The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-18_KAKACEK, TROY & VIRGINIADocument No OFFICE OF THE A 4 3 3 9 2 4 COUNTY RECORDER • CARVER COUNTY. MINNESOTA Fee:$ 46.00 Check#: 15303 Certified Recorded on 01-27-2006 at 02:30 ❑ A PM 433924 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �CouRangy r. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIR i COUN'T'IES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 05-18 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 1.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Procerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements. 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: November 14, 2005. 1 scANoe0 (SEAL.) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A..Furlong, Mayor AND: r v"' Tod Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this jg4hay ofrbecein%er 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. w NOTARY PUBQC. IMT ' MT. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota Nly Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\=uding document.doc %] RESIDENTIAL PERMIT/SURVEY ROUTING FORM for: Home, Other _, M Permit Noc) 3 6a V4 c'� Date Receivepf Z a3 Addition Deck Detached Structure Permits/Surveys in the following order, note any changes you require and forward to next department. tering will order new surveys as requested and route for approvals in reverse order. Address/legal description, building footprint, building type matches survey (walkout, lookout, etc), benchmark. Approved K'1"�/ Dater__ By: Re rred correct s: I V OJ� Pr TE Nv U cEf v �l S Revised survey/plans approved Y / Date:`�l i'(� By: Setbacks, tree preservation, wetlands, bluff zone, height, surface area, bluff setbacks. Approved Y /9) Date: ( 3 By: Required corrections: �VWI{' t1gn� �- � fNA,I�t-� -- Revised survey/plans approved N Date: �k/1113 By: Ili Approved Y/ N Date:_ l h/03 By: CIP V Engineering Elevation, building type, grading/drainage easements, erosion control. Approved Y(Date: By:' WY OP CHANHASSEN I I Reauired correcs:NOV 0 6 2003 GINEE h u D PT. lr�le C Revised survey/plans approved ON Date: (— 1 / Cr S B gi�sefery\fortn�ertnitraufinR 8/00 F CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY f CITY OF CHANHASSEN Address 380 WEST 86TH STREET permit 0302416 Lot 4 Block 1 Sub. RICE LAKE MANOR 2ND ADDITION Owner SCHUTROP BUILDING & DEV Address 540 LAKOTA LANE CHASKA MN 55318 This certifies that I have inspected the building and improvements at the above location and legal description, and find that the premises complies, to the best of my knowledge and belief, with all the requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the City of Chanhassen and permission is hereby given to the owner for the occupancy of the premises, in the whole or in part, to be occupied as 'single /nfamilyydwelling. By Lvim _ " Date 3 2S GV Building Official CommAents / T41 �g' 0 �o ump pump in compliance / ❑ NOTICE No basement PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: The City of Chanhassen requires a building permit to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure, including fences, storage sheds, decks & swimming pools. Permits are also required for plumbing & heating alterations & additions. including central air conditioning, water softeners, & lawn irrigation equipment. Contact Chanhassen Community Development Department, Building Division for further information. Phone 952-993'IVM.- fr7—) lay CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN ""°RAN" 7700 Markel Boulevard TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist Administration Phone: 952.227 1100 DATE: May 17, 2005 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections SUBJ: Hardcover variance at 380 W. 8e Street Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax. 952.227.1190 The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor, 2°d Addition included a total Engineering of 12 trees to be planted as part of the subdivision approval. Each lot was Phone: 952227.1160 required to have 2 trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot Fax: 952227.1170 4, Block 1, 380 W. 86th Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as Finance part of the subdivision conditions of approval A recent inspection of the property Phone: 952.227.1140 found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees Fax: 952.227 1110 remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to Park & Recreation meet subdivision requirements. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 I recommend that the landscaping requirement for the lot be added as a condition Recreation Center of approval for approving the variance for this lot. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952 227 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952 227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web She wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 030 a 41(0 NOTICE FOR BUILDING PERbIIT APPLICANTS VP The following are required by city ordinance and area condition of building permit approval: CITYOF 1. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard 2. Unless already on site, at least one tree must be planted on private property in PO Box 147 the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous and at least 2 Chanhassen, MN 55317 a/2" in diameter at the time of installation. Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 3. Erosion control must be maintained throughout the construction period and Fax: 952.227.1110 until new vegetation is established regardless of property ownership. Building Inspections Erosion control escrow deposited at the time of building permit application Phone: 952.227.1180 will be held until it is determined by the city that erosion control is no longer Fax: 952227.1190 needed on site. Engineering Phone: 952.227.1180 4. All public streets must be maintained in a clean condition. Fax: 952.227.1170 5. Drainage and grading must be completed in compliance with approved plans. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952227.1110 6. Additional requirements relating to tree preservation, landscaping, drainage, placement and elevation of the home and related issues may be imposed. Part Recreation 'these requirements are conditions of approval as granted by the City Council. Plrone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 It is your obligation to maintain erosion control, tree preservation, drainage, Recreation Center and condition of public streets during construction of the home. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 SMial Conditions: Fax: 952227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Failure to comply with these requirements could result in the issuance of a stop Public worse work order. Certificates of Occupancy (CO) will not be issued until all conditions 1591 Park Road have been complied with. If the conditions cannot be met prior to requesting a Phone: 952227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 CO due to weather or other circumstances, frtancial guarantees satisfactory to the city must be provided prior to the release of the CO. The amount of the guarantee Senior center will be established by city staff. Financial guarantees for seed/sod and the tree(s) Phone: 952.227.1125 is $750.00. Fax: 952.227.1110 web site I have read this notice and fully understand its requirements. www achanhassen.mm.us Applicant Signaturrre 1 City) tall Id 407 Date d u Dae Addressl�if'ACi- 110 4 Block_L Subdivision (i,f,{c-jN KIFLZ The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails. and beautiful parks. A geal place to live, work, and play. Recreation Center 2310 CoulterBoulerad Escrow check for $ '. .has been submitted to the City of Phone: 952.227.1400 Chanhassen to . e c Nance with the above listed conditions. Requirements Fax: 952.227.1404 shall be met by Planning A Natural Resources These conditions must be complete within two (2) months of receipt of the Phone: 952.227.1130 - - Fax:952.227.1110 Certificate of Occupancy (CO). If the CO was obtained between October 1 and May 1, landscaping requirements must be completed no later than July 1. The PublicWorke City retains the right to use the funds in escrow for installation of required 1591 Park Road Phone 9522211300 landscaping, maintenance of erosion control or other conditions as outlined above, Fat 952227.1310 in city ordinances, and applicable development contracts. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by staff to verify satisfactory Senior Cerner completion of all conditions. Staff will conduct monthly Plane: 952227.1125 P Y � ins Pections of Fat 952.221.1110 incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for Web Site each inspection. wwaci.chaMassen.mn.us �L� —3 -Date ApplicandProperty Owner's Signature: 'Date L1 D/ City Staff g:We WmmUandscapemquirements 1 Tho Pity of Chanhassen • A nrnwinn rommnnilv with clean lakes. duality schools. a charming downtown. thrivino businesses. winding trails. and beautiful Darks. A meat olace to live. work. and olay. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 The following items are required by city ordinance and/or the development contract pertaining to the property located at CITY OF i r �,° CI�NI�ASSEN Lot Block tee. Addition, Address: C� - It Permit # � U 1700 Market Boulevard .2//P PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1. All disturbed areas resulting from construction of the property must be seeded Administration and/or sodded to establish ground cover. Exposed construction sites Phom:952.227.1100 contribute to erosion and water quality problems. Fax: 952227.1110 Building Inspections 2. Two and a half inch (21/z") caliper deciduous trees must be planted in the Phone: 952.227.1180 front yard setback area. Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Erosion control measures as shown on the City approved Certificate of Phone: 952227.1160 Survey must be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully Fax 952.227.1170 vegetated. Flnance Phone. 952.227.1140 OTHER CONDITIONS Fat 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 - ... . Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 CoulterBoulerad Escrow check for $ '. .has been submitted to the City of Phone: 952.227.1400 Chanhassen to . e c Nance with the above listed conditions. Requirements Fax: 952.227.1404 shall be met by Planning A Natural Resources These conditions must be complete within two (2) months of receipt of the Phone: 952.227.1130 - - Fax:952.227.1110 Certificate of Occupancy (CO). If the CO was obtained between October 1 and May 1, landscaping requirements must be completed no later than July 1. The PublicWorke City retains the right to use the funds in escrow for installation of required 1591 Park Road Phone 9522211300 landscaping, maintenance of erosion control or other conditions as outlined above, Fat 952227.1310 in city ordinances, and applicable development contracts. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by staff to verify satisfactory Senior Cerner completion of all conditions. Staff will conduct monthly Plane: 952227.1125 P Y � ins Pections of Fat 952.221.1110 incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for Web Site each inspection. wwaci.chaMassen.mn.us �L� —3 -Date ApplicandProperty Owner's Signature: 'Date L1 D/ City Staff g:We WmmUandscapemquirements 1 Tho Pity of Chanhassen • A nrnwinn rommnnilv with clean lakes. duality schools. a charming downtown. thrivino businesses. winding trails. and beautiful Darks. A meat olace to live. work. and olay. CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 Sue Nelson RE: ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 11/14/05 05-18 CASE Variance 05-18 (Kakacek) 1 11/14/05 05-33 CASE Site Plan Amendment (Spalon Montage Signage) 1 11/14/05 05-34 CASE Variance 05-34 (Koenig) 1 12/10/05 05-13 SUB Corrective Quit Claim Deed (Gildner to Koenig) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED: <im Meuwisse (952) 227-1107 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED 0 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 05-18 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 1.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements. 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: November 14, 2005. 0 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN r� BY: �- (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor I AND: f/ Tod Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this IW day of bem icor 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUB14C_, KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota ?, My Commission Expim Jen 31, 2010 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-I8 kakacek variance\recording documentdoc CITY OF CHAN&SSEN 7701 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 r� u December 16, 2005 Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86`h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 Re: Variance, 380 West 86th Street — Planning Case #05-18 Administration Phone: 952.227. 1100 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kakacek: Fax 952717.1110 Building Inspections This letter is to formally notify you that on November 14, 2005, the Chanhassen Phone: 952.227.1180 City Council approved the following motion: Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering "The City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 1.18% hard surface coverage Phone: 952.227.1160 variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the Fax. 952.2271170 addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential Finance (RSF) with the following conditions: Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." Paris & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at Fax: 952.2271110 imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1400 y, Fax: 952.227.1404 - Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952 227.1130 osh Metzer Fax: 952.227.1110 Planner I Public Works 1591 Park Road gAplan12005 planing ca \05-18 kakacek varianceVetter of approval.doc Phone: 952227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952227.1110 Web She www.ca.ctol asssm.mn.us WANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a shaming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gieat place to live, work, and play. A • Z MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITY OF FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I CHONSEN DATE: Segtefaber26 November 14, 2005 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 SUIM Troy & Virginia Kakacek — Planning Case #05-18 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY Phone: 952.227.1100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections This item was appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a Phone: 952.227.1180 4-.2-3 1.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface Fax: 952.227 1190 coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property Engineering located in the Single -Family Residential District at 380 West 86`s Street. These Phone: 952.227.1160 improvements have already been built. Since this request was first presented to Fax: 952,227.1170 the Planning Commission and City Council, staff noticed some inaccurate data Finan on the as -built survey. The portion of the driveway that lies within the public Phone: 952.227.1140 right-of-way was included in the hard cover calculations of the applicants' Fax: 952227.1116 property. Furthermore, the applicant has removed an additional 90 square feet Park & Recreation from the patio in the rear yard. This report has been revised to reflect accurate Phone: 952.221, 1120 calculations. Fax: 952.227.1110 ATTACHMENTS Recreation Center ACTION REQUIRED 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952 227.1404 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Planning & PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952227.1110 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request. Public works 1591 Park Road That decision was appealed by the applicant. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 The City Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2005, to review the request. Council tabled the application in order to give staff and the applicant Senear Center Phone: 952.221.1125 time to explore alternative solutions to resolving the hard cover issue. Fax: 952.227.1118 RECOMMENDATION Web Site www.d.chanhassennn.us Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff report dated November 14, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 19, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 19, 2005. 3. City Council Minutes dated September 12, 2005. gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\ezecutive summary 10-10-05 mcim The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC Di&: July 19, 2005 CC DATE: Oetebw 24 November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 21, 2005 CASE #: 05-18 BY: JM, JS, DR PROPOSAL: Request for 4:2-31.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86' Street. These improvements have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 380 West 86" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.31.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial approval of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 0 • Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance My 19 Septembers November 14, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. The summary and verbatim minutes are Attachment 8 of this packet. Since this request was Fust presented to the Planning Commission and City Council staff noticed some inaccurate data on the as -built survey. This report has been revised to reflect accurate calculations. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86`b Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4:23 1.18% (which represents 642 24 178.63 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29:13 26.180/a. Lake Susan Rice Marsh La 0 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. I 0.2A2 (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. r 0 Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance july 19 Septembers November 14, 2005 Page 3 (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23 26.18%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as -built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as -built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005. The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek's have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as -built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this variance request. 0 Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance 3al_y-19 September- 12 November 14, 2005 Page 4 H Before - Gravel Walkway After - Mulch Walkway Before - Concrete Sidewalk Revised as -built survey calculation: House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. After - Rock Walkway Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23% In addition to the corrections discussed above, staff recently noticed that the surveyor had incorrectly included that portion of the driveway which lies in the public right-of-way (not on the applicants' property) in the hard cover calculation. The area of driveway located on the applicants' property is actually 995.39 square feet rather than 1,369 square feet as noted on the as - built survey. This erroneously contributed 373.61 square feet, or 2.46% to the hard cover calculations. The applicant has also removed 90 square feet from the patio in the rear yard. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance My 19 September- 1-2 November 14, 2005 Page 5 _Revised as -built survey calculation #2: House Patio Driveway F 2,537.24 sq. ft. = 429.00 sq. ft. 995.39 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 3,973.63 sq. ft. 26.18% Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as -built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as built survey shows that the home and Ehiveway alone am at 25.89/6 (111.24 squaFe The area of the driveway on the building permit survey totals 896 square feet. The area of the driveway located within the applicants' property lines was actually built at 995.39 as shown on the as -built survey. In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants' interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Patio 6 Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance 3Wy 19 September 12 November 14, 2005 Page 6 There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. The applicant would need to remove 178.63 square feet of hard cover in order to comply with City ordinance. This could be achieved through removal of patio area, driveway area or a combination of removal from both. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. in addition, in „_a,.. to reaek 25%, the size ofthe dFiveway would have to be r-edueed by at least 141.24 squar-a feet At the City Council meeting on September 12, 2005, the City Council tabled this item to provide time for the applicant to work with staff to find alternatives for the resolution of the impervious surface issues. One of the alternatives mentioned was the construction of an infiltration basin on the Kakacek property. An infiltration basin (rain garden) is not recommended in this instance. Chanhassen's soils are typically quite clayey and do not permit large amounts of infiltration to occur. In addition, small, privately owned infiltration basins are often designed and/or constructed improperly. As a result, they often require more maintenance than anticipated and do not perform as well as property owners expect. For these reasons, staff does not recommend infiltration as a condition, should the City Council recommend approval of the hardcover variance. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. LANDSCAPING The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86`" Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize 6 0 Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance uI5, 1n9 September 12 November 14, 2005 Page 7 that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. f The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Y. r - i *1 Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance Ady-19 Septembef Q November 14, 2005 Page 8 Staff recommends City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plapaing Ceffffris City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 423 1.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped "Received May 6, 2005". 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As -Built Survey. g:lplan\2005 planning case M-18 kakacek va,iance\staff mportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall —Planning Case No. 05-18. On July 19, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 8e Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 0 • The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-18 Variance dated July 19, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the variance from the impervious surface restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 19a' day of July, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION am Planning Commission Chairperson B'\Plan\2005 planning w X05-18 kakacek variance�6ndings of famdoc PLEASE PRINT Email • 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. 0 S5 I $ RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN and Address: Owner Name and Address: arirv,q I $0me R -S 0-pr'tk-'_;4-1.4 S_S31� '6, r Nc Ee Contact: Fax: 95z-9ct3-a1-4s Phone: Fax: kY1 i �o lle F. eon Email: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. ' Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*Alf) format. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME:: LOCATION: :3g0 / 0. R I nq-r. RL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: 3 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES 6� NO PRESENT ZONING: RES (;-k t F6 -m t t_ Y REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: SE-- tt>UNTr 19 L — S t nl&LE F4,,.,( Y REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: `k REASON FOR REQUEST: Vf}y-yt iv c -Flo A-LLO w FOI- A- .— This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature4aAppliGant Date slsl©; algnatu±2 re °) Fee Owner Date G:'planftms�Development Review Application.DCC Rev. VOR To the City of Chanhassen — Planning Committee: Troy and Virginia Kakacek variance request for 380 W. 860' St Points on variance application: 7. Variance request — To allow existing patio to remain as an improvement to the exterior of the home. 8. a. All homes in the immediate vicinity of our home have preexisting decks and patios. The back yard (patio area) would not be usable without covering. The layout of the home requires some walkout consistent with the homes around us. b. The homes around us have bad preexisting structures but were developed on much larger lots. c. The variation is for personal use and to make the area more presentable and improved- d. mproved d. The development was as a result of several different miscommunications despite multiple attempts to pre-empt any future problems prior to placement. An original building plan was submitted with the patio on it and the final building approval was changed without our knowledge. After the house was built we waited to add this later for financial reasons instead of doing it with the final home construction. We also sought the advice of the city staff two times prior to starting any landscaping or hardscaping projects. When we were notified of the problem after our final survey we were shown what Chanhassen had officially approved and realized it was different than the plans we had as our final building plan e. The variance will improve the neighborhood, it is already in place, and multiple neighbors have stopped and commented on how they think the things we have done greatly improved the property. £ The improvements do not impose any danger, impair property value (an increase was actually made), and will not infringe upon any neighbors and/ or ordinance. Our neighbors to the north Kurt and Lynn Miller are substantially below their hardscaping requirements and have included a letter of support for our variance (see attached). SCANNED 0 ' Kurt D. Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 May 4, 2005 To: City of Chanhassen From: Kurt & Lynne Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN Subject: 380 West 86' Street Chanhassen, MN. Our backyard joins the backyard of Mr. & Mrs. Kakacek. The patio they had installed last year compliments their backyard and adds to the functionality of their home. We do not object to this patio in anyway and believe it is a nice addition to their home and yard. Our lot is connected along their entire rear property line is one acre in size and affords an abundance of green space. It would seem sensible to allow the Kakacek's to retain their patio. n, urt & Lvnne Miller CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on Thursday, July 7, 2005, 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 Kakacek Variance – Planning Case No. 05-18 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 this2." day of - , 2005. Notary SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Single -Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05-18 A licant:Tro & Vir inia Kakacek Property 380 West 86' Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzerOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all properly within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclavindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting, • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included in the report, lease contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Sinqle-Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05-18 A licant:Tro &Vir inia Kakacek Property 380 West 86' Street Location: A location chap is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227.1132 or e - Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alteration 491 Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation, The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council, If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification. s map w neither a legally recorded nest, nor a survey and is M I tenrlarl to be used as one. s map is a conpilaum of records, inlamatim and data located in various city, mtady, slide and erdl oRuces and other swrcee regardtg the area shown, endo b be used for relerence Poses orky. The C dY does M wdmard VW tlhe Geograplic YYomatim System (GIS) Data used xmwe this map are error hue. and the City does M moreserd Met to GIS Data can be used rs v gadonal, hactrirg many critter purpose requiring emoting measunxnant of deface m cum or precision lo the depiction d geopephie fesbxes. t actors or dscreparxies are iolnd aes contact 952-227-1107. The prewdng dsdainer is provided pursuant to Mnnmole mfes §466.03, SuM. 21 (2000), and the user of this rrep acWroxtedges Mat the City shall M lime for arty derreges, and topraasly waives as blains, and agrees to defend, inclentefy, and d harmless the qty hon any and ant darns brought by User, its er ployees or agents, m third lies which arise M of the users access or use of dela provided. is map o neither a legally receded trees nor a survey end's M "ended to be treed m ane. tis trey is a cotnpilaum ol records, infonmort and date located lo verbs city, cmnty. slate and decd offices and other sources regetdtg this area shte and o Us be used for reference nposes only The City does M werma that tei Geographic hfonetm System (GIS) Dau used Prepare this trop are error free, and to Qty does M Misrased tree the GIS Data can be used r navfgabm al. ttaclQg or ant Mer purpose ra4irng eating rtassurenvtl ol dkttruce or necdon or ptetsim in the dophdort of geoptaptw lectures. M ones or dscrepandes are foww ease contact 952-227-1107. The precedng declaimer is Wmided pursuant to Ml res Me antes §465.03. Sabel 21 (2000), and the user of We pep acWwMedges three the Qty shall M s liable for cry damages, and evressly waives as blame. sort apem to delmQ indermity, and Ad hamiess thre Qty from any and a1 dens, brought by Ihar. is enploye ss or agents, or third utas whidh ansa orf of the useh access or use of dao pwided. «NAM E1 c,NAME2» «ADD1 «ADD2)) «CITY,) «STATE» «ZIP» «Next Record))« NAME7» «NAME2» eADD1 to «ADD2)) oCITY» « STATEn «ZIP» Public Hearing Notification Area Map (500 feet) Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan c Rice Marsh --i- ------------- wesms� R MYSNarq TA Subject Site ED�� I ' d1.N2�2 pCopose tCC Lake Riley 0 ' 'ATRICIA A ADAMS SARAH K BERG KAREN L BLENKER 329 RICE CT 424 MONK CT 405 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE &JANJAMES A & MARILYN L CRAW FORD BEVERLEY K DAVIS 8560 MISSION ION HILLEUX CARLYLE 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D & MARY EICHLER MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING TRUSTEE OF TRUST 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8570 MISSION HILLS LN RIO VERRDEDE AAZ 85263 25628 A LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Z DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING BEVERLY A FIEDLER SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8521 TIGUA LN 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUN ITA GANGOPADHYAY & MICHAEL A GRAY & SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY SARAH A NICKOLAY 570 78T S R #2001 S TRUST 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 8510 TIGUA LN 570 78TH ST W N 5 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY K HALVORSON & ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN ELEN M HALVORSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 422 RICE CT 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HEINEMANN RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS BONNIE M HOGHAUG 421 RICE CT 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 425 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN M JOHANNES PAUL D JUAIRE TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA LUCY KALEY JEAN M KAMRATH THOMAS D KARELS 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 416 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO NIKOLAY V KRASNOKUTSKIY & 350 HWY 212 E 350 HWY 212 E LILIYA KRASNOKUTSKIY PO BOX 89 PO BOX 89 8564 POWERS PL CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 n u VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY & KEVIN KUNZE JUDITH A LEHMAN CT EAG AN P KRASNOKUTSKIY 417 RICE CT 412 MONK E AG AN MN 55122 CINNAMON RDG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL C LYONS 8571 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY JEAN MESSNER 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 8550 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & KARIJBERG 8501 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY T & TRACY A SALW EI 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANDEM PROPERTIES 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR 11310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 JOYCE I MANCINO 413 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH 409 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC L PETERSON KATHERINE M WELCH 8561 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER RENKLY 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON A & BRENDA M SCHAEFFER 8591 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M SCOTT PO BOX 544 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RACHELLE L TIMLIN 404 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUANN M MARKGRAF 401 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE S MONROE 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY 8500 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK D PILATE 470 MISSION HILLS WAY E #115 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARMEN M SCHALLOW 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHANNA M UNKE 420 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARTURO F URRUTIA AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER BARBARA E WOLTER 408 MONK CT 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E 400 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E .L CD . 1\ CO E .L Q 6,= e s . 1\ S• • S� iee ey a Ea�Easo ggpp II i9M& I I ,moo n 'd oQo o O Q $ I o cJ 1 •o =I 1 Q 6,= -7 7 LJ n ini^^rrnr , e s . 1\ S• • S� iee ey a Ea�Easo ggpp II i9M& I n 'd oQo o O Q $ I -7 7 LJ n ini^^rrnr , E♦ 1\ 'd oQo o I o Ov W Q J e CO o \� IP I Q e W V a0 y Fl—^ cn l— e. w E— � (D av ao CO 0 p 04 3 e9 co 2W J W Z J CO W n s m E � da^C 0 3 q � � 4 W Z J CO W n m da^C on dr W €l CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Uh Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Moms, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Matt Wessale Dave Johnson PUBLIC HEARING: 05-18. Public Present: 9350 Gary Avenue, Waconia 219 W. 82nd Street Name Address Larry Martin 2707 Spy Glass Drive Ginger & Troy Kakacek 380 West 8e Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions at this time? Larson: Yeah. I've looked at this... Is it on? Hello. When this came up before, you know I understand that they didn't pull the permit to do the extra patio. Is it that large of an issue? I mean we've gotten letters and things from some of the neighbors. They don't seem to be opposed to it. What is the main problem with this because the way I see it, as it is, it looks like a nice improvement. It's not a detrimental looking improvement to the home. So is the problem because of the surface water? Metzer: Right. This home's located in a single family residential district and they are limited to 25% hard cover for the whole property. If they're over that, they either have to bring it to compliance or we end up here with the variance process. We as staff can't be subjective about it. Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larson: Okay. So the main issue we're dealing with here is the fact that maybe their lot is smaller than maybe others in the neighborhood. Metzer: Right, but the fact remains that they have to comply with the 25%. Larson: Okay, thank you. That's all I have. McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Zorn: Josh I have a question. Metzer: Yes. Zom: In order to come into compliance you need to, for hard cover surface, surface ratio needs to be 25% or less. Metzer: Right. Zom: And on page 4 of the report indicates that as the survey had shows that the home and driveway alone are 25.8. Have you discussed with the homeowners ways to rectify that? Or what an option would be... Metzer: The only option would be to remove part of the driveway. Shave off some edge of the driveway. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: It's not that significant. 111 square feet. If you took a strip along the edge of the driveway you should be able to accomplish that. Zorn: Okay. Papke: What's the style of the house? Is it two story, rambler? Metzer: It's a two story. Papke: It's a two story. So it's almost a 2,600 square foot foundation, two story house. That's pretty substantial. Keefe: What is the, you said that the homeowner came in and asked for, you know consulting with staff in regards to the landscaping. What do we typically communicate to homeowners in regards to landscaping in terms of what they can do and what they can't do? Do we have sort of strict? Metzer: Well I believe the specific question at that time was, and this occurred long ago. The specific question was how close can they come to property lines with landscaping and the answer 2 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 was, you can landscape anywhere on your property but we encourage you not to, to stay out of the easements in case we have to come in there and do work. The city would not be liable for replacing any landscaping that was removed. Keefe: Right. Do we typically you know recommend any sort of materials or recommend anything in regards to how we landscape? And one of the things if somebody were to come in and say well here's what we're thinking of doing, you know they might say we're thinking about putting in some plantings and whatever and they might include a patio, but maybe they wouldn't, but do we get into those types of. Metzer: It's got to be very case specific I guess. You know it's hard to say. In general if there's an idea that they're going to be placing patio or anything like that, the issue of hard cover would be discussed. _ Keefe: Okay, so it really just never came up in regards to. Metzer: Apparently not. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Metzer: I can't say first hand so. Keefe: Right. McDonald: Anyone else? I guess I've got a couple of questions for you. On the patio you had talked in here about maybe alternatives. If they were to put a deck up, does that begin to alleviate the problems and if so, are there special considerations there as far as the under foundation of a deck or anything? Metzer: As long as, we don't consider a deck to be hard covered if there's no hard cover underneath. If it's soil or some sort of landscaping with a fabric layer, we don't consider that hard cover. McDonald: Okay. On the, there was another thing in here that I'm a little confused about and that's the drawings that were submitted. And correct me if I'm wrong but as I read this it sounds as though the owner had one set which may have had these layouts on it. You had another set that did not have these on it and what we approved as far as I guess the final approval were the drawings in your possession. What happened? Metzer. The big issue with the difference in the drawings was the driveway. The shape and size of the driveway. What the city received in the permit package was the first drawing that I put up there. You can see the difference in the driveway there. This was submitted as a part of the building permit process and this is what we received as an as -built survey, and the applicant informed us that this was what they had in mind the whole time. So that's where the confusion came across as far as we know. 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 Undestad: The submitted one was the 25% hard cover, is that right? The permit? Metzer: I believe it was the 24 point some odd percent. McDonald: Any further questions? Keefe: Just to be clear on this. The driveway on the right looks like it's more like a lane and a half coming in from the curb. Then widens out to the two lanes, and is it a two stall or three stall? Three right and then the one that you received or approved did not include the patio coverage or the sidewalk coverage. Metzer: Right. The survey on the left was, we require as -built surveys for after homes are built so this was the survey on the left was an after the fact. Keefe: And the one on the right doesn't have either sidewalk or patio and had the reduced driveway. Metzer: Right. Keefe: And that meets, it just barely meets the cover at 24.8. Okay. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Any other questions? Zom: Ido have one more. Asa new home builder myself, during the process when we were working with our lot and the way the house would sit, I don't recall our builder indicating at all a concern about size and this hard coverage surface ratio. Is there, do you encourage builders to talk with their clients as they move forward? Just thinking that that might have resolved a lot of confusion... Metzer. Well I know builders are made aware of the hard surface restrictions in their zone that they're building in. Zorn: Okay. Generous: Well it's a requirement on the design now that they give us those calculations. Zorn: And that will likely help a lot. Generous: Yes. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay. And with that are the homeowners here? 4 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: Good evening Chairman McDonald, commissioners. My name's Larry Martin. I'm here on behalf of the homeowners this evening. My address is 2707 Spy Glass Drive and I'd like to address this issue for the homeowners. The commission asked, you know what is the procedural posture for this evening and the answer that was referenced is correct. It is in the alternative that there's two possibilities at the end of this process, after you make a recommendation to City Council. City Council can either grant the variance, based on your recommendation or deny the variance and once the variance is denied, if the variance is denied, then those hard surface improvements will have to be removed. If the variance is granted, those improvements can remain and the variance runs with the property and so there will always be an exception for that piece of property that they'll be allowed a 30% hard surface coverage, based upon that variance. And that's the reason we're here tonight is to ask for that variance. The back drop, the question you had of staff is very good review of kind of the key issues, but as you focus on this variance request, really what you need to kind of key in on are the 6 elements that staff has outlined for you in their staff report. I think you'll find that on page 6, it's listed as items a through f, and I think when you page down and take a look at item f, well there's really no dispute there. I think item f is the one that talks about light and view and that kind of thing, and interfering with your neighbor's property. Well that's not a concern. There's no dispute about that. However, there is a little bit of a disagreement on each and every one of the rest of the elements and so what I'd like to do is take a little bit of time and talk to you about those and explain to you why you can make findings that are reasonable and make a recommendation to City Council that this variance would be okay. And what I'd like to do rather than starting with a is kind of go down the line a little bit to item d, which is whether or not the hardship, the purported hardship is one that's self created. That's kind of an important issue when it comes to variances and Planning Commissions generally spend a lot of time on that. One, it's kind of like well are they making their own problem. In this case staff is saying that yes, this was a self created problem because the applicant should have made a request for a zoning compliance review, and if they had done that then this problem wouldn't have occurred. And that's a fair observation but the commissioners need a little bit more of a back drop to the history of this so they can understand how things, how the miscommunication occurred. Now we're not here to say the staff did anything wrong. We don't think we did anything wrong either, but we got caught in a sideways position here and that's why we're seeking your help. Those surveys that were presented to the building department and the planning department a while back and when the application was first made do not show the patio but I think that the actual building plans show a patio and actually the future expansion of a, I don't know if it's a porch or 3 season or screened porch. Maybe if I could ask for your assistance so I do this right. What the file should have, or we didn't compare this to the file. The file didn't have these plans along with future patio, future patio, four season porch, hot tub... Well of course under the hard surface requirement, none of that's going in. However, we did set out very early on disclosing that these future plans were intended. My clients recollect it very well because there was an issue with the proposed footings for the four season porch that had to be revised. I guess it was a $200 cost revision for making that footing revision. However when they actually came in to build the house it was decided they couldn't afford all that and so it was pulled back and they just decided to build it without the four season porch and without the patios for now. After that, and I think it was something like the end of 2004. End of 2003 when the house was being completed, when well there was a 6 month time period when the landscaping had to be completed and at the end of the 6 months they knew they had to have all the landscaping in. They decided well you know 5 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 what, maybe we should put in the patio now as long as we're putting in the landscaping. The applicant came to the city and met with them two times in July to talk to them about the patio and the landscaping and it was specifically a question of whether or not they needed any permits for the patio. And of course the city code at that time, and I think it's still true today, you don't need a permit for the patio. So there wasn't a triggering event for a review. And so that's really where the miscommunication is and that's kind of what generates a problem. But anyway, not only did they come in twice in July to ask about the permit process and whether or not one was necessary or what they needed to do, including the patio, but their developer came in after. Not developer but their builder also checked to see whether or not he needed a permit to put in the patio. And of course the response was no. You don't need one in the city of Chanhassen to get a patio built. What you do need is a planning review. Well, I don't know if you necessarily need it because there's no permit that you have to take out for it. But arguably because of this result you do need to come in and talk to staff about it and get permission. Otherwise you get in the situation that we're in. However when you go to the counter and talk to people about it, they say you don't need a permit. Well it sounds like staff's kind of worked that all out and you're required to show calculations to prove your hard surface requirement is met or that you're not exceeding it. But we were caught in that gray area where things weren't explained quite so well. Now, that's all important back drop to this item d. The alleged hardship is not being self created. Well, you know who's fault is it? I don't think it's my clients fault, and I don't want to say it's staff fault either, but there was a point in time when things where a little bit gray about what you needed to do to put in a patio. You didn't need a permit. But a zoning compliance review would have been really good if somebody had told us that we needed to do that. If they would have told us, then they would have built a deck. Now we've got the patio and that's a problem, and tearing it out now is a hardship after all this is said and done because there's a significant amount of money that's invested in it. Okay, so that's kind of the critical juncture where things went awry. Now is that a hardship created by them? I don't think so but you know that's a finding of fact for you to make and make a recommendation to the City Council on. But then after you decide that, if you decide that that's not self created, then the rest of the elements I think are a little bit easier for you and so like for a, literal enforcement causes undue hardship. Well, if the hardship is based upon a miscommunication with staff and it's really not the applicant's fault and here they are in a situation where they spent a lot of money on an improvement and if you go the wrong way on this and don't grant them the variance and they have to tear it out, they've lost a lot of money and if you lose money, that's a hardship and if it's a lot of money, it's an undue hardship. And in this case I think we're talking about an investment of about $6,000. That's going to be painful if they have to do that. Item number b. Conditions are applicable to other property generally in the zoning district. Well what staff is saying is true there. Certainly the 25% requirement is a requirement of each and every property within the zoning district that they're in. However, the special condition that applies in this variance request is that it's the miscommunication is the condition or the event that creates the hardship that creates the problem. Is the miscommunication and the unfortunate circumstances that arise because of it the same thing for each and every property and the jurisdiction? Or in that zoning district. The answer is no. I mean this is going to be one, you know hopefully you won't see a whole lot more of these pop up but when they do come up, it's a good thing to help your neighbor out on when things have gone awry. It won't be an overriding problem with a bunch of property in the zoning district. C. Is the purpose of the variance based upon a desire to increase value or income potential for the property? Well certainly there's an investment in those improvements. 0 i 0 Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 However this is a motivational element. You know what's the purpose of the desire or the intent of the applicant once they achieve it? Well it's not a money making thing that they're working on. What they want to do is avoid losing money that arises back again from that miscommunication. And so I think staff's proposed finding there is a little bit too strong, and it's more to avoid loss than it is to seek gain. And that brings me back to that item d which is the not self created issue that I started the discussion out with. Commissioners, the light and air problem is not an argument, point of argument with staff. And I want to say again is that there was, I think it's clear that there was a gray area in how they should have been treated a while ago. That's something that happens frequently in cities and I don't think anyone's to blame but we strongly request that you give the alternative. Staffs been kind enough to list an alternative decision for you to recommend approval of the variance. We hope that you, to pick that out as your choice this evening and adopt findings of fact consistent with our presentation. There is, this isn't worth mentioning because really, but I just put it on the record so you understand the issue. There's a condition that's been added regarding trees. With respect to trees, I think there is a subdivision condition that requires 2 trees in the front of every lot, and then there's a series of trees that were to be planted in the back of these lots. In my mind there's a little bit of a difference in interpretation on how that applies. But after I reviewed the condition it just says you know comply with the subdivision condition and so if there's a disagreement on how that's to be interpreted, we can work that out. Certainly it's reasonable to require us to comply with the condition of that subdivision because it's already stated. How you interpret it's a different thing. Unless Ginger and Troy have anything to add, we'll answer any questions that you have of us. McDonald: Okay, I'll throw it open to question. Undestad: I just have one question. When you did your initial building permit application, did you talk about the 25% coverages and all that at that time or? So you really had no idea that any of that was going on? Larson: I've got one quick one too. We spoke earlier about possibility just cutting the driveway out. Is that a consideration for your guys? A portion of the driveway which would put you in compliance. Rather than taking out your patio. I understand not wanting to get rid of that but a portion you know. Undestad: I don't think that would work. A sliver would be if they didn't have any other hard surface on there. Their initial plan that was shown on there, their house and driveway was, actually that was over on the 25%. Larson: I mean instead of. McDonald: If they take all the hard surface out except the driveway, you're still over. Papke: So let me ask the converse question. At the end of the day we have to either approve or deny the variance. Would you be willing to accept a variance of .8% that would allow the driveway to remain intact and simply remove the patio? 7 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: We definitely would like to have this heard by the City Council. Let me state it this way. When we made the appointment for the initial meeting, there was also a request in the application for a variance to include the sidewalk and the other hard surface areas, and we took a look at that and we said well, you know what. The biggest issue that we have here is the patio. That's where the biggest expenditure is. That's where we were. We got off the beaten path by the miscommunication. We're trying to avoid that loss and so we really want to exhaust all of our potential remedies. Now having said that, what we did try to do when we tabled it and came here tonight is try to eliminate anything that you know is easier to say yes to, and so like if you wanted to say you know, take the sidewalk off. Well we would say yes to that anyway. Or take the gravel pathway out. Well they ask us that, we'll say yes to that. So you know let's just do that before we go ask them for the big item. Because that's really what we want. If there were a way to easily do it structurally to amend the construction of the driveway, it'd be easier to say yes to that too but the thing about that is, it is constructed in such a way that it's not a 2 car garage, as it says in the staff report. It's a 3 car garage and if you don't you know have a minimum amount of dry space to get to that third stall, you know even if you, even if you cut it out, then you're driving over the grass and that gets compacted into a hard surface and becomes an eyesore and we just want to maintain it for reasonable maneuverability. Keefe: I've got one question. Can you go back to the permitting of the patio briefly and restate kind of, I got lost a little bit in regards to what happened there because at least my thinking is that most builders who come in and most patio builders are pretty familiar with coming in to draw a permit for a patio within the city of Chanhassen. Larry Martin: Well that's the confusing part is that Commissioner, Chairman McDonald, Commissioner Keefe. The city doesn't require a permit for a patio and so when people come in and say, do I need a permit for a patio. The city says no. They walk away and say well I can go build my patio. What you need to say in addition to that is, however you might run into a problem if you don't have the zoning compliance review, which technically is a permit but if they don't hear that, they just walk away and figure that they can build it. Now staff has solve that problem because you have to submit your impervious calculations before you draw a permit. So that glitch in the system has been eliminated. But we're still stuck ... was still confusing. Papke: Several questions all related. Was the builder of the patio the same as the builder of the home? Larry Martin: I don't think so. No, it's a different builder. Papke: And did you ask the builder of the patio whether or not he or she was aware of the hard surface coverage? Larry Martin: Actually the builder of the patio came in to ask also about permit requirements and he was told that there weren't any permits needed. Papke: But did you ask him if he was aware of the hard surface coverage limitation within the city of Chanhassen? Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: We didn't understand the hard surface requirement until. Papke: Have you asked him since then? Larry Martin: No. I'm assuming not. McDonald: Any other questions from anyone else? Larry Martin: Thank you commissioners. McDonald: Well I've got a question for you. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out this permit thing myself. As to when things happened. The original builder of the house I take it had nothing to do with the patio. The patio was contracted after the house was built? Larry Martin: That's correct Chair. McDonald: Okay. And the builder who did that you're saying was unfamiliar with the zoning compliance review or the fact that there may be other zoning issues that just because he doesn't need a permit for a patio, he may end up needing a permit to be in compliance with our zoning ordinances. He didn't understand all of that. Larry Martin: Well there is no permit requirement. McDonald: There would be no permit requirement but with the zoning compliance review you would have found you didn't meet the 25%, so a builder should have known that while I don't need a patio, I may need to look a little bit further and make sure that there's not something else that's going to jump up and sabotage all of this. Larry Martin: That's true commissioner. If it's reasonable to anticipate that a builder once told that permits are required, should have a reason to believe that a zoning compliance review was necessary. Which seems unlikely to me. That's a little backwards. McDonald: Was this a builder who had done other projects within the city of Chanhassen? Larry Martin: I don't know the answer to that question. Ginger Kakacek: Yeah he's been... McDonald: And he's done projects in other municipalities I take it also? Ginger Kakacek: Yes. McDonald: Then why wouldn't he be aware of the fact that there was probably a zoning compliance that he should have looked at? I could understand where the homeowners may be confused in this. I'm having a problem understanding how a licensed builder would be confused. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Ginger Kakacek: ...where he should put the patio... McDonald: He's still licensed. He is licensed, right? Ginger Kakacek: Yes, he is licensed. McDonald: If he's done, if he does commercial projects he should know. Larry Martin: Quite frankly Chair I've been practicing land use law for 25 years at a broker, appraiser. Worked for cities. Worked for counties. I understand the hard surface requirements. It seems easy for me to see and understand how someone would be confused if they came in for a permit and if the issue about zoning compliance wasn't raised at the time of permit application. That they would think that nothing else would be necessary. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing no one else I will bring it back up to the council for discussion. Who wants to start at which end? Papke: Okay, I'll start. I'm opposed to granting this variance for two main reasons. First of all it was partially justified by the applicant that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the hard surface coverage, but the city code clearly spells out that we manage hard surface coverage on a lot by lot basis. To try to manage this across a whole neighborhood would get us into a tar pit of discussions as to how do you allocate the over's and under's and all that kind of good stuff. So clearly from my perspective the fact that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the coverage is no, is not a valid argument. The other one is the argument as to the hardship nature of the request, and this is similar to some of the other ones that we've discussed in the past, that as as -built situation, just because someone has built the structure or put in the patio, that does not, and having no knowledge of the city code restrictions, does not constitute a hardship in retrospect. So I do not see any cause for hardship here. The third argument, or issue is, well I'll leave it at that. That's probably enough said, thanks. McDonald: Debbie. Zorn: I also would not recommend this variance for the same reasons as Kurt. I've been through that process of the home building recently and I know it's a difficult situation and I feel for this homeowner but I think it would be very hard for us to continue to be confronted with variances throughout the city. And I am very pleased that there are some alternatives that the city is recommending and if considering a.8 variance might, probably wouldn't be something we would recommend. Possibly so, but I guess that's something for a discussion for another time. Papke: I've got one additional comment. Yeah, the third issue reoccurred to me. The other issue surrounds the zoning compliance process and the applicant stated that this is new and so they weren't aware of it at the time but one has to recall why this was originally implemented and I haven't been around that long but I've been around long enough to been a part of the initiation of that process and the zoning compliance process is there specifically to help avoid 10 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 these kinds of situations as a communications tool. It's not a requirement that we put on people to add extra work or there's no extra rules there. It's just specifically to help avoid these kinds of situations and help eliminate communication miscues and so the fact that this occurred during the time period within which that was being implemented, okay so we're improving the process but that doesn't necessarily excuse the lack of knowledge of the city code. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I'm trying to find a hardship here and I think despite what the applicant came up and said in regards to letter d, I'm just not quite there in regards to buying into that. Our job is really to you know enforce the code and we can potentially grant a variance here if we find a hardship but I'm just having a hard time getting over that threshold and I feel for the applicant but I think our job is really to, -you know we're here to interpret and I think you've got to take it to the next step so I would deny this. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: My main issue with this is the whole reason these rules are put in place is because of the, to keep Chanhassen and to keep the water and all that in compliance or just to make sure that the land doesn't get messed up in case we have a big water event or whatever. And yes it's a hardship but it's also that if you have to tear this out, all the money that was wasted going into this. However, like everybody else has said, lack of knowledge is not necessarily an excuse. I feel bad that it wasn't spelled out to you as clearly as it possibly should have, but again I think too your builder, your original architect, everybody that was submitting plans and they ... had known. The fact that it was put in there as a potential on your original plan isn't saying that it's actually going to be done because that would be an issue that would be brought up later. So unfortunately I would have to suggest denial on this as well. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No comments. McDonald: I guess the only comments that I will make, I don't want to repeat what everybody has said but you're asking for a big variance. 4.8%. While that may not seem like a big variance, we've had people in here before that have asked for less than that and we've sent them back to the drawing board. These rules are in there for a reason. Again what I go back to is that you had a licensed contractor do this. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are code compliant. They have a liability to do that as a duty to you so I just, I have a problem granting the variance. I would probably be more likely to grant the variance on the driveway because you do make some good points there, but as far as the patio, it's not as though we're going to be taking away your back yard. It's not as though we're going to be taking away your patio. You can put a deck out there and it's the same thing. You will still be able to use your back yard. So based upon that, I guess I would throw it open for a recommendation. Papke: Before we make a motion do we want, based upon what the applicant has heard, do we want to give them one last opportunity to amend their application? 11 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 McDonald: I will advance that courtesy to them, if they wish to amend their application. Larry Martin: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Then I will throw it open for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements and to plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. McDonald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to: Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD -R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 12 City Council Meeting — Seember 12, 2005 • d. Resolution#2005-74: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 04-05. e. Resolution#2005-75: Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01. g. Resolution#2005-76: Resolution Decertifying Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #6. h. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T -Mobile. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Meier: Good evening Mayor, members. I'm Tom Meier from 695 Pleasant View and I just wanted to reiterate on the McCord issue and David Sanford on the alteration permit. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Meier, if you'd like we can pick up your comments at that time on the agenda if that'd be okay. Tom Meier: That'd be great. Mayor Furlong: Do you mind waiting? That way we can take it in context. Tom Meier: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address the council this evening during visitor presentations? Seeing none then, we offer this opportunity at every meeting so people watching at home are welcome to come as well. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item, located on Tigua Lane, just off of 101, appeared before the Planning Commission. There is some length of time inbetween. The applicants had requested additional time to work through some issues and then also the time it appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council based on length of some agendas, but this item did appear before the Planning Commission and they recommended 6-0 denial. That is why it's in front of you tonight. Again subject site, this is a recently created subdivision of an existing large lot. The applicant did appear, apply for a building permit and this was the original survey. I have one that's colored a little bit better but I just want to go through. This was the original survey that was submitted. I do believe you all received a letter from Mr. Martin, the attorney regarding some of the issues in the kind of time date issues. I do believe all of you were emailed that. There's a lot of he said, she said and I'm not going to go into those. I'm just going to present the facts as the staff saw them and how we approached the permit. So it came in and the City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • porch and the driveway were recommended to be changed. It was our position it was over the 25%. Obviously there's a different perspective on that and it was asked to be re -surveyed. And the revised survey included the reduction of the driveway to meet the ordinance which requires 24 feet at the street and the porch was removed. So the permit was issued, and this one is colored so it's easier to see. Based on this survey right here which again, there was no porch or patio and the revised driveway. As now required as -built surveys are all required on all new, or after the home is constructed. Which when it was completed in March, so typically in March it may not have all the things done but the survey was completed later in the summer after the escrow was requested. At that time it was noted that this was what was shown on the survey. Sc the driveway, additional concrete and a patio so again we're over the impervious percentage. So when it came in for the as -built survey it was noted that was a non-compliance. Sent the letter and that's what started the variance process. So they have made some changes and those are noted in the staff report ... the impervious surface. Specifically mulch face down the gravel portion here. They have concrete here but then gravel around to the back. And then they still have a concrete driveway in the back. Originally on the porch, the porch if it was raised above grade with grass underneath that wouldn't count towards the impervious so they still have the ability to put a porch on that wouldn't require a variance again because there'd be grass underneath. Again the goal is to provide an area for that water, it's a capacity issue. But we're still over 600 square feet and that's where the Planning Commission struggled. It is onerous obviously to take out the patio and, which is the 500 square feet approximately, and then maybe another 170 feet of the driveway. So to get it to the 25%. So again there's a lot of detail in the staff report on what the staff believes was the process, and certainly the applicant believes in their due diligence that they proceeded the right way. I'll just rely on what we saw as the survey as submitted and the as-built's. So again the Planning Commission did recommend 6 -no denial. We have put conditions in the staff report. Findings and recommendations either way and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'm not sure if this is a question for you Kate or for Lori. These paver patios seem to always kick up trouble it seems like. People think they're fine and now all of a sudden they find out, no. They can't have it. Is there a paver that they can use that you would allow and not count against them for their hard surface coverage? Lori Haak: I'm not particularly familiar with this site, but at present there isn't a paver that staff counts against that hard surface coverage so at this time no, there is not. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do we have dates on those surveys or revised surveys somewhere that references in the permit which drawing was used to generate the permit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The original survey is October 23rd and then the revised ones that were signed off were November 17th. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And does it somewhere reference that, November 170'9 City Council Meeting — SepTember 12, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: There's two places that we would sign on a permit. One would be on the survey and then one would actually be on the building permit itself. Councilman Lundquist: So the signed survey is the 17"' one? Kate Aanenson: Correct. The one that was approved that went around. And then also there's also a routing form that goes around. And additional comments. There's some changes that were made when the house, the original survey came in and it was slid, moved an arboretum is shown up on here. That was the only thing that was added. But there was some mulch when the building inspector that went out that it was noted that that porch was not approved so the building inspector went out and noted that there was an arboretum that was shown on the site plan that was not, or shown on the survey that was not noted so there's some notes to that effect. That was all dated the 1 Ph. Excuse me the 7"' of November. That the permit was issued, and then again the final, the Certificate of Occupancy were given in March 25`s of '04 but again since it's springtime, typically the as-builts and the concrete work doesn't typically happen til later. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Kate Aanenson: So when the inspector went out those things, probably not, because if they were under snow or were not in place, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, the survey that the permit was issued on, and then the as -built, and particular the size, the building itself. Size of house. The home and then the driveway. It looked like, if I saw that correctly that that really was, that the permit was issued on a driveway in place. No sidewalks from the driveway to the front of the house. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Did the actual driveway that was built a different size than the driveway that was on this plan? I mean it looks like it's going different ways but was the driveway area larger built than what was in the plan for what the survey showed for the permit? Kate Aanenson: It's probably a little bit wider. I think the engineering had it tapering on this side a little bit more so on this one it just cuts across here. Better to just calculate that. That triangle there so it may be a little bit larger there. I didn't look at the original calculation. The survey's in the staff report how big it is. Mayor Furlong: The staff report shows that the home and driveway together slightly exceed the 25 limit so that's why I was wondering if the permit... Kate Aanenson: Right, I believe this driveway was a little bit narrower. The original survey one. 4 City Council Meeting — Stmber 12, 2005 0 Mayor Furlong: The one that the permit was issued on. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right, it's tapering back over here. They actually tapered it from the other side. You can see this is a straight line with a taper and then this cuts over. Mayor Furlong: So the question then is the width where it tapers and such but. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the applicant here? If they'd like to. Larry Martin: Good evening Mayor and Council members. My name is Lary Martin and I'm here on behalf of Ginger and Troy Kakacek. Ginger and Troy are my niece and nephew. Or niece and nephew in law and I'm here on their behalf this evening to kind of explain the history of this, although in the interest of time I did send out a letter. I don't know if it got to everybody and if you had a chance to look at it. It had, I've got a long version. I've got a short version. I've got a just get right down to the point version and I saw some heads nodding so I'll try to, limit to the short version. Mayor Furlong: I think that's fine. We did have the advantage of the Planning Commission minutes as well so. Larry Martin: Great. Here's the issue as I see it. As it boils down. I give you kind of a factual background of the problem or the genesis from Ginger and Troy's perspective. And of course their concern is you know they tried, you know after they had tried to move forward on the landscaping, their viewpoint is well, they came to the City 3 times to ask about the permits for the pavers and the response was that there is no permits that are necessary for a patio within the city as part of a landscaping project. And that's true. There is no permit that's necessary to put in a patio. And I see that as kind of a procedural glitch within the city's protocol for reviewing landscape applications or approvals. Staff has noted within their report that well, what you should have done is come in for a planning and zoning, or another kind of review. That doesn't necessarily require a permit but it's a kind of review process. But that didn't get communicated to Ginger and Troy and so they moved forward and they made this mistake. Okay, well that's one way of looking at it. Another way that I think is important for you to look at it, as the policy decision makers for the city is that things have been changing in terms of how you regulate this paver problem, and hard surface problem. I came in to take a look at the record, the building file this afternoon to kind of check to see you know how things were checked over time and the calculations for impervious material don't actually show up in the file for the city until the as - built drawing was requested, and so if you take a look at the file and you take a look at the checklist, it never comes up you know any kind of warning that there is a hard surface issue or that you may run afoul of going over that hard surface issue until you get done building. And so I think that's another procedural point that creates some confusion, some ambiguity. And I think it's fair to say that it's not Ginger and Troy's fault. It's not that contractor's fault or that sub- contractor's fault. It's, and it's my understanding that that procedural glitch has been corrected and now when those calculations are done, they're done early in the process so there is no confusion. But here's the significance of it and I think the Mayor kind of pointed that out in the earlier questioning that when you take a look at the, just the home and the driveway, and in this particular survey drawing, this is the one that was approved. They come very close to if not exceeding the hard surface requirement before they even get a sidewalk. You know arguably it City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • should have shown up there. Arguably somebody should have anticipated that a sidewalk was going to be needed also. Otherwise you'll have just grass between the driveway and the stoop, but everybody puts a sidewalk in eventually. There should have been some sort of alert to that effect. But that question doesn't even come up or did not at that time even come up within the city process, if you take a look at the permit approval checklist. There is a checklist marked there for drainage but there is no checklist for the 25% hard surface requirement. I think it's fair to say that in the end there was some honest miscommunication that went there. You know I don't want to say that it was staff's fault, but I also don't think it was Troy and Ginger's fault, and so here's kind of where the rubber hits the road. You know the point that I think that's important for you is, and the question is, how harsh do you have to be in this setting? Staff has given you an alternative, two alternative resolutions to pass. One, opposed to the variance request and one in favor of it. In a situation where the landowner really isn't at fault, and I don't think that they are and I think it's fair for you to conclude that they aren't. You know there's really no reason to be strict or harsh, especially in a situation like this where they're actually going to suffer financial harm because of it, unless somebody else is hurt. The staff has listed out 6 variables for you to consider in a variance situation and you know probably the most important one is, is whether or not there's going to be any harm to the neighborhood or any adjoining property owners if you decide to grant this variance. Staff has suggested a finding that well you know we could, it really could generate some harm but not for 600 square feet. You know that's really not a fair finding. I don't think Paul actually made that comment but he's the one who has to be questioned and I suspect that somebody will probably ask him that question, is 600 square feet really the kind of hard surface that's going to cause any damage to anyone of the neighbors if you had a significant rainfall event. When the Planning Commission looked at it they thought, and when they were measuring the order of magnitude they thought well 5% is a lot. I'd say well, you know we started out with a little over 6% variance. We took out the sidewalk. We took out the gravel. We took out some hard surface to bring it down below 5%. About, in fairness to Ginger and Troy and other property owners that might in this situation some day, I think 5% is the wrong way to take a look at it. 5% for a million square foot is a lot of land area. Now all of a sudden you're talking about 50,000 an acre of hard surface, but 600 square feet is not a lot of area and it's not going to do any damage to anyone. Another thing, you know things for you to balance I think that's important as the policy deciders for the city is, you know whether or not anybody is really opposed to it and I don't think anybody's going to speak in opposition to this proposal tonight. And we do have neighbors that are in favor of it. Have commented and the letter from the neighbors is in the record and they've even mentioned that they've got a site that is far in excess of what they need and they're under their 25% hard surface requirement and so there's plenty of land that's not under hard surface to absorb rainfall, so it kind of balances out within the neighborhood. That's the key point that I wanted to make. There's two alternatives before you. I think it's fair to say that there's no reason to be harsh. The other point that of course reason for strictness would be if the property owner were flagrantly violating, knowingly violating the ordinance of the hard surface requirement, and that's not the case here either. There's plenty of facts in the record for you to find alternate good facts and to adopt the resolution approving the variance and that's what our request is. Be happy to address any other facts that are in the letter or any supplemental facts or answer any questions. Ginger and Troy and one of the reasons for the delay in asking for the continuance is they just had a new little baby that's in the hallway too. She will not be commenting but. 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: She did already. Larry Martin: Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? For Mr. Martin. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Martin, have your clients ever talked to any of the neighbors with the excess land about purchasing 700 or 2,800 square feet to bring them back under the amount? Larry Martin: You know we looked at it. We sat down with staff before the July ISO meeting to explore that issue and to look at some surveys to see if we drew a straight line and tried to make a cut there, to make it work but there's a pool structure, what do you call it? A pump. Filter kind of thing that's in their back yard that's, creates a problem in making a nice, clean cut. Nice, clean property line. We did talk to staff too about maybe a variance but. Not a variance, an easement. Transferring that kind of density but I don't know if Kate ever heard about that suggestion but at least at a junior staff level that was considered to be inappropriate. However we'd certainly be willing to ask the adjoining property owners about the easement issue. I think asking them for a transfer of land that interferes with their existing improvements is a problem. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Other questions of Mr. Martin. In terms of, I asked a question of staff with regard to the two surveys and my question was, recognizing now that the house and driveway exceed the allowable limit, was the driveway built bigger than the original permit survey? Larry Martin: I think that it was. I saw a drawing in the permit file that kind of demonstrated the overlay a little bit bigger on one side and a little bit smaller on the other side. Is there a significant difference? I don't think that's true but I think there is a difference. It clearly, I mean when I looked at it what I did see was that there's, even if the old driveway, the driveway, the house and the garage together prevented us from putting a sidewalk in. Mayor Furlong: So what was submitted with the permit would have met the requirement without any additional impervious surface addition? Larry Martin: That, I don't know if that's true. Mayor Furlong: Or at least not, there wouldn't be enough to allow a sidewalk. Larry Martin: There definitely would not have been enough to allow a sidewalk. The other thing that I should have mentioned too is that with respect to the porch, that was pulled for financial reasons. We never received any information related to hard surface or requirements for pulling improvements because of hard surface requirements. Kate Aanenson: There wouldn't be, no. As I indicated before, a porch because it's raised up off the ground and if there's grass underneath, it wouldn't count towards the hard surface coverage. A deck wouldn't. A porch would. 7 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Larry Martin: Actually I think our plans didn't call for an elevated porch. It was actually we had some footing problems that they asked us to correct on the drawings so we at the time we anticipated a crawl space. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Ms. Aanenson, you made some comments. Any comments that you have? PaulOehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. There was, as I recall there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So I know that we've received the Planning Commission minutes. If there's somebody that, based upon some additional information or would like to provide public comment I'd certainly be willing to listen to that at this time too. If anybody's interested. Okay, thank you. With that,_are there any additional questions for staff or should we. bring it back to council for discussion and see what it generates. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Related question I guess. Kate, can you give me some sense as to what other cities have as their impervious surface percentage. I mean this has come up more in the last couple years than it has in my 15 years of hanging around here and I don't know whether we're just pure luck of the draw that I'm getting faced with this recently or are we pretty much right on the, right on the average of being 25 or is that due to a DNR thing? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Lori answer some of that but the first part, I don't think we have a rash of these. I think we try really hard to communicate. I think obviously there's a miscommunication and I would agree with Mr. Martin that while it may have been on our part, some of it may have been on their part. I won't disagree with that but the proportionality of the impervious relates to lot size. Every city has a different lot size and so our 25% is what's tied into our comp plan is what we managed to try to reduce the volume of water that's coming off and try to capture it in some of the yards. I don't think we have that many problems within. We really work hard to site the home. You know we talked about some of the bigger homes that we do but the ones that we recently approved, some of the larger homes that are going in, we looked at the bigger lot sizes and we know that anticipating 3 cars is standard now. 3 car garage. Some have gone to 2 car garage at 15,000 so we always work with the developer when they come in to try to figure out what their average square footage of home would be. Again this is pretty comparable. I think most of the ones that we're looking at, that'd be 72. 73 maybe by 40 is a pretty comparable square footage so I don't think that's out of whack. It's those other things that go on afterwards that we don't always have control. They change the garage. They add a patio. That may not have been on the survey or those sort of things. Want to put a hot tub in. A fire pit. Those are kind of the specific issues that kind of come after the fact. Or once the builder is up. This builder has done other work in the city. I think that was some of the Planning Commission's frustration. The communication. What did the builder know that maybe wasn't • • City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 communicated to the homeowner so it's kind of a two way thing and that happens a lot too. A lot of finger pointing. Who told, who got the information and who didn't, you know I'm not going to dispute that. I think that goes all the way around again for a lot of people's blame but again it's related to lot size so. Plymouth has a different standard for their impervious, as they have a different lot size requirement, as with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Shakopee, they're all different but I don't think our's is more restrictive than anybody else's. Again it's related to each zoning district has a different impervious requirement too. I don't know if you want to add anything to that Lori. Lori Haak: I'm not particularly again familiar with the specific requirements of a municipality but generally it's tied into velocities, water qualities and runoff volume so generally the research most, actually 25 is pretty high for water quality for urban streams. They recommend no more than about 15 to 20 in those sensitive areas so I think again I think we're kind of right in the ballpark but I don't have any specific examples that I can cite. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Told me to pass. Councilman Lundquist: Well it's an interesting dilemma. With all of the things going on, Kate I think you said the he said, she said going on. I'm encouraged that the applicants had taken some steps to correct a piece of that. I think that shows good faith. Good will and wanting to do the right thing. I mean clearly they didn't invest $1,000 to do that maliciously or you know intentionally to go over that so, I don't see any malice there. But then the other side is, you know generally speaking ignorance or not being aware of ordinances and statutes and things like that is not an excuse to not follow them so—going over the speed limit you get a ticket. So I guess I'm tom between what we do with this and you know it might only be 4.2. It might only be 600 square feet but the fact is where do you draw the line. You've got to draw the line somewhere. Is it 2%? 5%? 10%? What's the number you have to draw it somewhere but I'm not a real big fan of, you know I've seen the house out there. There's a lot of, you know a couple of new ones out in the area as well that will compliment. I'm not a big fan of asking people to tear up you know well done landscape here so I'm not exactly sure, if there's another alternative as Mr. Martin will ask about the land acquisition and obviously that's going to be several thousand dollars as well so that's another investment, but not really sure that I'm in favor of having it tore up but I'm not sure I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is either so, how's that? Mayor Furlong: Well you've defined the issues I think and ... politician. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I too feel similar in that the ultimately the responsibility for following the ordinances is the onus is on the homeowner. I think that unfortunately happened in a negative fashion this way just not understanding and not getting the right questions asked or the questions answered and certainly there is, ultimately you still have to go back to that they are responsible but, and again I agree with Councilman Lundquist. Is there another way to do this? If it was 1% you know I'd be more amenable to do it, right? And we're talking about ranges now so, and I'd maybe pause, maybe push it back to the staff and/or let the applicant and staff work together to find another alternative other than yes or no. I'm open to not being firm at 25% but, and we've had other people in here that have asked for that kind of range and we said no. So I can't in good conscience say ahight, yes to this one because they've done similar kinds of • • City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 things. There's been some confusion and there's been some after the fact accomplishing tasks and putting in patios and we've asked them to tear it up so. But in most of those situations we've found somewhere inbetween. I don't see that I've got that right now so whether or not we can create that tonight. It's only 7:30 and we've got plenty of things, plenty of time to deal with what we've done tonight so I'd be well certainly willing to hear other alternatives. Mayor Furlong: Talk about creating a camel out of committee when you're trying to run your race horse. Ms. Aanenson, a quick question for you. In our ordinance right now, we have what is considered impervious. Is there anything within our ordinance that would allow somebody to gain a credit by some other feature, and I don't even know what that would be. To make the surface more pervious. Is there anything in our ordinance right now that allows that? There's nc credit calculation that goes into either, I mean we do I guess, we don't count some things such as landscaping and maybe I'll swing back to the attorney, since everybody's pointing that way. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I apologize I have not seen this lot so I don't know... In other communities when you want extra impervious surface, you do something to absorb more water, for example a rain garden. And I don't know whether or not this makes sense in this location but if you were to have a rain garden here that would absorb more water than just normal industrial yard would, you offset the impervious surface. There are things like that. Mayor Furlong: From a concept standpoint, because I know we've talked about rain gardens and they might have limited affect here with our clay because even if you get down, you know what you're saying is other cities look at it. Roger Knutson: Yeah, do an offset. Can you do anything to capture more water on the lot? Councilman Peterson: We did something similar with a lot on Lake Riley way back, and I can't remember the address. Kate Aanenson: That was lakescape. Lori Haak: And actually that homeowner came back later in the process to request relief from that so actually that was something that was approved by council for a variance and then was repealed by City Council so I guess that's maybe. I'm not sure how long ago it was, so I couldn't say. Mayor Furlong: There's the politician. The issue I think, the issue that we're looking at here and one of the questions was where's the harm? Where's the foul? It's 600 feet. I think the issue is as much we look at it as a council is putting ordinances in place. Asking residents to adhere to those with some sense of fairness and justice and you know the 600 feet doesn't sound like that much but where then is our new line? Is our new line at 30? By default. Is our new line at 35 for the next person that comes in and says well you know, I'm just a little bit over and what I'm struggling here, I'm not, and Councilman Lundquist you raise a good point. I don't think anybody up here likes the idea here that a decision against or to deny the variance request means they might have to take something out. What about our residents that do come in and 10 • • City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 maybe build something less than what they wanted to because they're adhering to the ordinance? You know with these after the fact variances they're tough because you already see what's there and yet as much as we can I think we have to look at these as if would we have approved this before the fact? Would we have approved this additional hard surface coverage before the fact if they came in asking for the variance and as much as possible put ourselves in that position. I mean as I look at this, you know I've asked about the driveway. It was kind of surprising when I read the report and even the, Mr. Martin's letter that the house and the driveway already exceeded that. This is a standard lot in our city and I've always looked at this 25°% relative to our standard lots as a way to measure that and so you know, I think from a compromise standpoint, but for changing the way we do something, and I don't think we necessarily should do that without investigating the ramifications of that, whether that's the ordinance or some other credit or something like that. You know the, if we hold them to the 25, as a council and deny the variance, they're going to have to reduce some of the driveway and take everything out. I mean they've got some nice landscaping. The real issue is the sidewalk along the house to me and the patio. Because of that nice retaining wall that they have around the front and landscaping, that's 12 feet and probably wouldn't show up. Likewise with the driveway. Having somebody take 100 feet off their driveway. It bothers me that a plan submitted and the permit was issued on, and they expanded beyond that. That bother; me and to me I think that's the fault of the builder ultimately and the contractor but again as a property owner that should have control over that process. I know that as you're building houses, things change and there's you know let's move this here. Let's move this there so, so I find it difficult based upon what other residents have done, both beforehand and Councilman Peterson, as you have said, even from an after the fact. Where's the affect? We've said no. We can't, there should be a hardship there to justify the variance. I don't see it here. I think the, especially coming off the storm we had last week, storm water runoff is an issue that we have to look at and make sure we manage and this is what this is dealing with. It's only 600 feet here. But what about the next one and the next one and next one. Those are the longer term ones that I'm concerned about by going forward. I'd like to see another alternative. Councilman Lundquist had a good one and that's increasing the lot size somehow so that the current improvements reduces a percentage overall. Councilman Peterson: Well, and to Roger's point. I mean I'm not adverse to that either because the 25%, it's a bit squishy in that, I've got to set an example but we wouldn't have allowed a structure, a paver, I mean a wood or a structure patio and now with current technology you put those not wood ones right up against each other. That forms an impervious surface just equal to a paver patio because they don't separate those. They put them, they butt them right up against each other so water is going totally off versus even seeping into the pavers so I question whether or not we could even in good conscience say you can put a structure like that on there too. So I mean there's, yeah I think there's some things that we can do. Whether or not it will work, some kind of feature that's going to be better. If we see the water is going, whether it's the front of the lot or the back of the lot and put in some kind of water garden or whatever that would be that would act better than grass, then you're gaining something. I don't know. At the end of the day I just, and maybe I'm over reacting because we've had 2 or 3 of those in the last year but you know I think that we need to update this or at least look at it and talk about the ramifications of 25% and what are the different options that people can do. 11 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Well and in response to that, if there are right now staff is interpreting our ordinance, where certain things are 100% impervious and other things are 100% pervious. Obviously the more black and white the ordinance is, the easier it is for residents to know what the rules are and the easier it is for staff to interpret those rules and to apply them because every day is different. So try to keep that but I think we're reviewing our storm water management plan right now. I know I'm going to be interested in getting an update on that later this evening as we talk about it. Given the event of last week, and this may be a time to incorporate that in there as well. So I guess the question is, do we defer the decision on this until that discussion can be had or do we move forward tonight not knowing the length of time it will take to do that and to make some decision as to whether we want to make any changes there or not. And our ramifications if you change the hard surface coverage I assume in terms of our storm water management plan and the capacity and volume and such like that. And I'm assuming all that goes into the engineering studies and the equations for that. I see heads going up and down so let the minutes reflect that is correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Being on Planning Commission this has come up a couple times in the years that I, not long but some of the years I was on the Planning Commission. My biggest beef with this is residents come in and say we asked what we were supposed to do. They said nothing and so you know we tried and we tried. And when they come in and they ask whoever is across the counter, you know do I need a permit for this patio and they said no. And then as an average citizen I wouldn't then go onto know to ask well, how about hard surface coverage and how about this and that because I'm not thinking that way. I'm just thinking oh good, I can get the permit. But we still I don't think have a sheet that we go oh look it. They want to do a deck or a patio here. Look at this. You know here are the check offs you have to cover before you go ahead and do this. I guess that's my biggest beef with this is that it is hard to know what you're supposed to do if you don't know what you're supposed to do. And if they did come in 3 times and tried to do the right thing and they went and thought they did the right thing, I guess I have a hard time telling them now to undo what they thought they had done right the first time. We don't have one of those lists yet do we? Kate Aanenson: Yes we do, as a matter of fact. I'm not going to get into the he said, she said. What conversations... Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, exactly. Kate Aanenson: I'm sympathetic to them. You know the first issue was the sidewalk not being to the driveway. That's one thing I think, that's one error that I think is very obvious that we missed. There should have been a driveway, a sidewalk connecting the front porch to the driveway. In my mind that was an error on our part not to because that's always standard that we would check that. But as far as the conversations that were, you go to 3 different departments. Each department gives their information and sometimes you ask the question to get the answer you want too, so you know, and I'm not dismissing that sometimes people don't probe further in 12 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 L that specific division. If you went to building ... no, they'd say talk to planning... We do have handouts. We now require all impervious to be shown on the original permit. That's been done for a number of years so we have corrected those issues. We're always going to have people asking for variances... Things happen you know. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this issue to give the applicant and staff a chance to consider other alternatives and I think they've got some opinions and thoughts about you know some kind of direction to what we might be looking for given the chance to do that before we make a hard and fast decision and bind them to something that there might be another alternative to. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion's been made. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: ...know the time line issue. Mayor Furlong: That was going to be my question so. Kate Aanenson: They asked if they can get an extension. Mayor Furlong: We need an extension in writing from them. Kate Aanenson: They're fine with that. Mayor Furlong: Can we get that tonight? Larry Martin: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to write something up? Do we need to get that? What is the timeframe here? Kate Aanenson: I believe it was... tomorrow. Mayor Furlong: Tomorrow, so we should get something now. Mr. Lundquist, if that's okay. Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Before we consider your motion. First, let me ask if there's a second to Councilman Lundquist's motion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's been seconded so we're in discussing the motion now at this time. Is there any discussion on this motion? Actually a motion to table. We'll hold off discussion. Councilman Peterson: We can talk about the table. 13 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Roger Knutson: I'm satisfied they're going to sign it. Mayor Furlong: Very good. There you go. I like the parliamentary order. The motion's been made to table. It's been seconded to give staff and the applicant time to work out some alternatives, given the comments this evening. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table Planning Case #05-18, hard cover variance request for Troy and Virginia Kakacek at 380 West 8e Street in order to give staff and the applicant time to explore alternative solutions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Public Present: Name Address David Sanford Michael P. & Debbie Haydock Mary Hoffman Tom & Sue Huberty Terry Vogt Charles Brown Tom Meier 6440 Fox Path 6460 Fox Path 6470 Fox Path 6450 Fox Path 732 Lake Point 1439 Tennessee, Minneapolis 695 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak: Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. As the mayor indicated this is an application for the wetland alteration permit at 6440 Fox Path, which is Lot 9, Block 1, Fox Chase Subdivision. The applicant is for the construction of a dock through a wetland area to access Lotus Lake. You can see the subject property on the map. On the north side of the lake is Pleasant View Road. Just off the west side of, or the left side of the paper is Powers Boulevard so just to orient folks. Typically wetland alteration permits that we see here are straight forward. However as is quite common with a planned unit development such as this one, a conservation easement has been recorded on several of these properties. The conservation easement covers all of the land within the subdivision below 900 feet which is shown on one of our other attachments. There's one, sorry. Okay, pull it down. The conservation easement, the 900 foot elevation is shown in green on this survey. And the ordinary high water mark for Lotus Lake which is 896. Actually this is the 896 contour. It's not actually the ordinary high water mark, is shown in blue on that plan sheet there. As I indicated the conservation easement covers all the land below 900 feet and encumbers parts of Lot 7 through 19. And again the subject property is Lot 9, which is indicated in orange. The easement prohibits docks except on Lots 16 through 19 which are on the southern part or the bottom part of the plan. Lot 16 has a dock that's shared by 7 properties. Lots 10 through 16, and that's basically the lots south of the subject property and the next 6 lots. So there's a shared dock that is used by 7 property owners, and then Lots 17, 18, and 19, which are the final 3 lots there, each have their own docks and if we can pull up the aerial photo I believe we can see why. The wetland, actually if you orient it so north is at the 14 City Council Meeting — Se lember 12, 2005 • d. Resolution#2005-74: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 04-05. e. Resolution#2005-75: Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01. g. Resolution#2005-76: Resolution Decertifying Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #6. h. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T -Mobile. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Meier: Good evening Mayor, members. I'm Tom Meier from 695 Pleasant View and I just wanted to reiterate on the McCord issue and David Sanford on the alteration permit. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Meier, if you'd like we can pick up your comments at that time on the agenda if that'd be okay. Tom Meier: That'd be great. Mayor Furlong: Do you mind waiting? That way we can take it in context. Tom Meier: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address the council this evening during visitor presentations? Seeing none then, we offer this opportunity at every meeting so people watching at home are welcome to come as well. TROY AND VIRGINIA KAKACEK, 380 WEST 86TH STREET, PLANNING CASE 05- 18: HARD COVER VARIANCE REOUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item, located on Tigua Lane, just off of 101, appeared before the Planning Commission. There is some length of time inbetween. The applicants had requested additional time to work through some issues and then also the time it appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council based on length of some agendas, but this item did appear before the Planning Commission and they recommended 6-0 denial. That is why it's in front of you tonight. Again subject site, this is a recently created subdivision of an existing large lot. The applicant did appear, apply for a building permit and this was the original survey. I have one that's colored a little bit better but I just want to go through. This was the original survey that was submitted. I do believe you all received a letter from Mr. Martin, the attorney regarding some of the issues in the kind of time date issues. I do believe all of you were emailed that. There's a lot of he said, she said and I'm not going to go into those. I'm just going to present the facts as the staff saw them and how we approached the permit. So it came in and the City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • porch and the driveway were recommended to be changed. It was our position it was over the 25%. Obviously there's a different perspective on that and it was asked to be re -surveyed. And the revised survey included the reduction of the driveway to meet the ordinance which requires 24 feet at the street and the porch was removed. So the permit was issued, and this one is colored so it's easier to see. Based on this survey right here which again, there was no porch or patio and the revised driveway. As now required as -built surveys are all required on all new, or after the home is constructed. Which when it was completed in March, so typically in March it may not have all the things done but the survey was completed later in the summer after the escrow was requested. At that time it was noted that this was what was shown on the survey. So the driveway, additional concrete and a patio so again we're over the impervious percentage. So when it came in for the as -built survey it was noted that was a non-compliance. Sent the letter and that's what started the variance process. So they have made some changes and those are noted in the staff report ... the impervious surface. Specifically mulch face down the gravel portion here. They have concrete here but then gravel around to the back. And then they still have a concrete driveway in the back. Originally on the porch, the porch if it was raised above grade with grass underneath that wouldn't count towards the impervious so they still have the ability to put a porch on that wouldn't require a variance again because there'd be grass underneath. Again the goal is to provide an area for that water, it's a capacity issue. But we're still over 600 square feet and that's where the Planning Commission struggled. It is onerous obviously to take out the patio and, which is the 500 square feet approximately, and then maybe another 170 feet of the driveway. So to get it to the 25%. So again there's a lot of detail in the staff report on what the staff believes was the process, and certainly the applicant believes in their due diligence that they proceeded the right way. I'll just rely on what we saw as the survey as submitted and the as-built's. So again the Planning Commission did recommend 6 -no denial. We have put conditions in the staff report. Findings and recommendations either way and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'm not sure if this is a question for you Kate or for Lori. These paver patios seem to always kick up trouble it seems like. People think they're fine and now all of a sudden they find out, no. They can't have it. Is there a paver that they can use that you would allow and not count against them for their hard surface coverage? Lori Haak: I'm not particularly familiar with this site, but at present there isn't a paver that staff counts against that hard surface coverage so at this time no, there is not. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do we have dates on those surveys or revised surveys somewhere that references in the permit which drawing was used to generate the permit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The original survey is October 23`d and then the revised ones that were signed off were November 17th. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And does it somewhere reference that, November 17th9 3 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: There's two places that we would sign on a permit. One would be on the survey and then one would actually be on the building permit itself. Councilman Lundquist: So the signed survey is the 17th one? Kate Aanenson: Correct. The one that was approved that went around. And then also there's also a routing form that goes around. And additional comments. There's some changes that were made when the house, the original survey came in and it was slid, moved an arboretum is shown up on here. That was the only thing that was added. But there was some mulch when the building inspector that went out that it was noted that that porch was not approved so the building inspector went out and noted that there was an arboretum that was shown on the site plan that was not, or shown on the survey that was not noted so there's some notes to that effect. That was all dated the 11th. Excuse me the 7th of November. That the permit was issued, and then again the final, the Certificate of Occupancy were given in March 25th of '04 but again since it's springtime, typically the as-builts and the concrete work doesn't typically happen til later. Councilman Lundquist: Sure Kate Aanenson: So when the inspector went out those things, probably not, because if they were under snow or were not in place, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, the survey that the permit was issued on, and then the as -built, and particular the size, the building itself. Size of house. The home and then the driveway. It looked like, if I saw that correctly that that really was, that the permit was issued on a driveway in place. No sidewalks from the driveway to the front of the house. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Did the actual driveway that was built a different size than the driveway that was on this plan? I mean it looks like it's going different ways but was the driveway area larger built than what was in the plan for what the survey showed for the permit? Kate Aanenson: It's probably a little bit wider. I think the engineering had it tapering on this side a little bit more so on this one it just cuts across here. Better to just calculate that. That triangle there so it may be a little bit larger there. I didn't look at the original calculation. The survey's in the staff report how big it is. Mayor Furlong: The staff report shows that the home and driveway together slightly exceed the 25 limit so that's why I was wondering if the permit... Kate Aanenson: Right, I believe this driveway was a little bit narrower. The original survey one. City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: The one that the permit was issued on. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right, it's tapering back over here. They actually tapered it from the other side. You can see this is a straight line with a taper and then this cuts over. Mayor Furlong: So the question then is the width where it tapers and such but. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the applicant here? If they'd like to. Larry Martin: Good evening Mayor and Council members. My name is Larry Martin and I'm here on behalf of Ginger and Troy Kakacek. Ginger and Troy are my niece and nephew. Or niece and nephew in law and I'm here on their behalf this evening to kind of explain the history of this, although in the interest of time I did send out a letter. I don't know if it got to everybody and if you had a chance to look at it. It had, I've got a long version. I've got a short version. I've got a just get right down to the point version and I saw some heads nodding so I'll try to, limit to the short version. Mayor Furlong: I think that's fine. We did have the advantage of the Planning Commission minutes as well so. Larry Martin: Great. Here's the issue as I see it. As it boils down. I give you kind of a factual background of the problem or the genesis from Ginger and Troy's perspective. And of course their concern is you know they tried, you know after they had tried to move forward on the landscaping, their viewpoint is well, they came to the City 3 times to ask about the permits for the pavers and the response was that there is no permits that are necessary for a patio within the city as part of a landscaping project. And that's true. There is no permit that's necessary to put in a patio. And I see that as kind of a procedural glitch within the city's protocol for reviewing landscape applications or approvals. Staff has noted within their report that well, what you should have done is come in for a planning and zoning, or another kind of review. That doesn't necessarily require a permit but it's a kind of review process. But that didn't get communicated to Ginger and Troy and so they moved forward and they made this mistake. Okay, well that's one way of looking at it. Another way that I think is important for you to look at it, as the policy decision makers for the city is that things have been changing in terms of how you regulate this paver problem, and hard surface problem. I came in to take a look at the record, the building file this afternoon to kind of check to see you know how things were checked over time and the calculations for impervious material don't actually show up in the file for the city until the as - built drawing was requested, and so if you take a look at the file and you take a look at the checklist, it never comes up you know any kind of warning that there is a hard surface issue or that you may run afoul of going over that hard surface issue until you get done building. And so I think that's another procedural point that creates some confusion, some ambiguity. And I think it's fair to say that it's not Ginger and Troy's fault. It's not that contractor's fault or that sub- contractor's fault. It's, and it's my understanding that that procedural glitch has been corrected and now when those calculations are done, they're done early in the process so there is no confusion. But here's the significance of it and I think the Mayor kind of pointed that out in the earlier questioning that when you take a look at the, just the home and the driveway, and in this particular survey drawing, this is the one that was approved. They come very close to if not exceeding the hard surface requirement before they even get a sidewalk. You know arguably it E City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • should have shown up there. Arguably somebody should have anticipated that a sidewalk was going to be needed also. Otherwise you'll have just grass between the driveway and the stoop, but everybody puts a sidewalk in eventually. There should have been some sort of alert to that effect. But that question doesn't even come up or did not at that time even come up within the city process, if you take a look at the permit approval checklist. There is a checklist marked there for drainage but there is no checklist for the 25% hard surface requirement. I think it's fair to say that in the end there was some honest miscommunication that went there. You know I don't want to say that it was staff's fault, but I also don't think it was Troy and Ginger's fault, and so here's kind of where the rubber hits the road. You know the point that I think that's important for you is, and the question is, how harsh do you have to be in this setting? Staff has given you an alternative, two alternative resolutions to pass. One, opposed to the variance request and one in favor of it. In a situation where the landowner really isn't at fault, and I don't think that they are and I think it's fair for you to conclude that they aren't. You know there's really no reason to be strict or harsh, especially in a situation like this where they're actually going to suffer financial harm because of it, unless somebody else is hurt. The staff has listed out 6 variables for you to consider in a variance situation and you know probably the most important one is, is whether or not there's going to be any harm to the neighborhood or any adjoining property owners if you decide to grant this variance. Staff has suggested a finding that well you know we could, it really could generate some harm but not for 600 square feet. You know that's really not a fair finding. I don't think Paul actually made that comment but he's the one who has to be questioned and I suspect that somebody will probably ask him that question, is 600 square feet really the kind of hard surface that's going to cause any damage to anyone of the neighbors if you had a significant rainfall event. When the Planning Commission looked at it they thought, and when they were measuring the order of magnitude they thought well 5% is a lot. I'd say well, you know we started out with a little over 6% variance. We took out the sidewalk. We took out the gravel. We took out some hard surface to bring it down below 5%. About, in fairness to Ginger and Troy and other property owners that might in this situation some day, I think 5% is the wrong way to take a look at it. 5% for a million square foot is a lot of land area. Now all of a sudden you're talking about 50,000 an acre of hard surface, but 600 square feet is not a lot of area and it's not going to do any damage to anyone. Another thing, you know things for you to balance I think that's important as the policy deciders for the city is, you know whether or not anybody is really opposed to it and I don't think anybody's going to speak in opposition to this proposal tonight. And we do have neighbors that are in favor of it. Have commented and the letter from the neighbors is in the record and they've even mentioned that they've got a site that is far in excess of what they need and they're under their 25% hard surface requirement and so there's plenty of land that's not under hard surface to absorb rainfall, so it kind of balances out within the neighborhood. That's the key point that I wanted to make. There's two alternatives before you. I think it's fair to say that there's no reason to be harsh. The other point that of course reason for strictness would be if the property owner were flagrantly violating, knowingly violating the ordinance of the hard surface requirement, and that's not the case here either. There's plenty of facts in the record for you to find alternate good facts and to adopt the resolution approving the variance and that's what our request is. Be happy to address any other facts that are in the letter or any supplemental facts or answer any questions. Ginger and Troy and one of the reasons for the delay in asking for the continuance is they just had a new little baby that's in the hallway too. She will not be commenting but. 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • Mayor Furlong: She did already. Larry Martin: Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? For Mr. Martin. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Martin, have your clients ever talked to any of the neighbors with the excess land about purchasing 700 or 2,800 square feet to bring them back under the amount? Larry Martin: You know we looked at it. We sat down with staff before the July 19th meeting to explore that issue and to look at some surveys to see if we drew a straight line and tried to make a cut there, to make it work but there's a pool structure, what do you call it? A pump. Filter kind of thing that's in their back yard that's, creates a problem in making a nice, clean cut. Nice, clean property line. We did talk to staff too about maybe a variance but. Not a variance, an easement. Transferring that kind of density but I don't know if Kate ever heard about that suggestion but at least at a junior staff level that was considered to be inappropriate. However we'd certainly be willing to ask the adjoining property owners about the easement issue. I think asking them for a transfer of land that interferes with their existing improvements is a problem. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Other questions of Mr. Martin. In terms of, I asked a question of staff with regard to the two surveys and my question was, recognizing now that the house and driveway exceed the allowable limit, was the driveway built bigger than the original permit survey? Larry Martin: I think that it was. I saw a drawing in the permit file that kind of demonstrated the overlay a little bit bigger on one side and a little bit smaller on the other side. Is there a significant difference? I don't think that's true but I think there is a difference. It clearly, I mean when I looked at it what I did see was that there's, even if the old driveway, the driveway, the house and the garage together prevented us from putting a sidewalk in. Mayor Furlong: So what was submitted with the permit would have met the requirement without any additional impervious surface addition? Lary Martin: That, I don't know if that's true. Mayor Furlong: Or at least not, there wouldn't be enough to allow a sidewalk. Lary Martin: There definitely would not have been enough to allow a sidewalk. The other thing that I should have mentioned too is that with respect to the porch, that was pulled for financial reasons. We never received any information related to hard surface or requirements for pulling improvements because of hard surface requirements. Kate Aanenson: There wouldn't be, no. As I indicated before, a porch because it's raised up off the ground and if there's grass underneath, it wouldn't count towards the hard surface coverage. A deck wouldn't. A porch would. City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • Larry Martin: Actually I think our plans didn't call for an elevated porch. It was actually we had some footing problems that they asked us to correct on the drawings so we at the time we anticipated a crawl space. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Ms. Aanenson, you made some comments. Any comments that you have? Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. There was, as I recall there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So I know that we've received the Planning Commission minutes. If there's somebody that, based upon some additional information or would like to provide public comment I'd certainly be willing to listen to that at this time too. If anybody's interested. Okay, thank you. With that, are there any additional questions for staff or should we bring it back to council for discussion and see what it generates. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Related question I guess. Kate, can you give me some sense as to what other cities have as their impervious surface percentage. I mean this has come up more in the last couple years than it has in my 15 years of hanging around here and I don't know whether we're just pure luck of the draw that I'm getting faced with this recently or are we pretty much right on the, right on the average of being 25 or is that due to a DNR thing? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Lori answer some of that but the first part, I don't think we have a rash of these. I think we try really hard to communicate. I think obviously there's a miscommunication and I would agree with Mr. Martin that while it may have been on our part, some of it may have been on their part. I won't disagree with that but the proportionality of the impervious relates to lot size. Every city has a different lot size and so our 25% is what's tied into our comp plan is what we managed to try to reduce the volume of water that's coming off and try to capture it in some of the yards. I don't think we have that many problems within. We really work hard to site the home. You know we talked about some of the bigger homes that we do but the ones that we recently approved, some of the larger homes that are going in, we looked at the bigger lot sizes and we know that anticipating 3 cars is standard now. 3 car garage. Some have gone to 2 car garage at 15,000 so we always work with the developer when they come in to try to Figure out what their average square footage of home would be. Again this is pretty comparable. I think most of the ones that we're looking at, that'd be 72. 73 maybe by 40 is a pretty comparable square footage so I don't think that's out of whack. It's those other things that go on afterwards that we don't always have control. They change the garage. They add a patio. That may not have been on the survey or those sort of things. Want to put a hot tub in. A fire pit. Those are kind of the specific issues that kind of come after the fact. Or once the builder is up. This builder has done other work in the city. I think that was some of the Planning Commission's frustration. The communication. What did the builder know that maybe wasn't 3 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • communicated to the homeowner so it's kind of a two way thing and that happens a lot too. A lot of finger pointing. Who told, who got the information and who didn't, you know I'm not going to dispute that. I think that goes all the way around again for a lot of people's blame but again it's related to lot size so. Plymouth has a different standard for their impervious, as they have a different lot size requirement, as with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Shakopee, they're all different but I don't think our's is more restrictive than anybody else's. Again it's related to each zoning district has a different impervious requirement too. I don't know if you want to add anything to that Lori. Lori Haak: I'm not particularly again familiar with the specific requirements of a municipality but generally it's tied into velocities, water qualities and runoff volume so generally the research most, actually 25 is pretty high for water quality for urban streams. They recommend no more than about 15 to 20 in those sensitive areas so I think again I think we're kind of right in the ballpark but I don't have any specific examples that I can cite. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Told me to pass. Councilman Lundquist: Well it's an interesting dilemma. With all of the things going on, Kate I think you said the he said, she said going on. I'm encouraged that the applicants had taken some steps to correct a piece of that. I think that shows good faith. Good will and wanting to do the right thing. I mean clearly they didn't invest $1,000 to do that maliciously or you know intentionally to go over that so, I don't see any malice there. But then the other side is, you know generally speaking ignorance or not being aware of ordinances and statutes and things like that is not an excuse to not follow them so ... going over the speed limit you get a ticket. So I guess I'm torn between what we do with this and you know it might only be 4.2. It might only be 600 square feet but the fact is where do you draw the line. You've got to draw the line somewhere. Is it 2%? 5%? 10%? What's the number you have to draw it somewhere but I'm not a real big fan of, you know I've seen the house out there. There's a lot of, you know a couple of new ones out in the area as well that will compliment. I'm not a big fan of asking people to tear up you know well done landscape here so I'm not exactly sure, if there's another alternative as Mr. Martin will ask about the land acquisition and obviously that's going to be several thousand dollars as well so that's another investment, but not really sure that I'm in favor of having it tore up but I'm not sure I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is either so, how's that? Mayor Furlong: Well you've defined the issues I think and... politician. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I too feel similar in that the ultimately the responsibility for following the ordinances is the onus is on the homeowner. I think that unfortunately happened in a negative fashion this way just not understanding and not getting the right questions asked or the questions answered and certainly there is, ultimately you still have to go back to that they are responsible but, and again I agree with Councilman Lundquist. Is there another way to do this? If it was I% you know I'd be more amenable to do it, right? And we're talking about ranges now so, and I'd maybe pause, maybe push it back to the staff and/or let the applicant and staff work together to find another alternative other than yes or no. I'm open to not being firm at 25% but, and we've had other people in here that have asked for that kind of range and we said no. So I can't in good conscience say alright, yes to this one because they've done similar kinds of lu 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 things. There's been some confusion and there's been some after the fact accomplishing tasks and putting in patios and we've asked them to tear it up so. But in most of those situations we've found somewhere inbetween. I don't see that I've got that right now so whether or not we can create that tonight. It's only 7:30 and we've got plenty of things, plenty of time to deal with what we've done tonight so I'd be well certainly willing to hear other alternatives. Mayor Furlong: Talk about creating a camel out of committee when you're trying to run your race horse. Ms. Aanenson, a quick question for you. In our ordinance right now, we have what is considered impervious. Is there anything within our ordinance that would allow somebody to gain a credit by some other feature, and I don't even know what that would be. To make the surface more pervious. Is there anything in our ordinance right now that allows that? There's no credit calculation that goes into either, I mean we do I guess, we don't count some things such as landscaping and maybe I'll swing back to the attorney, since everybody's pointing that way. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I apologize I have not seen this lot so I don't know... In other communities when you want extra impervious surface, you do something to absorb more water, for example a rain garden. And I don't know whether or not this makes sense in this location but if you were to have a rain garden here that would absorb more water than just normal industrial yard would, you offset the impervious surface. There are things like that. Mayor Furlong: From a concept standpoint, because I know we've talked about rain gardens and they might have limited affect here with our clay because even if you get down, you know what you're saying is other cities look at it. Roger Knutson: Yeah, do an offset. Can you do anything to capture more water on the lot? Councilman Peterson: We did something similar with a lot on Lake Riley way back, and I can't remember the address. Kate Aanenson: That was lakescape. Lori Haak: And actually that homeowner came back later in the process to request relief from that so actually that was something that was approved by council for a variance and then was repealed by City Council so I guess that's maybe. I'm not sure how long ago it was, so I couldn't say. Mayor Furlong: There's the politician. The issue I think, the issue that we're looking at here and one of the questions was where's the harm? Where's the foul? It's 600 feet. I think the issue is as much we look at it as a council is putting ordinances in place. Asking residents to adhere to those with some sense of fairness and justice and you know the 600 feet doesn't sound like that much but where then is our new line? Is our new line at 30? By default. Is our new line at 35 for the next person that comes in and says well you know, I'm just a little bit over and what I'm struggling here, I'm not, and Councilman Lundquist you raise a good point. I don't think anybody up here likes the idea here that a decision against or to deny the variance request means they might have to take something out. What about our residents that do come in and 10 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • maybe build something less than what they wanted to because they're adhering to the ordinance? You know with these after the fact variances they're tough because you already see what's there and yet as much as we can I think we have to look at these as if would we have approved this before the fact? Would we have approved this additional hard surface coverage before the fact if they came in asking for the variance and as much as possible put ourselves in that position. I mean as I look at this, you know I've asked about the driveway. It was kind of surprising when I read the report and even the, Mr. Martin's letter that the house and the driveway already exceeded that. This is a standard lot in our city and I've always looked at this 25% relative to our standard lots as a way to measure that and so you know, I think from a compromise standpoint, but for changing the way we do something, and I don't think we necessarily should do that without investigating the ramifications of that, whether that's the ordinance or some other credit or something like that. You know the, if we hold them to the 25, as a council and deny the variance, they're going to have to reduce some of the driveway and take everything out. I mean they've got some nice landscaping. The real issue is the sidewalk along the house to me and the patio. Because of that nice retaining wall that they have around the front and landscaping, that's 12 feet and probably wouldn't show up. Likewise with the driveway. Having somebody take 100 feet off their driveway. It bothers me that a plan submitted and the permit was issued on, and they expanded beyond that. That bothers me and to me I think that's the fault of the builder ultimately and the contractor but again as a property owner that should have control over that process. I know that as you're building houses, things change and there's you know let's move this here. Let's move this there so, so I find it difficult based upon what other residents have done, both beforehand and Councilman Peterson, as you have said, even from an after the fact. Where's the affect? We've said no. We can't, there should be a hardship there to justify the variance. I don't see it here. I think the, especially coming off the storm we had last week, storm water runoff is an issue that we have to look at and make sure we manage and this is what this is dealing with. It's only 600 feet here. But what about the next one and the next one and next one. Those are the longer term ones that I'm concerned about by going forward. I'd like to see another alternative. Councilman Lundquist had a good one and that's increasing the lot size somehow so that the current improvements reduces a percentage overall. Councilman Peterson: Well, and to Roger's point. I mean I'm not adverse to that either because the 25%, it's a bit squishy in that, I've got to set an example but we wouldn't have allowed a structure, a paver, I mean a wood or a structure patio and now with current technology you put those not wood ones right up against each other. That forms an impervious surface just equal to a paver patio because they don't separate those. They put them, they butt them right up against each other so water is going totally off versus even seeping into the pavers so I question whether or not we could even in good conscience say you can put a structure like that on there too. So I mean there's, yeah I think there's some things that we can do. Whether or not it will work, some kind of feature that's going to be better. If we see the water is going, whether it's the front of the lot or the back of the lot and put in some kind of water garden or whatever that would be that would act better than grass, then you're gaining something. I don't know. At the end of the day I just, and maybe I'm over reacting because we've had 2 or 3 of those in the last year but you know I think that we need to update this or at least look at it and talk about the ramifications of 25% and what are the different options that people can do. 11 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • Mayor Furlong: Well and in response to that, if there are right now staff is interpreting our ordinance, where certain things are 100% impervious and other things are 100% pervious. Obviously the more black and white the ordinance is, the easier it is for residents to know what the rules are and the easier it is for staff to interpret those rules and to apply them because every day is different. So try to keep that but I think we're reviewing our storm water management plan right now. I know I'm going to be interested in getting an update on that later this evening as we talk about it. Given the event of last week, and this may be a time to incorporate that in there as well. So I guess the question is, do we defer the decision on this until that discussion can be had or do we move forward tonight not knowing the length of time it will take to do that and to make some decision as to whether we want to make any changes there or not. And our ramifications if you change the hard surface coverage I assume in terms of our storm water management plan and the capacity and volume and such like that. And I'm assuming all that goes into the engineering studies and the equations for that. I see heads going up and down so let the minutes reflect that is correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Being on Planning Commission this has come up a couple times in the years that I, not long but some of the years I was on the Planning Commission. My biggest beef with this is residents come in and say we asked what we were supposed to do. They said nothing and so you know we tried and we tried. And when they come in and they ask whoever is across the counter, you know do I need a permit for this patio and they said no. And then as an average citizen I wouldn't then go onto know to ask well, how about hard surface coverage and how about this and that because I'm not thinking that way. I'm just thinking oh good, I can get the permit. But we still I don't think have a sheet that we go oh look it. They want to do a deck or a patio here. Look at this. You know here are the check off's you have to cover before you go ahead and do this. I guess that's my biggest beef with this is that it is hard to know what you're supposed to do if you don't know what you're supposed to do. And if they did come in 3 times and tried to do the right thing and they went and thought they did the right thing, I guess I have a hard time telling them now to undo what they thought they had done right the first time. We don't have one of those lists yet do we? Kate Aanenson: Yes we do, as a matter of fact. I'm not going to get into the he said, she said. What conversations... Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right, exactly. Kate Aanenson: I'm sympathetic to them. You know the first issue was the sidewalk not being to the driveway. That's one thing I think, that's one error that I think is very obvious that we missed. There should have been a driveway, a sidewalk connecting the front porch to the driveway. In my mind that was an error on our part not to because that's always standard that we would check that. But as far as the conversations that were, you go to 3 different departments. Each department gives their information and sometimes you ask the question to get the answer you want too, so you know, and I'm not dismissing that sometimes people don't probe further in 12 City Council Meeting — Stbet. 12, 2005 • that specific division. If you went to building ... no, they'd say talk to planning... We do have handouts. We now require all impervious to be shown on the original permit. That's been done for a number of years so we have corrected those issues. We're always going to have people asking for variances... Things happen you know. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this issue to give the applicant and staff a chance to consider other alternatives and I think they've got some opinions and thoughts about you know some kind of direction to what we might be looking for given the chance to do that before we make a hard and fast decision and bind them to something that there might be another alternative to. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion's been made. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: ...know the time line issue. Mayor Furlong: That was going to be my question so. Kate Aanenson: They asked if they can get an extension. Mayor Furlong: We need an extension in writing from them. Kate Aanenson: They're fine with that. Mayor Furlong: Can we get that tonight? Larry Martin: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to write something up? Do we need to get that? What is the timeframe here? Kate Aanenson: I believe it was... tomorrow. Mayor Furlong: Tomorrow, so we should get something now. Mr. Lundquist, if that's okay. Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Before we consider your motion. First, let me ask if there's a second to Councilman Lundquist's motion. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's been seconded so we're in discussing the motion now at this time. Is there any discussion on this motion? Actually a motion to table. We'll hold off discussion. Councilman Peterson: We can talk about the table. 13 City Council Meeting — Sember 12, 2005 • Roger Knutson: I'm satisfied they're going to sign it. Mayor Furlong: Very good. There you go. I like the parliamentary order. The motion's been made to table. It's been seconded to give staff and the applicant time to work out some alternatives, given the comments this evening. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table Planning Case #05-18, hard cover variance request for Troy and Virginia Kakacek at 380 West 8e Street in order to give staff and the applicant time to explore alternative solutions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. MARIANNE MCCORD & DAVID SANFORD, 6440 FOX PATH, PLANNING CASE 05- 22, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY AND DOCK. Public Present: Name Address David Sanford Michael P. & Debbie Haydock Mary Hoffman Tom & Sue Huberty Terry Vogt Charles Brown Tom Meier 6440 Fox Path 6460 Fox Path 6470 Fox Path 6450 Fox Path 732 Lake Point 1439 Tennessee, Minneapolis 695 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak: Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. As the mayor indicated this is an application for the wetland alteration permit at 6440 Fox Path, which is Lot 9, Block 1, Fox Chase Subdivision. The applicant is for the construction of a dock through a wetland area to access Lotus Lake. You can see the subject property on the map. On the north side of the lake is Pleasant View Road. Just off the west side of, or the left side of the paper is Powers Boulevard so just to orient folks. Typically wetland alteration permits that we see here are straight forward. However as is quite common with a planned unit development such as this one, a conservation easement has been recorded on several of these properties. The conservation easement covers all of the land within the subdivision below 900 feet which is shown on one of our other attachments. There's one, sorry. Okay, pull it down. The conservation easement, the 900 foot elevation is shown in green on this survey. And the ordinary high water mark for Lotus Lake which is 896. Actually this is the 896 contour. It's not actually the ordinary high water mark, is shown in blue on that plan sheet there. As I indicated the conservation easement covers all the land below 900 feet and encumbers parts of Lot 7 through 19. And again the subject property is Lot 9, which is indicated in orange. The easement prohibits docks except on Lots 16 through 19 which are on the southern part or the bottom part of the plan. Lot 16 has a dock that's shared by 7 properties. Lots 10 through 16, and that's basically the lots south of the subject property and the next 6 lots. So there's a shared dock that is used by 7 property owners, and then Lots 17, 18, and 19, which are the final 3 lots there, each have their own docks and if we can pull up the aerial photo I believe we can see why. The wetland, actually if you orient it so north is at the 14 2376 LANDSCAPE. DESIGNERS, COINTRACTORS, GROWERS INC. TREE MOVERS AND GARDEN CENTER - 10,000 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska, Minnesota 55318 3 Mlles South o1 Chanhassen on Hazy. 101 Phone 612.4454555 DESIGN FEE REBATE COUPON to: Issued G. In yy.- Aka eeL `�rl:/at` (...a., 10 , Date: Designer. ?� I 1 Address:.— '39 O W Eq 1" 5' f 11 w 47A s 00A Zip: - ;tS a.1 7 Halla Nursery wishes to thank you and reward you for your decision to have one of our professionals design your landscape. Your design fee of $ will, upon spending I_ c u° 't Halla Nursery, be refunded via a gift certificate that you can use to purchase any item we stock. You simply keep your receipts for all purchases from Halla Nursery, when your, receipts total $ L r Crd just mail them in with this coupon and we will validate and mail back to you this certificate valid for up to $ 100, — on any items we have in stock, including sale items( - Again, we thank you for choosing us to help with designing your landscape and we hope your experience with us is exceptional. Please note: This coupon not redeemable for cash, valid 5 years from date above and must be used in full at one time, as no change is given. Customer is responsible%=for maintaining this document and all receipts in order to process. "TWE PLACE TO GO FOR PLANTS THAT GROW" SINCE 1942 YOUR "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AWARD" WINNING NURSERY FOR DESIGNING 8 PLANTING SHADE TREES • EVERGREENS • FLOWERING CRABS • FRUIT TREES • FLOWERING SHRUBS • HEDGING • GROUND COVERS • FERTILIZERS LANDSCAPE CONSULTATION • INSECTICIDES • PRUNING • LARGE TREE MOVING INSURANCE CLAIMS • DESIGNING t NoP.rrH • RAiN)6P�\ZOP0 COA/cCPT SkETcFi FDR K AIS AcE«- PEs'Pcw(,E• 3 f30 W 56"' Si-rC�a.. 4�r sP� � MV 511'7 L ^' R 1 ?.IP fr s!'r _(r0„^ r✓A tl�r vrph�P w� Ai ear A,d NOT 110 5CAtC pvr�TY vim roPr(vWe 'fi•0vi4 �e grovn) ha+✓rainy, f �a��.��s a„d r,.•,)�� ✓hvIch k2 fI �.4 Q4surb WR�Ci and Alvt been. Proven Lls An PK rthdn _ SOS✓}10n +O excp55 wA4, I'. oF(_. w (7�R^1,E Dpd IZ � r 1 Am-w G RAiN (,�4ROr N � SvGG Fs rloni 5 a C)oe 14A WrID ? T r v„ 1.1/ S 6 tigk ' S(r,S T LIME £t76E$ dr RI.IN T GAROE w/S wlrH smAcL � S6r oNf_ 3i • E4mr✓m 3uwu fAs of W4LL SrO�E - srNE ” DoI wd•15 To KEEP TvRF Fr?o LotiEi2 ' AlG�-ct w�l�lw sNvAorrV(, bAKOEM 4440 rdK e p0.y'r'l. TO PROvI)OF 3T.gdlc171 UvER F�tlw ip ALONG PATka E O GE .wftrib,,I<--4' - 6 IV trl„ uv �� s FwrO r«a15iSII1. ?A'T,0 sT6ti, About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 1 of 10 ► Buying or renting a home ► Building, renovating & maintaining ► Mortgage insurance & securitization ► Investments ► Programs a financial assistance ► Housing markets, domestic & international ► Improving quality a affordability ► Individual consumer ► Aboriginal ► Housing industry professional ► Mortgage lender/broker ► Investor ► Researcher Enter Keyword(s): J Search Help Building renovating_&_ _maintaining > Self -Help and Problem Solving > About Your House Series > About Your House. Rain Gardens. Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard About Your House CE 53 Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard Stormwater refers to rain and melted snow and ice. Stormwater runoff from your roof, driveway and other hard surfaces in your yard is typically directed towards the street and into the municipal storm sewer system. This stormwater runoff, which has picked up harmful substances such as road salt, heavy metals and oils, ends up in streams, lakes or other water bodies, where it can harm water quality and aquatic habitat. Meanwhile, water used for lawns and gardens is drawn from the local drinking water supply. There are several ways that you can reduce runoff and better use stormwater in your yard while ensuring proper drainage. One relatively easy and attractive method is a rain garden (Figure 1). I Roof downspout extension directed toward rain garden Rain garden In permeable sit 1 — Rain garden Site grading slopes away from house toward ran garden _ n - A rain garden is a planted or stonecovered bed specifically designed to receive stormwater and allow it to be slowly absorbed into the soil (infiltration). This About Your House provides information on designing and building a rain garden, as well as tips for improving stormwater management in your yard. Let Nature Inspire You In the natural hydrologic cycle, stormwater slowly infiltrates into the soil. There, it is naturally filtered and cleansed of some pollutants, is used by plants and http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfrn 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 2 of 10 replenishes the water table. Stormwater also falls directly into water bodies or gradually reaches them over land or through the shallow water table (Figure 2). In contrast, stormwater runoff in settled areas usually flows quickly from hard surfaces, such as roofs and driveways, into sewers that eventually empty into water bodies. The increased volume and frequency of high flows can cause erosion and related sedimentation in receiving lakes and rivers. Along the way, the water also picks up polluting substances, such as de-icing salt, grease and oil, animal wastes, excess sediments, pesticides and fertilizers. In areas with combined storm and sanitary sewers, the system can sometimes become overloaded, so that untreated sanitary sewage overflows into natural water bodies. All of these factors can harm water quality, habitat for aquatic species and the stability of shorelines and riverbanks. They also increase municipal costs to convey and treat stormwater. There is a growing trend towards designing municipal stormwater systems to work with natural processes. These systems involve the use of wetlands and other methods that allow water to soak into the ground, filter pollutants and slow the flow of water before it enters water bodies. Rain gardens are one way that you can reduce runoff and let stormwater soak slowly into the ground, as it does in nature, in your home landscape. Rain gardens are shallow depressions or lowlying areas that are designed to capture and absorb stormwater fairly quickly and dry out between rainfalls. When planted, they can also provide habitat for birds, butterflies and other fauna. Steps in Designing a Rain Garden Rain gardens are relatively easy and inexpensive to design and build, but there are a few considerations to ensure that they function effectively. The two most critical technical considerations are: 1. Water must infiltrate and not stand in the bed for more than two days 2. Water should not create drainage problems on your property or neighbouring ones http://www.cmbc-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cftn 6/17/2005 W.xr.•.. w Gf • care z s. r..a 4. v ti wM ✓+w. a.Ja h a_Ye.v,. Wu+NN».n nJ�+�•�r-.- r rn +.H.Y•wl•oM�•.YeorJ r...a'+�J.../... .... __•r•n v.�. ab a.a •�^mar. AYWo lvYa,e..- `M �+v.4•w M Jnr• J A oe �a� ww he•1•m.n 4wairfY�a•wl Mr .•r pN IM1 arT � nny. In contrast, stormwater runoff in settled areas usually flows quickly from hard surfaces, such as roofs and driveways, into sewers that eventually empty into water bodies. The increased volume and frequency of high flows can cause erosion and related sedimentation in receiving lakes and rivers. Along the way, the water also picks up polluting substances, such as de-icing salt, grease and oil, animal wastes, excess sediments, pesticides and fertilizers. In areas with combined storm and sanitary sewers, the system can sometimes become overloaded, so that untreated sanitary sewage overflows into natural water bodies. All of these factors can harm water quality, habitat for aquatic species and the stability of shorelines and riverbanks. They also increase municipal costs to convey and treat stormwater. There is a growing trend towards designing municipal stormwater systems to work with natural processes. These systems involve the use of wetlands and other methods that allow water to soak into the ground, filter pollutants and slow the flow of water before it enters water bodies. Rain gardens are one way that you can reduce runoff and let stormwater soak slowly into the ground, as it does in nature, in your home landscape. Rain gardens are shallow depressions or lowlying areas that are designed to capture and absorb stormwater fairly quickly and dry out between rainfalls. When planted, they can also provide habitat for birds, butterflies and other fauna. Steps in Designing a Rain Garden Rain gardens are relatively easy and inexpensive to design and build, but there are a few considerations to ensure that they function effectively. The two most critical technical considerations are: 1. Water must infiltrate and not stand in the bed for more than two days 2. Water should not create drainage problems on your property or neighbouring ones http://www.cmbc-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cftn 6/17/2005 -.sl.•aa,.e•o•�1 r_• L�.'y..••u_Yr.w Y4.o•�.. nJ�+�•�r-.- +.H.Y•wl•oM�•.YeorJ r...a'+�J.../... .... __•r•n v.�. ab a.a •�^mar. ure 2 — Hvdrologic cycle In contrast, stormwater runoff in settled areas usually flows quickly from hard surfaces, such as roofs and driveways, into sewers that eventually empty into water bodies. The increased volume and frequency of high flows can cause erosion and related sedimentation in receiving lakes and rivers. Along the way, the water also picks up polluting substances, such as de-icing salt, grease and oil, animal wastes, excess sediments, pesticides and fertilizers. In areas with combined storm and sanitary sewers, the system can sometimes become overloaded, so that untreated sanitary sewage overflows into natural water bodies. All of these factors can harm water quality, habitat for aquatic species and the stability of shorelines and riverbanks. They also increase municipal costs to convey and treat stormwater. There is a growing trend towards designing municipal stormwater systems to work with natural processes. These systems involve the use of wetlands and other methods that allow water to soak into the ground, filter pollutants and slow the flow of water before it enters water bodies. Rain gardens are one way that you can reduce runoff and let stormwater soak slowly into the ground, as it does in nature, in your home landscape. Rain gardens are shallow depressions or lowlying areas that are designed to capture and absorb stormwater fairly quickly and dry out between rainfalls. When planted, they can also provide habitat for birds, butterflies and other fauna. Steps in Designing a Rain Garden Rain gardens are relatively easy and inexpensive to design and build, but there are a few considerations to ensure that they function effectively. The two most critical technical considerations are: 1. Water must infiltrate and not stand in the bed for more than two days 2. Water should not create drainage problems on your property or neighbouring ones http://www.cmbc-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cftn 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 3 of 10 Beyond that, rain gardens can be naturalistic or more manicured, can include a variety of plants, and can be in various shapes. Find a Suitable Location Observe the drainage area and paths along which stormwater naturally runs in your yard. Place the rain garden at a low point or at a location somewhere along the natural flow path. If your yard is relatively flat and evenly drained, you can create a depression anywhere, following the guidelines below To ensure that water will not simply run over the lower edge, rain gardens need to be as level as possible. If possible, avoid slopes greater than 12 per cent, as they will make it more difficult to create a level garden. If you have no other choice, you can cut and fill a steeper area, as described below, but you will need to ensure that the sides are adequately stabilized. To avoid creating moisture problems, you will need to direct stormwater away from vulnerable areas, such as your house foundation, septic beds or neighbouring homes. Place your rain garden at least 4 m (13 ft.) away from such areas. Also avoid placing rain gardens over underground utility pipes or wires. 3 — How to measure a slope How to Measure a Slope Slope is the ratio of the length of the rise (the vertical change) to the length of the run (the horizontal change). A simple way to measure slope is to use a carpenter's level placed on a 2x4 (Figure 3). • Place the board on the ground along the slope you want to measure and lift the lower end until the board is level. • To determine the rise, measure the distance from the ground to the bottom edge of the board at the end of the slope. • The run is the length of the board from the end to where you measured the rise. • Divide the rise by the run to obtain the per cent of the slope. For example, if the rise is 5 cm (2 in.) and the run is 2.5 m (8 ft., 2 1/2 in.), the slope is 0.05 — 2.5 = 2%. Drain Water Away From Your House Ensure that stormwater is directed away from your house foundation. Follow the tips in Chapter 4 of CMHC's La,pe Guide for Canadian Homes. The Guide also describes drainage considerations around your main activity areas and neighbouring http://www.cmhe-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6'17!2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 4 of 10 properties. Rain gardens do not work well on clay soil because drainage in clay is slow. Look for a spot with soil that is sandy, gravelly, loam or a mix that can include up to 10 per cent clay. If your soil has a higher clay percentage, you can add sand, fine gravel and/or organic matter to improve permeability. Compacted soils are also relatively impermeable, so you will need to loosen them before building a rain garden. Ensure that the soil is permeable to a depth of between 0.6 — 1.2 m (2 — 4 ft.) below the rain garden. Refer to "Get to Know Your Soil" in CMHC's About Your House series for tips on analysing and amending your soil. The surface of the depression should be at least 1 m (3 ft. 3 in.) above the seasonally high shallow groundwater table. To determine where the shallow water table is, in dry weather dig a small test pit and see if it fills with water. Or, you can ask if your municipality has information about your neighbourhood's shallow water table. If the shallow water table is close to the surface, find a location on higher ground or abandon the idea of a rain garden. Along with catching water from other areas in your yard, rain gardens are often designed to capture roof runoff via a downspout extension, a swale or an underground pipe. If you want your rain garden to capture roof runoff, look for a convenient location. Locating your rain garden in full sun or partial shade will let you choose the widest selection of plants. Call Before You Dig Before digging any test pits or depressions in your yard, locate buried wires and pipes. Call your local service providers for assistance. You can consider a shady area if you select plants that are tolerant of shade. If your preferred location has trees that can tolerate occasional flooding, a woodland rain garden is an option. An existing depression in your yard could function as a natural rain garden. If needed, you can make some enhancements, such as replanting with suitable plants or adjusting depth or size so it can hold more water. If the depression tends to hold water for more than two days, you will also need to improve the soil's drainage capacity as discussed above, or find another location with better drainage. Determine Depth and Size Determining the ideal depth and size for a rain garden is not an exact science, and various authors suggest different methods. Your rain garden will likely function well if you make a reasonably accurate estimate of the two most critical factors — the amount of stormwater that will be captured (inflow) and how quickly it will be absorbed. The depth and sizing method described below is based on these two factors. Soil Infiltration Rates Knowing the permeability of your soil is essential when installing http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6 17 1005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 5 of 10 a rain garden. Sandy soils are highly permeable with a minimum water absorption rate of 210 mm/hour. The minimum absorption rate for sandy loam is 25 mrn1hour. For loam, the minimum absorption rate is 15 mrNhour. In Gay soils, absorption rates can be as low as 1 mm/hour. You can test the permeability of your soil by digging a small test pit, filling it with a known quantity of water and observing the time it takes for the water to be absorbed. The depression will need to be shallow enough to ensure that water will not stand for more than two days, but deep enough to hold the anticipated amount of water. A general guideline for depth is 7.5 cm (3 in.) in soils with relatively low infiltration rates (for example, loam) and up to 15 cm (6 in.) in soils with high infiltration rates (for example, sandy or gravelly soils). To ensure that there is adequate space in shallower depressions, the size of the garden will be adjusted for various soils, as discussed below. To determine the size, follow these three steps. 1. Determine inflow. i. Estimate the area in square metres of the section of your roof that will drain into the downspout, plus the area in square metres of other hard surfaces, such as driveways or patios, that will drain into the rain garden. Next, estimate the area of lawn that will drain into the garden and multiply the figure by 20 per cent. 1 The size of the roof area plus other hard surface areas plus 20 per cent of the lawn area draining into the rain garden is the total drainage area (in square metres). For example, the total drainage area might be 170 rn2. ii. Estimate the amount of precipitation that will flow into your rain garden over a 24-hour period. Some municipalities set rainfall capture targets, so check with your municipality's public works department. If there isn't a municipal target, set your own based on average local precipitation. Your municipality may have precipitation data for your region; if it doesn't, It can be obtained from Environment Canada. An example of a target is 25 mm over 24 hours. Targets will vary from region to region and can be as low as 5 mm over 24 hours. iii. Multiply the drainage area in square metres (Step i) times the rainfall capture target in metres (Step ii). For example, a rain garden that will capture 25 mm of rain over 24 hours from 170 m2 of drainage area must hold 170 x 0.025 = 4.25 m3 of water over 24 hours. 2. Determine the infiltration rate of your soil (see "Soil Infiltration Rates"). For example, if the rate is 15 mm/hour, it will absorb 360 mm of water over 24 hours. Convert the figure to metres (in this case, 0.36 m). 3. Divide the estimated inflow (Step 1) by the infiltration rate (Step 2). Using the example above, the rain garden would need an area of 4.25 0.36 = 11.8 m2. Rain gardens are designed for average annual precipitation levels. Occasionally, there will be a heavy rainfall and, less often — once every 25 to 100 years — and extremely heavy rainfall. Occasional overflow of your rain garden will most often simply be accommodated by your own yard and the municipal storm system. If there is any possibility that overflow could cause drainage problems in neighbouring areas, include an overflow system. This can be as simple as an in -ground perforated pipe or shallow swale that is directed http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.caten/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 6 of 10 towards a less vulnerable area, or an area that drains into the municipal storm system. You can also reduce the frequency of overflow by slightly increasing the size of the rain garden or the depth of permeable soil, or both. Although following the steps for sizing will give you the optimum size, you can change the size to better suit your yard, your budget or maintenance. You can reduce the size by increasing the depth of permeable soil, decreasing the area that contributes to inflow, or creating more than one rain garden. Determine the Shape To capture as much stormwater as possible, a rain garden should be at least 1.5 times longer than it is wide (length is defined here as the face at a right angle to the slope). The 11.8 m2 rain garden in the example above should measure approximately 4.2 m x 2.8 m (13 ft. 8 in. x 9 ft. 2 in.). Again, if site conditions do not allow for the optimum size, you can adjust as needed. Many people prefer the appearance of soft, round edges to hard, square edges, and kidney or oval shapes, but you can create any shape that suits your taste and your yard. Select Plants and Stones — or Both Select perennials, shrubs, grasses or fems, or all, that can tolerate both wet and dry conditions. Choose plants that are adapted to your region and your specific soil and sunlight conditions. Native plants are well adapted to local conditions, so are generally preferred for rain gardens. Non-native plants can also be used, but avoid invasive species (see "References and resources"). For an attractive garden that will bloom for much of the season also bear in mind plant heights, colour and bloom time. See the plant list in CMHC's Landscape Guide for Canadian Homes for help choosing plants. You can install herbaceous plants (species that are not woody), like perennials, as plugs, potted plants or seeds. Plugs or potted plants will create an instant garden and are easier to grow and more predictable than seeds. Seeds don't cost as much, but it can take up to three years for the garden to fully fill in. A seed mix can be customized for your conditions, or you can use a shoreline or wet -dry meadow/prairie mix if your local native seed supplier offers it. You can plant shrubs from pots, as bare root seedlings and, in some cases, as cuttings. Or, you can line the bottom of the rain garden with loose, hard materials, such as pebbles or river stone. A stone -lined rain garden will mimic a stony stream bed, adding a unique feature to your yard (Figures 4 and 5). You can also include plants in a stonelined rain garden. To add esthetic appeal, edge the pond with materials such as brick or stone. You can also add a focal element, such as a large rock or a sculpture. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en[burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 7 of 10 d the sides are covered with woodchip mulch and tall grasses, perennials and shrubs. Photo: Glen Pleasance Figure 5 — Rain garden variations How to Install a Rain Garden The best time to build a rain garden if you are working with plugs or potted plants is mid -spring, after the thaw, when the soil is most likely to be moist and http://www.cmhe-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6/17/2005 J ' a • - - • • A, Planted '..tth _ _• shrubstwill grasses. lernsand perenatils s B. Dry creek with pebbles. rr::4 stone. boulder, and plants 0 �. Original sbpe r U Q On a slope. crmte a 7 depression on the upper side v and a berm on the lever side All optmns •xer sandy to loam soil with orpanlc matter. Infiltnuon bed nether the sort as shown in option A applies to all options. Figure 5 — Rain garden variations How to Install a Rain Garden The best time to build a rain garden if you are working with plugs or potted plants is mid -spring, after the thaw, when the soil is most likely to be moist and http://www.cmhe-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cfm 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 8 of 10 fairly easy to dig. Plants will benefit from spring rains. Although you can build a rain garden in summer, you may need to water the plants far more often until they are established If you are seeding the bed, the best time to install your rain garden is mid - spring or late fall. Seeding in late fall allows the natural, freeze -thaw cycles to work. They help many native seeds germinate without pre-treatment. Ask your seed supplier if any pre-treatment of native seed is required for spring sowing. Shrubs can be planted in either spring or fall, depending on the species. Begin by laying out the shape and size of the bed with a rope or garden hose. Remove existing lawn with a sod cutter, garden spade or edging tool, being sure to remove all pieces of root. If you have enough lead time, you can smother grass or other plants with heavy black plastic anchored down with rocks and left on for at least two months during the previous growing season. Remove the plastic before digging the bed. Dig the bed to the required depth, as described above. Remove any remaining roots of former plants or lawn. If you need to improve the drainage of the soil beneath the surface, continue to dig and add other amendments, such as sand, fine gravel or organic matter, to a depth of 0.6 — 1.2 m (2 — 4 ft.). A small backhoe can be helpful if you need to dig beneath the surface. To help the new plantings establish themselves, add compost and work it into the top few inches of soil. If you dig into a slight slope, use a carpenter's level to help you keep the bed level. Soil from the higher side of the slope can be used as fill for the lower side. On a slope, you will also need to build a low berm along the lower side of the slope edge to retain the water (Figure 5). The berm can be constructed with soil that you removed from the upper side and covered with a variety of plants or lawn. Gently slope both sides of the berm and compact it by stomping on it. Sod, seed or plant the berm immediately and temporarily cover with a straw mat or straw mulch to prevent erosion If needed, dig and install an overflow pipe or swale on the lower side of the garden. You can place your downspout extension in the garden. To prevent erosion in the garden, place a small bed of pea gravel or decorative pebbles, or a concrete splash pad, under the extension (Figure 6). Or, the downspout can discharge onto a lawn area that drains into the rain garden. Rake the bed so that it is fairly smooth. Use standard planting or seeding methods. See CMHC's Landscape Guide for Canadian Homes for advice and tips. If you are covering with stone, place a layer of filter fabric on the surface, then place the stone. To plant among the stones, slit the fabric. How to Maintain a Rain Garden Keep the soil moist during the first growing season. If there is little or no rain, you will need to water with a one- Finure 6 — Ynu can run a roof downspout extension directly into your rain garden. To prevent erosion, install a small bed of http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/eniburema/gescin/abhose/abhose 075.cfn 6'17'200� About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I CM... Page 9 of 10 hour trickle at least once a week for the first three weeks. Subsequently, water pebbles or a concrete splash pad during hot, dry weather. Plants grown under the end of the extension. from fall seeding will also need to be watered in drought conditions the following season. If you have selected plants that are suited to the soil and moisture conditions, plants in the rain garden should not need to be watered once they are established. For the first two or three years, you will need to remove weeds regularly. Some desirable native plants may migrate to the site, so try to identify the species before you remove them. You can hand -pull weeds, being careful not to disturb new plantings. Pull weeds when they are immature, before they go to seed. Weeds are easier to pull when the soil is moist. Once the garden has filled in and a root mass has formed, you won't have to weed as often. Once the rain garden is established, you can occasionally add compost. Plants that are adapted to sandy or gravelly soil tend to prefer nutrient poor conditions, so compost should be added only if it appears necessary. To control insects and disease, it is best to use low -impact manual or non - synthetic controls as far as possible. For more information on maintenance, refer to the resources in "References and resources" or CMHC's Landscape Guide for Canadian Homes. Aerate the soil occasionally to ensure it does not become compacted. If over time you find that water is standing in the bed too long, the easiest solution is to make the garden larger or create a second rain garden to catch some of the water. You can also make the depression deeper or further amend soils to improve permeability, but both of these options will require removing and transplanting plants. Once established, your rain garden should provide many years of enjoyment with little maintenance. You can derive added satisfaction from knowing you are contributing to a healthier natural environment. Figure 7 — To reduce runoff and beautify the property, the homeowners Minimize Impermeable Surfaces Minimizing the amount of impermeable surface area on your property is another way to reduce stonnwater runoff and allow water to soak into the ground. You can start by limiting the number and size of hard surfaces to only those needed for your household's regular activities (Figure 7). You can also combine various uses on hard surfaces. For example, a driveway or patio can double as a footpath. You can also use porous paving materials that allow infiltration. Where possible, use loose materials, such as decorative pebbles or crushed brick. Where you need a firmer surface, consider using precast concrete pavers with wide gaps. They are designed specifically for stormwater infiltration. Also fill gaps between patio stones or pavers with sand or fine gravel instead of concrete. On http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abbose/abhose_075.cfin 6/17/2005 About Your House: Rain Gardens: Improve Stormwater Management in Your Yard I C... Page 10 of 10 reduced the size of their driveway by more than 60 per cent by replacing it with plantings.They changed the material on the remaining driveway from asphalt to precast concrete pavers. driveways, you can install two strips of paving spaced for the wheels of your car or other vehicles, and plant grass or a low groundcover in the spaces between the strips. References and Resources Bannerman, Roger and Ellen Considine. 2003. Rain Gardens: A how-to manual for homeowners. University of Wisconsin Extension: Madison, W. Available at http://clean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/rainqanden/rgmanualpdf Barr Engineering Company. 2001. 'Infiltration Systems: On -lot Infiltration" in Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services: St. Paul, Minnesota. Available at http://www.metrocouncii.org/environmentfWatershed/BMP/CH3 STinfilOnLotpd Canada Mortgage and Housing. 2004. Landscape Guide for Canadian Homes. CMHC: Ottawa. Cozetto, Karen. May 2001. Rain Gardens" in Conscious Choice. Available at http://www.consciouschoice.com/environs/ raingardens1405.html Royal Botanical Gardens. Resources on invasive plants relevant across Canada. Available at http://www.rbq.ca/cbcn/en/invasives Stromme, Lome. May 2001. "Plotting to Infiltrate? Try Rain Gardens" in Yard and Garden News. Available at the University of Minnesota Extension Service website http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/ yardandgarden/YGLNews/ YBGLNarchive.html Web sites last checked December 2003 Other Useful Information About Your House Fact Sheets: Get to Know Your Soil Low -maintenance Lawns Water -Saving Tips for Your Lawn and Garden Publications: Landscape Guide for Canadian Homes $19.95 (63523) 4 Francais I Printable Version I Order Desk I Events Calendar I Site Map I Home 01996-2005 CMHCSCHL Web site Terms and. Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_075.cf n G_ 6/17/2005 �v Ell AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA KAKACEK PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH VARIANCE PLANNING CASE #05-18 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) AFTER BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, Virginia Kakacek hereby deposes and states as follows: My name is Virginia Kakacek and my residence is 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 ("Subject Property"), I have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances stated herein. The Subject Property was granted a variance ("Variance") for hard surface coverage by resolution of the Chanhassen City Council dated. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the As -Built Grading Survey for the Subject Property. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the As -Built Grading Survey with notations ("Annotated Survey") indicating the improvements and changes that were made to the Subject Property to conform the Subject Property to the Variance and the conditions attached to the Variance. Following is a summary of the changes/improvements made to the Subject Property: 1. Concrete sidewalk removed and pea gravel added. 2. Gravel walkway removed and mLkh added. 3. 6' by 14.78' of brick pavers removed. 4. 3" River Birch Tree added. 5. 3" Japanese Lilac added. 6. 3" Plum Tree added. 7. 3" Snow Crabapple Tree added. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. /lc��Cc-Lc�ic-- Virginla Kakacek The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this may of August, 2006, by Virginia Kakacek. -� KAREN M. LARSON NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Comm. Exp. Jan. 31, 2010 �/• /// y� Stamp Above NotaIry �— Z —�o(o- ZO/S— G 1pa-� d-cfOa(-f Sr `�' o s- AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA KAKACEK PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH VARIANCE PLANNING CASE #05-18 Exhibit B 9R111100*05E 110.00 1 3" Japanese Lilac; B� mgde - - i t0 to 90? - • 1 ' 90� 65 9`r) J i w _ IT •' ' -- 6' Brick Pavers •� Removed 8 • tsr r; y� L I ,� •� ._.__ �• !f. . RQ>rq .ap �o� 70.00 5.751 f g� ntowkv welt 1 n % c I • t� WinfAp MOVa# ? y t' 1 Concrete i f II Sidewalk tt Je Removed, Pea / Rock Added. Gr3Jef . ,. 00 .— cont. a/owo/k i Rembved; t0 ��7ulgh Adtled lied box I 3" Plum _� bye � ^96 " River Birch — — — - -- I R9'.IR 9 1 05 ' i14 3" Snow Crab Apple 'off 1 9s.�d 'q� Sl10 n000 AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA KAKACEK PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH VARIANCE PLANNING CASE #05-18 r l� JIM 1113 EE i. ES3{li.S7, 1113 � l! }(ttit fill w 4 J En w 3 ' o j W �—J � � u CL E =3 {< i & m t} 4� !± y t n 3 E co a 1 f�kkt1 i3[ it 3 g 11 0 9 Cs -r8 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CHOUSSEN 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I PBoz 147 D Chanhassen, sen, MN 55317 DATE: September 12, 2005 4. Administration Phone: 952.2271100 SUBJ: Troy & Virginia Kakacek — Planning Case #05-18 Fax 952227.1110 Building Inspections EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952 227.1190 This item was appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a Engineering 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface Phone: 952.227.1160 coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property Fax: 952.227.1170 located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 8e Street. These improvements have already been built. Finance Phone: 952227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 ACTION REQUIRED Park It Recreation Phone: 952.2271120 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY 2310 Coulter Boulevard P 952 .227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the Planning a proposed project. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come Natural Resources before the City Council. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 RECOMMENDATION Public Works 1591 Par52.227ad Phone: 952.227.1300 Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff P � P� P g Fax: 952.227.1310 report dated September 12, 2005. Senior Phone: 52.227.11 25 ATTACHMENTS Fax: 952.2271110 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2005. Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mn us gAplanx2005 planning casesx05-I8 kakacek vaziance\executive summaryAoc The City of Chanhassen 9 A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC D*: July 19, 2005 CC DATE: September 12, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 13, 2005 CASE #: 05-18 BY: JM, JS, DR PROPOSAL: Request for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in tl Single Family Residential District at 380 West 866 Street. These improvements have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 380 West 8e Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86'6 Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 —4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-18 • Kakacek Variance Ally 19 September 12, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 for denial. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. The summary and verbatim minutes are Attachment 8 of this packet. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86m Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.23% (which represents 642.24 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have ah-eady been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29.23%. Lake Susan 110,1111 ON N-10" 1, 0 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. N 212 Rice Marsh La (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. Planning Case #05-18 • • Kakacek Variance July 19 September 12, 2005 Page 3 (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to,re avel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. (20) BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as -built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as -built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005. The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek's have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as -built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this variance request. Planning Case #05-18 • • Kakacek Variance july 1-9 September 12, 2005 Page 4 Before - Gravel Walkway After — Mulch Walkway Before - Concrete Sidewalk Revised as -built survey calculation: House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. After — Rock Walkway Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23% In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants' interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. Kakacek Variance 0 • Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 5 Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as -built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as -built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.80 (111.24 square feet over the maximum permitted hard cover). ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sidewalks and patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sidewalks and patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Patio Retaining Wall/Rock Sidewalk There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in order to reach 25%, the size of the driveway would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. Kakacek Variance • Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 6 LANDSCAPING The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86d' Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that he within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 7 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning GowApAs City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Gommis City Council denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Ptlanning Geffimis City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." Should the Planning Gefamis City Council choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the P4annifig Commis City Council adopt the following motion: "The P4anfling Gonvaiss City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped "Received May 6, 2005" 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As -Built Survey. 8. July 19, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes. gAplan\2005 planning ca m\05-18 kaka"k varianm\staff report-cim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager MY l OF FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I 1YUHMUk7L11 DATE: Septeinber-2C October 10, 2005 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 SUBJ: Troy & Virginia Kakacek — Planning Case #05-18 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the Phone: 952.227.1100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fax: 952.227.1110 That decision was appealed by the applicant. Building Inspections This item was appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a Phoney 952.2271180 4:231.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface Fax: 952.2271190 coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property Engineering located in the Single -Family Residential District at 380 West 86`h Street. These Phone: 952.227.1160 improvements have already been built. Since this request was first presented to Fax: 952.227.1170 the Planning Commission and City Council, staff noticed some inaccurate data Finance on the as -built survey. The portion of the driveway that lies within the public Phone: 952 227.1140 right-of-way was included in the hard cover calculations of the applicants' Fax: 952.227.1110 property. This report has been revised to reflect accurate calculations. Park 8 Recreation Phone: 952.227 1129 ACTION REQUIRED Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY Planning b Natural Resources The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the Phone: 952.227.1130 proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request. Fax: 952227.1110 That decision was appealed by the applicant. Public works The City Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2005, to review the 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 request. Council tabled the application in order to give staff and the applicant req PP � gi Fax: 952.227.1310 time to explore alternative solutions to resolving the hard cover issue. Senior Center RECOMMENDATION Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff report Web she dated October 10, 2005. www ci.chanhassen.mn.us ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2005. 2. City Council Minutes dated September 12, 2005. g:xplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variaucetezecu[ive swnmary 10-10-05 ccdoe The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. E-+ A W E* CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: July 19, 2005 CC DATE: October 10, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 12, 2005 CASE #: 05-18 BY: JM, JS, DR PROPOSAL: Request for 4-.2-31.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. These improvements have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86t' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4431.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance 3u1y 19 September 12 October 10, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. The summary and verbatim minutes are Attachment 8 of this packet. Since this request was first presented to the Planning Commission and City Council staff noticed some inaccurate data on the as -built survey. This report has been revised to reflect accurate calculations. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86h Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4,3 1.77% (which represents 642 24 268.63 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29 �3 26.77%. Lake Susan :: ' ORRIS ii ORRIS APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. Rice Marsh (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage. structure height, etc. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance T9 September. 42 October 10, 2005 Page 3 (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,18.0 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 2933 26.77%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as -built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as -built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005. The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek's have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as -built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this variance request. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance july 19 Septembers October 10, 2005 Page 4 After — Mulch Walkway Before — Concrete Sidewalk Revised as -built survev calculation: After — Rock Walkway House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23% In addition to the corrections discussed above, staff recently noticed that the surveyor had incorrectly included that portion of the driveway which lies in the public right-of-way (not on the applicants' property) in the hard cover calculation. The area of driveway located on the applicants' property is actually 995.39 square feet rather than 1,369 square feet as noted on the as - built survey. This erroneously contributed 373.61 square feet, or 2.46% to the hard cover calculations. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19 SegtermbeF-12 October 12, 2005 Page 5 Revised as -built survey calculation #2: House Patio Driveway 2,537.24 sq. ft. 519.00 sq. ft. = 995.39 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,063.63 sq. ft. 26.77% Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as -built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as built sun,ey shows that the heme and diiveway alone ffe at 25.9% (111.24 squffe feet ever- the faar6faum peffait4ed hard eovef). The area of the driveway on the building permit survey totals 896 square feet. The area of the driveway located within the applicants' property lines was actually built at 995.39 as shown on the as -built survey. In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants' interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Patio Retaining Wall/Rock Sidewalk Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance 3uly 19 September -12 October 12, 2005 Page 6 There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. The applicant would need to remove 268.63 square feet of hard cover in order to comply with City ordinance. This could be achieved through removal of patio area, driveway area or a combination of removal from both. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in , the size of the diivewaywould hffe to be Fe"sed by at least 111.24 6"AfA &At At the City Council meeting on September 12, 2005, the City Council tabled this item to provide time for the applicant to work with staff to find alternatives for the resolution of the impervious surface issues. One of the alternatives mentioned was the construction of an infiltration basin on the Kakacek property. An infiltration basin (rain garden) is not recommended in this instance. Chanhassen's soils are typically quite clayey and do not permit large amounts of infiltration to occur. In addition, small, privately owned infiltration basins are often designed and/or constructed improperly. As a result, they often require more maintenance than anticipated and do not perform as well as property owners expect. For these reasons, staff does not recommend infiltration as a condition, should the City Council recommend approval of the hardcover. variance. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. LANDSCAPING The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86th Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance My 19 September 12 October 12, 2005 Page 7 that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Gemmis City Council adopt the following motion: "The Maniiing Commis City Council denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.231.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hand surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance 3W5,-19 Septembers October 12, 2005 Page 8 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." Should the Nanning GewAniss City Council choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the 124afming Genuiiiss City Council adopt the following motion: "The 124mining Geminiss City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23 1.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements" ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped "Received May 6, 2005'. 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As -Built Survey. 8. July 19, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes. gAplan\2005 planning ca \05-18 kakacek valianc6staff report.doc Page 1 of 1 Metzer, Josh From: Larry D. Martin [Imartin2707@hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:05 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; Metzer, Josh Cc: Ginger Kakacek Subject: Troy and Ginger Kakacek Kate and Josh, Just a quick follow-up, I suggested to Troy and Ginger that they make contact with a landscape architect to see what can be done with council's idea for a mitigation measure related to a water garden. Do you know of one that has successfully implemented one in town? We hope to understand what that means by next week and be in contact shortly thereafter. In the meantime, please let me know if there is anything else that you would like us to be ready to talk about at our next meeting. Thanks. Larry D. Martin L.D. Martin & Associates, Ltd. Law Office 2707 Spy Glass Drive Chaska, MN 55318.1181 Land Line: 952.856.5511 Direct Dial: 612.810.2905 Fax: 952.448.4691 Imartin2707@hotmail.com Confidentiality notice: Information in this message and/or attachment(s), is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the message, and return any hard copy print-outs. No legal advice is being provided or implied via this communication unless you are a client of the sender and an intended recipient. Thank you. WlWN)OS PID# 257410040 r4 r Nap Cnvxd by Carter Caovr ys QS Dffis Legend Parcel[nfornadon Rose Ten property Address Owner Information: US Hitharys 80 86TR ST W TROY A & VIRGINIA L ICAKACEIC CRANHA.SSEN, MN 380 86TH ST W M Ngln ys CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 N CSAR OWret Properties Caway RWA GIS Acres: 0.35 Residential Year Built: 2004 U4, ��: N Residential Footprint Sq Ft: 1502 Parcels ISchool District: 0112 aaml Phgo 2NI7 IParcel Location Section: 13 t: 004 Towarhip: 116 Black. 001 Range: 023 tuame: RICE t -MM MANOR SECOND ADDN [Payable Year 2006 t sale yformadon Fe Date: 10127!2003 [.L L MmkN VeNe Lad: $105400 prim: $10(1000 t. Market Value Building: $286400 liOedyllnqualifted: UNQUALIFIED SALE Map Crated: 54200.5 Mmtret Velma Total: $3918110 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAMER: This map was created using Carver County's Gmgraphic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County. State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as reference. Carver County is not responsibl. for any inaccuracies contained herein. L. D. MARTN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. LAw OFFICE September 9, 2005 Tom Furlong, Mayor Bethany Tjomhom, Councilmember Steve Labatt, Councilmember Brian Lundquist, Councihnember Craig Peterson, Councilmember Re: CASE #: 05-18 Sent Via Electronic Mail City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN, 55317 Applicant: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor and Council Members, This matter is an appeal from the planning commission's recommendation to deny the above referenced variance request. The matter was heard by the planning commission on July 19, 2005. This letter is written to provide supplemental background information for your consideration when hearing the appeal. Introduction Due to a series of miscommunications with City Staff, the applicant, Troy and Ginger Kakacek ("Troy and Ginger") exceeded the hard surface requirement for improvement to their property. Table One summarizes the hard surface improvements by square foot area, as a percent of total lot area and cumulatively. The application originally requested an 890.24 square foot variance to allow for all of the improvements constructed. However, after consulting with Staff, Troy and Ginger decided to eliminate the sidewalk areas from the request thereby reducing the variance request to 642.24 square feet and less than 5% of the total lot area. The areas of the improvements are summarized in Table One Below. 2707 Spy GLASs DRIVE C CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 ❑ OFFICE: 952.856.5511 ❑ FAx: 952.448.4691 Imartin2707Qhotmai1.wm Table One L. D. MARTrN & AssocrATas, LTD. S.F. Under Under House and Gar. 2.537.24 2.537.24 3.795.00 1.257.76 0.1671 0.25 0.083 Driveway 1,369.00 3,906.24 3,795.00 (111.24) 0.2573 0.25 -0.007 Patio 519.00 4,425.24 3,795.00 (630.24) 0.2915 0.25 -0.042 Retaining Wall 12.00 4,43724 3,795.00 (64224) 0.2923 0.25 •0.042 Sidewalk 248.00 4,685.24 3,795.00 (890.24) 0.3086 0.25 -0.059 Opposition There is no neighborhood opposition to this variance request. The only comment from the neighborhood is in support of the request. Staff has recommended denial of the request; however, staff has also provided alternative motion language to approve the request. Background Facts Until recently and subsequent to the construction of Troy and Ginger's home, the City did not review hard surface requirements in a consistent manner with permit applications. After the miscommunication in this project, City procedures have been revised so that hard surface limits are determined early in the process. When designing their home, Troy and Ginger anticipated adding a sun porch and patio to the rear elevation. Troy and Ginger reviewed these plans with Staff. At the time that the home plans were reviewed with Staff, the City did not raise the issue of hard cover. With respect to the future improvements, the only issue raised related to a footing change required on the future screen porch which required a drawing change at a cost of approximately $200.00. Of course, based upon the hard surface requirements, the screen porch was not even allowable. The home at 380 West 86'" Street was completed and ready for occupancy in early 2004. At that time, the landscaping was not complete and Troy and Ginger's main contractor was not responsible for the landscaping. Troy and Ginger were aware that they had an obligation to complete the landscaping within 6 month of receiving their certificate of occupancy and as part of their landscape project decided to include a patio constructed of pavers. Before beginning work on the landscaping, two inquiries were made to City Staff as to whether any approvals were necessary for their landscaping and both inquiries specifically raised the issue of whether a permit was needed for the patio project. A discussion was held on July 21, 2004 with City regarding the landscape requirements. A follow-up discussion took place on July 28, 2004 regarding landscape requirements. At both meetings, it was confirmed that a permit was not necessary for the patio project. In addition to the first two inquiries regarding necessary approvals to construct the patio, a third inquiry was made by Ginger and Troy's contractor, Mr. Jerry Tolzmen of Contour L. D. MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Solutions. Before beginning work in the summer of 2004, Mr. Tolzman also made an inquiry to the City regarding permit approvals and was informed that the construction of a patio did not require a permit within the City of Chanhassen. After receiving these assurances, Troy and Ginger implemented their landscape project. If Troy and Ginger would have been timely informed of the impervious surface issues that arise during any one of the three visits with staff on the landscape and patio project, Troy and Ginger would have installed a wood deck instead of a paver patio. Requested Action Troy and Ginger request that the Council approve the variance in the amount of 643 square feet or 4.3% based upon the following: (1) the miscommunication that occurred related to the hard surface requirements has resulted in a hardship in that existing improvements will be wasted if not approved; (2) there is no opposition to the variance request; (3) neighbors to the Property have voiced their opinion in favor of the variance and have volunteered their excess land area in support of the hard surface requirement; (4) no harm can result from the improvements; (5) the variance does not result in a burden to any view of any adjoining property; and (6) the variance does not encroach on any setback requirement enjoyed by an adjoining property or otherwise. Therefore, we are requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution consistent with Staffs alternative recommended motion to the planning commission which read as follows: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." Findings of Fact There are factual elements for the City to consider when evaluating a variance request. City Staff prepared proposed findings of fact to the Planning Commission. To the extent that alternative findings are necessary, we propose the following modifications: (a) Literal enforcement causes undue hardship Staff Finding Staff recommendation, literal enforcement does not cause an undue hardship. Because applicant has house and two car garage. Revised Finding Literal enforcement, because of the miscommunication between applicant and staff, does cause an undue hardship. Because of the miscommunication, expenditures were made L. D. MARTIN & Assoc1ATFs, LTD. that would not have otherwise occurred. (note: the subject property has a three car gage) (b) conditions are not applicable to other property, generally, in zoning district. Staff Finding 25% requirement applies to all property in the district. Revised Finding Due to miscommunication the conditions applicable in this case do not apply to other property in the district. (c) p=ose of variance is based upon desire to increase value or income potential of property- Staff o e Staff Finding Improvements increase value of property Revised Finding It is not the motivation of applicant to achieve monetary gain; rather, the variance request is based upon a desire to avoid unnecessary waste and financial loss due to miscommunication with city staff. (d) the alleged hardship is not self-created Staff Finding Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Revised Finding Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed after a miscommunication with staff regarding permit requirements for hard surface improvements. (e) the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood Staff Finding The granting of a variance maybe detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to increased runoff. Revised Finding Any runoff created by the additional 643 square feet of hard surface will not be detrimental to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. 0 L. D. MARTw & AssociATas, LTD. M light, air, street congestion Staff Finding The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Revised Finding No change. Conclusion When making your decision on this variance request, please consider the discussion above. But when you boil the issue down, we believe there are really three factors that are key to your decision: As staff has pointed out, a variance request is a quasi-judicial decision and you have broad discretion. In other words, you decide what is fair. The neighborhood reaction to the request is only positive. There are no negative comments. The only harm will result is if you deny the variance. The issue before you is relatively small, 623 square feet is a nominal amount of hard surface. No harm will come by the granting of the variance. In the contrary, if you do not grant the variance, Ginger and Troy will be harmed by the waste that will result. We will be available at the meeting of the Council to answer questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully Submitted, Larry D. Martin, for L.D. Martin and Associates, Ltd. City Council Meeting — SepTember 12, 2005 • p5 d. Resolution#2005-74: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 04-05. V e. Resolution#2005-75: Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01. g. Resolution#2005-76: Resolution Decertifying Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #6. h. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T -Mobile. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Meier: Good evening Mayor, members. I'm Tom Meier from 695 Pleasant View and I just wanted to reiterate on the McCord issue and David Sanford on the alteration permit. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Meier, if you'd like we can pick up your comments at that time on the agenda if that'd be okay. Tom Meier: That'd be great. Mayor Furlong: Do you mind waiting? That way we can take it in context. Tom Meier: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address the council this evening during visitor presentations? Seeing none then, we offer this opportunity at every meeting so people watching at home are welcome to come as well. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item, located on Tigua Lane, just off of 101, appeared before the Planning Commission. There is some length of time inbetween. The applicants had requested additional time to work through some issues and then also the time it appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council based on length of some agendas, but this item did appear before the Planning Commission and they recommended 6-0 denial. That is why it's in front of you tonight. Again subject site, this is a recently created subdivision of an existing large lot. The applicant did appear, apply for a building permit and this was the original survey. I have one that's colored a little bit better but I just want to go through. This was the original survey that was submitted. I do believe you all received a letter from Mr. Martin, the attorney regarding some of the issues in the kind of time date issues. I do believe all of you were emailed that. There's a lot of he said, she said and I'm not going to go into those. I'm just going to present the facts as the staff saw them and how we approached the permit. So it came in and the 2 SCANNED 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 porch and the driveway were recommended to be changed. It was our position it was over the 25%. Obviously there's a different perspective on that and it was asked to be re -surveyed. And the revised survey included the reduction of the driveway to meet the ordinance which requires 24 feet at the street and the porch was removed. So the permit was issued, and this one is colored so it's easier to see. Based on this survey right here which again, there was no porch or patio and the revised driveway. As now required as -built surveys are all required on all new, or after the home is constructed. Which when it was completed in March, so typically in March it may not have all the things done but the survey was completed later in the summer after the escrow was requested. At that time it was noted that this was what was shown on the survey. So the driveway, additional concrete and a patio so again we're over the impervious percentage. So when it came in for the as -built survey it was noted that was a non-compliance. Sent the letter and that's what started the variance process. So they have made some changes and those are noted in the staff report ... the impervious surface. Specifically mulch face down the gravel portion here. They have concrete here but then gravel around to the back. And then they still have a concrete driveway in the back. Originally on the porch, the porch if it was raised above grade with grass underneath that wouldn't count towards the impervious so they still have the ability to put a porch on that wouldn't require a variance again because there'd be grass underneath. Again the goal is to provide an area for that water, it's a capacity issue. But we're still over 600 square feet and that's where the Planning Commission struggled. It is onerous obviously to take out the patio and, which is the 500 square feet approximately, and then maybe another 170 feet of the driveway. So to get it to the 25%. So again there's a lot of detail in the staff report on what the staff believes was the process, and certainly the applicant believes in their due diligence that they proceeded the right way. I'll just rely on what we saw as the survey as submitted and the as-built's. So again the Planning Commission did recommend 6 -no denial. We have put conditions in the staff report. Findings and recommendations either way and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'm not sure if this is a question for you Kate or for Lori. These paver patios seem to always kick up trouble it seems like. People think they're fine and now all of a sudden they find out, no. They can't have it. Is there a paver that they can use that you would allow and not count against them for their hard surface coverage? Lori Haak: I'm not particularly familiar with this site, but at present there isn't a paver that staff counts against that hard surface coverage so at this time no, there is not. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do we have dates on those surveys or revised surveys somewhere that references in the permit which drawing was used to generate the permit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The original survey is October 23rd and then the revised ones that were signed off were November 17th. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And does it somewhere reference that, November 17" 3 City Council Meeting — Se• ber 12, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: There's two places that we would sign on a permit. One would be on the survey and then one would actually be on the building permit itself. Councilman Lundquist: So the signed survey is the 17`s one? Kate Aanenson: Correct. The one that was approved that went around. And then also there's also a routing form that goes around. And additional comments. There's some changes that were made when the house, the original survey came in and it was slid, moved an arboretum is shown up on here. That was the only thing that was added. But there was some mulch when the building inspector that went out that it was noted that that porch was not approved so the building inspector went out and noted that there was an arboretum that was shown on the site plan that was not, or shown on the survey that was not noted so there's some notes to that effect. That was all dated the 11th. Excuse me the 7s' of November. That the permit was issued, and then again the final, the Certificate of Occupancy were given in March 25`s of '04 but again since it's springtime, typically the as-builts and the concrete work doesn't typically happen til later. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Kate Aanenson: So when the inspector went out those things, probably not, because if they were under snow or were not in place, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, the survey that the permit was issued on, and then the as -built, and particular the size, the building itself. Size of house. The home and then the driveway. It looked like, if I saw that correctly that that really was, that the permit was issued on a driveway in place. No sidewalks from the driveway to the front of the house. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Did the actual driveway that was built a different size than the driveway that was on this plan? I mean it looks like it's going different ways but was the driveway area larger built than what was in the plan for what the survey showed for the permit? Kate Aanenson: It's probably a little bit wider. I think the engineering had it tapering on this side a little bit more soon this one it just cuts across here. Better to just calculate that. That triangle there so it maybe a little bit larger there. I didn't look at the original calculation. The survey's in the staff report how big it is. Mayor Furlong: The staff report shows that the home and driveway together slightly exceed the 25 limit so that's why I was wondering if the permit... Kate Aanenson: Right, I believe this driveway was a little bit narrower. The original survey one. City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • Mayor Furlong: The one that the permit was issued on. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right, it's tapering back over here. They actually tapered it from the other side. You can see this is a straight line with a taper and then this cuts over. Mayor Furlong: So the question then is the width where it tapers and such but. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the applicant here? If they'd like to. Larry Martin: Good evening Mayor and Council members. My name is Larry Martin and I'm here on behalf of Ginger and Troy Kakacek. Ginger and Troy are my niece and nephew. Or niece and nephew in law and I'm here on their behalf this evening to kind of explain the history of this, although in the interest of time I did send out a letter. I don't know if it got to everybody and if you had a chance to look at it. It had, I've got a long version. I've got a short version. I've got a just get right down to the point version and I saw some heads nodding so I'll try to, limit to the short version. Mayor Furlong: I think that's fine. We did have the advantage of the Planning Commission minutes as well so. Lary Martin: Great. Here's the issue as I see it. As it boils down. I give you kind of a factual background of the problem or the genesis from Ginger and Troy's perspective. And of course their concern is you know they tried, you know after they had tried to move forward on the landscaping, their viewpoint is well, they came to the City 3 times to ask about the permits for the pavers and the response was that there is no permits that are necessary for a patio within the city as part of a landscaping project. And that's true. There is no permit that's necessary to put in a patio. And I see that as kind of a procedural glitch within the city's protocol for reviewing landscape applications or approvals. Staff has noted within their report that well, what you should have done is come in for a planning and zoning, or another kind of review. That doesn't necessarily require a permit but it's a kind of review process. But that didn't get communicated to Ginger and Troy and so they moved forward and they made this mistake. Okay, well that's one way of looking at it. Another way that I think is important for you to look at it, as the policy decision makers for the city is that things have been changing in terms of how you regulate this paver problem, and hard surface problem. I came in to take a look at the record, the building file this afternoon to kind of check to see you know how things were checked over time and the calculations for impervious material don't actually show up in the file for the city until the as - built drawing was requested, and so if you take a look at the file and you take a look at the checklist, it never comes up you know any kind of warning that there is a hard surface issue or that you may run afoul of going over that hard surface issue until you get done building. And so I think that's another procedural point that creates some confusion, some ambiguity. And I think it's fair to say that it's not Ginger and Troy's fault. It's not that contractor's fault or that sub- contractor's fault. It's, and it's my understanding that that procedural glitch has been corrected and now when those calculations are done, they're done early in the process so there is no confusion. But here's the significance of it and I think the Mayor kind of pointed that out in the earlier questioning that when you take a look at the, just the home and the driveway, and in this particular survey drawing, this is the one that was approved. They come very close to if not exceeding the hard surface requirement before they even get a sidewalk. You know arguably it City Council Meeting —Septmber 12, 2005 • should have shown up there. Arguably somebody should have anticipated that a sidewalk was going to be needed also. Otherwise you'll have just grass between the driveway and the stoop, but everybody puts a sidewalk in eventually. There should have been some sort of alert to that effect. But that question doesn't even come up or did not at that time even come up within the city process, if you take a look at the permit approval checklist. There is a checklist marked there for drainage but there is no checklist for the 25% hard surface requirement. I think it's fair to say that in the end there was some honest miscommunication that went there. You know I don't want to say that it was staff's fault, but I also don't think it was Troy and Ginger's fault, and so here's kind of where the rubber hits the road. You know the point that I think that's important for you is, and the question is, how harsh do you have to be in this setting? Staff has given you an alternative, two alternative resolutions to pass. One, opposed to the variance request and one in favor of it. In a situation where the landowner really isn't at fault, and I don't think that they are and I think it's fair for you to conclude that they aren't. You know there's really no reason to be strict or harsh, especially in a situation like this where they're actually going to suffer financial harm because of it, unless somebody else is hurt. The staff has listed out 6 variables for you to consider in a variance situation and you know probably the most important one is, is whether or not there's going to be any harm to the neighborhood or any adjoining property owners if you decide to grant this variance. Staff has suggested a finding that well you know we could, it really could generate some harm but not for 600 square feet, You know that's really not a fair finding. I don't think Paul actually made that comment but he's the one who has to be questioned and I suspect that somebody will probably ask him that question, is 600 square feet really the kind of hard surface that's going to cause any damage to anyone of the neighbors if you had a significant rainfall event. When the Planning Commission looked at it they thought, and when they were measuring the order of magnitude they thought well 5% is a lot. I'd say well, you know we started out with a little over 6% variance. We took out the sidewalk. We took out the gravel. We took out some hard surface to bring it down below 5%. About, in fairness to Ginger and Troy and other property owners that might in this situation some day, I think 5% is the wrong way to take a look at it. 5% for a million square foot is a lot of land area. Now all of a sudden you're talking about 50,000 an acre of hard surface, but 600 square feet is not a lot of area and it's not going to do any damage to anyone. Another thing, you know things for you to balance I think that's important as the policy deciders for the city is, you know whether or not anybody is really opposed to it and I don't think anybody's going to speak in opposition to this proposal tonight. And we do have neighbors that are in favor of it. Have commented and the letter from the neighbors is in the record and they've even mentioned that they've got a site that is far in excess of what they need and they're under their 25% hard surface requirement and so there's plenty of land that's not under hard surface to absorb rainfall, so it kind of balances out within the neighborhood. That's the key point that I wanted to make. There's two alternatives before you. I think it's fair to say that there's no reason to be harsh. The other point that of course reason for strictness would be if the property owner were flagrantly violating, knowingly violating the ordinance of the hard surface requirement, and that's not the case here either. There's plenty of facts in the record for you to find alternate good facts and to adopt the resolution approving the variance and that's what our request is. Be happy to address any other facts that are in the letter or any supplemental facts or answer any questions. Ginger and Troy and one of the reasons for the delay in asking for the continuance is they just had a new little baby that's in the hallway too. She will not be commenting but. 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: She did already. Larry Martin: Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? For Mr. Martin. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Martin, have your clients ever talked to any of the neighbors with the excess land about purchasing 700 or 2,800 square feet to bring them back under the amount? Larry Martin: You know we looked at it. We sat down with staff before the July 19i° meeting to explore that issue and to look at some surveys to see if we drew a straight line and tried to make a cut there, to make it work but there's a pool structure, what do you call it? A pump. Filter kind of thing that's in their back yard that's, creates a problem in making a nice, clean cut. Nice, clean property line. We did talk to staff too about maybe a variance but. Not a variance, an easement. Transferring that kind of density but I don't know if Kate ever heard about that suggestion but at least at a junior staff level that was considered to be inappropriate. However we'd certainly be willing to ask the adjoining property owners about the easement issue. I think asking them for a transfer of land that interferes with their existing improvements is a problem. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Other questions of Mr. Martin. In terms of, I asked a question of staff with regard to the two surveys and my question was, recognizing now that the house and driveway exceed the allowable limit, was the driveway built bigger than the original permit survey? Lary Martin: I think that it was. I saw a drawing in the permit file that kind of demonstrated the overlay a little bit bigger on one side and a little bit smaller on the other side. Is there a significant difference? I don't think that's true but I think there is a difference. It clearly, I mean when I looked at it what I did see was that there's, even if the old driveway, the driveway, the house and the garage together prevented us from putting a sidewalk in. Mayor Furlong: So what was submitted with the permit would have met the requirement without any additional impervious surface addition? Larry Martin: That, I don't know if that's true. Mayor Furlong: Or at least not, there wouldn't be enough to allow a sidewalk. Lary Martin: There definitely would not have been enough to allow a sidewalk. The other thing that I should have mentioned too is that with respect to the porch, that was pulled for financial reasons. We never received any information related to hard surface or requirements for pulling improvements because of hard surface requirements. Kate Aanenson: There wouldn't be, no. As I indicated before, a porch because it's raised up off the ground and if there's grass underneath, it wouldn't count towards the hard surface coverage. A deck wouldn't. A porch would. 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Larry Martin: Actually I think our plans didn't call for an elevated porch. It was actually we had some footing problems that they asked us to correct on the drawings so we at the time we anticipated a crawl space. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Ms. Aanenson, you made some comments. Any comments that you have? Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. There was, as I recall there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So I know that we've received the Planning Commission minutes. If there's somebody that, based upon some additional information or would like to provide public comment I'd certainly be willing to listen to that at this time too. If anybody's interested. Okay, thank you. With that, are there any additional questions for staff or should we bring it back to council for discussion and see what it generates. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Related question I guess. Kate, can you give me some sense as to what other cities have as their impervious surface percentage. I mean this has come up more in the last couple years than it has in my 15 years of hanging around here and I don't know whether we're just pure luck of the draw that I'm getting faced with this recently or are we pretty much right on the, right on the average of being 25 or is that due to a DNR thing? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Lori answer some of that but the first part, I don't think we have a rash of these. I think we try really hard to communicate. I think obviously there's a miscommunication and I would agree with Mr. Martin that while it may have been on our part, some of it may have been on their part. I won't disagree with that but the proportionality of the impervious relates to lot size. Every city has a different lot size and so our 25% is what's tied into our comp plan is what we managed to try to reduce the volume of water that's coming off and try to capture it in some of the yards. I don't think we have that many problems within. We really work hard to site the home. You know we talked about some of the bigger homes that we do but the ones that we recently approved, some of the larger homes that are going in, we looked at the bigger lot sizes and we know that anticipating 3 cars is standard now. 3 car garage. Some have gone to 2 car garage at 15,000 so we always work with the developer when they come in to try to figure out what their average square footage of home would be. Again this is pretty comparable. I think most of the ones that we're looking at, that'd be 72. 73 maybe by 40 is a pretty comparable square footage so I don't think that's out of whack. It's those other things that go on afterwards that we don't always have control. They change the garage. They add a patio. That may not have been on the survey or those sort of things. Want to put a hot tub in. A fire pit. Those are kind of the specific issues that kind of come after the fact. Or once the builder is up. This builder has done other work in the city. I think that was some of the Planning Commission's frustration. The communication. What did the builder know that maybe wasn't 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • communicated to the homeowner so it's kind of a two way thing and that happens a lot too. A lot of finger pointing. Who told, who got the information and who didn't, you know I'm not going to dispute that. I think that goes all the way around again for a lot of people's blame but again it's related to lot size so. Plymouth has a different standard for their impervious, as they have a different lot size requirement, as with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Shakopee, they're all different but I don't think our's is more restrictive than anybody else's. Again it's related to each zoning district has a different impervious requirement too. I don't know if you want to add anything to that Lori. Lori Haak: I'm not particularly again familiar with the specific requirements of a municipality but generally it's tied into velocities, water qualities and runoff volume so generally the research most, actually 25 is pretty high for water quality for urban streams. They recommend no more than about 15 to 20 in those sensitive areas so I think again I think we're kind of right in the ballpark but I don't have any specific examples that I can cite. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Told me to pass. Councilman Lundquist: Well it's an interesting dilemma. With all of the things going on, Kate I think. you said the he said, she said going on. I'm encouraged that the applicants had taken some steps to correct a piece of that. I think that shows good faith. Good will and wanting to do the right thing. I mean clearly they didn't invest $1,000 to do that maliciously or you know intentionally to go over that so, I don't see any malice there. But then the other side is, you know generally speaking ignorance or not being aware of ordinances and statutes and things like that is not an excuse to not follow them so ... going over the speed limit you get a ticket. So I guess I'm torn between what we do with this and you know it might only be 4.2. It might only be 600 square feet but the fact is where do you draw the line. You've got to draw the line somewhere. Is it 2%? 5%? 10%? What's the number you have to draw it somewhere but I'm not a real big fan of, you know I've seen the house out there. There's a lot of, you know a couple of new ones out in the area as well that will compliment. I'm not a big fan of asking people to tear up you know well done landscape here so I'm not exactly sure, if there's another alternative as Mr. Martin will ask about the land acquisition and obviously that's going to be several thousand dollars as well so that's another investment, but not really sure that I'm in favor of having it tore up but I'm not sure I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is either so, how's that? Mayor Furlong: Well you've defined the issues I think and... politician. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I too feel similar in that the ultimately the responsibility for following the ordinances is the onus is on the homeowner. I think that unfortunately happened in a negative fashion this way just not understanding and not getting the right questions asked or the questions answered and certainly there is, ultimately you still have to go back to that they are responsible but, and again I agree with Councilman Lundquist. Is there another way to do this? If it was 1% you know I'd be more amenable to do it, right? And we're talking about ranges now so, and I'd maybe pause, maybe push it back to the staff and/or let the applicant and staff work together to find another alternative other than yes or no. I'm open to not being firm at 25% but, and we've had other people in here that have asked for that kind of range and we said no. So I can't in good conscience say alright, yes to this one because they've done similar kinds of s City Council Meeting — SepTember 12, 2005 • things. There's been some confusion and there's been some after the fact accomplishing tasks and putting in patios and we've asked them to tear it up so. But in most of those situations we've found somewhere inbetween. I don't see that I've got that right now so whether or not we can create that tonight. It's only 7:30 and we've got plenty of things, plenty of time to deal with what we've done tonight so I'd be well certainly willing to hear other alternatives. Mayor Furlong: Talk about creating a camel out of committee when you're trying to run your race horse. Ms. Aanenson, a quick question for you. In our ordinance right now, we have what is considered impervious. Is there anything within our ordinance that would allow somebody to gain a credit by some other feature, and I don't even know what that would be. To make the surface more pervious. Is there anything in our ordinance right now that allows that? There's no credit calculation that goes into either, I mean we do I guess, we don't count some things such as landscaping and maybe I'll swing back to the attorney, since everybody's pointing that way. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I apologize I have not seen this lot so I don't know... In other communities when you want extra impervious surface, you do something to absorb more water, for example a rain garden. And I don't know whether or not this makes sense in this location but if you were to have a rain garden here that would absorb more water than just normal industrial yard would, you offset the impervious surface. There are things like that. Mayor Furlong: From a concept standpoint, because I know we've talked about rain gardens and they might have limited affect here with our clay because even if you get down, you know what you're saying is other cities look at it. Roger Knutson: Yeah, do an offset. Can you do anything to capture more water on the lot? Councilman Peterson: We did something similar with a lot on Lake Riley way back, and I can't remember the address. Kate Aanenson: That was lakescape. Lori Haak: And actually that homeowner came back later in the process to request relief from that so actually that was something that was approved by council for a variance and then was repealed by City Council so I guess that's maybe. I'm not sure how long ago it was, so I couldn't say. Mayor Furlong: There's the politician. The issue I think, the issue that we're looking at here and one of the questions was where's the harm? Where's the foul? It's 600 feet. I think the issue is as much we look at it as a council is putting ordinances in place. Asking residents to adhere to those with some sense of fairness and justice and you know the 600 feet doesn't sound like that much but where then is our new line? Is our new line at 30? By default. Is our new line at 35 for the next person that comes in and says well you know, I'm just a little bit over and what I'm struggling here, I'm not, and Councilman Lundquist you raise a good point. I don't think anybody up here likes the idea here that a decision against or to deny the variance request means they might have to take something out. What about our residents that do come in and 10 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 • maybe build something less than what they wanted to because they're adhering to the ordinance? You know with these after the fact variances they're tough because you already see what's there and yet as much as we can I think we have to look at these as if would we have approved this before the fact? Would we have approved this additional hard surface coverage before the fact if they came in asking for the variance and as much as possible put ourselves in that position. I mean as I look at this, you know I've asked about the driveway. It was kind of surprising when I read the report and even the, Mr. Martin's letter that the house and the driveway already exceeded that. This is a standard lot in our city and I've always looked at this 25% relative to our standard lots as a way to measure that and so you know, I think from a compromise standpoint, but for changing the way we do something, and I don't think we necessarily should do that without investigating the ramifications of that, whether that's the ordinance or some other credit or something like that. You know the, if we hold them to the 25, as a council and deny the variance, they're going to have to reduce some of the driveway and take everything out. I mean they've got some nice landscaping. The real issue is the sidewalk along the house to me and the patio. Because of that nice retaining wall that they have around the front and landscaping, that's 12 feet and probably wouldn't show up. Likewise with the driveway. Having somebody take 100 feet off their driveway. It bothers me that a plan submitted and the permit was issued on, and they expanded beyond that. That bothers me and to me I think that's the fault of the builder ultimately and the contractor but again as a property owner that should have control over that. process. I know that as you're building houses, things change and there's you know let's move this here. Let's move this there so, so I find it difficult based upon what other residents have done, both beforehand and Councilman Peterson, as you have said, even from an after the fact. Where's the affect? We've said no. We can't, there should be a hardship there to justify the variance. I don't see it here. I think the, especially coming off the storm we had last week, storm water runoff is an issue that we have to look at and make sure we manage and this is what this is dealing with. It's only 600 feet here. But what about the next one and the next one and next one. Those are the longer term ones that I'm concerned about by going forward. I'd like to see another alternative. Councilman Lundquist had a good one and that's increasing the lot size somehow so that the current improvements reduces a percentage overall. Councilman Peterson: Well, and to Roger's point. I mean I'm not adverse to that either because the 25%, it's a bit squishy in that, I've got to set an example but we wouldn't have allowed a structure, a paver, I mean a wood or a structure patio and now with current technology you put those not wood ones right up against each other. That forms an impervious surface just equal to a paver patio because they don't separate those. They put them, they butt them right up against each other so water is going totally off versus even seeping into the pavers so I question whether or not we could even in good conscience say you can put a structure like that on there too. So I mean there's, yeah I think there's some things that we can do. Whether or not it will work, some kind of feature that's going to be better. If we see the water is going, whether it's the front of the lot or the back of the lot and put in some kind of water garden or whatever that would be that would act better than grass, then you're gaining something. I don't know. At the end of the day I just, and maybe I'm over reacting because we've had 2 or 3 of those in the last year but you know I think that we need to update this or at least look at it and talk about the ramifications of 25% and what are the different options that people can do. City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Well and in response to that, if there are right now staff is interpreting our ordinance, where certain things are 100% impervious and other things are 100% pervious. Obviously the more black and white the ordinance is, the easier it is for residents to know what the rules are and the easier it is for staff to interpret those rules and to apply them because every day is different. So try to keep that but I think we're reviewing our storm water management plan right now. I know I'm going to be interested in getting an update on that later this evening as we talk about it. Given the event of last week, and this may be a time to incorporate that in there as well. So I guess the question is, do we defer the decision on this until that discussion can be had or do we move forward tonight not knowing the length of time it will take to do that and to make some decision as to whether we want to make any changes there or not. And our ramifications if you change the hard surface coverage I assume in terms of our storm water management plan and the capacity and volume and such like that. And I'm assuming all that goes into the engineering studies and the equations for that. I see heads going up and down so let the minutes reflect that is correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Being on Planning Commission this has come up a couple times in the years that I, not long but some of the years I was on the Planning Commission. My biggest beef with this is residents come in and say we asked what we were supposed to do. They said nothing and so you know we tried and we tried. And when they come in and they ask whoever is across the counter, you know do I need a permit for this patio and they said no. And then as an average citizen I wouldn't then go onto know to ask well, how about hard surface coverage and how about this and that because I'm not thinking that way. I'm just thinking oh good, I can get the permit. But we still I don't think have a sheet that we go oh look it. They want to do a deck or a patio here. Look at this. You know here are the check off's you have to cover before you go ahead and do this. I guess that's my biggest beef with this is that it is hard to know what you're supposed to do if you don't know what you're supposed to do. And if they did come in 3 times and tried to do the right thing and they went and thought they did the right thing, I guess I have a hard time telling them now to undo what they thought they had done right the first time. We don't have one of those lists yet do we? Kate Aanenson: Yes we do, as a matter of fact. I'm not going to get into the he said, she said. What conversations... Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, exactly. Kate Aanenson: I'm sympathetic to them. You know the first issue was the sidewalk not being to the driveway. That's one thing I think, that's one error that I think is very obvious that we missed. There should have been a driveway, a sidewalk connecting the front porch to the driveway. In my mind that was an error on our part not to because that's always standard that we would check that. But as far as the conversations that were, you go to 3 different departments. Each department gives their information and sometimes you ask the question to get the answer you want too, so you know, and I'm not dismissing that sometimes people don't probe further in 12 0 0 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 that specific division. If you went to building ... no, they'd say talk to planning... We do have handouts. We now require all impervious to be shown on the original permit. That's been done for a number of years so we have con-ected those issues. We're always going to have people asking for variances... Things happen you know. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this issue to give the applicant and staff a chance to consider other alternatives and I think they've got some opinions and thoughts about you know some kind of direction to what we might be looking for given the chance to do that before we make a hard and fast decision and bind them to something that there might be another alternative to. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion's been made. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: ...know the time line issue. Mayor Furlong: That was going to be my question so. Kate Aanenson: They asked if they can get an extension. Mayor Furlong: We need an extension in writing from them. Kate Aanenson: They're fine with that. Mayor Furlong: Can we get that tonight? Lang Martin: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to write something up? Do we need to get that? What is the timeframe here? Kate Aanenson: I believe it was ... tomorrow. Mayor Furlong: Tomorrow, so we should get something now. Mr. Lundquist, if that's okay. Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Before we consider your motion. First, let me ask if there's a second to Councilman Lundquist's motion. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's been seconded so we're in discussing the motion now at this time. Is there any discussion on this motion? Actually a motion to table. We'll hold off discussion. Councilman Peterson: We can talk about the table. 13 City Council Meeting — September 12, 2005 0 Roger Knutson: I'm satisfied they're going to sign it. Mayor Furlong: Very good. There you go. I like the parliamentary order. The motion's been made to table. It's been seconded to give staff and the applicant time to work out some alternatives, given the comments this evening. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table Planning Case #05-18, hard cover variance request for Troy and Virginia Kakacek at 380 West 86'e Street in order to give staff and the applicant time to explore alternative solutions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. MARIANNE MCCORD & DAVID SANFORD, 6440 FOX PATH, PLANNING CASE 05- 22, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY AND DOCK. Public Present: Name Address David Sanford Michael P. & Debbie Haydock Mary Hoffman Tom & Sue Huberty Terry Vogt Charles Brown Tom Meier 6440 Fox Path 6460 Fox Path 6470 Fox Path 6450 Fox Path 732 Lake Point 1439 Tennessee, Minneapolis 695 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak: Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. As the mayor indicated this is an application for the wetland alteration permit at 6440 Fox Path, which is Lot 9, Block 1, Fox Chase Subdivision. The applicant is for the construction of a dock through a wetland area to access Lotus Lake. You can see the subject property on the map. On the north side of the lake is Pleasant View Road. Just off the west side of, or the left side of the paper is Powers Boulevard so just to orient folks. Typically wetland alteration permits that we see here are straight forward. However as is quite common with a planned unit development such as this one, a conservation easement has been recorded on several of these properties. The conservation easement covers all of the land within the subdivision below 900 feet which is shown on one of our other attachments. There's one, sorry. Okay, pull it down. The conservation easement, the 900 foot elevation is shown in green on this survey. And the ordinary high water mark for Lotus Lake which is 896. Actually this is the 896 contour. It's not actually the ordinary high water mark, is shown in blue on that plan sheet there. As I indicated the conservation easement covers all the land below 900 feet and encumbers parts of Lot 7 through 19. And again the subject property is Lot 9, which is indicated in orange. The easement prohibits docks except on Lots 16 through 19 which are on the southern part or the bottom part of the plan. Lot 16 has a dock that's shared by 7 properties. Lots 10 through 16, and that's basically the lots south of the subject property and the next 6 lots. So there's a shared dock that is used by 7 property owners, and then Lots 17, 18, and 19, which are the final 3 lots there, each have their own docks and if we can pull up the aerial photo I believe we can see why. The wetland, actually if you orient it so north is at the 14 hk- CA, N P)F s� 5 We 0 0 R� � 7s i v C- y A H INt x N5 E- c N S �� TO Ac� —i ri l r I\ V �� -Ail cc c:;-tz� 77oo Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY Of CHANHASSEN PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE 21355.13. AREA REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITATIONS: The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an RSF-1 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this Chapter: District Lot Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Area Area Lot Width Lot Depth Structural Setbacks Building Minimum Minimum (feet) (feet) Coverage (a) (feet) (a) Height I acre Single 18,500 Single 110 none Resi- 30% Front(b)— 50 Prin. 35 ft family sq. ft. family dential single Bldg detached detached single family family detached Other l acre Other 200 Non- Front (c) — 25 Ace. 10 uses uses Resi- 50% single Bldg feet denial family 120 uses detached sq. ft. or less Front(d)— 50 Ace. 15 other Bldg feet principal over uses 120 sq. ft.' Dwelling to 50 railroad fight -of -way Side— 15 single family detached Side— 25 other principal uses Side— 6 detached accessory uses Rear — 25 single family detached Rear— 40 other uses Rear — 6 detached accesso (a) Special requirements for environmental overlay districts - See appropriate text (b) Abutting an arterial street (c) Applies to each street frontage other than an arterial street (d) Applies to each street frontage (Amended by Ord. No. 2002-02, 01/22/02) (Amended by Ord. No. 2002-32, 11/26/02) 21355-6 Kurt D. Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 May 4, 2005 To: City of Chanhassen From: Kurt & Lynne Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN Subject: 380 West 86`s Street Chanhassen, MN. RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Our backyard joins the backyard of Mr. & Mrs. Kakacek. The patio they had installed last year compliments their backyard and adds to the functionality of their home. We do not object to this patio in anyway and believe it is a nice addition to their home and yard. Our lot is connected along their entire rear property line is one acre in size and affords an abundance of green space. It would seem sensible to allow the Kakacek's to retain their patio. Tha ou, aj�z T7 & Lyme Miller SCAUMo 0 CITY OF CIIMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 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 A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Sue www ci.chanhassen.mn,us Ixk 1 qu m:7_\21 b18Ju 1 TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: May 17, 2005 SLTBJ: Hardcover variance at 380 W. 86's Street The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor, 2°d Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of the subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have 2 trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 W. 8e Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. I recommend that the landscaping requirement for the lot be added as a condition of approval for approving the variance for this lot. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A geat place to live. work. and play. d E CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 0 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet CS -18 STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Matt Wessale Dave Johnson PUBLIC HEARING: 05-18. Public Present: 9350 Gary Avenue, Waconia 219 W. 82°d Street Name Address Larry Martin Ginger & Troy Kakacek 2707 Spy Glass Drive 380 West 860' Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone on the commission have any questions at this time? Larson: Yeah. I've looked at this... Is it on? Hello. When this came up before, you know I understand that they didn't pull the permit to do the extra patio. Is it that large of an issue? I mean we've gotten letters and things from some of the neighbors. They don't seem to be opposed to it. What is the main problem with this because the way I see it, as it is, it looks like a nice improvement. It's not a detrimental looking improvement to the home. So is the problem because of the surface water? Metzer: Right. This home's located in a single family residential district and they are limited to 25% hard cover for the whole property. If they're over that, they either have to bring it to compliance or we end up here with the variance process. We as staff can't be subjective about it. • • Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larson: Okay. So the main issue we're dealing with here is the fact that maybe their lot is smaller than maybe others in the neighborhood. Metzer: Right, but the fact remains that they have to comply with the 25%. Larson: Okay, thank you. That's all I have. McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Zom: Josh I have a question. Metzer: Yes. Zorn: In order to come into compliance you need to, for hard cover surface, surface ratio needs to be 25% or less. Metzer: Right. Zorn: And on page 4 of the report indicates that as the survey had shows that the home and driveway alone are 25.8. Have you discussed with the homeowners ways to rectify that? Or what an option would be... Metzer: The only option would be to remove part of the driveway. Shave off some edge of the driveway. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: It's not that significant. 111 square feet. If you took a strip along the edge of the driveway you should be able to accomplish that. Zorn: Okay. Papke: What's the style of the house? Is it two story, rambler? Metzer: It's a two story. Papke: It's a two story. So it's almost a 2,600 square foot foundation, two story house. That's pretty substantial. Keefe: What is the, you said that the homeowner came in and asked for, you know consulting with staff in regards to the landscaping. What do we typically communicate to homeowners in regards to landscaping in terms of what they can do and what they can't do? Do we have sort of strict? Metzer: Well I believe the specific question at that time was, and this occurred long ago. The specific question was how close can they come to property lines with landscaping and the answer • Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 • L was, you can landscape anywhere on your property but we encourage you not to, to stay out of the easements in case we have to come in there and do work. The city would not be liable for replacing any landscaping that was removed. Keefe: Right. Do we typically you know recommend any sort of materials or recommend anything in regards to how we landscape? And one of the things if somebody were to come in and say well here's what we're thinking of doing, you know they might say we're thinking about putting in some plantings and whatever and they might include a patio, but maybe they wouldn't, but do we get into those types of. Metzer: It's got to be very case specific I guess. You know it's hard to say. In general if there's an idea that they're going to be placing patio or anything like that, the issue of hard cover would be discussed. Keefe: Okay, so it really just never came up in regards to. Metzer: Apparently not. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Metzer: I can't say first hand so. Keefe: Right. McDonald: Anyone else? I guess I've got a couple of questions for you. On the patio you had talked in here about maybe alternatives. If they were to put a deck up, does that begin to alleviate the problems and if so, are there special considerations there as far as the under foundation of a deck or anything? Metzer: As long as, we don't consider a deck to be hard covered if there's no hard cover underneath. If it's soil or some sort of landscaping with a fabric layer, we don't consider that hard cover. McDonald: Okay. On the, there was another thing in here that I'm a little confused about and that's the drawings that were submitted. And correct me if I'm wrong but as I read this it sounds as though the owner had one set which may have had these layouts on it. You had another set that did not have these on it and what we approved as far as I guess the final approval were the drawings in your possession. What happened? Metzer: The big issue with the difference in the drawings was the driveway. The shape and size of the driveway. What the city received in the permit package was the first drawing that I put up there. You can see the difference in the driveway there. This was submitted as a part of the building permit process and this is what we received as an as -built survey, and the applicant informed us that this was what they had in mind the whole time. So that's where the confusion came across as far as we know. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Undestad: The submitted one was the 25% hard cover, is that right? The permit? Metzer: I believe it was the 24 point some odd percent. McDonald: Any further questions? Keefe: Just to be clear on this. The driveway on the right looks like it's more like a lane and a half coming in from the curb. Then widens out to the two lanes, and is it a two stall or three stall? Three right and then the one that you received or approved did not include the patio coverage or the sidewalk coverage. Metzer: Right. The survey on the left was, we require as -built surveys for after homes are built so this was the survey on the left was an after the fact. Keefe: And the one on the right doesn't have either sidewalk or patio and had the reduced driveway. Metzer: Right. Keefe: And that meets, it just barely meets the cover at 24.8. Okay. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Any other questions? Zom: I do have one more. As a new home builder myself, during the process when we were working with our lot and the way the house would sit, I don't recall our builder indicating at all concern about size and this hard coverage surface ratio. Is there, do you encourage builders to talk with their clients as they move forward? Just thinking that that might have resolved a lot of confusion... Metzer: Well I know builders are made aware of the hard surface restrictions in their zone that they're building in. Zorn: Okay. Generous: Well it's a requirement on the design now that they give us those calculations. Zom: And that will likely help a lot. Generous: Yes. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Okay. And with that are the homeowners here? Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 • Larry Martin: Good evening Chairman McDonald, commissioners. My name's Larry Martin. I'm here on behalf of the homeowners this evening. My address is 2707 Spy Glass Drive and I'd like to address this issue for the homeowners. The commission asked, you know what is the procedural posture for this evening and the answer that was referenced is correct. It is in the alternative that there's two possibilities at the end of this process, after you make a recommendation to City Council. City Council can either grant the variance, based on your recommendation or deny the variance and once the variance is denied, if the variance is denied, then those hard surface improvements will have to be removed. If the variance is granted, those improvements can remain and the variance runs with the property and so there will always be an exception for that piece of property that they'll be allowed a 30% hard surface coverage, based upon that variance. And that's the reason we're here tonight is to ask for that variance. The back drop, the question you had of staff is very good review of kind of the key issues, but as you focus on this variance request, really what you need to kind of key in on are the 6 elements that staff has outlined for you in their staff report. I think you'll find that on page 6, it's listed as items a through f, and I think when you page down and take a look at item f, well there's really no dispute there. I think item f is the one that talks about light and view and that kind of thing, and interfering with your neighbor's property. Well that's not a concern. There's no dispute about that. However, there is a little bit of a disagreement on each and every one of the rest of the elements and so what I'd like to do is take a little bit of time and talk to you about those and explain to you why you can make findings that are reasonable and make a recommendation to City Council that this variance would be okay. And what I'd like to do rather than starting with a is kind of go down the line a little bit to item d, which is whether or not the hardship, the purported hardship is one that's self created. That's kind of an important issue when it comes to variances and Planning Commissions generally spend a lot of time on that. One, it's kind of like well are they making their own problem. In this case staff is saying that yes, this was a self created problem because the applicant should have made a request for a zoning compliance review, and if they had done that then this problem wouldn't have occurred. And that's a fair observation but the commissioners need a little bit more of a back drop to the history of this so they can understand how things, how the miscommunication occurred. Now we're not here to say the staff did anything wrong. We don't think we did anything wrong either, but we got caught in a sideways position here and that's why we're seeking your help. Those surveys that were presented to the building department and the planning department a while back and when the application was first made do not show the patio but I think that the actual building plans show a patio and actually the future expansion of a, I don't know if it's a porch or 3 season or screened porch. Maybe if I could ask for your assistance so I do this right. What the file should have, or we didn't compare this to the file. The file didn't have these plans along with future patio, future patio, four season porch, hot tub... Well of course under the hard surface requirement, none of that's going in. However, we did set out very early on disclosing that these future plans were intended. My clients recollect it very well because there was an issue with the proposed footings for the four season porch that had to be revised. I guess it was a $200 cost revision for making that footing revision. However when they actually came in to build the house it was decided they couldn't afford all that and so it was pulled back and they just decided to build it without the four season porch and without the patios for now. After that, and I think it was something like the end of 2004. End of 2003 when the house was being completed, when well there was a 6 month time period when the landscaping had to be completed and at the end of the 6 months they knew they had to have all the landscaping in. They decided well you know 5 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 what, maybe we should put in the patio now as long as we're putting in the landscaping. The applicant came to the city and met with them two times in July to talk to them about the patio and the landscaping and it was specifically a question of whether or not they needed any permits for the patio. And of course the city code at that time, and I think it's still true today, you don't need a permit for the patio. So there wasn't a triggering event for a review. And so that's really where the miscommunication is and that's kind of what generates a problem. But anyway, not only did they come in twice in July to ask about the permit process and whether or not one was necessary or what they needed to do, including the patio, but their developer came in after. Not developer but their builder also checked to see whether or not he needed a permit to put in the patio. And of course the response was no. You don't need one in the city of Chanhassen to get a patio built. What you do need is a planning review. Well, I don't know if you necessarily need it because there's no permit that you have to take out for it. But arguably because of this result you do need to come in and talk to staff about it and get permission. Otherwise you get in the situation that we're in. However when you go to the counter and talk to people about it, they say you don't need a permit. Well it sounds like staff's kind of worked that all out and you're required to show calculations to prove your hard surface requirement is met or that you're not exceeding it. But we were caught in that gray area where things weren't explained quite so well. Now, that's all important back drop to this item d. The alleged hardship is not being self created. Well, you know who's fault is it? I don't think it's my clients fault, and I don't want to say it's staff fault either, but there was a point in time when things where a little bit gray about what you needed to do to put in a patio. You didn't need a permit. But a zoning compliance review would have been really good if somebody had told us that we needed to do that. If they would have told us, then they would have built a deck. Now we've got the patio and that's a problem, and tearing it out now is a hardship after all this is said and done because there's a significant amount of money that's invested in it. Okay, so that's kind of the critical juncture where things went awry. Now is that a hardship created by them? I don't think so but you know that's a finding of fact for you to make and make a recommendation to the City Council on. But then after you decide that, if you decide that that's not self created, then the rest of the elements I think are a little bit easier for you and so like for a, literal enforcement causes undue hardship. Well, if the hardship is based upon a miscommunication with staff and it's really not the applicant's fault and here they are in a situation where they spent a lot of money on an improvement and if you go the wrong way on this and don't grant them the variance and they have to tear it out, they've lost a lot of money and if you lose money, that's a hardship and if it's a lot of money, it's an undue hardship. And in this case I think we're talking about an investment of about $6,000. That's going to be painful if they have to do that. Item number b. Conditions are applicable to other property generally in the zoning district. Well what staff is saying is true there. Certainly the 25% requirement is a requirement of each and every property within the zoning district that they're in. However, the special condition that applies in this variance request is that it's the miscommunication is the condition or the event that creates the hardship that creates the problem. Is the miscommunication and the unfortunate circumstances that arise because of it the same thing for each and every property and the jurisdiction? Or in that zoning district. The answer is no. I mean this is going to be one, you know hopefully you won't see a whole lot more of these pop up but when they do come up, it's a good thing to help your neighbor out on when things have gone awry. It won't be an overriding problem with a bunch of property in the zoning district. C. Is the purpose of the variance based upon a desire to increase value or income potential for the property? Well certainly there's an investment in those improvements. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 • However this is a motivational element. You know what's the purpose of the desire or the intent of the applicant once they achieve it? Well it's not a money making thing that they're working on. What they want to do is avoid losing money that arises back again from that miscommunication. And so I think staff's proposed finding there is a little bit too strong, and it's more to avoid loss than it is to seek gain. And that brings me back to that item d which is the not self created issue that I started the discussion out with. Commissioners, the light and air problem is not an argument, point of argument with staff. And I want to say again is that there was, I think it's clear that there was a gray area in how they should have been treated a while ago. That's something that happens frequently in cities and I don't think anyone's to blame but we strongly request that you give the alternative. Staff's been kind enough to list an alternative decision for you to recommend approval of the variance. We hope that you, to pick that out as your choice this evening and adopt findings of fact consistent with our presentation. There is, this isn't worth mentioning because really, but I just put it on the record so you understand the issue. There's a condition that's been added regarding trees. With respect to trees, I think there is a subdivision condition that requires 2 trees in the front of every lot, and then there's a series of trees that were to be planted in the back of these lots. In my mind there's a little bit of a difference in interpretation on how that applies. But after I reviewed the condition it just says you know comply with the subdivision condition and so if there's a disagreement on how that's to be interpreted, we can work that out. Certainly it's reasonable to require us to comply with the condition of that subdivision because it's already stated. How you interpret it's a different thing. Unless Ginger and Troy have anything to add, we'll answer any questions that you have of us. McDonald: Okay, I'll throw it open to question. Undestad: I just have one question. When you did your initial building permit application, did you talk about the 25% coverages and all that at that time or? So you really had no idea that any of that was going on? Larson: I've got one quick one too. We spoke earlier about possibility just cutting the driveway out. Is that a consideration for your guys? A portion of the driveway which would put you in compliance. Rather than taking out your patio. I understand not wanting to get rid of that but a portion you know. Undestad: I don't think that would work. A sliver would be if they didn't have any other hard surface on there. Their initial plan that was shown on there, their house and driveway was, actually that was over on the 25%. Larson: I mean instead of. McDonald: If they take all the hard surface out except the driveway, you're still over. Papke: So let me ask the converse question. At the end of the day we have to either approve or deny the variance. Would you be willing to accept a variance of .8% that would allow the driveway to remain intact and simply remove the patio? 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 Larry Martin: We definitely would like to have this heard by the City Council. Let me state it this way. When we made the appointment for the initial meeting, there was also a request in the application for a variance to include the sidewalk and the other hard surface areas, and we took a look at that and we said well, you know what. The biggest issue that we have here is the patio. That's where the biggest expenditure is. That's where we were. We got off the beaten path by the miscommunication. We're trying to avoid that loss and so we really want to exhaust all of our potential remedies. Now having said that, what we did try to do when we tabled it and came here tonight is try to eliminate anything that you know is easier to say yes to, and so like if you wanted to say you know, take the sidewalk off. Well we would say yes to that anyway. Or take the gravel pathway out. Well they ask us that, we'll say yes to that. So you know let's just do that before we go ask them for the big item. Because that's really what we want. If there were a way to easily do it structurally to amend the construction of the driveway, it'd be easier to say yes to that too but the thing about that is, it is constructed in such a way that it's not a 2 car garage, as it says in the staff report. It's a 3 car garage and if you don't you know have a minimum amount of dry space to get to that third stall, you know even if you, even if you cut it out, then you're driving over the grass and that gets compacted into a hard surface and becomes an eyesore and we just want to maintain it for reasonable maneuverability. Keefe: I've got one question. Can you go back to the permitting of the patio briefly and restate kind of, I got lost a little bit in regards to what happened there because at least my thinking is that most builders who come in and most patio builders are pretty familiar with coming in to draw a permit for a patio within the city of Chanhassen. Larry Martin: Well that's the confusing part is that Commissioner, Chairman McDonald, Commissioner Keefe. The city doesn't require a permit for a patio and so when people come in and say, do I need a permit for a patio. The city says no. They walk away and say well I can go build my patio. What you need to say in addition to that is, however you might run into a problem if you don't have the zoning compliance review, which technically is a permit but if they don't hear that, they just walk away and figure that they can build it. Now staff has solve that problem because you have to submit your impervious calculations before you draw a permit. So that glitch in the system has been eliminated. But we're still stuck ... was still confusing. Papke: Several questions all related. Was the builder of the patio the same as the builder of the home? Lary Martin: I don't think so. No, it's a different builder. Papke: And did you ask the builder of the patio whether or not he or she was aware of the hard surface coverage? Larry Martin: Actually the builder of the patio came in to ask also about permit requirements and he was told that there weren't any permits needed. Papke: But did you ask him if he was aware of the hard surface coverage limitation within the city of Chanhassen? Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 • Larry Martin: We didn't understand the hard surface requirement until. Papke: Have you asked him since then? Larry Martin: No. I'm assuming not. McDonald: Any other questions from anyone else? Larry Martin: Thank you commissioners. McDonald: Well I've got a question for you. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out this permit thing myself. As to when things happened. The original builder of the house I take it had nothing to do with the patio. The patio was contracted after the house was built? Larry Martin: That's correct Chair. McDonald: Okay. And the builder who did that you're saying was unfamiliar with the zoning compliance review or the fact that there may be other zoning issues that just because he doesn't need a permit for a patio, he may end up needing a permit to be in compliance with our zoning ordinances. He didn't understand all of that. Larry Martin: Well there is no permit requirement. McDonald: There would be no permit requirement but with the zoning compliance review you would have found you didn't meet the 25%, so a builder should have known that while I don't need a patio, I may need to look a little bit further and make sure that there's not something else that's going to jump up and sabotage all of this. Larry Martin: That's true commissioner. If it's reasonable to anticipate that a builder once told that permits are required, should have a reason to believe that a zoning compliance review was necessary. Which seems unlikely to me. That's a little backwards. McDonald: Was this a builder who had done other projects within the city of Chanhassen? Larry Martin: I don't know the answer to that question. Ginger Kakacek: Yeah he's been... McDonald: And he's done projects in other municipalities I take it also? Ginger Kakacek: Yes. McDonald: Then why wouldn't he be aware of the fact that there was probably a zoning compliance that he should have looked at? I could understand where the homeowners may be confused in this. I'm having a problem understanding how a licensed builder would be confused. 0 Planning Commission Meeting —July 19, 2005 Ginger Kakacek: ...where he should put the patio... McDonald: He's still licensed. He is licensed, right? Ginger Kakacek: Yes, he is licensed. McDonald: If he's done, if he does commercial projects he should know. Larry Martin: Quite frankly Chair I've been practicing land use law for 25 years at a broker, appraiser. Worked for cities. Worked for counties. I understand the hard surface requirements. It seems easy for me to see and understand how someone would be confused if they came in for a permit and if the issue about zoning compliance wasn't raised at the time of permit application. That they would think that nothing else would be necessary. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter? Okay, seeing no one else I will bring it back up to the council for discussion. Who wants to start at which end? Papke: Okay, I'll start. I'm opposed to granting this variance for two main reasons. First of all it was partially justified by the applicant that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the hard surface coverage, but the city code clearly spells out that we manage hard surface coverage on a lot by lot basis. To try to manage this across a whole neighborhood would get us into a tar pit of discussions as to how do you allocate the over's and under's and all that kind of good stuff. So clearly from my perspective the fact that the neighbors don't come close to exceeding the coverage is no, is not a valid argument. The other one is the argument as to the hardship nature of the request, and this is similar to some of the other ones that we've discussed in the past, that as as -built situation, just because someone has built the structure or put in the patio, that does not, and having no knowledge of the city code restrictions, does not constitute a hardship in retrospect. So I do not see any cause for hardship here. The third argument, or issue is, well I'll leave it at that. That's probably enough said, thanks. McDonald: Debbie. Zorn: I also would not recommend this variance for the same reasons as Kurt. I've been through that process of the home building recently and I know it's a difficult situation and I feel for this homeowner but I think it would be very hard for us to continue to be confronted with variances throughout the city. And I am very pleased that there are some alternatives that the city is recommending and if considering a.8 variance might, probably wouldn't be something we would recommend. Possibly so, but I guess that's something for a discussion for another time. Papke: I've got one additional comment. Yeah, the third issue reoccurred to me. The other issue surrounds the zoning compliance process and the applicant stated that this is new and so they weren't aware of it at the time but one has to recall why this was originally implemented and I haven't been around that long but I've been around long enough to been a part of the initiation of that process and the zoning compliance process is there specifically to help avoid ti «-L, Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 • these kinds of situations as a communications tool. It's not a requirement that we put on people to add extra work or there's no extra rules there. It's just specifically to help avoid these kinds of situations and help eliminate communication miscues and so the fact that this occurred during the time period within which that was being implemented, okay so we're improving the process but that doesn't necessarily excuse the lack of knowledge of the city code. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I'm trying to find a hardship here and I think despite what the applicant came up and said in regards to letter d, I'm just not quite therein regards to buying into that. Our job is really to you know enforce the code and we can potentially grant a variance here if we find a hardship but I'm just having a hard time getting over that threshold and I feel for the applicant but I think our job is really to, you know we're here to interpret and I think you've got to take it to the next step so I would deny this. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: My main issue with this is the whole reason these rules are put in place is because of the, to keep Chanhassen and to keep the water and all that in compliance or just to make sure that the land doesn't get messed up in case we have a big water event or whatever. And yes it's a hardship but it's also that if you have to tear this out, all the money that was wasted going into this. However, like everybody else has said, lack of knowledge is not necessarily an excuse. I feel bad that it wasn't spelled out to you as clearly as it possibly should have, but again I think too your builder, your original architect, everybody that was submitting plans and they ... had known. The fact that it was put in there as a potential on your original plan isn't saying that it's actually going to be done because that would be an issue that would be brought up later. So unfortunately I would have to suggest denial on this as well. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No comments. McDonald: I guess the only comments that I will make, I don't want to repeat what everybody has said but you're asking for a big variance. 4.8%. While that may not seem like a big variance, we've had people in here before that have asked for less than that and we've sent them back to the drawing board. These rules are in there for a reason. Again what I go back to is that you had a licensed contractor do this. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are code compliant. They have a liability to do that as a duty to you so I just, I have a problem granting the variance. I would probably be more likely to grant the variance on the driveway because you do make some good points there, but as far as the patio, it's not as though we're going to be taking away your back yard. It's not as though we're going to be taking away your patio. You can put a deck out there and it's the same thing. You will still be able to use your back yard. So based upon that, I guess I would throw it open for a recommendation. Papke: Before we make a motion do we want, based upon what the applicant has heard, do we want to give them one last opportunity to amend their application? 11 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 19, 2005 McDonald: I will advance that courtesy to them, if they wish to amend their application. Larry Martin: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Then I will throw it open for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements and to plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. McDonald: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on the lot zoned single family residential, RSF based upon the findings in the staff report and the following. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Therefore the Planning Commission orders the property owner to: Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant 3 trees to meet subdivision requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD -R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 12 L. D. MARTIN & ASSocuns, LTD. LAW OFFICE August 12, 2005 Sent Via United States Mail Josh Metzer, Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Case: Troy and Virginia Kakacek Type Variance Request Dear Josh, This letter is a follow-up to our exchange of emails confirming that, pursuant to your request, I have agreed that the appeal to City Council, on the Kakacek variance request, will be continued to the September 12 City Council meeting. Accordingly, it is requested that the review period be extended to September 13. Please call if there are any questions related to this continuance. Sincerely, 4d/44ZL.— Larry D. Martin, for L.D. Martin and Associates, Ltd. Copy: Troy and Virginia Kakacek 2707 Spy Guss DRIVE -: CNAS",MPINFSOTA 55318 ❑ OFFicE:952.856.5511 ❑ FAx:952.448A691 Imanin2707@hot=i1.wm L. D. MARm & ASSOCIATES, LTD. LAw OFFICE August 5, 2005 Sent Via United States Mail Josh Metzer, Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Case: Troy and Virginia Kakacek Type Variance Request Dear Josh, This letter is a follow-up to our exchange of emails confirming that pursuant to my request, the appeal to City Council will on the Kakacek variance request will be continued to the August 23, City Council meeting. Please call if there are any questions related to this continuance. Sincerely, 4 d104 &I � - Larry D. Martin, for L.D. Martin and Associates, Ltd. Copy: Troy and Virginia Kakacek 2707 Spy Goss DRrve ❑ COAsxA, Aft�TA 55318 ❑ OPf7C@ 952.856.5511 ❑ FAX: 952.448.4691 Finartm2707QLobnail. Y (z J i C t G V r (.� N V i 0- 0 a a�a `baa Ission Hills Lane B in aha 20 V e 3 2 � z StW o` c ti 0yi1 i C U) �lry C �y Y ct3 J STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in tt Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. The sidewalks and patio have LOCATION APPLICANT: been built. Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2"d Addition 380 West 86t Street ? k - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) L 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in tt Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86d' Street. The sidewalks and patio have been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 380 West 861h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86d' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2-4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19, 2005 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86`s Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.23% (which represents 642.24 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29.23%. Lake Susan MarsNand T4 :: 0 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. Rice Marsh Subject Site VA -V2 (a) Zoning compliance review shall he required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19, 2005 Page 3 Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, Lrmvel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. (20) BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2d Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as -built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as -built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005. The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek's have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as -built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this variance request. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19, 2005 Page 4 Before - Concrete Sidewalk Revised as -built survev calculation: After — Rock Walkway House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23% In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants' interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as -built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as -built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.8% (111.24 square feet over the maximum permitted hard cover). ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sidewalks and patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sidewalks and patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 5 There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in order to reach 25%, the size of the driveway would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. Landscauine The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86th Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 6 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. L The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements" Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "Me Planning Commission approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped "Received May 6, 2005". 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As -Built Survey. gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakac k varianm\staff reportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall — Planning Case No. 05-18. On July 19, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86's Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-18 Variance dated July 19, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the variance from the impervious surface restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 19`s day of July, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Md Planning Commission Chairperson gAplan\2005 planning casw\05-18 kakacek varianceUindings of factdoc PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name and Address: ago W 16 11` Sf-. an hasSer,, MN Contact: V,rze INIA , c eK^ Phone: 952 -90 -201 Fax: 952-993- a lis Email: ko.lU,L_CV @ 12Lkrkn',to lfe-eo Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Planning Case No. 0 � - 18 RECEIVED MAY 0 6 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN S0.rvte AS aprAAca-'&' Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements 0� Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE U • 00 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. ' Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy In TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: T Pr -V- t 0 }app I r tort) LOCATION: 3gO (,J • gO-k S-{ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: 31 a.e_r es WETLANDS PRESENT: YES k NO PRESENT ZONING: RES CDC rNT I A - S t N Gl E F6 -m t L Y REQUESTED ZONING: I I PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 'KE s t t'C NTr R L — S , N G LE Faint L REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: `t REASON FOR REQUEST: TO IZE Q Lit= ST A V61Q u� tv C C To A-( (-o �J FOIA A PATto To 12( lr11411y 00 Oamu= M" This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature OlAppliGant Date Signature Fee Owner S , Date , GAplan\formMDevelopment Review Application.DOC Rev. 3105 To the City of Chanhassen — Planning Committee: Troy and Virginia Kakacek variance request for 380 W. 86`" St Points on variance application: 7. Variance request — To allow existing patio to remain as an improvement to the exterior of the home. 8. a. All homes in the immediate vicinity of our home have preexisting decks and patios. The back yard (patio area) would not be usable without covering. The layout of the home requires some walkout consistent with the homes around us. b. The homes around us have had preexisting structures but were developed on much larger lots. c. The variation is for personal use and to make the area more presentable and improved. d. The development was as a result of several different miscommunications despite multiple attempts to pre-empt any future problems prior to placement. An original building plan was submitted with the patio on it and the final building approval was changed without our knowledge. After the house was built we waited to add this later for financial reasons instead of doing it with the final home construction. We also sought the advice of the city staff two times prior to starting any landscaping or hardscaping projects. When we were notified of the problem after our final survey we were shown what Chanhassen had officially approved and realized it was different than the plans we had as our final building plan. e. The variance will improve the neighborhood, it is already in place, and multiple neighbors have stopped and commented on how they think the things we have done greatly improved the property. E The improvements do not impose any danger, impair property value (an increase was actually made), and will not infringe upon any neighbors and/ or ordinance. Our neighbors to the north Kurt and Lynn Miller are substantially below their hardscaping requirements and have included a letter of support for our variance (see attached). SCANNED Kurt D. Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 May 4, 2005 To: City of Chanhassen From: Kurt & Lynne Miller 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN Subject: 380 West 86 h Street Chanhassen, MN. Our backyard joins the backyard of Mr. & Mrs. Kakacek. The patio they had installed last year compliments their backyard and adds to the functionality of their home. We do not object to this patio in anyway and believe it is a nice addition to their home and yard. Our lot is connected along their entire rear property line is one acre in size and affords an abundance of green space. It would seem sensible to allow the Kakacek's to retain their patio. & Lynne Miller CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on Thursday, July 7, 2005, 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 Kakacek Variance — Planning Case No. 05-18 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'L day of , 2005. Not J*NotKIM T. MEUWISSEN Publ�-Minnesota ary y C --"Ion Ez M Jen 31. 2010 $CANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property Proposal: zoned Single -Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05-18 Applicant: Tro &Vir inia Kakacek Property 380 West 86th Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Questions & mail imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to mmmerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard, Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property Proposal: zoned Single -Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05-18 Applicant: Troy & Virginia Kakacek Property 380 West 86m Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: i. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Meltzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questlons & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciavindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification. Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake Subject Site Lake Riley This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey old is not intended to be used as one. This map is a conpilabon of records, information and data located in various dry, county, state and federal offices and Me( sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The Dry does not voinsu t that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are errer free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any Other purpose requiring ancting measurement Or distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic featuresd enors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1102 The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and evressly waives all claims. and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all darts brought by User, as enployeas or agents, or Mind parties which ansa out Of the user's access or use of data provided. Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake 1 Subject Site I Lake Riley This map is neiMer a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This nap is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offoes and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference Purposes only. The City does rout warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, ofd the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can ou used for navigational, tracking or any Other purpose requinng exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in Bre depiction of geographic features. H mors or discrepancies are fount Osage contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03. SUM. 21 (2000), arch the user of this map xknoWedges that Me City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all Barrs, and agrees to Wend, iride miry, and hold hamiess Me City from any and all claims brought by User, its errpbyees or agents, or Mird Parties which arse W of da users socias or use of dale provided. «NAMED) «NAME2r> «ADD111 «ADD2)) ,,CITY,, „STATE)) ,QIP)) ,,Next Record»„NAMED) N AM E2)) ,,ADD111 «ADD2,, „CITY)) „STATE)) «ZIP)) Public Hearing Notification Area Map (500 feet) Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan e ig4jOn Hills b Rice Marsh Lake a h� �bn Nql Fri �m Q® ®� W 86th St O �J MarsM1larM Td ® Subject Site edTH212 prof y0 W °a ke Rile Bey ad 3 Lake Riley an Blvd (C. R. 18) Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) PATRICIA A ADAMS SARAH K BERG KAREN L BLENKER 429 RICE CT 424 MONK CT 405 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE &JANJAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD BEVERLEY K DAVIS 8560 MISSION ION HILLEUX CARLYLE 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MISSION HILLS 3 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D & MARYEICHLER MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING TRUSTEE OF TRUST 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8570 MISSION HILLS LN RIO VERRDEDE AAZ 25628 Z A LN 85263 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING BEVERLY A FIEDLER SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8521 TIGUA LN 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & MICHAEL A GRAY & ROCHELLE R GREAVES TRUST SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY SARAH A NICKOLAY 8571 MISSION HILLS LN8510 TIGUA LN 570 78TH ST W #2001 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY K HALVORSON & ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN ELEN M HALVORSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 422 RICE CT 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HEINEMANN RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS BONNIE M HOGHAUG 421 RICE CT 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 425 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN M JOHANNES PAUL D JUAIRE TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA LUCY KALEY JEAN M KAMRATH THOMAS D KARELS 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 416 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO NIKOLAY V KRASNOKUTSKIY & 350 HWY 212 E 350 HWY 212 E LILIYA KRASNOKUTSKIY PO BOX 89 PO BOX 89 8564 POWERS PL CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY & KEVIN KUNZE JUDITH A LEHMAN NATALYA P KRASNOKUTSKIY 417 RICE CT 412 MONK CT EAG AN MN 55122 CINNAMON RDG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AG PAUL C LYONS 8571 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY JEAN MESSNER 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 8550 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & KAKI J BERG 8501 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY T & TRACY A SALW EI 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANDEM PROPERTIES 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 JOYCE I MANCINO 413 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH 409 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC L PETERSON KATHERINE M WELCH 8561 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER RENKLY 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON A & BRENDA M SCHAEFFER 8591 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M SCOTT PO BOX 544 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RACHELLE L TIMLIN 404 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUANN M MARKGRAF 401 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE S MONROE 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY 8500 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK D PILATE 470 MISSION HILLS WAY E #115 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARMEN M SCHALLOW 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHANNA M UNKE 420 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARTURO F URRUTIA AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER BARBARA E WOLTER 408 MONK CT 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E 400 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I l WEST i 86TH ST 1 s TIGUA rrxun + Y Fax :o, r5ne(w ase a---------- Bin Bin Building Permit Survey cIiY UlEgyry'Y�AeeEx ENNOV 1 ) 20W)'. Area= 15180.00 S.F. .✓ F leA6O Fra as I gym,--- I I I � a even 7 '>_ ifHUHG pl SI�VH (W iNF Ilµ AXO,nA 11 1 Y A A/ T C\ J I V r� vrll V l X' xX9I,11 MI LOI tl .YVIISSalurl 'VA 'CaMUCaus MASS HA SSNnYDAUS MY _ I � TI I _ WEST i 86TH ST 1 s TIGUA rrxun + Y Fax :o, r5ne(w ase a---------- Bin Bin Building Permit Survey cIiY UlEgyry'Y�AeeEx ENNOV 1 ) 20W)'. IT --I— _ mmp Ren uaa--� GCN4PY 1 no AS4e g LANEAROSN ELO AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED - BEFORE CIO MILL BE ISSUED ass. 1m1. Yat Co. ® n/:Vena no' f- Ineex „epww Aeho,'pe .1 eeFrye lUlmy e•en:nl pe q pbl el pK LAYL MIII.M SECtl.V AOWHM .. Mtelo BUIMv Me r �I: ! a8' 0soaL9119 = O. APPROVED n, d- -d nHxen nmlfmv: .MYYnMP .A V11 0.11bA SFCptllAco'— Cenlf Y/mn,ie. 11 IXn. 1/ •emLLXp b a• nma Fbl M•nl Purr. eeI np°n ea• pepanE orLond ^ • was sit ran NJ M..e. • denote. iron monument found 80din Permit Sures on r neer rry eN•ct •up•m.Ion and www.oftufcxNln.csm II/n/0.5 o.xe denote=YDn e.at g Schutrup Building °mar11h. d O PIP Lot I, Blod ; sunayo ac. me °se °I m• O B WeelDMMen Bt. and marked as shown: stn:. 5 u m BMMtlor MM 55]10 FIC£ LAKE MANOR SECOND ADDIIIOM Dasa: Drawn By. stole: Cl-k..d ,: �;A % Ph:(M)6824727 B denote. soil boring Carver County, MinnexatO paua E.Om SSOCIATES Fax:(Id0)BOIJOQI 1-03-0610 C denotes percolation test hole 10/17/03 M.K.A. 1 11=20 ' P.E.O. � •. A/ Aye 3 Uaen,. p wom ER,1.n and Lead Senegal., Is.. Area= 15180.00 S.F. .✓ F leA6O Ilf5ep5l iYV! [nOS10N Wm; ifHUHG pl SI�VH (W iNF Ilµ AXO,nA RVlYyHIROR RURFVIffp X' xX9I,11 MI LOI tl .YVIISSalurl 'VA 'CaMUCaus MASS HA SSNnYDAUS MY T1USEHIN41lU 01falCef � VrA/A v/"llV I RV RP EDUIREO — Polaef OH ELEVAiIOII BELON fi6p — I 14' Pon 6m .._...� 0. IIA) IAfYn4D p .r -x `-,r rroo, - ew.��1 rbs -p ertll IT --I— _ mmp Ren uaa--� GCN4PY 1 no AS4e g LANEAROSN ELO AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED - BEFORE CIO MILL BE ISSUED ass. 1m1. Yat Co. ® n/:Vena no' f- Ineex „epww Aeho,'pe .1 eeFrye lUlmy e•en:nl pe q pbl el pK LAYL MIII.M SECtl.V AOWHM .. Mtelo BUIMv Me r �I: ! a8' 0soaL9119 = O. APPROVED n, d- -d nHxen nmlfmv: .MYYnMP .A V11 0.11bA SFCptllAco'— Cenlf Y/mn,ie. 11 IXn. 1/ •emLLXp b a• nma Fbl M•nl Purr. eeI np°n ea• pepanE orLond ^ • was sit ran NJ M..e. • denote. iron monument found 80din Permit Sures on r neer rry eN•ct •up•m.Ion and www.oftufcxNln.csm II/n/0.5 o.xe denote=YDn e.at g Schutrup Building °mar11h. d O PIP Lot I, Blod ; sunayo ac. me °se °I m• O B WeelDMMen Bt. and marked as shown: stn:. 5 u m BMMtlor MM 55]10 FIC£ LAKE MANOR SECOND ADDIIIOM Dasa: Drawn By. stole: Cl-k..d ,: �;A % Ph:(M)6824727 B denote. soil boring Carver County, MinnexatO paua E.Om SSOCIATES Fax:(Id0)BOIJOQI 1-03-0610 C denotes percolation test hole 10/17/03 M.K.A. 1 11=20 ' P.E.O. � •. A/ Aye 3 Uaen,. p wom ER,1.n and Lead Senegal., Is.. O O q ` r`�4ii4 EE n�Aiii y o aj. c(i y .mXXXtl j C �9 l Ll • 9i �pp4`y}3 g�agG .V. Angry OD Il [ m X c 5 F - <i II ee �`08 ° all m �I < Y RR E� m _ S LI 1 I n.<o R iw.ew e9¢st \ a I LLJN ��ii <esr CLt e# a e I � L: m a 9 T �, 1 If 11 e � � 6• I � I •� 17", • 1 I I � o I v I c o 'o i < y _ —— —. _---_—_—___—__________ E ni mE E o m cc a i E E Ea 'n o 1 �o I sy X mE X mu, LU /�/� BpgF c °ca o 0 `LVO 9C O 0 p 00 RECEIVED To the City of Chanhassen — Planning Committee: MAY 0 6 2005 Troy and Virginia Kakacek variance request for 380 W. 86h St CITY OF CHANHASSEN Points on variance application: 7. Variance request — To allow existing patio to remain as an improvement to the exterior of the home. 8. a. All homes in the immediate vicinity of our home have preexisting decks and patios. The back yard (patio area) would not be usable without covering. The layout of the home requires some walkout consistent with the homes around us. b. The homes around us have had preexisting structures but were developed on much larger lots. c. The variation is for personal use and to make the area more presentable and improved. d. The development was as a result of several different miscommunications despite multiple attempts to pre-empt any future problems prior to placement. An original building plan was submitted with the patio on it and the final building approval was changed without our knowledge. After the house was built we waited to add this later for financial reasons instead of doing it with the final home construction. We also sought the advice of the city staff two times prior to starting any landscaping or hardscaping projects. When we were notified of the problem after our final survey we were shown what Chanhassen had officially approved and realized it was different than the plans we had as our final building plan. e. The variance will improve the neighborhood, it is already in place, and multiple neighbors have stopped and commented on how they think the things we have done greatly improved the property. f. The improvements do not impose any danger, impair property value (an increase was actually made), and will not infringe upon any neighbors and/ or ordinance. Our neighbors to the north Kurt and Lynn Miller are substantially below their hardscaping requirements and have included a letter of support for our variance (see attached). SCANNED PLEASE PRINT Email: Name Planning Case No. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MAY 0 6 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN aSSevi, MN 55-31= �IRG fN IA GiNG EK" 2'9G -2yls �I(aCv(c)Darkni0,,Ak Fax: 952 -9R3 -DIES _r,, _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review` Subdivision' Owner Name and Address: S0.otite its Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. ' Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. '• Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: i� Pr -7t 0 !�O t t o ry LOCATION: 3gU W g��h LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTALACREAGE: . 3q O.Cf tS WETLANDS PRESENT: YES �_ NO PRESENT ZONING: RES I De r-�T I Fl t - S i N GL t FtFm t L Y REQUESTED ZONING: I i PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: �hE s I DL N—I (P C - S i N E L E FAm t L,� REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: (k REASON FOR REQUEST: To KE & Llt= sT A VAtiltN Ne E 1 -0 14 -Ci -0 w FOi- ft- _ -PRT t G Tu V2-GAR(Q 00 Ou.�r— Lkc7ME This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature AApplicant Date r �i�� slslo� Signature o Fee Owner Date G p1anV ms\DevekgmHmt Review Application.DOC Rev. 3/o5 Date: May 11, 2005 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies — Mrnr��`�I� c 1 �- re JIx-s in From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: Request for 6.8% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a gravel sidewalk, concrete sidewalk, rock sidewalk and a patio. The sidewalks and patio have been built. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 380 West 86 Street, Troy & Virginia Kakacek.. Planning Case: 05-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was fled with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 6, 2005. The 60 -day review period ends July 5, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 7, 2005 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 27, 2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. I. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintfUnitetl) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPomt Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other- STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAX PAYABLE IN 2005 _AM CARVER COUNTY TOM KE"ER - TREASURER _ MARK LUNDGREN - AUDITOR ,600 EAST 4TH STREET • P.O. BOX 69 _ CHASKA, MN 55318-0069 CARR 952-361-1980 • www.co.carvecmn.us COU TAA BILL# 35347 ID# 35335 Ca TROY A 8 VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 9663 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9784 Jll all d n III nn��u _ PARCEL 826.7410040 '.MEN WECAMON NO2 - *New Improvements/ Expired Exclusions: Estimated Market Value: 13,100 Taxable Market Value: 13,100 DESC: Sect -13 Twp -116 Range -023 RICE LAKE MANOR SECOND ADDN Lot -004 Block -001 79,500 37,200 15. YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT'S. S 3.152.00 $ If you pay your lazes sate, you will be charged a penalty. Pay this amount no later Nan MAY 15 OCTOBER 15 Read the hack of this statement for penalty rates and Pay Nis amount no later than applying for refund information. 594.00 6 --- 297.00 $ 297.00 SCANNED 2004 2005 1. You may be clig-f5le for one or even twor-WRs to rRTce your property $ 0.00 tax. If applying use this amount on form M-IOR. Make a photocopy of this tax statement and include it with your form M -s PR. File by August 15th. if box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes and are not eligible. L- 2. Use this amount for the special property tax refund on schedule I of form M-IPR. $ 192.80 Your Property Tax And How It Is Reduced By The State 3. Your propertytax before reduction b state -paid aids and credits. $ 430.77 S 1,280.62 686.62 4. Aid id te State of Minnesota to reduce ourproperty tax. P Y Y 237.97 0.00 0.00 5. A. Homestead and agricultural credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 0.00 0.00 B. Other credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 192.80 594.00 6. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits. Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 7. County A. CARVER COUNTY $ 63.04 0.00 S 205.75 0.00 8. City or Town. CHANHASSEN CITY 40.00 0.75 130 00 9. State General Tax: 59.91 176.85 10. School District: 0112 A. Voter approved levies. 11 38 34.42 B. Other local levies. A. METROSTRICT 4.63 12 82 11. Special Taxing Districts: B 2.98 13.39 C 0.00 0.00 D. 0.00 0.00 7.73 20.02 12. Non -school voter approved referenda levies. $ 192 80 S 594.00 13. Total property taxes before special assessments. this 2.959.20 0.00 14. Special assessments added to property tax bill: 15. YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT'S. S 3.152.00 $ If you pay your lazes sate, you will be charged a penalty. Pay this amount no later Nan MAY 15 OCTOBER 15 Read the hack of this statement for penalty rates and Pay Nis amount no later than applying for refund information. 594.00 6 --- 297.00 $ 297.00 SCANNED FA CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall — Planning Case No. 05-18. On July 19, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86d'Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger 0 r of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-18 Variance dated July 19, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the variance from the impervious surface restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 19" day of July, 2005. CHANHASS LANNIN COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek varianceVindings of factdoc 2 CITY OF CHAN iASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-18 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 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 fora hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 380 West 86' Street. Applicant: Troy & Virginia Kakacek. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzerAci.chanhassen mn.us Phone: 952-227- 1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, July 7, 2005; No. 4469) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. /_ q (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: ab,d,fghijklmnopqrst%ywxyZ Subscribed and sworn before me on Notary Public Laurie A. Hartmann =RA;rD,'U�ENZ10 AM010 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $11.18 per column inch SCAMMFn CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-18 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 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 hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 380 West 86`s Street. Applicant: Troy & Virginia Kakacek. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 7, 2005) i.� JUN 6 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: F CHANHASSEN (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal CITY O CARVER & F CHANH COUNTIES newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING amended. PLANNING CASE NO. 05.18 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. the Chanhassen Planning was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Commission will hold a public Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of hearing on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, at the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market and publication of the Notice: Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is toconsidera requestf rrahardsurface coverage variance on property zoned abcdefgbijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 380 West 86- Street. B Applicant Troy & Virginia Eakacek. (� J A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review Laurie A. Hartmann at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing Subscribed and sworn before me on andexpress theiropirmnswithrespect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner Ij Email: /- imetzer�o ci chanhassen mn.us this /� day of , 2005 GWEN M. P,ADUENZ Phone: 952-227- 1132 - > WTABY PJBUC-MIttSB50;A (Published in the Chanhasssen tly Cortmsnr rimes Jar, 31.2010 Villager on Thursday. May 26, 2005: No. 4948) Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .........................................._.. . $11.18 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 7, 2005 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/5/05 CASE #: 05-18 BY: JM, JS, DR Fil PROPOSAL: Request for 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86d' Street. The sidewalks and patio have been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 380 West 86d' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 o APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86d' Street v Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86h Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 5.86% (which represents 889.24 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk. All of these structures have already been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 30.86%. Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lak :J .l ".2A2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 Percent. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 3 Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. (20) BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2d Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hardcover of 30.86%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as -built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as -built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. A correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as -built survey includes the rock sidewalk as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock with a fabric liner as an impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations will be adjusted to include only the concrete and gravel sidewalks. As -built survey calculation: Total Sidewalk = 391 square feet Concrete Sidewalk = 100 square feet Gravel Sidewalk = 148 square feet Revised Sidewalk = 248 square feet Revised as -built survey calculation: House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. Sidewalk = 248.00 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,684.24 sq. ft. 30.86% In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants' interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 4 Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as -built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as -built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.8% (111.24 square feet over the maximum permitted hard cover). ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sidewalks and patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sidewalks and patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Gravel Walkway Retaining Wall Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 5 Retaining Wa1URock Sidewalk There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. The same thing could be done with the concrete sidewalk leading from the driveway to the stoop in front of the house. A wooden deck sidewalk would not count against the lot's hard cover calculations. The gravel walkway in front of the house and the retaining wall near the patio serve as ornamental features to the property and could be removed altogether. In addition, in order to reach 25%, the size of the driveway would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. Landscaaine The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor god Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86th Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 6 I I I The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio and sidewalk. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that he within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 June 7, 2005 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-18 for a 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ""The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-18 for a 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements. 2. The gravel sidewalk must be replaced with concrete, paver block or bituminous surface." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped "Received May 6, 2005". 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As -Built Survey. g:Nplan\2005 planning cas \05-I8 kakacek varianc6staff reportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk — Planning Case No. 05-18. On June 7, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Troy & Virginia Kakacek for a 5.86% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 8e Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2°d Addition 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. L The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-18 Variance dated June 7, 2005, prepared by Josh Meltzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the variance from the impervious surface restriction for the addition of a patio, retaining wall, gravel sidewalk and concrete sidewalk. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7`s day of June, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Iq Planning Commission Chairperson gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variancOfindings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on Thursday, May 26, 2005, 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 Kakacek Variance — Planning Case No. 05-18 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 W day of 2005. (:14 Notary Publ VLM MEUWI;_ENNotaM Publk -Mita w i Commmw Ekes 1, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 7 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Sin le -Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05.18 Applicant: Tro & Vir inia Kakacek Property 380 West 86' Stre6t Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, require a public hearing Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments re q p g before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be Included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. tl Vs E d N '�.T••n 7Sc c t0 U�ac.> Public Hearing Notification Area Map (500 feet) Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan ss�pi Hies Rice Marsh Lake a j /CXIy ' Naya Fns ; W 86th St �] MarsManUTn tJ 2Q 1�0 Ella E Subject Site Cd ed.�.H.212 prop y0 k aF ke Rile e�y ¢° I Lake Riley an Blvd (C.R. 18) Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) PATRICIA A ADAMS SARAH K BERG KAREN L BLENKER 429 RICE CT 424 MONK CT 405 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE &JANJAMES A & MARILYN L CRAW FORD BEVERLEY K DAVIS 8560 MISSION ION HILLEUX CARLYLE 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MISSION HILLS 3 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING TRUSTEE OF TRUST 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8570 MISSION HILLS LN RIO VERRDEDE AAZ 85263 25628 A LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Z DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING BEVERLY A FIEDLER SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8521 TIGUA LN 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & MICHAEL A GRAY & ROCHELLE R GREAVES TRUST 01 SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY SARAH A NICKOLAY 570 78TH ST W 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 8510 TIGUA LN N 5 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY K HALVORSON & ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN ELEN M HALVORSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 422 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HEINEMANN RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS BONNIE M HOGHAUG 421 RICE CT 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 425 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN M JOHANNES PAUL D JUAIRE TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA LUCY KALEY JEAN M KAMRATH THOMAS D KARELS 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 416 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO NIKOLAY V KRASNOKUTSKIY & 350 HWY 212 E 350 HWY 212 E LILIYA KRASNOKUTSKIY PO BOX 89 PO BOX 89 8564 POWERS PL CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY & KEVIN KUNZE JUDITH A LEHMAN 4419 CT EAGAN MN 55122 NATALYA P KRASNOKUTSKIY 417 RICE CT 412 MONK E CINNAMON RDG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AG PAUL C LYONS 8571 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY JEAN MESSNER 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 8550 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & KARI J BERG 8501 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY T & TRACY A SALWEI 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANDEM PROPERTIES 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 JOYCE I MANCINO 413 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH 409 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC L PETERSON KATHERINE M WELCH 8561 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER RENKLY 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON A & BRENDA M SCHAEFFER 8591 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M SCOTT PO BOX 544 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RACHELLE LTIMLIN 404 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUANN M MARKGRAF 401 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE S MONROE 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY 8500 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK D PILATE 470 MISSION HILLS WAY E #115 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARMEN M SCHALLOW 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHANNA M UNKE 420 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARTURO F URRUTIA AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER BARBARA E WOLTER 408 MONK CT 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E 400 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 L. D. MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. LAW OFFICE June 6, 2005 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Case Type: Owner: City: County: Property: Dear Ms. Aanenson, Sent Via Email Variance Application Troy and Virginia Kakacek Chaska Carver Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2"d Addition This letter is a follow-up to our conversation today regarding the above referenced variance request. Currently, the matter is scheduled for hearing before the planning commission on June 7, 2005. Consistent with our discussions today, we request that the hearing be continued. I will be out of town the week of June 20 and the next schedule meeting is July 19th, 2005. Accordingly, please schedule the matter to be heard at the July 191h planning commission meeting. To allow fogotential review by City Council, we request that the matter remain open until August 9 , 2005. We will schedule a meeting with Josh as soon as our calendars can be coordinated to review the physical elements of the variance request. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Martin and Associates, Ltd. Copy: Virginia and Troy Kakacek 2707 SPY GLASS DRIVE CHASKA, MMNESOTA 55318 Omce:952.856.5511 = FAx:952.448.4691 Imartin2707©hotmai Isom CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: VIRGINIA KAKACEK Date: 06/03/2005 Time: 4:37pm Receipt Number: DW / 6194 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST 05-18 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT GIS GIS LIST 05-18 GIS LIST 180.00 --------------- Total: 180.00 Check 5431 180.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! • WISH" City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 aff OF (952) 227-1100 To: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86`" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 KTM 5/26/05 Ship To: Invoice upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 60 Property Owners List within 500' of 380 West 86'" Street (60 labels) $3.00 $180.00 ,. TAL DUE $180.00 Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: 05-18 GIS. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Public HearingNotification Area Map (500 feet) Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan s"'lls Rice Marsh Lake ° a E {o� 4 rO^Ndlao Fr, 6i �msm m FE W B6}MB{SY13 �J MarsM1WrM TO O em ® Subject Site Ca ed prof y0 w °av e Ke Rile Bey 'o o' Lake Riley an Blvd (C.R. 18) Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) 0 PATRICIA A ADAMS SARAH K BERG 429 RICE CT 424 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE & JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAW FORD JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE JAM8581 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 553317 MISSION HILLS CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHA JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY TRUSTEE OF TRUST 25628 CORDOVA LN 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E RIO VERDE AZ 85263 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING BEVERLY A FIEDLER 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8521 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & MICHAEL A GRAY & SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY SARAH A NICKOLAY 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 8510 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY K HALVORSON & ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART 422 R ICE CT M HALVORSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E 422 RCHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HEINEMANN RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 421 RICE CT 8561 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN M JOHANNES PAUL D JUAIRE 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA LUCY KALEY JEAN M KAMRATH 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO 350HWY212E 350HWY212E PO BOX 89 PO BOX 89 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 KAREN L BLENKER 405 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEVERLEY K DAVIS 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD S & BARBRA T EW ING 8570 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROCHELLE R GREAVES TRUST 570 78TH ST W #2001 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BONNIE M HOGHAUG 425 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS D KARELS 416 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NIKOLAY V KRASNOKUTSKIY & LILIYA KRASNOKUTSKIY 8564 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • 0 VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY & KEVIN KUNZE JUDITH A LEHMAN 4419 EAGAN MN 55122 NATALYA P KRASNOKUTSKIY 417 RICE CT 412 MONK CT E CINNAMON RDG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AG PAUL C LYONS JOYCE I MANCINO LUANN M MARKGRAF 8571 TIGUA LN 413 RICE CT 401 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY JEAN MESSNER KURT D & LYNNE MILLER JULIE S MONROE 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8590 TIGUA LN 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY 8550 TIGUA LN 409 RICE CT 8500 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR ERIC L PETERSON MARK D PILATE JULIANNE E ORTMAN KATHERINE M WELCH 470 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8525 MISSION HILLS LN 8561 TIGUA LN #115 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & JENNIFER RENKLY BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8501TIGUA LNKAKI J BERG 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHA TIMOTHY T & TRACY A SALW EI GORDON A & BRENDA M CARMEN M SCHALLOW 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E SCHAEFFER 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8591 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID JAMES M SCOTT LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 451 MISSION HILLS CT PO BOX 544 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANDEM PROPERTIES RACHELLE L TIMLIN SHANNA M UNKE 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR 404 MONK CT 420 MONK CT #310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARTURO F URRUTIA AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER BARBARA E WOLTER 408 MONK CT 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E 400 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 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 Thursday, May 26, 2005, 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 Kakacek Variance — Planning Case No. 05-18 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 A day of �2005. C—�4 Notary Publ .. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota TZ; My Commission Ezplms Jan 31, 2010 j:_, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 7 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Sin le -Family Residential RSF Planning File: 05-18 Applicant: Tro & Vir inia Kakacek Property 380 West 86th Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzer0ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation, The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclatrndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. fiij]56Fp�52 �N Bg bra yyFig! 1ppp5 $am nx N$, _ m i2 G � p% $�5g2 ply o.pppCM¢¢jii9e z0a Public Hearing Notification Area Map (500 feet) Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake a 01 �� mo v.;, 6 ®� W 861h $t Mamhland TO O CCD 50am Subject Site Cd ed T.H•212 poop ayO I "ey �dF ke Rile 6�v 'o d Lake Riley an Blvd (C.R. 18) Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) PATRICIA A ADAMS SARAH K BERG KAREN L BLENKER 429 RICE CT 424 MONK CT 405 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE &JANJAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD BEVERLEY K DAVIS 8560 MISSION ION HILLEUX CARLYLE 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MISSION HILLS 3 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING TRUSTEE OF TRUST 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8570 MISSION HILLS LN RIO VERRDEDEAAZZ 85263 25628 ALN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING BEVERLY A FIEDLER SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8521 TIGUA LN 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & MICHAEL A GRAY & ROCHELLE R GREAVES TRUST SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY SARAH A NICKOLAY 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 8510 TIGUA LN 570 78TH ST W #2001 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY K HALVORSON & ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN ELEN M HALVORSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 422 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HEINEMANN RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS BONNIE M HOGHAUG 421 RICE CT 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 425 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN M JOHANNES PAUL D JUAIRE TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SARA LUCY KALEY JEAN M KAMRATH THOMAS D KARELS 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 416 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO NIKOLAY V KRASNOKUTSKIY & 350 HWY 212 E 350 HWY 212 E LILIYA KRASNOKUTSKIY PO BOX 89 PO BOX 89 8564 POWERS PL CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY & H KEVIN KUNZE JUDITH A LEMAN 4419 EAGAN MN 55122 NATALYA P KRASNOKUTSKIY 417 RICE CT 412 MONK CT EH CINNAMON RDG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AG PAUL C LYONS 8571 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY JEAN MESSNER 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 8550 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & KART J BERG 8501 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY T & TRACY A SALW EI 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANDEM PROPERTIES 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 JOYCE I MANCINO 413 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH 409 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC L PETERSON KATHERINE M WELCH 8561 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER RENKLY 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON A & BRENDA M SCHAEFFER 8591 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M SCOTT PO BOX 544 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RACHELLE L TIMLIN 404 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUANN M MARKGRAF 401 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE S MONROE 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY 8500 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK D PILATE 470 MISSION HILLS WAY E #115 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARMEN M SCHALLOW 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHANNA M UNKE 420 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARTURO F URRUTIA AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER BARBARA E WOLTER 408 MONK CT 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E 400 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Location Map Kakacek Variance Planning Case No. 05-18 380 West 86th Street City of Chanhassen Lake Susan III M.HaM Td :: Blvd Rice Marsh Subject Site T N212 Lake Riley • CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-18 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 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 hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 380 West 86"' Street. Applicant: Troy & Virginia Kakacek. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 26, 2005) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: VIRGINIA KAKACEK Date: 05/09/2005 Time: 3:OOpm Receipt Number: DW / 6125 Clerk: DANIELLE VARIANCE 05-18 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP VARIANCE 05-18 USE & VARIANCE 200.00 RECORDING FEES 50.00 Total: --------------- 250.00 Check 5416 250.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! Meum Full Ne Last N First N Businc Contac Categ< $ 20( 5( $ 25 Meuwissen, Kim Full Name: Troy & Virginia Kakacek Last Name: Kakacek First Name: Troy & Virginia Home Address: 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: (952) 906-2015 Other Fax: (952)993-2175 E-mail: kakacv@parknicollet.com E-mail Display As: Troy & Virginia Kakacek (kakacv@parknicollet.com) Contacts: 05-18 Kakacek Variance