Loading...
CAS-19_OJAR PAPEDIS (SOUTHVIEW DESIGN)Non -Scannable Item Item Description -Oold+er Number Folder Name Job Number '2,3 2 2 G Box Number 0050 /cl 0 N CITY OF CHANHASSEN PERMIT NO.: 2007-02463 7700 MARKET BLVD - PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DATE ISSUED: 10/12/2007 ZZ7-1180 VAX: I"Z) LL/ -1190 ADDRESS : 2101 PINEHURST DR PIN : 256120230 LEGAL DESC : PINEHURST : LOT 23 BLOCK 1 PERMIT TYPE PLANNING PROPERTY TYPE RESIDENTIAL. CONSTRUCTION TYPE ZONING ACTIVITY PATIO NOTE: INSTALLATION OF 110 SQUARE FOOT PATIO AND LANDSCAPING 10/9/07, APPROVED, TO ENG. ANA 10-12-07, APPROVED, TO PLAN. SKLZ (TREES IN ESMT. OK BY PLANNING) APPLICANT SOUTHVIEW DESIGN 1875 E 50TH ST DdVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077- (651)755-4513 OWNER OARS PAPEDIS 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to: (1) the conditions of this permit; (2) the approval plans and specifications; (3) the applicable city approvals, Ordinances, and Codes; and (4) the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described, and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. This permit will expire and beconu null and void if work is not started within 180 days, or if wort is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in confomuma with the State Building Code. Issued by: Ierritt Mohn, Building Official City of Chanhassen PAID WITH CHECK # TOTAL SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE. v .arm miROtll In.VN RTM� LRT M¢1 RT/Ja t acne n.w sNwi��x cxrNir�oxN i i��x al.wc t �' REP:Tm .6kem REVISIONS I' = 10' ----------tet CITY OF CHA;VHASSE'7 ACT 1 b 2007 ENGINEERNG DEPT. 97V 4_ �P"44n APPROVED BY: f}►J DEPT.:eIa-" DATE: jtq BY: 5 k-L7- DEPT4 &,v6- nATE: Ti.: r LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR acne n.w sNwi��x cxrNir�oxN i i��x al.wc Papedis Residence �' REP:Tm .6kem REVISIONS I' = 10' 2101 Pinehurst a wore rtn s -^^��'� 'pA— JDES�GKISALES DESGWSALESASST:ttrc rksr 10/07/07 lorov07 0F.. xq. Chanhassen, MN 55317 -anoow . vuw¢ wnus DATE:42d/7017 OW07 wsc City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MI of (952) 227-1100 Comm To: Mr. Tim Johnson Southview Design 1875 East 50`" Street Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 8/23/07 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 27 Property Owners List within 500' of 2101 Pinehurst Drive (27 labels) $3.00 $81.00 TOTAL DUE $81.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for 9/4/07. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #07-19. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 553 08/28/2007 Receipt No. CLERK: katie PAYEE: ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List Total Cash Credit Change 0.00 ---¢D a-7 -19 Finance September 25, 2007 CITY OF bringing the property into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface C[j1UIIlppptu MI1Hk SEN Mr. Tim Johnson 1 Southview Design 7700 Markel Boulevard 1875 E 5& St. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Administration Re: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Phone: 952,227 1100 Planning Case #07-19 Fax: 952 227.1110 proposed plans. Building Inspections Dear Mr. Johnson: Phone. 952,227 1180 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fax. 952.2271190 This letter is to confirm that on September 24, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council Engineering denied Variance #07-19 for a 5.3% hard surface coverage variance for addition of Phone: 952.227.1160 patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance You must provide staff with plans to eliminate the excess impervious surface, Phone: 952.227.1140 bringing the property into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface Fax: 952.227.1110 coverage required by City Ordinance. City Council directed staff to eliminate the Park a Recreation retaining walls from the impervious calculations on the subject site; the remaining Phone: 952.227.1120 impervious area available on the property is 345 square feet. Fax 952.227.1110 Planner I Recreation Center The site must be brought into compliance within 30 days of receipt of this letter. zPlo Couller Phone: 952227.1400 e:952 27.1400 An inspection will be conducted on Friday, October, 26 h., 2007, to verify the P� Y, Y Fax: 952.227.1404 proposed plans. Planning Natural Resources Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 Phone: 952.227.1130 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fax: 952.227.1110 - Web site cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us gAplan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc varianceldenial letter.doe SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beaulilul parks. A gieal place to live, work, and play. Sincerely, Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 " c Q, Senior Center Angie Auseth Phone: 952.227.1125 Planner I Fax: 952.221.1110 Web site cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us gAplan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc varianceldenial letter.doe SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beaulilul parks. A gieal place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Southview Design for a 5.3% 74% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape — Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 4, 2007, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Southview Design for a 5.3%D 7.4% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. 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 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 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. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. SCANNED d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the 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. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 4, 2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the construction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this e day of September, 2007. gAplan\2007 plannina. cases\07-19 2101 pinehum hsc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Southview Design for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape — Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 24, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Appeal of Southview Design for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single - Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition, which had been denied at the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed variance. The City Council reviewed the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission minutes, 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 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 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. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property; the extra 3.3% impervious surface coverage will contribute to storm water quantity and quality problems. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. SCANNED c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the 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. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 24, 2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the construction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24th day of September, 2007. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Thomas A. Furlong, .' f gAplan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehmst hsc varianc6cc findings of factdoc 2 0-7-19 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's on page 259 of the pdf, if you want to put that in. The motion reads the City Council upholds staffs decision on all five exemptions and affirms the Findings of Fact and Technical Evaluation Panel with the exception of the 10 year deed restriction if no longer required. Roger Knutson: And adopt the Findings of Fact presented in your packet. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Rick Dorsey: Can I...? The information you presented as well as our record... Mayor Furlong: I believe that's all part of the record. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So is that your motion? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council upholds staff's decision on all five (5) exemptions, and affirms the Findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) with the exception that the 10 year deed restriction is no longer required. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. PAPEDIS VARIANCE, 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE, APPLICANT: SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-19: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE. Public Present: Name Address Chris Moehrl 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie Tim Johnson 1875 E. 50`s Street, Inver Grove Heights Brian Wisdorf 2997 Hilltop Drive, Chaska Ojars Papedis 2101 Pinehurst Drive Jackie Holien 2101 Pinehurst Drive 14 aca+aeo City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, council members. I handed out tonight the revision to the staff report. Since the project originally came in, the original review for 7.4% hard surface coverage. That included the deck. We've now interpreted to just have, the deck had weep holes, that it was not impervious surface and can allow water through so we reduced is to 5.3%. And then recently staff has been discussing the idea of eliminating retaining walls from the hard surface calculation because they really generally tend to improve drainage on a site and so we're now removing that and so now we're down to 3.3% variance. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry I was just looking for my update. Can you, how did we get from the 5.3 to the 3.3? Bob Generous: Well from 7.4 to the 5.3 was removing the deck which has the weep holes in them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Bob Generous: And the manufacturer's say they work. Sometimes it isn't. And then going to 3.3 when we removed retaining walls. Mayor Furlong: So there are no retaining walls left? Bob Generous: Well there are retaining walls but we don't use them as calculating for hard surface coverage because generally they're designed to improve site drainage. They'll hold water back so that it has time to percolate. Generally they create level areas for water to sit on rather than the slopes that allow water to rush down them. So the city as part of our review process has eliminated 787 square feet of hard surface coverage from their request. This property is located within the Pinehurst development which is north of Lake Lucy Road and west of Galpin Boulevard. As originally platted there were 43 lots. As part of our review of that development there's a concern that the house sizes that were going in, were proposed for the development would infringe upon the hard surface coverage. Lennar Homes came in and then replatted the subdivision eliminating 2 of the lots and creating slightly larger lots. They were on, in this location and also on the north. Again because they were aware that as part of their development they had a specific home price that they were looking at and they wanted to allow for some expansion on the site for the individual property owners. As part of the building application for this property the applicant came in with their home, driveway, front walk, and they were at 23.2%. They had an additional 345 square feet for the homeowner to expand into the future. One day our building inspector was out looking at the neighborhood and he noticed that there were improvements going on this site. He then went and advised the contractor that for the type of improvements they were proposing, the pavers and the fire pit and all of that, and retaining walls, they needed to come in for a zoning permit application, which is something the City adopted last year to try to forestall or void people having to come in for after the fact variances for such things as setback or site coverage. When they provided, put their information together they discovered that they were over the 25% hard surface coverage so instead of applying for the zoning permit they went immediately to an application for a variance to the hard surface coverage. All along the development's been aware that hard surface coverage was an issue as a:,mAJa 15 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 part of this project. They replatted to provide for larger areas on the lot. When this came in for building permit there was an expansion opportunity for the homeowner. They just went over the maximum that they were allowed and now they're coming in requesting a variance. We believe that they do have a reasonable opportunity to use this property without the excessive hard surface coverage on the site. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. This item went to the Planning Commission on September 0. They voted 5 to 1 to deny the variance and so the applicant is appealing that decision to City Council. I would note that we're recommending denial of the variance and also were requesting that you modify the Findings of Fact attached to your report. Item 4(a) and add the following two sentences. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property. The extra 3 1/2% impervious surface coverage will contribute to storm water quantity and quality problems. With that I'd be happy any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjomhom: This isn't really a question regarding this item but getting back to the retaining walls. Are we going to, is this going to be a standard practice from now on? Or has it been? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, what have we done historically? Kate Aanenson: We hadn't included them in the past recently. Not that we've passed with any variances with these but I believe that the engineering department wanted to review those as a part of the impervious surface coverage. Internally we've had some discussions on whether or not that made sense or not. Especially in the circumstance where you have to put a retaining wall based on grading. Those sort of things. Sometimes they're decorative. Sometimes they're put in place, if you wanted to add a third bay garage or need to hold something up, but lots of times they're put in place in the development itself for rear yard to enjoy a flatter area so looking at that, based on the 5 we felt, it seemed kind of punitive and they were in place already, or needed to be put in place to enjoy the back yard, not to include those. Mayor Furlong: So clarification. Kate Aanenson: Our ordinance doesn't specify them for the interpretation. So somebody made that interpretation. Mayor Furlong: Okay, the ordinance talks about impervious surfaces. Anything that impedes the flow of storm water. Kate Aanenson: Right. So the interpretation was that it doesn't. That those do not impede. It's not the same as a patio or a pavers, those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom, other questions? My question for staff dealt with retaining walls because I believe in the past we've seen those as part of the impervious surface calculation. But you said these are already in place? 16 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you look under definition it does say any hard coverage. It's one of those things when somebody comes in, it seems rather onerous, especially in circumstances where they're required to put them in in order to make the, facilitate the activity that they're trying to do. Whether it's a sport court or extra garage, and normally it's that extra half a percent that's getting you under the circumstance, was it a half a percent wasn't it or 1%? Mayor Furlong: These are 2% over? Bob Generous: ...however again from this site's perspective, the use of the retaining wall actually slows down water. Provided greater opportunity to percolate into the soil. And that's generally what we see ... where water's sheeting off the property. Councilman Litsey: It slows it down? Helps it percolate in? Bob Generous: Yes. Provides a greater opportunity to do that. Councilman Litsey: Right, okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, may I ask? This is something I think we're going to have to go back and do maybe a white paper on or some research on and come back with some different scenarios for you to take a look at this and somehow get it incorporated into our ordinances and how we're going to view retaining walls and also maybe take a look and see what other communities do but in the past I think we've looked at them as impervious. In this situation it looks like it may be improving the situation but I think we need to sit down as staff to do a little bit more research and give you a definitive read on how we're going to view retaining walls in the future. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is this, this development was approved, the plat was approved how long ago? Bob Generous: July of 2006. Mayor Furlong: 2006. So this is the first of a few coming through? Kate Aanenson: There's another one right behind it. Mayor Furlong: How, you said in your presentation, the house site itself allowing with the driveway and sidewalks was about 23%. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: A little bit more than 23% hard surface. Are we anticipating similar types of housing sizes on lots in this neighborhood? Bob Generous: Yes. 17 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Representative. Good evening. Tim Johnson: Good evening. I am Tim Johnson with Southview Design. We are the contractor that's representing the owner at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. The plan that you see in front of you, just a brief history. When we came into the Planning Commission a few weeks back, we cooperated with the city and the building officials and we stopped the actual construction of the work on the findings that we found out that we were unaware of. Currently the retaining wall, this fire pit, patio application, the patio here, as well as the front walkway is currently in. We have had plans of adding another patio space but we decided not to include that at this time. So we've been working with the City very closely and then I presented now this plan to the Planning Commission as well as a drainage infiltration system. At that time we were instructed that you know they were very interested in hearing more about this infiltration system and how it can actually improve the runoff from the property, but they weren't able to make a decision at the time for, an educated decision on their part so since then we've been working with an engineer who will speak on our behalf tonight, as well as a few other individuals. But I would actually like to tum the rest of our comments over to the Brian Wisdorf who is representing the owner of 2101 Pinehurst. Brian Wisdorf. Good evening council. My name is Brian Wisdorf. I'm with the firm Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty and Molenda out of Apple Valley. I've been retained by Ojars Papedis, the actual owner of the property in question. In hearing the staffs comments tonight, one thing that I would like to point out about the fact that it's Ojars Papedis that is basically making the application for the variance and not the developer. The developers issues with the city, whatever they might be, should not be, in my mind, considered as part of what knowledge or requirements that, for part of the evaluation of my client's request for a variance. A couple of things that I wanted to touch on. A variance gives an applicant permission to depart from the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Strict enforcement of this 25% hardship surface requirement would create an undue hardship with regards to his reasonable use, and the reason I'm addressing this now, even though they have addressed the retaining wall, it seems like there may be some consideration of still incorporating that in the calculation. I would take the position on behalf of my client that there is an undue hardship. As the Planning Commission has noted that the topography of my client's property slopes significantly in the rear yard. 75, or excuse me, 17.3 feet drop in a matter of 70 feet according to their report. This change in elevation begins at the rear of the home and without the use of retaining walls to build up the back yard, besides the impact it will create on drainage, it also allows my client to have reasonable use of his property. The Planning Commission had recommended denial based upon the staff report, set forth in the original staff report where they were looking at a 7.4% overage on the hard surface coverage. They have now changed that based upon their calculations to 3.3. Have no reason to dispute that recalculation at this point. I do believe that that recalculation was appropriate. However, this helps address some of the hardship but it also establishes how fluid the ordinance is, and I believe that the council has acknowledged that to a certain extent. This same discretion should be considered in applying for determination of whether a variance should be provided for the remaining 3.3%. When it's taken into consideration ... the goal of what the ordinance is, which I believe is to address storm water quality and quantity. The other issue that the staff had brought up is their concern with the precedence that this would create if you grant E City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 my client a variance in this case. I think that can be, what is going to be presented to you by Chris Moehrl of Westwood Professional Services is something that would not create a precedent that went against the underlying policy of the ordinance. When applying the City Council's discretion which the staff had acknowledged gave you relatively high level of discretion in providing and allowing a variance, is that the hard surface, hard surface coverage requirement is typically established to preserve this storm water quality and quantity. The engineer that has been retained at my client's expense has went through, went out and viewed the property. Came up with a system to put in place on the property which would not only address the 3.3%, but bring the amount or the percentage of actual affected runoff from the hard surface down to below 25%. He can go into greater detail as to how this system would be implemented and how he came up with the numbers he came up with. The only precedence that this variance would create is that when it is a topographical issue as there is in this case, would create an undue hardship. A homeowner can have an engineer create a surface water runoff plan that will reduce the surface runoff from the property to that which would be expected from a property with 25% hard surface coverage or less. And ni let bir. Moehrl go into greater detail as to exactly what kind of system he is talking about. Kate Aanenson: Mayor can I just address a couple things really quick about the interpretation? If that's okay? Regarding percentage. We started off with 7.4% variance. And in good faith, just so it doesn't appear like we're trying to change our whole position on this, in good faith we took the interpretation after a lot of contentious negotiations to interpret the patio as having a space. And that was very difficult conversations to finally get to the 5.3%. As far as the interpretation of the retaining wall, that could be something you can interpret based on topography to grant a portion of that for a variance to give that additional 2% to make that, to make reasonable use of the property if you felt inclined. As far as the additional amount of pavers we saw no relationship to that based on the topography or the layout of the property itself. So we weren't trying to go down this slippery slope. We were trying to work with the applicant and what we felt were some pretty contentious and onerous conversations. So I don't want you to think that we were just throwing it in and kind of making this, now we're going to end up at zero tonight kind of discussion. So I wanted to make sure that was clear what we were trying to accomplish is trying to find some reasonable based on their interpretation of the spacing of the boards on the deck. And then our interpretation of some reasonable use, if you wanted to make that a rational basis for your variance. Of the retaining walls. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Brian Wisdorf: And just so we're clear, that really wasn't my contention of, even though it may have came across that way. My only point was, that the fact that the calculation seems somewhat fluid, it is my belief that the court or the council should keep in mind that fluidness in determining whether or not a variance should be granted given their broad discretion and the fact that what our client, my client is proposing actually goes to the intent of what the ordinances are put in place to address. Thank you. Chris Moehrl: Mayor, council members. My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood Professional Services, and actually the original engineer on the Pinehurst project so I've got some history with this job. Tim Johnson had given me a call and kind of explained the situation on the lot and 19 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 wanted to see if there were some different storm water techniques we can implement to basically address the overage on the impervious area, seeing that the intent of the code of the 25% is to maintain drainage so you're not overwhelming downstream facilities and ponds. Our first approach to the site, what we wanted to do is first of all mimic what a typical lot would be with a 25% coverage. And then in that approach we calculate the runoff from the additional impervious area and then we calculate that same runoff if it were sod. And that was kind of our first step and what we wanted to do on this project is be very conservative so instead of taking that difference, we actually went to the level of infiltrating 100% of the roof drainage that exceeds that 25% and we added in an additional, oh I think an additional 100 square feet and again this was all before the change with the retaining walls so the credit in the retaining walls is not taken into account in the calculations on the ... and I71 try not to make this too technical. So in putting together the whole infiltration concept again what we're trying to do is maintain the downstream storm water runoff to what it would exist with the 25% coverage building. Part of that, and if we can, can you zoom in on this a little bit? So this detail right here is basically the underground infiltration well that we're proposing. Basically what that does is as the additional runoff comes from a roof, it stores that water underground in a fairly course material. What that does is basically allow that water time to drain into the in place soils. Over time. As you know one of the questions that might come up, Chanhassen largely clay soils. Does infiltration make sense? To give you an idea, the initial guidelines we used are from Carver County. Based on soil type on the site, they use .23 inches per hour. Typical sand sites you might get infiltration rates in the range of 5 to 10 inches, just to give you a feel for what we're using. Carver County also bases their design on the average storm event in the metro area of .34 inches, which is also based on that storm occurring every 3 days. So the combination of those two numbers, you come up with your infiltration rate. As opposed to using average storm event on this project we actually designed this for the 100 year storm event so again what we wanted to be is very conservative. We want to make sure that the systems work and really meet the intent of the code. In putting together that number, if you back calculate that, again 100 year event we use .23 inches. If you run the average storm event through that, you're actually having an infiltration rate of .013 inches per hour. Again just to give you an idea of how conservative this is. I also wanted to mention too, in our first approach where we were just going to mimic the 25% coverage lot, when we went to the more conservative approach it about doubled the footprint of the infiltration runoff. With that said again, just another thing to give you an idea of that .013 inches per hour, that's about 17 times more conservative than Carver County based on that average storm event. And I know staff has issues with maintenance. How do we maintain these things? Definitely you know it's for consideration when reviewing these. Not really defined a very conservative approach to the system. We've also proposed a monitoring well so you can easily go out and just stick a stick in that well to determine what the water levels are in the system. We also have emergency overflow pipes so you can physically see hey, there's something clogged up. It's easy to see that water coming out of the system and that can be addressed. The other issue with maintenance, how do we, or how does the City enforce that? How do they make that happen? What kind of assurances can you get from that? My thought is that you could record a legal document that would give the city legal right to enforce that, which would make the homeowner maintain the system as it is in place, which would also go with the lots so if this current homeowner were to sell the lot, that document would reside with the lot and not with the owner, so the next person that comes to purchase the property, that document would show up during a title search and they Pill City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 would be aware of it. With that, I can open it up to any questions that you guys might have or concerns that the staff might have. Technical questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Moehrl? Thoughts? Okay. How about, thank you. How about Mr.? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I have a question. Have you used this system anyplace else in the Twin Cities? Chris Moehrl: You know I have not personally. Typically what we've seen in Carver County we're doing large scale infiltration basins and then we'll plant those with vegetation. I see those as being a bigger maintenance problem. You've got to maintain the vegetation which is a big part of that. Weed it out. You know in my mind they take probably 2 to 5 years of some care to really get the vegetation established as it needs to be. I haven't personally done any of these underground, smaller scale infiltration systems but really when you're talking this kind of treatment, in my mind they're more effective if they're based on smaller drainage areas. So if you have one large infiltration basin that maybe requires a lot of maintenance. In lieu of that you could propose kind of a lot treatment basis. You know more smaller treatment systems and I think maintenance with those is a lot lower and the chances of those systems failing are lower too. Plus we also have an underground system so you're not dealing with a lot of vegetation. A lot of unknowns on you know what is it going to take to get that vegetation going. It's based on really volume and geometry, well defined... Todd Gerhardt: Have you thought about the freeze thaw cycle in Minnesota? If this froze over. Chris Moehrl: Freeze thaw on this, what we've done here is basically the bottom, the bottom of the basin, to give you an idea is about 4 1/2, 5 feet in the ground, so we're getting down below that frost depth. Obviously if you had a really cold winter, it's quite possible that that depth is going to go down here. Might move the rock around a little bit. I don't see that as a big issue, especially granted that most of your runoff doesn't occur in the middle of winter when you're going to have your colder temperatures. You know if we were proposing something that was maybe 2-3 feet in the ground I'd be more concerned with it. But we're getting a little bit deeper than that. Typically footings on a house, you're going to be down in the neighborhood of 4 feet to do a lot of those footings. Watermain which is probably the other extreme, you're watermain is typically underneath the street. That's plowed and most of the cold to get down in the ground further, those type of things are usually 7 1/2 feet in the ground so. At 5 1/2 feet you know I think we're in the ballpark. Todd Gerhardt: That's all I had Mayor Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this point? Councilman Litsey: I just had a quick question on the ordinance. It doesn't allow for this type credit though does it? Kate Aanenson: It hasn't... 21 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Councilman Litsey: Yeah I know we've had discussions about some of these applications and how they might be beneficial and how we might apply them as part of the ordinance but as the ordinance currently exists, that is not in there. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Litsey: Okay so, I applaud your efforts to try to help with the situation but the bottom line is, it's not in the ordinance at the present time and therefore in my mind you would have to stay within the ordinance. And, well I'll go on later but I'll leave it at that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjomhom, did you have a question for the applicant or for their attorney? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't, I think a way back when we were looking at the plan, if we can go back... variance, I can ask the question. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. I did have one question for the attorney, if I could Mr., was it Wizard? Wisdorf? Brian Wisdorf: Wisdorf. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry. Brian Wisdorf: Not a problem. Mayor Furlong: You talked about the, there is a hardship because strict adherence to the 25% would not allow reasonable use. Help me understand how you're considering reasonable use of that, see if I understood you correctly. Brian Wisdorf. What I was taking from the comments that were brought up before we got up to present our part was the conversation that had taken place with regards to the staffs calculation of the overage at this point and I, what I was taking from that was that there may be a concern with the council with regards to giving credit or not calculating into the hard surface coverage the retaining walls and my point being, as part of whether or not you grant a variance, part of that hardship is you look at the, whether to grant a variance, you look at whether or not there's an undue hardship and I think it's clear, it's been clearly articulated as part of an undue hardship is a person's ability to use the land in a reasonable manner and what I was saying is with regards to change in elevation in the back yard to get a reasonable use of a parcel, especially one that's shaped in the manner that this is, when even beyond the retaining walls that have been built on this property, there's a vast area of the property which remains unaffected that to prevent the property owner from maintaining those and keeping those retaining walls in place would create an undue hardship and therefore if not taking out, if not excluded from the calculation would create an undue hardship. Mayor Furlong: Because of the topography and the. 22 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Brian Wisdorf: Shape of the lot. Mayor Furlong: The shape of the lot. Brian Wisdorf. And it's topography. Mayor Furlong: And with regards to the shape of the lot. Brian Wisdorf: My point being that, on the parcel here, the retaining wall goes out to here. It appears that the property indicated by the exterior line, my point being that change in elevation start in this area and if you take out the retaining walls, you're going to have an undue hardship on the property owner which would give rise to a reason to grant the variance if you decided to leave the retaining walls in the calculation. Kate Aanenson: Mayor? I was just going to say, well there's two ways to look at it. One, you could put the retaining wall and meet the requirement but you have to take out all the other stuff. It's the other stuff that's causing the problem. The patio. The fire pit ring. So even if you're looking at some of those retaining walls. If you look on page 5 of the staff report, it gives you a breakdown of all those square footages of what's pushing you over. See the table? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Litsey: But that was one of my questions. What needs to be taken out? Kate Aanenson: Right, I think that's kind of, you do kind of a menu of what choices that, what's pushing it over the top. Councilman Peterson: What page are you on? Kate Aanenson: It's on page 5 of the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Well, in the handout? Kate Aanenson: It's on there too. Mayor Furlong: There's a revised schedule. Kate Aanenson: Yes, if you look at that. Mayor Furlong: And the difference there, just has to do with the upper wall and lower wall? Kate Aanenson: So if they're at 23.2% right now and you were to add just the retaining walls, which would be 365, you've be over by 20 square feet. So if you added the retaining walls, plus or minus eliminating 20 square feet, you would still be at that, just slightly over the 25%. So you wouldn't need a variance just by putting the retaining walls in, but for 20 feet. 20 square feet. 23 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Mayor Furlong: And just to clarify then the table that we're looking at on page 5 as revised and actually this is consistent. The first 3 items. The house, garage, porch, driveway, front walk. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Those are the items that were included in the building permit and total 23. how much percent? Todd Gerhardt: 2. Mayor Furlong: And I'm correct in saying those first 3 line items Mr. Generous were part of the? Bob Generous: Those were part of the original building permit application. Mayor Furlong: 23, okay. Councilman Peterson: How many square feet do they have to eliminate to get down to the 25? Todd Gerhardt: 195. Councilwoman Tjomhom: 195? Todd Gerhardt: 95. Kate Aanenson: I think it's a little more than that. Todd Gerhardt: Also 381. Bob Generous: After the original approval they had 345 square feet of expansion that they could have done. Councilman Litsey: Could have done. Bob Generous: Without a variance. Mayor Furlong: 345 square feet. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Plus the original would get you to the 25%. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So what that allowed you to do is put the retaining walls in, if that was your choice to use for your hard cover, or to put in a front, the patio paver sidewalk. The other choices that they selected from. 24 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And again for clarification, if the upper and lower walls were included, if I'm adding correctly is 365 square feet. Kate Aanenson: And they had 345. Mayor Furlong: And they have available 345. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Brian Wisdorf: I think that still goes to the issue of whether or not the retaining walls are necessary in order to avoid an undue hardship. Yes you could include the, from what I'm understanding you could include the retaining walls and still come under the 25%. It is my position that with regards to the improvements to the property, any improvement necessary in order to get the, get use out of the back yard should not be considered in that calculation. That for to the extent that it is considered in that calculation, that amount of coverage should be considered as part of the variance because that is what creates the undue hardship. And what my client is proposing to do, which isn't required to do by ordinance, is to address the two things that are left on the property that are, create the largest problems and that's the patio and the fire. Let's see, upper patio and fire pit I believe are probably your two major issues. And what they're proposing to do would not only alleviate the concern that the ordinance was put in place to address, but it more than compensates for it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey: Well maybe this is too simplistic but at the time this was platted it was made clear right that there's a 25% maximum hard cover requirement? Brian Wisdorf: I was not involved with the builder at the time. Councilman Litsey: Well that's what I asked, in my staff report it's saying that and so now you're claiming a hardship but yet all along that expectation was made clear from the time it was platted apparently. And perhaps you're trying to get too much into the size of the lot that it just can't accommodate that to meet the ordinance. Because some of the other things that are being talked about doing here are nice and they're you know cutting edge maybe applications and things like that, but we haven't gotten to the point where we've adopted it in ordinance so, to me it seems like it goes back to when this was originally platted and it was made clear what the expectation was and then you have to live with that. I don't know how you can come back later and then claim a hardship when it was made clear from the onset that this is the requirement. Brian Wisdorf: Well Mr. Papedis was not involved in the originally platting. His knowledge of this issue first came to his attention when the inspector came to the site and spoke to the contractor who then proceeded to inform my client that the issue that's on his property. OR City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Councilman Litsey: So would the issue not be then to go back to the contractor and talk between, have that dialogue rather than here? Brian Wisdorf: Well that, ultimately my client is the one who owns the property. Just bought and built a very large and expensive home on the property and doesn't have any intentions on moving and I don't know to what extent a financial settlement with the builder is going to alleviate the hardship. I mean obviously that doesn't go to necessarily the issuance of an ordinance but it still doesn't address the hardship that it would create for my client with regards to the taking of, for building this size of house, this nice of a house and then not being able to build a patio off of it seems to be, create somewhat of a hardship for the client as well as the fact that you know his plan is, as you can see from his plan, to develop the number of trees and plants he's also planning to plant around his property is all tied into what he's currently got. Councilman Utsey: Okay, I still think your issue's more with the builder than before this governing body and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. Don't get me wrong but I'm not sure we're the proper authority to resolve it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, any other questions for the applicant? Or anything else from the applicant? Comments? Ojars Papedis: Council, my name is Ojars Papedis. I am the homeowner. I'm the one who owns this piece of property and the situation I'm presented with here so if I may express my views as a new citizen of Chanhassen, coming from Bloomington. I'd also, the aspirations that I have for this house when I bought it. I think you'll find this to be true with many of the owners in the Pinehurst development. None of us were told explicitly that there was a 25% hard cover ordinance in the city of Chanhassen and that the houses that were being put on it, and more importantly, nearly consumed the entire hard cover issue and when Brian was speaking about hardships, I don't think were talking about a hard, black and white hardship. We're talking about an owner, such as myself and some of the others that are in my neighborhood, who bought so to speak the house of their dreams and would love to have put reasonable outside conveniences such as a patio for entertaining and enjoying the property. And I can tell you that when Mr. Johnson of Southview and I came up with this plan we did not think that we were covering the entire lot with bricks and pavement and parking spaces. In fact we even went a little less aggressive than what you see today so. And I personally as a homeowner think that I have no desire to break the ordinance or have the ordinance change but I do think that with the help of Southview and the professional over here, we've come up with a plan that would still meet the spirit of the ordinance which is to limit runoff and still have the ability to enjoy this fine house that I now own so, that's my point and I think that's the issue that faces myself and the other homeowners in that particular development. We were very shocked to find that we couldn't do more than put in a 20 by 20 foot patio. Not for the kind of lots that we have and the houses that we have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ojars Papedis: Thank you. KI City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Any questions of the property owner? Councilman Peterson: I've got a couple more. Not for you sir but for staff probably or the landscaper. Kate when we, or Bob, when we figured the impervious surface, did you factor in anything for the stone steppers or is that? Kate Aanenson: That was added. If you look at the sheet that shows the original survey. Councilman Peterson: Oh the steppers were on the bottom. That's the stone steppers? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: Okay. And then for the landscaper itself, in the areas around the house, are you using fabric or are you using plastic? Tim Johnson: We're using neither. We're actually going to be installing a pine bark mulch that's going to be installed on top of the soil. There's going to be no rock or poly installed on the site at all. As far as one question of concern that I've had with Angie a couple times is, you know the stepping stones are individual. There's you know large gaps inbetween it. It's not a pathway. I mean we're not going to be considering outcroppings but we do consider stepping stones so those are I guess in gray areas within what needs to be considered. It seems like that can be a little bit of more of an opinion as far as hardscape stepping stones and individually, they're not touching each other ... you know so it's no rock. No poly so. Can I make one comment? You Todd had mentioned have we used the system before that Chris has brought up. We're currently nearing an end of the development in Minnetonka where we've used a similar situation. Actually the depth of the dry well and infiltration system is much smaller that we're actually installing. It's used for ground protecting some lower townhomes from the runoff and the drainage from the newer development homes so this is a system that is being used you know real close by here in the city of Minnetonka. Todd Gerhardt: But it hasn't gone through a freeze thaw cycle yet? Tim Johnson: The development's probably 3 or 4 years old. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Councilman Litsey: And is that to meet their ordinance standards or, here we're talking about trying to basically give you some credit for that technology. Are they getting credit in Minnetonka for that technology? Tim Johnson: That basically is just protecting the lower properties from you know receiving the amount of runoff from the much larger homes and the townhomes so basically it's doing the same activity that we're asking it to do by collecting the runoff from the home and you know allowing that to go into the system. 27 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Councilman Litsey: But they're meeting the hard cover, as far as you know they're already meeting the hard cover surface? Tim Johnson: Their hard cover in the city of Minnetonka is I believe 30 or 31 percent so they're much higher percentage than the city of Chanhassen. Councilman Litsey: Okay, but ... my question was they are meeting the ordinance currently without that system in place? Tim Johnson: That system that we installed there was more or less just to allow, I'm not sure how that came into play. I think that was developed through the engineer that actually provided that system to go in place. Mayor Furlong: Was that part of the platting of the development or was it for an individual home? Tim Johnson: It was, some of the homes on the hillside, like what we have right here, were, our lots are sitting up much higher. That was put in for those homes that sit above the other. Mayor Furlong: The developer did that as part of the subdivision of the plat? Tim Johnson: I believe it was the developer and the city would review that as a whole. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Roger Knutson: Mayor, not to complicate things. Just to comment on. Mayor Furlong: I'm ready for that. Roger Knutson: There's several criteria that have to be met for a variance. I'm not going to address them all. They're addressed in the staff report. I'm just going to address one of them. One of them is, does the ordinance prevent a reasonable use of the property? Not any reasonable use but a reasonable use so the question you have to ask is what they want reasonable. When considering that criteria you can, if you choose to, consider only offsets that the applicant is offering to reduce the negative aspects of what they're proposing. So in this example, what did they call them? I'll call them sand pits. If the sand pits reduce, are effective and do reduce runoff, you can consider that in determining whether, if that were a condition, whether that is a, helps creates a reasonable use of the property. You're allowed to do that. Again that's just one of the criteria you have, is something unique about the property and all the other criteria. So you can factor that in if you choose to, if you find that it's effective. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: Well I have a question for staff. Are we anticipating other requests for variances in this development based upon? in City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Bob Generous: There's one in the works right now Councilman Litsey: And perhaps more. You don't have a crystal ball to tell us that but your sense is that there will be more. And is that due in part then to the, how this was platted? Kate Aanenson: Well again, we asked the developer, if you recall we've made a couple changes. One on these larger homes that put a patio in and they're at, we've had them come in at 24.5, 24.9. We've asked them if they have a patio door, that they have to at minimum, we've amended the code to say they have to have a minimum, put a 10 by 10 landing pad out there. So that they have to put a buffer in there. We've had developers try to leave off front sidewalks. Didn't meet that impervious. We said that's not a reasonable expectation. We did inform, we did mention to Lennar, we were deeply concerned of how they were platting these lots and the size homes they were putting on the lot. We've had a lot of negotiations when these plans come in. When they show them at the maximum, we circle that. Tell them unfortunately that the homeowner doesn't always look. You know we carefully noted on this, this is towards the top end and there's expectation of, that they're looking at that when they come in. That the landscaper or whatever's going to call us to see what they can do. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Other than that, thoughts or comments. Consider the request here before us. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to tackle this one. You know I don't even know how many years I've been doing this now. I've kind of lost track but it's been 15 or 16 I guess that we've had variances come before the Planning Commission and City Council and it's frustrating to say the least and I think that you know to support what the city attorney said, is it you know, is it a hardship to have grass over a brick paver patio. I would be hard to say that that would be the case. We put the ordinance in at 25% for all the right reasons and it's reinforced by the difficulties we've had with the development that sits below this one for the 100 year storm we had last year, the year before so. We saw intimately what the impacts of runoff can do to homes and to parks and to everything else that we had, which is substantial. So do I see a compelling reason to grant a variance in this case? I don't but what I do see, which I haven't seen before is a creative idea of ways to mitigate it. I don't think I'm ready to, and certainly staff isn't ready to say a dry well is a reasonable alternative but I can say from personal experience I have one. I draintiled my house on the outside 3 years ago and put in a dry well about 5 feet down. I happen to look at it and dig it out this year because I was curious to see whether it required any maintenance, and it hasn't in 3 years. And it's working wonderfully and so, although I am not comfortable approving this tonight, I would offer that I think the dry well concept has a lot of merit and probably much more merit than in the discussions we've had over this last year about pervious pavers and impervious asphalt. I think, and I don't know why I didn't think about it before because I...3 years ago but it wasn't for impervious surface issues. For different reasons but you know Todd to your point, the cycle of the seasons hasn't seem to do that, having pause or a negative affect to it. At least mine worked well. So that being said, you know I don't really see the reason to say yes to this. I think we've been pretty aggressive to try to make it as small a variance as we can, and I guess, I applaud staff for trying to get down to close to 25 as we can, 29 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 but we're not there and I've turned down a lot of people that weren't there, and I feel bad about it but I'm doing it for the right reasons and that's the reason why I recommend that we deny it tonight. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, these are, these are the cases that I really always struggled a lot and it's very easy to just be reasonable and say it's 3.3%. You're doing something good to your home. You're adding value. You're making our neighborhoods and our city a better place to live. But the problem is you have homes all around you and they all had to live with this same criteria of 25% hard coverage surface, and there's a reason for that because we all have seen what water runoff does. I believe there was a neighbor in Manchester who called in saying that his basement had flooded. Well you know the 25% protects everybody and if we all tried our best to keep to that 25%, I think we've shown that that works and so I also am inclined to go with staffs recommendation of not granting a variance due to the fact that we've been consistent so far as a council with our coverage and I would like to stay on that same track. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I agree with what's already been said here. I think it's been well put in my comments and what I've already said is ... so I'm comfortable with supporting what's been said. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. These are difficult, especially when work has already begun and there's improvements being made to the property and then a stop work occurs and that is a challenging situation that I can empathize with. I think also I can empathize with the comments made by Mr. Papedis earlier with regard to expectations of buying a home in the city. This is a great place to live and people want to move here. They want to build nice homes. We have seen time and again the size of the homes relative to the lots generally increasing and this is a situation that I don't think will change in the near future, or at least from what I've heard and seen in this neighborhood and development. The issue comes down to reasonable use. What's reasonable use? One person's use is different than another's. What is reasonable? We try to find that in our ordinance and to Councilwoman Tjornhom's point, we try to hold everybody to the same standard and that standard includes a type of home in terms of structure and some components but it also includes the size of the home and other impervious surface coverage relative to the lot size. We heard this evening on topography and shape of the lot were part of the hardship here. I'll deal with the last one first. Shape of lot I struggle with. We spent a lot of time during the platting process to make sure we don't have lots that make, that create an unreasonable use situation or that put us into a situation that would justify a hardship or a variance. With regard to topography, Chanhassen is not on a plain. We're not flat. We have that everywhere and I'm a little concerned with regard to, to the retaining wall issue. I think that is something that we need to spend some time on and make sure that we treat people fairly and equally. That is our role and the, to that end there are a number of developments that don't have flat back yards and retaining walls are used to create that but they may provide a benefit, as we heard here this evening but that is not something that we looked at in the past. In this case I'm relying on staffs interpretation that this is an improvement for this particular situation but I don't know that that's a question that we're comfortable taking at this point. 30 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: That leads me to my other point and that is for instance in making sure that what we do for any property owner we're willing to do for others and I'm not sure that at this point I am too intrigued by the technology that is being presented here as an opportunity. I don't think that I'm willing to support it tonight through the variance process, but that too is something that we can talk about and if it is something that we want to adopt in ordinance, then we would always have that opportunity outside of the variance process for any property owner in the city to utilize that type of technology at their home and at their property when and if that time comes so I think that's something that this is going to be an ongoing issue. Storm water management is a challenge for this city. We heard the 100 year storm mentioned earlier this evening. We had two of those in about a year period so we got at the end of the 100 years and beginning of 100 years I guess but, and this particular area of town was very hard hit in a couple of those and to your point, we saw what happened. And so I am at this point I too don't see a compelling reason to provide a variance from a hardship standpoint. I believe reasonable use is available here and I believe that with regard to the adjustments that have been made already, with the retaining walls, that still provides some additional improvements that can be made, if I'm understanding that correctly and so I think staying with the 25% as has been interpreted and calculated by staff is a correct thing to do in this situation. So I feel and empathize for the property owner. I don't think you're going to be alone. I know that probably doesn't help but I think the issue comes back to, as was mentioned earlier, what was identified back at the time that the subdivision occurred, and that was storm water. Storm water management. We spent a lot of time talking about the size of ponds in this particular part of the development I recall in particular and that the nature of the runoff and so I think that was clearly an issue that we saw going in. So unfortunately for the property owner I believe we have to deny the variance. I'm grateful for the work that was done to try to find some accommodations, which I think has been done given the situation and then I think at this point given what we have and what our ordinance says, this is what we can do. To the extent that we proceed in the future and seek to adopt some different standards to our ordinances, and those again would be available to everyone in the city and would be the proper way to go so at this point I guess, unless there's any other comments from the council at this point, is there a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that the City Council deny variance #07- 19 for a 3.3%. Kate Aanenson: I believe that was 5 point. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is it 5.0? Roger Knutson: 3.3 in the revised. Kate Aanenson: Okay. 31 City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. 3.3 hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2°d Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions, number 1. Roger Knutson: Mayor, does that also include the extra finding that Bob read? That would include a correction of that finding which currently says 5.3. Now it's 3.3. Mayor Furlong: And the condition is that it shall not exceed 25%. Okay. Councilman Litsey: As stated I second that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council denies Variance #07-19 for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I had to add is that we have made ground with MnDot and have received deeds for the southern fire station property off of Lyman. You'll see that probably on our next City Council agenda for you to approve the deeds. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion items? Councilman Peterson: The only other one, I don't know where this is appropriate but in this last staff report, the narrative describes that it's the developer and the real estate's agent duty to inform perspective homeowner. I guess as a matter of future, it's not the real estate agent's duty to inform from a legal perspective, just to clarify. Protecting those real estate agents... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? I guess one thing, I'll use this as an opportunity to point out, Mr. Oehme is here. Tonight in our consent agenda, one of the requests from Mr. Oehme and our engineering department was to approve a joint powers agreement for the scoping study for Highway 5 from Highway 41 west through the cities of Victoria and Waconia and out to Norwood -Young America. That was the first step that is actually a joint agreement between those four cities, the County of Carver as well as MnDot who will be providing some in kind services as part of those studies and that's something that I think has been an issue for a number of our residents and with that study it will start moving us along towards being able to make some improvements, safety improvements as well as capacity improvements 32 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 07-19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commissionwillhold apublichearing on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is Applicant: on the Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this publ is hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: as raP hAy i. hanhacmn.mitus Phone: 952-227- 1132 (PublishedintheChanhassen Villager on Thursday, August 23, 2007; No. 4940) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. '/ (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. � 7 y 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: abcdefgh(jkhnnopgrstuvwxyz (_ / �'vlit/LLC� //t-- /�`r-a/(/f //1_-�1-�/t�t�✓ Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on 1 1 11 � Lam GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTPAY PU&JC - MINNESOTA My U mksbn Erpims Jw. 31, 2010 _a_f� =-I I/" RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.89 per column inch SCANNED Building Inspeclions Dear Mr. Johnson: Phone: 952.227.1180 - Fax: 952227.1190 This letter is to confirm that on September 24, 2007, the following motion was Engineering adopted, "The City Council denies Variance #07-19 for a 3.3% hard surface Phone: 952.227.1160 coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition Fax: 952.227.1170 of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff Finance report with the following condition: Rone:952227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%" Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 o-/ Fm 952.227.1110 • • Recreation Center September 25, 2007 CITY OF retaining walls from the impervious calculations on the subject site; the remaining �lNHt1s];N Mr. Tim Johnson IIHI� Southview Design 7700 Market Boulevard 1875 E 50th St. PO Box 147 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 Adminislrotion Re: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Phone: 952.227.1100 Planning Case #07-19 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspeclions Dear Mr. Johnson: Phone: 952.227.1180 - Fax: 952227.1190 This letter is to confirm that on September 24, 2007, the following motion was Engineering adopted, "The City Council denies Variance #07-19 for a 3.3% hard surface Phone: 952.227.1160 coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition Fax: 952.227.1170 of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff Finance report with the following condition: Rone:952227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%" Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 You must provide staff with plans to eliminate the excess impervious surface, Fm 952.227.1110 bringing the property into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface Recreation Center coverage required by City Ordinance. City Council directed staff to eliminate the 2310 Coulter Phone:952.227.1400 retaining walls from the impervious calculations on the subject site; the remaining Fax: 952.227.1404 impervious area available on the property is 345 square feet. Planning a Natural Resources The site must be brought into compliance within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Phone: 952.227.1130 An inspection will be conducted on Monday, October, 29th, 2007, to verify the Fax: 952.227.1110 proposed plans. Public Works 1591 Park Road Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 Phone: 952.227.130Q oraauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952227.1110 Web Site '•%//�.p wwwachanhassen.mn.us Angie Auseth Planner I ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director g-xplan12007 planning c \07-192101 pinehurst hsc varianceWenial letter.doc SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beaulifuI parks. A geat place to live, work, and play. Mayor Furlong: ...and make sure the runoff and so I think that was clearly an issue that we saw going in. So unfortunately for the property owner, I believe we have to deny the variance. I'm grateful for the work that we've done to try to find some accommodation which I think has been done, given the situation and I think at this point given what we have and what our ordinance says, this is what we can do. To the extent that we proceed in the future and seek to adopt some different standards to our ordinances, then those again would be available for everyone in the city and would be the proper way to go. So at this point I guess, unless there's any other comments from the council at this point, is there a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that the City Council deny variance #07- 19 for a 3.3%. Kate Aanenson: I believe that was 5 point. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Is it 5.0? Roger Knutson: 3.3 in the revised. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. 3.3 hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2°d Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition number 1. Roger Knutson: Mayor, does that also include the extra finding that Bob read? That would include a correction of that finding which currently says 5.3. Now it's 3.3. Mayor Furlong: And the condition is that it shall not exceed 25%. Okay. Councilman Litsey: As stated I second that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council denies Variance #07-19 for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition: The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CITY OF CgMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park 1i Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 Planning d Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.achanlhsseo.mn.us 0 -7 - The -7- 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: September 24, 2007 SUBJ: Papedis Variance Request - 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition Planning Case #07-19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is appealing a denial of their variance request for an after -the -fact 5.3% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 4, 2007. The Planning Commission voted five for and one against a motion denying the hard surface coverage variance. Planning Commission discussion brought up the importance of the 25% hard surface coverage maximum due to past flooding situations in the adjacent neighborhood directly south of Pinehurst. The 25% maximum hardcover was addressed when Pinehurst was being platted. At that time, staff was concerned about the lack of available buildable surface due to the size of homes being proposed on the lots. As a result, Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst 2°d Addition and reduced the number lots from 43 to 41. A homeowner from Manchester Drive, directly south of the site, expressed concern for his home flooding a third time due to the runoff produced from the Pinehurst Development. The applicant representing the homeowner is the landscape architect. He proposed a dry well system and other storm water infiltration applications which are designed to collect runoff and allow it absorb into the ground before it reaches the storm water pond. The applicant also brought a letter of reference from Westwood Professional Services for an alternate runoff application for the subject site which consisted of a trench drain. The concern of the Planning Commission regarding these alternative applications was if they would work with the soils in Chanhassen. 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. Todd Gerhardt September 24, 2007 Page 2 of 2 The City Council has had discussions regarding credit for pervious applications and has not yet reached a conclusion with regard to the monitoring, installation and maintenance that would be required to ensure the applications are in fact pervious. A second issue brought up in the discussion was the fact that the hardscape was put into place without a permit. The City requires a Residential Zoning Permit for all improvements to a parcel. It is up to the homeowner and/or contractor to contact the City and inquire and apply for such permit prior to installation. The Planning Commission expressed their opinion that if a homeowner is going to spend the time and money on a project, then they should at least call the City to inquire about city ordinances. The permit information is also available on the City's website. A third issue brought up in the discussion was whether or not to include the deck in the impervious coverage. The decking used on the site has small drainage holes rather than a straight slatted decking, which clog easily with debris leaving pools of water, however, as a policy, staff has excluded standard slatted decks from the hard surface coverage calculations. Based on that policy the deck was approved prior to the variance request; therefore, the deck is eliminated from the impervious surface calculations, and the staff report has been revised to reflect that change. The Planning Commission minutes for September 4, 2007 are attached to this report. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion as specified on page 8 in the staff report dated September 4, 2007 denying the hard surface coverage variance with the condition to bring the property into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage and adopt the attached Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Southview Design Appealing Planning Commission Denial. 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 4, 2007. 4. Planning Commission Minutes for September 4, 2007. g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehuna hsc variance\cxecutive summary.dw 0 0 September 10, 2007 Dear Angie, I am writing to inform you that I am appealing the denial decision made by the planning commission on September 4h regarding the variance request at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. The planning case for this site is 07-19. I understand that we will need to meet in the near future and review this project with the City Council. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday September l Ith to start discussions on how we might be able to work together to better understand any opportunities to correct run off with the current hardscapes on site. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you. Southview Design 1875 East 50th Street Inver Grove Heights Minnesota 55077 1Eset Met® 651-455-823B N—thweet Metro 763-422-018 Southwest Metro 952.881-229 651.455.1734 Outdoor Living Commercial & Residential • Professional Planning • Greenseapes • Waterscapes • Irrigation • Hardscapes • Concrete Pavers Custom Services www.southviewdesign.com t� a BUILDERS ° N A.IZ I' kilo �[�] nseDcw= RUILUERS CLUB, mrrvmm...�.n m. n•ei .E �NW 6 r 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Southview Design for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape — Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 4, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Appeal of Southview Design for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single - Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 20 Addition, which had been denied at the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council conducted a hearing on the proposed variance. The City Council reviewed the September 4, 2007 Planning Commission minutes, 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 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 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. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property; the extra 3.3% impervious surface coverage will contribute to storm water quantity and quality problems. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. 0 0 c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the 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. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 24, 2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the construction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24's day of September, 2007. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL IM Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor g1plan\2007 planning casest07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc vatiance\cc findings of fact.doc 2 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an, after the fact, 3.3% 64% q.4% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. LOCATION: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition APPLICANT: Tim Johnson OWNER: Ojar Papedis Southview Design 2101 Pinehurst Drive 1875 East 50`s Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.44 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 3.3% 6jb �k hard surface variance for the addition of patios and hardscape. 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. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variancetaequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 4 of 8 At the time the Pinehurst Development was going through the public hearing process in 2006, hard surface coverage was a concern on these lots. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. Pinehurst was replatted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the lot size on some of the lots. Due to the size of the homes proposed by the developer, the developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for any further improvements or additions on these lots. In an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 3.3% &3% 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. The lot area is 19,423 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, etc. may occupy 4,858 square feet. The original building permit occupied 4,513 square feet of hard cover, the remaining impervious surface allowed was 345 square feet. The proposed hard cover additions occupy 993 4OU 44N square feet, which is 648 X9]9 4,43-5 square feet over what is allowed by ordinance for this parcel. Much of the impervious surface is currently installed on the site. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varian?equest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 5 of 8 Surface Building Permit Square Feet Proposed Square Feet House/Garage/Porch 3,232 3,232 Driveway 1,281 1,281 Front Sidewalk 170 Upper Patio 445 Fire Pit 225 Stone Steps 28 Beek 406 � 468 383 Steppers 125 Total 4,513 or 23.2% 5,506 or28.3% 6R# e.. 1'f AOl_ (Note: As a poliey staff does not inelude st-and-e—Fd- slao-ed- deeking as hard upon- ' however, r.fe.of the : the deeW sit. ..e el that ince&eks, leaving.1. ell drainage g for r :.. to fie.., ♦6..eugh These small dfai age holes get h1....Le.i ..,:th &1.�� affld do not elle....., te...,........hrough impef-yiees su f fe,.e is defined as "....., .....reel that - substantially feduees or prevents the ii;filtfation af rsAfm :: ater " 13ue to the large ne_fnittea ,.y this type of ,,..61_:.., staff is i eluding the ,le,.,,:.,g as ,..,_,, , , r 1 There is not an exiting door under the deck and the applicant has communicated to staff that this space will remain green and will not have any impervious surfaces. Staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process. Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst god Addition to eliminate two lots in 2006. It is the developer and real estate agent's duty to inform the prospective homeowner of any and all limitations on the site. Since Lennar Homes is also the builder, they were aware of the constraints on the property. Due to the nature of the homes in this development, the expectation is to improve the exterior of the property with landscaping and hardscaping. Prospective homeowners should have been made aware of the impervious restrictions prior to building on these lots. In addition, all hardscape improvements require approval of a Residential Zoning Permit obtained by the homeowner or contractor. A building inspector was conducting an inspection at a different site and noticed the improvements. He informed the contractor of the 25% hard surface coverage restrictions on the site and that the contractor must discontinue the installation of the deck and patios and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit prior to resuming construction. J CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DAT(69/4/07 CC DATE: 9/24/07 REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/2/07 CASE #: 07-19 BY: AA PROPOSAL: Request for an, after the fact, 5.3% 7.4k variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. LOCATION: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition APPLICANT: Tim Johnson OWNER: Ojar Papedis Southview Design 2101 Pinehurst Drive 1875 East 50th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.44 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 5.3% 7.4% hard surface variance for the addition of patios and hardscape. 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. F2] 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varianctequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 2 of 9 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 30.3% 42 4% hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. Theyoperty is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). It is located on Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. The City received a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 23.2% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. The contractor received notice by a building inspector on July 30, 2007, that the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 25% and that all hardscape improvements require a Residential Zoning Permit. At the time the contractor was notified the installation of the deck and patios was nearly complete. The contractor then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property with adequate outdoor expansion area and approval of this application could set a precedent. 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariancPRequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 3 of 9 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 23, Block 1, in the Pinehurst 2°a Addition which is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The subject property is 19,423 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 108 feet and approximately 265 feet in depth. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the property was approved on January 16, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 23.2%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 23.2% coverage allowed for future improvements, such as a patio. Based on the building permit application, the homeowner would have had an additional 345 square feet of hard surface for future expansion. l - J�\�,• �E4EN \A WP9 A• •1t / Jf// ". a, _.rY1:' :� •OR.. .ems I0.=Er`MDC.NJIIfGY 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariaAcquest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 4 of 9 At the time the Pinehurst Development was going through the public hearing process in 2006, hard surface coverage was a concern on these lots. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. Pinehurst was replatted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the lot size on some of the lots. Due to the size of the homes proposed by the developer, the developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for any further improvements or additions on these lots. In an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 5.3% 74% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. The lot area is 19,423 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, etc. may occupy 4,858 square feet. The original building permit occupied 4,513 square feet of hard cover, the remaining impervious surface allowed was 345 square feet. The proposed hard cover additions occupy 1,374 4-,40 square feet, which is 1,029 4,433 square feet over what is allowed by ordinance for this parcel. Much of the impervious surface is currently installed on the site. full � a lamd 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varianfequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 5 of 9 Surface Building Permit Square Feet Proposed Square Feet House/Garage/Porch 3,232 3,232 Driveway 1,281 1,281 Front Sidewalk 170 Upper Patio 445 Fire Pit 225 Fire Pit Boulder Ring 16 Stone Steps 28 Deek 406 Lower Wall 160 Upper Wall 205 Steppers 125 Total 4,513 or 23.2% 5,887 or 30.3% c4nae� /Nervi As a ..el:e., staff does not inelude st....de..d slotted deek:..g as hard a however, . pon- the site the deeldn ..:t.. ate el that interleeks leaving only all .. Wit.: ��' > .. to Fle... thFO gh These small drainage heles get bloeked wish del..:s and do not allow water to fun through. hnpervious suffaee is defined as "an), fnatefial that substantiallyfeduces or pFevents the infiltration of staffn..�Due to the laek of drainage j.:.......ted by this of de..L:.. ... ". ..luding the deet:.. as hard a e.) There is not an exiting door under the deck and the applicant has communicated to staff that this space will remain green and will not have any impervious surfaces. Staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process. Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst 2°d Addition to eliminate two lots in 2006. It is the developer and real estate agent's duty to inform the prospective homeowner of any and all limitations on the site. Since Lennar Homes is also the builder, they were aware of the constraints on the property. Due to the nature of the homes in this development, the expectation is to improve the exterior of the property with landscaping and hardscaping. Prospective homeowners should have been made aware of the impervious restrictions prior to building on these lots. In addition, all hardscape improvements require approval of a Residential Zoning Permit obtained by the homeowner or contractor. A building inspector was conducting an inspection at a different site and noticed the improvements. He informed the contractor of the 25% hard surface coverage restrictions on the site and that the contractor must discontinue the installation of the deck and patios and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit prior to resuming construction. A residential zoning permit acts as a safety net to identify any potential code violations, such as setback encroachments and hard cover requirements, prior to construction. This permit is at no 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varianfkequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 6 of 9 cost to the homeowner and allows the City and the homeowner an opportunity to correct any encroachments before installation begins. It is the contractor/homeowner's responsibility to contact the City prior to construction and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit to ensure compliance with city code. If a variance is granted from the 25% hard surface maximum, it may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes significantly in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1051.3 to 1034, which constitutes a 17.3 -foot drop in a matter of 70 feet. A storm water pond is located outside of the property lines, just to the west of the rear yard of the property. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types B and C, soils containing non -permeable material, such as clay. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two -car garage. A single-family home with a three -car garage is currently constructed on the property. Even after the initial construction of the home, there was 345 square feet of additional hard cover allowed on the property. The Planning Commission 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 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varian(kequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 7 of 9 downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two -car garage, and the addition of a ten -foot by ten -foot patio could be constructed without a variance. 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 in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. 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 purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential maybe increased as an indirect result. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self- created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. 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 variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the 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. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Variankequest • Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 8 of 9 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 reeammends that and the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopts the following motion: "The City Council PUFinming Geffhmiss denies Variance 07-19 for a 5.3% 74% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2nd Addition based on the fmdings of fact in the staff report with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of hardscape design. 5. Pinehurst Hydrograph Report—Drainage Area 10. 6. Drainage Map for Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 7. Hydrology Guide for Minnesota, figure 3-2. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplant2007 planning casest07-19 2101 pinchunt hsc varime6staff report.doc n U n U CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Southview Design for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape — Planning Case No. 07-19. On September 4, 2007, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Southview Design for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance for the addition of multiple patios and hardscape at 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 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 23, Block 1, Pinehurst 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. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two car garage, and the addition of a ten foot by ten foot patio could be constructed without a variance. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential maybe increased as an indirect result. 0 n u d. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. I. 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. 5. The planning report #07-19 Variance dated September 4, 2007, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for the constriction of multiple patios and hardscape. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 0 day of September, 2007. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION lA Its Chairman g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-19 2101 pinehurst hsc variance\findings of fact.doc rLCAbL rKtn I 0 0 Planning Case No. 07-19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN �.'iVOFCHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 RECEIVED Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 AUG 0 2 2007 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION EN PLANNING DEPT Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: `��+Tt�v\'cvJ I�ESl6►� U.�fk(L f.pE01 S 1`3[5 E. So ST 1�l N�rZs w t NVQ � M tJ 1353 17 Contact: = tA Contact: Phone: Fax: (pS1 JSS I-1 Phone: (oCL3U°1? 11-1 Fax: Email: -} �o1�v15oc� P. So V-ym a x3esw,n •cO&A Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR)-* -7 i .00 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 Sign Plan Review (City to install and remove) X E for Filing Fees/ rney Cost" Site Plan Review (SPR)' _ $50 UP/SPRNACANAP/Metes & Bounds Minor SUB �" Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ Z -S0 � "`Ue� J 1� t�,jr%WA'r -512.!'07 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/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 WmNED each application. C V9 l of H Jul 31 2007 6:U7PM OJRR PRPEDIS 95269823 p.3 PROJECT NAME: l iA1 SSC i�PIiJ Cz FCv- p,NAfL P pel'it LOCATION: Ztyk DF:x ' Let'jp&z`5 �tJ- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: B.Z°l U S V tJa'r I c-L-uoi N& 5� U✓ D WETLANDS PRESENT: '<YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: WE We t1wke-tJ6, � V,?AQ04P40 'Ib R id fr L SeACE fz,� VA to Aie A S '�3PC"AJLO r-,,utz ?I .fa.J , r iJlZ (--vAt, is 'Tv Irk -,ME 004Az- `!N-0 GST ►Ewr� 1 Tit+ T CSR- CI.I15Nt Cly kA-vIE IP t-' 4TIEV-TipV 0 i er- N FIs tJf-vJ %}oME -' & 70 /O'7^l J) %b i579� 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 wlth 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 Dupl!cate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself understand that ar authorization to -j( my knovAad informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further ditional fees may b45 -charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any reed with the stddv. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of G:V ANHoms Development Review Application.Doc Date 3 Da Rev. 12/05 c C •oo O Z _ C < Eoo�s3 v � ZI o:09 v« W _NLWI-K LL•�� w 000000 O���Ii —!I .•a o a.. oi-n v< n LW F �1 W 1 8 Lm p-8g 8N 0 - U m c C •oo O Z _ C < Eoo�s3 v � ZI o:09 v« W _NLWI-K LL•�� w 000000 O���Ii —!I .•a o a.. oi-n v< 1�1 R 0 n LW F W 1 8 0 - U w J Q N M 1�1 R 0 O�Pb18-11mV4Y.M��IEMINiPWuf� l flS Y611 - emYlLl - (WC Tl �N L FE, 4l' LW F \ 1 8 - U 3s $ _ 12, oz QEw •S sm e3 • ••• O V Ji m s. �a S� P•3 r o �o - Y i �I •� riE �m ve Sm a� a• M m T• e o �u j$�', nc ma �No °+ua N a mirinr3r dO73niO �b NytlNyg Nod• O�Pb18-11mV4Y.M��IEMINiPWuf� l flS Y611 - emYlLl - (WC Tl �N L FE, 4l' LW F \ 1 O�Pb18-11mV4Y.M��IEMINiPWuf� l flS Y611 - emYlLl - (WC Tl �N L FE, 4l' LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR Papedis Residence DESIGNMALES REP.Tm bIrM REVISIONS I'. 2101 Pinehurst 1�ii �.Mwi mv l9wmml :�&� DESIGN/SALESASST:rm k5lu 512 mv2w Chanhassen, MN 55317 offsa! �� IDA� LIAMM I . - 1 Hydrograph Report 0 13 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 11 DA -10 Hydrograph type Storm frequency Drainage area Basin Slope Tc method Total precip. Storm duration = SCS Runoff = 100 yrs = 16.66 ac = 3.5% = LAG = 6.00 in = 24 hrs Hydrograph Discharge Table Time -- Outflow (hrs cfs) 12.10 49.96 << _End Wednesday, Jul 6 2005, 9:112 AM Peak discharge = 49.96 cfs Time interval = 3 min Curve number = 72 Hydraulic length = 1100ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 23.2 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume 4.052 acft (P�ajws 10G% a op) of oil - lidrb M1 G*'e' TW Ares()+a" - U,W), 4. so\ I Coo. sou ec, I MN -ENG -73 FIGURE 3-2 U. DEF�MWT OF AGACULUJU 9-76 (Pile Gods ENG -13) HYDROLOGIC CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION SHEET LAND USE FUR URBAN AREAS Present or Future Watershed Site D.A. Acres Computed by Date Checked by —Date Total Acres Weighted Runoff Curve NO. Product Total Total Acres 3-4 Product Total Curve Numbers Acres Moisture Condition II A B C D LAND USE DESCRIPTION Per Practice Soils Soils Soils Soils Product Cultivated Land: without conservation treatment 72 81 88 91 with conservation treatment 62 71 78 81 Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89 good condition 3Q 61 74 80 Meadow: good cond,-tion 30 58 71 78 Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no muloh 45 66 77 83 good cover 25 55 70 77 Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, ceme- teries, etc. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 39 61 74 80 fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 49 6q 79 84 Commercial and business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95 Industrial districts (72% imPervious) 81 88 91 93 Residential: Average lot size Average % Impervious 118 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92 114 acre 38 61 75 83 87 113 acre 011,520sC) 30 57 72 81 86 112 acre (2j,-7ESDS,��) 25 54 70 80 85 1 acre 20 51 68 79 84 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. 98 98 98 98 Streets and roads: I paved with curbs and storm sewers 98 98 98 98 gravel 76 85 89 91 dirt 72 82 87 89 —B-5 __T5_ —75 -- Other Total Acres Weighted Runoff Curve NO. Product Total Total Acres 3-4 Product Total CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MR4NESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 23, 2007, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Nfinnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for 2101 Pinehurst Variance - Planning Case 07-19 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, Mnnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karar(J. Engellff Deput&lerk Subscribed and swom to before me thisQ-812� day of ,2007. Notary Pukic 10M T MEUMSSEN t,1n.tqn, P� Hir-Minnesota Jan 31.. 2MO Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance Applicant: Southview Design Property 2101 Pinehurst Drive 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 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/07-19.htmI. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angle Questions & Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday I prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland 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, affirrin 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 persons). • 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. It 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, September 4, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance Applicant: Southview Design Property 2101 Pinehurst Drive 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 I ' Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serylplan/07-19.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aausethOci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 95 2-227-1131. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday I 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 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 r& '10 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 commercialfinclustriall. • 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. Ifyouwishtohave something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. — This bi is nattler a legally retsonded mp nor a sunmy and is not Intended to he usest an me. This Mail I . . . Orriblation of records. Indombeffich end data located in varrous city, county, state mot fiedmi officas and other sources reganding Me ane, IMIM, and IS to be ,W for reference purbees only. The City does hol �mdl that the Geographic Infonnallon System (GIS) Data used to prepare this -nap am error tree, and! the City does not represent net the GIS Data can be used for niorgational. trad,mg or any other Nrpose requiring emacting masurenrent, of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If emors or discrepancies are found please comact 952-M-1107. The Preceding disdaimr is pm�ded purscant to Minnesota Statutes §466,03, Subs, 21 (2000). and Me user of this mp acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly ,ya,vas all claim, and agrees 10 defend, indemnity, and hold harml the City from any and of claum brought by User, its eirriployeas or agards. or Mind parties ybich arse out of the user's access or use of data pinerded This bass is neither a legally recorded ini nor a wmey and Is not intended to ba ulesd as me. This MP IS a com,,ilabon of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and olher� siximas regarding the area shom, and is to the used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Inf.meation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free. and the Ch, does no squebant that the GIS Data can be used for ninngational, InSI or any Other purbose requiring exacting rineasurebent of distance or directior, or precistion in the defoction of geographic features. If whors or discrepancies are found pleass correct 952-227-1107. The preceding clisclainler is mwIded pt�rsuant to Minneema Statutes §466.W, Sulob. 21 (21M)), and the user of fts maso wknoWedg" that the City Shall not the liable tor my carriages, and exbressuly VmveS all dems. and agrees to deland, indemnity, and hold harnmebes the City from my and all claim brought by User. IS ernboyesar or agenda. or Mint parties s,hich anse out of the user's access or use of data mended JAYSON CDREHER WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE SANDRA L WELLS 2144 LAKE LUCY RD 6739 MANCHESTER DR 2051 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6705 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -6700 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON TIMOTHY P & HEIDI S LARKIN & JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 2110 CRESTVIEW DR LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION 6738 MANCHESTER DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8009 2150 CRESTVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6700 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 4WO9 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER PAULSTUNGSETH ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 6710 MANCHESTER DR 2051 CRESTVIEW DR 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -67DD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8D08 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS ROBERT A JR & BRENDA K NESS STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2151 CRESTVIEW DR 2121 CRESTVIEW DR 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MIN 55331 -8010 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8010 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -0008 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE CLAFLIN JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & DANIEL J DOHSE & 1106 55TH AVE S HELENA B STAFKO MARIT S LEE-DOHSE FARGO, NO 58104 -6456 2028 HIGHGATE CIR 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -6704 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 U S ROME CORP THOMAS J WOODS ANDREW & DANA UJING 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 2D31 EDGEWOOD CT 2020 EDGEWOOD CT WAYZATA, MN 55391 -1849 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 4577 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4577 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC USHOMECORP& OJARS A PAPEDIS 1851 WEST LAKE DR PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC TRUSTEE OF 0 PAPEDIS TRUST STE 650 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 2`101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8567 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -1849 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4579 BEN & MARGARET LIAO RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS TONKA DEVELOPMENT U -C 3645 FORESTVIEW UN 2021 EDGEWOOD CT 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD PLYMOUTH, MIN 55441 -1336 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4577 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8743 0 0 WILLIAM V & NANCY M SWEARENGIN XUEBING FENG & TRUSTEES OF FAMILY TRUST JUDITH ELAINE ALEXANDER XIAOGUANG DENG 2080 CRESTVIEW DR 2122 LAKE LUCY RD 6724 MANCHESTER DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8W7 CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317 -6705 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -670D JAYSON CDREHER WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE SANDRA L WELLS 2144 LAKE LUCY RD 6739 MANCHESTER DR 2051 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6705 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -6700 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON TIMOTHY P & HEIDI S LARKIN & JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 2110 CRESTVIEW DR LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION 6738 MANCHESTER DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8009 2150 CRESTVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6700 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 4WO9 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER PAULSTUNGSETH ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 6710 MANCHESTER DR 2051 CRESTVIEW DR 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -67DD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8D08 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS ROBERT A JR & BRENDA K NESS STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2151 CRESTVIEW DR 2121 CRESTVIEW DR 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MIN 55331 -8010 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8010 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -0008 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE CLAFLIN JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & DANIEL J DOHSE & 1106 55TH AVE S HELENA B STAFKO MARIT S LEE-DOHSE FARGO, NO 58104 -6456 2028 HIGHGATE CIR 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -6704 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6704 U S ROME CORP THOMAS J WOODS ANDREW & DANA UJING 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 2D31 EDGEWOOD CT 2020 EDGEWOOD CT WAYZATA, MN 55391 -1849 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 4577 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4577 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC USHOMECORP& OJARS A PAPEDIS 1851 WEST LAKE DR PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC TRUSTEE OF 0 PAPEDIS TRUST STE 650 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 2`101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8567 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -1849 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4579 BEN & MARGARET LIAO RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS TONKA DEVELOPMENT U -C 3645 FORESTVIEW UN 2021 EDGEWOOD CT 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD PLYMOUTH, MIN 55441 -1336 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4577 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8743 Public Hearin? Notification Aret 2101 Pinehurst Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case 07-19 (500 feet) West 65th Street -V C::restv res lew Dr Cre view r OD 00 SUBJECT 0 70 JPROPERTY 0 0 Highgate cir CQ jp- O,E?C/ Planning Commission Meeti# September 4, 2007 0 All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. SOUTHVIIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-19. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50 th Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Boeddeker 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: We'll start to my left this time. Kurt. Papke: What are the lower, there's a table on page 5 that shows the differences from what, the issues with the building permit and there's two items on there I couldn't quite make out from the plan. They're the lower wall and upper wall. Are these the retaining walls? The boulder retaining walls in place. Auseth: Yes, those are the retaining walls. Papke: That's all. Larson: Okay. I have a question. McDonald: Go right ahead. Larson: If they had used a different material rather than brick pavers. Something that was, what do you call it? McDonald: Permeable? Larson: That will accept water, would this have been an issue? Auseth: Yes. Currently we don't give any credit to any other types of material. Things that are pervious, and we appreciate the fact that people are putting those in but at this time we don't give any credit for those. Larson: What if it had been grass as opposed to brick pavers or you know something that was maybe harder surface however you know something, an example would be like a putting green type of grass surface where it would accept water. 13 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 Auseth: The difference would be. Larson: Well because that to me, it's, it will accept water. Generous: A grass surface would have been acceptable but. Larson: It would have? Okay. Generous: It's just the council has resolved the issue about pervious pavers and that. It's still part of the discussion that they're having at the council level. Larson: I see. Papke: Is pervious, these pavers? Auseth: When we were at the site the contractor was showing us how the water went through, telling us that they're pervious but there again we don't have any way of gauging that at this point. It's what we would give credit for. Larson: Because typically the brick pavers, if they are pervious they're put on sand and they do drain quite well. I don't know, that's all I had. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: So in the table on page 5, all of those items you know besides the house and the driveway that are proposed, are they all done? Or are they still proposed? Auseth: I believe just about everything is already done. The deck wasn't quite finished when I was out there. And as far as the patios, they're done and the fire pit's done. The retaining wafl,� are in. The front sidewalk is in. Dillon: Alright. And so, so the staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process so Lermar was fully aware of all of this? Auseth: Correct. Dillon: And was the company that was doing these proposed improvements, were they aware? Auseth: I'm not sure if they were aware or not. Dillon: Okay. And was the homeowner aware? Auseth: There again I'm not sure. 14 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 Dillon: Alright, So again, what was their reaction when they were told to stop the improvements? Auseth: I believe they were upset and came in to City Hall with their proposal going for a variance. Dillon: Okay. Alright and so, I expect the applicants will be up so I'll save the rest of my questions for them. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Do you require in our development agreements any sort of disclosure from the builder and/or the developer in terms of the limited amount of additional, the available hard surface coverage because we knew that this was going to be an issue on this. In this development. Of we had a pretty good idea because we talked at length about it. Generous: We have in the past but not specifically on this one. However even with that when 340 some square feet of additional impervious surface after they built their house and put the driveway and sidewalk seemed like a sufficient amount. Keefe: Right. Well and Ijust wondered about, you know how did it get from ... to Lennar, you know landscaping to the homeowner and the homeowner's, I don't know who's at risk in this one. It remains to be seen but what we did on this one... Generous: On the city code there's 25% site coverage. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: With only a handful of homes built out there now, ...did they look at what they did the first time in changing some lots around or is there an opportunity to add onto the outlots somewhere or ... buy a park lot out there or something? Generous: Well, not a park lot per se. The City owns an outlot behind them. There's always that opportunity to acquire additional land from your neighbor but then that makes that lot smaller and if they took the same size house, it just pushes it down. You know where the variance would come in. Again when we looked at the expansion we though this would accommodate them. And it did. It accommodated the house and the basic house and driveway and sidewalk and it allows for 300 some square feet of expansion for the homeowner to come in. So you know if they reduce it a hair, they could have made it up there. Lots of trade off s that people have to make. Keefe: One additional question. On the decking, you noted in the report that this particular decking seemed to be more impervious the way that it is. I mean is cedar decking we allow or? 15 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 Auseth: Typically the slated decking that has the full length open inbetween each slate is, by policy is pervious. This one has the tiny holes which I've seen in other cases ... pond pretty much on the decking. McDonald: I kind of remember when all this came in. What kind of discussions, I mean I know that that was one of the reasons why they expanded what, decreased the lots so we had bigger lot sizes because that was one of the issues that we brought up because of the type of homes that were being built on the smaller lots. What discussions did you have with the developer to get that point across that okay we have an ordinance of 25% and you take the home, the footprint, the property, 25% can be covered. Did they fully understand that? How did this get passed on? We have this problem consistently and I know that was the reason for the ordinance, a lot of the things that we've got now because we have, we had people tear things out so was this fully communicated? Generous: I believe it was and at one time the developer actually wanted to do a variance, a blanket variance for the development and we said no, we wouldn't support that and that's when the larger lots came into play. However as you, the house plan worked. The site worked when they came in for their building permit. It's when they started to create this extensive outdoor space with pavers. Now if they had the fire pit on grass with just the pit, we wouldn't have counted any of that as hard cover. So there's ways that they could utilize it. It would have been the retaining wall and they could have had a paved patio or brick patio up next to the house if they wanted a harder surface. But by expanding it out that they sort of ate up their green area. McDonald: Have you had discussions with the homeowner about the rationale for this and why it is the way it is and suggestions for alternatives? Generous: I haven't had personally. I don't know if they talked to our Water Resources Coordinator and she left that position so it's kind of open. McDonald: Okay. Larson: I've got a comment if I may. I was just noticing in here that the map you've got a couple of dry wells. It's got drain tile and all sorts of ways to help ward off the, a flood situation so it seems, I mean is there any way that those can be credited I suppose towards sort of the other stuff that they've got and then the brick pavers question too is, how does the city determine how pervious or impervious a brick paver is? Generous: Well the current policy is any time they put in a paver system, it's considered impervious. Because there's, even with those pervious systems there's maintenance responsibility. Over time they do become, unless you clean them out and keep them working, it becomes clogged and then it's just like. Larson: Even if it's like a sand or gravel underneath there? Generous: Yeah, because you're going to get fine particles that eventually go into those hole systems and clog them up. And so, but again that's part of the discussion that council's working 16 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 on is, if they go along with these different pervious systems, how do we, how are we going to administer them? Larson: It looks to me like they made effort to help offset that and so that's why I didn't know if there was any way to give them some consideration as far as that goes but. McDonald: Okay, is the applicant present? Okay, if you'd like to come up and address the commissioners. Tim Johnson: I -Ii. rm Tim Johnson and I am a landscape design contractor with Southview Design and I am the applicant obviously for the first property and actually the applicant for the second property as well so I will apologize ahead of schedule if I do comment back and forth on both properties because they are kind of similar applications where we have a hard cover issue that we are obviously here tonight to talk about. So first I'd like to just begin by thanking you all for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my clients. My goal tonight is obviously to work with the Planning Commission, the City Council and my clients to make the results of the circumstances that we're under this evening, work for all of us. And obviously I've worked with Angie and getting her some of the information and kind of discussed with her some of the findings that was basically brought up to us during the construction phase. You'll find that my goal obviously tonight is to put in place, I believe Debbie was commenting on the drainage application that I've spent some time with and you'll find that I've got a few recommendations from engineers and other applications that we've actually used in similar systems in place where we needed to control drainage and water quality in other cities and developments. But before I begin with the drainage concept I just would like you to get up to date as far as the history of where I've kind of come into on this project at 2101. The hard cover code, as Angie mentioned was basically to our finding after construction began. This is definitely something new to a 30 year old company that does not exist on a non -lake property. A non -waterfront property. Typically we do understand that there is hard cover issues on application where there's a lake or river, but where there is a typical standard lot not fronting, not including you know drainage ponds or retention ponds, these applications typically don't arise on other situations. Landscaping in the state of Minnesota is a non -licensed trade which means that we basically don't need to pull any permits for any installations that we do as far as landscaping and patio work. Most of the hardscapes Angie mentioned are installed. The only application, just as a review is the patio underneath the current deck, which is this patio here. All of the hardscapes, including the retaining wall is in place as per the plan you see in front of you this evening. This was not installed due to the recorrimendation by the building department when they brought us up to speed as far as the current code or you know restrictions that the City had for the amount of hard cover, especially on this development. We cooperated by stopping all construction and cleaned the site as best to our ability during the construction site and we have not been back since in compliance with the request from the city building department. My clients has expressed the interest that we had in multiple areas to entertain and has a goal of improving his property along with the entire community, as you can see with his goals and ideas as far as the landscaping. They, like I are very discouraged of where we're at today and as I mentioned earlier are willing to work with you to get this corrected. Actually I received a stoppage of work. We were then informed on the current decking system that was approved, or excuse me, I can't speak on what decking system was approved because that wasn't contracted by me but that was to our 17 Planning Commission Meetilt September 4, 2007 0 knowledge, that the decking system that's installed is non -permeable which was already approved by the city well after the case, which was well after we started. We started the construction of our hardscapes prior to the deck construction. So the deck permit and all of that was accepted during the time of our construction, which then means that the hard cover issue, which is stated here at 23.2% 1 believe on this site before any improvements are made. If that's the case we already are over with the construction at that time so just to review that at 23.2% basically we have about 172 square feet, if my math is correct, before we hit the 25%. The deck is 406 square feet as it stands today and I believe, and Angie might need to comment on this but I think it's the main decking because the quantities I have on the specific plan in front of you just consist of the main decking part, not the landing and the steps because at that time Angie explained that the decking was a non -pervious surface because of the weep holes that are in the decking system. The steps and landing have the gaps inbetween the decking so we didn't include that as a hard cover quantity so I believe the 406 square feet is only the decking space itself. So after this was brought to our attention, that obviously made the rest of the hardscaping and the landscape plan that was put forth to this point even more difficult to succeed with. Since then I just wanted to you know just confirm that we've been under cooperation with the request at the City of Chanhassen of not doing any work. The concept that I would like to talk about, both properties now, and I'll try to stay specific here at 2101 is a concept that we've used before. What we've done and when we've opened up. I think I've got to apologize. I've got a larger scale drawing that we can put down. What we would do at each. Auseth: Upside down. Tim Johnson: At each downspout on each home, I believe there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 downspouts that currently handle all the water that runs off the current foundation footprint. What we would do is take the water from the downspouts and collect those into 12 or 14 inch catch basins. Run those into a French drain. A French drain consists of drain tile with holes in it. I would recommend putting a sock around it to prevent any soil or any other debris to fill or clog those weep holes, but this would allow the water to get into the catch basins. Run into the drain tile and allow the water to come out of the drain tile slowly at it's current pace, depending upon the amount of rainfall. Around the rocks, or excuse me, around the drain tile you would have a gravel. Typically it's 12 inches in space around it. Around the actual drain tile. And then from there the drain tile would run the whole distance of the side of the home, I believe back to this one, but here's a catch basin that would go out into the property. Staying out of utility and drainage easements and running within the property boundaries and they would connect and then run into dry wells. The dry wells we're proposing right now are two dry wells, one here and one here. And then this would collect the one side of the home, and this would collect the other side of the home. The drain tile application would run into the dry well. They are 5 feet in width right now, and then they're going to be about 6 feet in depth. Basically this will allow us to get below frost line which will allow for any of those freezing rains or freezing conditions to allow us to handle that under grade. The property, if you haven't visited it has a walkout so there's at least a 9 foot drop from the front foundation of the home to the back foundation of the home. Therefore reducing the chance of these pipes freezing in the winter months. The drain tile applications would be sized per the rr-quirements from an engineer firm. I had a letter of recommendation, and I have individual copies if you all want but I can put that up for you to see. I don't know if you want a copy of that. IM Planning Commission Meet# September 4, 2007 0 McDonald: If you could go ahead and pass those out while you're talking so we can read those. Tim Johnson: This is from Chris Merrill at Westwood Companies. I'm not sure if you're familiar. Chris is, worked with Pineburst development and is familiar with the exact development that we're talking about this evening and he is in favor of the recommendation that I have in front of you this evening. There are several extra steps which will cost several thousands of dollars of getting their approval and their time to get this approved as far as sizing the pipes and then also determining the size of the dry wells. That is something that we are willing to get nailed down for you in the next week or so. However that does cost several thousand of dollars that both my client and I and Chris feel that we need to present this concept before we take that next step as far as getting that put in place. It doesn't make sense to do that you know if this isn't going to work but this is an application that he feels very strongly about that he's used in the past. I also have copies of another project similar to this that we have installed, and I've got copies for each of you. This is a project that we've worked with that we've got an engineering firm that was basically presented to us and a developer had to present as part of another. So we've had a drainage concern. It wasn't a hard cover concern. This is basically a drainage catch area to reduce the amount of stress on a bluff line in the city of Minnetonka. This application has been used through that whole entire development and this is one of the last homes that is being installed as we currently speak and it's a similar drainage system in most the lots that overlook this bluff line. This is a very similar situation where we've got a drain tile application here and a drainage area around that drain tile. This application is calling for a 3 by 3 area. The length of the back of the home and these are tied in with the catch basins from the gutters, boxes at the comers of the home. This example is going to be put in place and it's available to be used seasonally so the winter months is not a concern as far as you know any freezing and thawing. This I see as a similar concept that Chris has talked to me about and would recommend for the 2101 residence. We basically would base it off a I inch rain storm per Angie's comments a few weeks ago as far as how we would calculate the amount of rainfall that these basins and drain tile systems would be able to afford to handle. The system that we would put in place would be obviously finalized and reviewed and we could present that at that time if need be. Otherwise we could just ask for Chris' recommendations to be approved once those pass your desk. Those concepts along with, I've got another concept that I can keep going on about but I don't want to waste your time, but these are other concepts that we have used in similar applications. The other thing that we want to talk about is, obviously on both properties we are installing retaining walls. These properties are very steep as far as grade in the back yard so the water that you currently have, whether we do improvements or not are going to get down to that retention pond faster than what they would today. The retaining walls that are in place actually level off the back yard which slows the water runoff from getting to the pond and actually makes the back yard that my clients have purchased more usable for their entertaining sizes of their families and their property needs. Along with the retaining walls and the dry wells, we also are installing several key plantings opportunities with other plantings. Over story trees and shrubs. I believe on this property we've got roughly about 13 trees going in, which is a major upgrade from the development trees that are approved by the city, as well as several under story plantings as per the plan. Along with this as mentioned by another city official that sometimes sod is considered a non -permeable application because of the compaction of the traffic, as far as equipment traffic under construction. So if we design the standard sod and soil installation, we'll work up the 19 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 ground and put in the minimum 3 to 4 inches of good, pulverized top soil below the sod ... but also allow for saturation for any rain runoff. The improvements that I have in front of you, well take roughly 3,200 square feet of water runoff from the foundation and capture that below ground instead of having that run to the retention pond, whether there's sod there or not. That basically means that I'm actually reducing the amount of runoff from the current property as the plan sits today with all the hard surfaces, i.e. meaning the driveway, the walkway, the patio, the decking system, and the fire pit application and the lower deck application because we basically will take 3,200 square feet of runoff and I believe my quick calculations were that all the hard runoff was roughly about 1,600 square feet. We believe that the 3, a couple examples that I've provided you tonight as far as similar concepts, in the future landscaping is our goal to support better runoff plan than most lots in the current development. The drainage examples are a great way to help support the proposed landscape and hardscape plans that are have been proposed this evening. These concepts come recommended by the city officials and engineers for the letter of recommendations that I have in front of you. And then I strongly believe that with good engineering and patience we can all come to some compromise to help develop a good community for all to enjoy. 1, like most of you in this room don't want to have any great fight over this development with future projects. I'm going to be in this development hopefully working with other plans and I want to be able to start off a relationship with you on good circumstances. Finally I ask for your consideration of this concept with the recommendations by Westwood to help build a good drainage plan for my clients to have their exterior dreams be fulfilled. I'm eager to work with you on coming up with a good plan to help us today so with that, and these projects that are in front of us tonight can go forward to keep all happy. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Undestad: Your letter from Westwood here, did they, have they used this? And actually have these installed and provide these for runoff areas? Tim Johnson: Yes. Yep. Undestad: And do these, it's another way of them, instead of rather than putting in their own... retention pond with these, does this work for that too? Tim Johnson: I can't comment on it working for retention ponds, but I do know that, I can comment on it actually collecting the actual runoff from the lot areas and reducing the amount of runoff in those specific areas that we want to prevent it from happening. Undestad: And then they ask your, and again all this is kind of concepts and ideas. Tim Johnson: Yep. Undestad: ... referring to on here but the overflows on the end, is that potential failure in the system ... ? Tim Johnson: Well the overflow is basically to handle, let's say you get more than a 1 inch rain storm that you know if it did fill up for whatever reason, there is a way for it to exit. But the 20 Planning Commission Meetip- September 4,2007 0 system that he would have in place that it would handle a I inch rain storm and then some for the areas of drain tile and the dry well areas. The I inch overflow we typically put in just because if it does, the water's going to seep up one way or the other but that's where it sizes it according to the lot, the hard cover that we have in place. Undestad: How did you pick a I inch rainfall, just out of curiosity. Tim Johnson: Well I spoke with Angie, I don't recall, I believe it was you know in the last month as far as how we would calculate that. That was one question that they wanted to know, you know was it a 5 year rainfall? Was it a 24 hour rainfall? You know there's different limitations that they can follow to determine that and whatever the city would require, that's what they would follow basically. Undestad: You mentioned were you, or did somebody else pull the permit for the deck? A contractor of your's in this? Tim Johnson: It's a contractor that the homeowner. He's contracted with another decking company. We don't do the deck work in-house. Undestad: You don't coordinate any of that? You had nothing to do with that? Tim Johnson: Well I'll give them a couple names and we kind of worked with the decking company you know and this is actually the first city this decking system's been installed in several other cities. rve been in this for over 10 plus years and you know we're, I'm doing projects like this several of these a month and this is the first application where we found out that this kind of decking system is a concern to any city that we work on. Undestad: You've never come across the zoning ordinances ... anywhere else? Tim Johnson: Other than working on an application, for instance like the City of Mnnetonka, their health codes cover ... is 30%. So that's what, we do check in with the city in river situations where we come across that. But not on a standard lot where you know retention ponds or NURP ponds, whatever you know the drainage system is in a specific development. Those are typically handled and one of the things that you know has brought up from another engineer is how has the 25% come up? Has it, you know where is the drainage report to support that? Is it a 25%? Is that where we want to start out at? Can the development handle 30%? You know those are some concerns. We all believe that you know, we all come into this at the wrong time. You know whether it was communicated, you know my clients all state that they were not communicated, that this was not communicated to them so we're standing here today you know the next property we have not started any construction on. We're basically following the steps. We're willing to work with you, you know as a planning commission that the city council of how we can you know get this to be better. We could basically walk in here and just ask for a hey, can we get this done the way it stands but we're willing to be realistic and say okay, we're willing to do some extra steps and measures to correct the runoff, concerns that have been brought up in front of us. 21 Planning Commission Meetle- September 4, 2007 0 Keefe: The problem is you can't stop 5 inch rains and the mud that comes sliding down the hill into people's houses and that type of thing. That's you know, I think we could do something to mitigate some of that but, yeah. I mean we came out a couple years ago pretty tough rain situation and runoff situations here and that's sort of, you know that's ... people and developers all you know, there's all sorts of you know situations because of the amount of rain we had... Two of them back to back, it's. Tim Johnson: It's been very unique the last couple years with the amount of rainfall so, and you know can do the rain gardens, which a lot of people propose but as a contractor I'm not a big fan of those because you take the last year or two where there hasn't been any rain. You put the plants in there that are supposed to be able to saturate the water. Plants don't live because we don't have rain. You know therefore that's system, exactly. Now I guess my only comment on how do you, you've got to calculate for the 5 year rain storm. Currently the rain system that we would put in place is going to handle the water better whether this client has nothing that's proposed on this property and walks away andjust puts sod in. He could walk away and then all that water's getting down there faster. At least we're taking that water and we're walking away from it. Putting it in the ground and we're still having less runoff. Hard cover concerns, if you take the 3,200 square feet that we're taking of the house ... and still handle about 1,600 square feet of hard cover. You know with the patios and so forth. Keefe: You know I guess kind of what I wasjust going to ask you a couple questionsjust in relation to how this slipped through the cracks. You know I mean, it's surprising to me because I'm ... some other cities too and they also have hard surface coverage. I mean it's pretty normal for a lot of cities and so I'm a little surprised to hear you say you've never run into it before but setting that aside, you know it seems to me that if you're working with Westwood or you're working with Lermar, you're working with anybody else you would have somehow come across that particularly given the work that you guys do and so I'm, and at some point you've got to come to the city. I mean I think, and maybe you don't. Tim Johnson: We're basically a landscaper of choice by Unnar. We do base packages that I'm typically not involved with. I do more extensive projects, but these packages are rock and poly and a few plants around the house and sod and irrigate it and walk away from it. Now clients typically can have a choice of improving their properties and taking the next step on the front side of their actual construction of their landscaping and the two clients that I'm representing this evening have chose to do so. Therefore they're the first two clients that have come across this but you can kind of walk around that development and see some other work that's been done and kind of question the amount of hard cover that's actually in the development. So those are some concerns. This is the first, this is really the first time that we've ever run across a situation where the 25% is a situation. Keefe: Yeah. Tim Johnson: City of Minnetonka, as I mentioned earlier, is 30% and they're on a lake so. Keefe: Yeah. So in working close with Lennar, they never indicated to you guys I mean that it was you know. 22 Planning Commission Meet# September 4,2007 0 Tim Johnson: No. We have not basically you know, this is something that's been, it's on the surveys. I'll admit to that. That's something that after going through all this, you know Angie and Bob here, this is obviously a situation we don't want to be in but we're here. Keefe: It's in the code, and yeah. Tim Johnson: But you know as I mentioned earlier, we don't need to pull any permits so the question you know not to come across in the wrong way is how can we communicate this to our industry better? You know if we don't as an industry don't have to come into you know the city hall to pull a deck permit, to pull a patio permit, you know like we do with a deck permit, how do we do that for a retaining wall? Keefe: Every city is different. I mean every city. Tim Johnson: Well when you're working from Minnetonka to Big Lake to Elk River you know to Chanhassen it's... Keefe: It's different, right. Tim Johnson: Every city has got their own codes and their own recommendations so. Keefe: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I mean Dan stole my questions. I mean I was, I'm still a little surprised that it did slip through the cracks like this, and this is a question maybe for the staff. So if this variance is, we go along with your recommendation not to grant it and then at the end of the day you know we're not over ruled or whatever by the City Council, what then happens to the work that's been done? Generous: It would need to be removed. They would have to bring it into compliance with the 25% coverage. Dillon: Okay. And 1. Tim Johnson: Can I make one comment on that? The investment that my, obviously it goes back to trying to find out all this out now but the investment that's in place right now is over $40,000 of my client's hard earnings so there. Dillon: That's a lot of money. Someone should have done a little more due diligence on this thing. That's like you know kind of the bottom line on this. You or the customer or both. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? 23 Planning Commission Mee*_ September 4, 2007 0 Larson: I'm going to save my comments for discussion McDonald: Okay. Kurt? I've got a couple of questions. You made some statements about yeah, you're a non -licensed professional and you don't pull permits and everything. Did you do the overall design for all this landscaping which would have included the decking and all that? Did you put that together or what part of the overall design did you do? Tim Johnson: I worked on the overall design of this specific project. This project was handled by another sales representative prior to me taking over, so it was already contracted over the winter months I believe back in January and December. Then that individual, for a couple reasons it was turned over to me so everything was basically in place and I just basically, the deck design was a concept and the deck contractor said okay, this is what the client's looking for. McDonald: Do he ended up doing the details of it and selects the material Tim Johnson: Exactly. McDonald: Well you know again as you say you've got $40,000 at this point tied into this. With all this money, why don't you check with city ordinances because I do know that there are a number of cities that do have restrictions. Maybe more or less than our 25% but there are restrictions within these cities and I have to tell you, $40,000 1 don't think sets the record for what we've made people correct so don't tell us how much it costs. That's not going to get at our hearts on any of this. Why don't you check with city ordinances? Tim Johnson: I'll, it's definitely going to be one of the things that we do from here on out so, especially in, you know newer developments where this is obviously becoming more of a concern. Some of the older developments, you know the drainage and some of that other reports aren't as available because of the surveying at the time wasn't as adequate as it is today so. McDonald: Okay. The other thing that I'm intrigued about is the dry well concept. I mean you mentioned all that. What studies or you know scientific data do you have to back all that up that you present to the city engineering and maybe persuade them to change our ordinances? Tim Johnson: We've got several sites. I mean you could start with the sites that we've actually installed these applications on and you know some that are a year old and some that are 5 to 6 years old. They work, especially when you get down below the frost line. You get down to you know some of the better soils that we can get into where the water can actually basically seep into the ground. The development that I showed you, well these aren't just drawings that we put into place here. This is recommendations from construction, you know Schoell and Madsen engineering service you know pioneers just like Westwood is. And they've got you know the knowledge and the test studies to be able to determine the void in the rock for the amount of rainfall. You know all the drain tiles. They're the ones that you know the ones that are educated to make those decisions. McDonald: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meetio- September 4, 2007 0 Shamla: Chairman McDonald, may I make a comment? McDonald: Yeah, please do. Shamla: I'm Joe with the City of Chanhassen engineering department and the soils in the city of Chanhassen are a lot different than other communities so something ... quarter inch of sandy soil, this is probably, could be a good way to mitigate some of this water but in the city of Chanhassen having clay soils, the infiltration isn't good here and that's why the City Council is undetermined on whether permeable pavers are a good alternative. McDonald: Well that's where my comment was. I know the soils are different and that's why I'm asking for what studies have been done. What works good in one area may not work in another and again all of our stuff, you ask where 25% comes from. It comes from these studies. It comes from the U.S. Hydrology Guide for the State of Minnesota you know looking at soils and permeability. This was not just a number we picked out out of the blue sky. You talk about other city officials and engineers who I guess have adapted all this and seen great. Who are they? What cities? What engineers? Is there a list of people besides Minnetonka that have adopted this because again I'm intrigued by it but I haven't heard that much about it. Tim Johnson: Well Westwood would have to do a soils test which they probably have all the documentations since they did all the actual development work. They would, and you know that's why I'm closely working with them because they do know the development. There's got to be some comfort level for you know any department with the city of Chanhassen, obviously the Planning Commission and the City Council to make those decisions with the right people making the right recommendations for this application. I do understand the soil conditions are definitely different here. They're heavier soils but what we would do is require their testing as far as the soil types to make those decisions as far as that goes. I do have another project that I could show you where in the City of Inver Grove Heights where we had to do a permeable paver driveway application and I do have an email from. McDonald: Well okay, let me stop you right there because you're talking to the wrong people. We're not engineers and anything you would tell us, it sounds great but you know, I would defer everything to the city engineering staff anyway. What I'm trying to get at is, yes this is probably information that needs to be shared. It needs to be shared with the engineering group and then it percolates up to us. They will explain it to us and we'll all feel great about it. I mean the other comment that I would ask you about, you say this is designed around a I inch rain storm. How typical is that around here? Where did you come up with the I inch rain storm? Tim Johnson: That was you know, I kind of presented a concept to Angie a month or so ago, or right after this was stopped. Mnd of asked her, you know some of our thoughts that we came up with in talking with Westwood and that's where you know I got the I inch rain storm from as far as okay what calculations I come up with. What would you require as far as me determining the size of these basins or tiles and so forth and that's where I got that information from. McDonald: Okay. I don't mean to give you such a maybe rude reception and everything but a couple years ago in that general area where you're at, we had a very bad event and it wasn't just 25 Planning Cornmi ssion Meet# September 4, 2007 0 that. We've had a couple of them in that area and people get rather upset and then they get upset with us and they get real upset whenever their property floods and it is a big concern within this city. Soil probably plays a big part in it and so yeah, you're going to get a lot of questions and there's going to be a lot of issues. The whole thing that I am surprised about is how this slipped through the cracks. I mean this was a big deal a couple years ago. We put a number of things in place about you know stopping this before people invest a lot of money and stuff in and then we come along and tell them, sorry you've got to tear it out. I would like the staff to find out what went wrong because these things should not be happening. Keefe: Jerry can I ask one more question? McDonald: Sure. Keefe: Justin passing I just wanted to revisit it for me. You said that Lennar is selling a couple different landscaping packages along with the custom or recommending a couple of different ones which is a real limited approach and one is more of a custom approach and that's who it ended up getting to you. Is that kind of how that works? Tim Johnson: The single package, yeah the base package that is put in front of them is just basically green goods. You know sod. No. Keefe: A couple shrubs. The shrubbery. Tim Johnson: A couple trees, sod and irrigation and if the client says well you know we want to expand upon that. They want to basically, they want this to be you know the Bearpath application and that's where I do get involved. I'm not contracted with Lennar. We're basically contracting directly with the homeowner of the specific properties so the package. Keefe: You get a referral from them essentially is what happens and... Tim Johnson: Exactly, yep. Keefe: Okay. Alright. McDonald: Actually that was all my questions. Does anyone else have anything they want to add or okay. I guess unless you have someone else who wants to speak first. Tim Johnson: We'll just wait til the next one I guess. McDonald: Then I guess we'll open it up for the public meeting at this point. We thank you for your comments and everything. At this point I would open it up for the public to come up and make cornments. Again I ask you to come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commissioners. Sir. ScottBoeddeker: Goodevening. Scott Boeddeker, 6710 Manchester Drive. Downstream. I'm on the south side of that pond. I would recommend you agree with the staff, that you don't do 26 Planning Commission Meetio- September 4, 2007 0 anything over 25%. My property's been flooded twice during the construction of this housing development. The first time was in June of 2005. Second time was Labor Day weekend of 2005. 1 had to take Plowshares to court because they failed to stand behind their subcontractor. They would stand behind the 5 inches of rain application for 100 year storm. Totally bogus statistics I believe. I was able to convince a judge of that. That the granite is flat and if 5 inches of rain happens way too often, this has happened 5 times, or 3 times in the last 5 years. I've got concerns about this pond every time it rains. In the spring when it's going to be frozen and the spring runoff and everything. I've got big concerns with this. You setting a precedence here. Allowing this to continue throughout the 41 lots. These lots are way too small for the houses they're building and I'm not surprised these homeowners don't know the situation. I'm disappointed in Plowshares and Lennar for letting this get like this but I would strongly urge you not to allow anything over the 25%. That would increase your liability of that pond overflowing into my property for the third time. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Well, seeing no one come forward. Scott Boeddeker: Just to add to that. That pond is full of springs already so the water level never goes down. I've told people this millions of times. I've told city staff. I've told developers. That pond is not going to hold a 100 year storm when it happens. McDonald: Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close the public meeting again and I'll bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Start down here. Papke: Okay. I think we've been pretty consistent as a planning commission on these sorts of items. We've had other remediation efforts like you know rain gardens and so on that have been proposed in the past and I think we've been pretty good as a planning commission about not re- writing city code on the fly here. This one is way, way over the top in terms of the variance that they're looking for. The brick pavers, I have a brick paver driveway and it is impervious when it rains and the low spots, the puddles stay there until they evaporate so, you know it's only my one data point and that's certainly not an engineering study but I certainly am convinced that a brick paver patio or driveway is not a permeable surface so I really wouldn't support using that particular argument to give any leeway to the homeowner here. I guess the only, there's a couple things where they do go over the limit here that I would support. I think you could make a case for leaving the boulder retaining walls there. You know those are pretty small quantities. We're only talking 200 square feet. 150 square feet of boulder wall and that is making the ground quite a bit more level and should help the infiltration across the board. And the decking one is, that's the first time I've seen decking come up as being a permeable. I walked underneath it today and you look up, you don't see any daylight so I understand city staffs position on it, but you know it is a new one from my perspective so I guess I would be in favor of pretty much going with the city staff with leaving a little bit of leeway for the boulder walls. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Okay. Well, on the other side of the fence. I truly believe that the work was done innocently and I don't think that they, I think that it is a lack of due diligence. I really think it 27 Planning Commission Meet# September 4, 2007 0 should have been checked out either by the contractor or developer or the owner before $40,000 was spent just because that would be smart. However, the work has been done. It looks like it's a very beautiful job. They've taken some steps to do French drains and drain tile and I mean they've gone over and above what you normally see around here. The landscaping I think is all around the house, it really adds, first of all the homes in this area really make a nice statement about Chanhassen. I like to see homes that are done well and I like to see landscaping that's done beautifully. What I would also like to see, and I don't know if the city wouldn't consider this but maybe they do need to relook at impervious 25% if it can be offset and I'd like to find out you know maybe it's an engineering thing again. You know if they did drain tile and dry wells that can handle a 5 inch event as opposed to a I inch event like they were designed. Maybe that's something that could be looked at or discussed. But I think neighborhoods like this are an asset to the city and I like that people really do want to take pride and ownership in their homes and put in these sort of things. I didn't know that the rain gardens don't work. That was news to me so like you said if it's dry, I guess the plants that are in there obviously aren't going to live. So maybe the dry wells are better and perhaps maybe this property could be considered, I hate to see all of the, all the landscaping pulled out if we don't have to do it. If there's some way to get around it, I'd like to see the city try. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I think it's an unfortunate situation but one that could have been easily avoided you know with a phone call. It's just you know unfortunate that it got this far but that's the way it goes and so. I agree with everything Debbie said. You know it's a nice neighborhood and it's, but that's not to say it couldn't be just as nice and still live within the guidelines that are set forth. They're freely available for anyone to ask and learn about. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: You know I just know too many incidences personally of people who have had issues with runoff in this city and I've got an issue and that's part of the reason why the ordinance is as it is. We let these through then we've got 39 other ones that we have to deal with up at the top of this hill where the water will run off of and it's not only here. It's in other locations in the city and I agree with Kevin that it's an unfortunate situation. My understanding Lennar needs to sell homes and they're going to recommend some things but at the same time there's a reason why we've got this thing in place and I think we've got to... McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah I think, I mean again it is a very nice design on it but we have to go back to what we're here for again and that is what, why we allow certain things and why we don't allow certain things. I guess my only comment would be if the applicant and engineering and that, I mean if there was some way they could come back and find some way to contain their storm water runoff within that site, you know be it a pond or if they could convince engineering, and obviously the council ... but again looking at what it is right now, no. WV Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is that I was here a couple years ago when this development was put together and it was a very big deal about the number of lots. It was a very big deal about the runoff. It was a very big deal about the 25% and we went through that in great detail. I am sorry that the homeowner doesn't know about it. It is not the city's fault. There is a duty I feel upon whoever goes in there and as a contractor there is a duty upon a homeowner to know. You live within a city. We have ordinances. It's in the paper. It is everywhere. We have made people go in and tear out works that are worth more than $40,000. We have gone through this repeatedly. We have got areas within the city that cause big problems. This is one of them. Another area was Lake Riley where we fought over this. The whole thing about giving credits for certain pavers and certain ways of doing landscape to offset the 25% has been looked at. I will defer to city staff. That is one of the things that they have been tasked to do to come up with some relief for all of this. I like the plans. I like the whole thing about what you're coming up with here about this dry well concept but again as has been stated, I don't know if that's sufficient for this area and that's where I would defer to city staff. That's why I asked what research do you have on that because we need to have ordinances that basically say for this amount of runoff to negate it you need this type of a dry well. I don't know if a I inch rainfall is a sufficient model to design to. Again, that needs to be stated within the ordinance if we're going to start giving leeway to the 25%. It's just we have been through too much within the past few years about flooding as Mr. Boeddeker brought up. He's not the only one. I am sorry as I can be that the homeowners have spent $40,000 and again I am sure that they will go through this and fight it all the way up but good luck on that. Again it's just I think the way to do this as an industry, if you want to do further work in this area you need to basically lobby our city staff. Bring them up to speed on other ideas and ways to do things and we will be more than willing I think to address this issue because we don't want people spending all this money and then we tell them, you've got to be in compliance. Tear it out. Sorry about the $40,000 but either you tear it up or we'll tear it up and we'll charge you for it. That's not the position this city wants to be in. That's why I'm a little upset about the fact this fell through the cracks because a couple years ago I made a big issue out of this. We have been through this. We have gone through a couple of ordinances to make sure this doesn't happen and I am very surprised that it is happening again. I'd like to know why. You know what do we need to plug up because I don't like voting against these variances but there's a reason why they're there and I will continue to vote again them. That's just, you know there's just too much that's happened within the city to just be granting these things. So I guess at that point, and the only reason I make such a big deal about this again, and I'm sorry to pick on you as the developer and the landscaper but a couple years ago whenever I became Chairman, this was a big issue for me because I've got a lot of friends, a lot of neighbors who have had a lot of damage because of this and I'm just determined we're going to solve this problem. Whatever we have to do, I'm not against giving credits for the 25%. I'm not against offsets but that's not myjob to determine that this is sufficient. That's city staffs job and that's where this needs to be done. My recommendation to you all would be to ask us to table this and basically work with city staff and see if you can't come up with something. Otherwise I don't think this is going anywhere. But based upon that I am ready to accept a motion from the council. Undestad: IT make a motion Planning Commission deny Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinelmr-st 2d Addition with condition 1. 29 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 McDonald: Can I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2 Id Addition with the following condition: The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. McDonald: And again, you do have the right of appeal to take this up to City Council and present the issue there. City Council does have the ability to waive our city ordinances as they see fit. So okay. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHROEDER VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICAN.T SOUTRVEEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-20. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 500'Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Schroeder 2081 Pinehurst Drive Scott Boeddeker 67 10 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No questions. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Well in this case anything hasn't been built yet, is that correct? Auseth: Correct, it's not installed. Keefe: Yeah. McDonald: Kevin. 30 0 0 September 10, 2007 Dear Angie, I am writing to inform you that I am appealing the denial decision made by the planning commission on September 4th regarding the variance request at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. The planning case for this site is 07-19. 1 understand that we will need to meet in the near future and review this project with the City Council. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday September I I th to start discussions on how we might be able to work together to better understand any opportunities to correct run off with the current hardscapes on site. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you. SOUTHVIEW �DESIGN� landscape contractors Southeiew Design 1875 East 50th Strect Inver Grove Heights Minnesota 55077 I, N � fast M"1:tM6.5t�1.4'5.5.8.2'3'8 Nortnee. _ _"' 8 southwest Metro 952-881-2296 1 �nc'51.455.1734 Ah�rE I • Outdoor Living • Commercial & Residential • Professional Planning • Greenscapes • Wateracapes • Irrigation • Hardscapes • Concrete Pavers • Custom Services vevree.southalewdesign.cons CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 10 2w7 CHA"SSEN PLAWNG tip— '^14' BULDERS "Ne" NARl*!E* FIMI BUILDERS ��UB. X221'.1=!1=-- — Page I of I 0 0 Auseth, Angle From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 2:11 PM To: rrim Johnson' Subject: Council Appeal Tim, Just a reminder that today is the deadline to appeal the Planning Commissions decision for the variance at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. If I don't receive written notice by 4:30 today the Planning Commissions decision stands. The planning Commission denied variance 07-19 with the condition to bring the hard surface coverage into compliance with the 25% maximum. Secondly, we need to discuss the 2801 Pinehurst property. Planning Commission tabled the variance and suggested meeting the 25% maximum HSC. If you and your client wish to proceed with the variance and would like to take it to the September 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting I need to have the new calculations and surveys by tomorrow morning, Tuesday, September 11, 2007. 1 have a deadline to meet with regard to my report, etc. Third, we have a tentative meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 10:00. After talking at our staff meeting this morning, this meeting is a bit premature as far as changing our ordinances. Our council is still in the preliminary stages and has not come to any decisions. Once council gets to a point closer to making decisions regarding credit for pervious applications we can contact you for your comments and suggestions. Until then, should you appeal the Planning Commissions decision you can bring up the infiltration systems to council for that specific site; like the Planning Commission meeting on the 4th. I left you two messages on your cell phone. I apologize for the redundancy; however, I want to be sure you are aware of the Appeal deadline, Monday, September 10, 2007. Please contact me with any questions. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MINI 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 9/11/2007 &-1- 19 Planning Commission Meetil? September 4, 2007 0 All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50th Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Boeddeker 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: We'll start to my left this time. Kurt. Papke: What are the lower, there's a table on page 5 that shows the differences from what, the issues with the building permit and there's two items on there I couldn't quite make out from the plan. They're the lower wall and upper wall. Are these the retaining walls? The boulder retaining walls in place. Auseth: Yes, those are the retaining walls. Papke: That's all. Larson: Okay. I have a question. McDonald: Go right ahead. Larson: If they had used a different material rather than brick pavers. Something that was, what do you call it? McDonald: Permeable? Larson: That will accept water, would this have been an issue? Auseth: Yes. Currently we don't give any credit to any other types of material. Things that are pervious, and we appreciate the fact that people are putting those in but at this time we don't give any credit for those. Larson: What if it had been grass as opposed to brick pavers or you know something that was maybe harder surface however you know something, an example would be like a putting green type of grass surface where it would accept water. 13 SCANNED Planning Commission M*n,- - September 4, 2007 0 Auseth: The difference would be. Larson: Well because that to me, it's, it will accept water. Generous: A grass surface would have been acceptable but. Larson: It would have? Okay. Generous: It's just the council has resolved the issue about pervious pavers and that. It's still part of the discussion that they're having at the council level. Larson: I see. Papke: Is pervious, these pavers? Auseth: When we were at the site the contractor was showing us how the water went through, telling us that they're pervious but there again we don't have any way of gauging that at this point. It's what we would give credit for. Larson: Because typically the brick pavers, if they are pervious they're put on sand and they do drain quite well. I don't know, that's all I had. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: So in the table on page 5, all of those items you know besides the house and the driveway that are proposed, are they all done? Or are they still proposed? Auseth: I believe just about everything is already done. The deck wasn't quite finished when I was out there. And as far as the patios, they're done and the fire pit's done. The retaining walls are in. The front sidewalk is in. Dillon: Alright. And so, so the staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process so I.,ennar was fully aware of all of this? Auseth: Correct. Dillon: And was the company that was doing these proposed improvements, were they aware? Auseth: I'm not sure if they were aware or not. Dillon: Okay. And was the homeowner aware? Auseth: There again I'm not sure. 14 Planning Comrrfi ssion Meetilp September 4, 2007 0 Dillon: Alright. So again, what was their reaction when they were told to stop the improvements? Auseth: I believe they were upset and came in to City Hall with their proposal going for a variance. Dillon: Okay. Atright and so, I expect the applicants will be up so I'll save the rest of my questions for them. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Do you require in our development agreements any sort of disclosure from the builder and/or the developer in terms of the limited amount of additional, the available hard surface coverage because we knew that this was going to be an issue on this. In this development. Of we had a pretty good idea because we talked at length about it. Generous: We have in the past but not specifically on this one. However even with that when 340 some square feet of additional impervious surface after they built their house and put the driveway and sidewalk seemed like a sufficient amount. Keefe: Right. Well and I just wondered about, you know how did it get from ... to Lennar, you know landscaping to the homeowner and the homeowner's, I don't know who's at risk in this one. It remains to be seen but what we did on this one... Generous: On the city code there's 25% site coverage. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: With only a handful of homes built out there now, ...did they look at what they did the first time in changing some lots around or is there an opportunity to add onto the outlots somewhere or ... buy a park lot out there or something? Generous: Well, not a park lot per se. The City owns an outlot behind them. There's always that opportunity to acquire additional land from your neighbor but then that makes that lot smaller and if they took the same size house, it just pushes it down. You know where the variance would come in. Again when we looked at the expansion we though this would accommodate them. And it did. It accommodated the house and the basic house and driveway and sidewalk and it allows for 300 some square feet of expansion for the homeowner to come in. So you know if they reduce it a hair, they could have made it up there. Lots of trade off s that people have to make. Keefe: One additional question. On the decking, you noted in the report that this particular decking seemed to be more impervious the way that it is. I mean is cedar decking we allow or? 15 Planning Commission Aing - September 4, 2007 0 Auseth: Typically the slated decking that has the full length open inbetween each slate is, by policy is pervious. This one has the tiny holes which I've seen in other cases ... pond pretty much on the decking. McDonald: I kind of remember when all this came in. What kind of discussions, I mean I know that that was one of the reasons why they expanded what, decreased the lots so we had bigger lot sizes because that was one of the issues that we brought up because of the type of homes that were being built on the smaller lots. What discussions did you have with the developer to get that point across that okay we have an ordinance of 25% and you take the home, the footprint, the property, 25% can be covered. Did they fully understand that? How did this get passed on? We have this problem consistently and I know that was the reason for the ordinance, a lot of the things that we've got now because we have, we had people tear things out so was this fully communicated? Generous: I believe it was and at one time the developer actually wanted to do a variance, a blanket variance for the development and we said no, we wouldn't support that and that's when the larger lots came into play. However as you, the house plan worked. The site worked when they came in for their building permit. It's when they started to create this extensive outdoor space with pavers. Now if they had the fire pit on grass with just the pit, we wouldn't have counted any of that as hard cover. So there's ways that they could utilize it. It would have been the retaining wall and they could have had a paved patio or brick patio up next to the house if they wanted a harder surface. But by expanding it out that they sort of ate up their green area. McDonald: Have you had discussions with the homeowner about the rationale for this and why it is the way it is and suggestions for alternatives? Generous: I haven't had personally. I don't know if they talked to our Water Resources Coordinator and she left that position so it's kind of open. McDonald: Okay. Larson: I've got a comment if I may. I was just noticing in here that the map you've got a couple of dry wells. It's got drain tile and all sorts of ways to help ward off the, a flood situation so it seems, I mean is there any way that those can be credited I suppose towards sort of the other stuff that they've got and then the brick pavers question too is, how does the city determine how pervious or impervious a brick paver is? Generous: Well the current policy is any time they put in a paver system, it's considered impervious. Because there's, even with those pervious systems there's maintenance responsibility. Over time they do become, unless you clean them out and keep them working, it becomes clogged and then it's just like. Larson: Even if it's like a sand or gravel underneath there? Generous: Yeah, because you're going to get fine particles that eventually go into those hole systems and clog them up. And so, but again that's part of the discussion that council's working lull Planning Commi ssion Meetif September 4, 2007 0 on is, if they go along with these different pervious systems, how do we, how are we going to administer them? Larson: It looks to me like they made effort to help offset that and so that's why I didn't know if there was any way to give them some consideration as far as that goes but. McDonald: Okay, is the applicant present? Okay, if you'd like to come up and address the commissioners. Tim Johnson: IIi. I'm Tim Johnson and I am a landscape design contractor with Southview Design and I am the applicant obviously for the first property and actually the applicant for the second property as well so I will apologize ahead of schedule if I do comment back and forth on both properties because they are kind of similar applications where we have a hard cover issue that we are obviously here tonight to talk about. So first Id like to just begin by thanking you all for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my clients. My goal tonight is obviously to work with the Planning Commission, the City Council and my clients to make the results of the circumstances that we're under this evening, work for all of us. And obviously I've worked with Angie and getting her some of the information and kind of discussed with her some of the findings that was basically brought up to us during the construction phase. You'll find that my goal obviously tonight is to put in place, I believe Debbie was commenting on the drainage application that I've spent some time with and you'll find that I've got a few recommendations from engineers and other applications that we've actually used in similar systems in place where we needed to control drainage and water quality in other cities and developments. But before I begin with the drainage concept I just would like you to get up to date as far as the history of where I've kind of come into on this project at 2101. The hard cover code, as Angie mentioned was basically to our finding after construction began. This is definitely something new to a 30 year old company that does not exist on a non -lake property. A non -waterfront property. Typically we do understand that there is hard cover issues on application where there's a lake or river, but where there is a typical standard lot not fronting, not including you know drainage ponds or retention ponds, these applications typically don't arise on other situations. Landscaping in the state of Minnesota is a non -licensed trade which means that we basically don't need to pull any permits for any installations that we do as far as landscaping and patio work. Most of the hardscapes Angie mentioned are installed. The only application, just as a review is the patio underneath the current deck, which is this patio here. All of the hardscapes, including the retaining wall is in place as per the plan you see in front of you this evening. This was not installed due to the recommendation by the building department when they brought us up to speed as far as the current code or you know restrictions that the City had for the amount of hard cover, especially on this development. We cooperated by stopping all construction and cleaned the site as best to our ability during the construction site and we have not been back since in compliance with the request from the city building department. My clients has expressed the interest that we had in multiple areas to entertain and has a goal of improving his property along with the entire community, as you can see with his goals and ideas as far as the landscaping. They, like I are very discouraged of where we're at today and as I mentioned earlier are willing to work with you to get this corrected. Actually I received a stoppage of work. We were then informed on the current decking system that was approved, or excuse me, I can't speak on what decking system was approved because that wasn't contracted by me but that was to our 17 Planning Corrunission doing - September 4, 2007 0 knowledge, that the decking system that's installed is non -permeable which was already approved by the city well after the case, which was well after we started. We started the construction of our hardscapes prior to the deck construction. So the deck permit and all of that was accepted during the time of our construction, which then means that the hard cover issue, which is stated here at 23.2% 1 believe on this site before any improvements are made. If that's the case we already are over with the construction at that time so just to review that at 23.2% basically we have about 172 square feet, if my math is correct, before we hit the 25%. The deck is 406 square feet as it stands today and I believe, and Angie might need to comment on this but I think it's the main decking because the quantities I have on the specific plan in front of you just consist of the main decking part, not the landing and the steps because at that time Angie explained that the decking was a non -pervious surface because of the weep holes that are in the decking system. The steps and landing have the gaps inbetween the decking so we didn't include that as a hard cover quantity so I believe the 406 square feet is only the decking space itself. So after this was brought to our attention, that obviously made the rest of the hardscaping and the landscape plan that was put forth to this point even more difficult to succeed with. Since then I just wanted to you know just confirm that we've been under cooperation with the request at the City of Chanhassen of not doing any work. The concept that I would like to talk about, both properties now, and I'll try to stay specific here at 2101 is a concept that we've used before. What we've done and when we've opened up. I think I've got to apologize. I've got a larger scale drawing that we can put down. What we would do at each. Auseth: Upside down. Tim Johnson: At each downspout on each home, I believe there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 downspouts that currently handle all the water that runs off the current foundation footprint. What we would do is take the water from the downspouts and collect those into 12 or 14 inch catch basins. Run those into a French drain. A French drain consists of drain tile with holes in it. I would recommend putting a sock around it to prevent any soil or any other debris to fill or clog those weep holes, but this would allow the water to get into the catch basins. Run into the drain tile and allow the water to come out of the drain tile slowly at it's current pace, depending upon the amount of rainfall. Around the rocks, or excuse me, around the drain tile you would have a gravel. Typically it's 12 inches in space around it. Around the actual drain tile. And then from there the drain tile would run the whole distance of the side of the home, I believe back to this one, but here's a catch basin that would go out into the property. Staying out of utility and drainage easements and running within the property boundaries and they would connect and then run into dry wells. The dry wells we're proposing right now are two dry wells, one here and one here. And then this would collect the one side of the home, and this would collect the other side of the home. The drain tile application would run into the dry well. They are 5 feet in width right now, and then they're going to be about 6 feet in depth. Basically this will allow us to get below frost line which will allow for any of those freezing rains or freezing conditions to allow us to handle that under grade. The property, if you haven't visited it has a walkout so there's at least a 9 foot drop from the front foundation of the home to the back foundation of the home. Therefore reducing the chance of these pipes freezing in the winter months. The drain tile applications would be sized per the requirements from an engineer firm. I had a letter of recommendation, and I have individual copies if you all want but I can put that up for you to see. I don't know if you want a copy of that. In Planning Commission Meetilp September 4, 2007 0 McDonald: If you could go ahead and pass those out while you're talking so we can read those. Tim Johnson: This is from Chris Merrill at Westwood Companies. I'm not sure if you're familiar. Chris is, worked with Pinehurst development and is familiar with the exact development that we're talking about this evening and he is in favor of the recominendation that I have in front of you this evening. There are several extra steps which will cost several thousands of dollars of getting their approval and their time to get this approved as far as sizing the pipes and then also determining the size of the dry wells. That is something that we are willing to get nailed down for you in the next week or so. However that does cost several thousand of dollars that both my client and I and Chris feel that we need to present this concept before we take that next step as far as getting that put in place. It doesn't make sense to do that you know if this isn't' going to work but this is an application that he feels very strongly about that he's used in the past. I also have copies of another project similar to this that we have installed, and I've got copies for each of you. This is a project that we've worked with that we've got an engineering firm that was basically presented to us and a developer had to present as part of another. So we've had a drainage concern. It wasn't a hard cover concern. This is basically a drainage catch area to reduce the amount of stress on a bluff line in the city of Minnetonka. This application has been used through that whole entire development and this is one of the last homes that is being installed as we currently speak and it's a similar drainage system in most the lots that overlook this bluff line. This is a very similar situation where we've got a drain tile application here and a drainage area around that drain tile. This application is calling for a 3 by 3 area. The length of the back of the home and these are tied in with the catch basins from the gutters, boxes at the comers of the home. This example is going to be put in place and it's available to be used seasonally so the winter months is not a concern as far as you know any freezing and thawing. This I see as a similar concept that Chris has talked to me about and would recommend for the 2101 residence. We basically would base it off a I inch rain storm per Angie's comments a few weeks ago as far as how we would calculate the amount of rainfall that these basins and drain tile systems would be able to afford to handle. The system that we would put in place would be obviously finalized and reviewed and we could present that at that time if need be. Otherwise we couldjust ask for Chris' recommendations to be approved once those pass your desk. Those concepts along with, I've got another concept that I can keep going on about but I don't want to waste your time, but these are other concepts that we have used in similar applications. The other thing that we want to talk about is, obviously on both properties we are installing retaining walls. These properties are very steep as far as grade in the back yard so the water that you currently have, whether we do improvements or not are going to get down to that retention pond faster than what they would today. The retaining walls that are in place actually level off the back yard which slows the water runoff from getting to the pond and actually makes the back yard that my clients have purchased more usable for their entertaining sizes of their families and their property needs. Along with the retaining walls and the dry wells, we also are installing several key plantings opportunities with other plantings. Over story trees and shrubs. I believe on this property we've got roughly about 13 trees going in, which is a major upgrade from the development trees that are approved by the city, as well as several under story plantings as per the plan. Along with this as mentioned by another city official that sometimes sod is considered a non -permeable application because of the compaction of the traffic, as far as equipment traffic under construction. So if we design the standard sod and soil installation, we'll work up the 19 Planning Commission Meng - September 4, 2007 0 ground and put in the minimum 3 to 4 inches of good, pulverized top soil below the sod ... but also allow for saturation for any rain runoff. The improvements that I have in front of you, we'll take roughly 3,200 square feet of water runoff from the foundation and capture that below ground instead of having that run to the retention pond, whether there's sod there or not. That basically means that I'm actually reducing the amount of runoff from the current property as the plan sits today with all the hard surfaces, i.e. meaning the driveway, the walkway, the patio, the decking system, and the fire pit application and the lower deck application because we basically will take 3,200 square feet of runoff and I believe my quick calculations were that all the hard runoff was roughly about 1,600 square feet. We believe that the 3, a couple examples that I've provided you tonight as far as similar concepts, in the future landscaping is our goal to support better runoff plan than most lots in the current development. The drainage examples are a great way to help support the proposed landscape and hardscape plans that are have been proposed this evening. These concepts come recommended by the city officials and engineers for the letter of recommendations that I have in front of you. And then I strongly believe that with good engineering and patience we can all come to some compromise to help develop a good community for all to enjoy. I, like most of you in this room don't want to have any great fight over this development with future projects. I'm going to be in this development hopefully working with other plans and I want to be able to start off a relationship with you on good circumstances. Finally I ask for your consideration of this concept with the recommendations by Westwood to help build a good drainage plan for my clients to have their exterior dreams be fulfilled. I'm eager to work with you on coming up with a good plan to help us today so with that, and these projects that are in front of us tonight can go forward to keep all happy. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Undestad: Your letter from Westwood here, did they, have they used this? And actually have these installed and provide these for runoff areas? Tim Johnson: Yes. Yep. Undestad: And do these, it's another way of them, instead of rather than putting in their own... retention pond with these, does this work for that too? Tim Johnson: I can't comment on it working for retention ponds, but I do know that, I can comment on it actually collecting the actual runoff from the lot areas and reducing the amount of runoff in those specific areas that we want to prevent it from happening. Undestad: And then they ask your, and again all this is kind of concepts and ideas. Tim Johnson: Yep. Undestad: ... referring to on here but the overflows on the end, is that potential failure in the system ... ? Tim Johnson: Well the overflow is basically to handle, let's say you get more than a I inch rain storm that you know if it did fill up for whatever reason, there is a way for it to exit. But the 20 Planning Commission Meet* September 4, 2007 0 system that he would have in place that it would handle a I inch rain storm and then some for the areas of drain tile and the dry well areas. The I inch overflow we typically put in just because if it does, the water's going to seep up one way or the other but that's where it sizes it according to the lot, the hard cover that we have in place. Undestad: How did you pick a I inch rainfall, just out of curiosity. Tim Johnson: Well I spoke with Angie, I don't recall, I believe it was you know in the last month as far as how we would calculate that. That was one question that they wanted to know, you know was it a 5 year rainfafl? Was it a 24 hour rainfall? You know there's different limitations that they can follow to determine that and whatever the city would require, that's what they would follow basically. I Undestad: You mentioned were you, or did somebody else pull the permit for the deck? A contractor of your's in this? Tim Johnson: It's a contractor that the homeowner. He's contracted with another decking company. We don't do the deck work in-house. Undestad: You don't coordinate any of that? You had nothing to do with that? Tim Johnson: Well I'll give them a couple names and we kind of worked with the decking company you know and this is actually the first city this decking system's been installed in several other cities. I've been in this for over 10 plus years and you know we're, I'm doing projects like this several of these a month and this is the first application where we found out that this kind of decking system is a concern to any city that we work on. Undestad: You've never come across the zoning ordinances ... anywhere else? Tim Johnson: Other than working on an application, for instance like the City of Nhnnetonka, their health codes cover ... is 30%. So that's what, we do check in with the city in river situations where we come across that. But not on a standard lot where you know retention ponds or NURP ponds, whatever you know the drainage system is in a specific development. Those are typically handled and one of the things that you know has brought up from another engineer is how has the 25% come up? Has it, you know where is the drainage report to support that? Is it a 25%? Is that where we want to start out at? Can the development handle 30%? You know those are some concerns. We all believe that you know, we all come into this at the wrong time. You know whether it was communicated, you know my clients all state that they were not communicated, that this was not communicated to them so we're standing here today you know the next property we have not started any construction on. We're basically following the steps. We're willing to work with you, you know as a planning commission that the city council of how we can you know get this to be better. We could basically walk in here and just ask for a hey, can we get this done the way it stands but we're willing to be realistic and say okay, we're willing to do some extra steps and measures to correct the ranoff, concerns that have been brought up in front of us. 21 Planning Commission Ang - September 4, 2007 40 Keefe: The problem is you can't stop 5 inch rains and the mud that comes sliding down the hill into people's houses and that type of thing. That's you know, I think we could do something to mitigate some of that but, yeah. I mean we came out a couple years ago pretty tough rain situation and runoff situations here and that's sort of, you know that's ... people and developers all you know, there's all sorts of you know situations because of the amount of rain we had... Two of them back to back, it's. Tim Johnson: It's been very unique the last couple years with the amount of rainfall so, and you know can do the rain gardens, which a lot of people propose but as a contractor I'm not a big fan of those because you take the last year or two where there hasn't been any rain. You put the plants in there that are supposed to be able to saturate the water. Plants don't live because we don't have rain. You know therefore that's system, exactly. Now I guess my only comment on how do you, you've got to calculate for the 5 year rain storm. Currently the rain system that we would put in place is going to handle the water better whether this client has nothing that's proposed on this property and walks away and just puts sod in. He could walk away and then all that water's getting down there faster. At least we're taking that water and we're walking away from it. Putting it in the ground and we're still having less runoff. Hard cover concerns, if you take the 3,200 square feet that we're taking of the house ... and still handle about 1,600 square feet of hard cover. You know with the patios and so forth. Keefe: You know I guess kind of what I was just going to ask you a couple questions just in relation to how this slipped through the cracks. You know I mean, it's surprising to me because Fin ... some other cities too and they also have hard surface coverage. I mean it's pretty normal for a lot of cities and so I'm a little surprised to hear you say you've never run into it before but setting that aside, you know it seems to me that if you're working with Westwood or you're working with Lennar, you're working with anybody else you would have somehow come across that particularly given the work that you guys do and so I'm, and at some point you've got to come to the city. I mean I think, and maybe you don't. Tim Johnson: We're basically a landscaper of choice by Lennar. We do base packages that I'm typically not involved with. I do more extensive projects, but these packages are rock and poly and a few plants around the house and sod and irrigate it and walk away from it. Now clients typically can have a choice of improving their properties and taking the next step on the front side of their actual construction of their landscaping and the two clients that Im representing this evening have chose to do so. Therefore they're the first two clients that have come across this but you can kind of walk around that development and see some other work that's been done and kind of question the amount of hard cover that's actually in the development. So those are some concerns. This is the first, this is really the first time that we've ever run across a situation where the 25% is a situation. Keefe: Yeah. Tim Johnson: City of Nfinnetonka, as I mentioned earlier, is 30% and they're on a lake so. Keefe: Yeah. So in working close with Unnar, they never indicated to you guys I mean that it was you know. 22 Planning Commission Meetilf- September 4, 2007 0 Tim Johnson: No. We have not basically you know, this is something that's been, it's on the surveys. I'll admit to that. That's something that after going through all this, you know Angie and Bob here, this is obviously a situation we don't want to be in but we're here. Keefe: It's in the code, and yeah. Tim Johnson: But you know as I mentioned earlier, we don't need to pull any permits so the question you know not to come across in the wrong way is how can we communicate this to our industry better? You know if we don't as an industry don't have to come into you know the city hall to pull a deck permit, to pull a patio permit, you know like we do with a deck permit, how do we do that for a retaining wall? 1. Keefe: Every city is different. I mean every city. Tim Johnson: Well when you're working from Minnetonka to Big Lake to Elk River you know to Chanhassen it's... Keefe: It's different, right. Tim Johnson: Every city has got their own codes and their own recommendations so. Keefe: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I mean Dan stole my questions. I mean I was, I'm still a little surprised that it did slip through the cracks like this, and this is a question maybe for the staff. So if this variance is, we go along with your recommendation not to grant it and then at the end of the day you know we're not over ruled or whatever by the City Council, what then happens to the work that's been done? Generous: It would need to be removed. They would have to bring it into compliance with the 25% coverage. Dillon: Okay. And 1. Tim Johnson: Can I make one comment on that? The investment that my, obviously it goes back to trying to find out all this out now but the investment that's in place right now is over $40,000 of my client's hard earnings so there. Dillon: That's a lot of money. Someone should have done a little more due diligence on this thing. That's like you know kind of the bottom line on this. You or the customer or both. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? 23 Planning Commission Ang - September 4, 2007 0 Larson: I'm going to save my comments for discussion. McDonald: Okay. Kurt? I've got a couple of questions. You made some statements about yeah, you're a non -licensed professional and you don't pull permits and everything. Did you do the overall design for A this landscaping which would have included the decking and all that? Did you put that together or what part of the overall design did you do? Tim Johnson: I worked on the overall design of this specific project. This project was handled by another sales mpresentative prior to me taking over, so it was already contracted over the winter months I believe back in January and December. Then that individual, for a couple reasons it was turned over to me so everything was basically in place and I just basically, the deck design was a concept and the deck contractor said okay, this is what the client's looking for. McDonald: Do he ended up doing the details of it and selects the material. Tim Johnson: Exactly. McDonald: Well you know again as you say you've got $40,000 at this point tied into this. With all this money, why don't you check with city ordinances because I do know that there are a number of cities that do have restrictions. Maybe more or less than our 25% but there are restrictions within these cities and I have to tell you, $40,000 1 don't think sets the record for what we've made people correct so don't tell us how much it costs. That's not going to get at our hearts on any of this. Why don't you check with city ordinances? Tim Johnson: I'll, it's definitely going to be one of the things that we do from here on out so, especially in, you know newer developments where this is obviously becoming more of a concern. Some of the older developments, you know the drainage and some of that other reports aren't as available because of the surveying at the time wasn't as adequate as it is today so. McDonald: Okay. The other thing that I'm intrigued about is the dry well concept. I mean you mentioned all that. What studies or you know scientific data do you have to back all that up that you present to the city engineering and maybe persuade them to change our ordinances? Tim Johnson: We've got several sites. I mean you could start with the sites that we've actually installed these applications on and you know some that are a year old and some that are 5 to 6 years old. They work, especially when you get down below the frost line. You get down to you know some of the better soils that we can get into where the water can actually basically seep into the ground. The development that I showed you, well these aren't just drawings that we put into place here. This is recommendations from construction, you know Schoell and Madsen engineering service you know pioneers just like Westwood is. And they've got you know the knowledge and the test studies to be able to determine the void in the rock for the amount of rainfall. You know all the drain tiles. They're the ones that you know the ones that are educated to make those decisions. McDonald: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meet# September 4, 2007 0 Shamla: Chairman McDonald, may I make a comment? McDonald: Yeah, please do. Shamla: I'm Joe with the City of Chanhassen engineering department and the soils in the city of Chanhassen are a lot different than other communities so something ... quarter inch of sandy soil, this is probably, could be a good way to mitigate some of this water but in the city of Chanhassen having clay soils, the infiltration isn't good here and thaVs why the City Council is undetermined on whether permeable pavers are a good alternative. McDonald: Well that's where my comment was. I know the soils are different and that's why I'm asking for what studies have been done. What works good in one area mayliot work in another and again all of our stuff, you ask where 25% comes from. It comes from these studies. It comes from the U.S. Hydrology Guide for the State of Minnesota you know looking at soils and permeability. This was not just a number we picked out out of the blue sky. You talk about other city officials and engineers who I guess have adapted all this and seen great. Who are they? What cities? What engineers? Is there a list of people besides Minnetonka that have adopted this because again I'm intrigued by it but I haven't heard that much about it. Tim Johnson: Well Westwood would have to do a soils test which they probably have all the documentations since they did all the actual development work. They would, and you know that's why I'm closely working with them because they do know the development. There's got to be some comfort level for you know any department with the city of Chanhassen, obviously the Planning Commission and the City Council to make those decisions with the right people making the right recommendations for this application. I do understand the soil conditions are definitely different here. They're heavier soils but what we would do is require their testing as far as the soil types to make those decisions as far as that goes. I do have another project that I could show you where in the City of Inver Grove Heights where we had to do a permeable paver driveway application and I do have an email from. McDonald: Well okay, let me stop you right there because you're talking to the wrong people. We're not engineers and anything you would tell us, it sounds great but you know, I would defer everything to the city engineering staff anyway. What I'm trying to get at is, yes this is probably information that needs to be shared. It needs to be shared with the engineering group and then it percolates up to us. They will explain it to us and we'll all feel great about it. I mean the other comment that I would ask you about, you say this is designed around a I inch rain storm. How typical is that around here? Where did you come up with the I inch rain storm? Tim Johnson: That was you know, I kind of presented a concept to Angie a month or so ago, or right after this was stopped. Kind of asked her, you know some of our thoughts that we came up with in talking with Westwood and that's where you know I got the I inch rain storm from as far as okay what calculations I come up with. What would you require as far as me determining the size of these basins or tiles and so forth and that's where I got that information from. McDonald: Okay. I don't mean to give you such a maybe rude reception and everything but a couple years ago in that general area where you're at, we had a very bad event and it wasn't just 25 Planning Commission Joing - September 4,2007 0 that. We've had a couple of them in that area and people get rather upset and then they get upset with us and they get real upset whenever their property floods and it is a big concern within this city. Soil probably plays a big part in it and so yeah, you're going to get a lot of questions and there's going to be a lot of issues. The whole thing that I am surprised about is how this slipped through the cracks. I mean this was a big deal a couple years ago. We put a number of things in place about you know stopping this before people invest a lot of money and stuff in and then we come along and tell them, sorry you've got to tear it out. I would like the staff to find out what went wrong because these things should not be happening. Keefe: Jerry can I ask one more question? McDonald: Sure. Keefe: Justin passing I just wanted to revisit it for me. You said that Lennar is selling a couple different landscaping packages along with the custom or recommending a couple of different ones which is a real limited approach and one is more of a custom approach and that's who it ended up getting to you. Is that kind of how that works? Tim Johnson: The single package, yeah the base package that is put in front of them is just basically green goods. You know sod. No. Keefe: A couple shrubs. The shrubbery. Tim Johnson: A couple trees, sod and irrigation and if the client says well you know we want to expand upon that. They want to basically, they want this to be you know the Bearpath application and that's where I do get involved. I'm not contracted with Lennar. We're basically contracting directly with the homeowner of the specific properties so the package. Keefe: You get a referral from them essentially is what happens and... Tim Johnson: Exactly, yep. Keefe: Okay. Alright. McDonald: Actually that was all my questions. Does anyone else have anything they want to add or okay. I guess unless you have someone else who wants to speak first. Tim Johnson: We'll just wait til the next one I guess. McDonald: Then I guess well open it up for the public meeting at this point. We thank you for your comments and everything. At this point I would open it up for the public to come up and make comments. Again I ask you to come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commissioners. Sir. Scott Boeddeker: Good evening. Scott Boeddeker, 6710 Manchester Drive. Downstream. I'm on the south side of that pond. I would recommend you agree with the staff, that you don't do 26 Planning Commission Meetilk September 4, 2007 0 anything over 25%. My property's been flooded twice during the construction of this housing development. The first time was in June of 2005. Second time was Labor Day weekend of 2005. 1 had to take Plowshares to court because they failed to stand behind their subcontractor. They would stand behind the 5 inches of rain application for 100 year storm. Totally bogus statistics I believe. I was able to convince a judge of that. That the granite is flat and if 5 inches of rain happens way too often, this has happened 5 times, or 3 times in the last 5 years. I've got concerns about this pond every time it rains. In the spring when it's going to be frozen and the spring runoff and everything. I've got big concerns with this. You setting a precedence here. Allowing this to continue throughout the 41 lots. These lots are way too small for the houses they're building and I'm not surprised these homeowners don't know the situation. I'm disappointed in Plowshares and Lermar for letting this get like this but I would strongly urge you not to allow anything over the 25%. That would increase your liability of that pond overflowing into my property for the third time. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Well, seeing no one come forward. Scott Boeddeker: Just to add to that. That pond is full of springs already so the water level never goes down. I've told people this millions of times. I've told city staff. I've told developers. That pond is not going to hold a 100 year storm when it happens. McDonald: Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close the public meeting again and I'll bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Start down here. Papke: Okay. I think we've been pretty consistent as a planning conamcission on these sorts of items. We've had other remediation efforts like you know rain gardens and so on that have been proposed in the past and I think we've been pretty good as a planning commission about not re- writing city code on the fly here. This one is way, way over the top in terms of the variance that they're looking for. The brick pavers, I have a brick paver driveway and it is impervious when it rains and the low spots, the puddles stay there until they evaporate so, you know it's only my one data point and that's certainly not an engineering study but I certainly am convinced that a brick paver patio or driveway is not a permeable surface so I really wouldn't support using that particular argument to give any leeway to the homeowner here. I guess the only, there's a couple things where they do go over the limit here that I would support. I think you could make a case for leaving the boulder retaining walls there. You know those are pretty small quantities. We're only talking 200 square feet. 150 square feet of boulder wall and that is making the ground quite a bit more level and should help the infiltration across the board. And the decking one is, that's the first time I've seen decking come up as being a permeable. I walked underneath it today and you look up, you don't see any daylight so I understand city staffs position on it, but you know it is a new one from my perspective so I guess I would be in favor of pretty much going with the city staff with leaving a little bit of leeway for the boulder walls. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Okay. Well, on the other side of the fence. I truly believe that the work was done innocently and I don't think that they, I think that it is a lack of due diligence. I really think it 27 Planning Commission Ang - September 4, 2007 0 should have been checked out either by the contractor or developer or the owner before $40,000 was spent just because that would be smart. However, the work has been done. It looks like it's a very beautiful job. They've taken some steps to do Frrnch drains and drain tile and I mean they've gone over and above what you normally see around here. The landscaping I think is all around the house, it really adds, first of all the homes in this area reafly make a nice statement about Chanhassen. I like to see homes that are done well and I like to see landscaping that's done beautifully. What I would also like to see, and I don't know if the city wouldn't consider this but maybe they do need to relook at impervious 25% if it can be offset and I'd like to find out you know maybe it's an engineering thing again. You know if they did drain tile and dry wells that can handle a 5 inch event as opposed to a I inch event like they were designed. Maybe that's something that could be looked at or discussed. But I think neighborhoods like this are an asset to the city and I like that people really do want to take pride and ownership in their homes and put in these sort of things. I didn't know that the rain gardens don't work. That was news to me so like you said if it's dry, I guess the plants that are in there obviously aren't going to live. So maybe the dry wells are better and perhaps maybe this property could be considered, I hate to see all of the, all the landscaping pulled out if we don't have to do it. If there's some way to get around it, I'd like to see the city try. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I think it's an unfortunate situation but one that could have been easily avoided you know with a phone call. It's just you know unfortunate that it got this far but that's the way it goes and so. I agree with everything Debbie said. You know ifs a nice neighborhood and it's, but that's not to say it couldn't be just as nice and still live within the guidelines that are set forth. They're freely available for anyone to ask and learn about. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: You know I just know too many incidences personally of people who have had issues with runoff in this city and I've got an issue and that's part of the reason why the ordinance is as it is. We let these through then we've got 39 other ones that we have to deal with up at the top of this hill where the water will run off of and it's not only here. It's in other locations in the city and I agree with Kevin that it's an unfortunate situation. My understanding Lennar needs to sell homes and they're going to recommend some things but at the same time there's a reason why we've got this thing in place and I think we've got to... McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah I think, I mean again it is a very nice design on it but we have to go back to what we're here for again and that is what, why we allow certain things and why we don't allow certain things. I guess my only comment would be if the applicant and engineering and that, I mean if there was some way they could come back and find some way to contain their storm water runoff within that site, you know be it a pond or if they could convince engineering, and obviously the council ... but again looking at what it is right now, no. M 1 0 Planning Commission Meetiv- September 4, 2007 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is that I was here a couple years ago when this development was put together and it was a very big deal about the number of lots. It was a very big deal about the runoff. It was a very big deal about the 25% and we went through that in great detail. I am sorry that the homeowner doesn't know about it. It is not the city's fault. There is a duty I feel upon whoever goes in there and as a contractor there is a duty upon a homeowner to know. You live within a city. We have ordinances. It's in the paper. It is everywhere. We have made people go in and tear out works that are worth more than $40,000. We have gone through this repeatedly. We have got areas within the city that cause big problems. This is one of them. Another area was Lake Riley where we fought over this. The whole thing about giving credits for certain pavers and certain ways of doing landscape to offset the 25% has been looked at. I will defer to city staff. That is one of the things that they have been tasked to do to come up with some relief for all of this. I like the plans. I like the whole thing about what you're coming up with here about this dry well concept but again as has been stated, I don't know if that's sufficient for this area and that's where I would defer to city staff. That's why I asked what research do you have on that because we need to have ordinances that basically say for this amount of runoff to negate it you need this type of a dry well. I don't know if a I inch rainfall is a sufficient model to design to. Again, that needs to be stated within the ordinance if we're going to start giving leeway to the 25%. It's just we have been through too much within the past few years about flooding as Mr. Boeddeker brought up. He's not the only one. I am sorry as I can be that the homeowners have spent $40,000 and again I am sure that they will go through this and fight it all the way up but good luck on that. Again it's just I think the way to do this as an industry, if you want to do further work in this area you need to basically lobby our city staff. Bring them up to speed on other ideas and ways to do things and we will be more than willing I think to address this issue because we don't want people spending all this money and then we tell them, you've got to be in compliance. Tear it out. Sorry about the $40,000 but either you tear it up or we'll tear it up and we'll charge you for it. That's not the position this city wants to be in. That's why I'm a little upset about the fact this fell through the cracks because a couple years ago I made a big issue out of this. We have been through this. We have gone through a couple of ordinances to make sure this doesn't happen and I am very surprised that it is happening again. I'd like to know why. You know what do we need to plug up because I don't like voting against these variances but there's a reason why they're there and I will continue to vote again them. That's just, you know there's just too much that's happened within the city to just be granting these things. So I guess at that point, and the only reason I make such a big deal about this again, and I'm sorry to pick on you as the developer and the landscaper but a couple years ago whenever I became Chairman, this was a big issue for me because I've got a lot of friends, a lot of neighbors who have had a lot of damage because of this and I'm just determined we're going to solve this problem. Whatever we have to do, I'm not against giving credits for the 25%. I'm not against offsets but that's not my job to determine that this is sufficient. That's city staffs job and that's where this needs to be done. My recommendation to you all would be to ask us to table this and basically work with city staff and see if you can't come up with something. Otherwise I don't think this is going anywhere. But based upon that I am ready to accept a motion from the council. Undestad: I'll make a motion Planning Commission deny Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2d Addition with condition 1. 6% Planning Commission Ang - September 4, 2007 0 McDonald: Can I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2d Addition with the following condition: I . The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. McDonald: And again, you do have the right of appeal to take this up to City Council and present the issue there. City Council does have the ability to waive our city ordinances as they see fit. So okay. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHROEDER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-20. Public Present: Name Address Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50'h Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Schroeder 2081 Pinehurst Drive Scott Boeddeker 67 10 Manchester Dri ve Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No questions. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Well in this case anything hasn't been built yet, is that correct? Auseth: Correct, it's not installed. Keefe: Yeah. McDonald: Kevin. im �0 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an, after the fact, 7.4% variance fi-om die 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of patios and hardscape. LOCATION: 2101 Pinehurst Drive Lot 23, Block 1, Pinchurst 2nd Addition APPLICANT: Tim Johnson OVAIiER: Cjar Papedis Southview Design 2101 Pinehurst Drive 1875 East 50'h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.44 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 7.4% hard surface variance for die addition of patios and hardscape. 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. GCANNE� 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varimtequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 2 of 8 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 32.40/a hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. Thegroperty is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). It is located on Lot 23, Block 1, Pineburst 2 Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinchurst Drive. The City received a building pennit for the subject site that reflected a 23.2% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. The contractor received notice by a building inspector on July 30, 2007, that the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 25% and that all hardscape improvements require a Residential Zomng Permit. At the time the contractor was notified the installation of the deck and patios was nearly complete. The contractor then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property with adequate outdoor expansion area and approval of this application could set a precedent. 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariatRequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 3 of 8 "PLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 23, Block 1, in the Pinehurst 2nd Addition which is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The subject property is 19,423 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 108 feet and approximately 265 feet in depth. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the property was approved on January 16, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 23.2%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 23.2% coverage allowed for ftiture improvements, such as a patio. Based on the building permit application, the homeowner would have had an additional 345 square feet of hard surface for future expansion. -F4 -EGEN *U4 Ilk 3/ X, LT� Ave ]1 1! 1 VMFM -:= 1 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariattRequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 4 of 8 At the time the Pinehurst Development was going through the public hearing process in 2006, hard surface coverage was a concern on these lots. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. Pinehurst was replatted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the lot size on some of the lots. Due to the size of the homes proposed by the developer, the developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for any further improvements or additions on these lots. In an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905: Single-family dwellings (6) "Nhere access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. The lot area is 19,423 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, etc. may occupy 4,858 square feet. The original building permit occupied 4,513 square feet of hard cover, the remaining impervious surface allowed was 345 square feet. The proposed hard cover additions occupy 1,780 square feet, which is 1,435 square feet over what is allowed by ordinance for this parcel. Much of the impervious surface is currently installed on the site. JV - __j 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariatRequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 5 of 8 Surface Building Permit Square Feet Proposed Square Feet House/Garage/Porch 3,232 3,232 DrivewaY 1,281 1,281 Front Sidewalk 170 Upper Patio 445 Fire Pit 225 Fire Pit Boulder Ring 16 Stone Steps 28 Deck 406 Lower Wall 160 Upper Wall 205 Steppers 125 Total 4,513 or 23.2% 6493 or 32.4% (Note: As a policy staff does not include standard slatted decking as hard cover; however, upon inspection of the site the decking is a composite material that interlocks, leaving only a small drainage opening for rain to flow through. These small drainage holes get blocked with debris and do not allow water to run through. Impervious surface is defined as "any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water." Due to the lack of drainage permitted by this type of decking, staff is including the decking as hard cover.) Staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process. Lennar Homes replatted Pinehurst 2d Addition to eliminate two lots in 2006. It is the developer and real estate agent's duty to inform the prospective homeowner of any and all limitations on the site. Since Lennar Homes is also the builder, they were aware of the constraints on the property. Due to the nature of the homes in this development, the expectation is to improve the exterior of the property with landscaping and hardscaping. Prospective homeowners should have been made aware of the impervious restrictions prior to building on these lots. In addition, all hardscape improvements require approval of a Residential Zoning Permit obtained by the homeowner or contractor. A building inspector was conducting an inspection at a different site and noticed the improvements. He informed the contractor of the 25% hard surface coverage restrictions on the site and that the contractor must discontinue the installation of the deck and patios and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit prior to resurning construction. A residential zoning permit acts as a safety net to identify any potential code violations, such as setback encroachments and hard cover requirements, prior to construction. This permit is at no cost to the homeowner and allows the City and the homeowner an opportunity to correct any encroachments before installation begins. it is the contractor/homeowner's responsibility to 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varian*equest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 6 of 8 contact the City prior to construction and obtain a Residential Zoning Permit to ensure compliance with city code. If a variance is granted from the 25% hard surface maximum, it may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes significantly in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1051.3 to 1034, which constitutes a 17.3 -foot drop in a matter of 70 feet. A storm water pond is located outside of the property lines, just to the west of the rear yard of the property. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly, increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types B and C, soils containing non -permeable material, such as clay. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two -car garage. A single-family home with a three -car garage is currently constructed on the property. Even after the initial construction of the home, there was 345 square feet of additional hard cover allowed on the property. Fl"INGS The Planning Commission 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 prolifmfion 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. 2101 Pinehurst Drive VariaigRequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 7 of 8 Finding.- The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two -car garage, and the addition of a ten -foot by ten -foot patio could be constructed without a variance. 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 in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and final plat approval. The development was rcplatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the property - 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 purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be increased as an indirect result. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding. The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self- created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional 345 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building permit. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to die public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding. The variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the 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. 2101 Pinehurst Drive Varianftequest Planning Case 07-19 September 4, 2007 Page 8 of 8 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission denies Variance 07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2�d Addition, with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of hardscape design. 5. Pinehurst Hydrograph Report—Drainage Area 10. 6. Drainage Map for Pinehurst Zd Addition. 7. Hydrology Guide for Minnesota, figure 3-2. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2007 pimning �\07-19 2101 pinehmt hsc varimu\sLaff reportAm Page I of 2 0 0 Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:34 AM To: 'Tim Johnson' Subject: FW: 2081 and 2101 Pinehurst Drive Tim, with regard to the above addresses I need the following information: 2081 Pinehurst Drive I left a message with Tim Carver regarding the necessary items to approve the deck and 3 season porch. The survey must be updated to reflect the retaining wall and the walkway from the patio door. I would suggest submitting the Residential Zoning Permit along with the deck/porch Building Permit, to ensure all the information is accurate and is compliant with the 25% maximum site coverage. To continue with the variance process, you need a current or revised survey showing the compliant hardcover as well as the proposed hardcover for which you are requesting the variance. My report for this variance to make the September 18"' Planning Commission meeting is due tomorrow; if I do not receive the information before noon today I will have to deem the application incomplete and remove it from the September 1 8th Planning Commission agenda. 2101 Pinehurst Drive For the appeal of the 07-19 Variance I need an accurate survey reflecting the proposed hardcover. We discussed removing the deck from the hardcover calculations; therefore we need to have the proposed patio underneath the deck included in the calculations. Best regards, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Tim Johnson [mailto:TJohnson@southviewdesign.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:53 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: One other thing, do you know if the deck permit will be ready after tomorrow? Thank you. Tim Johnson I Southview Design & Construction 1651.755.4513 Landscape Designer I Certified Paver Installer 1 1875 E 50th Street I Inver Grove Heights. IVIN 550771 9/11/2007 V4 El — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR SERVICES DESIGN INFORMAMN SCALE REP.rm JAM I REVISIONS I I. . IV Papeclis Resklence 2101 Pinshumt � & WAM MA� Mm�wa�" IDESIGWSALES DESIGNMALESASST-linsk5lum 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE:024= CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 07-19 NOTICE IS BEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 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 located at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. Applicant: Southview Design. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.ustsery/plan/07-19.html or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 23, 2007) SCANNED 4Location Map 40 2101 Pinehurst Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case 07-19 res view Dr resl Cr ieW r CD 00 SUBJE PROPERTY Z> Highgate cir Q Oc?c/ 03NNVOO The City at Chanhassen - A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaning downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and theatifiluil parks. Agfeal place to live, work, and play. 0 0 August7,2007 MY OF Southview Design CENSEN Attn: Tim Johnson 1875 E 50uh St. 7700 Market Bodead Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Re: Variance Application 2101 Pinehurst Drive —Planning Case 07-19 Adminisilrallion Phone: 952.227.1100 Dear Tim: Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspection This letter is to inform you that we are in receipt of your variance application for Phone: 952.227.1180 property 2101 Pinehurst Drive, located in Pinehurst 2d Addition. Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Currently, the architectural drawings and the survey are inconsistent. These two Phone: 952.227.1160 drawings must reflect the same data/calculations. Therefore, the application is Fax: 952227.1170 incomplete and the following information is missing: Finance Phone: 952.227,1140 1. An Asbuilt Survey showing all improvements on the parcel including the area Fax: 952.227.1110 of the following: lot, home, stoop, front walk, and driveway. Park & Recreation 2. Proposed plans showing impervious calculations including the decks as hard Phone: 952.227.1120 cover; any hardcover that is directly beneath the decks may be omitted from Fax: 952.227.1110 the calculations. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard If all the missinj data is submitted by Friday, August 10, 2007, we will be able to Phona: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 process the application as scheduled. However, if you are unable to meet the Friday, August 10, 2007 deadline, your item will be removed from the agenda and Planning & Natural Resources your application will be deemed incomplete. Phone: 952.227.lM Fax: 952.227,1110 We will not be able to review it until these items have been submitted. This also Public Works means that the 60 -day deadline to process an application will not begin until we 1591 Park Road have received all the necessary information to review the application. Our next Phone. 952.227.13DO submittal date is August 31, 2007 for the Planning Commission meeting on Fax 952.V7.1310 October 2, 2007. Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132. Fax:952.227.1110 Web Site Sincerely, Angie Auseth Planner 03NNVOO The City at Chanhassen - A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaning downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and theatifiluil parks. Agfeal place to live, work, and play. 0 vo", , *ZD Z) -DN , J�N JeW p,fyktCOL4�6n CITY ff CHANHASSES 7781 VARKEl BUD CHRHgASSER, M. 55317 qpq& 1,D.: 001730BORBOO815405702 VERCMRI 11 8668254057 qIsA 966 t SALE IIN: milli JIVE1 181V DAIEt Aus 91, of A014; BITOU AqS RESPORSEt Z 5 DISIj zIP VAINES, ADDRESS DOES HOT T o I A L sna - 00 ob l(RCHARI COPY SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/03/2007 8:43 AM Receipt No. 0048713 CLERK: betty 0 0 PAYEE: Southview Design 1875 E 50th Street Inver Grove Heights MN 55077 Planning case 07-19 Tim Johnson ------------------------------------------------------- Security Escrow 50.00 Variance 200.00 ----------- Total 250.00 Cash 0.00 Credit cd Planning case 07-19 Tim Johnson 250.00 ----------- Change 0.00 SCANNED 10 4:'; X 10 3 41 Ly 70 A15. 0 1 3 00 + 411' Ik / r� I � 1)',� 014ft4 I S10'V . C , �X C'q " F� 414,47-1r-. SU � ;y VEGjl', AIP,�.D CoAfr*04 41 Ar vti' 41 pt Polo AN COA'Syr,, 1,11,pD '--,41Afp" R 7-0 .4 Liz lu', , 41Af jj wi; buiziriv Nr/j t LIE(j r,4k-,cD '3 W1&7-&� or IS OP PrIV 6*4 Y 8 C1Aj(; 44ES414y �ro im-92 1050.8 x 10 OF ICE SSQ 30 0 30 M06%� SCALE IN FEET or10 L 0� , 10 a cz"�� A APPR"VE! V C' i LEGEND 15 ��e LOT AREA = 19,423 SQ. FT. DOE� HOUSE/PORCH = 3,232 SQ. FT DATE:/ -/2 Denotes Iron Monument = 1.281S BY: -3�,a Denotes Surface Drainage - 4,513S T DEPT: Denotes Proposed Elevation X (123.4) DATE: Denotes Existing Elevation X 123.4 Denotes Top Iron Pipe lip Y. F Denotes Retaining Wall RW DATE: Denotes Proposed Contour Lines 1234— STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE 30 0 30 M06%� SCALE IN FEET or10 L 0� , 10 a cz"�� A NOTES: C I 1.Address: 2101 PinehurstDrive C' 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Southwest Corner Lot 3, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. 'ei g* ELEV. = 1057.18 011 .0 19 L�� 2. T.N.H, lying westof Manchester Drive atOutiot's Aand B, PINEHURST 2ND i m1i x 1031.6 TWR .4 1029 - 3 ZE R�w X 1030 X IM 6160 15. ;07 Jb7 0 H88D COVER CALCULATIONS 15 LOT AREA = 19,423 SQ. FT. HOUSE/PORCH = 3,232 SQ. FT zu LW 0 DRIVEWAY = 1.281S TOTAL HARD COVER - 4,513S T it PERCENT OF HARD CQaR 4 . 513119,423'� NOTES: C I 1.Address: 2101 PinehurstDrive C' 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Southwest Corner Lot 3, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. 'ei g* ELEV. = 1057.18 011 .0 19 L�� 2. T.N.H, lying westof Manchester Drive atOutiot's Aand B, PINEHURST 2ND i m1i x 1031.6 TWR .4 1029 - 3 ZE R�w X 1030 X IM 6160 15. ;07 Jb7 0 ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the easterly lot line from the northeasterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 29.71 feet southeasterly along easterly lot line. ELEV. = 1059.95 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use archirtectural plans for building construction purposes. S. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2/21105. Proposed top of house foundation = 1061.3 Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1061.0 Proposed lowest floor elevation = 1051.6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 23, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify thatthis survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 5th day of December, 2006. CITY OF CHANNP'.zSEN 0 McCo be Frank Roos Associates, Inc. MCCO a jAN 1 2 200? H D. Nell PLS Minnesota L a se No. 17255 ENGINEERING DEPT This certific; ' n is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. NM DOW By %a Dn*� 911newilng - Planning, . uuml Mlect c.ZILIJ Sbeet Tffie Sheet Revstor Su—*g D.— ERW Lot 23 Block I Dub. 12 NIFRA F MW�WA. q -�W LENNAR Ph�TAIJE;T �iqD AMMON Certificate of Survey 0.*.d HDN McCombFnak]l� A� W/4X-AM00-%nr'= Wayzata, MN Chanhassen, MIN F71 119 App,,d I AmwaW, I=. E� m I MUMVERNM 16229 0 15 0 0 zgz zu LW 0 9, ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the easterly lot line from the northeasterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 29.71 feet southeasterly along easterly lot line. ELEV. = 1059.95 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use archirtectural plans for building construction purposes. S. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2/21105. Proposed top of house foundation = 1061.3 Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1061.0 Proposed lowest floor elevation = 1051.6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 23, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify thatthis survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 5th day of December, 2006. CITY OF CHANNP'.zSEN 0 McCo be Frank Roos Associates, Inc. MCCO a jAN 1 2 200? H D. Nell PLS Minnesota L a se No. 17255 ENGINEERING DEPT This certific; ' n is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. NM DOW By %a Dn*� 911newilng - Planning, . uuml Mlect c.ZILIJ Sbeet Tffie Sheet Revstor Su—*g D.— ERW Lot 23 Block I Dub. 12 NIFRA F MW�WA. q -�W LENNAR Ph�TAIJE;T �iqD AMMON Certificate of Survey 0.*.d HDN McCombFnak]l� A� W/4X-AM00-%nr'= Wayzata, MN Chanhassen, MIN F71 119 App,,d I AmwaW, I=. E� m I MUMVERNM 16229 . 2W - I? Westwood Professional SepAces, Inc. W10105 40M Plowshares Development, LLC- W�' �w Rla-, k_---.k� �ah� Minn�. MW tin z 14i 14 0 Pinehurst Call � Hours before dtggmq. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL fmn City �w 651-454-"Z An. Tall Free I -SM -252-1166 IM, 200' 300 09/17/04 2 m 2 Post-Devlopment Drainage Map Hydrograph Report 0 0 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 11 Curve number DA -10 Hydraulic length Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 16.66 ac Basin Slope = 3.5% Tc method = LAG Total precip. = 6.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Hydrograph Discharge Table Time -- Outflow (h rs cfs) 12.10 49.96 << .End Wednesday, Jul 6 2005, 9:12 AM Peak discharge = 49.96 cfs Time interval = 3 min Curve number = 72 Hydraulic length = 1100ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 23.2 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume 4.052 acft (Pn.f� �alu� 1� d QP.) 13 CC � " A � drb �Itl US). 4� Sol I Coy). �Servl'cp_ MN­ENG­-73 FIGURE 3-2 U. & OEF�MENT OF �MULTURE 9-76 M CONSIRVArON �CE (File Code ENG -13) HYDROLOGIC CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION SHEET LAND USE FOR URBAN AREAS Present or Futur� Watershed Site D.A. Acres Computed by —Date Checked by —Date Total Acres Weighted Runoff Curve No. Product Total Total Acres 3-4 Product Total Curve Numbers Acres Moisture Condition II LAND USE DESCRIPTION Per A B C F_ Practice Soils Soils soils soils Product Cultivated Land: without conservation treatment 72 81 88 91 with conservation treatment 62 71 78 81 Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89 good condition 3Q 61 74 BO Meadow: good condition 30 58 71 78 Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 77 83 good cover 25 55 70 77 Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, ceme- teries, etc. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 3q 61 74 8C) fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 49 6Q 79 84 Commercial and business amas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95 Industrial districts (72% impervious) 81 88 91 93 Residential: Average lot size Average % Impervious 118 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92 114 acre 38 61 75 83 87 113 acre 002-0 30 57 72 81 86 1/2 acre (2j,7e05.C.) 25 54 70 80 85 1 acre 20 51 68 79 8 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveWays, etc. 1 98 98 98 98 1 streets and roads: P�ved with curbs and atom sewers 98 98 98 98 gravel 76 85 89 91 dirt 72 82 87 89 Marsh 8 85 =5 Other Total Acres Weighted Runoff Curve No. Product Total Total Acres 3-4 Product Total q sonti Dogwood WENCH DRAIN Winged Euonymus 6 River Birch I it q Big Sky Sunrise Echinacea 14 Russian Sage Fire Pit 25 Karl Foprster Feather Reed Gross wr SIX 71. - --------------- B -C L ------------- - T.O.N 7 !,1,. \Ply WE� gqz W. I L Plaaa. 0 "'a 0 00 1.1.111110 I, 111150fillaa N Olum 01115N.211111ifi... I loliri..Eliri..Nl 41111111.= Elmo Nis ..maaffiwari�. -!a.. mi.. 01. .7.11111am ..Elam iri "Ilk —.2 R 15 Siberian Iris 1 )2,9 1 tz 5 Madav-4 Crdbapple 4 Autumn Joy 5edum ine and Roses WeiQeIQ 3 Little Princess 5pireo A Annabelle Hydrangea 3 32- 3A .$2... 11 Taunton Yew Decorative Pots IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, I Boulder Retaining Wall 6 Techny Arborvitae Stone Steps 4' 20 Pennisetum Horneln Gross Stone Steppers 6 Quaking Aspen 15 Autumn r1ogic Chokeberry 2 Dwarf Winged Euonymus 5 Moonshodow F-uonymus E RL a If 7- 16 B ajo Daylily 8 Purple DoTm Aster Iffln Lot- lq,423sf (Does not include Blvd.) House 4 Porch: 3,2329F Upper Patio. 4455f Fire Pit: 225sf Fire Pit Boulder Ringt 165f Stone Steps- 28sf Walkway: 1705f Driveway: 1,2819f Lower Noll� 1(05f Upper Wall; 205 sf Steppers: 125 sf 1875 EAST 50TH STREET INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MINNESOTA 5,5077 PHONE 651.456.8238 FAX 6,51,455.1734 0 7 8 SOUTHVIEW s. D E S I G N 4, landscape contractors