the front. That interpretation changed so that was a factor in why this also needed to be the 30 feet because now this is considered the front, not this so that was when the other, some of the surrounding properties came in they only had to meet this side yard and I think that led to some frustration on some of the owners in the area. One of the other factors effecting where you could locate the garage was the fact that there's an existing sewer and water main in the subject area of locating some additional garage on the side here to stay away from the water line. So in tucking the proposal in here which was the staff s recommendation you avoid that. So again the application, again the Planning Commission, working with the applicant trying to reduce the size of the garage, the original application, reducing it and tucking it in close to the house itself. The Planning Commission felt like closing in the gap between the existing house and then the garage itself made most sense to tuck into the existing building because you're still avoiding the 75 foot variance on this side. So you meet all that. You can see this dashed line, it runs flush with that so they meet that 75 so there's no variance on the other side. I think one of the points that the staff had brought out too, when you live on a lakeshore like this your view shed isn't the entire peninsula. It's kind of out your front door and I think that also causes, caused a little bit of frustration for some of the surrounding properties of what exactly the view shed was. So as a regular shaped attached garage a variance needed again from the south and from this side yard. The garage on the neighboring property is on this side also so it's garage to garage. The hard cover can't exceed 25 percent. Another reason why the staff supported this so it meets the hard cover, reducing that and no mature trees would be removed which on the other side there was some mature trees so all in all least amount of impact from the staff s perspective and no vegetation removed. So the applicant did revise their architectural plans to show how they could meet the direction that the Planning Commission had directed and these are those plans so the garage being on the front of the house, kind of mirroring 14 Chanhassen City Council •October 12, 2015 • the house on the other side, garage to garage as I stated earlier. So this would be the location for the existing, for the proposed garage. And then you can see the garage on the other side here. The neighboring, the closest neighboring. Mayor Laufenburger: So blue is the neighboring to the west? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yep. So there you can see the perspective from the other, from the neighboring property. Seeing the garage tucked in here so the view shed again, stating that would be the view shed be 360 degrees? Anybody living on lakeshore, when you've got, if you have a water orientated structure, which our ordinance does permit, you would still have some blockage of view shed so that was an issue from some of the neighboring properties with the view shed. So. Mayor Laufenburger: Can you go back just a second while you're on it? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: The white marks on the cement, is that anything? Kate Aanenson: I think that was just to represent locations of the garage. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So this is the view shed so by not putting a structure across the street, which some of the other properties do have structures across, excuse me across the private drive. So these properties are all serviced by the private drive which is the interpretation when it's a private drive that the interpretation was made that this does become the front yard setback was, that's how these are all served. So some of the concerns that were raised at the meeting was the ability to get structures in there. I was just going to read some of the issues that were raised again at the second meeting. These are in your cover memo that went to the, on your cover memo of executive summary. So besides the Findings of Fact these are some of the issues. Maintain the access along Red Cedar Point for safety reasons. Fire. Chief did drive out there and maintaining it. There are some folks that have put boulders out there that those would probably be a bigger impediment than the garage on this. They felt that that would be fine to access the property. Public water viewscapes and I've addressed that. Again there are garages across the street on some of these properties so if the viewscape intended to be 180 degrees or is it to be in front and back because again people on the peninsula have views in front and back and the staffs opinion was that the viewscape here where we add the additional garage is minor as opposed to the rest of the viewscape that was preserved by moving the garage to this location. Again we talked about the encroachment in the front yard, side yard interpretation. That interpretation came up when we had some other private streets and how the setback should be given and we had a legal opinion made by our city attorney that that now is considered that front yard on that setback and that's how it's been interpreted since the 1990's. Originally when the shoreland regs were adopted by the DNR in 1977 that was the setback on the side yard so being held to a different standard here. That's again why the staff supported because as you can see the other properties have been able to allow that 10 foot setback to come into 15 4'A Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • play. The other one was concerns of the hard surface. Inaccuracy in the survey. Again we believe the survey. Signed by a registered engineer does, or meet those requirements of the under the 25 percent. So taking all those things into consideration and looking at properties within 500 feet with a garage, again there's some additional testimony. You have the verbatim minutes regarding there was a garage existing already. A new garage shouldn't be permitted. The applicant giving the information that that garage has sunk. It's no longer viable as a garage and wanted the opportunity to have the garage. Again staff did, and the Planning Commission did concur with those findings so just showing properties within 500 feet and then showing you the variances that were out here on these properties so a lot of the properties have had variances of different types. You can see them all here. Some of them are shoreland. Some of them are side yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks. But there has been variances out there so with that the Planning Commission did, sorry I left the slide out. Just showing the, which ones are the, do not meet the rear side yards. So I would say pretty much all of them have received variances. So with that information, and the fact that the applicant reduced the size of the garage. Tucked it in tight. Met all the setbacks. The Planning Commission did recommend unanimously to approve the variances subject to the 4 conditions and adopting of the Findings of Fact. So with that you have the complete record in front of you. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Ms. Aanenson. And you stated it very clearly in our electronic packet each of the council members received verbatim minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. All of the documents that were submitted reflecting the actions that took place in July as well as September and obviously we've done a lot of reading about this so we've heard a lot of the. We've read the comments that were made both in favor of and opposed to it. At this time, is there any questions from the council to Ms. Aanenson? Mr. McDonald do you have any questions? Councilman McDonald: Yeah I've got a question. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilman McDonald: And you have to excuse me because I think you ah-eady answered this but I'm not clear. Why are we voting on this? It went 5-0 before the Planning Commission. It's here on appeal. Who's appealing? Kate Aanenson: Anybody aggrieved of the decision of the Planning Commission has a right to appeal. Whether it's the applicant or someone else that's aggrieved of the decision so one of the neighbors is appealing that. Councilman McDonald: Oh okay. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you. 16 Chanhassen City Council • tober 12, 2015 • Mayor Laufenburger: And just to clarify, if I may Mr. Knutson, City Attorney, I may ask you for your counsel on this but I believe that we as a City Council at this time have 3 options. Number one, we can affirm the Planning Commission by approving the variance as recommended by the staff. That's number one option. Number two, we can deny the variance. We have that within our power. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And then thirdly we can modify the recommendation in some form. Roger Knutson: That's correct as well. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright so those are 3 things that we as a council can do. Either approve it. Deny it or modify it so that's really our focus at this time. The fact that it's, the basis by which it's brought forward for appeal doesn't really matter. The fact is it was appealed and therefore it's not our decision. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Knutson. Did you have any questions Councilwoman Ryan? Councilwoman Ryan: Just for clarification, and I know it was on some of our packet but I think it'd be helpful to review again because I know the plan went through a number of iterations. On one of the slides, could you just show I think there was like suggestions A through E on the different proposals. Maybe just highlight all the different places it was proposed and how you ended up with, and then I know the Planning Commission also wanted it tucked in closely. Is that something you can do easily? Kate Aanenson: Sure. It's not on my slides. Councilwoman Ryan: I know you wanted to limit the points of view. Kate Aanenson: So this is the one that went, the second one but this was some of the areas over here so the other side of the house would be, and potentially across the street but this was, so you can see it was significantly larger when it was over here so when they originally proposed that we hadn't done the, engineering hadn't done the investigation yet to realize that it was actually over a sewer and water line in that area. Relocating a fire hydrant and the like and engineering had recommended against those locations. And I think the other concern that the Planning Commission had was the size and trying to keep it tucked into the house because now you're also creating another physical barrier view shed so. Councilwoman Ryan: And so when, and I know that there were those, the Mayor had pointed out those white marks on that one page. So when the, for this final plan for letter E, garage E or plan E, it was after the concern of the view and the proximity to the neighbors that it then got tucked in, is that correct? 17 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So the Planning Commission directed it to be pulled in as tight as possible and then also take advantage of some of this additional space. There's some HVAC equipment over there that they would incorporate that all into the structure itself. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: And with that in place Ms. Aanenson, so E was the final agreed upon location. The applicant has agreed to this obviously, right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And one more thing, is the surface above the water and the sewer main protected? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: It is. So we're not going to have a garage on top of either of those? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. We will have a private drive on top of those. Kate Aanenson: Correct, which is very common. Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Kate Aanenson: I just, if I could. Just to Councilwoman Ryan's question regarding the garage itself. I want to just make sure that on this drawing here. So again from what the Planning Commission recommended, these are the final drawings based on what they had recommended so those weren't, the Planning Commission directed them so this would be the ultimate location and size. So what I was showing up there was at that meeting, but they directed further modifications. I just want to make sure that was clear. Councilwoman Ryan: Right, that's what I remember reading is that they wanted it to be as close to the house as possible. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Ryan: And so these are the final drawings? LF Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson would you mind advancing the slide to, you had, there were 4 conditions. There. Can you just explain these 4 conditions? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The applicant expand the driveway to maintain at least a 10 foot wide. Again that was the issue that was brought up by some of the neighboring properties, even the one at the very end that would have to drive by. There's existing narrow road and obviously they have some other service, whether it's FedEx or something like that that would come, they want to make sure that that 10 foot pavement is maintained. Mayor Laufenburger: So where the garage may encroach into that, where the new garage might encroach into that private drive, they will actually expand the private drive so it's the full 10 feet, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. And even slightly more than that on the radius coming around so but it would still be under the, the lot would still be under the 25 percent and then the driveway grade also be .5 and not exceed 10 percent. Mayor Laufenburger: And what's what grade for? Kate Aanenson: Just to make sure that, to get into the driveway. So just so you don't have too steep a slope and it shouldn't, it's relatively flat so it shouldn't be a problem. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: And the proposed structure maintain the existing drainage patterns. Again that should not be an issue. And again the applicant has to apply for a building permit. Again that's standard. Mayor Laufenburger: And each of these 4 conditions of approval as a result of the Planning Commission approving it, the applicant has agreed to all of this, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. This matter did receive substantial discussion at the Planning Commission and is not subject to a public, a public hearing. However I would ask if the applicant, is the applicant present this evening? Would you like to speak at the podium? Anything you'd like to say. Not required. I'm just making that offer. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. 19 0 Chanhassen City Council — October 12, 2015 Mayor Laufenburger: State your name and address. Gregg Geiger: My name is Gregg Geiger. I reside at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Gregg Geiger: Given this opportunity I'd just like to say we have tried our very best to accommodate the various concerns of our neighbors and the City. The City rules. Your City woman Ryan you ask about the number of proposals that we looked at and we did, we did letter them A through F to kind of keep that numbering alive and to understand that we have looked at a variety. We have done our very best to kind of tuck this into an area that will accommodate and preserve the look and feel of the neighborhood. That's all I can say I guess. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you very much Mr. Geiger. Appreciate your comments. And just in the interest of, I'm not sure if it's fairness or whatever but the, somebody who actually appealed this decision and I would like to give that party, if they're present this evening an opportunity for a brief statement if you'd like. Approach and identify yourself Brad Solheim: Good morning, or evening Mr. Mayor and council members. Staff. Everyone. I'm Brad Solheim. I'm an attorney representing the property owners. Mayor Laufenburger: Which property? Nelleke Knight: I'm Nelleke Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point and I bought a house in 1974. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so your home is immediately west of the applicant? Nelleke Knight: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that correct? Nelleke Knight: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Brad Solheim: I would like to start, I'm not positive I've been informed by my client that they, Ms. Knight provided an Affidavit to the Planning Commission. Is that in your packet? An Affidavit with photos and stuff like that. I didn't go through what you got or not. Mayor Laufenburger: I don't know if it was or not. 20 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • Brad Solheim: Okay. Well what I'll do is I'll submit it on the record and make sure that's clear. There's a couple points that I want to make from the Affidavit. One, as Ms. Knight's indicated she's lived there for 41 years so she knows more about everything in the neighborhood than everybody else put together. But the, there's a couple reasons but the main one is that the home was abandoned for a 20 month period of time and I'll talk about some of that. Mayor Laufenburger: Her home? Her home was abandoned? Brad Solheim: The home next door. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so the applicant. Brad Solheim: Unoccupied, right. So what is being asked for you as a City Council is you have an abandoned use for more than 12 months pursuant to the statutes. That you are expanding a non- conforming use. Not just permitting and repairing but you're expanding the non -conforming use and you have to give a whole series of variances in order to be able to make that accomplished. So you think about that and you just say, why don't we just blow up the whole zoning ordinance because none of that really, the whole zoning ordinance doesn't matter? The abandoned use. The non -conforming. The variances. If I can specifically talk about the, oh before I get to that. Something that was not, at least from what I saw wasn't in the findings or anything like that but the home contained a 2 car garage and the Affidavit contains a photo and is that available for showing? Mayor Laufenburger: When did it contain a 2 car garage? Nelleke Knight: Forever. And it was closed. Mayor Laufenburger: Does it contain a 2 car garage right now? Nelleke Knight. It, yeah the garage is still there but 10 years ago sort of the owners at that time decided they wanted more space in the basement and they closed off the garage and they really didn't mind parking outside. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may? Mayor Laufenburger: Let me stop you just for a second. This discussion was part of our packet. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So we've already heard this argument. Brad Solheim: Okay, good. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, yep. 21 0 0 Chanhassen City Council — October 12, 2015 Brad Solheim: I wanted to make sure that that was really fair in the record and this photo shows clearly a 2 stall garage that was already there and it certainly isn't this property owner but I'm sure counsel will indicate that the law does not say you inherit whatever prior owners have done. That's not an issue that you can't just say well somebody else changed it so I'm entitled to a, either an expansion of a non- conforming use or a variance. It just, you have to live with whatever anybody else did. It's not, it's not fair to keep adding on and changing and those kinds of things so I wanted to make sure that was a major point of what we wanted to do. The second part, to make sure I'm hitting high points is, the variance particularly in the side yard setback is being asked to change, they've got, I don't know what the footage is. 100 feet on the one side. There certainly wouldn't be any side yard variance or any problem. The whole area is a variance from the lake and we understand that. Mayor Laufenburger: Now just for clarification, you're referring to the area onto the east of the house, is that correct? Brad Solheim: Yes. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: The area where the septic tank was and where the fire hydrant is, is that correct? Brad Solheim: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. We also heard that argument Mr. Solheim so the council has that information in that packet so we're aware of that situation. Okay? Brad Solheim: Okay I wasn't that part of the Planning Commission. I've gone through the findings. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, well just as a reminder not only for you but to anybody who's watching, anything that comes before the council in our packet, it is available for public viewing as soon as that packet is published and that packet is available and it's accessible through our transparency page on the website so just, not so much for you Mr. Solheim but for anybody who would like to know what it is that we talk about and the information that gets made available to us, it is made available to the public so continue. Brad Solheim: Okay. The net result of the proposed series of variances and approvals from the City is that we're going to end up with a 2 story wall 15 feet from the edge of our property that violates the setbacks when you've got a whole large area on the other side. On the. Mayor Laufenburger: The east side. Brad Solheim: The house that would have no problem or any issue like that. The only difference is that it impacts our view. Our use of the property. All of that as compared to what the property owner's doing and so it's our position that it's their obligation, it's their property to build their property, build 22 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • whatever they're going on the property and make sure they don't need variances in putting those kind of walls right outside our windows. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, very good. Is there anything else you'd like to say? Brad Solheim: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Brad Solheim: Oh the, I did want to make sure it's clear of record also that the, we have a property owner dispute between the 2 property owners. Where the property lines are. I do not have a survey for everybody here today to show that no, the property lines are actually in a different location. That is an avenue that is being pursued and that actually, counsel can offer, there's additional option that you have is you can table this for further information or something like that so if that was an issue for you, letting you know that there's, this property owner has been in the property for a relatively short period of time. Did commission a survey that is in the packet and it is the basis for the applications here but we dispute the judgment calls that the surveyor makes in where he's drawing the lines and those kinds of things. Mayor Laufenburger: I appreciate that comment. I think that falls clearly outside of our purview, Mr. Knutson is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct Mayor. We can't decide that issue. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. But I appreciate that. Was there anything else? Brad Solheim: Is there anything else you wanted? Nelleke Knight: I don't think so. Brad Solheim: Okay. I just want to make sure that this gets of record. Mayor Laufenburger: You're welcome to provide that to us. I'd just like to make a comment to Ms. Knight. I appreciate that you've been in this community for 41 years and I hope that your time in this community has been worthwhile and that you continue to enjoy Chanhassen. You're in a very, you are living in a character laden part of Chanhassen, meaning there is lots of strong character in the lake. In that Red Cedar Point. It has a great deal of history and I hope that you treasure your time in that area because it is. Nelleke Knight: Yeah I do and I surely hope that I'm able to keep it that way instead of having these walls to look at. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, I can appreciate that Ms. Knight but we also recognize, at least this council has a responsibility to protect all people's property rights. 23 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • Nelleke Knight: Except mine apparently. Mayor Laufenburger: Everybody's property rights. Thank you Ms. Knight. Thank you Mr. Solheim. Brad Solheim: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Solheim. Can you explain the significance of the claim of abandonment and what that does as far as the non -conforming? I mean as I read through the Affidavit it seems you're claiming at that point that any rights they may have as far as non -conforming property are erased. Brad Solheim: Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the legal claim that we're making. It's a very harsh part of municipal law but when you have a non -conforming use that is abandoned for a period of 12 months or longer, you're no longer able to do it. What's going to happen when you approve this, or if you approve this, is that anybody who has some reason to say that they have an excuse why a non- conforming non -continuous use is in place, they're going to be abandoning. You're going to say, when you tell them that they abandoned their rights, you're going to have a hard time. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you for that. Mayor Laufenburger: So your argument would be that any structure that stands, let's just say uninhabited. In other words there's nobody inside a building for a period of 12 months, then that building by definition loses its legal non -conformity? Brad Solheim: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Brad Solheim: And it's a harsh, harsh situation. I've seen it half a dozen times over the years. Some cities erroneously talk about use. Like you have a non -conforming use as being, you've changed the use and you lose your right to do it. That's not the case. The statute is real clear about, I suppose I should pull out the specific statute. The statute says, if the non -conformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year. And there's no issue before... Mayor Laufenburger: So using your argument Mr. Solheim, somebody who lives in Chanhassen. If they chose to move to Europe for 16 months and leave their house for 16 months essentially and if that house was legally non -conforming, just the fact of time, even though nothing changed on that property, your argument is that it would become legally, it would become non -conforming. Not legally non- conforming, is that correct? 24 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 • Brad Solheim: No. Mayor Laufenburger: So where's the judgment? Brad Solheim: You're talking about a little distinction there. Mayor Laufenburger: Where's the judgment involved? I mean where's the qualitative judgment that you're implying to this? Brad Solheim: There's nobody in the property. The person left. It was abandoned. I can give you an example in a neighboring city where somebody had a residence in a downtown business district that was non -conforming. The person died. Person died and the personal representative just didn't get around to doing anything on it because that was just the way the guy was. So a year and a half later he tries to sell the property and the city said sorry, you were a non -conforming residential use in a business district. You know you no longer can use it as a residence. In that case it was doubly severe because the building was within the right-of-way, as many old cities are. The footprint of the building was encroaching and so the, the city said not only do you have to do it but if you're going to make any changes whatsoever you've got to move it off the city street so they basically took the guy's whole house away. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Solheim. Appreciate your comments. Brad Solheim: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Knutson, may I have your legal opinion on this please. Is this, in your legal opinion knowing our statutes, did the period of time that, from, as was discussed in the, whatever the period was, did that automatically move this property from legally non -conforming to now non- conforming Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: The answer is no. Let me explain. Mayor Laufenburger: Please do. Roger Knutson: The property is zoned RSF. Residential Single Family. The use of the property is conforming. So it doesn't matter whether it was, no one lived there for 20 months or 20 years. The use is conforming. The use was not, doesn't matter whether it wasn't used for a while because the statute doesn't apply because the use is conforming. It's not non -conforming. What is non -conforming is the structure. The structure was not discontinued. The structure remains the way it is. It's there today. Mayor Laufenburger: So there was no change to the structure during that period? Roger Knutson: No. 25 Chanhassen City Council 12, 2015 • Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So when the, when the current owners purchased that they essentially purchased a legally non -conforming structure. Roger Knutson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And they now live in or now you have it, is that correct? They now live in a legally non -conforming structure. Roger Knutson: The only issue before you is whether or not you agree with the Planning Commission and staff that the criteria for a variance have been met. Or have not been met. If the criteria for a variance have been met then you obviously should approve the variance and adopt the findings. If you find that the criteria has not been met, on the other hand you would not approve it and you'd direct preparation of findings. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright and just one further question Mr. Knutson. Can you clarify what's included in the criteria for acceptable variance? Roger Knutson: They're set forth in, there are 5 or 6 criteria and only permitted within harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. And that means as used in conjunction with the granting of a variance. The property owners propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by that landowner. And the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Those are the criteria. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, ahight. Thank you Mr. Knutson. Does council have any questions, comment or motion? Or before I do that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson anything you want. Kate Aanenson: I just want to point out for the record. All those same points were brought up at the Planning Commission. If you read through the minutes they were addressed in detail because the city attorney gave us that same opinion that we did present at the Planning Commission. Obviously there's not concurrence on that but that same issue was raised as were some of the other ones so there's detailed, I won't answer them all but there's detail that they needed specific questions... Mayor Laufenburger: And I, my questions are not only for clarification for the council but also for there are many people that may be watching this or observing that may not have had the opportunity to review all of the details that we did. 26 Chanhassen City Council October 12, 2015 Kate Aanenson: Sure. To that point the applicant did demonstrate at the second meeting the fact that, that while there was an existing garage there, it's too low. The house has sunk and it can't be used as a garage at this time. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much for that clarification. Council any fiuther comment or motion? Councilwoman Ryan: Mayor I'll make a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Please do. Councilwoman Ryan: The Chanhassen City Council approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilwoman Ryan. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I'll second it but I want to make a comment. Mayor Laufenburger: You'll have an opportunity to do so. Thank you for the second Mr. McDonald. Is there any further discussion? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor. Yeah I asked the question about the non -conformity because I feel that that's the big legal question here and I just needed to get that straight in my mind especially since the whole law about us granting things has changed so much recently as to when we can and cannot grant variances. I do see that as a legal issue but that's not an issue for this council and I think Mr. Knutson for saying what our options really are as far as what we can and cannot vote on and then from that point I think it's up to the homeowner if you want to appeal based upon a legal reasoning, then by all means you have the right to do so. But this is not a court of law that would interpret basically what statute is. That's not our job. We try to apply it and that's why we have legal counsel here so based upon what we can do and the history of all of this, I mean what I see is a lot of compromises have gone on both with the homeowner in trying to effect the neighborhood itself I think based upon that, that's why I decided to go ahead and second this because there has been a lot of work. As Ms. Aanenson said, yeah there may have been a garage but if it sunk for who knows whatever reason over time because things settled or whatever, it doesn't have a garage and we've had cases come through before where we say that's one of the things you should be able to have upon your property. In fact even in Red Cedar I can remember cases that have come through there where we did grant variances based upon the fact a homeowner wanted to have a garage and we found a way to fit it in and yes we had to give I think some variances there too but Red Cedar as the Mayor said is very unusual part of town and the fact that I think it's very hard for us to apply some of these ordinances or no one could live there just because of the way the lots are shaped and your closeness to the water and all of these things. We did the roads there a few year; ago and we had problems because we couldn't widen them out to the length, to the widths that they should be because to do that you start to eat up people's property and that was something no one 27 IF Chanhassen City Council• October 12, 2015 • wanted. So this is an area where compromise and I think a little bit of common sense has to come into play so that all the property owners you know have good use of their property. I applaud the compromise from the standpoint of I believe ma'am your view of the lake and everything is very minimally effected and I applaud staff for working to get that because there were a lot of things that we were trying to bring into play at that point and while with any compromise it's no ideal for anyone. It will work for everyone and I think this compromise works and that's why I decided that yes, we need to go forward with this so that's just a comment I wanted to put on the record as to at least why I decided to go through this based upon the fact that you did bring up a legal issue. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. McDonald. Did you want, make any other comment Councilwoman Ryan? Councilwoman Ryan: No thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: No further discussion. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story attached garage subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much. CONSIDER AWARD OF BID FOR BANKING SERVICES. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and council. Let me get my information in front of me here real quick. The City awards a banking services contract based upon a RFP process every 3 years and has done so for many years going by. The City went out for award or RFP on the banking services contract which is set to expire here shortly. We had 4 banks that replied to providing the City's banking services. Americana Community Bank which the City currently banks with. BMO Bank, K1einBank and US Bank. I've attached a spreadsheet that kind of breaks down the proposals by 8 criteria which staff reviewed each of the proposals by. After evaluating the RFP's that were submitted there were 4 areas or 4 of the criteria that staff felt were of the largest significance in terms of separation between the 4 M CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952 227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 46 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner DATE: October 12, 2015 Ot Ko SUBJ: Variance — 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Planning Case #2015-14 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council is reviewing this item due to an appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision approving the variance request, pursuant to Sec. 20-29 (d) of Chanhassen City Code. The applicant is requesting relief in the form of a shoreland setback variance and a front yard setback variance from the zoning ordinance to construct a two-story, two -stall garage. These variance requests, if granted, would expand on the existing legal non -conformity on the property, but the proposed garage addition will not encroach further into the required setbacks than the existing structure. The majority of the home is positioned within the shoreland setback and a large portion of the home is within the front yard setback. Currently, the property does not have a garage. The property owner states that prior to them purchasing the home there was a tuck -under garage located on the property, but the sinking of the structure has made the entrance to this space lower and problematic for most common vehicles. The 75 -foot shoreland setbacks and the 30 - foot front and rear yard setbacks render the property footprint nearly nonexistent. Staff and the Planning Commission are supportive of the variance request to construct a two-story, two -stall attached garage, subject to the conditions of the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Website The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, held a www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us public hearing on July 21, 2015 to review the proposed variance. The applicant provided four alternative garage locations for the Planning Commission to consider for a variance. Staff did not recommend approval for any of these four locations, but provided a fifth alternative if the Planning Commission found the variance request to be Chanhassen is a Community for Lite -Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED 6 0 Todd Gerhardt 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 October 12, 2015 Page 2 of 3 reasonable. The applicant requested a 60 -day extension prior to a decision by the Planning Commission. On September 15, 2015, the Planning Commission heard the subject planning case with revised plans and allowed residents to comment on the variance proposal. While this comment period was not a public hearing, property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were noticed for this item at the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted two alternatives for review, an attached garage option and a detached garage option. There were multiple concerns expressed during the public comment period at the Planning Commission meeting. Issues and findings for these concerns are listed below. • Issue: Maintaining access along Red Cedar Point Road for safety vehicles o Finding: The private road on the subject property will maintain its current width (10 feet) and will be expanded (not to exceed 24 feet wide) in conjunction with the proposed garage addition. The expansion of the private road is seen as a vehicle access improvement. This plan has been reviewed by the City's Fire Marshal and Fire Chief and both have found the plan acceptable for maintaining accessibility for safety vehicles. • Issue: Public water viewscape loss from an adjacent property (3605 Red Cedar Point Road) o Finding: The viewscape affected by the proposed garage addition was found to be minimal by staff and the Planning Commission. This viewscape was analyzed from a window facing the proposed garage location. Furthermore, the proposed addition will maintain the 75 -foot shoreland setback to the north (the viewscape in question). • Issue: Proximityof the project to an adjacent property (3605 Red Cedar Point Road) o Finding: The proposed addition will encroach 20.2 feet into the front yard setback. This addition will not encroach further than the current setback created by the existing structure. In addition, Red Cedar Point Road is a private road and the western property line is defined as the front yard because the western property line is nearest to the public street access. However, the alignment of these homes along the private drive creates a neighborhood where the east and west yards of homes serve more as a side yard (needing a 10 -foot setback) than a front yard (needing a 30 -foot setback). • Issue: Concerns over hard surface coverage on the site and inaccurate surveys o Finding: A statement was made at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the inaccuracy of a survey submitted by the subject property owners. Staff has used the registered land survey provided by the applicant and based hard surface coverage • i Todd Gerhardt 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 October 12, 2015 Page 3 of 3 calculations off of this survey. Any further disagreements regarding property line locations is a civil matter. The Planning Commission discussed the two alternatives and found the attached garage to be preferable to the detached garage option. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 to approve the variance for the attached garage option. This decision was appealed by Maria P. Knight and David L. Bishop (attached). The Planning Commission minutes for July 21, 2015 and September 15, 2015 are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves the variance requests and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Site Plan and Architectural Plans (per September 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting). 2. Appeal by Maria P. Knight and David L. Bishop dated September 18, 2015. 3. Findings of Fact and Decision. 4. Affidavit of Maria Pietemella Knight dated September 15, 2015. 5. Email from Susan Proshek dated July 26, 2015. 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15, 2015 (revised). 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 2015. g:\plan\2015 planning cases\2015-14 3603 red cedar point varianc6mubmittal 8-17-Mexecutive sutn nary.doc -o v T 0 O O CD co co CDCL f C) c N T O T CD c<i C m 0 (D CL r; 0 c N v 0 T 0 O G PROPOSED GARAGE - ATTACHED TO EXISTING HOUSE. 6" EAVES TO OBEY 9.8' SETBACK AT EAST AND 75' SETBACK AT NORTH. HARDCOVER CALCULATION: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 534 = 7725 (24.1 % OF LOT, < 25% ALLOWED) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED ' - 387 S.F.) --- --- ATTACHED GARAGE OPTION SHOWN WITH 1 - CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY OF CHANHASSEN I PLANNING COMMISSION. 9/15/15 LAKE MINNEWASHTA Ark o ----- -- --== I _ I c n _ 1 F EXIS i BRUM US DRIVE e E I 1 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE EXISTING i 1 HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT SITE OF PREVIOQS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION 6N STATUS - ASSUMED ':O BE REMEDIATED 0 I I I I I I 1 I ,1 I I I 301 i .ate SES TBA CK I S.F. •�`� / 1 1 1 dr,1 62 11 1WI 1 --- --- --- D En - _ C. LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. OSITE PLAN ,I•_30'-0- north ro ,1 i ARCHITECTS 612. 22 D. a 190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W V 0 W Z Z f Vf � W W °C h QQ � w = V Z W o= � V W p 010 M Ero1La rw3E SaIMIor 000v pwWl Ml ; ISSUE Imm ISSUE DATE SITE SUE PLAN • • • 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a 8 is 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OEXISTING NORTH ELEVATION $CaIE: 1l8-= 1'-0" OEXISTING WEST ELEVATION SC Ie: 118"=1'-0" ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIMCOM Ba6sE Sdre D.Mpn FA M. DATE MR BY: PM X20 GARAGE • 0 0 EAVE OVERHANG TO 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a s 16 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OPROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8"=V-0" NEW RAKE OPROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - OPTION E scale: 1/Bb V-0" ARCNITRCTf 61 ].220.6190 MACKEYMAEIN.COM W Va Z� W Z Z f y�w W °C N Q Q moo= drVz LU c V 10 W p M PEOIER i W1Y Sdwmatic Design MJO M ER: ISSUE Imm ISSUE DATE eri PM A20 GARAGE 0 0 RECEIVED City of Chanhassen City Council SEP 21 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance, Planning Case No. 2015-14 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That, pursuant to the Code of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, and the laws and regulations of the State of Minnesota, the undersigned do hereby appeal to the Chanhassen City Counsel the findings and fact and decision of the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, dated September 15, 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto, and request that the City Counsel reverse said decision and grant Appellants additional relief. Dated September 18, 2015. David L. Bishop 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 952-303-1966 SCANNED 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission tabled action on this application. On September 15, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to continue the hearing on this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. The variance request is considered reasonable because the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreland setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this 0 Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant's variance request to construct a two-story, two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreland on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreland and 30 -foot front yard setbacks, but the construction of the attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach further into the required shoreland or front yard setbacks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 59 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and thus did not create the non -conformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the 11 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Furthermore, the granting of a shoreland and front yard setback variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple structures in the area encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1977) and the City of Chanhassen was established. There are also properties in this are that have constructed homes within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted six shoreland setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreland of 68 feet to 30 feet. The proposed shoreland setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreland, and will not encroach closer to the shoreland than the existing structure. The City has granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not encroach any closer than the existing structure and will be in keeping with the essential character of the locality. 0 f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated September 15, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of September, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission tabled action on this application. On September 15, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to continue the hearing on this application. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments unanimously approved the variance request, five to zero. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments was appealed by Maria P. Knight and David L. Bishop to the Chanhassen City Council. On October 12, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to continue the hearing on this application. The Chanhassen City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is construct an attached, two-story garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. The variance request is considered reasonable because the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not farther encroach into the shoreland setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. 0 0 b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant's variance request to construct a two-story, two -stall, attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreland on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreland and 30 -foot front yard setbacks, but the construction of the attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach further into the required shoreland or front yard setbacks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct an attached, two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 59 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and thus did not create the non -conformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the 11 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Furthermore, the granting of a shoreland and front yard setback variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple structures in the area encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1977) and the City of Chanhassen was established. There are also properties in this are that have constructed homes within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted six shoreland setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreland of 68 feet to 30 feet. The proposed shoreland setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreland, and will not encroach closer to the shoreland than the existing structure. The City has granted multiple side yard setback 2 0 variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not encroach any closer than the existing structure and will be in keeping with the essential character of the locality. f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated September 15, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. 6. The City Council report, Planning Case # 2015-14, dated October 12, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson is incorporated herein. The Chanhassen City Council approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 120' day of October, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M_ Mayor 0 AFFIDAVIT of Maria Pieternella Knight Maria Pieternella Knight, on oath, deposes and states as follows: is 1. 1 live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd., Excelsior MN 55331, directly to the west of the applicant at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. 2. I bought this "adjacent" property in 1974 with my ex-spouse, and I have owned my residence now for more than 40 years. Consequently, I believe I have a lot of knowledge about the history of Red Cedar Point, the houses on the Point, and the owners of the various properties. I have personally observed the occupancy or lack of occupancy of the 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. property during the period material to this affidavit. 3.1 know that the owners of 3603 Red Cedar Point previous to the applicant vacated the property on November 1, 2012 and that occupation of the land or premises was discontinued from that date through August 2014. During that 20 -month period the property was unoccupied for more than one year. Therefore, I believe that the property is not legally non -conforming property under State and local statutes and ordinances, because it does not meet the requirements to be legally non -conforming property, including without limitation, Chanhassen Municipal Code Section 20.72 (a) which states: "Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) The... occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year.... 4. 1 believe that applicants application constitutes impermissible expansion, intensification, replacement or structural changes of a structure on the premises, and applicant is not entitled to a variance because it is not a legal nonconforming use of the land or premises. I therefore believe that the variance that applicant is requesting must be denied. Subscribed and sworn before me This 15h day of September 2015 Notary Public: Further your affiant saith n Maria P. Knight WOO McBSNMIVIftj . V1083WYI - 0r%U AWXN AH3131 NV3P YBONV 0 I_gvalson, Drew From: Susan Proshek <sipnchew@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:29 PM To: Ingvalson, Drew Subject: 3603 Red Cedar Pt. application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 0 I live at 3613 Red Cedar Pt. and have owned this property, in the family, for many years, since the 1930's My husband and I built our current home in 1984. 1 would like to comment on the proposal at 3603 for a new garage. I am definitely not in favor of that proposed building being constructed as illustrated in Option D. Way too confined of an area and bad idea. The other three options on the East side of the current home are all right if the proper set backs and variances can be met. I worry about the change in the appearance of the Point, which I believe to be an integral and important part of Lake Minnewashta from an esthetic point of view I also worry about any adverse effects on the land and environment but I will leave that decision to the Planning Commission whom, I believe, work in the best interests of all involved. Respectfully submitted, Susan Proshek CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC IWE: September 15, 2015 6_1 CC DATE: October 12, 2015 (if necessary) REVIEW DEADLINE: November 11, 2015 (60 day extension requested from September 12, 2015 deadline) CASE #: 2015-14 BY: RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS, SS "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 441 square -foot attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a shoreland setback and a front yard setback variance to allow construction of a two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland setback and front yard setback. The applicant requested a 60 -day extension for this item at the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (PID 25-6600270) APPLICANT: Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.735 acres (32,025 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct either a two-story, 441 square -foot attached garage (see Option E) or a two-story, 621 square -foot detached garage (see Option F) on their property. The applicant has stated that Option E is their preferred option for this variance request. The proposed project is not allowed by City Code and requires a variance because it will encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. In addition to requiring a variance from the 75 - foot shoreland setback, Option E will also require a variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback. This item was first heard by the Planning Commission on July 21, 2015. The applicant provided four alternative garage locations for the Planning Commission to consider for a variance. Staff did not recommend approval for any of these four locations, but provided a fifth alternative that should be used if the Planning Commission found the variance request to be reasonable. The applicant requested a 60 -day extension prior to a decision by the Planning Commission. This item had a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2015; however, property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been renoticed for this item at the Planning Commission meeting on September 15, 2015. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland management district Section 20-480, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single-family residential district Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-905. Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND According to Carver County records, the house at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 1918. This structure is 31 feet away from the southern shoreland, or ordinary high water (OHW) level, and 75 feet away from the northern shoreland. In 1977, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted as authorized by Minnesota Statute. The Shoreland Management District section of City Code requires structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The principal structure on the subject site encroaches into the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 60 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. Planning Commission • • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 3 of 13 The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yards of the property, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The structure encroaches into this required setback 20 feet 2 inches, but the structure has legal non -conforming status due to it being built prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The buildable lot area on the site is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see light gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Image 1: Proposed Structures and Setbacks City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. AREA OF SITE IF- ALLSETEACKS MID -SLOPE OF ARE ENFORCED GABLE 387 S.F.) 19'-3- AT MID -SL DORMER 21'-8' AT PEAK —�--- -- LAKE �ASFITA -- -- II 3W TORE 1 h ulalglrre�an vinlro►r-. BY 1 —Q 1 C1106N I I Ewtuttuur- 1 1 i _ •_ - DAIVE SR. SM�EWOA 'I e E 3 a j c_ SETBACK 3503 RED -,p� aA� � CEDAR POINT •0" 4 DRIVE EISTING HOUSE - 1992 SF FOOTPRINT o , I O Y i �c - ---- -- ---a--- — ------- - OM EipnE PREVIOUS------- SITE OF FUEL ' OIL TANK -PENDING MPCA LAK E FROM SURVEY DOCU I.ENTATION ON I' STATUS -ASSUMED TO BE MNEEwASiITA REMEDIATED C 5 IC 10 W City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. Planning Commission • • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 4 of 13 The only work permitted by the city outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (east of Option F). Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south into the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a private drive that provides access to the subject site and to the property to the east. The minimum width of the roadway as it crosses the property is 10 feet, per the survey provided by the applicant. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Furthermore, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact city utilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreland setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreland. Staff has worked with the applicant to eliminate those options north of Red Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed two alternatives that are all located south of the private drive (see Image 1). Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 5 of 13 The applicant intends to construct a two -stall garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly -constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The detached garage location (see Option F) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreland setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see Option E), while within the 75 -foot shoreland setback, will not encroach farther into the southern shoreland setback and will maintain the shoreland setback to the north. If approved, Option E will encroach into the 30 -foot front yard setback, but will not encroach farther into this setback than the existing structure. Image 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story garage. The plan proposes two locations for the garage structure, one attached and one detached. Both of these locations will require a shoreland setback variance. Option E will also require a front yard setback variance. Option E Option E (see Image 4) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square -foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. The homeowner will enter the garage from the north off of the private drive. This option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Planning Commission • • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 6 of 13 This option will not require a shoreland setback from the northern shoreland, but the proposed garage will encroach into the southern shoreland setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreland). This variance will not expand on the existing non -conformity as the structure currently encroaches farther into the required setback than the proposed garage (Option E). This alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. However, the property owner's viewscape of the lake will be disrupted by Option E due to living room and bedroom windows located on this side of the home (see Image 5). City Code aligns the front yard of the property to the west of the home. As stated previously, the existing structure encroaches into the front yard setback. Option E will not encroach farther into the existing 9.8 -foot front yard setback that has been established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance since it is an expansion of the structure within 30 feet of the western property line. The majority of the homes along the private drive are positioned with thea garage doors and main entrances facing north. The alignment of these homes along the private drive create a neighborhood where the east and west yards of homes serve more as a side yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback, than a front yard, which require a 30 -foot setback. Image 4: Option E 1 30 � m I 1 CO I BITUM JS� 4- MWE 104 l i 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 7 of 13 Image 5: Existing Conditions The placement of Option E will disrupt vehicle traffic along the private drive. To mitigate this issue, staff recommends that the Planning Commission attach a condition to this plan that requires the applicant to increase the private drive to be at least 10 feet (not to exceed 24 feet) wide at all sections of the drive to ensure traffic safety (see driveway expansion, gray area, in Image 4). This expansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property (23.9%), but it will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will require a smaller hardcover expansion than Option F. This alternative provides a smaller garage than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of garage stalls show that it will be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeowner. Another alternative that staff could have supported would have been to attach the garage to the northeast corner of the home, but the applicant does not wish to consider this option because it would require the removal of a mature tree. Option F Option F (see Image 6) is the applicant's second preferred option. Option F is a 621 square -foot, detached garage located east of the existing structure. This option will require only a shoreland setback variance. The homeowner will enter this garage from the north off of the private drive. This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private drive, but will require a short driveway extension be added to the south and a turnout extension be added to the north of the private drive. The turnout will be required to allow the applicant to efficiently park their car within the garage. Option F will also require the application to remove an existing fire hydrant south of the private drive and relocate it to north of the private drive (see red circle in Image 6) within the existing City easement. This option will increase hardcover to 24.9 percent and will require the removal of two trees. Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 8 of 13 Option F has a shorter shoreland setback than Option E and will encroach farther into the shoreland setback (45.6 feet) than the existing home (44 feet). This alternative will require a 45.6 -foot shoreland setback variance. The additional hardcover at this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the public water viewscapes because there will be minimal screening of the structure from the public waters (see Image 7). Image 6: Option F ff 'age S.F.. SE1APEWIDJS :I i DRNE-1o+ CONCFEM NT TING 92 --- __ RINT o 1 , co M �.�. /.. Image 7: Subject Site from Public Waters Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Viewscapes At the Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2015, there were concerns voiced by the property owner to the west of the subject site. A main concern from this property owner was the potential loss of lake viewscape from a window facing the location of Option E (see Images 8- 10). While there will be a slight viewscape lost due to the potential construction of Garage Option E, this loss of viewscape is not substantial. Moreover, the 75 -foot shoreland setback is the ordinance that protects homeowners' shoreland viewscapes. The proposed project will maintain the north 75 -foot shoreland setback and will not require a variance. Image 8: View of Neighboring House (3605 Red Cedar Point Rd) from Private Drive Image 9: Window Facing Option EF, 10: View from below Window Planning Commission • • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 10 of 13 Character of the Neighborhood Every property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreland setback (see Image 11). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the shoreland district standards were adopted (1977). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreland, or encroaching 51 feet into the shoreland setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreland variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 3). Approved shoreland setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreland setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreland of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet to 8 feet, allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. hi addition, there has been one front yard setback variance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 3). Image I 1 on the next page displays shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property (subject site in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Properties marked with an X are properties that have been granted a variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback. The existing structure on the subject property is currently setback 31 feet from the shoreland, encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Image 11: Properties within 500 feet that encroach into the 75 -foot Shoreline Setback Shoreland Granted Requesting a variance for the construction of a two -stall garage is a reasonable request. The applicant has also worked with staff to minimize the extent of the variance request for their proposal. The request is seen as reasonable because Chanhassen City Code requires newly constructed homes to have a two -stall, attached garage. Furthermore, constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the I 1 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage (see Image 12 below). Image 12: Properties within 500 feet that have a garage s +c`oyo• ■ Garage ® No G Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 12 of 13 The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage. Garage Option E will require a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance and a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance. However, Option E will not expand on the front yard setback or shoreland setback non -conformities on the property. Garage Option F will require a 45.6 -foot shoreland setback variance. Option F will expand on the shoreland setback non -conformity created by the existing structure. Option F may have negative impacts on the water runoff into Lake Minnewashta, the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the removal of mature trees. Alternatively, Option E requires limited hardcover be added to the property, is well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any mature trees. Both options provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent hardcover maximum allowed for the property. There are several properties within 500 feet of the subject site that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Several of these properties, including the subject property, were built prior to the city adopting the shoreland management section of city code. Moreover, 8 of the 11 properties within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Staff believes that it is reasonable to request a variance to allow a two -stall garage due to the unique positioning of the property, the character of the neighborhood, and the existing requirement for new single-family, detached structures to have a two -car garage. Garage Option E is smaller than Option F (621 square feet) by 180 square feet; however, staff has found that this option will provide enough space to store two vehicles. Option E more effectively mitigates potential viewscape from the public waters issues and runoff harms, but this plan will require a front yard setback variance. However, Option E will not encroach farther into the existing shoreland or front yard setbacks. Furthermore, the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve more as a side yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. Option E will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require only a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property farther below the 25 percent hardcover maximum than Option F. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Revised Site Plan. 3. Affidavit of Mailing. 4. July 21, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 21, 2015. gApIm12015 planning cases12015-14 3603 red cedar point variancetresubmittal 8-17-15\staff report 3603 red cedar pointdoc 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION h/7; Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct an attached, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission tabled action on this application. On September 15, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to continue the hearing on this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be perniitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to construct an attached, two-story garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. The variance request is considered reasonable because the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreland setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. SCANNED 0 Finding: The applicant's variance request to construct a two-story, two -stall, attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreland on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreland and 30 -foot front yard setbacks, but the construction of the attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach further into the required shoreland or front yard setbacks than the existing structure. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct an attached, two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 59 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and thus did not create the non -conformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the 11 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Furthermore, the granting of a shoreland and front yard setback variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple structures in the area encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1977) and the City of Chanhassen was established. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes/additions within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted six shoreland setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreland of 68 feet to 30 feet. The proposed shoreland setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreland, and will not encroach closer to the shoreland than the existing structure. The City has granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not encroach any closer than the existing structure and will be in keeping with the essential character of the locality. 2 f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated September 15, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, attached garage subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15'h day of September, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 3 0 • HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: • OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 7. LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 7982 (24.9 % OF LOT) W BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED - 387 S.F.) PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK LAKE MINNEWASHTA PROPOSED GARAGE (E)- 1 km EI TING 441 S.F. FOOTPRINT, I 30' TMING S ATTACHED TO EXISTING ET�AAGK --- Lu Ru HOUSEco I OVUDTOBE (D G E V SBY _EXIS 1 X S N PTION CHOSEN ) -' BITUM US DRIVE 9'-104 E I -- I 3603 RED rte_ 4� ?-- �� CEDAR POINT Pei° DRIVE EXISTING _ 1 HOUSE - 1992 - ❑ji' S.F. FOOTPRINT O j% f SITE OF PREVIOUS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION ON STATUS - ASSUMED TO BE REMEDIATED LAKE MINNEWASHTA T98 5)(* -'ON FONLY- TURNOUT-S.F., SEMI -PERVIOUS II I 1 II j EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE F DRIVE - 100 I 30' j �� (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. CONCRETE^ I SETBACK TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. _245 S.F. 91 -forni# - 1 n n I option a 1 J Ir 1 V7 OHW E INTERPObkTU FROM SURVEY 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTI US DRIVE I I ' i 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: REMOVES 4 MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 24.9% OF LOT, VOLUNTARY STORMWATER RETENTION IF REQUIRED OSITE PLAN ," = 30•-0" (I)north Ln G 00 d w d Q H cH L m n H W V rA Fiv ;r J ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKETMALIN.COM Lu V 0 W 1,- Z HOZ y d w W N 99 ¢Q IXvZ Q (j �v W p V m M mase: sd� Deign DATE DRAWN BY PM SITE SITE PLAN 0 0 OSIDE ELEVATION Scale: 3116"= 1'-0" 12 12 107 Sol - - XMAI' ' J, o 1 0, LEVEL IED GARA( T" C OFRONT ELEVATION Scale 316 = 1'-0" 23' 0 1 x8 RAKE, TYP 1 _ x10 FASCIA TYP. FLASHING AT DORMER 4:12 SHED BROW AT RONT _ TRIM AND SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE OREAR ELEVATION SwIs: 3116"_ 1'-0" 23' pa ARCHITECTS 612.440.6190 MACKEYMAEIN. COM W W V W Z .OZ N d W W = H QQ W = p� v zz W p 10 Eh PROJECTPIWSB S[h..A Design PROJECTNUA1RfR: ISSUE A. ISSUE DATE DW1WN RY: PM Al GARAGE 0 3603 RED CEDAR 0 z a a 16 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OPROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8"=I' -O" OPROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8'S 1'-0" ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMARIN.COM W V Z� W Z Z aO:� Ndw W `) Q Q oco= cZ Q _�oetj W p PROJECT PHASE: Sdemafic Design PROJECT NUMBER: RSSUE lm1 ISSUE DATE DRF11. 81. PM A20 GARAGE 30v3vo I ?;v Wd 'AB NMYEQ 'uva ae!saO 11--ws w 0 P O w m D O m Z m D D � Nim z�N 3z z m vZ An m m WO7'NIIVWA3)43VW 0619'OZZ'Z19 S13311NZIV D D .. d NOIldO - NOIIVA313 H1aON a3SOdOHd 1 3AIHG iNIOd 91 8 v Z 0 HV(130 (13H 0096 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 3, 2015, 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 Meeting for 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Planning Case 2015-14 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. Subs2crirbed and sw m to before me this �— day of c& 09ALAIRA 2015. r Notary 1'u is CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Property Owner: 0 On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the following proposal: Request for Variances to the 75 -foot Shoreland Protection setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects. Owner: Gregg & Kellie Geiger. The public hearing on this item was CLOSED; however, the Planning Commission tabled action on the request to allow the applicant to provide alternate options. This item will be placed under the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email at dingvalson(a�ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Information or visit the project web page at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Property Owner: On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the following proposal: • Request for Variances to the 75 -foot Shoreland Protection setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects. Owner: Gregg & Kellie Geiger. The public hearing on this item was CLOSED; however, the Planning Commission tabled action on the request to allow the applicant to provide alternate options. This item will be placed under the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email at dingvalson(d-)ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Information or visit the project web page at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 10 BETSY S ANDING 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SCUBA 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 SUSAN S PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 KELLIE J GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 0 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pat Mackey 5200 Washburn Avenue So., Minneapolis Dave Bishop and Nelleke Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Road PUBLIC HEARING: 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1. BLOCK 4. RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman Aller and good evening to the rest of the Planning Commission. I do not have a name still but I assure you I am working here. My name is Drew Ingvalson so if you have any questions for me feel free to ask. So as you said the variance request we have in front of us today is an expansion of an existing non -conformity. The location, like you already said is 3603 Red Cedar Point. If you look on the image on your screen it is, has Lake Minnewashta sort of on the north side and then also on the south side too and then as properties to the east and to the west. Here is an image of the existing structure at Red Cedar Point Road as constructed in 1918 so we're looking at much older neighborhood within the city and the request that is being made today is the property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story, 621 square foot garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non- conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. Here's a survey that we have of the property. There are legal non -conformities, as I already stated. The principle structure encroaches on the shoreland setback by 44 feet. If you look over here it shows its 31 feet from the shoreland to the south. It also meets the shoreland setback to the north is 75 feet from that shoreland setback, and then it encroaches on the front yard setback which is this west property line. This was changed per city code in the early 1990's. This was previously considered a side yard. This side of a lot but with our current city code it is considered a front yard so it encroaches into that 20.4 feet. It is set back 9.6 feet from that property line. Existing infrastructure. There is a mad currently providing access to people on the street. It is a private drive. Not a public street. A private drive. There's also sewer and water mains that go through Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • this property. Originally the applicant was, wished to have their detached garage structure located on the north side of the road. This came to a halt when staff noticed that there were sewer and water lines going through that area and any placed structured on the far side of the property was very, very close to the shoreland so further conversations moved where that structure would be placed which I will talk to you about later today. Here is an image. The drive is approximately 10 feet wide along here. This is looking at the drive facing west. Here is an image of the drive east. The proposed project, there are multiple locations that are being proposed for this structure but all of them are a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Option A, which you'll see over here is the preferred option. It loads off of the street from this way. It is preferred by the applicant, sorry to not infer any confusion. The applicant then prefers Options B and then option C next respectively. And the least preferred option by the applicant is the location of D which would be the only attached structure. Also for the location of the garage for options A and options B they would be required to remove some hard cover to meet the 25 percent hard cover maximum. That will be done by removing this location of the turn around. Speaking with our fire department that is not a preferred option to remove that turn around as it serves for safety vehicles. Options C and options D would not require to remove this area. However it has been proposed by the applicant to remove this area but it will not be needed for option C or for options D. First we have option A. Option A is the applicant's preferred option. This option will require a variance from the shoreland setback of 48.5 feet. It would locate the structure 26.5 feet from the shoreland and would access off of the private drive this way and then would access into the garage from the west. The hard cover for this one would be increased to 24.77. That would include removing that hard cover area from that tum around we talked about earlier and then also there will be 3 mature trees that would need to be removed for this option. Here is a view of where option A and option C would be located. We'll talk about option C a little bit later. It will be located in this area on a concrete pad where these cars are and this tarp and here is the shoreland facing to the south. Next option we have is option B which is the applicant's next preferred option. Looking at here on the image it is 24.6 feet from the shoreline. The variance required for that would be a 50.5 foot shoreland setback variance. The hard cover for this option would be increased to 24.33. Also removing that tum around area that we talked about before. This one option would require the removal of 3 mature trees and you would access off of the road and then load into the garage from the west. Next option is option C. It's located in a similar place as option A. This would be loading actually from the north, different from the previous two options. This one would require the largest variance. 53.9 foot shoreland setback variance. It would be located 21.1 feet from the shoreline. Hard cover would be increased to 23.28 percent. This is if the turn about was, turn around was removed. And then would be 24.95 meeting the ordinance of 25 percent hard cover if it was left there. This would also require the removal of one mature tree. Option D, which is the applicant's least preferred option. This will require the most variances. First it's going to require a 17 foot shoreland variance setback to the south. You set back 58 feet from the shoreline. As you can see the structure, the existing structure would actually be between the proposed garage and the shoreline. Then also it would require a 2 foot shoreland setback from the north. You can't see on the map. The shoreland would be up here. It's going to be 73 feet in that location. Also there would be a side yard setback, or a front yard setback required, excuse me for 25.9 feet. That would locate the structure 4.2 feet from the front yard, which is the far west property line only allowing a 9 foot 9 and a quarter inch separation between the homes. Speaking with building that would require a fire rated wall for that which would be an additional requirement for the building permit. Hard 2 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 cover for this location would be increased to 22.3 percent. That is if the tum out was removed, as you can see in red. If it was left there it would leave it at 23.78 percent with it still left. No mature trees would be removed in this area. The only hard cover expansion since location for D is actually on existing hard cover. The only expansion for hard cover would be the driveway that would need to be expanded to complete access. A large issue with this option is loading. It would be loading from the west which would make it fairly difficult to get around the existing property to the west and loading into that garage. The alternative plan that was created by staff would require a variance still for the shoreland setback to the south. Maintain, keeping that 58 foot variance and then would have a smaller variance required for the front yard. 20.4 foot front yard setback keeping it at 9.6 feet from the property line to the west, and maintaining what is currently existing on the house at this comer of the home is currently 9.6 feet away. With this option you'd be loading from the north. I'm sorry excuse me, the option to the south, or the option, this alternative option would maintain a 15 foot building separation which would not require an additional requirement from the building department for the fire rating. Hard cover would not exceed 25 percent for this option. The applicant's option which would remove the part of the turn out would put it at 23 percent. If it was left there it'd be a 24 percent. Looking at this dark area right here that would be maintaining the 10 foot driveway through here which, or drive that goes through the property. The applicant has proposed a larger area with the dotted area. That would keep it still underneath the 25 percent hard cover. And for this area just like option D there won't be any mature trees removed. Here is a view of option D and the alternative plan location. Here is the house looking from the north from the private drive. Here's a view of the neighboring house to the west. They have a garage on this side. There aren't any windows on this side for this side of the property. And as I said before earlier this property was built in, this structure was built in 1918 so looking at this image I'll walk you through a little bit of it. The yellow line shows all the properties that are within 500 feet of the subject property. And in red are all properties that do not meet the shoreland setback requirement. Some of these are because they were built before the shoreland setback was put in place. Also the yellow is the subject property which also doesn't meet the shoreland setback requirement. And there was a couple errors in the staff report that I'd bring up. First of all the staff report read that variances within 500 feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive on Attachment number 8 should actually read 500 feet within 3603 Red Cedar Point, the subject property. All of the variances that were given in there were correct. Just that error with the top address. And in looking at this, properties that have an X on them are properties that were given a shoreline setback variance. If you look on here there are 6 properties within 500 feet that were granted those. Properties that have a square around them are properties with a front yard or side yard setback variance. The largest shoreline setback variance granted in this area was 45 feet with the farthest property to the east. There's also been multiple variances for front yards. Looking at the largest one was back in 1979 with a 23 foot front yard variance but later was constructed with a 12 foot front yard. There's also been side yard setback variances granted and this was due to the properties currently. The properties we view, these north and south property lines are on the far east and west. Those are considered front yard and rear yards but per our city code prior to early 90's that was considered a side yard so there were side yard variances granted back in 1992 and 1988 cases. And it should also be mentioned that there was another, just something to clear up what the staff report that in 1986 it stated that was when the city started managing shorelands per our chapter of the city code and that was true in 1986 because there was an ordinance that was for statewide and that was when we adopted. That was 1986 but the city was enforcing shoreline 00 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 management back in 1977 which was a different statute by the State which was just for municipalities so that's why we have variances that were from 1979 for shoreline setbacks and other variances within the shoreland management. The recommended motion from the staff is the planning, as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the variance request to construct a two story garage that encroaches into the shoreland setback and front yard setback and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. However if the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds a reasonable request and wishes to grant a variance staff recommends that they approve a 17 foot shoreline setback variance and a 20.4 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Here are the architectural plans that were provided by the applicant. These were for the 23 foot by 27 foot garage options that they gave. Options A through D. However staff would strongly recommend and encourage any, to have this also be a similar style that would match the house for an option or alternative option or any option that they go forward with. At that point I'd like to open for any questions that you may have. Aller: Questions at this point. Weick: I do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Did you calculate for options, I think it was A and B that had some, it was bumping up against the hard surface requirement. Did you calculate what that hard surface would be if they left the tum around? Ingvalson: I actually don't have that with me, no. Weick: Okay. Ingvalson: But it would be over the 25 percent. Weick: It would be over but. Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: Within a couple percent. Ingvalson: Correct. It's about a 1 percent difference. Weick: So for clarification if we were to approve one of those options we could ask for a variance there as well to keep that tum around. N Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. It'd be about a 26 percent. Weick: Okay. That's all I had. Aller: Anything else at this point? That was a great report Drew and I appreciate you going through each one of the options. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: So we'll probably be revisiting them in a minute. Ingvalson: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time we'll ask the applicant to come forward. If they'd like to come forward and tell us about their request. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger and I reside at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Gregg Geiger: I'm joined today with my wife Kellie and my daughter Kelsey. I would like to give to you a little bit of a homeowner's view of the situation so maybe you can understand a little bit better. I appreciate Drew's report because now I can get through mine a little bit faster. The first couple side slides were already covered so next slide please. So in general at the essence here the request is for, we're seeking a variance for a new detached garage on a property that has no garage so that's the essence of it. So we've essentially survived a winter. We moved in in September of last year and we had, we experienced one winter so far and it was a fairly mild winter but certainly we recognize now the need for or the utility of a garage in Minnesota which we've lived in Minnesota for some time now but this is the first time without one. Next one please Drew. So Drew's already covered a lot of this stuff as far as the peninsula is concerned. There's a map. I'm sure you're all familiar with what Lake Minnewashta, this is the peninsula then that sticks out. The finger that sticks out running from west to east into the lake and our property is there shown in overhead in yellow. This is a view from the north part of the lake looking south at the north shoreline. Just to give you a flavor for what the peninsula looks like in terms of tree cover and in terms of what you can see in terms of building density. Next slide please. So the lot itself, again Drew's covered much of this. The blue outlines the house and the red is honestly where we park our cars so we, we use what is termed here the tum around as a place where we park our cars so this represents about 5 places that we can park. I indicated in the green circles here some of the major trees and some of those trees so for instance the cluster of trees on the north is, those are, that's a fairly large cluster of trees. They're pretty tall and they're very significant. The other, some of the other features then as we go through here and we, Drew covered up a little bit about this is that hard cover that exists on the mid-plane, midway between the two side yards is existing hard cover that would be affected by several of the options. So on the next slide then I've just listed out some of the features that have already been discussed that make this lot somewhat unique. One is that it's bordered on two sides by Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • lakeshore. It is divided also, so we have the two side issues but we also have running down the middle then is the shared driveway as well as the sewer lines so. Sewer and water mains so we have a bit of a challenge of placement of any sort of structure because of that. I think we determined that approximately 390 square feet of buildable area exists if we apply all the setbacks and all the requirements to it so it's, it's a tough lot to build and we recognize that. There was once a fuel oil tank on the property. We understand it's been removed. We contacted the authority, authorizing agencies and such and have assurance that it has been taken care of but that fuel tank sat right underneath that, right near that hard cover that exists in the middle of the lot. Drew showed it as a picnic table type area there. It's right adjacent to that so it's a consideration. It's not something that we're necessarily concerned about but it's something that we have thought about. Next slide please. The garage option locations are shown. We've gone through them. They've already been discussed. I would answer any questions you might have about them. Again we note that these, the outlines shown here are all that original 23 by 27 application so they are not showing the proposed, the staff proposed 21 by 21 borders. Okay, that's fine. The next slide is good. So then this, this is again the, one of the shoreline views looking from the north looking south at the north shoreline showing you where those, where those various options would be. So option D in this picture is to the right. Options A and C are in the middle there and option B is to the left. You can see that big, that large clump of trees then that kind of in this view kind of obscure the house and those are significant, and the house itself has many trees around it that are large. Next slide please. So as far as the considerations are concerned, this is not based on economics alone. There is no garage for this single family residence at this time. The circumstances were not created by us or by many of the previous owners. It's a unique lot on a narrow peninsula. It was built in 1918. We believe and we intend to retain the essential character of the place. The architect's view that was provided earlier matches actually as far as stone work and as siding is concerned. What the existing house would look like so you, it will look like the existing home. And also the building density and scale will remain consistent. This is not a super tall structure. This isn't a super wide structure. It's a garage that will be consistent with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. As far as mitigations are concerned, option A certainly has its challenges but we believe some of those challenges can be overcome. In terns of hard cover we note that all options are below the 25 percent and this option replaces approximately 225 square feet of existing hard cover. As far as runoff is concerned we believe that there are ways to reduce and mitigate the problems associated with runoff with good gutter design and rain gardens for instance could help in that regard and we would certainly work to make that sort of thing happen. The nearest property line setback in this particular one again for option A is approximately 60 feet. It's a decent way away from the neighboring lot. As far as shade tree removal is concerned, shade trees are important to us as homeowners and we would replace those with appropriate fast growing trees. Option D clearly has its challenges. It bumps up to an existing house so I'm kind of giving you the, we rated the options in terms you know A, B, C and D in kind of our priority order and some of that priority order was the setback. A was the furthest from the lakeshore. B was the next closest and C was the next closest there and then D just represents more of a challenge for us as homeowners and some of those challenges include the existing house that we would really have to get into that existing house and get into that structure and part of the existing house is the stone work of course around the house and that would be, it's not just taking down siding and putting in some joists and moving forward. There's a little bit more to it. There would be a little bit of a trap space between the house and the garage as indicated on staff drawings. That would Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • be a very unusable gap as it currently stands. This particular option reduces the overall parking availability by about one stall and so if we have a two car garage and then we use those other two, two areas in the tum around that gets us to 4 stalls and now we've gone from a 5 to a 4 kind of capacity so it's a consideration. And of course the hard cover associated with increasing, giving a little bit of a bump to the driveway so that we can actually get in and out of the driveway would be a little bit of an addition to hard cover. Next slide please. And I mention that because the turning radius is very tight there. There's some marks on the driveway there that were placed there and the mark that is indicated is the one that is, is the staff recommended 21 by 21 square foot corner so that's the northwest corner of where the garage would be so we, and you can get a sense of scale there for, there's an ... that's parked in that particular spot where the garage would be so you get, kind of understand how big the space would be, and how challenging it could be to get in and out of that area. Next is again kind of adding to the driveway tortuosity here is, this is a view looking from the west to the east and you can see the house kind of jutting out there into the driveway so what the driveway does right now is it kind of comes to the house and goes around the house and comes out the other, comes out the other side there so there's a bit of a tum around there for our neighbors to get around. The point where the arrow is pointing is the point where the 21 foot by 21 foot garage would be. Would come to, to give you a nice idea of that. So at least from this particular view I don't know that it looks substantially different and again we would be keeping the character of the house there so it would look very similar to what it looks like now for approaching cars. So in short and then again back to the original request this is a request for a variance for a garage on a lot that has no garage currently. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. How many cars do you have now? Gregg Geiger: We have 5 cars. Aller: Five cars. And so you use the tum around. If there was a fire, the fire department wouldn't be too happy about that or? Gregg Geiger: Yeah they probably wouldn't quite frankly. It's a challenge. Now you know in the summer time everything's good. You just drive onto a large lot there. There's a wide open field. Certainly in the winter time it would be, anything in the winter regardless of whether there's a pad there or not it's going to be a challenge. Aller: You've got to push that snow. And then when we're talking about driving by the house to get out to the point, is there sufficient room to be safe for a car to go by there especially in the winter when we have to push that snow back or? Gregg Geiger: You know our neighbors are good about driving slowly and cautiously. Sometimes when you get visitors they may not be as familiar with the area and that's, I have a little bit of concern. I mean it really is a turn. It's not, you're not going straight. You're making a bend there so it's a challenge. Aller: How much hard cover is left to go around after the garage is there? As far as the driveway or the drive width. V1 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Ingvalson: For which option? Aller: To go by. If the property has the D. Ingvalson: If they have, so if you're looking at option D there's an added hard cover to that area. However it would not exceed the hard cover maximum. What was calculated by the applicant did not actually included that hard cover for option D in as another additional for hard cover. However for the, when you're adding that you're double adding because that area's already paved so when you're adding, you could actually leave that tum around area without having to go over the 25 percent or anything add on there. Aller: And if cars are parked in the tum around and there's a structure there, how much space is there for a vehicle to get around? Ingvalson: So there would only be 7 feet if nothing was added so that was why a part of that application would be requiring the applicant to expand that area with some more pavement to make sure that that was safe. I believe what was proposed by the applicant to tum it to a 13 foot wide area. While the majority of the road is 10 feet wide so we would be making it wider and that was a part of what staff would recommend for the alternative option was to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive. What they have and then no wider than 24 feet. Aller: And if it went wider than 24 feet you're increasing the hard cover past the 25 percent. Ingvalson: Absolutely, it would be over the 25 percent so it would be also part of that. Would maintain the 25 percent hard cover. Gregg Geiger: If I might remind folks though if that were the case though then we'd be taking out some of the hard cover, that 225 square feet of hard cover over, or running the option of C as mitigating for hard cover. Aller: When you purchased the property there wasn't a garage there and what were your intentions? Did you buy the property intending to put this here or did you talk to people? Gregg Geiger: Yeah sure. We visited with staff before. I met Bob last summer so we were, we went in not assuming or not expecting a guarantee but saying is there a process that allows us to discuss this in a reasonable type fashion and we were assured that there was and indeed seems to be so. You know we recognize this as something that we were buying on hoping that we could get something but no guarantees... Aller: Great. Any additional questions or comments? Madsen: I have a question on option D. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Madsen: As I understand it encroaches on the neighbor's property a bit if you need to get in your garage that loads from the west, is that correct? Gregg Geiger: We're going to have to see exactly how that, I think that, how we could play that out. Again it's, there's two things that go on here. One is to get enough driveway space for cars to pass by and second is to get a turning radius to get something, some sort of car in there. Something beyond a Smart car perhaps. I don't have, I don't know Pat if you can discuss this. Pat Mackey: The intent with option D was that it would load, enter from the north because to enter from the west would require encroaching on the neighbor's property. Gregg Geiger: Yep so maybe that's the confusion. Madsen: Oh so it would load from the north. Pat Mackey: Loading from the north. Aller: And for the record sir if you could state your name and address. Pat Mackey: I'm sorry. My name is Pat Mackey. I'm with Mackey Malin Architects. I'm the designer for the applicant. Aller: Thank you sir. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Gregg Geiger: I'm sorry for not making that clear. Madsen: No, thank you very much for that clarification. Aanenson: I would just say the garage ... the other way so that was some confusion on our part because that's not how the drawing showed it. Ingvalson: I apologize. If you look at the architectural plans it shows the 23 foot wide area being entering from that way so when you're looking at option D, this would be the 23 foot wide section. That is why that arrow is assumed to be entering from this way. Gregg Geiger: For D correct. Those are the original 23 by 27. Now we're kind of talking now about a 21 by 21 which makes the loading now from the north. Madsen: Okay the alternative rather than the D. Gregg Geiger: Yeah. I was referring A through D as locations correct. Madsen: Okay. W 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Gregg Geiger: And specific designs. Pat Mackey: And if I may the elevations are, the options for any of the three detached options, we haven't dealt into the attached option. The aesthetic of it. Obviously the skin, the materials of it would be consistent with the existing house but the form shown there isn't something you can just push up to the existing house. There would be some finessing and reworking of the roof line. Consideration there. Aller: And if we were to take staff option would that be a shared wall then. Would it be connected to the house or would it be separate? Gregg Geiger: Correct. Pat Mackey: Correct. Yeah you could pretty much disregard the form that's shown on this sheet A-1 and we would kind of be starting with the form of the existing house and working with that. There's a solution there. We just haven't pursued it. Tietz: If it were detached, what's the intended use of the studio space and are there city regulations for how that space would be used? I'm not sure about that. Gregg Geiger: So if I could speak as the homeowner the intent for the studio space is, for instance my wife is a quitter and that would be a nice, would make for a nice area where she could have a permanent quilt area so it's not intended as. Tietz: But there'd be no utilities or Gregg Geiger: Well as far as electricity is concerned. Tietz: Well yeah but I mean as far as plumbing or. Gregg Geiger: Aside from what is necessary in a garage. Tietz: Okay. Gregg Geiger: If we talk about a heated garage for instance I don't know, we haven't kind of gotten down to those. That would be a gas line. Tietz: I guess I'd just be concerned that in the future if it became habitable and became a. Gregg Geiger: So hopefully a studio space would be habitable in the winter if we wanted. Pat Mackey: I think if I may we're talking about two different kinds of habitable. Tietz: Yeah. I'm talking about living space. Pat Mackey: There's no intent for this to function as a dwelling at all. 10 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Tietz: Okay. Pat Mackey: And it's essentially utility space. Weather storage. Craft. You name it. Aller: Wouldn't preclude you from running a gas or electric line in there for purposes of a gas driver, things of that nature. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Any additional questions? Weick: There are. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I noticed in one of your pictures there were other people kind of parked off the private drive. Are there other homes on the peninsula without garages? Or is that just overflow parking? Ingvalson: The majority of the homes on that drive have a garage of some sort and many of the variances that were granted were for, some of them were for a detached garage. Weick: Okay. And how much, and you're going to have to, if you attached the garage there were windows. I mean how, yeah thank you. How much does that impact, I'm not sure what the living spaces are behind there. You know what those rooms are. Gregg Geiger: So if we can just look at this particular drawing here, or photo here. Weick: Yeah. Gregg Geiger: The window on the right for instance is our bedroom. Master bedroom. On the left there, so there's the part jutting out that is sort of a family room. Sort of a large family mom where we have TV and couch and chairs and such. And you can see the basement windows down in front. Weick: Okay. Madsen: With the family room are there windows on the other? Gregg Geiger: Yeah so it goes all the way around. Madsen: All the way around, okay. And on the bedroom are there windows on any other walls? Gregg Geiger: There's some windows over on, in this case the corner... which would be the southwest. Southwest corner of the house. There's two windows right now. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Madsen: Okay, thank you. Gregg Geiger: One facing each of the primary directions. One window facing to the west. One window facing south. There's the other side of this jutting out family room. Aller: Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you sir. At this point in time we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone in the audience wishing to come forward speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Nelleke Knight: I'm Nelleke Knight and I live on Red Cedar Point 3605. Dave Bishop: I'm Dave Bishop. I live at the same place. Nelleke's from the Netherlands and English is not her first language so we're going to kind of present together. If you don't understand either one of us please let us know. It might be me. Aller: That's fine. I just ask that we don't talk over each other and we'll try to do the same. Dave Bishop: That sounds fine and thank you. We kind of go by north, south, east and west and the subject property is east of Nelleke's property and so they are, we are on the west side of them okay. My first question that I wanted to ask is I've gone through the record that is available to us on the intemet and there was a letter from the landholder that was on the east of the subject property, the Papp's. I know I have a copy of it. I know it's not in the internet record and my question is have you guys all got a copy of it? And the answer is yes you do. Okay. My summary of their situation is that they object to all of these proposals as do we. I have to say at the outset it's a little frustrating that since this was first applied for there's been either 6 or 7 proposals and it's kind of wackamol for the neighbors as to you know what it is that we are responding to. First they were going to put it in the turn around area. Then they were going to put it on the north side. Then another place on the north side. Then they were going to put it on the south side right next to the Papp's. Setbacks, side setback. Then they have two that are kind of in the middle of the property and then they have one that's going to be in our side yard and now the city staff has even volunteered to do the legwork to propose yet another parcel which I'm going to call E because I don't know what to call the staff's suggestion for this but you know I have difficulties with the fact that all of these are a, we have an elevation for a detached 23 by 27 foot garage but there's no elevations at all for this so called D. Nelleke Knight. D. Dave Bishop: D and there's no elevations at all for the staff s so called E which is on our side of the property so we don't know what it's going to look like and we therefore don't have our right to give you input as to what we think the conditions ought to be should you make a decision to impose either D or E on us. I think that if they had originally come with an application and they had not even given you an elevation for D or E the City probably would have just turned it back and said the elevation, the elevations are critical to the application and we can't proceed until we get it so D and E are a black box. I'm going to assume that it is what we have been told and I'm 12 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 going to speak to what we know so far. There are two fundamental issues here. I'm going to break them down each as sub -parts okay but the one thing that I think is concerning to Nelleke and I is the concept that there's some kind of hardship by not having a two car garage here on the point. Now in fact of the 10 houses starting from the water and working your way up the point, 4 of them do not have garages. Six of them do have garages so there's a long history of not having garages on the point and in fact I would dare say 50,000 to 100,000 people in the metropolitan area do not have two car garages. It is not requirement and we have heard from the staff that you know if this was a new construction, well you would require that it have a two story garage. This is not new construction. If it were new construction there'd be 300 and some square feet to build on which means you'd build a shed, and even that you wouldn't build because that area happens to be in a 15 foot easement to the benefit of us and to the benefit of the Papp's which runs for ingress and egress through that area. And there haven't been any mention of this. The staff feels that it's a private easement so if you give the okay to put something in the middle of our easement then we have to go a court and undo that and our feeling is you should think about that when you decide whether it is appropriate to grant an easement that in fact intrudes on our 15 foot wide space in order to get into the property which is, it's actually a public easement so it's your, it's your opportunity to access that as well. Okay so as to the issue of you know is, is it necessary that you have a two car garage. The applicants had, and I'm not a power point guy so I don't help this. Do you have the ability to show video? Okay. I'm going to do this. Can you see that? There you go. I've been informed that this is the house that they sold in order to buy the house that they got. They gave up their indoor swimming pool and they gave up their 3 car garage because they felt living on the point with its beautiful views and its access to the water was worth an extra $100,000. It's not that anybody had any kind of a surprise that there isn't a garage there. There was a knowing decision that we're trading X in order to get Y and Y doesn't have a 3 car garage and I think that that is important because they aren't the first people to own this property. It's been owned by many people. Let's see do you have your affidavit Nelleke? Nelleke Knight: Yeah I actually gave it to you. This is. Dave Bishop: We've talked with the city staff a month ago, 2 weeks ago, last Friday as to what was there on 3503 in prior years and we hear things like well your photographs could be photo shopped. They may not be accurate. We don't know what to believe. We can only go by the paperwork that is in our office and we don't, we can't actually do an investigation like call the applicant up and ask him what was there or actually go inside their house and take a look at what was there so with your permission I'd like to give you, this is an Affidavit... so that there isn't any question as to whether or not we feel that we're telling the truth. Aller: Does planning have a copy of this already or is this the first time? Dave Bishop: It's the only copy that exists. You have the original. Aller: So what I'm going to ask before I even read this is that why don't we take a little bit of a break here and we'll take a recess for a minute and let's make a copy of this. Aanenson: Yeah, well we can adjust that quickly. The practical difficulty that we're dealing with here is a front and side yard setback. We didn't get into the issues of taking it to where they 13 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 wanted to go. We also did speak to the City Attorney regarding the right-of-way issue which there's a lot of ambiguity in that so we stepped away from that so we stuck to the issues. Aller: Right. Aanenson: I think we're putting a lot of other things now moving towards trying to, we were just trying to keep it clear on what we believe was the issue in front of you. If you want to take a minute to read that, be more than happy to take a quick recess. Aller: I do because I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Whether it gets advanced and of course will become part of the package but I don't know what's in it or whether it's going to be relevant to what we're talking about right now so we're going to make a copy and then we'll take a look at it. Dave Bishop: That's fine. I just want to respond to what I just heard. Aller: Sure. Dave Bishop: If I understand you correctly, in order to grant this you have to meet 4 criteria. One of those criteria, at a minimum. You can deny it for any reasonable reason but you have to meet the 4 criteria and one of the criteria I think is that the hardship or the inconvenience or the difficulty should not be caused by the people who owned the property and what this affidavit is going to tell you is this property had a 2 car garage and the owners made the decision that they would rather have a larger basement and not have a garage and so when they say well we're only going to look at the narrow issues I take a little umbrage with that because. Aller: Let me just interrupt you. When you say owners are we talking about the applicant? Dave Bishop: No the people in the chain of title. And they take the property as they find it I believe. I'm not acting as a lawyer. I'm just saying as the next door neighbors it's our view that they take the property as they find it and the way they find it is that it has a 2 car garage already. They just decided, the previous owners just decided to board it up and that that creates a conflict with the requirement that it not be, the people in the title's actions that caused this to occur in my opinion. Aller: Okay, I understand your position. Dave Bishop: Okay. No not yet. They're going to take a break if I understand it. Aller: We'll take a two -minute break, or recess until we get a copy and then we'll take a look at it. We're in recess. The Planning Commission took a recess at this point in the meeting to make copies of an Affidavit submitted by Nelleke Knight and Dave Bishop. 14 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Okay we're going to call this meeting back to order. For the record we received an Affidavit of Maria Knight and the original has been provided to staff to go with the file and we've received true and accurate copies of a two-page affidavit along with some pictures and I'm going to summarize that as a statement that you live to the west at 3605. That you bought the property and had been there for more than. Nelleke Knight. Well I live to the west of 3603. Aller: Oh at 3603. Thank you. Dave Bishop: No she lives at 3605 which is at the west of 3603. Aller: Right. Nelleke Knight. Yeah. Aller: So you are at 3605? Nelleke Knight: Yes. Dave Bishop: Yes. Aller: Okay. That you live there. That you know that the property at 3603 had a 2 car garage at some point in time. That garage was tom down by prior owners. Dave Bishop: It was not tom down. Aller: Just closed off. Nelleke Knight: Closed off, yes. Aller: Okay so, in the remodeling and that you believe that the variance should be denied because there was a choice made by the prior owner to forego the garage. And it's your position then that the new owners should be held to that standard to rely on what the other property owner did and that we are also bound by that. Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Aller: Okay. So that's a fair statement of what's in here and that will be attached, thank you. Dave Bishop: So the affidavit is to address the concerns that we heard from the staff that we weren't telling the truth and I think there will be another resident of the point that will reiterate the veracity of what that says that's coming later so you'll hear that again. This is, let's see. I don't want to get this out of order. Aller: So what other items are there? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Dave Bishop: Well I believe this is on cable TV isn't it? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: Okay so they haven't seen these photos so what I want to do is just real quickly show them so there's a clear record. This is the house as it exists today. Aller: Okay I'm going to stop you there. It's part of the record now. We've read it and I don't want to take a lot of time looking at photographs of the condition of the property way back when. We're taking your affidavit at face value and we're going to move forward. Dave Bishop: Can I point out some things on the photo? Aller: Sure, if it has to do with the applicant's application. Dave Bishop: Yes. There are some things that the affidavit doesn't state. This is an 1985 picture that is part of the affidavit but it does not show, state that the reason the photo was in there is because this is, this is Nelleke's mother and this is the window that you can see going into the garage that we have shown you with the light on. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: This was taken yet this week and the purpose of this is to show that the outside stanchion for the garage is here and you can see that there is a difference in the color for, and yeah it's hard to see from this but it sticks out in this area which constitutes the left side of the filled in area and this, you can see the line right here constitutes the filled in area over here and the original for the right side. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Now one of the things that, Drew maybe you can go back to it but one of the comments that I heard was that our residence doesn't any windows on the east side. Aller: Sir I'm not really concerned with your residence not having windows unless it's an impact. Dave Bishop: Oh it does. All I want to do is make it clear. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Because I think it was a misstatement and I want the record to be clear on it. Okay this is our residence and you can see that there is a garage and there's the east side of the garage but if you look beyond the garage you'll see that there's a window that it constitutes our front window and there it goes. Okay. So there is a window there okay and this is, this is what you would see. If you can turn this on. This is what you would see if you were looking out that 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • window. It's a little low but it kind of shows you the 3 points that I wanted to make clear. There was a proposal D and proposal D as it was originally stated was that they would build a garage that would come out this far and out this far. Now this is the road here. This is east going up this way and this is north going this way. So the original proposal was that the garage would be up to here. Yes, he's right. Up to here. This is proposal D. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. That's the part that's on our side of this. Now as you can see proposal D is more than, I mean there's only like 4 feet or so to the far side of the road. It's right in the middle of the easement. Can you see that? Now if you look at what was originally proposed you'll see that there's an arrow indicating how they were going to get into this and the way they were going to get into this was not from the north like they said today. The arrow shows and what we're responding to is that they were going to drive in this way and the only way they were going to do that was to go right by our property. Right through our property. Right through the middle of our property. Aller: And there's an easement there. Dave Bishop: Yes there is and we own it. Aller: Okay and it's a shared easement so they have a right to drive on it. Dave Bishop: No, well this is a garage that is going to go from here to here and then from here and over to about here, okay. Now maybe they can squeeze through the easement to get into this car but they'll never get it into this car without going through our property. It can't be, I don't believe it can be done. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. Now that's their proposal. It made so little sense that we thought what they must have meant was that they would take their 27 by 23 two story garage and they would turn it this way. Okay so this is the line if they would do that and it suffers the same defect. Its right in the middle of the easement and it would block us and the Papp's from getting in and out of this area. Now the City said well we'll cut this down to 21 by 21. Well that puts the line right there. Okay. So this is what it looks like if you look out our window, okay. And this is my interpretation of what it looks like if they build what they said they were going to build. Now this is photo shopped. I admit that just to be illustrative, okay. You know this is what we're looking at now and this is what we would be looking at if they built it turned around so that the short side of this thing would be in the short direction rather than sticking out the long way. It still absolutely destroys the view. And this is what we have today and this is what we would have on the City's 21 by 21. This is just my guesstimate because I have no idea what the elevations are, as does anyone else because this is just pulled out of the air. It's just, there's no information on this one but that's what we lose. Okay now the other statement essentially was that, there's a 30 foot setback according to Chanhassen's law between our property and the adjoining property and if the City wants to change that I suppose they can but the fact that it is a 17 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 front yard under the City's statute does not turn it into a side yard because it looks like it. It is what it is. It's a front yard. It's a 30 foot setback. It's not a 10 foot setback. And this is the view we have now from the middle of our property on essentially very close to the lot line. And you can see back here the line for the garage. And this is harder to understand but we would see the tree and we would miss everything else if they built this on the property so it is a visual, a huge visual encroachment on us by accepting this 20 foot variance that's being requested in our opinion. We have been given I guess several times a survey purported to be on this property. The survey that we received on its face indicates that it located no boundary markers and we and the Papp's vehemently disagree on the accuracy of the survey. The permeable, impermeable service, impermeable surface statistics that the staff has been quoting you is based on what the surveyor told them but neither the City nor us have any way to replicate those and you know using my protractor and graph paper I didn't come anywhere near the percentages that they have. Some of which are numbers like 24.96 percent which makes we wonder if somebody fudged a square foot here and there. I don't know but I do know that Nelleke claims all of this area here, okay. Am I correct Nelleke that the Papp's told you that they claim the area here? Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Dave Bishop: Okay. I don't know what those percentages are but I do believe that is a disputed boundary and that although the survey might be made by a surveyor and whatever is on the line if he signed it, it doesn't make it any more accurate and so our position is those are disputed boundaries and that if you took into account those boundaries, D and E are even less feasible. Drew do you have something that shows A, B and C on it? It's hard to see here which is A and B. I guess I'll talk about B first because I think, actually the letters have changed. Yeah they've changed on this one from what they used to be. So B is now the one closest to the Papp's and I will refer you to the Papp's letter and I will simply reiterate that we agree and believe everything that is said in that letter as respects to it destroying the natural tenure of the point. The reason that there is a unique situation is that there's water on both sides. That makes it unique and therefore the State and the City have come to the conclusion that you need to protect these unique things by putting 75 foot setbacks on them. If you, you know junk this up with more structures it doesn't look like a point anymore. It looks like a peninsula and we, we believe that you know and the City apparently agrees with us that it's just totally inappropriate. Now this is a good time for me to talk about what it is they have actually proposed here okay. Aller: Let me ask you, do you have anything further on C or B? Dave Bishop: Yes I'm talking just about B now but my comments refer to A and C and B. All three of them. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: The concept of a two story, 27 by 23 foot, two car garage and studio is just horrid, horrid over reach. We suggested to them that they could build a two -car shed roof. Single story and blend it in so that it was almost unviewable and that was apparently rejected. We did have a meeting with the applicant and one of the things that applicant told us was that you know they IV Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • want this second story as additional living space because we hear today that they want you know to do crocheting but what we heard at the meeting was. Nelleke Knight: Quilting. Dave Bishop: Quilting, I'm sorry. My mistake but what we heard at the meeting was that they have a son who is a fashion designer and that it is part of their family tradition for him to come back from New York City and spend 4 days building out his line and so in my view, in our view this is just a commercial enterprise and they want more space because the 2,800 square feet that they already have isn't sufficient to build this haute couture. Fine idea to do but that's why we have rental space. We don't see anything in the proposal that says no sewer. No electricity. No gas. No water. In fact the City has told us that if you allow this that there's nothing to prevent them from doing all of that and making this simply more living accommodations. They can say today they don't want to do it but you know at this meeting they said this is their tenth house I believe that they've bought. They've had 9 before this so although they say they want to be here forever, when it gets sold what the next guy does once you do the zoning is out of your control. You've lost your shot at it and now we have you know instead, basically instead of 2 houses to the water we have 3 houses to the water and that's not appropriate given the existing zoning and that applies to all 3 of those locations. Now applying to A and C, okay. This is a, this property had a somewhat interesting checkered history. It had a $1.1 million dollar mortgage on it. It was foreclosed on. Aller: Sir I need to stop you now because we're going way over, I'm trying to be lenient on what's coming in here but we can't be talking about what you think someone else is going to do. We can't be talking about what's been done in the past. What the mortgage on the property is. That's not before us. That's a personal business decision by the homeowners. If you have a lot line survey that you want to present, I'll look at the survey. If you have information that was directly told to you, great but speculation we can't have at this point. Dave Bishop: Okay I won't speculate. I actually observed that after this was foreclosed upon and went to the bank, the bank hired people to come out and remove the oil tank from this property. I observed them do that and I looked at the punctured hole in the oil tank and I observed the oil that was in the ground below the tank and I talked with them about their remediation. I talked with the guy who was doing the remediation and they said they weren't taking soil. They were just taking the tank. That's what I know of of my own personal. Okay second to that issue, after that occurred the bank hired somebody to monitor this and those people contacted us and they asked us if there was any contamination and so we looked because it wasn't purchased at the time. This was 2014 in December. The point I'm getting to is, they told us. They told us that we should look at our, what do you call it? Takes the water out. Nelleke Knight: Sump pump. Dave Bishop: Sump pump. They should look at our sump pumps to see if the sump pumps are picking up oil. Well it turns out that we couldn't discern it in our's because our's is pitch black so we went over to this property and we found oil coming out of their sump pump and we took photographs of it and we sent it to them but we heard nothing back. Now if you look on the 1E 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 papers that were submitted to you they will tell you they have, they know they have a tank and that they know that there's an issue with building on that site. In my opinion I haven't seen anything that actually says it's remediated other than hearsay from people saying well we don't know whether there's a problem or not but one of the conditions if you should allow A or C is that that property underlying it be completely remediated. Okay that's my point. Aller: Thank you. Dave Bishop: Now what else, we've got a few others. Aller: Anything that you haven't spoken on before? Dave Bishop: Yeah. If you decide to make some kind of a positive on this we object to it being a two car garage. We object to it being a two story garage. We object to it being used as a sewing room or commercial area or whatever. We believe that you can make as a condition that it be one story with a shed roof. We think that as a condition you can require that it not have sewer, water or heat other than electricity. In other words that it be a garage for two cars and not back door way of expanding a property for professional use or making it a habitable space. Habitable space. Anything else? Nelleke Knight: Sounds good. Dave Bishop: Okay. Aller: Great, thank you sir. Dave Bishop: The only thing I would say is I understand you're going to close the public part of this hearing. I don't know whether it is your normal procedure, because I don't appear in front of you, to then like negotiate with the applicant on well would you do this. Would you do that but if you do decide to do that I would simply ask that you re -open the public part so we can respond to anything you decide to negotiate. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional members of the public wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing at this time on this item and I'll open it to discussion. I do have some questions for staff on the easement if we could discuss that a bit. Aanenson: Sure. Drew and Bob spoke with the City Attorney regarding the easement. It's written awkwardly and it appeared there was no public interest in that easement so clearly the property easement runs with the property owners. This is similar to the one that, if you recall the one just north off of Mrs. Carlson's property. The Frethem subdivision where we had the easement back in those, there were 3 homes on that private driveway. Written awkwardly and so there's some ambiguity there but there's no public interest in that and certainly it'd be the intent to keep the driveway the similar width that it is today but it would be. Aller: That's the reason for the additional pavement was to keep the width. 09 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. Correct. Aller: And there are conditions on all these items which would require that proper building code standards were adhered to. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: Anybody have additional questions based on the comments at this point? The two properties that are next door, did they each receive variances? Ingvalson: Yes. They both received variances. Looking back on our variance map. The property to the east was granted a 45 foot shoreline setback variance. That's the largest one variance that's been granted in this area from the shoreline. And then the property to the west was granted a 4 foot side yard to the east and then also a 2 foot side yard to the west setbacks and then also a 26 foot shoreline setback variance. Aller: Was there an indication on what those were for? Ingvalson: If I remember correctly I believe it says in the packet. It was for a, for the construction of a detached two stall garage and a second floor bedroom expansion. Or that would be for the property to the west. Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Okay discussion. We have a lot of options. Talk about A. Talk about B. Talk about C. Talk about D. Talk about E. We can start with throwing out the reasons why I prefer E if we're going to do it as a starting point and probably a finishing point because it's got the less impact. Safely wise. Audience: Would it be okay if you got closer to the microphone? Aller: Oh sure, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Audience: Yeah. Aller: Great, thank you. I apologize. Hokkanen: I said what about E. I didn't expand on it yet. I was just thinking about it. Let me think. Aller: E asopposed to none. I look at the. Audience: We still can't hear you. Aller: I look at the property and I look at the reason that I asked them about when they purchased the property was I wanted to see what their intent was coming in and there doesn't appear to be to me an indication that they didn't feel as though the property was going to be, or 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • this variance was going to be granted but they would be coming in to ask for the variance and in looking at the variances that have already been granted on a property that was developed in 1918 and we've done this before in other properties, I think it is a unique property. I don't think there's any question about it. I think it's an undue hardship on them, or I should say a practical difficulty upon them and I do think that it's a reasonable use of the property to have a garage. And I think what they're giving up here potentially is the ability to have 5 cars because they won't be able to park them all there. They're going to lose some parking spots so they are giving up things in order to gain the garage in this instance and I think it comports with the neighborhood as it exists. So I don't think it's an unreasonable use that they're asking for. I do think it's unique and I do not believe that they are held in any form or fashion, nor am I or we as a commission held based upon the decisions to follow what a prior owner has done in a new owner's application so that's my first blush response. Yusuf I partially agree with that. If we are to proceed with an option I would be leaning more towards option E. Option E seems to encroach the least on everything and allows you to have the two car garage without really encroaching too much in the variances and all the setbacks that are required so option E would be the one I would be leaning towards if we proceed with this. Madsen: I also am leaning towards option E but I would like to see the plan of what would be built so that people could comment on it. Yusuf: To that point I just want to agree also, what was brought up by the most recent speaker here about utilities going to this, the two story garage we'd like to see that too. That would definitely be of interest so whenever, it would be maybe beneficial to have yet another review of the plans as we proceed. Tietz: If there were to be an option E, that's a very difficult comer of the home to work on. I think there is significant architectural re -work of a major portion of the home to make that fit. To make it work. You know I'm not here to suggest taking down trees but I am looking at that image right now and I don't know if that's a big cottonwood just to the east of the home but maybe there's another way of massing this structure tighter to the home and not getting a separation between the home and the B, C and A options and looking at the east side of the home. It's going to be a major, I think it's going to be a major architectural challenge regardless of where it goes and I think going to the east and possibly eliminating a tree or two might create a mass that's more acceptable to the neighborhood. Weick: I had similar, similar questions when I first looked at it. I think for you know I'm sensitive to you know both neighbors opposing building and for those reasons I think D and B are enough of an encroachment on, you know whether it be views or actual setback encroachments. If those really don't seem like great options and as we look in the middle I wondered why we couldn't push you know A and/or C closer to the home. Maybe there's trees there or something. It wouldn't affect the setbacks. In fact. Tietz: It might be better. Undestad: It would help 22 Chanhassen Planning Co•'ssion — July 21, 2015 • Weick: It would be better right because you'd be further. You get to take advantage of that point if you put it over far enough right so that was also a question that I had. I still am concerned whether it's D or E on that side of the building. I know you would re -work the road and everything but it is, it's a pretty big structure either way to go on that side of the house. You know I lean more towards that A and C area if we were to consider a variance. Undestad: Drew have you looked at, have you looked at the gap between the house and A and C? Is it just the trees? Ingvalson: For the gap between A and C, this gap between here? Undestad: Yeah to move it closer to the house. Ingvalson: We have not. We took what was submitted. We reviewed this, what was submitted by the applicant. Undestad: Can we ask the applicant at this time? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: If we could have the probably the engineer come forward, or architect come forward. Would it work? Is this something that was considered? Pat Mackey: It was considered. Aller: And if it was considered why was it deleted as an option? Pat Mackey: There's the large cottonwood. There's a fire hydrant and there's the easement which I don't know if you can see roughly in the area where Drew's cursor is pointing. There's an additional easement. There is the road. There is the fire hydrant and there is the large cottonwood or the large tree which we're, everybody's interested in maintaining. Undestad: That's the one that you were just circling then? Ingvalson: Correct. This would be the large tree. Undestad: So again if we look at just moving the garage location, you're staying south of the hydrant. You're moving west towards the house. You're still staying away from the easement. Yeah, or even come back and attach it off that comer of it. I don't think you really need to go that close but it looks to me like you could slide it over. Stay away from the hydrant. Save the big cottonwood and stay out of the roadway. I don't see where the additional setback you're talking about interferes with that. Pat Mackey: As far as setbacks are concerned it's probably yeah, neither. Not significantly different than what A, B or C are. Are proposing. In terms of where to attach it to the house, the 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • least amount of disruption to the existing house in terms of the way the internal circulation of the house works out. You know again some of the confusion around D and it's offspring E relate from initially as a design strategy we were trying not to require that the garage and, you know that the opening up of the house be part of the garage condition. We were just trying to see what variables are in play here. What can we work with? What are our options in order of obstacles you know with setbacks and lot coverage and drainage, etc? That being said an option to the east, directly to the east of the house would be, I mean that's currently the front door of the house as it exists. It's got the primary views. The primary view windows. It just, so as you see you kind of enter around that house. It just kind of rejiggers the entire working of the entire main floor of the house, including the kitchen, the primary living area and the front door. So just in terms of is it possible? Yes. Anything is possible. That's why we're here talking about what options are. But in terms of additional requirements and just kind of what the entry cost of getting a garage is, it just seemed to be a greater entry cost than the other options. Undestad: Is it again I'm still trying to focus on you're A and C on there just to slide it closer to the house but Alyson if they slide it over the fire hydrants lines up in front of the access point, would the applicant have the opportunity to pay for the relocating of the fire hydrant? Fauske: We could certainly work with the applicant on any relocation of the fire hydrant. The challenge being that it is a tight location. We'd have to work with the fire department as well to make sure that that hydrant's placed in an appropriate location. Undestad: Or potentially add one. Fauske: Correct. And you know there's a clear zone around it, a hydrant that the fire department requires in order to maintain accessibility to the hydrant so we would have to work around those parameters. Aller: And would that impact the turn around for a vehicle? Fauske: The existing tum around or a proposed turn around? Aller: The proposed turn around. In other words would it have to be increased or moved based on the hydrant being moved so they could get a truck to it? Fauske: Without doing a lot of analysis it would appear that in order to meet shifting options A or C to the west in order to gain access to either of those options at that hydrant perhaps would have to shift fiuther east but I can't say for certain without you know taking pencil to paper. Pat Mackey: I would agree. I think C which enters perpendicular to the private drive to accommodate C and car turn around space and you know just able to get into the garage and fire hydrant, clear space I think C would, that hydrant would have to move pretty significantly. A may be more workable but once the easement and the easement around the hydrant, we knew the hydrant was there but when the easement was brought, you know was discovered we just stopped pursuing options in that area. It's an easement so. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Aller: Comments, questions from the other side. Hokkanen: I don't feel I have enough information or options to make a recommendation without more research possibly. Can we do that? Undestad: I would agree. I think what we're all talking about is you know what the commissioners have stated is D's not really a viable option just from the impact to the house and what's going on. Hokkanen: No, correct. Aller: Right. Undestad: B is pushing it all to the other neighbor who doesn't want it down there so I think that area east of the structure, you know where A and C, there's something that I think somebody can go back to the drawing board and try to get what you want within that area east of the house and. Weick: Further to that, you know we looked at reducing D from a 3 to a 2. I would assume you could look at reducing A and C the same way, right? If they're currently structured as a 3 car garage you could reduce the footprint to make it less. Undestad: I think they're 2 car. Weick: Are they? Aanenson: They're different sizes. Weick: Just different sizes, okay. Ingvalson: Different sizes. The options they've proposed is deeper. Its 27 feet deep witha 23 foot wide entrance so the deepness is what makes it larger. Significantly. Weick: Ah, because A certainly looks the same size as D to me but I'm not, maybe that's not. Undestad: Yeah, the proposal they had that shrunk it down was, was the E that doesn't show on there. Ingvalson: Correct the E is not shown on this. Aller: But I think what Commissioner Weick's asking is whether or not we can use the footprint of E. Weick: Right. Just trying to be sensitive to, I mean I get it. They're right. I mean the views. That property. Its gorgeous right and, man. Undestad: But I think agree though. We just probably need a little more. 25 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Hokkanen: Research. Undestad: Little more research on this one, yeah. Tietz: And I'd like to really see A pulled as close to the house as possible with possibly not infringing upon the entry but I think from the plan that we have it looks like it could be done and if the hydrant has to be moved, the hydrant has to be moved. Hokkanen: If that's possible. Tietz: If that's possible and it's probably a distance to the end of the point or one way or the other I can't imagine a 10 foot, well we'll let the Fire Marshal decide on that. Aller: So how do we feel about, let me just poll. How do we feel about option B? Is that out for everyone? Hokkanen: Yes. Aller: So option B is out of the consideration at this time. Option D. Hokkanen: Out. Aller: Is out yeah, as far as what I'm hearing. Okay great. So we're looking at A, C, E and potentially now F. Hokkanen: Correct. Weick: It sounds like we're. Aller: And I think what we're really going towards is E or F. Weick: But as it pertains to this request, we're denying it. I mean is that? Aanenson: Mr. Chair you can also table the request... Aller: ... I wanted to see whether or not the applicant would be interested in signing an extension. Aanenson: They would need to because we're at the end of the extension. They'd have to sign that tonight but I also think it's clear, good that you give as much specificity of what your expectations are if they come back. Aller: Right. Hokkanen: Right. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Aanenson: Which is what I'm understanding you're doing, you're sticking onto A and C, then talk about the sizes of the garage and then I heard some other things. Architectural detail. Those are things you're looking for as they table and bring it forward so if that's your motion now as a part of tabling the motion that before you'd vote on that that the applicant would have to give us something in writing requesting an additional 60 days. Aller: Extension. So if somebody wanted to make that motion that would be posed as a motion to table. Dave Bishop: Are you going to open the public hearing for this new set? Aller: No sir, this is a motion to table so there's no need for public input. Hokkanen: I move to table this application. Aller: And do I have a second? Yusuf. Second. Aanenson: Okay before you vote can we get something in writing and if the applicant would otherwise you would have to make a motion one way or the other. If you want to give an extra 60 days in writing. Otherwise they're going to vote in a different way. They're recommending tabling. That'd give you 60 days... Aller: Basically what it would be doing sir is coming back. Working with staff on the items after you've heard the, and had an opportunity that you can actually get the Minutes and take a look at what's here. What we've discussed. We can continue on with a little bit of discussion but I think it's pretty clear what we're looking at for something to the east to allow for that to occur but it has to have some, the movement of the hydrant has to meet the requirements of the 25 percent. The architectural value has to be the same, similar as the property. Gregg Geiger: With F, what we're now calling F, closer that would be, yes. Easier to achieve in terms of...E. Aller: E is not yet off the table. I mean that's what I'm hearing. We're just trying to exclude things so we can get you to a point where we can actually focus on two really good viable options and come to a decision with all the information and at the new hearing we wouldn't be hearing any information we've already heard but we do want to see what you come up with. Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman just to be clear, all the other would be, and I'm not saying I know how you're going to vote but the other is you could vote in a different way and then you would still go up to the City Council because you could appeal it. Either party's going to appeal it and the City Council would have kind of this ambiguity of the conditions so you have a choice of that. Chanhassen Planning Commie. o• ssion — July 21, 2015 • Aller: What would the timing on the appeal be? They would have to put in writing. Aanenson: Right now we have it set for August 10t°, yeah. Aller: So it would go on August 10d'. Aanenson: Yes. Aller: So that would be a consideration for your planning if you needed more time then you probably want to sign an extension and table it. Otherwise it would be heard by the City Council on August 10`s if we decided to deny and you appeal that decision. Gregg Geiger: That was what I was not certain about is what exactly is the 60 days? Aller: So if you do the extension it will come back here. Gregg Geiger: Right. Aller: And as soon as you're ready you can meet with staff and we can get it back on and it will be heard. If it's with proper notice to the 500 foot individuals. So after that you can come back here. We'll continue our discussion and then there'll be findings and a vote. If we continue today then most likely what we had before us would be denied. You can appeal that and present whatever you wish to to the City Council on August 10th. Gregg Geiger: So the extension... Aanenson: Yeah I would prefer that you'd get that handed to me in writing right now before they vote. Aller: Right so if you could just put something in writing that you're granting an extension. Undestad: But just to clarify something between us here, the option E. The original option E was where D is? Aller: But smaller. Undestad: But and that's something we're still looking at. Aller: I didn't want to take it off the table. I wanted to make sure they had an alternative option in case this doesn't work out. They may look at it and say this is absolutely, we want to come back with E. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, we're waiting for him to sign it. He's trying to listen to your conversation. If we could, then we can all get clarity on, if that's alright. M Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 • Pat Mackey: is it my understanding that E does not have enough information to move forward or. Undestad: No I think even on E we need, we need drawings. We need to know what's there. Tietz: Drew I know you're back there trying to get this put together but if a revised A or if A moved closer and the D area that's currently a parking area and the turn out on the north side of the road, are we still okay with hard cover? Ingvalson: Yes. Looking at it without putting any numbers right down right now there would be a slight increase in hard cover if there was an option to attach to the east side of the house and there would also be a need to bump out the drive farther to the north to make sure you're maintaining that 10 foot wide drive. Tietz: Right. Ingvalson: Looking at it, it would put it probably close to 25 percent. I couldn't say right now but that's hopefully something that we could get if we did get an option F as we labeled it. Aller: And I think we all have to remember we could exceed that if we choose to with a variance. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: No I just wanted clarification. Aller: It decreases the opportunity... Hokkanen: Stop talking. Aanenson: Ahight, we have an extension and we have a motion on the floor with a second. And just to be clear, yeah. Aller: Okay we have a. Aanenson: If you maybe want to go through those points of we're looking for architecture. We're looking for relocation as close to the, the existing structure as we can. Aller: Correct. Aanenson: And all the other calculations would come back and we'll look at the hydrant and those issues. Aller: Hydrant and easement. Aanenson: Correct. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission—July 21, 2015 Aller: Make sure that we're on site with easements and. Aanenson: Total hard cover, yeah. Aller: And that the hard cover is not exceeding 25 percent is the goal. Any additional items to look at? Madsen: And just for clarification that would include what we're calling option E which would be on the west side and then option F which would be on the east side. Are we still looking at those two options? Aller: What we're calling them. You can come back with a clean, with a clean application that says option A and option B. Option C. Whatever you want to come back with but you do know how we feel about the other options already so. Gregg Geiger: Yeah, those are. Aller: So we want to focus on what potentially will work. So having a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Yusuf, any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for variances to construct a detached garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: _LAMETTRY'S COLLISION. PLANNING CASE 2015-19: REOUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE LOT AND TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1OP) AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD AT MOTORPLEX COURT — LAMETTRY'S. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK LAMETTRY. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and planning commissioners. Planning Case 2015-19. It's our public hearing tonight. The applicant is Rick LaMettry. It's for a conditional use permits and site plan review. The property is located at 1650 and 1651 Motorplex Court. It's on the west side of Audubon at Motorplex Court which is doing the research on this I found the addresses finally so it's just north of the railroad bridge that is on Audubon. The property is segmented into two parts. There's a small connection of land between the front and the back part so that's why it shows up there's two parcels but it's actually one. When Audubon Motorplex originally came in there were two properties except for their configuration was slightly different and as they've expanded the Motorplex over time we've adjusted the lot lines to take in part of the one parcel and put into the other. That's significant because of one of the conditional use permits that they're requesting. The Motorplex was approved in 2006. The site plan review at the time showed 12 buildings that they were including as part of their complex. One of the kill r I r� 1 PROPOSED MOTION: . ` - "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request # truct a 621 square- foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback andiy�ad setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." _J (Note: a motion for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact andD�is�n�te also included at the end of the report.) �� SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is r shoreline setback and a front yard setback variance (Option D) to allow them tocons 1 sq are -foot, two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing le non— o ty because it s encroaches on the required shoreline setback and &o rd setbac 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar gf%%oad acres (32,025 square feet; LWL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DEC] hTMNG: The city's discretion in approvin denying a variance is limited to whether or nc proposed project meets the standards in the Z Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relat high level of discretion with a variance becau applicant is seeking a deviation from establist standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two-story, 621 square -foot gar^ their property. The applicant has provided four garage location alternatives (three etached and one attached) for review. Options have been labeled A, B, C and D, respectively, and have been listed in order of preference. The project, as proposed, is not allowed by City CI&V requires a variance because it will encroach on the 75 -foot shoreline setback. In addi RIPNuiring a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback, one option will also require from the 30 - foot front yard setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions O Chapter 20, Article 11, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, NonconfomringgeSection 20.72, Nonconforming uses and Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland managem Section 20-080, Zoning and water sppp yisaro�iott� Section 20-481, Placement, Veight of Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" SinglIYIresideIWJ Section 20-615. Lot reauireddad setl> Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Su ��►- BACKGROUND According to er ty at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 19] 8. Thi rs 31 feet a the southern shoreline or ordinary high water (OIiW) level, and ay from then em shoreline. In 1986, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was fust adopt authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 612 Atthrough 612.3900. The Shoreland Management District of City Code requires sewered on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high Wwft level. The principal structure on the subject site encroaches on the required 75 -foot setback i�Wthe ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 70 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. The only work permitted by the city that was completed outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (the location of Options A and Q. Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south to the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 13 Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a -- --- A '--- I- -- - --- ' - - .. . 1. .. .. I . . or *A #*, seen in Image 1 above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact oll • Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 4 of 13 C, city utilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreline setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreline. Staff has worked with the applicant previously to eliminate those options north of Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed four alternatives that are all located#o e private drive (see Image 1). ` Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines dn!� The applicant intends to construct a 621 square -foot (23 -foot by 27 -foot) garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The three proposed detached garage locations (see options A -C in Image 1) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see option D in Image 1) will not encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback, but will encroach farther into the northern 75 -foot shoreline setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback. 1 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 5of13 0 LImage 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) The applicant is proposing proposes four locations r variance and one thaAill ftaEge entrance facing west. This option will not disrupt the existing access for vehicles traveling on the private drive. However, Option A is located 26.5 feet from the southern shoreline, 4.5 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing principal structure. This iry, Z3 -foot by 27 -foot garage. Tine plan oil of which will require a shoreline setback setback variances and a front yard setback 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 6 of 13 option will require a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance. Being this close to the lake will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. Image 5 shows the current view of the lake from the private drive (the chaiA tarp are in the proposed location for Options A and Q. This location will remover trees and will require the applicant to extend the driveway to access the garage fro Overall, this proposal will increase the hardcover to 24.77 percent. G Image 5: View of Option A and C Location from Priv*'We Option B ` 1 Option B e 6), along Option C f e applicant's next pre ca on. This alternative on the eastern side of the but will maintain the 30 - ear yard setback. Option B also not disrupt vehicle traffic on the private drive due to the garage access being located on the western elevation and the garage not being located within the private drive. This option will be 24 feet 7 inches from the shoreline, 2 feet 1 inch closer than Option A and nearly 6.5 feet closer than the existing Image 6: Option B I S w CANT VE E EXIST MO -FeOT:=iMr OF PREVIOUS FUEL -. -' - ANK - PENINNG MFCA ev `1 4 MENTA ON lU8-ASSUMFD7p! , EDIATED 0 E bbl!��11 INTEP.PO�TrEQ_ 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 7of13 principal structure. This location will require a 50 -foot 5 -inch setback variance from the shoreline. Similar to Option A, the increase in hardcover in this location will increase run Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. location will also require removing three mature trees (including a 30 -inch diametW s option will increase hardcover on the property to 24.33 percent. Option C ._ G Option C (see Image 7) is evenly preferred with Option B for the in a similar location as Option A; however, this alternative has the This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private amount of hardcover added to the property for the project due extension, in comparison to Options A and B. This option percent. _ Option C has the shortest shoreline setback, 21 feet and 1.5 inches, of all four options provided by the applicant. This option is nearly 10 feet closer to the shoreline than the o existing structure. This alternative sni would require a 53 -foot 10.5-inc oo� iF iir+ shoreline setback variance. Si> to the previous two opti Qns increase in hardcover at`1 on will increase runo Minnewashta and irential�yyy��harmful to th�igwso Tption C is located ling from the north. also reduce the pNortened driveway increase hardcover to 23.28 IN `_ SE a - J` "9I N public wat a age 5 in Opti Ai10N ON A). This on will require the 'tea T7� remkvalloo ematuretree, ORV E no N AD (see Image 8) is the applicant's least -preferred alternative. This option is located on the western side of the property and is attached to the northwest portion of the house. The applicant has proposed expanding the private drive (425 square feet) for traffic since a portion of the proposed garage is situated within the existing drive. This drive expansion will create a 13 -foot wide driving path for vehicles. This alternative requests the shortest shoreland setback variance of all four options. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by two feet (73 feet from the shoreline) and the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) to the south. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback slightly more than the existing structure; however, to the south the proposed structure will not encroach any further than the existing structure. In addition, this proposed location will increase hard cover on the property to 23.78 percent. Overall, Option D will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and viewscape from the public water 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 8 of 13 because the garage will be located on existing hardcover, the structure will be significantly setback from the shoreline, and it will be screened by the existing building and vegetation. Since Option D is designed to load from the west, it will be difficult for the homeowner to access their garage due to the sharp tum radius needed to get around the neighboring house to the west. Further, this location will require the subject property owner to drive across the neighboring property (off the private drive area) to access their garage. The proposed private drive will be substantially altered a:; to accommodate the newly constructed garage. Unlike the previous three alternatives, Option D also requires a front yard setback variance in addition to the shoreline setback variance. The eastern property line is considered the front yar the property per City Code Section 20-615 nr However, the positions of the homes alon Cedar Point Road peninsula are situatdo c private drive to the north of the homes IWM ac property lines would be setback. The proposed existing structure is can within the 30 -foot front setback). The prop9A onp. nce, even when considering that the neighboring property does not have windows on this side of their house (see Image 10) and that the required yard setback would be 10 feet if it were a side pVhc street the west and east and would only have a 10 -foot from the western property line. The the property line (20 feet and 5 inches 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Staff has proplWRkm alternative that could be supported if the Planning Commission detennines that ibf reasonable to approve a two-story garage on the site. Staff believes that an attached garage is the most reasonable structure to provide parking because it will minimize reg efmpacts and required variances. ,rive Plan Staff's alternative plan (see Image 11) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure, similar to Option D. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. This option will not require a shoreline setback from the northern shoreline, but the proposed garage will encroach on the southern shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) and will require a variance. This shoreline setback variance is less than the shoreline setback non- conformity created by the existing structure. Similar to Option D, this alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. Also, this option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Unlike Option D, the alternative plan will not encroach further into the existing 9.6 -foot front yard setback that has been 0 • Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 10 of 13 established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance since it is within 30 feet of the eastern property line. I Image 11: Alternative Plan *to 7.3X. —948 946. 9/6.5 L _ 947 The placement 'ltemativ X946. plan will di cle traffic along th drive. To X946.6 7ue, staff that the Planning attach a condition to i Mmative plan that requires applicant to increase the ivate drive to be at least 10 feet (not tceed 24 feet) wide at all section the drive to ensure traffic safetv (see arav area on L[n4ge 11 as an example of the ansion needed). This xpansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property, but will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will be less hardcover than the four options provided by the applicant. This altematirovl�s a sm than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of s show tha 1 be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeownNrtheast er alternative at staff could have supported would have been to attach the gars a to comer of the home, but the applicant did not wish to consider this option bec a Avould require the removal of a mature tree. �g Shoreline Setbacks of Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property very property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreline setback (see Image 14). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreline, or encroaching 51 -feet into the shoreline setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreline variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 8). Approved shoreline FIWSrED EUN. ruh 95C ET P a g ;�-Rc WALL 7ue, staff that the Planning attach a condition to i Mmative plan that requires applicant to increase the ivate drive to be at least 10 feet (not tceed 24 feet) wide at all section the drive to ensure traffic safetv (see arav area on L[n4ge 11 as an example of the ansion needed). This xpansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property, but will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will be less hardcover than the four options provided by the applicant. This altematirovl�s a sm than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of s show tha 1 be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeownNrtheast er alternative at staff could have supported would have been to attach the gars a to comer of the home, but the applicant did not wish to consider this option bec a Avould require the removal of a mature tree. �g Shoreline Setbacks of Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property very property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreline setback (see Image 14). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreline, or encroaching 51 -feet into the shoreline setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreline variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 8). Approved shoreline 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 11 of 13 setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreline setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 fel the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet 10 allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. In addition, there has been one front yard set dance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot d setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 8). ..G The map below displays shoreline properties within 500 feet of the in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreline with an X are properties that have been granted a variance fro The existing structure on the subject property is currently set b encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Image 14: Properties with' f the Property that Encroach on the -f t M( reli �UM�RY FiLrdfbrty (subject site `'Properties marked it shoreline setback. from the shoreline, The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage that encroaches into the 75 - foot shoreline setback (and one option that also encroaches into the front yard setback). Options A, B and C will encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure. Option A requests a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance, Option B requests a 50 -foot 5 -inch shoreline setback variance, and Option C requests a 53 -foot and 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Option D will not encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure, but will still require a 17 -foot shoreline setback variance from the southern shoreline setback, and a two - foot shoreline setback variance from the northern shoreline setback. Option D will also encroach 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 12 of 13 farther into the front yard setback and will require a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback. In addition, Option D has potential garage access and traffic issues since there is such a shargft turning radius required around the neighboring house to enter the garage from the west because the proposed structures encroaches into the private drive. The homeown%w' need to drive across their neighbor's parking pad to access their garage in this o. Options A, B and C may have negative impacts on the water runoff into ashta the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the remoli, ature trees. Alternatively, Option D requires limited hardcover be added to the proyW well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any ma trees. All four alternatives provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent hver maximum allowed for the property. There are several properties within 500 feet of the su I setback. Several of these properties, including the adopting the shoreland management section of citytd request a variance to allow a two -stall garage due to character of the neighborhood, and the existing requirement structures to have a two -car garage. How er, stal does nnnQ�g options provided by the applicant due�tiiegtive it options would create. encroach the 75 -foot shoreline (, built prior to the city ijfEWt it is reasonable to g of the property, the Is pie -family, detached a variance for the four environmental impacts these If the Planning Commission b at it ' easlion to request a variance for a two-story two -stall garage, staff belie t e alte and plan should be used. The alternative garagrI ]1t19mall t1 1621 square -foot garage plan provided by the applicant by 180 sq f ; ho s as found that this option will provide enough space v ' to store two cles. e alt effectively mitigates potential viewscape from the public wa and runoff The alternative plan will require a front yard setback variance, �� ly proposed garage will not encroach farther into the existing structure setb k. ore , the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve mors Aide yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. LL I also allows for efficient loading into the newly proposed garage and will not disrupt provided the applicant extends the private drive to at least ten feet wide by the proposed . The alternative plan will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require only a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property well below the 25 percent hardcover maximum. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to construct a two- story 621 square -foot garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request to construct a garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, but maintains the existing setbacks, Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 13 of 13 it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback v�ri m the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to construt� -story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a10 a drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drain 116s.4. The applicant must apply for and receive a buil i p� or a City." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision -Denial. O 2. Findings of Fact and Decision-Ap#r 3. Development Review Application , tive 4. Site Plan with Options A -D. 5. Registered Land Survey wi tive PI 6. Architectural Plans. 7. Affidavit of Mailin&ofA Hearin e. 8. Variances within 9. Letter from Fr Keith P�p�j my 10, 2015. g:4)lant2015 p X201 - 4 3603 red t varim eVenfln itta106-05-2015\staff report 3603 red cedar point.doc N 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 621 square -foot, two- that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback (Option D) on pro Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. ♦` On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider th on. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed varian ed by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments mak lowing: FINDINGS Ok F I . The property is currently zoned Single -Family tial DikF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanh ensi or Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the pro West 225' Except West 25' Block 4 Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings, 0-58 of Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a v a. Varianf�es only be hen they are in harmony with the general purposes and i of tEs Chapt en the variances are consistent with the comprehensive Pi The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of Sug: request is construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. While multiple properties in s area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, the proposed options for locating the garage excessively encroach farther than is necessary into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. These encroachments will potentially harm the natural environment of Lake Minnewashta through increased storm water runoff and will potentially harm the viewscape from the public waters. Further, Option D will unnecessarily encroach on the front yard setback, potentially harming the neighboring property owner. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this 0 0 Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The unique location of the property serves a practical difficulty in meeting the zoning ordinance. The property already encroaches on the shoreline setback and front yard setback; however, the proposed locations are not situated in areas that will rr ' "'inizc the negative impacts of locating a 621 square -foot two-story garage on thWo Instead, the applicant has proposed garage locations that unnecessarily ener into the required shoreline setback and front yard setback than the existiy which is a legal non -conformity. 4A c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic cons14 ons alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon ``considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a 621 square -foot two -s ge. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstan a to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was cons tnm 1918,a prior to the City of Chanhassen adopting the shoreland c , as autho innesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6 VWthrou 0. The property currently has legal non -conforming stat. Vr y h stances that are unique and not created by the landowner, but posed locaft r the garage unnecessarily encroach farther into the s etbacq1d front y setback than what is needed for a two -stall garage. Any n th t es farther into the front yard and shoreline setback than the exi _ n -confoy be created by the landowner, not due to the e. The the essential character of the locality. ihindTheMranting ance that allows a structure to be located closer to the !hILeIllikuld negativelybAect the viewscape from the public waters. Many of the lots m g a borhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements k)E.e the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several sbefore the district standards were adopted (1986). While multiple structures in ea encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement, nearly none would be as close to the shoreline as Options A -C, with the exception of water -oriented structures. Further, the small setback between Option D and the westerly neighboring structure would reduce the already small setback between the two structures, negatively affecting the neighboring property owner. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 2 0 • 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request t construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline and�li setbacks. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21 1 day o `5. CITY OF CHANHASS k 3 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: 0 SN Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square foottwo- ached garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as t of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider °application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variaja preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments mak 4ollowing: N11NJunW A 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Fam0y�ntial Dia F). 2. The property is guided in the Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of theprop •` ✓ �v West 225' Except West 25lo 4 Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a v a. Vari sonly beq when they are in harmony with the general purposes and i pf .a Chaptwhen the variances are consistent with the comprehensive pl -JJ 10d1ng: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the equest is to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage. The construction and use of attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. Further, the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreline setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. • Finding: The applicant's request to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreline on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a kw locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion withinfN foot shoreline setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on iiia property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public * tllie existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreline and 30- front yar but the construction of an attached garage space will not cause the structureach further into the required shoreline or front yard setbacks. # G c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic�^-Jrations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not has uporiftNlic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a two-story two -stall d. The plight of the landowner is due to cirque to property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was bot in 918, 68 y ore the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adIpte� asWnforinity Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Pits 20.2rOp th.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and th Vt create on the property. e. The variance, if ' 7 character of the locality. Finding: The .#the vari&ftill not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple stru area n the 75 -foot shoreline and front yard setback requirem ofthe 1 eighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet th um requ cause the original homes/cabins were constructed in the e in -1900s, Gveral decades before the district standards were adopted (1986) anqlkkth of Chanhassen As established. There are also properties in this area that h cted homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were pt . The City has granted six shoreline setback variances within 500 feet of the ject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 0 feet. The proposed shoreline setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreline, and will not encroach closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. The city has also granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 18 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not be encroached any closer than the existing structure and will keep with the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 1 0 LI 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot se�v lance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance t ct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following condition The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 1 exceed 24 feet wide. J 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a ADOPTED by the Chanhassen drive, not to day of July, 2015. r� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT y�ppyyt(� p� Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF Cll!]111117A SE Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 N Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date:_ pC Date: /tG CC Date: I j 3 %5 60 -Day Review Date: 7 �I ''i / �� (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this ❑ Comprehensive Pian Amendment .........................$600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ...... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Single -Family Residence.................................$325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) # V ❑ Create 3 lots or less................$300 E). Create over 3 lots ...... ....... $600 + $15 per lot ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)...................$750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................$100 ❑ All Others .........................................................$500 ❑ Sign Plan Review...................................................$150 ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative...........................................�..(ON ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts' ................ Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of buil ': ( thousand square feet Include number of existin employe Include number of now employees: ❑ Residential Districts ❑ Metes & Boum .. ... $300 + $50 per lot .......... .............lots) ❑ Consolida ........................$150 ❑ Lot Line nt.........................................$150 ❑ Final ......................................$700 Inc s 0 escrow for attorney costs` a may be required for other applications e development contract. V n of Eas►nents/Richt-of-wav (VAC) ........ $300 may apply) ition Permit (WAP) nily Residence .............................. $150 ....................................................... $275 ...................................................... $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .................$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit its NOTE: when multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Notification Sign (city to i ove)...... ................... .. $200 i U"Pro ertOwners' L' withi 00' cie-application meetin $3 r address ( ad es Escrowfor Re dii ments (chec at ply) .............................. 50 p ..............., $ document El Con ditiona it Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vaca ion Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Met 46nds Subdivision (number of deeds to be recorded: _) 6 —_ $1 _ & I I l c I nP t%la ✓ L' iC: *�- a19 TOTAL FEE: Ir rip Ion of Proposal: Ayyi n Oo or— t4ewyrvrA c,4-lc-� Gt p y_4 a.,f5 W M4 kAAeE— STV a. ( sT u u i o s pf4 GE Property Address or Location: Parcel #: ZS&&00S D Legal Description: W.7?.5'warl,9t.otr- 41W GEoill Pettln Total Acreage: o.JSl; Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ®'No PAO r 6Y-C617C'%Uf "WO -5 Present Zoning: I& 5f Requested Zoning: 9,45r- Present gfPresent Land Use Designation: N Al Requested Land Use Designation: N A Existing Use of Property: 1.zIJJkE 9w57LOf-4 & Check box is separate narrative is attached. APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an es imate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are trueadftrrect. Name: 11&JlY J Contact: i lo: Address:3(eo;5 1�PrJ C��i�✓ Ili"n f �1 t oI Phone: -7v City/State/Zip: Yne 6y- ' � O– 5h5,3/3 t Cell: 11 Email: ^K 1 -- - AD • C ov-y-" Fax: Signature L1 Date: ?01 PROPERTY OWNER: In sigrnRlig'this application, I, as property owner, havef �pacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approv ding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the 4MI Ileriods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this appli I urther understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an esjj�t r o any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are a act. Name: r l %%%Cl— r C31 Address: 3 4: (om- S r _ 05Le City/State/Zip: br if Email: — e ax: Signature: Date: u N l S, -20 r This application must be compie�'7 " be nor clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required i le City O n provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Ch rfer h. ning Department to determine the speck ordinance and applicable procedural requ nts. A determination often s of the on shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of li ti deficiencies s mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT r&GIMFEMff applicable) """C Contact: A dress: Phone: /S to ip: Cell .. E Fax: g Section 4 Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ". ❑ Property Owner Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: 0 Other' Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: 0 0 June 22, 2015 Bob Generous Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance Findings Statement : We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse south (side) from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 21.2 feet to allow a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zol a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewa has no garage. �, Applicant : Pat Mackey Mackey Malin Architects 5200 Washburn Avenue S 612-220-6190 We submit the following justification for a) Variances shall only be general purposes and it consistent with the cc The granting of the variance 11 comprehensive plan and of the CiTYOFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED ie purposes and intent of the family home. b) When the atical diff in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Prodi iea", as onnedion with the granting of a variance, mea t t gropeNaccess proposes to use the property in a reasonable mann of permi Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are lima h in to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. r is bordered b reline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement e ed yard setbacks results in just 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with vamajority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is ihtially unusable if following required district setbacks. No proposed location for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, � which caused some initial concern. Since discovery of the buried sewer lines and the 04 unsuitability of the preferred location, the homeowners have contacted the MPGA and the bank/owner of the property prior to their purchase, and have been reassured of the soil suitability at this location Alternative garage locations have been investigated: DEPT 1. The initial preferred location for the garage in the center of the lot (north of the private drive) has been found to be atop easements for underground water main and sanitary sewer lines, which would be difficult to relocate, even if that were allowed. We believe we are clear of those easements with the proposed garage placement (pending Survey verification). Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220 . 6190 0 0 2. Attaching the garage to The northwest side of the house would require a significant modification and disruption of the existing house, provide only about 4' to the neighboring lot line, and allow less than 10 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, this option would require a 2 -property re -alignment of the existin� road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. Pending an awaited survey that shows easements, there is reason to believe that the attadted O northwest location sits atop the utility and roadway easements. W` 3. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require 4 sive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, and also require a reiali rltif the existing road. The same concerns are true of hard cover, house area, d realignment as in the paragraph above, as well as eliminating the view of the lake, a significant reason for the purchase of the house in 2014 4. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduceth for garage placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot andsnclina area. The proposed garage placement walks the be et `n the obstacles while maximizing distance from both shorelines and hni h disrupti f existing site elements (road, house, utilities, tree cover, andNo c) That the purpose of the variatio I f based u r e nomic considerations alone. The sole purpose of the requeste vCe'site. that t owners may have a garage for the existing single family h e homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and r) ve ful s'property in the context of the neighboring properties. jft_- d) The pligh of�[74downer to circumstances unique to the property not cre C'LYss` landow The properta que situ red by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. xisting str uilt in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All curjj��_con coon on y and adjacent properties pre -dates the current Ianova 0 he variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. *essential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is Vverwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and lathed accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this chapter Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220 . 6190 HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR' OPTIONS: OPTION A: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 t GARAGE 621 ♦ DRIVE 654 - TURNOUT 533.7933 (24.77 % LOT) OPTION B: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 . GARAGE 621 . DRIVE 513 - TURNOUT 533. 7792 (24.33 % LOT) OPTION C: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 . GARAGE 621 . DRIVE 178 -TURNOUT 533 - 7457 (23.28 % LOT) OPTION D: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 . GARAGE 621 . DRIVE 425 -TURNOUT 336.7901 (24.67 % LOT) SITE PLAN OWN: tRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, % OF LOT -Y CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 ICLUDING 30-), HARDCOVER 24,33 )SER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% 1 MATURE TREE PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, DISRUPnON, ROAD REALIGNMENT, EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY ;OVER 24.67% OF LOT north W. v - WIZ F y10w Why OC o i CC Z WOl (7rcV ,Ww o V M w m'ue'wre n n N b b a IM m N SITE s a nn.w+ -00'sl-A—n-(- 1-- .TOM w00-sja"jnGls4*wol :Ilou3 xoj Wg-989 (ZSB) LYfS-199 (m)OZY9S 'un uo)6wwoojg 41n S snuanV •I°P�I 0906 SINVITGNOO i SNOA3ANr1S ONVI 'ONI '00 NOSNHOr'S AMVH i Y^ F fi b G��• " sz C [ -P .6 S% • 3 sas ep Y i H. a o a` p �� 3y Y Z� 5 5 o W�in?u dw NX 9azai Zm O Wn J I 1 it Pr` 1 L / v s4i 3 � I I e yy ' O�A P 0 to F w w LL } LLJ 0 z J U V3 O PO V1083NN1W'N3SSVHNVHO 3AIHO 1NIOd HV(33O 03H 609E a1IS H30130 MUD T 31713)l AHdVUE)DdOl LMM LL AaAuns NOLLVOL-JLW30101 -� E z pLi gry E b G��• x � IYp n��F� •� ff E 6� Na �n � GM 9azai Zm a Wn J S 5431R i� it Pr` / v s4i 3 / 4 e yy � y"� X t; e X � X i r � r` !/ice m 4 a_NoboY$1;3 \ E z IdOL LS 1 pLi gry E z G��• x � IYp n��F� •� ff E E$z 3� QN H£gr• � QiEv" 9azai LL=B=o a g_. �.95. 1 ��. r v s4i yy � E 0 a_NoboY$1;3 g ooi aee8'E tL cr 8m"eniZ W o ZLE Z ,.. E t=; aerc °r 'o J4, o�< eg S _Y� �N�, •^,. ce c 'I<.J Y^E..� 88n W W aQ Z o5 `> �'� YrN gin in SreOr� J Ea°ry LLLE dei% we E iE E3zx°oc`o.o� Q� ry mu 6 r 0aH w� n IdOL LS 1 pLi gry E z G��• x � IYp n��F� •� ff E E$z 3� QN H£gr• � QiEv" e LL=B=o a g_. �.95. U`�es I 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. 1 COUNTY OF CARVER ) `O I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and was on July 9, 2015, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of tsen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached n�blic Hearing for 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Plane 2015-1 o the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of snolS1/Sn an enygtedressed to such owner,s4 and depositing the envelopes addressed to wners ted States mail with postage ♦ fully prepaid thereon; that the name resse 4j ers were those appearing as such by the records of the County TW, arve Co ty, innesota and by other appropriate records. ^�Q�aytia Aubscribed and sworn to before me this L44"\ day of 2015. �� Notary Publ k_ MEN dt, Dep64 Clerk IOM T. MEUNOWY :MINI N r,ai..rrweor.. +atom Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not startuntil later In the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to the Shoreland Protection setback Proposal: and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Mackey Malin ArchitectstGregg & Kellie Geiger Property 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Location: (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) A location rinap Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant mil 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 vis' the City's projects web page at: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us/2015-14. Ifyou wish told] someone about this project, please contact Drew I by Questions & email at dincvalson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us orb e t Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written t 1 is, K i helpful to have one copy to the department, in a ace of meeting. Staff will provide copies to AAGommi Ion. Th staff report for this item will be available online on th web site listed above the Thursday prior to the project lannin Commission meeting. NEWT Sign up to receive email and/or text not' ons when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded t 's website. Go tW www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/notl a to u City Review proesdues: • Subdivisions, Manned Unit Developments. Site Man Renews, Conditional Imeom Uses, Welland Aeration, Reasonings, Corrprehonsive Ren AmarMmems and Code Amentlmm he�u blit string beloro Me Banning Commission. City word feet d ordinances report all property See Me sub ta�assaiil of Me application in wolfing. Any Interested pant is to attend the meeting. . Sinvited tan prepares a repot tl tle suhja t appl Omni utles morsel las wom ane a recommendation. mese�.pod�. available by request. AI Ma Menring Cgmmltinl q, ate II give a verbal oveMew of Me hoped and a recommandatlon. The item will be opened la fie public to speak eb cit I prVDosal as a pan of the hearing process. The Commission Will dose the public hearing and discuss Me teem and make a recom#M(fNtion to the City Council. The Coity Council may reverse, aMm1 or modify wholly ar pertly to Meaning CommeSslo n, recommendadon Remnings, land use and code amendments take a simple heatedly vada of Me City Council except rescnplra and lanld use amendments from residential to commerclalAndusddal. • Parnassus State Statute 519.99 roqu@be aA applications to be processed wlMin 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to Meir complexity holy lake small months to complete. My person wishing Io (olb an Item through the process should check With to Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Councd meeting. • A neighborhood spdcespersenlesprosemalive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meal WththenelghboM regardkgthdrproposal. Stasis also available In review Me project Wlh any Interested person(s). • Because Me Renning Commission holds me public hearing, the City Council tloes not. Modes are taken and any conescendence the application W II M indWtl in the repM to the Gly Council. n you Wsh to hew smething to to indudad in the recant, Fu lease conlatl the Manning Staff fromen named on the notification. ;4J C V Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 21 :00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later In the evenincl, on the order of thea ends. Location: City Hall Council Chlimbers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request fyr Variances to the Shoreland Protection setback Proposal: and the 36 -loot front yard setback to construct a detached era a on prOlDedyzoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects/Gregg & Kellie Geiger Property 3 Red Cedar Point Road Location: L 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) o atlon ma Is on the reverse side of this notice. e purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborho� about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead t What Hap ens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. The applicant will present plans on the project. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by tions & email at dinovalsonCo-_)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.cl.chanhasson.mn.us/notlf_vme to sign up! Cay Rwlew Procedures: • Subdivisions. Manned Unit Developmen s, Site Ren Reviews. Conditions] and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterabons. Rezonings, Comprehensive Man Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me Harming Commission. City ordinances require all property wllhln See feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In oni My Interested party is Invited to amend the meeting. • Stag prepares a recant on Me subject application that Insoles all pertinent Information and a recto mendallm. Those reports are avamble m Inquest. At the Henning Commission meeting, staff will give a veNBl overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item Wit he opened for the pudic to speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing process. The Commission will does the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the Gty Cqundl. The City Council may drool afire or mal smelly ix partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Remnings, land use and code amerMmeras take a simple mal vete Of the City Council except hezonllgs and land use amendments from material to cummencolAndusMel. • Mnnesom State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed wltMn 60 days unless Me applicant wolves this standard. Soma applications due to their complesity may take severed months to cornplele. Any person Wshing to follow an item through the prams should check Wlh the Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokeapersaJraprosentetive Is encouraged to provide a tooted for the city. Offen developer are encouraged to most Wlh the neighhoMood regarding Meir pasposei. Stag Is also available to rovew the project a th any Interested personis). • Because the Manning Commission holds the public nations, Me Gy Council does not. Motes are taken and any conespondence regarding, the application WII be included In the report to" City Councilff you Wsh In have something to be induded in the repM, leese contact the Mermaid Slag person named on the rrogficabM. 0 BETSY S ANDING 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 KELLIE J GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 r� DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR FFJU�NT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 4637721 #�0, MARIA I�HT 360 DAR POINT RD kX I R, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SCUBA1�` 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 G o � 5 1 SUSAN S PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSE STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD 5901 CARTER LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-77200 MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 0 Variances within 500 Feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive Variance Number Address Description 18.5 -foot shoreline setback variance for the 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road construction of a single- y Lome 3618 Red Cedar Point Road 15 -foot shoreline and 8 -foot side yar#se c 93-06 variances for the construction of a porc k 1.5 -foot side yard and 14.5 -foots setback 3607 Red Cedar Point Road variance for the construction o a ed two stall 92-1 garage with a second floor',& side yard (east), a yard (west), and 3605 Red Cedar Point Road a 26 -foot shoreline ances for the construction of a d o stall garage and 88-11 second floor anion 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 45 -foot shore ack variance to construct an 87-10 addition t ting home 12-V 12 d a 2 side yard setback van d a 7 -foo setback for the 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Mine Was on of a s'home. 3 foot front ack variance and 7,500 re foot ce of the Shoreland 82-11 3618 Red Cedarl0' a ance. 79-02 3613 Red C 2 setback variance * Items highlighted in gray arVVe set k ances. gAplaot2015 planning csaes120 point W06-05-201Svariauces within 500 feet -dm 0 July 10, 2015 0 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 O Re: Shoreland Setback Variance -Planning Case #2015-14 ` Dear Planning Commission Members, G� Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts and feedb I proposed development plan for the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Ch I apologize for not being able to attend the public meeting in person on July 21, 2015.Jok IL My name is Frances Paap and I have lived at 3601 Red with my husband Keith, and our two children. We sell and raise our family. The things that attracted us to tl A# • Wide open views of the lake from ev • Wide open views from every arel • The private lot along with the • The knowledge 4theCi nbuilt closer thanlake. • That all structurrivate eligible or hayso be,� dar of ilbad in Chanhassen since July 2008 e jWoperty armanent place to live ion are th�ll ng: of the ` 6 finance which states no structure could be lance will preserve the views. be single family dwellings and would not be These characters of t�ocation Fi#ke this peninsula the beautiful place it is today and keeps the properly hig even in I^f economic downturn. tm�pictures taken from our house facing the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. These ow the view of the lake without any obstructions. Figure 2 - View Facing South helps the number of mature trees that would have to be removed in order to build at this location. 0 0 Figure 1 - View Facing North Figure 2 - View Facing South The property owners at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road have requested to build a garage at this location which will be inside the 75' variance. Granting shoreline variances for this size of structure will disrupt the harmony of the property and surrounding properties as the elevation of the detached 2 -car garage r 10 with studio space is 23'. The structure at this elevation will block the open views that exist today. On the proposed site plan there are options A, B, C, and D submitted June 23, 2015. The options of A, C, and D will be less obtrusive to our views, however option B will be next to our property line creating a complete obstruction to the view of the lake or our yard. Option D is in alignment with the other resident houses with their garages attached to their houses. A The 2 -car detached garage with studio space will allow for additional residents to dwell 2#thslmWbn. In the letter dated June 5, 2015 under section: Variance Findings Statement, the use for Ing has not been outlined. A studio space above the detached garage is intended to be occup is is the intention, the car traffic and congestion of cars will increase on the private roil. I raises the potential for rental of the studio space in the future. ` As residences of the adjacent property to 3603 Red Cedar Point Road tin agreement with the proposed request for development. We would request that the Ci hassen Planning Commission deny the request for variances. If on July 211, 2015 the Planning Commission does gra ap to moveand with the construction of a 2 -car detached garage with studio spa uld like t iv me feedback to the location and appeal the decision. � O Sincerely, # 19 �Llr 4 e Frances & Keit aap Owners at pr 3 1 Red Ce t Road, Chanhassen MN 55331 Cc:Drew Inglson, Assistant Planner 0 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: M.P. Knight Frances Paap 3605 Red Cedar Point Road 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED _CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE _MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman and good evening Planning Commission. Please note that there is a submission that we have here from email from the previous submission that we had for this case stating essentially that they're from Susan Proshek stating that her family has been here for many years and owned a property at 3613 since the 1930's. This also states that they would definitely not be in favor of what was previously illustrated Option D which was on the west side of the home. Also stating that they would be open to one of the other options that were on the east side of the home as long as the proper setbacks and variances could be met. So this case as you stated before was brought to the Planning Commission on August 18, 2015 and this is looking for, it's seeking an expansion of an existing non -conformity variance request. Aller: For the record we have received a copy of the email and it will be attached on the copy of the record and if this matter goes to City Council then it will be attached there as well. Ingvalson: On the August 18, 2015 meeting the applicant proposed four locations for a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Staff recommended denial of the 4 locations with a recommendation of 2, of an alternative location if the Planning Commission deemed their request reasonable. The Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • applicant requested a 60 day extension to propose 2 new locations. Here's the location of 3603 Red Cedar Point. As you can see it has water on both the north and south side of the home from Lake Minnewashta. It's also, has a private road that cuts through the property. Here's an image of the home, this is facing on the northeast of the home on the north side of the private drive. Here's another image from the northwest of the home. The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. The legal non -conformities that we have for this property are with the front yard setback, the way this property is on a private drive the front yard per our city code is on this line will be the front property line. This far property line would be the rear yard and the other ones are required shoreland setbacks so the property meets the 75 foot shoreland setback from the north. However it does not meet the 75 foot shoreland setback from the south. It is 31 feet away from that setback and encroaches into the 30 foot front yard setback by 20.2 feet. 9.8 feet is where it currently sits from that property line. The property owner came originally looking for options for a variance originally seeking to put one on the north side of the private drive. Issues came up with that due to public utilities that go through that area. The sewer main and water main as you can see in red and blue. After realizing that there was an option to put the garage somewhere on the north, farther north towards the shoreland. This was difficult for staff to recommend approval for so that one we moved forward with other alternatives. The one that we have today are for Option E and for Option F. Option E is attached to the existing structure. Is a 21 foot by 21 foot. Also we have Option F which is a 23 foot by 27 foot. Both of these options will require additional pavement to be put down. For Option E pavement will be put down here to make a wider tum radius for vehicles going along with the private drive. It will be 18 feet shown in this radius. From the corner, this corner of the structure. Option F will also have pavement completed so that the driver will be able to back out of the garage and continue their way down the private drive. Also please note that these two options are not including the roof overhang that is being proposed in the architectural drawings that were submitted. These are for, these were what was submitted on the site plan so any additional, an additional variance would be required. Additional feet would be required for those overhangs of the structure. Option E. This is a 21 foot by 21 foot attached garage as seen here. You would load into the garage from the north. This location will require a variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to the south. As you can see here there will be a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and then also a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance from this far property line. This option will allow for a 15 foot building separation between this 3603 and the neighboring property. Hard cover on this will be needed on the north side of the road but hard cover will not exceed 25 percent. What has been proposed by the applicant will be 23.9 percent. No mature trees will be removed from this option due to there not being any trees located in this area and this structure being located completely on existing hard cover. Here is the location of Option E. Here is the adjacent property. There is a window that will be facing Option E. This line is the approximate location of where the comer of that Option E will be. Here's a view from that window just below it. Notice Option E will be located approximately the corner would be in this location. Here's a view of the viewscapes from the property. One of the concerns from our previous meeting would be the viewscapes lost of the lake by the construction of a 21 by 21 foot structure in that area. Notice that the red area is 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • the lake viewscape that will be effected by locating Option E. Blue is the viewscape that will not be affected by this option from that window that we previously looked at. Our ordinance reads that there's a 75 foot setback required from the lakeshore which will be met by Option E so as we look at that it's used for multiple purposes. One is for to protect environmental resources such as the lake but also to protect viewscapes from the public and in this situation to protect viewscapes from an adjacent neighbor to make sure the views are protected by that 75 foot setback which will be met by this option. Here are the architectural plans. Please note that the 21 foot would be for this area. Anything extending beyond that, any roof overhang would not be a part of the site plan that we looked at. That 21 foot. Any, to approve this it would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. That would be an addition to what is currently being shown on here in our plans. Here's Option F. This is for a 23 foot by 27 foot detached garage. The variance needed for this will be a 45.6 foot shoreland setback, a variance. This will also require the relocation of a fire hydrant so you can see this location will be the new fire hydrant location. The existing fire hydrant is in this area. This option will increase hard cover near the shoreland. The applicant proposes 24.9 percent hard cover. The maximum hard cover allowed by our city code is 25 percent. This is viewed to be possibly harmful to the environment and also to the viewscapes from public waters. Four mature trees will also be removed by this project. As you can see as in the image over here, you'll be loading again from the north and there will be additional hard cover required for this area, loading it and then also in this area for a turnout. Here's a look of the location for Option F. Option F will be approximately in this location. This picture was taken from the lake from the south side of the property so as you can see there is very little screening that will occur due to this structure being built. Here's a look, view from the private drive. This would be looking from the north to the south. Here's the subject home and this would be the approximate location of the structure and here is the fire hydrant that will need to be relocated for this option. Here are the architectural plans for Option F. Please note again that the 23 foot here and the 27 foot here are what was shown on the site plan. That is what was viewed by staff. Any, there'd be an additional variance, additional feet as the variance request to allow for these overhangs. Here are the additional architectural plans for Option F. This would be looking at the property. Here is the existing home and here's the detached structure. Furthermore to review this case we also looked at the surrounding neighborhood for this area. Properties within 500 feet of the subject site with a garage is one thing that was looked at by staff. Green properties are properties with a garage. Gray are ones that are without a garage. After review we found that there are 8 properties that have a garage and out of the properties within 500 feet of the subject site there are 3 that are without a garage. We also looked at the variances that were granted for properties in this area and then also ones that met the shoreland setback. All properties within this area have structures that do not meet the shoreland setback. Those are properties seen in red. The yellow property is included in the properties that don't meet the shoreland setback. We also looked at properties that have been granted variances. Ones with X's are ones that have a shoreland setback variance. Ones with squares are properties with a front or side yard setback variance. The majority of these were for single family homes. You can see multiple single family homes to build one there on lot. There are also 2 that were for garages and then also a couple one for a home addition and then another for a porch and deck. Another view of the neighborhood we looked at was properties within 500 feet of the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • subject site that do not meet front, read or side yard setbacks. Looking here properties in red are ones that do not meet front and rear or side yard setbacks and the yellow one again is the subject property. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construction a two story, 441 square foot attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. There are conditions with this. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. After speaking with the applicant's architect there were some alternatives that they might be presenting tonight to you for Option E due to those overhangs. Possibly putting some sort of, moving the structure over here which would still could use the proposed motion with the square footage and also the setbacks would not change but those will be presented here later tonight. At this point I'm open for any questions. Aller: Any questions from anyone at this point? Second time through. Very thorough. Good job. Any questions? Hokkanen: No. Aller: Okay. Alright. The applicant, if the applicant would like to come forward and tell us about the project. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger. I'm the resident at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Pat Mackey: My name is Pat Mackey with Mackey Malin Architects. We're the designers. Aller: Welcome. Gregg Geiger: Per instructions from the last meeting we're presenting what we considered new information that's in addition to what we presented at the previous meeting so we'll go forward here. What we are. Oh I'm song. So during the July meeting as was just presented we had 4 options that were indicated on the south side of the road and there was one option that was brought forth by staff and so those are now identified as Options E and F and we're retaining those just a note that we have been looking at several options here. In this particular presentation we are going to do 2 things. We're going to talk about the drawings of the garage and we're also going to give you some considerations from our perspective as to the impact on the land and such. So onward please Drew. These are the option locations as have been discussed before. The house is outlined in blue. Option E is to the left of this particular view and Option F is 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • highlighted in a purple. What we've also done here is indicate by red markings the trees that we believe are going to be negatively impacted by Option F and those are indicated right there. There are also a couple big trees and we'll talk about this in a little bit. The orange outlines there. The one orange outline and the question we really have. The orange, the one on the southeast side of the house there, it's right up against the house and as we'll discuss it's about a 4 foot diameter based tree and plus it has a considerable canopy so it's, it's a big tree. We know it will just be shown here on the particular survey drawing. So what Pat is going to go through now the drawings of the house and just discuss some of those features there. Pat Mackey: Thank you. This is north and west elevations of the existing house with the adjacent neighbor's house shown for context taken from the survey and from site photographs. You can kind of get the general layout of the existing house as kind of a multi load structure that's probably been added onto several times but generally stick holds together in a consistent form. Next if you could Drew. What we've shown here is how an attached garage would manifest itself onto the existing house. I think we're able to work with the existing roof lines. The existing interior layout of the house and achieve a massing that's compatible with the existing house. Compatible with the scale of the surrounding structures and the neighborhood in general. Again this is a 2 story. It's not simply the garage but it's space above for additional living space for the homeowners. These images show the overhangs which as Drew pointed out, since it came to light that the overhangs were not going to be accommodated in the structure, these would be modified to suck that wall of the house back so that the overhangs obey the variance. We're not interested in pursuing an additional variance for simply the overhangs. So it would be slightly narrower as shown in the top drawing and slightly shallower as shown in the bottom drawing. Aller: So I understand you, you're going to reduce the actual footprint of the garage to allow for the space that you've requested? Pat Mackey: Correct. Next one if you could Drew. If we could I'd like to stick to Option E first. Sorry Drew and back up to maybe the site plan. What, to accommodate kind of the pulling back the walls to meet, you know to allow a now reduced overhang, we can do several things to reduce the overhang and that impact you know on the variances that we're requesting. We can reduce the length of the overhang to something like 1 foot which they're currently shown at 2. We could put the overhangs to 1 foot or less and then pull the garage wall back that foot so that the overhangs obey the setbacks. What that does though is, it takes 21 by 21 foot garage which needs to accommodate 2 cars and a short slight of interior stairs to get to the house level. It makes it very, very tight on a practical basis as a 2 car garage so what we would request is you can see to the right of E, the letter E on the garage there's a gap there that's currently occupied by an existing air conditioner. Air conditioning equipment and electrical equipment. During the course of construction of the garage we would propose to move those to a spot allowed and fill in that gap just to get the additional use of the garage. The thing, the only impact that has as Drew pointed out is the only constraint then that changes is in the staff recommendation there's the figure of 441 square feet. We would ask for an increase on that but the exact same setbacks. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • Exact same hard cover percentage, etc. It's just we can obey 2 or 3 of those constraints but if we're constrained on 4 dimensions we're going to have a hard time making this work. Gregg Geiger: It seems, if I may, from a geometry point of view if you bring that back a little ways. Audience: Excuse me, we can't hear at all back here. Could you ask them to speak up? Aller: If you could just speak into the microphone so that they can hear that would be great. Gregg Geiger: If you look at it from a geometry point of view it seems like if you would bring it back that additional foot and start doing what Pat just described then it will probably move that northwest comer a little bit closer actually out of the driveway. Existing driveway space so there are advantages to that even. Pat Mackey: Exactly. It brings, the diagram that Drew showed with the vision cones, it actually brings this garage further, tighter to the existing house reducing that by the amount of the overhangs. Aller: If I can interrupt again. You've got mechanical equipment inside that space now. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Where would you propose you put it and would it be a hard cover pad? Pat Mackey: It would be a hard cover pad. It would likely be on an existing piece of hard cover that's, there's plenty of it existing out onto the east side of the house or if we can accommodate, it's really just the. Gregg Geiger: It's the air conditioner. Pat Mackey: Air conditioner and that's it. Everything else could be, is wall mounted or could be taken inside the house. Aller: So, and my question goes the intention of, I don't want to consider something that takes that and just adds it to the hard cover so that you move and you have another pad somewhere else and then we've lost that ability to say you've got 29.4 all of a sudden is above 30. Pat Mackey: Correct. If we have, this came to light today so we haven't had a chance to fully parch through the options. The first option of course would be to find existing hard cover to place that on or if it were required to put this on current non -hard cover then we would just simply reduce whatever is necessary. Probably structure because drive is something you can't just take away without consequence by the 9 or so square feet that the pad would require. Gi 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. If we want to just follow through on F, I think if it hasn't been stated I think it seems clear that that Option E is preferred for a number of reasons. Probably most significant to feel of what's happening in the area is this shows it better than the site plan does but if Option F were pursued it's cutting back into a fairly pronounced berm. Natural berm or what's become a natural berm that probably contains more roots than soil and would I think undoubtedly cause not damage but destruction to the existing mature trees in the area. It just, we haven't you know, I'm not an arborist but I can't imagine those trees faring well with Option F. Gregg Geiger: So then this is a picture of looking at Option F where we tried to highlight in red the trees that would be cut down as a result of trying to do that. And so the view on the left is from the northeast corner and the view from the south, or the view on the right is from the southwest comer so they're kind of looking at each other. Again the red trees and I've indicated as best as I can of approximate heights so those are, the red trees are give or take as best as I can tell. The yellow line then represents the large, the 4 foot diameter tree that is immediately adjacent to the comer of the house there and on the right hand view then you can see the 2 trees and the one tree on the far right is not shown on the left view but that's the tree that is on or on or very close to the existing hard cover. The berm area that was near the old oil tank. I have a question mark, oh I'm sorry Drew. I have a question mark on the one tree there towards the, what we consider the front of the house there. It's a very large tree that again as Pat has indicated there's probably a lot of root system in there that would be challenged by the addition of Option F. The one yellow tree I want to mention real quickly the canopy. So the canopy goes almost to the, within several feet of the shoreline so it goes from the house to the shoreline and it covers in addition several other trees that are in the what we consider the back yard. Okay next one. So here then are the considerations then for Option E just as we see the pros and cons. The pros are that really, even though we've discussed a couple hard cover considerations for replacement or change in location for the air conditioning unit there's substantively there's not a real hard cover increase here. There's no movement of a fire hydrant. No trees are affected and it does include the current parking area so there's not, from a functional point of view there's not a big change here. The cons are that it would require a significant change to the house. There's no doubt about that and there will be a slight driveway adjustment that's required. Then from Option F's point of view there would be no change to the current home. To the house and the structure and that is clearly a good thing. It does have a larger plan area so it will impact the yard, the lawn and the plot area in some way. The cons are that trees will be removed and as we've discussed there's significant trees that are, if they aren't tom down they will be, they will be affected. It will move the fire hydrant across the driveway. We will add to existing hard cover there and we will be digging very near a previous oil tank. Pat indicated that there is that rise. That berm area that's adjacent to the house that runs, runs east and west and we will be digging into that berm area so there's going to be something that will happen to the water runoff or we will have to adjust, accommodate that. And that's all we have for our presentation. Thank YOU - 7 Chanhassen Planning Co• ission — September 15, 2015 • Aller: Thank you. Questions at this point? Questions over here? Any questions? Madsen: I do have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: On Option E there's currently a tum around located near the home there. Gregg Geiger: Yes. Madsen: Would that remain or would that be removed with Option E? Gregg Geiger: So you're, yeah where Drew is indicating right now. Madsen: Yes. Gregg Geiger: That will remain. Madsen: That would remain. So if the hard cover expanse issue became a concern because of the air conditioner could that be reduced so that there would be no increase? Gregg Geiger: Certainly. It's a question for a fire truck. Ingvalson: The property is actually going to be, is significantly under hard cover there, with this proposal that they would be doing with this additional of hard cover put on there it'd be at 23.9 so still 1 percent hard cover would be available per our city code and would be open for replacement. Madsen: Okay, thank you for that clarification Drew. Aller: Thank you Drew. I had it at 29.3 in my mind so. Any additional questions? Clarifications. Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Aller: Okay we're going to open up the public hearing portion of this. Aanenson: Mr. Chair we've already had a public hearing. Legally you cannot open another public hearing. If you choose to take comments you may but I would not open a public hearing. Aller: Let's do this. I had that in my mind, thank you. Because we've already had a public hearing on this I do want to entertain comments from individuals and certainly individuals that 91 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 were not present at the last hearing on this, on the properties and the suggestions which are now E and F so that we can hear comments from the public so we certainly want to hear those so I'll open it up to comments from the public on E and F and any individual who was not present at the last hearing I'd like to hear first and then any other individual that would like to comment at that point in time would be great so any individual that was not here that would like to make a comment, if you could please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we'd love to hear your opinions. Frances Paap: Hi, my name is Frances Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point. Aller: Welcome. Frances Paap: Thank you. I just have a couple of comments for consideration. Whether we're looking at Option E or Option F and really those are just to make sure that we're looking for enough variance for delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. I know today in the current structure we do, that issue does exist where we've had you know like our garbage service, we've been cancelled by people and things like that because there's just not a lot of tum around so just a comment that if we can keep that in mind I would really appreciate that. Same with emergency vehicles. If there's enough space for them to get in and out in case something were to occur, that we leave enough hard cover for those folks to tum around. And the reason why I bring up garbage is because our house got hit already this year and so just, that's a concern of mine. Other than that. Aller: I'm just going to ask you. Frances Paap: I'm sorry. Aller: If we could bring up where the lots are. If you could point out. Frances Paap: Oh sure. We're at the very end. We're at the point. Aller: Oh you're just on the end. Frances Paap: Yeah. So we're to the east. Aller: I just want for everyone here so we can see this is where you are so when you're discussing this everybody gets a better picture of what you're talking about. Frances Paap: Okay, sorry. Yeah so we're at the very end so when, you know when trucks come down they do have to come the whole entire way to get to our property and so we just, just want to be sure that there's ample room for folks to get in and get out and not have any damage to the property or damage along the way because it is pretty tight today. So really that's my only comments unless anybody would like to ask me a question. 0 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: I think that's fine. Aanenson: Can we answer that question briefly? Aller: Absolutely. Aanenson: You want to go to the site please. Ingvalson: For Option E we have discussed with the Fire Marshal here at the City and discussed any concerns that they would have when these options came through first for the first round and then also for this round of options. The option that we have here is going to actually make a wider distance then what is currently existing here on this option. One of their concerns that he had also was making sure that the road was not reduced in any way for size for emergency vehicles. Also that this area was left open even though it is a private road. That this be left open for turnout. After speaking with our Fire Marshal and also with our Fire Chief they said as long as the road is maintained at the 10 foot wide width that it's currently at they believe that will be sufficient for them to get their emergency vehicles down there so essentially keeping it as it is and not reducing it in any way and what we have proposed is actually to have it wider. A wider tum around this home than is currently there. The radius here is 18 feet. The existing one throughout this area I believe the widest it averages around 10 feet. Aller: And then on Option F where there's a dark gray area, is that proposed additional? Ingvalson: Absolutely so that is a proposed additional area. However the road will not change. There's some main roadway left. Aller: So right now that would just be the roadway, not the gray area. Ingvalson: Correct. The road, the gray area is what will be added on mainly to access F. Then also for when you're backing out of F to come out of here instead of going out onto the grass when you back out. So this width will not be reduced in any way. It will actually be slightly expanded in this area as you drive through, and then also for E will also be expanded. Tietz: Drew this might be a question or Alyson. Are there standards for private roads to support garbage trucks and fire trucks? Aanenson: There is. This is a legal non -conforming so it's not decreasing the situation. In fact we're trying to increase it with the recommendations on E. Tietz: I'm talking about base and construction. Aanenson: Yes. Yep, Yep. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Typically for a private street it's 7 ton design and 30 foot right-of-way, 20 foot of pavement width but this does not meet that and so this house with the variance is not going to be able to solve the problem for the whole neighborhood. Aller: This whole point was non -conforming. Aanenson: That's correct so what we're doing is not reducing it but trying to improve it especially on that radius. Aller: And as a result of the request for the variance, whether it's E or F that will then be increased or maintained at the widest level. Aanenson: That's correct. Aller: And so that is what's before us today. I suppose if it was granted then the neighbors right and left could take it upon themselves to make sure that their portions of the drive were wider as well so that would just be something to consider as a neighborhood or as individuals. Frances Paap: Okay so our easement, we have the easement to get through but all the way to the property line is right at the very end so the rest of that drive, as residents we don't have control over. We start right at our mailbox and then have a drive so that's why there's just the concern there because we don't have control over any of the other. Aller: Great. Frances Paap: Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any other individuals that were not present at the last hearing? Okay moving forward to individuals that were at the last hearing that would like to comment on items E and F or plans E and F as proposed tonight? Good evening. Nelleke Knight: Nelleke Knight. I live at 3605. Aller: Welcome. Dave Bishop: My name's Dave Bishop and I'm the same. Aller: Welcome. 11 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Nelleke speaks English but not as good as some of us and so I'm going to be doing some, most of the talking but please direct your questions to her if you wish to talk to the owner who's lived there for 41 years. Many times today people have referred to this as a, I think they call it at the beginning of this document that you guys had, the principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity. We don't think it is a legal non -conformity and, I'm handing out to you the Affidavit of Maria Knight who's standing next to me. You can read it yourselves and I won't bore you with the gist of it but with other than the gist of it which is to say your ordinance is very clear that non -conforming properties only include those that have been unoccupied, that have not failed the criteria of being unoccupied for more than a year. This property fails that criteria because it was unoccupied from the time the last people left it pursuant to or just prior to a foreclosure and the time that the current owner bought it. It's not an issue of abandonment. It's an issue of not occupied. Occupied requiring human beings. Because it does not fit that Nelleke's feeling, this is Nelleke Knight. That's her nickname. Maria and I both feel that this august body is not empowered to grant this variance and for these exact same reasons should not. Just plain should not grant it. Now this is, I'm not going to repeat any of the stuff that described in our prior hearing. I know that there's a transcript of this and I know that you've read that. Other than to say that we in addition to what I've presented to you now continue to believe that the variance is improper because the property already had a garage and as a result of that it is a request that is being made because of a situation that was caused by the property owners themselves and it's our position that they inherit the actions of the prior property owners because zoning runs with the land. Now in addition to that it is clear that the least burdensome, most reasonable alternative if 2 car garage has to be on this site is to simply reopen the 2 car garage that's already there. The one that they covered up. That doesn't require you know any setback changes. It doesn't require, in fact there is no zoning change that would be required at all if they would simply reopen their garage and it is unreasonable, it's improper and we think it's prejudice to us as the next door neighbors. I didn't say it but we live just to the west, for them to build. You know cover up the garage. Build another garage and I assume when they, if they flip this. It's their tenth house. If they flip this one and the next guys come in, you know somebody will cover up this garage and we're right back here for another garage. How many garages, how many times can you play this game and the answer I think is set up in the ordinance. You can do it once. If you have a garage you're entitled to keep your garage. If you decide to turn your garage into another use, you're not entitled to have a zoning variance for that garage. Now those are two reasons we think you cannot and should not do this. I also have comments, we have comments about the two proposals that are here. The, we feel that this is like a constantly chronic moving target. We had A. We had B. Then we had C and then we had D. The applicant never even suggested E but the City came up with E. Then you guys suggested taking C and moving it over to the west and they did that but it's clear from what they said here that they've abandoned F. They've given you 20 minutes of why they don't want to do F. At the last meeting you members were very clear that you wanted a proposal of F that had the same footprint of Drew's suggestion for E. 21 by 21. The applicant decided to ignore you. What they suggested was essentially a Taj Mahal. Three car garage with a living space up above and the complaint that if you force them to do this they won't like it very much and they'll have to take down a lot of their trees. Because C was their first pick when we were last here. 12 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Let's stick with E and F please. Dave Bishop: I am, I find it disingenuous that they are making the exact opposite argument today that they made to you the time before, which is what they're now doing. They're saying yeah, you told us we had to come up with F so here's F. Then here's all our reasons why if you make us do this it's such a bad thing and so now we're left with E. Which is right next to us and Drew would you mind going back to that little cone of obstruction that you put together? This is the first time I've seen it and so I'm a little unclear about it. The first question I have is, because of the way the site plan is built I can't tell whether this proposal for E is flush with the south side of the existing property or whether it's in fact sticking out. Can anybody enlighten me about that? Understand what I'm saying? If you look at this thing it's impossible to tell whether the south side of the existing house and the south side of E are parallel to each other or whether one is bumped out. Ingvalson: If I may answer that. Aller: Yes. Ingvalson: The green should be approximately across with this. Aanenson: Flush. Ingvalson: Flush with it across with this. Obviously using the equipment that we have here at the City I did this to show the closest representation that we can to show what sort of viewscape was lost. That's why this was done on an aerial image. Not done on a survey or something along that. It would maybe give us more accurate lines of where this would be but possibly wouldn't give us the same view of what sort of trees are possibly in the way. Possibly where these homes lie. Things like that so that's why it was done on an aerial image. And this was also a part of the packet in the staff report. Dave Bishop: What I, the other thing that I don't understand is I think that I've heard in the presentation that none of that red stuff is any, in any area affected by the 75 foot setback and if I've heard that correctly I'd like to know how that applies say at the right side of the property. Aller: Drew could you just tell me where the 75 foot setback would be. Ingvalson: Sure. So the 75 foot setback is if you look at previous submittals for the, this is right here. Across the front of this house. Continuing across the front of E. Aller: So E would meet the 75 foot setback? Ingvalson: Correct. Correct and that would be without any overhangs. 13 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Well E would meet the setback but the, your zone of red is within that 75 foot area right? So, I don't want any people to be mistaken that that zone of red isn't in fact covering up the area that the 75, that encompasses the 75 foot part of the setback. Ingvalson: Chairman if I may. Aller: Sure. Ingvalson: The red is shown simply to show the viewscape that would be lost from that window. It is not a part of the, it's showing nothing with the 75 foot. Simply to show viewscapes. Viewscapes of what will be lost potentially by a structure that is built within this area that would meet the 75 foot setback. I know that this isn't perfectly to scale. As you can see this was done on a Word document so this was done simply to show the viewscape that would be affected by, and then also showing the viewscape that would not be affected. Nothing to do with the 75 foot setback. What was simply noted earlier I believe was what, the 75 foot setback is on our, in our city code to protect multiple things. Protect number one, to protect the environment but also to protect viewscape. Viewscapes of people from the public and also property owners. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: Drew could you tum this on so that the members can see this? That red cone it, I mean because it's an illustration it just, it's like a, kind of a gross description of reality okay so this is our actual living room window. This is what they're taking away from us if your proposal is, if their proposal would be approved by you. In fact this understates it because now I understand that there are, or I think I understand that there are overhangs and in fact that white mark is less than 21 feet from the existing building so you in your own minds just have to bump it a little over to the left. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I asked Drew to put that slide in because we've had a lot of discussions about what's appropriate view shed and this came up a number of years ago on actually on Minnewashta Lake where we had houses that were built on septic and well and they came up with the theory that if you were to do an addition, while you could go to 75 feet but your neighbor was sitting back you know 100 plus that you had to meet that and that just seemed unreasonable because as people changed ownership they might not of wanted to be held to that same standard so that was put in place for not too many years when it seemed really inappropriate to try to match that uneven way to go so I asked Drew to put this slide in to show that what is the expectation that you need a 360 view of the lake? Is it in front and behind or what's reasonable so looking at this the intent was to show. You can see the side window there. The majority of view is out the front and out your back. That yes you will have some obstruction of your view. Of the 360 but we were trying to show illustratively that the majority of view is still looking out the front is still there. Yes you will have some compromise but that's not the majority of your view shed. 14 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: And I appreciate both your points because I believe that it's a, although it might not be controlling it's certainly one of the things that should be looked at is the neighbor's view and the aesthetics and how, the impact on the neighborhood when we look at these variances so now we have photographs that we've seen on both sides so any additional comments or information on E? Dave Bishop: Yes I do. Drew could you show them this picture please? Aanenson: Oh just go over here. Dave Bishop: Okay, I mean the implicit assumption of what you just heard was that nobody cares about the views on this property unless they're inside the house and we disagree with that adamantly. This is the area where they want to build this. This is the view from Nelleke's property and this, and I'm sorry I can't put it in black because I also had to Photoshop this, is a representation. We don't, we never had any elevation so I have to make it you know based on what we have heard so far. This is an estimation of how much it will be blocked out. Now some people will say well okay, you've lost this much of blocking out. You know you have all these other areas that you can look at. We disagree. We feel that you know this view has been available to Nelleke since 1974 and it, we find this difficult because in the July 22 letter that the architects sent to you on this C, which has now become F the fundamental complaint that I can get from that is they didn't want, I'm sorry from A to F. It's basically the same area as where F is, is that they didn't want to do that because it would hurt their view out of their house and now we have F, the alternative and they've got 64 reasons why they think it's a bad idea. The only thing they didn't tell you is what they told you on June 24'h. They don't want to do it because it will hurt their view and so for us this is a very frank issue of whose ox are you going to gore. Aller: Any last additional comments? Dave Bishop: The descriptions that we heard today were impacted on the issue of, is this upside down? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: It's hard for me to see, sorry. Impacted on the issue of whether or not the impermeable property requirements have been met. You should know that both the first neighbor who spoke and I, or we dispute the property descriptions that the applicant has put in. They have taken this part from the neighbors to the east and they have taken this part from the neighbors to the west and after you subtract that approximately 500 square feet or so I do not think that the 25 percent permeability numbers still hold up. I can't tell you for sure because there's so many numbers that we've seen since this started I can't even tell you today what numbers they're trying to present to you. I think you said 25.93. Anyway we don't believe those numbers hold up. I think it is probably clear that all of the neighbors that have addressed 15 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 this issue have been not in favor of proposal E. That has been uniform. I have to make some comments about F because F is still here, even though it isn't. In practicality in my mind. It's too big. It's too tall. It has all the ecrudaments of a second house because there's no suggestion made in here that they can't put plumbing in it. And the last thing we need on the point is another house. They talk about berm issues and tree issues and this, that and the other. There is currently a berm right where they are putting F and yet the back of this, as far as I can tell and you can correct me if I misread it, as far as I can tell they haven't taken advantage of that berm at all as they address the back end of F which is the part that points south which would be easily bermed to reduce the you know who knows what. 16 foot vertical to something you know around 12 feet. They just continue the berm. That hasn't been proposed and I really think that's indicative in my personal opinion of wanting to have a garage and not really caring what it's going to do to our lake. This is as far as I know the only point in Carver County. There's two on Lake Minnetonka and they're very wealthy people who are living on those two points. If you are a person of Minnewashta you know that if you're on the north side of the lake the way that you know that there is a south side of the lake is because when you get in the area of the point you can see through it. Once you fill it in it's just two lakes. It's just, it's not special anymore. It's just two lakes. I don't understand why the proposal authorizes the applicant to make a 24 foot wide road. What I heard today was that the widest of the new asphalt that's going to be laid, it will be 18 foot so why authorize a 24 foot wide road? Does anyone know? No one knows. Okay. Aanenson: Yep, we can answer a couple questions any time you'd like to. Aller: Why don't we answer that one now but now we're getting into things that we discussed the last time we were here too as well. Dave Bishop: No that wasn't. Aller: Which was the width of the road. Dave Bishop: With respect to the item E there was no discussion of how much they were going to extend the asphalt north and that was one of our complaints at that time was that we were asked to comment on stuff and there weren't even any proposals so I'm addressing the particular proposal that they're making I guess today and I'm wondering why are you authorizing 24 feet if you're saying that you're only going to take 18 feet. Aller: So are you saying that you would take, you would like F with 18 feet as opposed to 24? Dave Bishop: I would like either one but 24 is ridiculous. Aller: Then I understand your point. Dave Bishop: Good. 16 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: And do you have any other points that you'd like to make? Dave Bishop: My next point is, I understand that the little white knob just to the north of that E asphalt, which is a tum out. It's supposed to be a tum out. The purpose of that as I understand is so the fire department can get their stuff in this tiny little point, one lane road and get it turned around in the middle of a blizzard when there's a fire with 4 inches or 4 feet of snow on either side. Now they're going to have you know a almost equivalent amount of new asphalt in that area. Well currently the applicants park up to 6 cars here. When this gets built I don't see any indication why this new asphalt is just going to be more parking lot. If you put 4 cars in this area you're building, 2 cars in the tum around, there is no tum around so one of the requirements if, conditions of this we believe is that you should specify no parking because otherwise the whole purpose of this is just completely defeated. I don't understand this overhang thing. I listened to it. I do not understand it. What I think I heard them say is that their original proposal had 2 feet of overhang on the west side of E and then I heard them say we're going to make that only 1 foot. And then I think I heard them say we want to shift the 21 feet east. The whole 21 feet garage east a foot and then I think I heard them say if you do that that doesn't change the amount of encroachment in the setback but they said because of that we now want to make a bigger house because we want to fill in all the stuff inbetween the existing house to the north and the proposed garage E. My question is, if they can fill that in why don't they just move, make it less than 21 feet and just move the whole thing over. Aller: Any additional comments? Dave Bishop: All I can do I think is sum up and say this is, this has been a difficult issue for us. We have lived, Nelleke has lived here for a longer period of time than some of you are old. Everything is entitled to have some change but we are a country of rules and regulations and in two significant areas this one does not meet the requirements of the ordinance in our opinion. Even if it did the applicants have said we don't want to gore our own ox by cutting off our view so we gave you an F that nobody thinks is practical so instead let's gore the neighbor's ox. Cut off their view. You don't have to make that decision. You're not the judges of that issue. This is not a reasonable proposal. It's not necessary because they already have a garage. They just, it's just boarded up under their living room and this can all be addressed without ruining our view simply by denying this and allowing them to make changes without this request. Now if you are going to do this there are conditions that the City has proposed for these. One of these is the 18 feet and I've talked about that one. I think for F you should require berming. I think you should require it to be 21 by 21. I think you should limit to one story. I think you should limit it to a shed roof which would vastly decrease the height and the unattractiveness. I think that you should forbid them from putting water in there because if you don't do that this is just going to be a house for the children who want to come back or when it gets sold it's going to be a mother in law apartment and that is clearly not what the zoning variance process was intended to allow. Anything else? 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional individuals who weren't here or were here at the last hearing who would like to make comments regarding E and F? Seeing, oh I'm looking left. Susan Proshek: I was here but I didn't comment at that time. Aller: It's your tum. Ma'am if you could state your name and address for the record. Susan Proshek: Susan Proshek, 3613 Red Cedar Point. Aller: And we did get, so you know we did your email. Susan Proshek: Yeah. Right. Aller: What else would you like to say about E and F? Susan Proshek: Well I kind of agree with some of the things that he has mentioned. I was wondering why they have not considered opening up that old garage and making it into a garage again without having to, as I call. I mean I think it comprises the integrity of the point all of this actually. I would be very sorry to see all the trees go down. I think that's going to affect the green canopy on the point. So I'm, I just wonder about that. If that could be addressed why not use the old space that is I don't know, empty space or a part of the basement or whatever to put a couple cars in without having to have a whole other structure and all these things changed. I feel kind of sorry for the Knight property. It does impact their situation and that's it. Aller: Thank you. Additional comments. Any individual wishing to come forward speak for or against can do so at this time. Seeing none, would you like to come? I'm going to close for additional comments. Aanenson: Closing the non public hearing. Aller: The non public hearing. Aanenson: I just want to clarify a couple of things. There has been a number of variances out here. To say that things have been stagnant out here forever would be completely misleading so when someone came in to meet with us that's the first thing we say is you know, there was a garage a long, long time ago put on the property. We reviewed this with the city attorney. They have a right to come in and ask for another garage. We have houses in Carver Beach for example that are older houses that someone's remodeled. Taken the single car garage and someone else 10-15 years down the road comes in and asks for relief. We take those on a case by case. The city attorney agrees with our process on this and we've spoken to the previous speaker, the neighboring property about this and agree to disagree on that. There is a registered survey on this. If there's property disputes between the two property owners we can't resolve that here but we're going by the registered land survey that was submitted by the applicant. 18 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Again we did, the Fire Marshal has commented on the access regarding parking. No parking. They can get there. They have over time. We're not decreasing that at all. The road right-of- way. It's sub -standard out there today. What did you want to add? Ingvalson: So I know there's a couple other questions. First of all city code does not allow having a second livable space. There's very specific things you have to meet to be a livable space. Specifically having another kitchen, a living room and a bathroom facility. If those are not met it is not considered by our city code another livable space so that's something that when this would come forward, if it was proposed to have all these things met with the building construction plan, it would not be allowed by the building plan which is allowing a building permit for this which is a part of the conditions. Also there is some questions regarding the width of the road for the entrance. 10 to 24 feet is what is allowed by our city code at the entrance of a right-of-way off of a public. Off of public right-of-way so that was given as an area, we want to give this no narrower than 10 feet. However we want to give the option to also have it wider for the possibility of entering through, I know we've had multiple concerns here about access and about the width of this so it was given as a little bit of wiggle room and what was given to us was an 18 foot wide area which is larger than what's there existing. We thought that was a fair alternative. As we stated we also. Aller: So that's a plus for those individuals who wanted greater turn around. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: For safety. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: And it's also under the hardscape requirements by that amount. Ingvalson: Absolutely correct. We also had as Kate Aanenson also mentioned, the Fire Marshal was spoken with about this. They have reviewed it. The Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief have both spoken about it and they believe there is enough space for them to get an emergency vehicle over there and this alternative will not make that any more difficult. And then lastly for Option E the location, nope that was already discussed so that is all the questions I believe that were mentioned. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Madsen: Yes I have a question. Are there any parking rules that would apply to this private road area? Aanenson: It is a private road so they kind of manage it themselves. How they want to do it. Talking to the Fire Marshal, the Fire Chief, if they have to get down there they will. If they have 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • to move something out of the way, a car then they will. That's how it's managed. If you look out there at different times of the year there are people parking all different places. Preferably not on the road but maybe at the end when they don't need to have, nobody needs to go past the last house. They might have more freedom to park on the street itself but technically it should be kept open but there are other, you can see parking pads. People that have other sheds. Storage structures on the property on both sides so. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Additional questions. Yusuf. I have a question. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf In this affidavit that we were given, what does staff say about the status of this being a legal non -conformity? Aller: Or whether it matters. Aanenson: It doesn't matter. We believe that's not a factual interpretation of non -conforming. Non -conforming would be if you have an illegal structure like a dock that you haven't used for a number of years and we no longer allow that type of a dock. If you had a horse property, I mean you haven't put horses out on your property for a number of years then you've lost that right. We believe that interpretation of legal non -conforming that was proposed here tonight, that goes away on this, that doesn't apply to this type of structure. Just because it was vacant for a year. Yusuf Okay. Aller: Additional questions at this point? Okay, in light of that would the applicant like to make any additional comments or statements? If not that's fine. Gregg Geiger: Two points. One of the challenges here is that the neighbor's garage is so close to the property line right now and that's clearly causing some difficulties as far as his space is concerned so. The second point is that while there was a garage there and we recognize that fact, that it is now sunk and compared and relative to the road. To the roadway so about 18 inches or so and so it's not a case of simply opening the wall and driving a car in. There's things that would have to be done to the structure in general. Pat Mackey: I believe there's a photo in one of the site photos that shows the condition of what used to be by all accounts a functioning garage. I attribute it to the, and actually the white doors that you see in the right center of the photograph are not what used to be the garage door. What used to be the functioning garage door I believe is on the stoned in part of the very right edge of 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • the house. Yeah over there. At the time the property was built that was a reasonable spot to put the garage door. As the private road was built and as this low lying point was flooded and reflooded and reflooded, that existing garage which is now accessed through the white doors is approximately 5 to 5 % feet clear. You could fit in a nice Mazda Miata or a formula one race car in there. Other than that as a functional practical vehicle storage it just, it stopped being that many, many years ago. Well prior to the homeowners. Aller: That was going to be my question. My recollection is that you purchased this property in the condition it was in. You didn't close in a garage? Gregg Geiger: That's true, yes. Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you. Gregg Geiger: Thank you. Aller: Okay we'll open it up to the commissioners now for comment and discussion. Any feelings one way or the other? Hokkanen: Not right now. Oh I'm leaning towards E. Aller: It's time to try to cut the wheat from the shaft. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: E versus F. Hokkanen: E versus F even a smaller F. Aller: E versus F? Tietz: Yes. Aller: So we can move on pretty much to E it sounds like. I mean if you have feelings for F instead of E let us know. Yusuf: No, no. If the discussion on the table is E versus F then I'm leaning towards E. Aller: Okay. Because what I like to do is narrow it down to what may or may not work and so if we're going to take F off for all the reasons stated by the comments individuals made and comments others made as well as the actual application and then let's move on to E and. Hokkanen: Well I would like to note F, even a smaller version of F is not. 21 Chanhassen Planning Co• ission — September 15, 2015 • Aller: Is not acceptable to what you think would be. Hokkanen: For what. Aller: Okay, and obviously I've heard from everyone that this is quite a unique piece of property. In fact it's the only one in the county that's one a point and I think F in those statements was kind of knocked out because it is a view point and that would knock out that through view for sure and at least E we're dealing with something that's close to a structure and minimizes the view obstructions to all parties, whether they're on the water or on the land. Tietz: I agree. Aller: So with regard to E what are your feelings? Is it too big? Too small? Just right? Tietz: Well the mass of the building is actually pulled back a foot or more and the overhang is reduced by a foot, the overhang is really at the variance point that Drew has been explaining tonight so actually the mass of the building with the exception of the eave is further back then it was presented on the plans that we received. Integrating it into the house even though it's a difficult corner of the home to integrate it I think that there's more benefit then going with the F option. I think some of the F options that were discussed at the prior meeting, if it had been able to be pulled in really tight to the house, maybe that could have been interesting to look at but I understand the restrictions that the architect was working with and I think this is, this massing even though it's going to impact the house to a greater extent because roof lines are, you're going to have to open up more of the home to do this and then by pulling it in the air conditioning compressing unit and evidently the power incoming power would have to be re- routed to enclose that space but it looks like a reasonable solution. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: And then I want to direct us back to the I guess what we really need to discuss in the first point of view is do you believe that a variance was required here or that the comments made that an individual homeowner should be held to the standards and the requirements or actions of a prior owner. I think somebody buys the property in the state that it's in. Tietz: Well you're buying it as is. Aller: They did nothing to close it in. That would be a different story potentially but we don't even have to go there. So I don't see anything that shows me that the practical difficulties that they're having in utilizing their property as a result of the actions of the owners. Does anybody hear anything different or find anything different with that? Hokkanen: No I agree 22 Chanhassen Planning Co• ission — September 15, 2015 • Aller: As a Findings of Fact. And then you know one of the reasons that we have variances is so that we can look at unique properties and as much as we like to plan and zone we don't have the square boxes all lined up with a nice street here. It's messy out there and that's why variances are granted so I think this is a very unique property and that requirement is met as well. Does anybody disagree or have any? Tietz: No I think Drew's illustration of where variances have been issued over the years illustrates the complexity and the difficulty and working in today's world on a very narrow point with issues that have been there for 80 years. Aller: Okay, and I think we also look at fairness and what's the reasonable use of the property and I think it's fair to say that somebody in Minnesota and in this particular area that with all the individuals that have garages including the neighbors who got variances for garages, that they would be entitled to a variance for a garage. Hokkanen: Correct. Aller: And I don't believe that if we grant the variance that it would alter the nature of the neighborhood. Single family. You've got restrictions and limitations that are put on it which we're allowed to do by the variance code so I think that requirement is met as well. I think it's not detrimental and in fact it's aligned with the common zoning and the plan that we have in place. And I think the essential character is not changed if we grant the variance. I do believe that we should always look at whether or not a variance impairs adequate light and air and I think we've done that. I think Drew illustrated that pretty nicely with the overview and we're able to take into consideration that as well as the other photographs that were presented in the comment period and it looks to me as though the minimization when we look at the entire property, if we're going to grant one that this limits the and minimizes the obstruction to light and air for all the neighbors as well as from the water. I don't believe that granting the variance would substantially impair the traffic or create a hazard. In fact I think it's quite the opposite. If we're going to allow for more hard cover, it's going to allow for a greater turning radius and make it easier for garbage as well as safety vehicles to get in and out and access the point. So for all those reasons I would be in favor of granting E with the additional modifications that it be within the requested scope so that the eaves would then be included and how they do that, if they need to move things would be fine but they have to get the proper building permits. Submit them but they won't have to come back here for an additional variance. Ingvalson: If I may interrupt. That if you're looking at the recommended motion here, that would be just removing the 441 square foot portion of the motion. The rest of the setback that we have here would still be met with what sounds like what you've been going for here. Aller: Then let me ask you this as long as we're discussing the 441. Is that in addition to the 441? Then would it be a larger footprint? 23 Chanhassen Planning Cossion — September 15, 2015 • Aanenson: It may be slightly larger but it's still within that building envelope. It wouldn't get any closer to the neighbor. Aller: So what I want to do is make it clear that they can't exceed that building envelope. Aanenson: Correct. The only place it would potentially would be towards the house to take the HVAC and that air conditioning. The electrical panel would be the only place it would project. Aller: So we could make that a condition or an additional condition I think that would be. Ingvalson: I do not believe there'd be an additional condition required. If you're looking at here, the setbacks that we're going to be, variances that will be granted by this would be from this portion of the home so it couldn't be any farther south then here. Aller: Okay. Ingvalson: Also it couldn't be any farther to this property line this way to the west. Aller: Okay so that does. Ingvalson: And it would be also, and with what we have there with the motion taking away that area required 441, it would also not be allowing it any closer to the shoreland to the north. Aller: Because I want to make it clear to the neighbors and anyone else that we're not exceeding what has been presented in any form or fashion and that they're limited to juxtapose as necessary and required within that limitation. Does that make sense to everybody? Madsen: Would it limit the height as well so they could not? Aller: It would still be a two story in line with the roof structure. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Hokkanen: I'll propose a motion. Ready? Aller: Any additional questions or comments? I mean those are my comments. My feelings. Any additional? Hokkanen: No? Okay. Aller: Okay Commissioner Hokkanen has a motion. r�- Chanhassen Planning Co• ission — September 15, 2015 Hokkanen: I crossed it off. Okay. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Nelleke Knight: I have a question. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? We're voting thank you. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second and any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Nelleke Knight: Can I ask you something? When will that will go ... decision sort of? Aller: That's the decision. What you would want to do is if there's an appeal to be filed you would want to do that in writing. Aanenson: We will put together, we'll put together a written report to the applicant stating what the conditions and we'd be happy to share that with them. Nelleke Knight: When will those 4 days start? When would that be? Hokkanen: Tomorrow. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay we'll move on to item number 2 on the calendar. 25 r, -I L—A AFFIDAVIT of Maria Pieternella Knight Maria Pieternella Knight, on oath, deposes and states as follows: P 1. 1 live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd., Excelsior MN 55331, directly to the west of the applicant at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. 2. 1 bought this "adjacent" property in 1974 with my ex-spouse, and I have owned my residence now for more than 40 years. Consequently, I believe I have a lot of knowledge about the history of Red Cedar Point, the houses on the Point, and the owners of the various properties. I have personally observed the occupancy or lack of occupancy of the 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. property during the period material to this affidavit 3. I know that the owners of 3603 Red Cedar Point previous to the applicant vacated the property on November 1, 2012 and that occupation of the land or premises was discontinued from that date through August 2014. During that 20 -month period the property was unoccupied for more than one year. Therefore, I believe that the property is not legally non -conforming property under State and local statutes and ordinances, because it does not meet the requirements to be legally non -conforming property, including without limitation, Chanhassen Municipal Code Section 20.72 (a) which states: "Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) The ... occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year.... 4. 1 believe that applicants application constitutes impermissible expansion, intensification, replacement or structural changes of a structure on the premises, and applicant is not entitled to a variance because it is not a legal nonconforming use of the land or premises. I therefore believe that the variance that applicant is requesting must be denied. Subscribed and sworn before me This 15th day of September 2015 Notary Public: Further your affiant saith n Maria P. Knight t/lEft053Hk➢L3N01SS{WWt};<y vios3NNH • 3Mnd edvZN MEM NV3r V IAM SCANNED 0 AFFIDAVIT of Maria Pieternella Knight Maria Pieternella Knight, on oath, deposes and states as follows: 0 1. I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd., Excelsior MN 55331, directly to the west of the applicant at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. 2. 1 bought this "adjacent" property in 1974 with my ex-spouse, and I have owned my residence now for more than 40 years. Consequently, I believe I have a lot of knowledge about the history of Red Cedar Point, the houses on the Point, and the owners of the various properties. I have personally observed the occupancy or lack of occupancy of the 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. property during the period material to this affidavit 3. I know that the owners of 3603 Red Cedar Point previous to the applicant vacated the property on November 1, 2012 and that occupation of the land or premises was discontinued from that date through August 2014. During that 20 -month period the property was unoccupied for more than one year. Therefore, I believe that the property is not legally non -conforming property under State and local statutes and ordinances, because it does not meet the requirements to be legally non -conforming property, including without limitation, Chanhassen Municipal Code Section 20.72 (a) which states: "Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) The ... occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year.... " 4. 1 believe that applicants application constitutes impermissible expansion, intensification, replacement or structural changes of a structure on the premises, and applicant is not entitled to a variance because it is not a legal nonconforming use of the land or premises. I therefore believe that the variance that applicant is requesting must be denied. Subscribed and sworn before me This 15m day of September 2015 Notary Public: Further your ant saith n Z)2zWj&.z zz"�— Maria P. Knight u WWtU S:Wk1H N01S61nYVUa � v V10S3NNM • WSW AVVJQN XV3131 NV3r V GDNV 0 0 AFFIDAVIT of Maria Pieternella Knight Maria Pieternella Knight, on oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd., Excelsior MN 55331, directly to the west of the applicant at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. 2. 1 bought this "adjacent' property in 1974 with my ex-spouse, and I have owned my residence now for more than 40 years. Consequently, I believe I have a lot of knowledge about the history of Red Cedar Point, the houses on the Point, and the owners of the various properties. I have personally observed the occupancy or lack of occupancy of the 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. property during the period material to this affidavit 3. I know that the owners of 3603 Red Cedar Point previous to the applicant vacated the property on November 1, 2012 and that occupation of the land or premises was discontinued from that date through August 2014. During that 20 -month period the property was unoccupied for more than one year. Therefore, I believe that the property is not legally non -conforming property under State and local statutes and ordinances, because it does not meet the requirements to be legally non -conforming property, including without limitation, Chanhassen Municipal Code Section 20.72 (a) which states: "Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) The ... occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year.... " 4. I believe that applicants application constitutes impermissible expansion, intensification, replacement or structural changes of a structure on the premises, and applicant is not entitled to a variance because it is not a legal nonconforming use of the land or premises. I therefore believe that the variance that applicant is requesting must be denied. Subscribed and sworn before me This 15th day of September 2015 Notary Public: Further your affiant saith n Maria P. Knight tnr w 531 NOft WfiS AO. b VIOM 8VIW • xleftd A]iV19N % mal w3r v��N 0 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: M.P. Knight Frances Paap 3605 Red Cedar Point Road 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman and good evening Planning Commission. Please note that there is a submission that we have here from email from the previous submission that we had for this case stating essentially that they're from Susan Proshek stating that her family has been here for many years and owned a property at 3613 since the 1930's. This also states that they would definitely not be in favor of what was previously illustrated Option D which was on the west side of the home. Also stating that they would be open to one of the other options that were on the east side of the home as long as the proper setbacks and variances could be met. So this case as you stated before was brought to the Planning Commission on August 18, 2015 and this is looking for, it's seeking an expansion of an existing non -conformity variance request. Aller: For the record we have received a copy of the email and it will be attached on the copy of the record and if this matter goes to City Council then it will be attached there as well. Ingvalson: On the August 18, 2015 meeting the applicant proposed four locations for a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Staff recommended denial of the 4 locations with a recommendation of 2, of an alternative location if the Planning Commission deemed their request reasonable. The SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 applicant requested a 60 day extension to propose 2 new locations. Here's the location of 3603 Red Cedar Point. As you can see it has water on both the north and south side of the home from Lake Minnewashta. It's also, has a private road that cuts through the property. Here's an image of the home, this is facing on the northeast of the home on the north side of the private drive. Here's another image from the northwest of the home. The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. The legal non -conformities that we have for this property are with the front yard setback, the way this property is on a private drive the front yard per our city code is on this line will be the front property line. This far property line would be the rear yard and the other ones are required shoreland setbacks so the property meets the 75 foot shoreland setback from the north. However it does not meet the 75 foot shoreland setback from the south. It is 31 feet away from that setback and encroaches into the 30 foot front yard setback by 20.2 feet. 9.8 feet is where it currently sits from that property line. The property owner came originally looking for options for a variance originally seeking to put one on the north side of the private drive. Issues came up with that due to public utilities that go through that area. The sewer main and water main as you can see in red and blue. After realizing that there was an option to put the garage somewhere on the north, farther north towards the shoreland. This was difficult for staff to recommend approval for so that one we moved forward with other alternatives. The one that we have today are for Option E and for Option F. Option E is attached to the existing structure. Is a 21 foot by 21 foot. Also we have Option F which is a 23 foot by 27 foot. Both of these options will require additional pavement to be put down. For Option E pavement will be put down here to make a wider turn radius for vehicles going along with the private drive. It will be 18 feet shown in this radius. From the corner, this comer of the structure. Option F will also have pavement completed so that the driver will be able to back out of the garage and continue their way down the private drive. Also please note that these two options are not including the roof overhang that is being proposed in the architectural drawings that were submitted. These are for, these were what was submitted on the site plan so any additional, an additional variance would be required. Additional feet would be required for those overhangs of the structure. Option E. This is a 21 foot by 21 foot attached garage as seen here. You would load into the garage from the north. This location will require a variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to the south. As you can see here there will be a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and then also a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance from this far property line. This option will allow for a 15 foot building separation between this 3603 and the neighboring property. Hard cover on this will be needed on the north side of the road but hard cover will not exceed 25 percent. What has been proposed by the applicant will be 23.9 percent. No mature trees will be removed from this option due to there not being any trees located in this area and this structure being located completely on existing hard cover. Here is the location of Option E. Here is the adjacent property. There is a window that will be facing Option E. This line is the approximate location of where the corner of that Option E will be. Here's a view from that window just below it. Notice Option E will be located approximately the comer would be in this location. Here's a view of the viewscapes from the property. One of the concerns from our previous meeting would be the viewscapes lost of the lake by the construction of a 21 by 21 foot structure in that area. Notice that the red area is 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • the lake viewscape that will be effected by locating Option E. Blue is the viewscape that will not be affected by this option from that window that we previously looked at. Our ordinance reads that there's a 75 foot setback required from the lakeshore which will be met by Option E so as we look at that it's used for multiple purposes. One is for to protect environmental resources such as the lake but also to protect viewscapes from the public and in this situation to protect viewscapes from an adjacent neighbor to make sure the views are protected by that 75 foot setback which will be met by this option. Here are the architectural plans. Please note that the 21 foot would be for this area. Anything extending beyond that, any roof overhang would not be a part of the site plan that we looked at. That 21 foot. Any, to approve this it would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. That would be an addition to what is currently being shown on here in our plans. Here's Option F. This is for a 23 foot by 27 foot detached garage. The variance needed for this will be a 45.6 foot shoreland setback, a variance. This will also require the relocation of a fire hydrant so you can see this location will be the new fire hydrant location. The existing fire hydrant is in this area. This option will increase hard cover near the shoreland. The applicant proposes 24.9 percent hard cover. The maximum hard cover allowed by our city code is 25 percent. This is viewed to be possibly harmful to the environment and also to the viewscapes from public waters. Four mature trees will also be removed by this project. As you can see as in the image over here, you'll be loading again from the north and there will be additional hard cover required for this area, loading it and then also in this area for a turnout. Here's a look of the location for Option F. Option F will be approximately in this location. This picture was taken from the lake from the south side of the property so as you can see there is very little screening that will occur due to this structure being built. Here's a look, view from the private drive. This would be looking from the north to the south. Here's the subject home and this would be the approximate location of the structure and here is the fire hydrant that will need to be relocated for this option. Here are the architectural plans for Option F. Please note again that the 23 foot here and the 27 foot here are what was shown on the site plan. That is what was viewed by staff. Any, there'd be an additional variance, additional feet as the variance request to allow for these overhangs. Here are the additional architectural plans for Option F. This would be looking at the property. Here is the existing home and here's the detached structure. Furthermore to review this case we also looked at the surrounding neighborhood for this area. Properties within 500 feet of the subject site with a garage is one thing that was looked at by staff. Green properties are properties with a garage. Gray are ones that are without a garage. After review we found that there are 8 properties that have a garage and out of the properties within 500 feet of the subject site there are 3 that are without a garage. We also looked at the variances that were granted for properties in this area and then also ones that met the shoreland setback. All properties within this area have structures that do not meet the shoreland setback. Those are properties seen in red. The yellow property is included in the properties that don't meet the shoreland setback. We also looked at properties that have been granted variances. Ones with X's are ones that have a shoreland setback variance. Ones with squares are properties with a front or side yard setback variance. The majority of these were for single family homes. You can see multiple single family homes to build one there on lot. There are also 2 that were for garages and then also a couple one for a home addition and then another for a porch and deck. Another view of the neighborhood we looked at was properties within 500 feet of the 9 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 subject site that do not meet front, read or side yard setbacks. Looking here properties in red are ones that do not meet front and rear or side yard setbacks and the yellow one again is the subject property. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construction a two story, 441 square foot attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. There are conditions with this. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. After speaking with the applicant's architect there were some alternatives that they might be presenting tonight to you for Option E due to those overhangs. Possibly putting some sort of, moving the structure over here which would still could use the proposed motion with the square footage and also the setbacks would not change but those will be presented here later tonight. At this point I'm open for any questions. Aller: Any questions from anyone at this point? Second time through. Very thorough. Good job. Any questions? Hokkanen: No. Aller: Okay. Alright. The applicant, if the applicant would like to come forward and tell us about the project. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger. I'm the resident at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Pat Mackey: My name is Pat Mackey with Mackey Malin Architects. We're the designers. Aller: Welcome. Gregg Geiger: Per instructions from the last meeting we're presenting what we considered new information that's in addition to what we presented at the previous meeting so we'll go forward here. What we are. Oh I'm sorry. So during the July meeting as was just presented we had 4 options that were indicated on the south side of the road and there was one option that was brought forth by staff and so those are now identified as Options E and F and we're retaining those just a note that we have been looking at several options here. In this particular presentation we are going to do 2 things. We're going to talk about the drawings of the garage and we're also going to give you some considerations from our perspective as to the impact on the land and such. So onward please Drew. These are the option locations as have been discussed before. The house is outlined in blue. Option E is to the left of this particular view and Option F is 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 highlighted in a purple. What we've also done here is indicate by red markings the trees that we believe are going to be negatively impacted by Option F and those are indicated right there. There are also a couple big trees and we'll talk about this in a little bit. The orange outlines there. The one orange outline and the question we really have. The orange, the one on the southeast side of the house there, it's right up against the house and as we'll discuss it's about a 4 foot diameter based tree and plus it has a considerable canopy so it's, it's a big tree. We know it will just be shown here on the particular survey drawing. So what Pat is going to go through now the drawings of the house and just discuss some of those features there. Pat Mackey: Thank you. This is north and west elevations of the existing house with the adjacent neighbor's house shown for context taken from the survey and from site photographs. You can kind of get the general layout of the existing house as kind of a multi load structure that's probably been added onto several times but generally stick holds together in a consistent form. Next if you could Drew. What we've shown here is how an attached garage would manifest itself onto the existing house. I think we're able to work with the existing roof lines. The existing interior layout of the house and achieve a massing that's compatible with the existing house. Compatible with the scale of the surrounding structures and the neighborhood in general. Again this is a 2 story. It's not simply the garage but it's space above for additional living space for the homeowners. These images show the overhangs which as Drew pointed out, since it came to light that the overhangs were not going to be accommodated in the structure, these would be modified to suck that wall of the house back so that the overhangs obey the variance. We're not interested in pursuing an additional variance for simply the overhangs. So it would be slightly narrower as shown in the top drawing and slightly shallower as shown in the bottom drawing. Aller: So I understand you, you're going to reduce the actual footprint of the garage to allow for the space that you've requested? Pat Mackey: Correct. Next one if you could Drew. If we could I'd like to stick to Option E first. Sorry Drew and back up to maybe the site plan. What, to accommodate kind of the pulling back the walls to meet, you know to allow a now reduced overhang, we can do several things to reduce the overhang and that impact you know on the variances that we're requesting. We can reduce the length of the overhang to something like 1 foot which they're currently shown at 2. We could put the overhangs to 1 foot or less and then pull the garage wall back that foot so that the overhangs obey the setbacks. What that does though is, it takes 21 by 21 foot garage which needs to accommodate 2 cars and a short slight of interior stairs to get to the house level. It makes it very, very tight on a practical basis as a 2 car garage so what we would request is you can see to the right of E, the letter E on the garage there's a gap there that's currently occupied by an existing air conditioner. Air conditioning equipment and electrical equipment. During the course of construction of the garage we would propose to move those to a spot allowed and fill in that gap just to get the additional use of the garage. The thing, the only impact that has as Drew pointed out is the only constraint then that changes is in the staff recommendation there's the figure of 441 square feet. We would ask for an increase on that but the exact same setbacks. 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Exact same hard cover percentage, etc. It's just we can obey 2 or 3 of those constraints but if we're constrained on 4 dimensions we're going to have a hard time making this work. Gregg Geiger: It seems, if I may, from a geometry point of view if you bring that back a little ways. Audience: Excuse me, we can't hear at all back here. Could you ask them to speak up? Aller: If you could just speak into the microphone so that they can hear that would be great. Gregg Geiger: If you look at it from a geometry point of view it seems like if you would bring it back that additional foot and start doing what Pat just described then it will probably move that northwest comer a little bit closer actually out of the driveway. Existing driveway space so there are advantages to that even. Pat Mackey: Exactly. It brings, the diagram that Drew showed with the vision cones, it actually brings this garage further, tighter to the existing house reducing that by the amount of the overhangs. Aller: If I can interrupt again. You've got mechanical equipment inside that space now. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Where would you propose you put it and would it be a hard cover pad? Pat Mackey: It would be a hard cover pad. It would likely be on an existing piece of hard cover that's, there's plenty of it existing out onto the east side of the house or if we can accommodate, it's really just the. Gregg Geiger: It's the air conditioner. Pat Mackey: Air conditioner and that's it. Everything else could be, is wall mounted or could be taken inside the house. Aller: So, and my question goes the intention of, I don't want to consider something that takes that and just adds it to the hard cover so that you move and you have another pad somewhere else and then we've lost that ability to say you've got 29.4 all of a sudden is above 30. Pat Mackey: Correct. If we have, this came to light today so we haven't had a chance to fully parch through the options. The first option of course would be to find existing hard cover to place that on or if it were required to put this on current non -hard cover then we would just simply reduce whatever is necessary. Probably structure because drive is something you can't just take away without consequence by the 9 or so square feet that the pad would require. 0 ' • Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. If we want to just follow through on F, I think if it hasn't been stated I think it seems clear that that Option E is preferred for a number of reasons. Probably most significant to feel of what's happening in the area is this shows it better than the site plan does but if Option F were pursued it's cutting back into a fairly pronounced berm. Natural berm or what's become a natural berm that probably contains more roots than soil and would I think undoubtedly cause not damage but destruction to the existing mature trees in the area. It just, we haven't you know, I'm not an arborist but I can't imagine those trees faring well with Option F. Gregg Geiger: So then this is a picture of looking at Option F where we tried to highlight in red the trees that would be cut down as a result of trying to do that. And so the view on the left is from the northeast comer and the view from the south, or the view on the right is from the southwest corner so they're kind of looking at each other. Again the red trees and I've indicated as best as I can of approximate heights so those are, the red trees are give or take as best as I can tell. The yellow line then represents the large, the 4 foot diameter tree that is immediately adjacent to the corner of the house there and on the right hand view then you can see the 2 trees and the one tree on the far right is not shown on the left view but that's the tree that is on or on or very close to the existing hard cover. The berm area that was near the old oil tank. I have a question mark, oh I'm sorry Drew. I have a question mark on the one tree there towards the, what we consider the front of the house there. It's a very large tree that again as Pat has indicated there's probably a lot of root system in there that would be challenged by the addition of Option F. The one yellow tree I want to mention real quickly the canopy. So the canopy goes almost to the, within several feet of the shoreline so it goes from the house to the shoreline and it covers in addition several other trees that are in the what we consider the back yard. Okay next one. So here then are the considerations then for Option E just as we see the pros and cons. The pros are that really, even though we've discussed a couple hard cover considerations for replacement or change in location for the air conditioning unit there's substantively there's not a real hard cover increase here. There's no movement of a fire hydrant. No trees are affected and it does include the current parking area so there's not, from a functional point of view there's not a big change here. The cons are that it would require a significant change to the house. There's no doubt about that and there will be a slight driveway adjustment that's required. Then from Option F's point of view there would be no change to the current home. To the house and the structure and that is clearly a good thing. It does have a larger plan area so it will impact the yard, the lawn and the plot area in some way. The cons are that trees will be removed and as we've discussed there's significant trees that are, if they aren't torn down they will be, they will be affected. It will move the fire hydrant across the driveway. We will add to existing hard cover there and we will be digging very near a previous oil tank. Pat indicated that there is that rise. That berm area that's adjacent to the house that runs, runs east and west and we will be digging into that berm area so there's going to be something that will happen to the water runoff or we will have to adjust, accommodate that. And that's all we have for our presentation. Thank you. 7 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you. Questions at this point? Questions over here? Any questions? Madsen: I do have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: On Option E there's currently a turn around located near the home there. Gregg Geiger: Yes. Madsen: Would that remain or would that be removed with Option E? Gregg Geiger: So you're, yeah where Drew is indicating right now. Madsen: Yes. Gregg Geiger: That will remain. Madsen: That would remain. So if the hard cover expanse issue became a concern because of the air conditioner could that be reduced so that there would be no increase? Gregg Geiger: Certainly. It's a question for a fire truck. Ingvalson: The property is actually going to be, is significantly under hard cover there, with this proposal that they would be doing with this additional of hard cover put on there it'd be at 23.9 so still 1 percent hard cover would be available per our city code and would be open for replacement. Madsen: Okay, thank you for that clarification Drew. Aller: Thank you Drew. I had it at 29.3 in my mind so. Any additional questions? Clarifications. Thank you. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Aller: Okay we're going to open up the public hearing portion of this. Aanenson: Mr. Chair we've already had a public hearing. Legally you cannot open another public hearing. If you choose to take comments you may but I would not open a public hearing. Aller: Let's do this. I had that in my mind, thank you. Because we've already had a public hearing on this I do want to entertain comments from individuals and certainly individuals that 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 were not present at the last hearing on this, on the properties and the suggestions which are now E and F so that we can hear comments from the public so we certainly want to hear those so I'll open it up to comments from the public on E and F and any individual who was not present at the last hearing I'd like to hear first and then any other individual that would like to comment at that point in time would be great so any individual that was not here that would like to make a comment, if you could please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we'd love to hear your opinions. Frances Paap: Hi, my name is Frances Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point. Aller: Welcome. Frances Paap: Thank you. I just have a couple of comments for consideration. Whether we're looking at Option E or Option F and really those are just to make sure that we're looking for enough variance for delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. I know today in the current structure we do, that issue does exist where we've had you know like our garbage service, we've been cancelled by people and things like that because there's just not a lot of turn around so just a comment that if we can keep that in mind I would really appreciate that. Same with emergency vehicles. If there's enough space for them to get in and out in case something were to occur, that we leave enough hard cover for those folks to tum around. And the reason why I bring up garbage is because our house got hit already this year and so just, that's a concern of mine. Other than that. Aller: I'm just going to ask you. Frances Paap: I'm sorry. Aller: If we could bring up where the lots are. If you could point out. Frances Paap: Oh sure. We're at the very end. We're at the point. Aller: Oh you're just on the end. Frances Paap: Yeah. So we're to the east. Aller: I just want for everyone here so we can see this is where you are so when you're discussing this everybody gets a better picture of what you're talking about. Frances Paap: Okay, sorry. Yeah so we're at the very end so when, you know when trucks come down they do have to come the whole entire way to get to our property and so we just, just want to be sure that there's ample room for folks to get in and get out and not have any damage to the property or damage along the way because it is pretty tight today. So really that's my only comments unless anybody would like to ask me a question. 0 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: I think that's fine. Aanenson: Can we answer that question briefly? Aller: Absolutely. Aanenson: You want to go to the site please. Ingvalson: For Option E we have discussed with the Fire Marshal here at the City and discussed any concerns that they would have when these options came through first for the first round and then also for this round of options. The option that we have here is going to actually make a wider distance then what is currently existing here on this option. One of their concerns that he had also was making sure that the road was not reduced in any way for size for emergency vehicles. Also that this area was left open even though it is a private road. That this be left open for turnout. After speaking with our Fire Marshal and also with our Fire Chief they said as long as the road is maintained at the 10 foot wide width that it's currently at they believe that will be sufficient for them to get their emergency vehicles down there so essentially keeping it as it is and not reducing it in any way and what we have proposed is actually to have it wider. A wider tum around this home than is currently there. The radius here is 18 feet. The existing one throughout this area I believe the widest it averages around 10 feet. Aller: And then on Option F where there's a dark gray area, is that proposed additional? Ingvalson: Absolutely so that is a proposed additional area. However the road will not change. There's some main roadway left. Aller: So right now that would just be the roadway, not the gray area. Ingvalson: Correct. The road, the gray area is what will be added on mainly to access F. Then also for when you're backing out of F to come out of here instead of going out onto the grass when you back out. So this width will not be reduced in any way. It will actually be slightly expanded in this area as you drive through, and then also for E will also be expanded. Tietz: Drew this might be a question or Alyson. Are there standards for private roads to support garbage trucks and fire trucks? Aanenson: There is. This is a legal non -conforming so it's not decreasing the situation. In fact we're trying to increase it with the recommendations on E. Tietz: I'm talking about base and construction. Aanenson: Yes. Yep, Yep. 10 F 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Typically for a private street it's 7 ton design and 30 foot right-of-way, 20 foot of pavement width but this does not meet that and so this house with the variance is not going to be able to solve the problem for the whole neighborhood. Aller: This whole point was non -conforming. Aanenson: That's correct so what we're doing is not reducing it but trying to improve it especially on that radius. Aller: And as a result of the request for the variance, whether it's E or F that will then be increased or maintained at the widest level. Aanenson: That's correct. Aller: And so that is what's before us today. I suppose if it was granted then the neighbors right and left could take it upon themselves to make sure that their portions of the drive were wider as well so that would just be something to consider as a neighborhood or as individuals. Frances Paap: Okay so our easement, we have the easement to get through but all the way to the property line is right at the very end so the rest of that drive, as residents we don't have control over. We start right at our mailbox and then have a drive so that's why there's just the concern there because we don't have control over any of the other. Aller: Great. Frances Paap: Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any other individuals that were not present at the last hearing? Okay moving forward to individuals that were at the last hearing that would like to comment on items E and F or plans E and F as proposed tonight? Good evening. Nelleke Knight: Nelleke Knight. I live at 3605. Aller: Welcome. Dave Bishop: My name's Dave Bishop and I'm the same. Aller: Welcome. 11 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Nelleke speaks English but not as good as some of us and so I'm going to be doing some, most of the talking but please direct your questions to her if you wish to talk to the owner who's lived there for 41 years. Many times today people have referred to this as a, I think they call it at the beginning of this document that you guys had, the principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity. We don't think it is a legal non -conformity and, I'm handing out to you the Affidavit of Maria Knight who's standing next to me. You can read it yourselves and I won't bore you with the gist of it but with other than the gist of it which is to say your ordinance is very clear that non -conforming properties only include those that have been unoccupied, that have not failed the criteria of being unoccupied for more than a year. This property fails that criteria because it was unoccupied from the time the last people left it pursuant to or just prior to a foreclosure and the time that the current owner bought it. It's not an issue of abandonment. It's an issue of not occupied. Occupied requiring human beings. Because it does not fit that Nelleke's feeling, this is Nelleke Knight. That's her nickname. Maria and I both feel that this august body is not empowered to grant this variance and for these exact same reasons should not. Just plain should not grant it. Now this is, I'm not going to repeat any of the stuff that described in our prior hearing. I know that there's a transcript of this and I know that you've read that. Other than to say that we in addition to what I've presented to you now continue to believe that the variance is improper because the property already had a garage and as a result of that it is a request that is being made because of a situation that was caused by the property owners themselves and it's our position that they inherit the actions of the prior property owners because zoning runs with the land. Now in addition to that it is clear that the least burdensome, most reasonable alternative if 2 car garage has to be on this site is to simply reopen the 2 car garage that's already there. The one that they covered up. That doesn't require you know any setback changes. It doesn't require, in fact there is no zoning change that would be required at all if they would simply reopen their garage and it is unreasonable, it's improper and we think it's prejudice to us as the next door neighbors. I didn't say it but we live just to the west, for them to build. You know cover up the garage. Build another garage and I assume when they, if they flip this. It's their tenth house. If they flip this one and the next guys come in, you know somebody will cover up this garage and we're right back here for another garage. How many garages, how many times can you play this game and the answer I think is set up in the ordinance. You can do it once. If you have a garage you're entitled to keep your garage. If you decide to tum your garage into another use, you're not entitled to have a zoning variance for that garage. Now those are two reasons we think you cannot and should not do this. I also have comments, we have comments about the two proposals that are here. The, we feel that this is like a constantly chronic moving target. We had A. We had B. Then we had C and then we had D. The applicant never even suggested E but the City came up with E. Then you guys suggested taking C and moving it over to the west and they did that but it's clear from what they said here that they've abandoned F. They've given you 20 minutes of why they don't want to do F. At the last meeting you members were very clear that you wanted a proposal of F that had the same footprint of Drew's suggestion for E. 21 by 21. The applicant decided to ignore you. What they suggested was essentially a Taj Mahal. Three car garage with a living space up above and the complaint that if you force them to do this they won't like it very much and they'll have to take down a lot of their trees. Because C was their first pick when we were last here. 12 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Let's stick with E and F please. Dave Bishop: I am, I find it disingenuous that they are making the exact opposite argument today that they made to you the time before, which is what they're now doing. They're saying yeah, you told us we had to come up with F so here's F. Then here's all our reasons why if you make us do this it's such a bad thing and so now we're left with E. Which is right next to us and Drew would you mind going back to that little cone of obstruction that you put together? This is the fust time I've seen it and so I'm a little unclear about it. The first question I have is, because of the way the site plan is built I can't tell whether this proposal for E is flush with the south side of the existing property or whether it's in fact sticking out. Can anybody enlighten me about that? Understand what I'm saying? If you look at this thing it's impossible to tell whether the south side of the existing house and the south side of E are parallel to each other or whether one is bumped out. Ingvalson: If I may answer that. Aller: Yes. Ingvalson: The green should be approximately across with this. Aanenson: Flush. Ingvalson: Flush with it across with this. Obviously using the equipment that we have here at the City I did this to show the closest representation that we can to show what sort of viewscape was lost. That's why this was done on an aerial image. Not done on a survey or something along that. It would maybe give us more accurate lines of where this would be but possibly wouldn't give us the same view of what sort of trees are possibly in the way. Possibly where these homes lie. Things like that so that's why it was done on an aerial image. And this was also a part of the packet in the staff report. Dave Bishop: What I, the other thing that I don't understand is I think that I've heard in the presentation that none of that red stuff is any, in any area affected by the 75 foot setback and if I've heard that correctly I'd like to know how that applies say at the right side of the property. Aller: Drew could you just tell me where the 75 foot setback would be. Ingvalson: Sure. So the 75 foot setback is if you look at previous submittals for the, this is right here. Across the front of this house. Continuing across the front of E. Aller: So E would meet the 75 foot setback? Ingvalson: Correct. Correct and that would be without any overhangs. 13 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Dave Bishop: Well E would meet the setback but the, your zone of red is within that 75 foot area right? So, I don't want any people to be mistaken that that zone of red isn't in fact covering up the area that the 75, that encompasses the 75 foot part of the setback. Ingvalson: Chairman if I may. Aller: Sure. Ingvalson: The red is shown simply to show the viewscape that would be lost from that window. It is not a part of the, it's showing nothing with the 75 foot. Simply to show viewscapes. Viewscapes of what will be lost potentially by a structure that is built within this area that would meet the 75 foot setback. I know that this isn't perfectly to scale. As you can see this was done on a Word document so this was done simply to show the viewscape that would be affected by, and then also showing the viewscape that would not be affected. Nothing to do with the 75 foot setback. What was simply noted earlier I believe was what, the 75 foot setback is on our, in our city code to protect multiple things. Protect number one, to protect the environment but also to protect viewscape. Viewscapes of people from the public and also property owners. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: Drew could you turn this on so that the members can see this? That red cone it, I mean because it's an illustration it just, it's like a, kind of a gross description of reality okay so this is our actual living room window. This is what they're taking away from us if your proposal is, if their proposal would be approved by you. In fact this understates it because now I understand that there are, or I think I understand that there are overhangs and in fact that white mark is less than 21 feet from the existing building so you in your own minds just have to bump it a little over to the left. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I asked Drew to put that slide in because we've had a lot of discussions about what's appropriate view shed and this came up a number of years ago on actually on Minnewashta Lake where we had houses that were built on septic and well and they came up with the theory that if you were to do an addition, while you could go to 75 feet but your neighbor was sitting back you know 100 plus that you had to meet that and that just seemed unreasonable because as people changed ownership they might not of wanted to be held to that same standard so that was put in place for not too many years when it seemed really inappropriate to try to match that uneven way to go so I asked Drew to put this slide in to show that what is the expectation that you need a 360 view of the lake? Is it in front and behind or what's reasonable so looking at this the intent was to show. You can see the side window there. The majority of view is out the front and out your back. That yes you will have some obstruction of your view. Of the 360 but we were trying to show illustratively that the majority of view is still looking out the front is still there. Yes you will have some compromise but that's not the majority of your view shed. 14 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: And I appreciate both your points because I believe that it's a, although it might not be controlling it's certainly one of the things that should be looked at is the neighbor's view and the aesthetics and how, the impact on the neighborhood when we look at these variances so now we have photographs that we've seen on both sides so any additional comments or information on E? Dave Bishop: Yes I do. Drew could you show them this picture please? Aanenson: Oh just go over here. Dave Bishop: Okay, I mean the implicit assumption of what you just heard was that nobody cares about the views on this property unless they're inside the house and we disagree with that adamantly. This is the area where they want to build this. This is the view from Nelleke's property and this, and I'm sorry I can't put it in black because I also had to Photoshop this, is a representation. We don't, we never had any elevation so I have to make it you know based on what we have heard so far. This is an estimation of how much it will be blocked out. Now some people will say well okay, you've lost this much of blocking out. You know you have all these other areas that you can look at. We disagree. We feel that you know this view has been available to Nelleke since 1974 and it, we find this difficult because in the July 22 letter that the architects sent to you on this C, which has now become F the fundamental complaint that I can get from that is they didn't want, I'm sorry from A to F. It's basically the same area as where F is, is that they didn't want to do that because it would hurt their view out of their house and now we have F, the alternative and they've got 64 reasons why they think it's a bad idea. The only thing they didn't tell you is what they told you on June 24th. They don't want to do it because it will hurt their view and so for us this is a very frank issue of whose ox are you going to gore. Aller: Any last additional comments? Dave Bishop: The descriptions that we heard today were impacted on the issue of, is this upside down? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: It's hard for me to see, sorry. Impacted on the issue of whether or not the impermeable property requirements have been met. You should know that both the first neighbor who spoke and I, or we dispute the property descriptions that the applicant has put in. They have taken this part from the neighbors to the east and they have taken this part from the neighbors to the west and after you subtract that approximately 500 square feet or so I do not think that the 25 percent permeability numbers still hold up. I can't tell you for sure because there's so many numbers that we've seen since this started I can't even tell you today what numbers they're trying to present to you. I think you said 25.93. Anyway we don't believe those numbers hold up. I think it is probably clear that all of the neighbors that have addressed 15 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 this issue have been not in favor of proposal E. That has been uniform. I have to make some comments about F because F is still here, even though it isn't. In practicality in my mind. It's too big. It's too tall. It has all the ecrudaments of a second house because there's no suggestion made in here that they can't put plumbing in it. And the last thing we need on the point is another house. They talk about berm issues and tree issues and this, that and the other. There is currently a berm right where they are putting F and yet the back of this, as far as I can tell and you can correct me if I misread it, as far as I can tell they haven't taken advantage of that berm at all as they address the back end of F which is the part that points south which would be easily bermed to reduce the you know who knows what. 16 foot vertical to something you know around 12 feet. They just continue the berm. That hasn't been proposed and I really think that's indicative in my personal opinion of wanting to have a garage and not really caring what it's going to do to our lake. This is as far as I know the only point in Carver County. There's two on Lake Minnetonka and they're very wealthy people who are living on those two points. If you are a person of Minnewashta you know that if you're on the north side of the lake the way that you know that there is a south side of the lake is because when you get in the area of the point you can see through it. Once you fill it in it's just two lakes. It's just, it's not special anymore. It's just two lakes. I don't understand why the proposal authorizes the applicant to make a 24 foot wide road. What I heard today was that the widest of the new asphalt that's going to be laid, it will be 18 foot so why authorize a 24 foot wide road? Does anyone know? No one knows. Okay. Aanenson: Yep, we can answer a couple questions any time you'd like to. Aller: Why don't we answer that one now but now we're getting into things that we discussed the last time we were here too as well. Dave Bishop: No that wasn't. Aller: Which was the width of the road. Dave Bishop: With respect to the item E there was no discussion of how much they were going to extend the asphalt north and that was one of our complaints at that time was that we were asked to comment on stuff and there weren't even any proposals so I'm addressing the particular proposal that they're making I guess today and I'm wondering why are you authorizing 24 feet if you're saying that you're only going to take 18 feet. Aller: So are you saying that you would take, you would like F with 18 feet as opposed to 24? Dave Bishop: I would like either one but 24 is ridiculous. Aller: Then I understand your point. Dave Bishop: Good. 16 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: And do you have any other points that you'd like to make? Dave Bishop: My next point is, I understand that the little white knob just to the north of that E asphalt, which is a turn out. It's supposed to be a turn out. The purpose of that as I understand is so the fire department can get their stuff in this tiny little point, one lane road and get it turned around in the middle of a blizzard when there's a fire with 4 inches or 4 feet of snow on either side. Now they're going to have you know a almost equivalent amount of new asphalt in that area. Well currently the applicants park up to 6 cars here. When this gets built I don't see any indication why this new asphalt is just going to be more parking lot. If you put 4 cars in this area you're building, 2 cars in the turn around, there is no tum around so one of the requirements if, conditions of this we believe is that you should specify no parking because otherwise the whole purpose of this is just completely defeated. I don't understand this overhang thing. I listened to it. I do not understand it. What I think I heard them say is that their original proposal had 2 feet of overhang on the west side of E and then I heard them say we're going to make that only 1 foot. And then I think I heard them say we want to shift the 21 feet east. The whole 21 feet garage east a foot and then I think I heard them say if you do that that doesn't change the amount of encroachment in the setback but they said because of that we now want to make a bigger house because we want to fill in all the stuff inbetween the existing house to the north and the proposed garage E. My question is, if they can fill that in why don't they just move, make it less than 21 feet and just move the whole thing over. Aller: Any additional comments? Dave Bishop: All I can do I think is sum up and say this is, this has been a difficult issue for us. We have lived, Nelleke has lived here for a longer period of time than some of you are old. Everything is entitled to have some change but we are a country of rules and regulations and in two significant areas this one does not meet the requirements of the ordinance in our opinion. Even if it did the applicants have said we don't want to gore our own ox by cutting off our view so we gave you an F that nobody thinks is practical so instead let's gore the neighbor's ox. Cut off their view. You don't have to make that decision. You're not the judges of that issue. This is not a reasonable proposal. It's not necessary because they already have a garage. They just, it's just boarded up under their living room and this can all be addressed without ruining our view simply by denying this and allowing them to make changes without this request. Now if you are going to do this there are conditions that the City has proposed for these. One of these is the 18 feet and I've talked about that one. I think for F you should require berming. I think you should require it to be 21 by 21. I think you should limit to one story. I think you should limit it to a shed roof which would vastly decrease the height and the unattractiveness. I think that you should forbid them from putting water in there because if you don't do that this is just going to be a house for the children who want to come back or when it gets sold it's going to be a mother in law apartment and that is clearly not what the zoning variance process was intended to allow. Anything else? 17 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Thank you very much. Any additional individuals who weren't here or were here at the last hearing who would like to make comments regarding E and F? Seeing, oh I'm looking left. Susan Proshek: I was here but I didn't comment at that time. Aller: It's your turn. Ma'am if you could state your name and address for the record. Susan Proshek: Susan Proshek, 3613 Red Cedar Point. Aller: And we did get, so you know we did your email. Susan Proshek: Yeah. Right. Aller: What else would you like to say about E and F? Susan Proshek: Well I kind of agree with some of the things that he has mentioned. I was wondering why they have not considered opening up that old garage and making it into a garage again without having to, as I call. I mean I think it comprises the integrity of the point all of this actually. I would be very sorry to see all the trees go down. I think that's going to affect the green canopy on the point. So I'm, I just wonder about that. If that could be addressed why not use the old space that is I don't know, empty space or a part of the basement or whatever to put a couple cars in without having to have a whole other structure and all these things changed. I feel kind of sorry for the Knight property. It does impact their situation and that's it. Aller: Thank you. Additional comments. Any individual wishing to come forward speak for or against can do so at this time. Seeing none, would you like to come? I'm going to close for additional comments. Aanenson: Closing the non public hearing. Aller: The non public hearing. Aanenson: I just want to clarify a couple of things. There has been a number of variances out here. To say that things have been stagnant out here forever would be completely misleading so when someone came in to meet with us that's the first thing we say is you know, there was a garage a long, long time ago put on the property. We reviewed this with the city attorney. They have a right to come in and ask for another garage. We have houses in Carver Beach for example that are older houses that someone's remodeled. Taken the single car garage and someone else 10-15 years down the road comes in and asks for relief. We take those on a case by case. The city attorney agrees with our process on this and we've spoken to the previous speaker, the neighboring property about this and agree to disagree on that. There is a registered survey on this. If there's property disputes between the two property owners we can't resolve that here but we're going by the registered land survey that was submitted by the applicant. U 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Again we did, the Fire Marshal has commented on the access regarding parking. No parking. They can get there. They have over time. We're not decreasing that at all. The road right-of- way. It's sub -standard out there today. What did you want to add? Ingvalson: So I know there's a couple other questions. First of all city code does not allow having a second livable space. There's very specific things you have to meet to be a livable space. Specifically having another kitchen, a living room and a bathroom facility. If those are not met it is not considered by our city code another livable space so that's something that when this would come forward, if it was proposed to have all these things met with the building construction plan, it would not be allowed by the building plan which is allowing a building permit for this which is a part of the conditions. Also there is some questions regarding the width of the road for the entrance. 10 to 24 feet is what is allowed by our city code at the entrance of a right-of-way off of a public. Off of public right-of-way so that was given as an area, we want to give this no narrower than 10 feet. However we want to give the option to also have it wider for the possibility of entering through, I know we've had multiple concerns here about access and about the width of this so it was given as a little bit of wiggle room and what was given to us was an 18 foot wide area which is larger than what's there existing. We thought that was a fair alternative. As we stated we also. Aller: So that's a plus for those individuals who wanted greater turn around. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: For safety. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: And it's also under the hardscape requirements by that amount. Ingvalson: Absolutely correct. We also had as Kate Aanenson also mentioned, the Fire Marshal was spoken with about this. They have reviewed it. The Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief have both spoken about it and they believe there is enough space for them to get an emergency vehicle over there and this alternative will not make that any more difficult. And then lastly for Option E the location, nope that was already discussed so that is all the questions I believe that were mentioned. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Madsen: Yes I have a question. Are there any parking rules that would apply to this private road area? Aanenson: It is a private road so they kind of manage it themselves. How they want to do it. Talking to the Fire Marshal, the Fire Chief, if they have to get down there they will. If they have ILS 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 to move something out of the way, a car then they will. That's how it's managed. If you look out there at different times of the year there are people parking all different places. Preferably not on the road but maybe at the end when they don't need to have, nobody needs to go past the last house. They might have more freedom to park on the street itself but technically it should be kept open but there are other, you can see parking pads. People that have other sheds. Storage structures on the property on both sides so. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Additional questions. Yusuf. I have a question. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: In this affidavit that we were given, what does staff say about the status of this being a legal non -conformity? Aller: Or whether it matters. Aanenson: It doesn't matter. We believe that's not a factual interpretation of non -conforming. Non -conforming would be if you have an illegal structure like a dock that you haven't used for a number of years and we no longer allow that type of a dock. If you had a horse property, I mean you haven't put horses out on your property for a number of years then you've lost that right. We believe that interpretation of legal non -conforming that was proposed here tonight, that goes away on this, that doesn't apply to this type of structure. Just because it was vacant for a year. Yusuf. Okay. Aller: Additional questions at this point? Okay, in light of that would the applicant like to make any additional comments or statements? If not that's fine. Gregg Geiger: Two points. One of the challenges here is that the neighbor's garage is so close to the property line right now and that's clearly causing some difficulties as far as his space is concerned so. The second point is that while there was a garage there and we recognize that fact, that it is now sunk and compared and relative to the road. To the roadway so about 18 inches or so and so it's not a case of simply opening the wall and driving a car in. There's things that would have to be done to the structure in general. Pat Mackey: I believe there's a photo in one of the site photos that shows the condition of what used to be by all accounts a functioning garage. I attribute it to the, and actually the white doors that you see in the right center of the photograph are not what used to be the garage door. What used to be the functioning garage door I believe is on the stoned in part of the very right edge of 07-11 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 the house. Yeah over there. At the time the property was built that was a reasonable spot to put the garage door. As the private road was built and as this low lying point was flooded and reflooded and reflooded, that existing garage which is now accessed through the white doors is approximately 5 to 5 %: feet clear. You could fit in a nice Mazda Miata or a formula one race car in there. Other than that as a functional practical vehicle storage it just, it stopped being that many, many years ago. Well prior to the homeowners. Aller: That was going to be my question. My recollection is that you purchased this property in the condition it was in. You didn't close in a garage? Gregg Geiger: That's true, yes. Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you. Gregg Geiger: Thank you. Aller: Okay we'll open it up to the commissioners now for comment and discussion. Any feelings one way or the other? Hokkanen: Not right now. Oh I'm leaning towards E. Aller: It's time to try to cut the wheat from the chaff. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: E versus F. Hokkanen: E versus F even a smaller F. Aller: E versus F? Tietz: Yes. Aller: So we can move on pretty much to E it sounds like. I mean if you have feelings for F instead of E let us know. Yusu£ No, no. If the discussion on the table is E versus F then I'm leaning towards E. Aller: Okay. Because what I like to do is narrow it down to what may or may not work and so if we're going to take F off for all the reasons stated by the comments individuals made and comments others made as well as the actual application and then let's move on to E and. Hokkanen: Well I would like to note F, even a smaller version of F is not. 21 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aller: Is not acceptable to what you think would be. Hokkanen: For what. Aller: Okay, and obviously I've heard from everyone that this is quite a unique piece of property. In fact it's the only one in the county that's one a point and I think F in those statements was kind of knocked out because it is a view point and that would knock out that through view for sure and at least E we're dealing with something that's close to a structure and minimizes the view obstructions to all parties, whether they're on the water or on the land. Tietz: I agree. Aller: So with regard to E what are your feelings? Is it too big? Too small? Just right? Tietz: Well the mass of the building is actually pulled back a foot or more and the overhang is reduced by a foot, the overhang is really at the variance point that Drew has been explaining tonight so actually the mass of the building with the exception of the eave is further back then it was presented on the plans that we received. Integrating it into the house even though it's a difficult comer of the home to integrate it I think that there's more benefit then going with the F option. I think some of the F options that were discussed at the prior meeting, if it had been able to be pulled in really tight to the house, maybe that could have been interesting to look at but I understand the restrictions that the architect was working with and I think this is, this massing even though it's going to impact the house to a greater extent because roof lines are, you're going to have to open up more of the home to do this and then by pulling it in the air conditioning compressing unit and evidently the power incoming power would have to be re- routed to enclose that space but it looks like a reasonable solution. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: And then I want to direct us back to the I guess what we really need to discuss in the first point of view is do you believe that a variance was required here or that the comments made that an individual homeowner should be held to the standards and the requirements or actions of a prior owner. I think somebody buys the property in the state that it's in. Tietz: Well you're buying it as is. Aller: They did nothing to close it in. That would be a different story potentially but we don't even have to go there. So I don't see anything that shows me that the practical difficulties that they're having in utilizing their property as a result of the actions of the owners. Does anybody hear anything different or find anything different with that? Hokkanen: No I agree 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 • Aller: As a Findings of Fact. And then you know one of the reasons that we have variances is so that we can look at unique properties and as much as we like to plan and zone we don't have the square boxes all lined up with a nice street here. It's messy out there and that's why variances are granted so I think this is a very unique property and that requirement is met as well. Does anybody disagree or have any? Tietz: No I think Drew's illustration of where variances have been issued over the years illustrates the complexity and the difficulty and working in today's world on a very narrow point with issues that have been there for 80 years. Aller: Okay, and I think we also look at fairness and what's the reasonable use of the property and I think it's fair to say that somebody in Minnesota and in this particular area that with all the individuals that have garages including the neighbors who got variances for garages, that they would be entitled to a variance for a garage. Hokkanen: Correct. Aller: And I don't believe that if we grant the variance that it would alter the nature of the neighborhood. Single family. You've got restrictions and limitations that are put on it which we're allowed to do by the variance code so I think that requirement is met as well. I think it's not detrimental and in fact it's aligned with the common zoning and the plan that we have in place. And I think the essential character is not changed if we grant the variance. I do believe that we should always look at whether or not a variance impairs adequate light and air and I think we've done that. I think Drew illustrated that pretty nicely with the overview and we're able to take into consideration that as well as the other photographs that were presented in the comment period and it looks to me as though the minimization when we look at the entire property, if we're going to grant one that this limits the and minimizes the obstruction to light and air for all the neighbors as well as from the water. I don't believe that granting the variance would substantially impair the traffic or create a hazard. In fact I think it's quite the opposite. If we're going to allow for more hard cover, it's going to allow for a greater tuning radius and make it easier for garbage as well as safety vehicles to get in and out and access the point. So for all those reasons I would be in favor of granting E with the additional modifications that it be within the requested scope so that the eaves would then be included and how they do that, if they need to move things would be fine but they have to get the proper building permits. Submit them but they won't have to come back here for an additional variance. Ingvalson: If I may interrupt. That if you're looking at the recommended motion here, that would be just removing the 441 square foot portion of the motion. The rest of the setback that we have here would still be met with what sounds like what you've been going for here. Aller: Then let me ask you this as long as we're discussing the 441. Is that in addition to the 441? Then would it be a larger footprint? 23 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Aanenson: It may be slightly larger but it's still within that building envelope. It wouldn't get any closer to the neighbor. Aller: So what I want to do is make it clear that they can't exceed that building envelope. Aanenson: Correct. The only place it would potentially would be towards the house to take the HVAC and that air conditioning. The electrical panel would be the only place it would project. Aller: So we could make that a condition or an additional condition I think that would be. Ingvalson: I do not believe there'd be an additional condition required. If you're looking at here, the setbacks that we're going to be, variances that will be granted by this would be from this portion of the home so it couldn't be any farther south then here. Aller: Okay. Ingvalson: Also it couldn't be any farther to this property line this way to the west. Aller: Okay so that does. Ingvalson: And it would be also, and with what we have there with the motion taking away that area required 441, it would also not be allowing it any closer to the shoreland to the north. Aller: Because I want to make it clear to the neighbors and anyone else that we're not exceeding what has been presented in any form or fashion and that they're limited to juxtapose as necessary and required within that limitation. Does that make sense to everybody? Madsen: Would it limit the height as well so they could not? Aller: It would still be a two story in line with the roof structure. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Hokkanen: I'll propose a motion. Ready? Aller: Any additional questions or comments? I mean those are my comments. My feelings. Any additional? Hokkanen: No? Okay. Aller: Okay Commissioner Hokkanen has a motion. 24 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — September 15, 2015 Hokkanen: I crossed it off. Okay. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Nelleke Knight: I have a question. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? We're voting thank you. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second and any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Nelleke Knight: Can I ask you something? When will that will go ... decision sort of? Aller: That's the decision. What you would want to do is if there's an appeal to be filed you would want to do that in writing. Aanenson: We will put together, we'll put together a written report to the applicant stating what the conditions and we'd be happy to share that with them. Nelleke Knight: When will those 4 days start? When would that be? Hokkanen: Tomorrow. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay we'll move on to item number 2 on the calendar. 0*1 U 7 Ti PROPOSED GARAGE (E)- 441 S.F. FOOTPRINT, ATTACHED TO EXISTING HOUSE D 3 • HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 °° F LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 7982 (24.9 % OF LOT) r7su�icu* OpfO'._lf QxAeroAcL BUILDABLE �l V\UUO,'t�Hi7L'��T ALLSEEA OF SITE TBACKSF 'T{N'N\ d17dtNS �� ARE ENFORCED 387 S.F.) 1 ?7P --- e(ow ""P. li I' O I SITE OF PREVIOWS OIL TANK - PENDING DOCUMENTATION C STATUS-ASSUMEC REMEDIATED - -_- DRIVE e E I U n m a - co I 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT FUEL MPCA BE LAKE MINNEWASHTA I`] F PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: 16-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK TO BE IBLE AND RELOCATED WI IN EASEME19T PMCITY R 'S) -OPTION F ONLY I BY I 1 I i 1) EW TURNOUT - 1 298 S.F., . SEMI -PERVIOUS I I DRIVE - 100 -- F. I 30' RD SETBACK _ CONCETE -1 - 45 S.F. 4 EXISTI BITUM DRIVE' a i 1 for CP n "a" II _-r co v LAKE MINNEWASHTA OHW E INTERPO FROM SURVEY 0 5 10 20 40 lols_ 14: 3(�?-DAceao-1' SFAS q�l��aols EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: REMOVES 4 MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 24.9% OF LOT, VOLUNTARY STORMWATER RETENTION IF REQUIRED OSITE PLAN 1••=X-0•• north SCANNEC Ln G Go •a d ! 41 a t— F 2 m m H W Z a ARCNITRCT4 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W V 0 WZZ f HOZ w W N cd as ck W Z W a (' aeU W p 0,0 M P[OJEC P Sch°m°6c Dng° PROIECf MWBDF ISSUE DAIS ISSUE DATE SITE SITE PLAN PROPOSED GARAGE (E)- 441 S.F. FOOTPRINT, ATTACHED -,TO EXISTING HOUSE 0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 ,° OF LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 79 2 (24.9 LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALL SETBACKS AREENFORCED - 387 S.F.) LAKE MINNEWASHTA 1 1 81T6M US _ - --- DRIVE -T - e E 1 I 1 3603 RED —�„ CEDAR POINT Pe° (�;. DRIVE EXISTING ( HOUSE - 1992 DSI! \ S.F. FOOTPRINT i O F SITE OF PREVIOQS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION ON STATUS -ASSUMED'rO BE REMEDIATED PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: i6'3—"AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK V TINGS (SALV/�GED IF' O BE IBLE AND RELOCATED IN EASEMENT PER,CITY ` )-OPTIONFONLY-,, 1 TION DUSEN) TURNOUT- _ 298 S.F., SEMI -PERVIOUS i �( I I DRIVE - 100 1 1 -- F. I 30' i IL SETBACK .� , F� T _ i CONCRETE kD D I I I —fo r I Oj1 � A �8� 1 Ln I I U7 i OHW E INTERPO LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: R=25..06'Y;OF% 4URE TREES, HARDCOV T, VOLUNTARY STORMWATION OSITE PLAN 1••=30B-0" north L41 ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W w V o W Z Z y 0 Z W V) as �vz W0 _ (' �U W p 010 r1 PROIER PHa$E: Sd,e.mlk D.dgn PROIER NUMBF ISSUE Dart: ISSUE DATE °RawN BY: PM SITE SITE PLAN 0 = L 30' n 0]� f" A� � c� i HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 ,° OF LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 79 2 (24.9 LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALL SETBACKS AREENFORCED - 387 S.F.) LAKE MINNEWASHTA 1 1 81T6M US _ - --- DRIVE -T - e E 1 I 1 3603 RED —�„ CEDAR POINT Pe° (�;. DRIVE EXISTING ( HOUSE - 1992 DSI! \ S.F. FOOTPRINT i O F SITE OF PREVIOQS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION ON STATUS -ASSUMED'rO BE REMEDIATED PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: i6'3—"AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK V TINGS (SALV/�GED IF' O BE IBLE AND RELOCATED IN EASEMENT PER,CITY ` )-OPTIONFONLY-,, 1 TION DUSEN) TURNOUT- _ 298 S.F., SEMI -PERVIOUS i �( I I DRIVE - 100 1 1 -- F. I 30' i IL SETBACK .� , F� T _ i CONCRETE kD D I I I —fo r I Oj1 � A �8� 1 Ln I I U7 i OHW E INTERPO LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: R=25..06'Y;OF% 4URE TREES, HARDCOV T, VOLUNTARY STORMWATION OSITE PLAN 1••=30B-0" north L41 ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W w V o W Z Z y 0 Z W V) as �vz W0 _ (' �U W p 010 r1 PROIER PHa$E: Sd,e.mlk D.dgn PROIER NUMBF ISSUE Dart: ISSUE DATE °RawN BY: PM SITE SITE PLAN OSIDE ELEVATION Scale: 3116"= 1'-0" 12 1x8 RAKE. TYP. WO FASCIA TYP. 12 / FLASHING AT 1 Ov DORMER I 4;12 SHED BROW AT RONT LEVEL ------------ i TRIM AND SIDING TO I MATCH EXISTING HOUSE �FRONT ELEVATION A Scale: 316'= 1 0" 23' IED GARAGE IIF" II I II I II II II II v- --------------'J in m a J Q 1� H C m 1A Nl W V Z Q Q SCANNEC 612.220.6190 MACKEYMAUN.COM Lu V Z� W Z Z f 0 Z Lucy QQ ix U Z W 0 = (, W U W p m aB PROTECT PH . Sdi muds Des gn PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUE DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN By PM Al GARAGE 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a a is 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OEXISTING NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"= 1'-0" OEXISTING WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" SCANNED AECRETEOTE 612.220.6190 MACKEYMARIN.COM LU LL V Z� LU Z Z N:E 0 WN Q Q moo= w V Z W O = (� �U W p o10 M PROIER PH ; Schematic DeJgn PROI WMafif: ISSUE DAIS ISSUE DATE PM X20 GARAGE 3603 RED CEDAR o z a 8 is 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OPROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1 /8"= 1'-0" OPROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" SCANNED VA ri G ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W w V Z� W Z Z �OZ N � w W N as moo= V Z a 0wm W p �c) M PROTECT PNASE sd'.B lk Design PROTECT MIMRER. mm DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY, PM A20 GARAGE aovmvo L V Wd uo NMYdOI am 3n$$1 alp 3 l W31uO �Vuwa�P$ w 0 0 • V� O T w om0 D O M Z m m >Om NMm M v N ZO Z � m vZ �n m M WO7'NIIVWA3ADVW 0619'0 Z Z 19 f1331LIN 311• i ..0'3 =..94:0123S d NOIldO - NOIIVA313 HIHON 03SOdOad =7 3AIHG 1NIOd aL e b z 0 UV(130 a3H £09£ 0 Ingvalson, Drew From: keith.paap@gmail.com on behalf of Keith Paap <keith@paap.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 11:38 AM To: Ingvalson, Drew Cc: Frances Paap Subject: Fwd: 3601 Red Cedar Pt - Survey Attachments: Lot Line Markersjpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attached is a photo showing the lot line marker irons between 3601 Red Cedar Point Rd and 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. The Geiger's had the lot surveyed as part of their variance request for a new detached garage with studio. When they placed the stakes it appeared to be further over than the lot lines that had been traditionally recognized. For that reason I called a surveyor that we used when we did an elevation certificate for FEMA purposes. When they came out they were able to locate the original marker iron buried about 4-6" below the grass. He showed me the marker and wasn't sure why the other surveyor did not use the original markers since it didn't take him long to locate them. He was going to contact them to see what paperwork they had that would make them place the marker further over than the original marker. I'm not quite so ready to concede that the new marker is correct and the old one is incorrect. At this point he has not yet heard back from the other surveyor with any information to contradict the original marker. In the photo the original lot marker is the one near the rocks on the shoreline where you can see he dug it up to be visible. The wood pile belongs to the Geiger's and appears to be stacked exactly at the edge of the lot line of the original marker. The marker placed by the Geiger's surveyor is over a couple feet and a ways away from the shoreline for some reason. The new marker actually shows that our landscape brick edging would now actually be part of their yard by that calculation. Personally I don't think this is worth the effort and expense to dispute a couple feet difference as long as it's just yard and nothing is done with that space. However a couple feet over the distance of an entire lot line can significantly add square footage that is used in calculating the total percentage of hard cover in the variance request. Keith Paap keith(cr),naap.net (email) 952-470-1776 (home) 612-600-4646 (cell) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wayne Preuhs <wavne(a,advsur.com> Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:13 AM Subject: 3601 Red Cedar Pt - Survey SCANNED To: "keithmapAgmail.com" <keith.paannu,email.com> 0 -Cc: Information <infona,advsur.com> 0 Keith, just letting you know that last Friday I emailed the surveyor who set the capped irons we found as a result of their work for your neighbor. I have yet to hear back from him. I will give him another day or so and try again. If he can provide me some notes or the survey showing their establishment of the capped irons they set, and if it appears to be sufficient, we will likely agree with those irons. If we do not get a response, we may need to provide you a revised proposal in light of the possible discrepancy due to the found 1/2" iron along the South shore. This is kind of an unexpected situation resulting in more time and effort on our part to determine your westerly boundary line. We will be in touch. Thanks. Wayne Preuhs, LS Advance Surveying & Engineering Co. 5300 S. Co. Rd. 101, Minnetonka, MN Office: 9524747964 Direct: 952-674-2627 Web: www.advsur.com -4 r ;, ... - r - r � 'V' G y- --r$� � J • r♦�M` y� f t t y 4 A . 44 •�C } ..Y , t ♦ - '� _� -' „ . I! I �'♦� a.t - J , Aq�n'' - y ! r {! Oet 't �. �.r. e n' • 't �e 1 �.{�� ✓rr°'1 '•� � / e +r� Ilt�. _f 'c. � _ } ;:,. `.a` >'. ,'"'' - } � t � .ate' /� , '-v / A z:.-; c�t`.`d� s 5'�'`� r� `'R�., �` y�• r !, f, •/�' Qj/♦pµ�{j/� � 4, � �rj e - �, �`:.,.: � '��' � '/ .., '1 'Jn" `: .tt `�••(., r r' "•,1:.-�y',.. v .:!''. v�4/f t � �� _ I ,!l'. ••T.. %/': x •�• _ , _ ♦� ,r ��y, a. � \`.? / / � r t �_ a t„t".,.�„::..�\'c"_.{_•am� /r_a•4.•- r.t i{� /13`.�a ''� �a-y t'kS v�:�♦.:.>l'{`�?;�` _��.`:>i•��-:lt�S�.�c.'''��, :4 c� "-i+ .1 11\-r ,T r��t\s }� iti�� a �”j��' -!•--M=__��`^_?.x �i�l.� .,'.'�.:xs _:.�_��_/'-Z ♦��. i"i�Ai�4><z,,N`..i.�„�\,_-?y.`��..'I�+Vr:tiG�Yi'r:�fd' .. fi1f .y�i ,� G .: � r : '4 1 r1�•.A .i.k y:�!i�;>l'�.? ��;1t"�.;r:x�"tidr'.. k�:`r�:r'%rY- i.''-:%:� �n�.-,-:.� '�•,,i•-� t_ '„ dp' ♦ \o• •a�( aY'iS�k'wr\.�lT�<.d`' ' A . • +!ras;t "ifitVx:.:"..: u �=a r!. Vw lNi.._•�.�' ;-y-.`,,c.,Y.'�.:J pt.rtr'"4✓1,J�''F,S � ��1//--�4p.,1;• T ._.�*r. � i:�''Lr-t +� \ , }M.• !h� ''.' 'dtr \\'' .1 :V: ':: \ 't��4c1:!•.'�.Fk..• , :!�'hrn,tlr.'-v,�1.y1'.i.�,r\4:�G,.-V- .3t .' D�r1�vf. . y\.� :.F'`�r�`+_ .�r'�!f1, r�a :��/�jv',r, ; 9�;ri: Y ,• f 1�.N <"y.\+�_SI��.a➢."'i_�te:�!�_"J��!,,,�,�° -):('vr.� y'.-{�.yl:=r.-:lr';Iv��.%y.ef_ �l' i1.`t�,1l�L1i/-� �''l_r .,�,•-.i.!i r f.�wr�sY prYvu:�\I.',"t`�.,ti7,-__.%fr.:/ •r'�:�r .Y•Xr"e,_ .x , ',:'.'ofa.♦.}(1 '.ii-,7r�y�:_y�1 . frfi{:�-��.f��tid':, � Yrl. ..l.%�•ri-' '_7 y/ C1.'�7aj.,i��?�<: Cq''e�!'Y_,.�, �,y:7��`.t,` rklrJl♦♦r i< �1p (*,•�-•-�' a(--�i,�.,�- LtN.s'V:.�_t � .maFa+T7lfryS_ .\�� -.. SS ''�[{'- Yc, �F '�ma�./-�//.=.y_y,.�amr"5.t�/rl_�`. .v�1.ppam�`..''qq. .1_��:."'t.. • yyXa�i�LS..�i'.'''t'+�^j\+-C�>_y.,�i+_r\,�..,(- � a+i',.yr".-+..;.,,_ `..•:.�:i'•;n1�-e.i.,�:_'/� .' 'TfxNq:�i. rry:� j•�.'. k!. . F ✓• jy- f��+•r 'S"� Y T `7 >-•` -,'/ � W:y rvf+ � .� .' /i�.ffl� ri'_�i./ -.''"�.�=• lT�^,r--J..+``�f1G.^.��r”�!R'ti.-.t,...* yj'�fj-.`y:...t�efL.•,i' _ �.�:.-�- z�L — .v.r. ._.-, r d-'5fppir'Y'✓,"r/.�•.-.te ✓.�__ ' `•�t��i- / - -"�,.i i ( .` ._. .r . l,y _.�.�..'.�-r•„LG�.h•. , ., , - , i - (r u' t • 0 Ingvalson, Drew From: Susan Proshek <sipnchew@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:29 PM To: Ingvalson, Drew Subject: 3603 Red Cedar Pt. application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I live at 3613 Red Cedar Pt. and have owned this property, in the family, for many years, since the 1930's My husband and I built our current home in 1984. 1 would like to comment on the proposal at 3603 for a new garage. 1 am definitely not in favor of that proposed building being constructed as illustrated in Option D. Way too confined of an area and bad idea. The other three options on the East side of the current home are all right if the proper set backs and variances can be met. I worry about the change in the appearance of the Point, which I believe to be an integral and important part of Lake Minnewashta from an esthetic point of view I also worry about any adverse effects on the land and environment but I will leave that decision to the Planning Commission whom, I believe, work in the best interests of all involved. Respectfully submitted, Susan Proshek 0 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pat Mackey 5200 Washburn Avenue So., Minneapolis Dave Bishop and Nelleke Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Road PUBLIC HEARING: 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1. BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman Aller and good evening to the rest of the Planning Commission. I do not have a name still but I assure you I am working here. My name is Drew Ingvalson so if you have any questions for me feel free to ask. So as you said the variance request we have in front of us today is an expansion of an existing non -conformity. The location, like you already said is 3603 Red Cedar Point. If you look on the image on your screen it is, has Lake Minnewashta sort of on the north side and then also on the south side too and then as properties to the east and to the west. Here is an image of the existing structure at Red Cedar Point Road as constructed in 1918 so we're looking at much older neighborhood within the city and the request that is being made today is the property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story, 621 square foot garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non- conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. Here's a survey that we have of the property. There are legal non -conformities, as I already stated. The principle structure encroaches on the shorcland setback by 44 feet. If you look over here it shows its 31 feet from the shoreland to the south. It also meets the shoreland setback to the north is 75 feet from that shoreland setback, and then it encroaches on the front yard setback which is this west property line. This was changed per city code in the early 1990's. This was previously considered a side yard. This side of a lot but with our current city code it is considered a front yard so it encroaches into that 20.4 feet. It is set back 9.6 feet from that property line. Existing infrastructure. There is a road currently providing access to people on the street. It is a private drive. Not a public street. A private drive. There's also sewer and water mains that go through SCANNED 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 this property. Originally the applicant was, wished to have their detached garage structure located on the north side of the road. This came to a halt when staff noticed that there were sewer and water lines going through that area and any placed structured on the far side of the property was very, very close to the shoreland so further conversations moved where that structure would be placed which I will talk to you about later today. Here is an image. The drive is approximately 10 feet wide along here. This is looking at the drive facing west. Here is an image of the drive east. The proposed project, there are multiple locations that are being proposed for this structure but all of them are a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Option A, which you'll see over here is the preferred option. It loads off of the street from this way. It is preferred by the applicant, sorry to not infer any confusion. The applicant then prefers Options B and then option C next respectively. And the least preferred option by the applicant is the location of D which would be the only attached structure. Also for the location of the garage for options A and options B they would be required to remove some hard cover to meet the 25 percent hard cover maximum. That will be done by removing this location of the tum around. Speaking with our fire department that is not a preferred option to remove that tum around as it serves for safety vehicles. Options C and options D would not require to remove this area. However it has been proposed by the applicant to remove this area but it will not be needed for option C or for options D. First we have option A. Option A is the applicant's preferred option. This option will require a variance from the shoreland setback of 48.5 feet. It would locate the structure 26.5 feet from the shoreland and would access off of the private drive this way and then would access into the garage from the west. The hard cover for this one would be increased to 24.77. That would include removing that hard cover area from that turn around we talked about earlier and then also there will be 3 mature trees that would need to be removed for this option. Here is a view of where option A and option C would be located. We'll talk about option C a little bit later. It will be located in this area on a concrete pad where these cars are and this tarp and here is the shoreland facing to the south. Next option we have is option B which is the applicant's next preferred option. Looking at here on the image it is 24.6 feet from the shoreline. The variance required for that would be a 50.5 foot shoreland setback variance. The hard cover for this option would be increased to 24.33. Also removing that tum around area that we talked about before. This one option would require the removal of 3 mature trees and you would access off of the road and then load into the garage from the west. Next option is option C. It's located in a similar place as option A. This would be loading actually from the north, different from the previous two options. This one would require the largest variance. 53.9 foot shoreland setback variance. It would be located 21.1 feet from the shoreline. Hard cover would be increased to 23.28 percent. This is if the turn about was, tum around was removed. And then would be 24.95 meeting the ordinance of 25 percent hard cover if it was left there. This would also require the removal of one mature tree. Option D, which is the applicant's least preferred option. This will require the most variances. First it's going to require a 17 foot shoreland variance setback to the south. You set back 58 feet from the shoreline. As you can see the structure, the existing structure would actually be between the proposed garage and the shoreline. Then also it would require a 2 foot shoreland setback from the north. You can't see on the map. The shoreland would be up here. It's going to be 73 feet in that location. Also there would be a side yard setback, or a front yard setback required, excuse me for 25.9 feet. That would locate the structure 4.2 feet from the front yard, which is the far west property line only allowing a 9 foot 9 and a quarter inch separation between the homes. Speaking with building that would require a fire rated wall for that which would be an additional requirement for the building permit. Hard 2 -i Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 cover for this location would be increased to 22.3 percent. That is if the tum out was removed, as you can see in red. If it was left there it would leave it at 23.78 percent with it still left. No mature trees would be removed in this area. The only hard cover expansion since location for D is actually on existing hard cover. The only expansion for hard cover would be the driveway that would need to be expanded to complete access. A large issue with this option is loading. It would be loading from the west which would make it fairly difficult to get around the existing property to the west and loading into that garage. The alternative plan that was created by staff would require a variance still for the shoreland setback to the south. Maintain, keeping that 58 foot variance and then would have a smaller variance required for the front yard. 20.4 foot front yard setback keeping it at 9.6 feet from the property line to the west, and maintaining what is currently existing on the house at this corner of the home is currently 9.6 feet away. With this option you'd be loading from the north. I'm sorry excuse me, the option to the south, or the option, this alternative option would maintain a 15 foot building separation which would not require an additional requirement from the building department for the fire rating. Hard cover would not exceed 25 percent for this option. The applicant's option which would remove the part of the turn out would put it at 23 percent. If it was left there it'd be a 24 percent. Looking at this dark area right here that would be maintaining the 10 foot driveway through here which, or drive that goes through the property. The applicant has proposed a larger area with the dotted area. That would keep it still underneath the 25 percent hard cover. And for this area just like option D there won't be any mature trees removed. Here is a view of option D and the alternative plan location. Here is the house looking from the north from the private drive. Here's a view of the neighboring house to the west. They have a garage on this side. There aren't any windows on this side for this side of the property. And as I said before earlier this property was built in, this structure was built in 1918 so looking at this image I'll walk you through a little bit of it. The yellow line shows all the properties that are within 500 feet of the subject property. And in red are all properties that do not meet the shoreland setback requirement. Some of these are because they were built before the shoreland setback was put in place. Also the yellow is the subject property which also doesn't meet the shoreland setback requirement. And there was a couple errors in the staff report that I'd bring up. First of all the staff report read that variances within 500 feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive on Attachment number 8 should actually read 500 feet within 3603 Red Cedar Point, the subject property. All of the variances that were given in there were correct. Just that error with the top address. And in looking at this, properties that have an X on them are properties that were given a shoreline setback variance. If you look on here there are 6 properties within 500 feet that were granted those. Properties that have a square around them are properties with a front yard or side yard setback variance. The largest shoreline setback variance granted in this area was 45 feet with the farthest property to the east. There's also been multiple variances for front yards. Looking at the largest one was back in 1979 with a 23 foot front yard variance but later was constructed with a 12 foot front yard. There's also been side yard setback variances granted and this was due to the properties currently. The properties we view, these north and south property lines are on the far east and west. Those are considered front yard and rear yards but per our city code prior to early 90's that was considered a side yard so there were side yard variances granted back in 1992 and 1988 cases. And it should also be mentioned that there was another, just something to clear up what the staff report that in 1986 it stated that was when the city started managing shorelands per our chapter of the city code and that was true in 1986 because there was an ordinance that was for statewide and that was when we adopted. That was 1986 but the city was enforcing shoreline 3 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 management back in 1977 which was a different statute by the State which was just for municipalities so that's why we have variances that were from 1979 for shoreline setbacks and other variances within the shoreland management. The recommended motion from the staff is the planning, as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the variance request to construct a two story garage that encroaches into the shoreland setback and front yard setback and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. However if the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds a reasonable request and wishes to grant a variance staff recommends that they approve a 17 foot shoreline setback variance and a 20.4 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Here are the architectural plans that were provided by the applicant. These were for the 23 foot by 27 foot garage options that they gave. Options A through D. However staff would strongly recommend and encourage any, to have this also be a similar style that would match the house for an option or alternative option or any option that they go forward with. At that point I'd like to open for any questions that you may have. Aller: Questions at this point. Weick: I do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Did you calculate for options, I think it was A and B that had some, it was bumping up against the hard surface requirement. Did you calculate what that hard surface would be if they left the turn around? Ingvalson: I actually don't have that with me, no. Weick: Okay. Ingvalson: But it would be over the 25 percent. Weick: It would be over but. Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: Within a couple percent. Ingvalson: Correct. It's about a 1 percent difference. Weick: So for clarification if we were to approve one of those options we could ask for a variance there as well to keep that turn around. 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. It'd be about a 26 percent. Weick: Okay. That's all I had. Aller: Anything else at this point? That was a great report Drew and I appreciate you going through each one of the options. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: So we'll probably be revisiting them in a minute. Ingvalson: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time we'll ask the applicant to come forward. If they'd like to come forward and tell us about their request. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger and I reside at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Gregg Geiger: I'm joined today with my wife Kellie and my daughter Kelsey. I would like to give to you a little bit of a homeowner's view of the situation so maybe you can understand a little bit better. I appreciate Drew's report because now I can get through mine a little bit faster. The first couple side slides were already covered so next slide please. So in general at the essence here the request is for, we're seeking a variance for a new detached garage on a property that has no garage so that's the essence of it. So we've essentially survived a winter. We moved in in September of last year and we had, we experienced one winter so far and it was a fairly mild winter but certainly we recognize now the need for or the utility of a garage in Minnesota which we've lived in Minnesota for some time now but this is the first time without one. Next one please Drew. So Drew's already covered a lot of this stuff as far as the peninsula is concerned. There's a map. I'm sure you're all familiar with what Lake Minnewashta, this is the peninsula then that sticks out. The finger that sticks out running from west to east into the lake and our property is there shown in overhead in yellow. This is a view from the north part of the lake looking south at the north shoreline. Just to give you a flavor for what the peninsula looks like in terms of tree cover and in terms of what you can see in terms of building density. Next slide please. So the lot itself, again Drew's covered much of this. The blue outlines the house and the red is honestly where we park our cars so we, we use what is termed here the turn around as a place where we park our cars so this represents about 5 places that we can park. I indicated in the green circles here some of the major trees and some of those trees so for instance the cluster of trees on the north is, those are, that's a fairly large cluster of trees. They're pretty tall and they're very significant. The other, some of the other features then as we go through here and we, Drew covered up a little bit about this is that hard cover that exists on the mid-plane, midway between the two side yards is existing hard cover that would be affected by several of the options. Soon the next slide then I've just listed out some of the features that have already been discussed that make this lot somewhat unique. One is that it's bordered on two sides by 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 lakeshore. It is divided also, so we have the two side issues but we also have running down the middle then is the shared driveway as well as the sewer lines so. Sewer and water mains so we have a bit of a challenge of placement of any sort of structure because of that. I think we determined that approximately 390 square feet of buildable area exists if we apply all the setbacks and all the requirements to it so it's, it's a tough lot to build and we recognize that. There was once a fuel oil tank on the property. We understand it's been removed. We contacted the authority, authorizing agencies and such and have assurance that it has been taken care of but that fuel tank sat right underneath that, right near that hard cover that exists in the middle of the lot. Drew showed it as a picnic table type area there. It's right adjacent to that so it's a consideration. It's not something that we're necessarily concerned about but it's something that we have thought about. Next slide please. The garage option locations are shown. We've gone through them. They've already been discussed. I would answer any questions you might have about them. Again we note that these, the outlines shown here are all that original 23 by 27 application so they are not showing the proposed, the staff proposed 21 by 21 borders. Okay, that's fine. The next slide is good. So then this, this is again the, one of the shoreline views looking from the north looking south at the north shoreline showing you where those, where those various options would be. So option D in this picture is to the right. Options A and C are in the middle there and option B is to the left. You can see that big, that large clump of trees then that kind of in this view kind of obscure the house and those are significant, and the house itself has many trees around it that are large. Next slide please. So as far as the considerations are concerned, this is not based on economics alone. There is no garage for this single family residence at this time. The circumstances were not created by us or by many of the previous owners. It's a unique lot on a narrow peninsula. It was built in 1918. We believe and we intend to retain the essential character of the place. The architect's view that was provided earlier matches actually as far as stone work and as siding is concerned. What the existing house would look like so you, it will look like the existing home. And also the building density and scale will remain consistent. This is not a super tall structure. This isn't a super wide structure. It's a garage that will be consistent with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. As far as mitigations are concerned, option A certainly has its challenges but we believe some of those challenges can be overcome. In terms of hard cover we note that all options are below the 25 percent and this option replaces approximately 225 square feet of existing hard cover. As far as runoff is concerned we believe that there are ways to reduce and mitigate the problems associated with runoff with good gutter design and rain gardens for instance could help in that regard and we would certainly work to make that sort of thing happen. The nearest property line setback in this particular one again for option A is approximately 60 feet. It's a decent way away from the neighboring lot. As far as shade tree removal is concerned, shade trees are important to us as homeowners and we would replace those with appropriate fast growing trees. Option D clearly has its challenges. It bumps up to an existing house so I'm kind of giving you the, we rated the options in terms you know A, B, C and D in kind of our priority order and some of that Priority order was the setback. A was the furthest from the lakeshore. B was the next closest and C was the next closest there and then D just represents more of a challenge for us as homeowners and some of those challenges include the existing house that we would really have to get into that existing house and get into that structure and part of the existing house is the stone work of course around the house and that would be, it's not just taking down siding and Putting in some joists and moving forward. There's a little bit more to it. There would be a little bit of a trap space between the house and the garage as indicated on staff drawings. That would IN I 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 be a very unusable gap as it currently stands. This particular option reduces the overall parking availability by about one stall and so if we have a two car garage and then we use those other two, two areas in the turn around that gets us to 4 stalls and now we've gone from a 5 to a 4 kind of capacity so it's a consideration. And of course the hard cover associated with increasing, giving a little bit of a bump to the driveway so that we can actually get in and out of the driveway would be a little bit of an addition to hard cover. Next slide please. And I mention that because the turning radius is very tight there. There's some marks on the driveway there that were placed there and the mark that is indicated is the one that is, is the staff recommended 21 by 21 square foot corner so that's the northwest corner of where the garage would be so we, and you can get a sense of scale there for, there's an ... that's parked in that particular spot where the garage would be so you get, kind of understand how big the space would be, and how challenging it could be to get in and out of that area. Next is again kind of adding to the driveway tortuosity here is, this is a view looking from the west to the east and you can see the house kind of jutting out there into the driveway so what the driveway does right now is it kind of comes to the house and goes around the house and comes out the other, comes out the other side there so there's a bit of a turn around there for our neighbors to get around. The point where the arrow is pointing is the point where the 21 foot by 21 foot garage would be. Would come to, to give you a nice idea of that. So at least from this particular view I don't know that it looks substantially different and again we would be keeping the character of the house there so it would look very similar to what it looks like now for approaching cars. So in short and then again back to the original request this is a request for a variance for a garage on a lot that has no garage currently. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. How many cars do you have now? Gregg Geiger: We have 5 cars. Aller: Five cars. And so you use the tum around. If there was a fire, the fire department wouldn't be too happy about that or? Gregg Geiger: Yeah they probably wouldn't quite frankly. It's a challenge. Now you know in the summer time everything's good. You just drive onto a large lot there. There's a wide open field. Certainly in the winter time it would be, anything in the winter regardless of whether there's a pad there or not it's going to be a challenge. Aller: You've got to push that snow. And then when we're talking about driving by the house to get out to the point, is there sufficient room to be safe for a car to go by there especially in the winter when we have to push that snow back or? Gregg Geiger: You know our neighbors are good about driving slowly and cautiously. Sometimes when you get visitors they may not be as familiar with the area and that's, I have a little bit of concern. I mean it really is a turn. It's not, you're not going straight. You're making a bend there so it's a challenge. Aller: How much hard cover is left to go around after the garage is there? As far as the driveway or the drive width. 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: For which option? Aller: To go by. If the property has the D. Ingvalson: If they have, so if you're looking at option D there's an added hard cover to that area. However it would not exceed the hard cover maximum. What was calculated by the applicant did not actually included that hard cover for option D in as another additional for hard cover. However for the, when you're adding that you're double adding because that area's already paved so when you're adding, you could actually leave that tum around area without having to go over the 25 percent or anything add on there. Aller: And if cars are parked in the turn around and there's a structure there, how much space is there for a vehicle to get around? Ingvalson: So there would only be 7 feet if nothing was added so that was why a part of that application would be requiring the applicant to expand that area with some more pavement to make sure that that was safe. I believe what was proposed by the applicant to turn it to a 13 foot wide area. While the majority of the road is 10 feet wide so we would be making it wider and that was a part of what staff would recommend for the alternative option was to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive. What they have and then no wider than 24 feet. Aller: And if it went wider than 24 feet you're increasing the hard cover past the 25 percent. Ingvalson: Absolutely, it would be over the 25 percent so it would be also part of that. Would maintain the 25 percent hard cover. Gregg Geiger: If I might remind folks though if that were the case though then we'd be taking out some of the hard cover, that 225 square feet of hard cover over, or running the option of C as mitigating for hard cover. Aller: When you purchased the property there wasn't a garage there and what were your intentions? Did you buy the property intending to put this here or did you talk to people? Gregg Geiger: Yeah sure. We visited with staff before. I met Bob last summer so we were, we went in not assuming or not expecting a guarantee but saying is there a process that allows us to discuss this in a reasonable type fashion and we were assured that there was and indeed seems to be so. You know we recognize this as something that we were buying on hoping that we could get something but no guarantees... Aller: Great. Any additional questions or comments? Madsen: I have a question on option D. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Madsen: As I understand it encroaches on the neighbor's property a bit if you need to get in your garage that loads from the west, is that correct? Gregg Geiger: We're going to have to see exactly how that, I think that, how we could play that out. Again it's, there's two things that go on here. One is to get enough driveway space for cars to pass by and second is to get a turning radius to get something, some sort of car in there. Something beyond a Smart car perhaps. I don't have, I don't know Pat if you can discuss this. Pat Mackey: The intent with option D was that it would load, enter from the north because to enter from the west would require encroaching on the neighbor's property. Gregg Geiger: Yep so maybe that's the confusion. Madsen: Oh so it would load from the north. Pat Mackey: Loading from the north. Aller: And for the record sir if you could state your name and address. Pat Mackey: I'm sorry. My name is Pat Mackey. I'm with Mackey Malin Architects. I'm the designer for the applicant. Aller: Thank you sir. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Gregg Geiger: I'm sorry for not making that clear. Madsen: No, thank you very much for that clarification. Aanenson: I would just say the garage ... the other way so that was some confusion on our part because that's not how the drawing showed it. Ingvalson: I apologize. If you look at the architectural plans it shows the 23 foot wide area being entering from that way so when you're looking at option D, this would be the 23 foot wide section. That is why that arrow is assumed to be entering from this way. Gregg Geiger: For D correct. Those are the original 23 by 27. Now we're kind of talking now about a 21 by 21 which makes the loading now from the north. Madsen: Okay the alternative rather than the D. Gregg Geiger: Yeah. I was referring A through D as locations correct. Madsen: Okay. 2 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Gregg Geiger: And specific designs. Pat Mackey: And if I may the elevations are, the options for any of the three detached options, we haven't dealt into the attached option. The aesthetic of it. Obviously the skin, the materials of it would be consistent with the existing house but the form shown there isn't something you can just push up to the existing house. There would be some finessing and reworking of the roof line. Consideration there. Aller: And if we were to take staff option would that be a shared wall then. Would it be connected to the house or would it be separate? Gregg Geiger: Correct. Pat Mackey: Correct. Yeah you could pretty much disregard the form that's shown on this sheet A-1 and we would kind of be starting with the form of the existing house and working with that. There's a solution there. We just haven't pursued it. Tietz: If it were detached, what's the intended use of the studio space and are there city regulations for how that space would be used? I'm not sure about that. Gregg Geiger: So if I could speak as the homeowner the intent for the studio space is, for instance my wife is a quilter and that would be a nice, would make for a nice area where she could have a permanent quilt area so it's not intended as. Tietz: But there'd be no utilities or. Gregg Geiger: Well as far as electricity is concerned. Tietz: Well yeah but I mean as far as plumbing or. Gregg Geiger: Aside from what is necessary in a garage. Tietz: Okay. Gregg Geiger: If we talk about a heated garage for instance I don't know, we haven't kind of gotten down to those. That would be a gas line. Tietz: I guess I'd just be concerned that in the future if it became habitable and became a. Gregg Geiger: So hopefully a studio space would be habitable in the winter if we wanted. Pat Mackey: I think if I may we're talking about two different kinds of habitable. Tietz: Yeah I'm talking about living space. Pat Mackey: There's no intent for this to function as a dwelling at all. 10 r 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Tietz: Okay. Pat Mackey: And it's essentially utility space. Weather storage. Craft. You name it. Aller: Wouldn't preclude you from running a gas or electric line in there for purposes of a gas driver, things of that nature. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Any additional questions? Weick: There are. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I noticed in one of your pictures there were other people kind of parked off the private drive. Are there other homes on the peninsula without garages? Or is that just overflow parking? Ingvalson: The majority of the homes on that drive have a garage of some sort and many of the variances that were granted were for, some of them were for a detached garage. Weick: Okay. And how much, and you're going to have to, if you attached the garage there were windows. I mean how, yeah thank you. How much does that impact, I'm not sure what the living spaces are behind there. You know what those rooms are. Gregg Geiger: So if we can just look at this particular drawing here, or photo here. Weick: Yeah. Gregg Geiger: The window on the right for instance is our bedroom. Master bedroom. On the left there, so there's the partjutting out that is sort of a family room. Sort of a large family room where we have TV and couch and chairs and such. And you can see the basement windows down in front. Weick: Okay. Madsen: With the family room are there windows on the other? Gregg Geiger: Yeah so it goes all the way around. Madsen: All the way around, okay. And on the bedroom are there windows on any other walls? Gregg Geiger: There's some windows over on, in this case the comer... which would be the southwest. Southwest comer of the house. There's two windows right now. 11 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Madsen: Okay, thank you. Gregg Geiger: One facing each of the primary directions. One window facing to the west. One window facing south. There's the other side of this jutting out family room. Aller: Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you sir. At this point in time we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone in the audience wishing to come forward speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Nelleke Knight: I'm Nelleke Knight and I live on Red Cedar Point 3605. Dave Bishop: I'm Dave Bishop. I live at the same place. Nelleke's from the Netherlands and English is not her first language so we're going to kind of present together. If you don't understand either one of us please let us know. It might be me. Aller: That's fine. I just ask that we don't talk over each other and we'll try to do the same. Dave Bishop: That sounds fine and thank you. We kind of go by north, south, east and west and the subject property is east of Nelleke's property and so they are, we are on the west side of them okay. My first question that I wanted to ask is I've gone through the record that is available to us on the internet and there was a letter from the landholder that was on the east of the subject property, the Papp's. I know I have a copy of it. I know it's not in the internet record and my question is have you guys all got a copy of it? And the answer is yes you do. Okay. My summary of their situation is that they object to all of these proposals as do we. I have to say at the outset it's a little frustrating that since this was fust applied for there's been either 6 or 7 proposals and it's kind of wackamol for the neighbors as to you know what it is that we are responding to. First they were going to put it in the turn around area. Then they were going to put it on the north side. Then another place on the north side. Then they were going to put it on the south side right next to the Papp's. Setbacks, side setback. Then they have two that are kind of in the middle of the property and then they have one that's going to be in our side yard and now the city staff has even volunteered to do the legwork to propose yet another parcel which I'm going to call E because I don't know what to call the staffs suggestion for this but you know I have difficulties with the fact that all of these are a, we have an elevation for a detached 23 by 27 foot garage but there's no elevations at all for this so called D. Nelleke Knight. D. Dave Bishop: D and there's no elevations at all for the staff's so called E which is on our side of the property so we don't know what it's going to look like and we therefore don't have our right to give you input as to what we think the conditions ought to be should you make a decision to impose either D or E on us. I think that if they had originally come with an application and they had not even given you an elevation for D or E the City probably would have just turned it back and said the elevation, the elevations are critical to the application and we can't proceed until we get it so D and E are a black box. I'm going to assume that it is what we have been told and I'm 12 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 going to speak to what we know so far. There are two fundamental issues here. I'm going to break them down each as sub -parts okay but the one thing that I think is concerning to Nelleke and I is the concept that there's some kind of hardship by not having a two car garage here on the point. Now in fact of the 10 houses starting from the water and working your way up the point, 4 of them do not have garages. Six of them do have garages so there's a long history of not having garages on the point and in fact I would dare say 50,000 to 100,000 people in the metropolitan area do not have two car garages. It is not requirement and we have heard from the staff that you know if this was a new construction, well you would require that it have a two story garage. This is not new construction. If it were new construction there'd be 300 and some square feet to build on which means you'd build a shed, and even that you wouldn't build because that area happens to be in a 15 foot easement to the benefit of us and to the benefit of the Papp's which runs for ingress and egress through that area. And there haven't been any mention of this. The staff feels that it's a private easement so if you give the okay to put something in the middle of our easement then we have to go a court and undo that and our feeling is you should think about that when you decide whether it is appropriate to grant an easement that in fact intrudes on our 15 foot wide space in order to get into the property which is, it's actually a public easement so it's your, it's your opportunity to access that as well. Okay so as to the issue of you know is, is it necessary that you have a two car garage. The applicants had, and I'm not a power point guy so I don't help this. Do you have the ability to show video? Okay. I'm going to do this. Can you see that? There you go. I've been informed that this is the house that they sold in order to buy the house that they got. They gave up their indoor swimming pool and they gave up their 3 car garage because they felt living on the point with its beautiful views and its access to the water was worth an extra $100,000. It's not that anybody had any kind of a surprise that there isn't a garage there. There was a knowing decision that we're trading X in order to get Y and Y doesn't have a 3 car garage and I think that that is important because they aren't the first people to own this property. It's been owned by many people. Let's see do you have your affidavit Nelleke? Nelleke Knight: Yeah I actually gave it to you. This is. Dave Bishop: We've talked with the city staff a month ago, 2 weeks ago, last Friday as to what was there on 3503 in prior years and we hear things like well your photographs could be photo shopped. They may not be accurate. We don't know what to believe. We can only go by the paperwork that is in our office and we don't, we can't actually do an investigation like call the applicant up and ask him what was there or actually go inside their house and take a look at what was there so with your permission I'd like to give you, this is an Affidavit... so that there isn't any question as to whether or not we feel that we're telling the truth. Aller: Does planning have a copy of this already or is this the first time? Dave Bishop: It's the only copy that exists. You have the original. Aller: So what I'm going to ask before I even read this is that why don't we take a little bit of a break here and we'll take a recess for a minute and let's make a copy of this. Aanenson: Yeah, well we can adjust that quickly. The practical difficulty that we're dealing with here is a front and side yard setback. We didn't get into the issues of taking it to where they 13 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 wanted to go. We also did speak to the City Attorney regarding the right-of-way issue which there's a lot of ambiguity in that so we stepped away from that so we stuck to the issues. Aller: Right. Aanenson: I think we're putting a lot of other things now moving towards trying to, we were just trying to keep it clear on what we believe was the issue in front of you. If you want to take a minute to read that, be more than happy to take a quick recess. Aller: I do because I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Whether it gets advanced and of course will become part of the package but I don't know what's in it or whether it's going to be relevant to what we're talking about right now so we're going to make a copy and then we'll take a look at it. Dave Bishop: That's fine. I just want to respond to what I just heard. Aller: Sure. Dave Bishop: If I understand you correctly, in order to grant this you have to meet 4 criteria. One of those criteria, at a minimum. You can deny it for any reasonable reason but you have to meet the 4 criteria and one of the criteria I think is that the hardship or the inconvenience or the difficulty should not be caused by the people who owned the property and what this affidavit is going to tell you is this property had a 2 car garage and the owners made the decision that they would rather have a larger basement and not have a garage and so when they say well we're only going to look at the narrow issues I take a little umbrage with that because. Aller: Let me just interrupt you. When you say owners are we talking about the applicant? Dave Bishop: No the people in the chain of title. And they take the property as they find it I believe. I'm not acting as a lawyer. I'm just saying as the next door neighbors it's our view that they take the property as they find it and the way they find it is that it has a 2 car garage already. They just decided, the previous owners just decided to board it up and that that creates a conflict with the requirement that it not be, the people in the title's actions that caused this to occur in my opinion. Aller: Okay, I understand your position. Dave Bishop: Okay. No not yet. They're going to take a break if I understand it. Aller: We'll take a two -minute break, or recess until we get a copy and then we'll take a look at it. We're in recess. The Planning Commission took a recess at this point in the meeting to make copies of an Affidavit submitted by Nelleke Knight and Dave Bishop. 14 0 • Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Okay we're going to call this meeting back to order. For the record we received an Affidavit of Maria Knight and the original has been provided to staff to go with the file and we've received true and accurate copies of a two-page affidavit along with some pictures and I'm going to summarize that as a statement that you live to the west at 3605. That you bought the property and had been there for more than. Nelleke Knight. Well I live to the west of 3603. Aller: Oh at 3603. Thank you. Dave Bishop: No she lives at 3605 which is at the west of 3603. Aller: Right. Nelleke Knight. Yeah. Aller: So you are at 3605? Nelleke Knight: Yes. Dave Bishop: Yes. Aller: Okay. That you live there. That you know that the property at 3603 had a 2 car garage at some point in time. That garage was torn down by prior owners. Dave Bishop: It was not torn down. Aller: Just closed off. Nelleke Knight: Closed off, yes. Aller: Okay so, in the remodeling and that you believe that the variance should be denied because there was a choice made by the prior owner to forego the garage. And it's your position then that the new owners should be held to that standard to rely on what the other property owner did and that we are also bound by that. Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Aller: Okay. So that's a fair statement of what's in here and that will be attached, thank you. Dave Bishop: So the affidavit is to address the concerns that we heard from the staff that we weren't telling the truth and I think there will be another resident of the point that will reiterate the veracity of what that says that's coming later so you'll hear that again. This is, let's see. I don't want to get this out of order. Aller: So what other items are there? MI 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Dave Bishop: Well I believe this is on cable TV isn't it? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: Okay so they haven't seen these photos so what I want to do is just real quickly show them so there's a clear record. This is the house as it exists today. Aller: Okay I'm going to stop you there. It's part of the record now. We've read it and I don't want to take a lot of time looking at photographs of the condition of the property way back when. We're taking your affidavit at face value and we're going to move forward. Dave Bishop: Can I point out some things on the photo? Aller: Sure, if it has to do with the applicant's application. Dave Bishop: Yes. There are some things that the affidavit doesn't state. This is an 1985 picture that is part of the affidavit but it does not show, state that the reason the photo was in there is because this is, this is Nelleke's mother and this is the window that you can see going into the garage that we have shown you with the light on. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: This was taken yet this week and the purpose of this is to show that the outside stanchion for the garage is here and you can see that there is a difference in the color for, and yeah it's hard to see from this but it sticks out in this area which constitutes the left side of the filled in area and this, you can see the line right here constitutes the filled in area over here and the original for the right side. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Now one of the things that, Drew maybe you can go back to it but one of the comments that I heard was that our residence doesn't any windows on the east side. Aller: Sir I'm not really concerned with your residence not having windows unless it's an impact. Dave Bishop: Oh it does. All I want to do is make it clear. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Because I think it was a misstatement and I want the record to be clear on it. Okay this is our residence and you can see that there is a garage and there's the east side of the garage but if you look beyond the garage you'll see that there's a window that it constitutes our front window and there it goes. Okay. So there is a window there okay and this is, this is what you would see. If you can tum this on. This is what you would see if you were looking out that IV 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 window. It's a little low but it kind of shows you the 3 points that I wanted to make clear. There was a proposal D and proposal D as it was originally stated was that they would build a garage that would come out this far and out this far. Now this is the road here. This is east going up this way and this is north going this way. So the original proposal was that the garage would be up to here. Yes, he's right. Up to here. This is proposal D. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. That's the part that's on our side of this. Now asyou can see proposal D is more than, I mean there's only like 4 feet or so to the far side of the road. It's right in the middle of the easement. Can you see that? Now if you look at what was originally proposed you'll see that there's an arrow indicating how they were going to get into this and the way they were going to get into this was not from the north like they said today. The arrow shows and what we're responding to is that they were going to drive in this way and the only way they were going to do that was to go right by our property. Right through our property. Right through the middle of our property. Aller: And there's an easement there. Dave Bishop: Yes there is and we own it. Aller: Okay and it's a shared easement so they have a right to drive on it. Dave Bishop: No, well this is a garage that is going to go from here to here and then from here and over to about here, okay. Now maybe they can squeeze through the easement to get into this car but they'll never get it into this car without going through our property. It can't be, I don't believe it can be done. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. Now that's their proposal. It made so little sense that we thought what they must have meant was that they would take their 27 by 23 two story garage and they would turn it this way. Okay so this is the line if they would do that and it suffers the same defect. Its right in the middle of the easement and it would block us and the Papp's from getting in and out of this area. Now the City said well we'll cut this down to 21 by 21. Well that puts the line right there. Okay. So this is what it looks like if you look out our window, okay. And this is my interpretation of what it looks like if they build what they said they were going to build. Now this is photo shopped. I admit that just to be illustrative, okay. You know this is what we're looking at now and this is what we would be looking at if they built it turned around so that the short side of this thing would be in the short direction rather than sticking out the long way. It still absolutely destroys the view. And this is what we have today and this is what we would have on the City's 21 by 21. This is just my guesstimate because I have no idea what the elevations are, as does anyone else because this is just pulled out of the air. It's just, there's no information on this one but that's what we lose. Okay now the other statement essentially was that, there's a 30 foot setback according to Chanhassen's law between our property and the adjoining property and if the City wants to change that I suppose they can but the fact that it is a 17 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 front yard under the City's statute does not tum it into a side yard because it looks like it. It is what it is. It's a front yard. It's a 30 foot setback. It's not a 10 foot setback. And this is the view we have now from the middle of our property on essentially very close to the lot line. And you can see back here the line for the garage. And this is harder to understand but we would see the tree and we would miss everything else if they built this on the property so it is a visual, a huge visual encroachment on us by accepting this 20 foot variance that's being requested in our opinion. We have been given I guess several times a survey purported to be on this property. The survey that we received on its face indicates that it located no boundary markers and we and the Papp's vehemently disagree on the accuracy of the survey. The permeable, impermeable service, impermeable surface statistics that the staff has been quoting you is based on what the surveyor told them but neither the City nor us have any way to replicate those and you know using my protractor and graph paper I didn't come anywhere near the percentages that they have. Some of which are numbers like 24.96 percent which makes we wonder if somebody fudged a square foot here and there. I don't know but I do know that Nelleke claims all of this area here, okay. Am I correct Nelleke that the Papp's told you that they claim the area here? Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Dave Bishop: Okay. I don't know what those percentages are but I do believe that is a disputed boundary and that although the survey might be made by a surveyor and whatever is on the line if he signed it, it doesn't make it any more accurate and so our position is those are disputed boundaries and that if you took into account those boundaries, D and E are even less feasible. Drew do you have something that shows A, B and C on it? It's hard to see here which is A and B. I guess I'll talk about B first because I think, actually the letters have changed. Yeah they've changed on this one from what they used to be. So B is now the one closest to the Papp's and I will refer you to the Papp's letter and I will simply reiterate that we agree and believe everything that is said in that letter as respects to it destroying the natural tenure of the point. The reason that there is a unique situation is that there's water on both sides. That makes it unique and therefore the State and the City have come to the conclusion that you need to protect these unique things by putting 75 foot setbacks on them. If you, you know junk this up with more structures it doesn't look like a point anymore. It looks like a peninsula and we, we believe that you know and the City apparently agrees with us that it's just totally inappropriate. Now this is a good time for me to talk about what it is they have actually proposed here okay. Aller: Let me ask you, do you have anything further on C or B? Dave Bishop: Yes I'm talking just about B now but my comments refer to A and C and B. All three of them. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: The concept of a two story, 27 by 23 foot, two car garage and studio is just horrid, horrid over reach. We suggested to them that they could build a two -car shed roof. Single story and blend it in so that it was almost unviewable and that was apparently rejected. We did have a meeting with the applicant and one of the things that applicant told us was that you know they M • • Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 want this second story as additional living space because we hear today that they want you know to do crocheting but what we heard at the meeting was. Nelleke Knight: Quilting. Dave Bishop: Quilting, I'm sorry. My mistake but what we heard at the meeting was that they have a son who is a fashion designer and that it is part of their family tradition for him to come back from New York City and spend 4 days building out his line and so in my view, in our view this is just a commercial enterprise and they want more space because the 2,800 square feet that they already have isn't sufficient to build this haute couture. Fine idea to do but that's why we have rental space. We don't see anything in the proposal that says no sewer. No electricity. No gas. No water. In fact the City has told us that if you allow this that there's nothing to prevent them from doing all of that and making this simply more living accommodations. They can say today they don't want to do it but you know at this meeting they said this is their tenth house I believe that they've bought. They've had 9 before this so although they say they want to be here forever, when it gets sold what the next guy does once you do the zoning is out of your control. You've lost your shot at it and now we have you know instead, basically instead of 2 houses to the water we have 3 houses to the water and that's not appropriate given the existing zoning and that applies to all 3 of those locations. Now applying to A and C, okay. This is a, this property had a somewhat interesting checkered history. It had a $1.1 million dollar mortgage on it. It was foreclosed on. Aller: Sir I need to stop you now because we're going way over, I'm trying to be lenient on what's coming in here but we can't be talking about what you think someone else is going to do. We can't be talking about what's been done in the past. What the mortgage on the property is. That's not before us. That's a personal business decision by the homeowners. If you have a lot line survey that you want to present, I'll look at the survey. If you have information that was directly told to you, great but speculation we can't have at this point. Dave Bishop: Okay I won't speculate. I actually observed that after this was foreclosed upon and went to the bank, the bank hired people to come out and remove the oil tank from this property. I observed them do that and I looked at the punctured hole in the oil tank and I observed the oil that was in the ground below the tank and I talked with them about their remediation. I talked with the guy who was doing the remediation and they said they weren't taking soil. They were just taking the tank. That's what I know of of my own personal. Okay second to that issue, after that occurred the bank hired somebody to monitor this and those people contacted us and they asked us if there was any contamination and so we looked because it wasn't purchased at the time. This was 2014 in December. The point I'm getting to is, they told us. They told us that we should look at our, what do you call it? Takes the water out. Nelleke Knight: Sump pump. Dave Bishop: Sump pump. They should look at our sump pumps to see if the sump pumps are picking up oil. Well it turns out that we couldn't discern it in our's because our's is pitch black so we went over to this property and we found oil coming out of their sump pump and we took photographs of it and we sent it to them but we heard nothing back. Now if you look on the V9 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 papers that were submitted to you they will tell you they have, they know they have a tank and that they know that there's an issue with building on that site. In my opinion I haven't seen anything that actually says it's remediated other than hearsay from people saying well we don't know whether there's a problem or not but one of the conditions if you should allow A or C is that that property underlying it be completely remediated. Okay that's my point. Aller: Thank you. Dave Bishop: Now what else, we've got a few others. Aller: Anything that you haven't spoken on before? Dave Bishop: Yeah. If you decide to make some kind of a positive on this we object to it being a two car garage. We object to it being a two story garage. We object to it being used as a sewing room or commercial area or whatever. We believe that you can make as a condition that it be one story with a shed roof. We think that as a condition you can require that it not have sewer, water or heat other than electricity. In other words that it be a garage for two cars and not back door way of expanding a property for professional use or making it a habitable space. Habitable space. Anything else? Nelleke Knight: Sounds good. Dave Bishop: Okay. Aller: Great, thank you sir. Dave Bishop: The only thing I would say is I understand you're going to close the public part of this hearing. I don't know whether it is your normal procedure, because I don't appear in front of you, to then like negotiate with the applicant on well would you do this. Would you do that but if you do decide to do that I would simply ask that you re -open the public part so we can respond to anything you decide to negotiate. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional members of the public wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing at this time on this item and I'll open it to discussion. I do have some questions for staff on the easement if we could discuss that a bit. Aanenson: Sure. Drew and Bob spoke with the City Attorney regarding the easement. It's written awkwardly and it appeared there was no public interest in that easement so clearly the property easement runs with the property owners. This is similar to the one that, if you recall the one just north off of Mrs. Carlson's property. The Frethem subdivision where we had the easement back in those, there were 3 homes on that private driveway. Written awkwardly and so there's some ambiguity there but there's no public interest in that and certainly it'd be the intent to keep the driveway the similar width that it is today but it would be. Aller: That's the reason for the additional pavement was to keep the width. 01-01 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. Correct. Aller: And there are conditions on all these items which would require that proper building code standards were adhered to. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: Anybody have additional questions based on the comments at this point? The two properties that are next door, did they each receive variances? Ingvalson: Yes. They both received variances. Looking back on our variance map. The property to the east was granted a 45 foot shoreline setback variance. That's the largest one variance that's been granted in this area from the shoreline. And then the property to the west was granted a 4 foot side yard to the east and then also a 2 foot side yard to the west setbacks and then also a 26 foot shoreline setback variance. Aller: Was there an indication on what those were for? Ingvalson: If I remember correctly I believe it says in the packet. It was for a, for the construction of a detached two stall garage and a second floor bedroom expansion. Or that would be for the property to the west. Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Okay discussion. We have a lot of options. Talk about A. Talk about B. Talk about C. Talk about D. Talk about E. We can start with throwing out the reasons why I prefer E if we're going to do it as a starting point and probably a finishing point because it's got the less impact. Safely wise. Audience: Would it be okay if you got closer to the microphone? Aller: Oh sure, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Audience: Yeah. Aller: Great, thank you. I apologize. Hokkanen: I said what about E. I didn't expand on it yet. I was just thinking about it. Let me think. Aller: E as opposed to none. I look at the. Audience: We still can't hear you. Aller: I look at the property and I look at the reason that I asked them about when they purchased the property was I wanted to see what their intent was coming in and there doesn't appear to be to me an indication that they didn't feel as though the property was going to be, or 21 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 this variance was going to be granted but they would be coming in to ask for the variance and in looking at the variances that have already been granted on a property that was developed in 1918 and we've done this before in other properties, I think it is a unique property. I don't think there's any question about it. I think it's an undue hardship on them, or I should say a practical difficulty upon them and I do think that it's a reasonable use of the property to have a garage. And I think what they're giving up here potentially is the ability to have 5 cars because they won't be able to park them all there. They're going to lose some parking spots so they are giving up things in order to gain the garage in this instance and I think it comports with the neighborhood as it exists. So I don't think it's an unreasonable use that they're asking for. I do think it's unique and I do not believe that they are held in any form or fashion, nor am I or we as a commission held based upon the decisions to follow what a prior owner has done in a new owner's application so that's my first blush response. Yusuf I partially agree with that. If we are to proceed with an option I would be leaning more towards option E. Option E seems to encroach the least on everything and allows you to have the two car garage without really encroaching too much in the variances and all the setbacks that are required so option E would be the one I would be leaning towards if we proceed with this. Madsen: I also am leaning towards option E but I would like to see the plan of what would be built so that people could comment on it. Yusuf: To that point I just want to agree also, what was brought up by the most recent speaker here about utilities going to this, the two story garage we'd like to see that too. That would definitely be of interest so whenever, it would be maybe beneficial to have yet another review of the plans as we proceed. Tietz: If there were to be an option E, that's a very difficult corner of the home to work on. I think there is significant architectural re -work of a major portion of the home to make that fit. To make it work. You know I'm not here to suggest taking down trees but I am looking at that image right now and I don't know if that's a big cottonwood just to the east of the home but maybe there's another way of massing this structure tighter to the home and not getting a separation between the home and the B, C and A options and looking at the east side of the home. It's going to be a major, I think it's going to be a major architectural challenge regardless of where it goes and I think going to the east and possibly eliminating a tree or two might create a mass that's more acceptable to the neighborhood. Weick: I had similar, similar questions when I first looked at it. I think for you know I'm sensitive to you know both neighbors opposing building and for those reasons I think D and B are enough of an encroachment on, you know whether it be views or actual setback encroachments. If those really don't seem like great options and as we look in the middle I wondered why we couldn't push you know A and/or C closer to the home. Maybe there's trees there or something. It wouldn't affect the setbacks. In fact. Tietz: It might be better. Undestad: It would help. 22 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Weick: It would be better right because you'd be further. You get to take advantage of that point if you put it over far enough right so that was also a question that I had. I still am concerned whether it's D or E on that side of the building. I know you would re -work the road and everything but it is, it's a pretty big structure either way to go on that side of the house. You know I lean more towards that A and C area if we were to consider a variance. Undestad: Drew have you looked at, have you looked at the gap between the house and A and C? Is it just the trees? Ingvalson: For the gap between A and C, this gap between here? Undestad: Yeah to move it closer to the house. Ingvalson: We have not. We took what was submitted. We reviewed this, what was submitted by the applicant. Undestad: Can we ask the applicant at this time? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: If we could have the probably the engineer come forward, or architect come forward. Would it work? Is this something that was considered? Pat Mackey: It was considered. Aller: And if it was considered why was it deleted as an option? Pat Mackey: There's the large cottonwood. There's a fire hydrant and there's the easement which I don't know if you can see roughly in the area where Drew's cursor is pointing. There's an additional easement. There is the road. There is the fire hydrant and there is the large cottonwood or the large tree which we're, everybody's interested in maintaining. Undestad: That's the one that you were just circling then? Ingvalson: Correct. This would be the large tree. Undestad: So again if we look at just moving the garage location, you're staying south of the hydrant. You're moving west towards the house. You're still staying away from the easement. Yeah, or even come back and attach it off that corner of it. I don't think you really need to go that close but it looks to me like you could slide it over. Stay away from the hydrant. Save the big cottonwood and stay out of the roadway. I don't see where the additional setback you're talking about interferes with that. Pat Mackey: As far as setbacks are concerned it's probably yeah, neither. Not significantly different than what A, B or C are. Are proposing. In terms of where to attach it to the house, the 23 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 least amount of disruption to the existing house in terms of the way the internal circulation of the house works out. You know again some of the confusion around D and it's offspring E relate from initially as a design strategy we were trying not to require that the garage and, you know that the opening up of the house be part of the garage condition. We were just trying to see what variables are in play here. What can we work with? What are our options in order of obstacles you know with setbacks and lot coverage and drainage, etc? That being said an option to the east, directly to the east of the house would be, I mean that's currently the front door of the house as it exists. It's got the primary views. The primary view windows. It just, so as you see you kind of enter around that house. It just kind of rejiggers the entire working of the entire main floor of the house, including the kitchen, the primary living area and the front door. So just in terms of is it possible? Yes. Anything is possible. That's why we're here talking about what options are. But in terms of additional requirements and just kind of what the entry cost of getting a garage is, it just seemed to be a greater entry cost than the other options. Undestad: Is it, again I'm still trying to focus on you're A and C on there just to slide it closer to the house but Alyson if they slide it over the fire hydrants lines up in front of the access point, would the applicant have the opportunity to pay for the relocating of the fire hydrant? Fauske: We could certainly work with the applicant on any relocation of the fire hydrant. The challenge being that it is a tight location. We'd have to work with the fire department as well to make sure that that hydrant's placed in an appropriate location. Undestad: Or potentially add one. Fauske: Correct. And you know there's a clear zone around it, a hydrant that the fire department requires in order to maintain accessibility to the hydrant so we would have to work around those parameters. Aller: And would that impact the tum around for a vehicle? Fauske: The existing tum around or a proposed tum around? Aller: The proposed turn around. In other words would it have to be increased or moved based on the hydrant being moved so they could get a truck to it? Fauske: Without doing a lot of analysis it would appear that in order to meet shifting options A or C to the west in order to gain access to either of those options at that hydrant perhaps would have to shift further east but I can't say for certain without you know taking pencil to paper. Pat Mackey: I would agree. I think C which enters perpendicular to the private drive to accommodate C and car turn around space and you know just able to get into the garage and fire hydrant, clear space I think C would, that hydrant would have to move pretty significantly. A may be more workable but once the easement and the easement around the hydrant, we knew the hydrant was there but when the easement was brought, you know was discovered we just stopped pursuing options in that area. It's an easement so. 24 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Comments, questions from the other side. Hokkanen: I don't feel I have enough information or options to make a recommendation without more research possibly. Can we do that? Undestad: I would agree. I think what we're all talking about is you know what the commissioners have stated is D's not really a viable option just from the impact to the house and what's going on. Hokkanen: No, correct. Aller: Right. Undestad: B is pushing it all to the other neighbor who doesn't want it down there so I think that area east of the structure, you know where A and C, there's something that I think somebody can go back to the drawing board and try to get what you want within that area east of the house and. Weick: Further to that, you know we looked at reducing D from a 3 to a 2. I would assume you could look at reducing A and C the same way, right? If they're currently structured as a 3 car garage you could reduce the footprint to make it less. Undestad: I think they're 2 car. Weick: Are they? Aanenson: They're different sizes. Weick: Just different sizes, okay. Ingvalson: Different sizes. The options they've proposed is deeper. Its 27 feet deep with a 23 foot wide entrance so the deepness is what makes it larger. Significantly. Weick: Ah, because A certainly looks the same size as D to me but I'm not, maybe that's not. Undestad: Yeah, the proposal they had that shrunk it down was, was the E that doesn't show on there. Ingvalson: Correct the E is not shown on this. Aller: But I think what Commissioner Weick's asking is whether or not we can use the footprint of E. Weick: Right. Just trying to be sensitive to, I mean I get it. They're right. I mean the views. That property. Its gorgeous right and, man. Undestad: But I think agree though. We just probably need a little more. 25 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Hokkanen: Research. Undestad: Little more research on this one, yeah. Tietz: And I'd like to really see A pulled as close to the house as possible with possibly not infringing upon the entry but I think from the plan that we have it looks like it could be done and if the hydrant has to be moved, the hydrant has to be moved. Hokkanen: If that's possible. Tietz: If that's possible and it's probably a distance to the end of the point or one way or the other I can't imagine a 10 foot, well we'll let the Fire Marshal decide on that. Aller: So how do we feel about, let me just poll. How do we feel about option B? Is that out for everyone? Hokkanen: Yes. Aller: So option B is out of the consideration at this time. Option D. Aller: Is out yeah, as far as what I'm hearing. Okay great. So we're looking at A, C, E and potentially now F. Hokkanen: Correct. Weick: It sounds like we're. Aller: And I think what we're really going towards is E or F. Weick: But as it pertains to this request, we're denying it. I mean is that? Aanenson: Mr. Chair you can also table the request... Aller: ...I wanted to see whether or not the applicant would be interested in signing an extension. Aanenson: They would need to because we're at the end of the extension. They'd have to sign that tonight but I also think it's clear, good that you give as much specificity of what your expectations are if they come back. Aller: Right. Hokkanen: Right. 26 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 is Aanenson: Which is what I'm understanding you're doing, you're sticking onto A and C, then talk about the sizes of the garage and then I heard some other things. Architectural detail. Those are things you're looking for as they table and bring it forward so if that's your motion now as a part of tabling the motion that before you'd vote on that that the applicant would have to give us something in writing requesting an additional 60 days. Aller: Extension. So if somebody wanted to make that motion that would be posed as a motion to table. Dave Bishop: Are you going to open the public hearing for this new set? Aller: No sir, this is a motion to table so there's no need for public input. Hokkanen: I move to table this application. Aller: And do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aanenson: Okay before you vote can we get something in writing and if the applicant would otherwise you would have to make a motion one way or the other. If you want to give an extra 60 days in writing. Otherwise they're going to vote in a different way. They're recommending tabling. That'd give you 60 days... Aller: Basically what it would be doing sir is coming back. Working with staff on the items after you've heard the, and had an opportunity that you can actually get the Minutes and take a look at what's here. What we've discussed. We can continue on with a little bit of discussion but I think it's pretty clear what we're looking at for something to the east to allow for that to occur but it has to have some, the movement of the hydrant has to meet the requirements of the 25 percent. The architectural value has to be the same, similar as the property. Gregg Geiger: With F, what we're now calling F, closer that would be, yes. Easier to achieve in terms of...E. Aller: E is not yet off the table. I mean that's what I'm hearing. We're just trying to exclude things so we can get you to a point where we can actually focus on two really good viable options and come to a decision with all the information and at the new hearing we wouldn't be hearing any information we've already heard but we do want to see what you come up with. Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman just to be clear, all the other would be, and I'm not saying I know how you're going to vote but the other is you could vote in a different way and then you would still go up to the City Council because you could appeal it. Either party's going to appeal it and the City Council would have kind of this ambiguity of the conditions so you have a choice of that. 27 • Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: What would the timing on the appeal be? They would have to put in writing. Aanenson: Right now we have it set for August 1 CO, yeah. Aller: So it would go on August 10. Aanenson: Yes. Aller: So that would be a consideration for your planning if you needed more time then you probably want to sign an extension and table it. Otherwise it would be heard by the City Council on August I CP if we decided to deny and you appeal that decision. Gregg Geiger: That was what I was not certain about is what exactly is the 60 days? Aller: So if you do the extension it will come back here. Gregg Geiger: Right. Aller: And as soon as you're ready you can meet with staff and we can get it back on and it will be heard. If it's with proper notice to the 500 foot individuals. So after that you can come back here. We'll continue our discussion and then there'll be findings and a vote. If we continue today then most likely what we had before us would be denied. You can appeal that and present whatever you wish to to the City Council on August l Os'. Gregg Geiger: So the extension... Aanenson: Yeah I would prefer that you'd get that handed to me in writing right now before they vote. Aller: Right so if you could just put something in writing that you're granting an extension. Undestad: But just to clarify something between us here, the option E. The original option E was where D is? Aller: But smaller. Undestad: But and that's something we're still looking at. Aller: I didn't want to take it off the table. I wanted to make sure they had an alternative option in case this doesn't work out. They may look at it and say this is absolutely, we want to come back with E. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, we're waiting for him to sign it. He's trying to listen to your conversation. If we could, then we can all get clarity on, if that's alright. 28 • r Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Pat Mackey: is it my understanding that E does not have enough information to move forward or. Undestad: No I think even on E we need, we need drawings. We need to know what's there. Tietz: Drew I know you're back there trying to get this put together but if a revised A or if A moved closer and the D area that's currently a parking area and the turn out on the north side of the road, are we still okay with hard cover? Ingvalson: Yes. Looking at it without putting any numbers right down right now there would be a slight increase in hard cover if there was an option to attach to the east side of the house and there would also be a need to bump out the drive farther to the north to make sure you're maintaining that 10 foot wide drive. Tietz: Right. Ingvalson: Looking at it, it would put it probably close to 25 percent. I couldn't say right now but that's hopefully something that we could get if we did get an option F as we labeled it. Aller: And I think we all have to remember we could exceed that if we choose to with a variance. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: No I just wanted clarification. Aller: It decreases the opportunity... Hokkanen: Stop talking. Aanenson: Alright, we have an extension and we have a motion on the floor with a second. And just to be clear, yeah. Aller: Okay we have a. Aanenson: If you maybe want to go through those points of we're looking for architecture. We're looking for relocation as close to the, the existing structure as we can. Aller: Correct. Aanenson: And all the other calculations would come back and we'll look at the hydrant and those issues. Aller: Hydrant and easement. Aanenson: Correct. Oz 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Make sure that we're on site with easements and. Aanenson: Total hard cover, yeah. Aller: And that the hard cover is not exceeding 25 percent is the goal. Any additional items to look at? Madsen: And just for clarification that would include what we're calling option E which would be on the west side and then option F which would be on the east side. Are we still looking at those two options? Aller: What we're calling them. You can come back with a clean, with a clean application that says option A and option B. Option C. Whatever you want to come back with but you do know how we feel about the other options already so. Gregg Geiger: Yeah, those are. Aller: So we want to focus on what potentially will work. So having a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Yusuf, any father discussion? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for variances to construct a detached garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAMETTRY'S COLLISION. PLANNING CASE 2015-19: REOUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ON A SINGLE LOT AND TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD AT MOTORPLEX COURT — LAMETTRY'S. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK LAMETTRY. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and planning commissioners. Planning Case 2015-19. It's our public hearing tonight. The applicant is Rick LaMettry. It's for a conditional use permits and site plan review. The property is located at 1650 and 1651 Motorplex Court. It's on the west side of Audubon at Motorplex Court which is doing the research on this I found the addresses finally so it's just north of the railroad bridge that is on Audubon. The property is segmented into two parts. There's a small connection of land between the front and the back part so that's why it shows up there's two parcels but it's actually one. When Audubon Motorplex originally came in there were two properties except for their configuration was slightly different and as they've expanded the Motorplex over time we've adjusted the lot lines to take in part of the one parcel and put into the other. That's significant because of one of the conditional use permits that they're requesting. The Motorplex was approved in 2006. The site plan review at the time showed 12 buildings that they were including as part of their complex. One of the Of PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 621 square- foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." (Note: a motion for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact and Decision are also included at the end of the report.) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a shoreline setback and a front yard setback variance (Option D) to allow them to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it J encroaches on the required shoreline setback and front yard setback. LOCATION: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (PID 25-6600270) APPLICANT: Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.735 acres (32,025 square feet) DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two-story, 621 square -foot garage on their property. The applicant has provided four garage location alternatives (three detached and one attached) for review. Options have been labeled A, B, C and D, respectively, and have been listed in order of preference. The project, as proposed, is not allowed by City Code and requires a variance because it will encroach on the 75 -foot shoreline setback. In addition to requiring a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback, one option will also require a variance from the 30 - foot front yard setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland management district Section 20480, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions Section 20481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single-family residential district Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-905. Single-family dwellings According to Carver County records, the house at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 1918. This structure is 31 feet away from the southern shoreline, or ordinary high water (OHW) level, and 75 feet away from the northern shoreline. In 1986, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The Shoreland Management District of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The principal structure on the subject site encroaches on the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 70 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. The only work permitted by the city that was completed outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (the location of Options A and C). Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south to the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Planning Commission 0 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 13 Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a private drive that provides access to the subject site and to the property to the east. The minimum width of the roadway as it crosses the property is 10 feet, per the survey provided by the applicant. Image 1: Property, Setbacks and Proposed Garage Locations As seen in Image I above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact PROPOSEDGARAGE BURDABIE (All LOCATIONS} 621 AREAOFSREF S.F. FOOIPRM. HEIGHT' ALL SETBACKS 16'-3'AT MID -SLOPE OF ME ENFORCED MAN GABLE BY.) 18-3'AT MID SLOPE OF ` DORMER 1 21'8 AT PEAK TARE i �/IAAKMlrA I ,NO311 II SETBl18K W i 1 T 1 i - tl I 1 MYF 1 1 1 0 1 e --- 1 1 W '1 �worms Solu^.'"" -K lvialoi _ 36W RED• F _ PONE DONE IX45TNG DE DW 1 , ST.. tW2 5 F. FOOfPHM e i IFYF I �, 1 1 . TANK MICA '� N _______ -PN ATgN ON - 11/•A�II EDTOE T® 01M/ LAKE FROM SURVEY IINEMANIZA As seen in Image I above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 4 of 13 city utilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreline setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreline. Staff has worked with the applicant previously to eliminate those options north of Red Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed four alternatives that are all located south of the private drive (see Image 1). Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines The applicant intends to construct a 621 square -foot (23 -foot by 27 -foot) garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The three proposed detached garage locations (see options A -C in Image 1) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see option D in Image 1) will not encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback, but will encroach farther into the northern 75 -foot shoreline setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback. 0 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 5 of 13 Image 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a two story, 23 -foot by 27 -foot garage. The plan proposes four locations for the garage structure, all of which will require a shoreline setback variance and one that will require two shoreline setback variances and a front yard setback variance. Image 4: Option A Option A Option A is the applicant's preferred option (see Image 4). It is situated in the center of the property and has the garage entrance facing west. This option will not disrupt the existing access for vehicles traveling on the private drive. However, Option A is located 26.5 feet from the southern shoreline, 4.5 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing principal structure. This _ 1 SE 3 RED AR POINT E EXISTING 1 ♦ P 0 1 SE -1992 . FOOTPRINT G I 1 0. N P I --- Ca --- - O N OF PREVIOUS FUEL TANK - PENDING MPCA N N MENTATION ON TUS - ASSUMED TO BE EDIATED OT tE INTERPOCX7E 1 Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 6 of 13 option will require a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance. Being this close to the lake will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. Image 5 shows the current view of the lake from the private drive (the chairs and tarp are in the proposed location for Options A and Q. This location will remove three mature trees and will require the applicant to extend the driveway to access the garage from the east. Overall, this proposal will increase the hardcover to 24.77 percent. Image 5: View of Option A and C Location from Private Drive Option B Image 6: Option B Option B (see Image 6), along with Option C, is the applicant's next preferred location. This alternative is located on the eastern side of the property, but will maintain the 30 - foot rear yard setback. Option B will also not disrupt vehicle traffic on the private drive due to the garage access being located on the western elevation and the garage not being located within the private drive. This option will be 24 feet 7 inches from the shoreline, 2 feet 1 inch closer than Option A and nearly 6.5 feet closer than the existing 1 ., .� S RED u' AR POINr -- E EXISTING SE - 1882 . FOOTPRINr fi 1 � V I ii OF PREVIOUS FUEL TANK -PENDING MPG N N MENTATION ON-- TUS-ASSUMEDTOE EDIATED ow ' NTE Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 7 of 13 principal structure. This location will require a 50 -foot 5 -inch setback variance from the shoreline. Similar to Option A, the increase in hardcover in this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. This location will also require removing three mature trees (including a 30 -inch diameter tree). This option will increase hardcover on the property to 24.33 percent. Option C Option C (see Image 7) is evenly preferred with Option B for the applicant. Option C is located in a similar location as Option A; however, this alternative has the garage loading from the north. This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private drive and will also reduce the amount of hardcover added to the property for the project due to the shortened driveway extension, in comparison to Options A and B. This option will only increase hardcover to 23.28 percent. Option C has the shortest shoreline setback, 21 feet and 1.5 inches, of all four options provided by the applicant. This option is nearly 10 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. This alternative would require a 53 -foot 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Similar to the previous two options, the increase in hardcover at this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water (see Image 5 in Option A). This option will require the removal of one mature tree. Option D Option D (see Image 8) is the applicant's least -preferred alternative. This option is located on the western side of the property and is attached to the northwest portion of the house. The applicant has proposed expanding the private drive (425 square feet) for traffic since a portion of the proposed garage is situated within the existing drive. This drive expansion will create a 13 -foot wide driving path for vehicles. This alternative requests the shortest shoreland setback variance of all four options. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by two feet (73 feet from the shoreline) and the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) to the south. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback slightly more than the existing structure; however, to the south the proposed structure will not encroach any further than the existing structure. In addition, this proposed location will increase hard cover on the property to 23.78 percent. Overall, Option D will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and viewscape from the public water Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 8 of 13 because the garage will be located on existing hardcover, the structure will be significantly setback from the shoreline, and it will be screened by the existing building and vegetation. Since Option D is designed to load from the west, it w difficult for the homeowner to access their garage due to the sharp turn radius needed to get around the neighboring house to the west. Further, this location will require the subject property owner to drive across the neighboring property (off the private drive area) to access their garage. The proposed private drive will be substantially altered to accommodate the newly constructed garage. Unlike the previous three alternatives, Option D also requires a front yard setback variance in addition to the shoreline setback variance. The eastern property line is considered the front yard of the property per City Code Section 20-615 (7). However, the positions of the homes along the Red Cedar Point Road peninsula are situated with the private drive to the north of the homes. If this access were a public street the west and east property lines would be considered their side property lines and would only have a 10 -foot setback. The proposed location is situated 4 feet 2.5 inches from the western property line. The existing structure is currently set back 9 feet 7 inches from the property line (20 feet and 5 inches within the 30 -foot front yard setback). The proposed I Image 9: View of Option D Location from the Private Drive garage will encroach 5 feet 4.5 inches closer than the existing structure, requiring a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback variance. This is a significant variance from the ordinance, even when considering that the neighboring property does not have windows on this side of their house (see Image 10) and that the required yard setback would be 10 feet if it were a side yard. 0 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Image 10: View of Neighboring House (3605 Red Cedar Point Rd) from Private Drive Staff Recommended Location Staff has proposed an alternative plan that could be supported if the Planning Commission determines that it is reasonable to approve a two-story garage on the site. Staff believes that an attached garage is the most reasonable structure to provide parking because it will minimize negative impacts and required variances. Alternative Plan Staff's alternative plan (see Image 11) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure, similar to Option D. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. This option will not require a shoreline setback from the northern shoreline, but the proposed garage will encroach on the southern shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) and will require a variance. This shoreline setback variance is less than the shoreline setback non- conformity created by the existing structure. Similar to Option D, this alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. Also, this option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Unlike Option D, the altemative plan will not encroach further into the existing 9.6 -foot front yard setback that has been Planning Commission • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 10 of 13 established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance since it is within 30 feet of the eastern property line. Image 11: AlterativePlan 947.OX 946. 1 94j�I,i � 4 948. 1 X948. (��J 117 X946.3 A 91k5 t X946. 7.0 4X`94)TS O 'J % _947 � I 9a .E--- 4_6.3 X946.6 1 A47.3X 1 4 1 A 4�i�� a6. fA �ENr pP 1 46.5 0 , ^ t ZiIN15HE0 OOR 4 , ELEV.-9 .40 46 �� a ' ,1R4 49.6 \ 1 q IW 94 ; FINISHED FLOOR \947 ELEV.-946.39 44 ` - 41 T' .r _ FINISHED FLOOR ELEV.-951.19 FINISHED FLOOR , ,a 950 7i9 '2- 4 945.2 a 0 I-948�1 4 4 948.6 X9416.5 -�949y -fie+ 947-r`,� I ,4 94� i - \ The placement of the alternative plan will disrupt vehicle traffic along the private drive. To mitigate this issue, staff recommends that the Planning Commission attach a condition to the alternative plan that requires the applicant to increase the private drive to be at least 10 feet (not to exceed 24 feet) wide at all sections of the drive to ensure traffic safety (see gray area on Image 11 as an example of the expansion needed). This expansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property, but will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will be less hardcover than the four options provided by the applicant. This alternative provides a smaller garage than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of garage stalls show that it will be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeowner. Another alternative that staff could have supported would have been to attach the garage to the northeast comer of the home, but the applicant did not wish to consider this option because it would require the removal of a mature tree. Existing Shoreline Setbacks of Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property Every property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreline setback (see Image 14). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreline, or encroaching 51 -feet into the shoreline setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreline variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 8). Approved shoreline Planning Commission • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 11 of 13 setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreline setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet to 8 feet, allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. In addition, there has been one front yard setback variance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 8). The map below displays shoreline properties within 500 feet of the subject property (subject site in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Properties marked with an X are properties that have been granted a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback. The existing structure on the subject property is currently set back 31 feet from the shoreline, encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Image 14: Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property that Encroach on the 75 -foot Shoreline Setback SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage that encroaches into the 75 - foot shoreline setback (and one option that also encroaches into the front yard setback). Options A, B and C will encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure. Option A requests a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance, Option B requests a 50 -foot 5 -inch shoreline setback variance, and Option C requests a 53 -foot and 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Option D will not encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure, but will still require a 17 -foot shoreline setback variance from the southern shoreline setback, and a two - foot shoreline setback variance from the northern shoreline setback. Option D will also encroach Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 12 of 13 farther into the front yard setback and will require a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback. In addition, Option D has potential garage access and traffic issues since there is such a sharp turning radius required around the neighboring house to enter the garage from the west and because the proposed structures encroaches into the private drive. The homeowner will also need to drive across their neighbor's parking pad to access their garage in this option. Options A, B and C may have negative impacts on the water runoff into Lake Minnewashta, the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the removal of mature trees. Alternatively, Option D requires limited hardcover be added to the property, is well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any mature trees. All four alternatives provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent hardcover maximum allowed for the property. There are several properties within 500 feet of the subject site that encroach the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Several of these properties, including the subject property, were built prior to the city adopting the shoreland management section of city code. Staff believes that it is reasonable to request a variance to allow a two -stall garage due to the unique positioning of the property, the character of the neighborhood, and the existing requirement for new single-family, detached structures to have a two -car garage. However, staff does not support a variance for the four options provided by the applicant due to the negative traffic and environmental impacts these options would create. If the Planning Commission believes that it is reasonable to request a variance for a two-story two -stall garage, staff believes that the alternative location and plan should be used. The alternative garage plan is smaller than the 621 square -foot garage plan provided by the applicant by 180 square feet; however, staff has found that this option will provide enough space to store two vehicles. The alternative plan effectively mitigates potential viewscape from the public waters issues and runoff harms. The alternative plan will require a front yard setback variance, but the newly proposed garage will not encroach farther into the existing structure setback. Furthermore, the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve more as a side yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. This plan also allows for efficient loading into the newly proposed garage and will not disrupt traffic, provided the applicant extends the private drive to at least ten feet wide by the proposed garage. The alternative plan will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require only a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property well below the 25 percent hardcover maximum. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to construct a two- story 621 square -foot garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request to construct a garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, but maintains the existing setbacks, Planning Commission 0 • 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 13 of 13 it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 101/6. 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City-" ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision -Denial. 2. Findings of Fact and Decision -Approval. 3. Development Review Application & Narrative 4. Site Plan with Options A -D. 5. Registered Land Survey with Alternative Plan. 6. Architectural Plans. 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 8. Variances within 500 feet. 9. Letter from Frances and Keith Paap dated July 10, 2015. gAplant2015 planning cases\2015-I4 3603 red cedar point variance4vsubmittal 06-05-2015\staff report 3603 red cedar point.doc 0 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback (Option D) on property zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, the proposed options for locating the garage excessively encroach farther than is necessary into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. These encroachments will potentially harm the natural environment of Lake Minnewashta through increased storm water runoff and will potentially harm the viewscape from the public waters. Further, Option D will unnecessarily encroach on the front yard setback, potentially harming the neighboring property owner. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this 0 0 Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The unique location of the property serves a practical difficulty in meeting the zoning ordinance. The property already encroaches on the shoreline setback and front yard setback; however, the proposed locations are not situated in areas that will minimize the negative impacts of locating a 621 square -foot two-story garage on the property. Instead, the applicant has proposed garage locations that unnecessarily encroach farther into the required shoreline setback and front yard setback than the existing structure, which is a legal non -conformity. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was constructed in 1918, 68 years prior to the City of Chanhassen adopting the shoreland chapter, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The property currently has legal non -conforming status. The property has circumstances that are unique and not created by the landowner, but the proposed locations for the garage unnecessarily encroach farther into the shoreline setback and front yard setback than what is needed for a two -stall garage. Any expansion that extends farther into the front yard and shoreline setback than the existing non -conformity would be created by the landowner, not due to the circumstances unique to the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of a variance that allows a structure to be located closer to the shoreline could negatively affect the viewscape from the public waters. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). While multiple structures in the area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement, nearly none would be as close to the shoreline as Options A -C, with the exception of water -oriented structures. Further, the small setback between Option D and the westerly neighboring structure would reduce the already small setback between the two structures, negatively affecting the neighboring property owner. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 0 0 S. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline and front yard setbacks. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21' day of July, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN EM Chairman 0 E CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square -foot two-story attached garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. Further, the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreline setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 0 0 Finding: The applicant's request to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreline on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 - foot shoreline setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreline and 30- front yard setbacks, but the construction of an attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach farther into the required shoreline or front yard setbacks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a two-story two -stall garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 68 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and thus did not create the nonconformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple structures in the area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreline and front yard setback requirements. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986) and the City of Chanhassen was established. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted six shoreline setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. The proposed shoreline setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreline, and will not encroach closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. The city has also granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 18 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not be encroached any closer than the existing structure and will keep with the essential character of the locality. £ Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. Fa 0 0 S. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21' day of July, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANNASSEN Mailing Address P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227--1300 /Fax: (952) 227-1110 0 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: � ) r PC Date: IC I IV 1 ) 5 CC Date: -7' 13 1 17 60 -Day Review Date: % ZI-4 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................$600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ...... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Single -Family Residence.................................$325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 ( lots) ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 Metes & Bounds ........................ ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ( lots) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)...................$750 ❑ ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................$100 ❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700 ❑ All Others .........................................................$500 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs' ❑ Sign Plan Review...................................................$150 through the development contract. ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative ..................................................$100 ElCommercial/Industrial Districts' ......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) 'Include number of existing employees: 'Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts.........................................$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Create 3 lots or less.........................................$300 ❑ Create over 3 lots ...................... $600 + $15 per lot ( lots) ❑ Metes & Bounds ........................ $300 + $50 per lot ( lots) ❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs' 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) ........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) .................................................. 200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Single -Family Residence...............................$150 ❑ All Others .......................................................$275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ......................................................$100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. VNotification Sign (City to install and remove).................................................................................. ....................... .. $200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) ...... ................ � �. $3 r address (� ad es Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)..................................................................... $50 p document El Conditional Use Permit E] Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation R Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (number of deeds to be recorded: ) TOTAL FEE: Description of Proposal: Appv \ oo or- NEW G.A v_,tb,-� LA) i nn -A NAA.F- sm e -f !ST u o i o 5A4 G.E Property Address or Location: -�? 6 O 3 P_sr� —Ej� INT Parcel #: ZS0000290 Legal Description: W •U.5 r LVOT" I P.00V- 4t"O CRV0 t POuOT f G4h.R.V6n--e Total Acreage: Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes Ur No M1J r E'>-�'%UE w6 -SE -2J -MG14 Present Zoning: K411F Requested Zoning: V sr - Present Land Use Designation: N/S Requested Land Use Designation: N A Existing Use of Property: SJtJALf_ 'FpNAtlA-( iei'14G4lfiO VyW 15 ..A?4C. . XCheck box is separate narrative is attached. APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Addres, City/StE Email Contact: `1103- 5t -OSCob Phone: -T k-0 3 Cell: 11 Fax: Date: t S Vl'lcu4 'Zvl S PROPERTY OWNER: In sign ni g this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Addres City/State/Zip: 6�e-t l; t"br vv -1,0 5S3 3% Email: �v — 4� e �i Q r (� tGt l 00 - Ccr� Signature: Contact: Phone: -7 (,o S' - OS(cp Cell: Fax: Date: VYL y ( S, Z o r This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the speck ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone:_ City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PropertyOwner Via: Applicant Via: Engineer Via: Other* Via: ❑Email ❑ Email ❑ Email ❑ Email ❑Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy 0 Mailed Paper Copy Name: Address: City/State/Zip: + Email: APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Addres City/Ste Contact: -1 In 3- S 1 (.o -OS (oO Phone: -71,0 3 - 5 \ o - OS(va Cell: 11 Email: -K � .-C�� r 15-ey- (d L t ec in Co • C oeyl Fax: Signature: L�K= �" Date: ( T ✓Yl u � '201 PROPERTY OWNER: In sign ni g this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Addres Contact: Phone: 7(o3- SIS - 0 Lo City/State/Zip: V'--)+) 5S331 Cell: Email: Signatt Fax: Date: M" l 5, 7 o r'—, This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: SCANNED Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Property Owner Via: Applicant Via: Engineer Via: Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Email []Email ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ;vt*A Address: City/State/Zip: Email: SCANNED 0 June 22, 2015 0 SIN RECEIVEDSSEN Bob Generous Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen JUN 'i L013 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHPSSENPLANNNODEPT Variance Findings Statement : We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse south (side) required yard from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 21.2 feet to allow the construction of a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zoned RSF and is on a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewashta, and currently has no garage. Applicant : Pat Mackey Mackey Malin Architects 5200 Washburn Avenue S 612-220-6190 Owner: Gregg and Kellie Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 We submit the following justification for compliance for granting a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The granting of the variance would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and this property's use as a single family home. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property is bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement of the required yard setbacks results in just 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with the vast majority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is essentially unusable if following required district setbacks. The proposed location for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, which caused some initial concern. Since discovery of the buried sewer lines and the unsuitability of the preferred location, the homeowners have contacted the MPCA and the bank/owner of the property prior to their purchase, and have been reassured of the soil suitability at this location Alternative garage locations have been investigated: 1. The initial preferred location for the garage in the center of the lot (north of the private drive) has been found to be atop easements for underground water main and sanitary sewer lines, which would be difficult to relocate, even if that were allowed. We believe we are clear of those easements with the proposed garage placement (pending Survey verification). Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220. 6190 • 0 2. Attaching the garage to the northwest side of the house would require a significant modification and disruption of the existing house, provide only about 4' to the neighboring lot line, and allow less than 10 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, this option would require a 2 -property re -alignment of the existing road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. Pending an awaited survey that shows easements, there is reason to believe that the attached northwest location sits atop the utility and roadway easements. 3. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require an extensive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, and also require a re -alignment of the existing road. The same concerns are true of hard cover, house area, and road realignment as in the paragraph above, as well as eliminating the primary view of the lake, a significant reason for the purchase of the house in 2014. 4. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduce the options for garage placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot and surrounding area. The proposed garage placement walks the best line between these obstacles while maximizing distance from both shorelines and minimizing disruption of existing site elements (road, house, utilities, tree cover, and view). c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The sole purpose of the requested variance is that the homeowners may have a garage for the existing single family home on the site. Currently the homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and do not have full use of the property in the context of the neighboring properties. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The property has a unique situation bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. The existing structure was built in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All current construction on the property and adjacent properties pre -dates the current landowner. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and detached accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 2166.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this chapter Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612. 220. 6190 0 11 HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 4 OPTIONS: OPTION A: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 +GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 654 - TURNOUT 533.7933 (24.77 % LOT) OPTION B: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 513 - TURNOUT 533.7792 (24.33 % LOT) m OPTION C: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 +GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 178 -TURNOUT 533.7457 (23.28 % LOT) n OPTION D: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 +GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 42.5 -TURNOUT 336.7901 (24.67 %OF LOT) I' F S n m PROPOSED GARAGE BUILDABLE (ALL LOCATIONS)- 621 O AREA OF SITE IF S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: -D ALL SETBACKS 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF ARE ENFORCED MAIN GABLE, m - 387 S.F. 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF • I �. ve. •, a e' m -- DORMER ruanauux.roM p I � � 21'-8" A7 PEAK D 'I ��ININNEWASINTA LAn U W0 `.� Z ` QO Z Ndy EXI TING ``� W �' Q i 30' i SETBABK 8 MING e TO BE Z pL Z _ h R O W L IO E 3 v s By Ox ,I 1 EXI — off BRUN CIOSEN1 11 j y DRIVE 1 _ 4,-ri4. y ~ 1 ' i 1 e; EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE D 1IA --- 1 30' 1 (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. SETBACK TOTAL LOT AREA - 32025 S.F. �O, `'�a, 13603 RED CEDAR POINT 1 V' DRIVE EXISTINGI I ` Elam s VMI ,roav N. j HOUSE -1992 A6, DR DRIVE 1 S.F. FOOTPRINT n a>d dun I 1 1 N f+ i FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: 1" -- D"B I OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, \ HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT 'e OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 yi ITE OF PREVIOUS FUE + MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30"), HARDCOVER 24.33 — ----_ 's %OF LOT IL TANK -PENDING MPGA N E UMENTATION ON a I OPTION C: 5'-4' CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% — S TUB - ASSUMED TO BE - - - "' ' OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE EDIATED - , OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, OHW E REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, m..'• INTERPO MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY vM \\ LAKE FROM SURVEY EASEMENT, HARDCOVER 24.67% OF LOT MMNEWASNTA 5 1. 2DSITE E < SITE E) r•• ®north Q fRf FLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 225 feet of Lot 1. Block 4, Red Cedar Point Addition. Lake Minnewashta, except the West 25 feel thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing system .seal Ie assumed. Electric Meter N. 1.0 MIT 1, • 4-N I Gate Volvo 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon,any, PURSUANT Air Condltloning Unit are approximate only. TO MSA 215D CONTACT GOPHER Window Well STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY Deciduous Tree (Dia. In In, EXCAVATION. 946.9X 3. Site area total - 32,025 square feet = 0.735 acres. I Co. Met. areo within survey line - 25,910 square feel - 0.595 acres. Hydrant 4. Yl. survey woe made on the ground. Existing Contour X 934.3 947.0( 5. No current title work woe fumbhed for the preparation o1 this I survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and Sanitary Sewer encumbrance. ars subject to revision upon receipt of current ) title W.M. (vt Bq.0)� 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data Bench m.N M I000ted Top of Nall B�wDib (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) ,. Elevation - 946.33.w�i% 1 7. Extreme snow and Ice cover o1 subject survey am may cause some improvements to be non visible at time of survey. 8. Impervloue Area details. Total Site Am: 32,025 square feet Total Structure Imp.vious Area: 7,191 square feel House Areo(s): 1,992 squo,. feet Other Structure Area(*): 0 square feel Orlveway/Powal Area*: 3.922 *quare feel Potlo/Depk Area($): 316 square feet Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet Percent of Total Site Area that Is Impervious: 22.45% X ri 15 FOOT PERPETUAL EASEMENT k RIGHT OF WAY TO 15' DRIVE PER DOC. NO. 601231 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey. pion or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minn/esota. Data Ilereb 1 4016 F Th6me. E. Hodarff Minn. Reg. No. 238 N 30 IS O 30 10 SCALE IN FEET X946.2 946, X946.3 X946.1 LEGEND FOUND Found Property Monument WT WON IRON Set Property Monument (Minn. Req. No. 23677) 0 Concrete Concrete Curb M Electric Meter 8 Gate Volvo ® Air Condltloning Unit 94g.B�uI Window Well A:We ("*) Deciduous Tree (Dia. In In, L-047 Coniferous Tree (Ola. M In. LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 p Co. Met. Q Hydrant SURVEY LINE _ - �Ofi- - _ Existing Contour X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation bb� 6 Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Sewer 94>� ` �.90fidv }t t bb `L 947a�y4>� his v9 I( X946.5 "T, 94g.B�uI X948.1 X949'09`4y>��; ff j 0 L-047 X946.3 PAfti'M' {6.3 X946.fi X946.3 X946.1 BUILDING DETAILS Ab \ . X946.1 3603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE bb \\ 946.1 1 -STORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA - 1,992 SO. FT. 9 a7 _b X946.5 n X946.] Fpm 99 4 . Imo•?0 X94-'2\ 4p 46,6 / \ X946.8 t+vl \ 946.4% \ \ BI \947- .1 -947-- >9 U� L 48- NdfNa1..., ACCESS Er EMENT 4P Tel i0. 8930.-84Y�`1 ` rLc'-x9N.4_1i L9 so- 949.8 X940'9 %849.0 X9499 B� X9495 V (949.3 k91 -949-- _ .. _ - 470' -949- 9 -948_' -X948.]_ 449\ LINE 534 E LINE OF W. 225 FT. OF LOT 1 UNE AS LOCATED MS. 23, 2015 Z� F FF $ 5 ao O +A N q U ua w% ££4I2N 4QQ ¢o.aO.va �i g. Z YI O N N'O .. .SSE 1Il12ll11r ..a... wWo,' synyte see.e.wnw,. "....... r,e•. CM FW: 201512&D. NLL FA ki u 9 VIA, - x � L VARIANCE I UBMRTAL-S/7/1s O GEIGER RESIDENCE ;= A D '3 ay Y 3603 RED CEDAR CHANHASSEN POINT DRIVE MN p'. ii E: 0 0 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 July 9, 2015, 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 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Planning Case 2015-14 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 this 1441` day of 2015. 1 Notary Publ k. T. MEUWISSEN Notary Pudk�Mkmewfe J#KIM y CpnN.Mm Ems... Jen s1, 2M Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to the Shoreland Protection setback Proposal: and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a detached and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects/Gregg & Kellie Geiger Property 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Location: (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. A lolon map is on the reverse side of this notice. wt The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead* public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14. If you wish to talk to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by email at dinavalson(oci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Manned Unit Devatopm rots, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings. Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public heading before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of Me application In wining. 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 heading 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 wrolly or partly the Planning Commission's recommentlation. Rezonings, land use add code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialflndustdal. • Mnnesota 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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 pemon(s). • Because the Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Mnules are taken and any correspondence regarding the application wilt be included in the report to the City Council. d you wish to have something to be induded in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of thea enda. Location: CitV Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variances to the Shoreland Protection setback Proposal: and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a detached garage on pro erty zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applies t: Mackey Malin Architects/Gregg & Kellie Geiger Property 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Location: (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta) A lolon map is on the reverse side of this notice. wt 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* public hearing through the following steps: W What Happens Wthe 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by email at dinavalson(ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agend packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhasson.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! Cay Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Manned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditlonst and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me 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 pergnent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overA w 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 dose 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 portly the Planning Commission's recommentlation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments lake a simple majority Me of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial4ndustdal. • Minneacta State Statute 519,99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to Meir complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Panning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representafive is encouraged to Provide contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available M review the project with any Interested pemon(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public heeding, the City Council does not. Mnules 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 Stag person named on the notification. i BETSY S ANDING 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SOUBA 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 SUSAN S PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 • DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 KELLIE J GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 i • Variances within 500 Feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive Variance Address Description Number 18.5 -foot shoreline setback variance for the 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road construction of a single- antilhome 15 -foot shoreline and 8 -foot side yard setback 93-06 3618 Red Cedar Point Road variances for the construction of a porch and deck 1.5 -foot side yard and 14.5 -foot shoreline setback 3607 Red Cedar Point Road variance for the construction of an attached two stall 92-1 arage with a second floor 4 -foot side yard (east), 2- foot side yard (west), and a 26 -foot shoreline setback variances for the 3605 Red Cedar Point Road construction of a detached two stall garage and 88-11 second floor bedroom expansion 45 -foot shoreline setback variance to construct an 87-10 3601 Red Cedar Point Road addition to the existing home 12 -foot front yard, a 2 -foot side yard setback variances and a 7 -foot shoreline setback for the P "' � onstruction of a single family home. 11.23 foot front yard setback variance and 7,500 square foot lot area variance of the Shorcland 82-11 3618 Red Cedar Point Management Ordinance. 79-02 3613 Red Cedar Point 23 -foot front yard setback variance * Items highlighted in gray are shoreline setback variances. g:\plan\2015 planning cases\2015-14 3603 red cedar point variancelresubmittal 06-05-2015\variances within 500 feet.doc July 10, 2015 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance -Planning Case #2015-14 Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts and feedback on the proposed development plan for the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Chanhassen. I apologize for not being able to attend the public meeting in person on July 21, 2015. My name is Frances Paap and I have lived at 3601 Red Cedar Point Road in Chanhassen since July 2008 with my husband Keith, and our two children. We selected this property as a permanent place to live and raise our family. The things that attracted us to this location are the following: • Wide open views of the lake from every window of the house. • Wide open views from every area of the property. • The private lot along with the private drive. • The knowledge that the City of Chanhassen has an ordinance which states no structure could be built closer than 75 feet from the lake. This ordinance will preserve the views. • That all structures along this private road would be single family dwellings and would not be eligible or have the potential to be subdivided. These characters of the location are what make this peninsula the beautiful place it is today and keeps the property values high even in times of economic downturn. I am attaching pictures taken from our house facing the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. These pictures show the view of the lake without any obstructions. Figure 2 - View Facing South helps illustrate the number of mature trees that would have to be removed in order to build at this location. Figure 1 - View Facing North Figure 2 - View Facing South The property owners at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road have requested to build a garage at this location which will be inside the 75' variance. Granting shoreline variances for this size of structure will disrupt the harmony of the property and surrounding properties as the elevation of the detached 2 -car garage 0 0 with studio space is 23'. The structure at this elevation will block the open views that exist today. On the proposed site plan there are options A, B, C, and D submitted June 23, 2015. The options of A, C, and D will be less obtrusive to our views, however option B will be next to our property line creating a complete obstruction to the view of the lake or our yard. Option D is in alignment with the other resident houses with their garages attached to their houses. The 2 -car detached garage with studio space will allow for additional residents to dwell at this location. In the letter dated June 5, 2015 under section: Variance Findings Statement, the use for the dwelling has not been outlined. A studio space above the detached garage is intended to be occupied, if this is the intention, the car traffic and congestion of cars will increase on the private road. This also raises the potential for rental of the studio space in the future. As residences of the adjacent property to 3603 Red Cedar Point Road we are not in agreement with the proposed request for development. We would request that the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission deny the request for variances. If on July 210, 2015 the Planning Commission does grant approval to move forward with the construction of a 2 -car detached garage with studio space 1 would like to give some feedback to the location and appeal the decision. Sincerely, Frances & Keith Paap Owners at property 3601 Red Cedar Point Road, Chanhassen MN 55331 Cc: Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 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 Variances to the Shoreland Protection setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant/Owner. Mackey Malin Architects/Gregg & Kellie Geiger A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at wwwci.chanhassen. mn.us/2015-14 or 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. Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner Email: dingvalson® ei.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, July 9, 2015: No 4160) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) M-14 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.�& (/ 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: abcdefghijklmnopgtstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 2015 RATE INFORMATION Laurie A. Hartmann A AIME JEANNETTE SARK NOT.ARI' NBUC - M'NNEWTA WyCCWM&S"EP1PaG1j11r,8 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED AFFIDAVIT of Maria Pieternella Knight Maria Pieternella Knight, on oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd., Excelsior MN 55331, directly to the west of the applicant at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. 2. 1 bought this "adjacent" property in 1974 with my ex-spouse, and I have owned my residence now for more than 40 years. Consequently, I believe I have a lot of knowledge about the history of Red Cedar Point, the houses on the Point, and the owners of the various properties. 3. The previous owners of 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd., Mr. and Mrs. David Prillaman, had a two car garage under the 3603 Red Cedar Point house, which they entered from the North side. This two -car garage under the 3603 house was in existence since at least 1974. I have looked through my family picture albums, and have located photographs that I took in 1985 showing the garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd, with the garage door wide open and with a car in it I have the originals in my personal possession for your inspection if you should request it, and I have attached a reproduction as Exhibit 1. 1 have also attached as Exhibit 2 an enlargement from this 1985 photo that better show the detail of the open two -car garage. 4. 1 have also attached as Exhibit 3 a different photograph that I took in 1985 that shows a side window in the two -car garage. Exhibit 4 is the same photograph, enlarged to better show the detail of the garage side window. The Prillaman sold the property to subsequent owners who also used the two -car garage, but these owners decided to close it off many years ago. When they expanded their basement area by closing off 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd's two car garage, these owners used the same type of stone trim that had been previously used for the outside walls of the garage and supporting pillars of the garage door. I took the photos that are attached as Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 this week. You can still see the area where the garage doors used to be, because there is a clear line in the mortar between the new stones and the original stones. All of the pictures attached as exhibits hereto are true and correct representations of the objects depicted. S. Because there used to be a two -car garage under the 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. property and the previous owners elected to trade that amenity for more interior space, the present owners and applicants for this zoning variance, in my opinion, do not comply with all of the conditions necessary to obtain a variance. There is no SCANNED 0 hardship to this parcel from denying the variance, because the owners voluntarily gave up their two car garage in return for more interior space. 6. 1 jacked up my house to put in a basement some 20 years ago and also I believe that our neighbors at 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. did the same in order to put a garage under their house. Subscribed and sworn before me This 21st day of July 2015 N to ublic: Further your affiant saith naught 111VU2NL)L_ - Maria P. Knight 4 N_-a K TA'V31118 �`ua �� ,may • f S�� 41, • wow 'br a luj 11 0 16 eopp,, ... y R�' •ar �:n s r, 4 -a VW I 4 I I I Ll 1 t� •�.-L ��-iMf. q 3 - 1 t� ExA, h,+d 1� Li y s x 1 kzl-1 1 7 >o1. wa 0 'ra �,39 PM DP�s e i ;:- - c- b t, �xzf g - s'" 4 ft -4- e, % A5 A-ck4) 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, 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 a Variance to the Shoreland Protection Setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant/Owner: Mackey Malin Architects/Gregg & Kellie Geiger. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 or 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. Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner Email: din vgvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 25, 2015) SCANNED v v n v 0 0 CD N <n (D CL r: s n c m v 1'I ED ay C IN 0 13 CD CL O G n c CD v n O 0 �I 30' 714I4" j ", D v : i 0 0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOF 4 OPTIONS: OPTION A: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 654 - TURNOUT 533 = 7933 (24.77 % OF LOT) OPTION B: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 513 - TURNOUT 533 = 7792 (24.33 % OF LOT) OPTION C: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 178 -TURNOUT 533 = 7457 (23.28 % OF LOT) OPTION D: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 425 - TURNOUT 336 = 7901 (24.67 % OF LOT) LAKE MINNEWASHTA U ` {�j Q )POUTING n m MING S TO BE 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I i I I i 30' li SETBACK BY li 3603 RED L CEDAR POINT DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT o U , A 0'-62„ ITE OF PREVIOUS F io IL TANK - PENDING MPCA a CUMENTATION ON StATUS -ASSUMED TO BE T I EXISTIN BFFUMI DRIVE I p PO P 1 I I I co D v-1 =1 'SSC- N OHW LSE INTERPo b TZE LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA D 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 0 x FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, j HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT i OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30" ),HARDCOVER 24.33 % OF LOT OPTION C: 5'-4" CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% - OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY EASEMENT, HARDCOVER 24.67% OF LOT OSITE PLAN ,••=3D•-0•: north ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMAEIN.COM W w u Z� W Z Z 0 OtAW W °C N < V Z W0= W o m M Huse Sd�ema"< De�iOn r+u�eR: Issm wm _ ISSUE DATE In Z. M N M d Q ;'nw er: PM m n Vf W u Z a o� Q SITE SITE PIAN PROPOSED GARAGE BUILDABLE (ALL LOCATIONS)- 621 AREA OF SITE IF S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGH ALL SETBACKS 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF ARE ENFORCED MAIN GABLE - 387 S.F.) 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK LAKE MINNEWASHTA U ` {�j Q )POUTING n m MING S TO BE 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I i I I i 30' li SETBACK BY li 3603 RED L CEDAR POINT DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT o U , A 0'-62„ ITE OF PREVIOUS F io IL TANK - PENDING MPCA a CUMENTATION ON StATUS -ASSUMED TO BE T I EXISTIN BFFUMI DRIVE I p PO P 1 I I I co D v-1 =1 'SSC- N OHW LSE INTERPo b TZE LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA D 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 0 x FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, j HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT i OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30" ),HARDCOVER 24.33 % OF LOT OPTION C: 5'-4" CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% - OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY EASEMENT, HARDCOVER 24.67% OF LOT OSITE PLAN ,••=3D•-0•: north ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMAEIN.COM W w u Z� W Z Z 0 OtAW W °C N < V Z W0= W o m M Huse Sd�ema"< De�iOn r+u�eR: Issm wm _ ISSUE DATE In Z. M N M d Q ;'nw er: PM m n Vf W u Z a o� Q SITE SITE PIAN 0 0 9 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: �- F LD Found Property Monument The West 225 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedor _ SET IRON F-- ----- -'� IRON Set Property Monument Point Addition, Lake Minnewashta, except the West HSJ BENCHMARK I (Minn. Reg. No. 23677) 25 feet thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. i TOP OF NAIUL, ELEV.=946.331' `� Concrete ................................... ----------� Concrete Curb ` d p Electric Meter GENERAL NOTES: 30 15 0 30 ® Gate Valve Air Unit Air Conditioning 1. The bearing system used is assumed. �� ww Window Well W. LINE LOT 1, BLOCK 4-1 16- 8.t.'� Deciduous Tree (Dia. in In.) 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, � � SCALE IN FEET are approximate only. PURSUANT TO MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY 1 ` �\ EXCAVATION. 946.9X� WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 ® Gas Meter 3. Site area total = 32,025 square feet = 0.735 acres. I I X 6 "`6\ txt. / Hydrant 4j i 0 %-SURVEY LINE _ _ --906- - - Existing Contour area within survey line = 25,910 square feet = 0.595 acres. i3 a i 9 �1 X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation 4. This survey was made on the ground. I -'1 1` ``,qJ�^,', X946 - ® Sanitary Manhole 947.1X 1 "`� �s4��-�, ---u,<- Sanitary Sewer 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this 94 9X48 °` ,l, _ 10 FOOT WATy Sewer EASEMENT survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and I ' { / _94j\ 1 �� . i� PER BOOK 113 OF DEEDS, PAGE 534 encumbrances are subject to revision upon receipt of current I R X946.2� ary q� title work. 946.5 I X446.80 446. 94�947� (}� 947.0 j \94 X946.5 gQT'6 946 yo- 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data. �? 946. '> '>C944 -0- w Bench mark is located To of Nail �� L7 °� / 94 0- X948.1 \ 7+ (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) P "�- -C- ig 9� \X9�6Fb9\�4 `��g`6� /- Elevation = 946.33 ` i . 9, - %:� '�C AE..Z 402204Q 3 946.5 L X946.3 .�'VO X946�g4 j -�4 L _ 7. Extreme snow and ice cover of subject survey area may 7�N 11 47.E 9 0 �v` / -947 PART 1 Y Y (� ;c,,C 4>� 94 S_ X946.6 �F' X946.3 cause some improvements to be non visible at time of survey. L-% �A - 4 'r 46.3 ___ / L�T 1 `(la _E. LINE OF W. 8. Impervious Area details. A I / , / A�Ce �a /YC94jl7 X946.5 ii �' 225 FT. OF LOT 1 Total Site Area: 32,025 square feet 0 % r 3X SS Eq 463- - q .�46. Total Structure Impervious Area: 7,191 square feet / 42.9- Mf/y7' X946.7 House Area(s): 1,992 square feet \ / / 'o w 1 7 .5 �- 4>� �av,_� r N Other Structure Area(s): 0 square feet \ /� / =/ Z;INISHED DOR 4 o K� X947\2\I� Ln ELEV.=9 .40 %0 Driveway/Paved Areas: 3,922 square feet \ i sy a/ 946. ? / / Z 46.6 / \ X946.8 W Patio/Deck Area(s): 316 square feet / q`Z) \ 946.4X � Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet y j 1 F� e' /I .r Q4 ' /1• \947 4 71 O Percent of Total Site Area that is Impervious: 22.45% .0 / / g FINISHED 46.39LOOR 9 P ELEV.=946.39 a4 BITUMEN 4>� a� m i I U 8.4• S - qg_ `7'4 OUS ACCESS E��SEMENT ?? FINISHED FLOOR p \ ELEV.=951 29 FINISHED FLOOR .8.8 950. -..1 95 -949_ \ ' f 15 FOOT PERPETUAL EASEMENT 2y- / g 39,3. ELEv._c51 - �N ' 0., 19 9 _ - - & RIGHT OF WAY TO 15' DRIVE- .95 e- X94J'9� -948- (,+ 0i _8.6 PER DOC. NO. 601231 I R9 Gp`� 0, �� 18'2. /�� L950- � GRE 949.8 X949.0 X948.8 X9g� 949.2 a a 0 I 949.3 X9g9 I -949-- - X94�U'x949 - Q �..ZC948.6 aX�9.�5,. -may-- 949-- X948.7�94��.9X a`� 4 oad'_��i�\E� VI°i�1-x_948-- -947 �`946.0 `�`j' 84'3 �s � 6.9 =4> 948 i 18t / �� a. X946.3 3.8 �� X#46.6208 ' 94 45' 944.2 0 0, p X5-94 �-_ - �' `• CERTIFICATION: 946.3 X946.1 X944663 Ao R 0 5, Qp I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report C'K X945.1 X946.19/ 5, �� ? `� A3 . Q was prepared by me or under my direct supervision / v0 �� and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor a \1X946.8 X946.0 7 rrp \--SURVEY LINE under the laws of the State of Minnesota. BUILDING DETAILS 0E` \ K946.1 / 3603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE gyp. \�X�946.6 1 Date: March 3. 2015 L / 1 -STORY BUILDING a M 9a% A ��-WATER UNE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 FOOTPRINT AREA = 1,992 SO. FT. s SCANNED mas E. Hodorff ya' 2 Minn. Reg. No. 236 C p,6` Ar aj F version nisiory. opipD aaa easement imo. as uuuty mns CAD File: 2015125.DWG N T ULO r C4 9r e CAD File: 2015125.DWG 0 TI 0 0 m N In CID a F r: :* c CID O TI CID i — --- CL i o 0 0 h P FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: (� I j OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, N HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT I i OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 m30'?ISETBAGK I ! MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30" ),HARDCOVER 24.33 a _____ -- % OF LOT y - OPTION C: 5'-4" CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% !:1 -- ---- OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE _ O.U.- OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, r REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, O MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY no 3 m N OSITE PLAN north W a d' i HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 4 OPTIONS: OPTION A: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 654 - TURNOUT 533 = 7933 (24.77 % OF LOT) OPTION B: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 513 - TURNOUT 533 = 7792 (24.33 % OF LOT) OPTION C: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 178 -TURNOUT 533 = 7457 (23.28 % OF LOT) OPTION D: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 425 - TURNOUT 336 = 7901 (24.67 % OF LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED LAKE MINNEWASHTA PROPOSED GARAGE (ALL LOCATIONS)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGH 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK EXI TING BIT MINO S -- BU POU TO BE 1 D 3603 RED CEDAR POINTS e9 DRIVE EXISTING ` �j HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT O OF PREVIOUS FUEL TANK - PENDING MPCA :UMENTATION ON ,TUS - ASSUMED TO BE CITY RECEIVE SSEN JUN 2 6 WU CRk%jAwpU1llpRtiDw BY e T 41Z LAKE MINNEWASHTA I I I j 1 i I I I I I I i I 1 1 30' j li SETBACK OHW INTERPOPO FROM SURVEY 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. v j h P FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: !71 I j OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, N HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT `o i OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 d I ! MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30" ),HARDCOVER 24.33 a _____ -- % OF LOT y - OPTION C: 5'-4" CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% !:1 -- ---- OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE Q OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, r REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY no EASEMENT, HARDCOVER 24.67% OF LOT m N OSITE PLAN north W a d' Q ml ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKETMAUN.COM W L V Z� W Z Z 4A W QN a Z W w= W p l_ M. nus[ Sd k D.A, HUAvec ISSUE DATE ISSUE DATE mG 6Y: PM SITE SITE PLAN Public Works Sincerely, q 7901 Park Place June 22, 2015 MY l OF Kellie Geiger CgANHASSEN 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Chanhassen, MN 55331 Drew Ingvalson 7700 Market PO Box 147 Re: Re: Shoreland Setback Variance — Planning Case #2015-14 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fax: 952.2271110 Dear Ms. Geiger: Administration Phone: 952.2271100 This letter is to notify you that due to a lack of submitted documents, the timetable for Fax: 952.2271110 Planning Case #2015-14 (Shoreland Setback Variance) has been postponed and www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us rescheduled for the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting. Building Inspections Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Phone: 952.227.1180 The following items are yet to be submitted for the variance process: Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering The City requires a survey and site plan that displays: Phone: 952.227.1160 - public easements, Fax: 952,227.1170 - dimensions for the proposed detached garages, setback distances (to property lines and OHWL), Finance Phone. 952.227.1140 - proposed driveway expansions that connect with the proposed garages, Fax: 952.2271110 - hard surface coverage calculations for each alternative garage location, and any other pertinent information on the property. Park &Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 The application was submitted on May 15, 2015 and the city has 60 days to review the project (July 14, 2015). If the decision by the Planning Commission on July 21, 2015 is Recreation Center appealed, the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the item on August 10, 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2015. Since this date is beyond the original 60 -day review period, the City of Chanhassen Phone: 952.227.1400 is notifying you that we are taking an additional 60 days (to September 12, 2015) to review Fax: 952.2271404 the proposed project as permitted by Minnesota State Statute 15.99. Planning & Natural Resources If you wish to make any changes to your submittal documents, you may request to waive Phone 952.227.1130 the 120 -day deadline (see attached). If you have any questions or need additional Fax: 952.227.1110 information, please contact me at (952) 227-1132 or dintavalson(a.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works Sincerely, q 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Drew Ingvalson Senior Center Assistant Planner Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.2271110 ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner website Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Stephanie Smith, Project Manager \V:fs5\cfs5\shared_dataVlan\2015 planning oases\2015-14 3603 red cedar point varianceVesubmittal 0"5-2015\60 day estcnsion.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED 0 Date: Drew Ingvalson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 Re: Planning Case #2015-14, Shoreland Setback Variance- 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Dear Mr. Ingvalson: Appliance for variance at our property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. Please remove my items from the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting agenda and reschedule for the August 18, 2015 meeting (September 15, 2015 decision deadline). I also waive the 120 day development review deadline. Yours sincerely, Signature:, Kellie Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 June 11, 2015 CITY OF Kelhe Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road C>IANIIASSEN Excelsior, MN 55331 7700 Markel Boulevard Re: Detached Garage Variance — 3603 Red Cedar Point PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Geiger: Administration We have reviewed the materials provided in the application for the above -referenced Phone: 952.227.1100 variance request. This letter is to inform you that, after having reviewed the submittal Fax: 952.227.1110 materials, we find the application to be incomplete. Therefore, we cannot schedule you for Building Inspections a public hearing until all the information is provided. Phone: 952.2271180 Fax: 952.227.1190 The following item must be addressed to move forward with the variance process: Engineering The City requires a survey and site plan that displays Phone: 952.227.1160 - public easements, Fax: 952.227.1170 - dimensions for the proposed detached garages, Finance - setback distances (to property lines and OHWL), Phone: 952.227.1140 - proposed driveway expansions that connect with the proposed garages, Fax:952.2271110 - hard surface coverage calculations for each alternative garage location, and Park d Recreation any other pertinent information on the property. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 The city will hold your permit application payment to fund your future Planning Commission and City Council meetings. If you decide to withdraw your submittal, the Recreation Center city will refund your payment at that time. Once you have assembled the information 2310 Coulter Boulevard needed and revised the plans as appropriate, the city will reschedule you for a Planning Phone: 952.227.1400 Commission meeting based on our submittal deadlines. The next submittal deadline is Fax: 952.227.1404 Friday, June 19, 2015 and would schedule the application for the July 21, 2015 Planning Planning 8 Commission meeting. If you have any questions or need additional information, please Natural Resources contact me at (952) 227-1132 or by email at dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Sincerely, Public Works 7901 Park Place U " Phone: 952.227.1300 Drew Ingvalson Fax: 952.227.1310 Assistant Planner Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Fax: 952.227.1110 Bob Generous, Senior Planner Kim Meuwissen, Sr. Communications Admin. Support Specialist Website Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Stephanie Smith, Project Manager Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner g:\plan\2015 planning cas \2015-14 3603 red cedarpoint variance\mubminal 06-05-2015\incomplere letter.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE0 R2TMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CITE OF CHANBASSEN Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: June 10, 2015 Agency Review Response Deadline: June 25, 2015 Date Application Filed: June 5, 2015 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Planning Intern ® Park Director Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60 -Day Review Period Deadline: July 7, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. July 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. August 4, 2015 Application: Request for Variance to the Shoreland Protection setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive Lot 4, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Planning Case: 2015-14 1 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 In order for staff 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. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: ❑ Attorney ® Building Official ® Engineer ® Fire Marshal ® Forester ® Park Director ® Water Resources Carver County Agencies: ❑ Community Development ❑ Engineer ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Historical Society ❑ Parks ❑ Soil & Water Conservation District State Agencies: ❑ Board of Water & Soil Resources ❑ Health ❑ Historical Society ❑ Natural Resources -Forestry ® Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation Federal Agencies: ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish & Wildlife Watershed Districts: ❑ Carver County W MO ❑ Lower MN River ® Minnehaha Creek ❑ Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Utilities: ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom ❑ Electric — Minnesota Valley ❑ Electric — Xcel Energy ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — Centuryl-ink Adiacent Cities: ❑ Chaska ❑ Eden Prairie ❑ Jackson Township ❑ Minnetonka ❑ Shorewood ❑ Victoria Adjacent Counties: ❑ Hennepin ❑ Scott School Districts: ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Minnetonka 276 Other Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum ❑ SouthWest Transit ❑ TC&W Railroad -.CANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 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 a Variance to the Shoreland Protection Setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant/Owner. Kettle Geiger. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at wwwci.cha„hacsen. mn.us/2015-14 or 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. Drew hwalson, Planning Intern Email: dingvalson@ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, June 4, 2015: No 4136) 0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers 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. 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: abodefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz I.amieA. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on !015 =N0=BNN'E0 BARK001/3! �' ii RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... S12.59 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN • • P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 05/18/2015 3:48 PM Receipt No. 00284058 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Gregg & Kellie Geiger 11355 Trillium Lane N Champlin MN 55316- ------------------------------------------------------- Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 GIS List 36.00 Total Cash Check 4529 Change 486.00 0.00 486.00 0.00 SCANNED 0 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 2015-14 $200.00 Notification Sign $200.00 Variance $36.00 Property Owners List $50.00 Escrow for recording variance documents $486.00 TOTAL $486.00 Check 4529 $0.00 BALANCE OWED �,,:NNU, 11 PROJECTM 2015-14 PROJECT NAME: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance PLANNER: SUBMITTAL DATE: 5/15/15 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/16/15 CITY COUNCIL DATE: 7/13/15 60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/14/15 Y I Description Number Cost I Calculation Comprehensive Plan Amendment (choose 1 of 2) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment $600 2. Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers 1 $100 Conditional Use Permit (choose 1 of 2) 1. Single Family Residence 1 $325 2. All Others 1 $425 Interim Use Permit (choose 1 of 2) 1. In conjunction with Single Family Residence 1 $325 2. All Others 1 $425 Rezoning (choose 1 of 3) 1. Planned Unit Development $750 2. Minor Amendment to Existing PUD $100 3. All Others $500 Sign Plan Review $150 Site Plan Review (choose 1 of 3) 1. Administrative $100 2. Commercial/Industrial Districts* $500 *(How many thousand square feet?) $10 3. Residential Districts** $500 **(How many dwelling units/beds?) $5 Subdivision (choose 1 of 5) 1. Create 3 lots or less $300 2. Create over 3lots*** $600 ***(How many lots?) $15 3. Metes & Bounds (2 lots) $300 4. Consolidate Lots $150 5. Lot Line Adjustment $150 Final Plat $700 Vacation $300 Variance - SUBDIVISION $200 y Variance -ZONING $200 $200 Wetland Alteration Permit (choose 1 of 2) 1. Single Family Residence $150 2. All Others $275 Zoning Appeal $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500 y Notification Sign $200 $200 y Property Owners List* *(How many addresses?) 1 12 1 $3 $36 Document Recording Escrow (1-7 automatically calwlated based on previous selections) 1. Conditional Use Permit $50 $0 2. Interim Use Permit $50 $0 3. Site Plan Agreement $50 $0 4. Vacation $50 5. Variance $50 $50 6. Wetland Alteration Permit $50 $0 7. Metes & Bounds Subdivision (2 deeds + resolution) $150 8. Easements* *(How many easements?) $50 TOTAL FEE $486 SCANNEC 0 0 June 5, 2015 Bob Generous Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance Findings Statement : We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse south (side) required yard from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 21.2 feet to allow the construction of a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zoned RSF and is on a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewashta, and currently has no garage. Applicant : Owner: Pat Mackey Gregg and Kellie Geiger Mackey Malin Architects 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive 5200 Washburn Avenue S Chanhassen MN 55317 612-220-6190 We submit the following justification for compliance for granting a variance a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The granting of the variance would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and this property's use as a single family home. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property is bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement of the required yard setbacks results in just 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with the vast majority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is essentially unusable if following required district setbacks. The proposed location for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, which caused some initial concern. Since discovery of the buried sewer lines and the unsuitability of the preferred location, the homeowners have contacted the EPA and the bank/owner of the property prior to their purchase, and have been reassured of the soil suitability at this location. Alternative garage locations have been investigated: 1. The initial preferred location for the garage has been found to be atop easements for underground water main and sanitary sewer lines, which would be difficult to relocate, even if that were allowed. We believe we are clear of those easements with the proposed garage placement (pending Survey verification). Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220 . 6190 SCANNED 0 0 2. Attaching the garage to the west side of the house would require a significant modification and disruption of the existing house, provide only 8' to the neighboring east lot line, and allow less than 14 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, this option would require a substantial 3 -property re -alignment of the existing road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. To maintain hard cover ratios of 25% or less, the homeowners would have to effectively reduce the living area of the house. 3. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require an extensive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, also require a re -alignment of the existing road. The same concerns are true of hard cover, house area, and road realignment as in the paragraph above. 4. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduce the options for garage placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot and surrounding area. The proposed garage placement walks the best line between these obstacles while maximizing distance from both shorelines and minimizing disruption of existing site elements (road, house, utilities, tree cover, and view). c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The sole purpose of the requested variance is that the homeowners may have a garage for the existing single family home on the site. Currently the homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and do not have full use of the property in the context of the neighboring properties. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The property has a unique situation bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. The existing structure was built in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All current construction on the property and adjacent properties pre -dates the current landowner. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and detached accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this chapter Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. Mackey Malin Architects 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 238AAN�+ PROPOSED GARAGE LOCATION 2)- 621 S.F. BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT. SLAB AREA OFSRE IF ELEVATION 947.6 ALL SETBACKS HEIGHT: 16 -TAT ARE ENFORCED MID -SLOPE OF MAIN -367 S.F. GABLE - 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER j — 21'-8" AT PEAK • 1 ` ___ LAKE j MINNEWASNTA 1 30• n m I SETBACK I 1 j I I I I II 1 j 0 1 j 11 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3V j (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. it II \ 1 SETBACK TOTAL LOT AREA - 32025 S.F. 3603 RED NEW GARAGE: 621 S.F. CEDAR POINT T 1 NEW DRIVE: 178 S.F. DRIVE EXISTING ¢ F+ I sxls7lr+p TOTAL IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED = 7980 S.F. (24.95%) j4F erturelNous V J HOUSE S.F. FOOTPRINT I r I R N THREE OPTIONS SHOWN: • _0' 5 l m -?" II OPTION A: PREFERRED - HARDCOVER QS% OF LOT, j-1 __ _ 0 <n �____ I REMOVES 1 MATURETREEF n ro v/{t� I OPTION B: 5'4" FURTHER FROM LAKE. REMOVE3 3 A MATURE TREES, DRIVE INCREASES HARDCOVER TO §ITE OF PREVIOUS F N `V— -- 28.4% OF LOT SEIL TANK - PENDING MPCA tv _ _ OPTION C: SLIGHTLY FURTHER FROM LAKE, [1�CUMENTATI0N ON --- __ — REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30-), DRIVE TUS -ASSUMED TO BE INCREASES HARDCOVER TO 26.5% OF LOT LAKE rnum" un MINNEWASNTA o s io m .o r� SITE PLAN `ll mm north El V= Z0 W,z aOz N WQ C9 p(uz WOl �rcV W O V n 0 w z z 0) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 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 a Variance to the Shoreland Protection Setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant/Owner: Kellie Geiger. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 or 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. Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner Email: dingvalson(7a.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 4, 2015) SCANNED 11 May 11, 2015 Bob Generous Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance Findings Statement : We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse north and south (side) required yards from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 35 feet and 70 feet to allow the construction of a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zoned RSF and is on a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewashta, and currently has no garage. Applicant : Owner: Pat Mackey Gregg and Kellie Geiger Mackey Malin Architects 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive 5200 Washburn Avenue S Chanhassen MN 55317 612-220-6190 We submit the following justification for compliance for granting a variance: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The granting of the variance would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and this property's use as a single family home. b) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property is bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement of the required yard setbacks results in 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with the vast majority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is essentially unusable if following required district setbacks. Alternative garage locations have been investigated: 1. Attaching the garage to the west side of the house would provide only 8' to the neighboring lot line, and less than 14 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, an attached garage placement to the west side of the existing house would require a 3 -property re -alignment of the existing road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. SCANNED Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220 . 6190 2. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require an extensive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, also require a re -alignment of the existing road and the relocation of an existing fire hydrant and water line. The same is true with a detached garage at the east of the house with an adequate fire separation distance. 3. An additional potential space for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, which contains poor soils and the remediator's strong advisory to not build upon (this location is also very close to the south shoreline). 4. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduce the options for garage placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot and surrounding area. The proposed garage placement walks the best line between these obstacles while maximizing distance from both shorelines and minimizing disruption of existing site elements (road, house, utilities, and view). c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The sole purpose of the requested variance is that the homeowners may have a garage for the existing single family home on the site. Currently the homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and do not have full use of the property in the context of the neighboring properties. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The property has a unique situation bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. The existing structure was built in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All current construction on the property and adjacent properties pre -dates the current landowner. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and detached accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this chapter Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. SCANNED Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220. 6190 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPIRTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 0 CITE OF CHANNASSEN AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: May 19, 2015 Agency Review Response Deadline: June 4, 2015 Date Application Filed: May 15, 2015 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Planning Intern ® Park Director Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 9. 60 -Day Review Period Deadline: June 16, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. July 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. July 14, 2015 I Application: Request for Variance to the Shoreland Protection setback to construct a detached garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive Lot 4, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Planning Case: 2015-14 1 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 In order for staff 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. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. Citv Departments: ❑ Attorney ® Building Official ® Engineer ® Fire Marshal ® Forester ® Park Director ® Water Resources Carver County Agencies: ❑ Community Development ❑ Engineer ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Historical Society ❑ Parks ❑ Soil & Water Conservation District State Agencies: ❑ Board of Water & Soil Resources ❑ Health ❑ Historical Society ❑ Natural Resources -Forestry ® Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation Federal Agencies: ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish & Wildlife Watershed Districts: ❑ Carver County W MO ❑ Lower MN River ® Minnehaha Creek ❑ Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Utilities: ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom ❑ Electric — Minnesota Valley ❑ Electric —Xcel Energy ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — Centuryl-ink Adjacent Cities: ❑ Chaska ❑ Eden Prairie ❑ Jackson Township ❑ Minnetonka ❑ Shorewood ❑ Victoria Adjacent Counties: ❑ Hennepin ❑ Scott School Districts: ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Minnetonka 276 Other Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum ❑ SouthWest Transit ❑ TC&W Railroad SCANNED Property Card i Parcel ID Number 56600270 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name KELLIE J GEIGER GREGG T GEIGER Address 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 Property Address Address 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD City EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 .i A it+ p y? < r .!t IN ys Parcel Information Uses Res 1 unit GISAcres 0.71 Deeded Acres Plat RED CEDAR POINT LK MINNEWASHTA Lot 001 Block 004 Tax Description W 225' EXC W 25' OF LOT 1 Building Information Building Style 1 1/2 STORY Above Grade 2828 Bedrooms 4 Last Sale Finished So Ft $466,800.00 Year Built 1918 Garage N Bathrooms 2.0 Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0276 1 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK Y I N I N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $466,800.00 $553,800.00 Date of Sale 08/19/2014 Building $187,900.00 $201,000.00 Sale Value $566,800.00 Total $654,700.00 $754,800.00 Ti,, da.a i ne,ew ih is for raterence purposes only. This data is rat suitable M leoal engineering, surveying a ian other simpiumoses. Carver Gcunty ones not guarantee the accuracy cf the nfomf:::m Contained erein ed h. This data is furnished On an as k base and Caver County makes no representations Or warranties. either expressed or Implied for the merchantability or ii1nesS 0f the nfonnatipn provided for any purpose. This disclaimer a provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03 and the user of the data crowded "ran acknowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages and by using the data n any way expressly wanes all claims. and agrees to defend. ndemndy. and held harmless Caner County. its oRidals oRicers admits, employees etc; from any and all claims brought by anyone who uses the information provided for herein, its employees or agents. or CARVER third parties whidi aree out of users access By acceptance of this data. the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of 4 to another party unless the user includes COUNTY with the data a copy of this disclaimer. Monday, May 18, 2015 SCANNED Carver County, MN