Loading...
CAS-19_PETERS, RICHARD AND EUNICE0 0 The contents of this file have been scanned, Do not add anything to 0 it unless it has been scanned, Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehl, Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alin2 Schwartz Samuel J. Edmund, Cynthia R. Kirchoff Marguerite M. McCarro� 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 - Eagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 "w.ck-law.com 0 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional AssociatioiI Direct Diah (651) 234-6222 E-mailAddress: vnelson@ck-law.com January 28, 2009 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ,ITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2009 'HANHASSEN PLANNiNG DEP7 RE: CELANHASSEN — MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS > Variance #08-19—Richard & Eunice Peters Property at 7301 Laredo Drive (Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills First Addition) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #08-19 for a 15 - foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 x 20 foot enclosed structure on the above property. The variance was recorded with Carver County on December 16, 2008 as Torrens Document No. TI 68937. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Pssocia"on Ld�2 BM S an R. Ne son Legal ssistant OcAjoka 0 Document 0 OFFICE OF THE T 168937 REGISTRAR OF TITLES CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Check# 19807 Cert. # 22986 Fee $ 4&00 Certified Recorded on 12-1&20W at 09:00 qAM PM 2008-12-16 Carl W. Hanson, Jr. Registrar of Titles CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 08-19 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanba sen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills First Addition. The granting of this variance is final. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City Of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise ffills First Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: 1. Design the roof drainage system such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. 4. Lapse. if within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: November 10, 2008 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY:.- 41� kz (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, AND: ju)� Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Oday of(Z��Xe�� 2008 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, NIN 55317 (952) 227-1100 KAHWN J. ENGELHARDT J�­ f4otary Public -Minnesota 6 MyG0mmssimExPimJan3!,P1­ VVVVVVW%^AA&1.^P.'P^/VVV%� � CITY OF CEHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fauc 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Pholte: 952.227.1180 Far. 952,227.1190 Wleffiroll None: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coilter Boulend Phorle: 952.227.1400 Fax., 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227, 1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Pubk Woft 1591 Park Road Philie: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227,1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site wwad.charmassen.mus 0 November 20, 2008 REVISED: January 2,2009 Richard and Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 - Re: Shorcland Setback Variance — Planning Case #08-19 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peters: This letter is to formally notify you that on November 10, 2008, the Chanhassen City Council approved Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback (eves are perenitted to encroach 2 feet as shown in approved drawing) variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adoption of the Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must be applied for prior to November 10, 2009 through the City's building department. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, '49.5�� Angie Auseth Planner I c: Jerry Mohn, Building Official Building Peirmit File &AplanX2008 planning casm\08-19 peten varianceVeaff of approvalAm Chanhassen is a Comm unity for Life - ProOding for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED CITY OF CHANHAREN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Shop drawings El Copy of letter LETTER OAANSMITTAL G13- 19 DATE JOB NO 12/4/08 108-19 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording 0 Attached El Under separate cover via the following items: El Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples Ej Specifications [I Change Order 0 Pay Request F -I - COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION El 11/10/08 08-19 Peters Variance (Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition) 0 FORBIDS DUE For Recording PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: El For approve! E) For your use El As requested El For review and comment 0 FORBIDS DUE REMARKS El Approved as submitted El Resubmit El Approved as noted F-1 Submit El Returned for corrections E] Return For Recording PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Richard and Eunice Peters - 7301 Laredo Drive copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED:-ALm y im Metm�issen, (952)'�Li 1 07 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 08-19 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition. The granting of this variance is final. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: 1. Design the roof drainage system such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: November 10, 2008 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CRANTRASSEN BY: 41� Thomas A. Furlong, AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Oday o1Q)--,,,,—� 2008 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTEI)BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 2 WE J.�, KAREN J. ENGELHARDT Notary PU�jC_RA; - ,,SSe I F0 min a M -F MZ=MMiwExp1mJan31,21-f > a CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch— Planning Case No. 08-19. On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. The decision of the Planning Commission was less than 3/4 majority vote. The City Council reviewed the item at the November 10, 2008 City Council meeting and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I . The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. The parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75 -foot structure setback, three of which were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. While the applicant has reasonable use of the property, this request is unique, in that the applicant would like to enclose an existing deck, which received variance approval in 1996. The SCAKNED r- 6-1 conversion of a portion of the deck into a porch will not increase the foot print and will not increase impervious coverage on the lot, as the original deck was constructed over a patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a valiance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this valiance is based are applicable to all lake shore properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The subject site predates the adoption of the Zoning and Shoreland District regulations. Most of the home meets the required shoreland setback. To provide reasonable use of the lake shore lot, the applicant was granted a 15 -foot lakeshore valiance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home. While the conversion of the existing 15 x 20 foot deck will not change the foot print of the structure nor reduce the existing nonconforming setback, enclosing the deck intensifies the nonconformity and requires valiance approval. The roof drainage will be designed to control erosion that would be caused by the runoff. c. ne purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potenti a] of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed porch is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: While the applicant has reasonable use of the property and was granted a valiance in 1996 to construct the existing deck, the property was platted in 1956 and predates the zoning ordinance. The conversion of 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch will not increase the impervious coverage on the lot, or reduce the existing shoreland setback from Lotus Lake. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare orinjurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a 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. The recommended proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site, or intensify the current nonconforming shoreland setback. Enclosing the deck will increase the runoff produced on the site, however, the homeowner will provide a roof design that will minimize erosion caused by runoff from the roof. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9 - Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the 0 danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #08-19, dated November 10, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The City Council approves Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of an existing 15 x 20 foot deck to a porch on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24h day of November, 2008. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY71(75'� Its MAYOR %planX2008 planning casesNO8-19 peim �ananceN 11-24-08 appinaval findings of fac.dm City Council Meeting - Novene 24, 2008 0 C)�� - 6 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Summary Minutes dated November 6, 2008 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 10, 2008 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated November 10, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated October 28, 2008 b. Approve Joint Fuel Purchase Agreement with MnDot. C. Approve Nominees for 2008 Environmental Excellence Awards. d. Approval of Assessment Service Agreement with Carver County. e. Approval of Findings of Fact for a 15 -Foot Variance from the 75 -Foot Shoreland Setback for the Conversion of an Existing Deck into a Porch. 7301 Laredo Drive, Richard & Eunice Peters. e -op -t ,VV X - e,.� 0,,3 bVWAX>1.rn. Accept Donation from Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Voluntary Payment for City Services in Lieu of Taxes. 9- Approve Payment for Chanhassen nature Preserve Trail Construction, Steiner Construction Services. h. Approve Purchase of Fire Department Grass Rig (2007 CIP). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: I see Chief Geske is here which means another call out hasn't occurred yet since the last few so we'll take you quickly while we can. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah, I did go check with Eden Prairie. They're at our station and I told them if we did called out, I'd leave so I'll finish up but. Since the report we did have an additional structure fire this last week, actually on Frontier Trail. Unfortunately we had two pets, or two dogs that didn't make it through the fire. It was a small fire that was contained in the kitchen area with smoke damage to the rest of the house so we responded. The residents came home and there was smoke filled the house there. Tried to revive the pets but to no avail. And SCANNFA CITY OF CWHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspectiom Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Firiance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Pulflic Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952,227.1310 Senior center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen mn.us 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: November 2412008 *e_ 0 C).R - / 9 1 e, SUBJ: Peters Shoreland Setback Variance — Planning Case #08-19 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Action for Planning Case #08-19 of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise MIN Addition." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The request for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck to a screened porch was approved at the November 10, 2008 City Council meeting. The Findings of Fact and Action were tabled at that meeting to amend the findings to coincide with the Council's action on the item. Attached are the amended Findings of Fact and Action foT City Council Approval. g \planQ008 planning cases\08- 19 peter% variance\1 1-24-08 executive stantriary.dec Chanhassen is a Cmw* for Lile - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch— Planning Case No. 08-19. On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. The decision of the Planning Commission was less than 3/4majority vote. The City Council reviewed the item at the November 10, 2008 City Council meeting 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 (1.5 —4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. The parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75 -foot structure setback, three of which were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. While the applicant has reasonable use of the property, this request is unique, in that the applicant would like to enclose an existing deck, which received variance approval in 1996. The J I 0 conversion of a portion of the deck into a porch will not increase the foot print and will not increase impervious coverage on the lot, as the original deck was constructed over a patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all lake shore properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The subject site predates the adoption of the Zoning and Shoreland District regulations. Most of the home meets the required shoreland setback. To provide reasonable use of the lake shore lot, the applicant was granted a 15 -foot lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home. While the conversion of the existing 15 x 20 foot deck will not change the foot print of the structure nor reduce the existing nonconforming setback, enclosing the deck intensifies the nonconformity and requires variance approval. The roof drainage will be designed to control erosion that would be caused by the runoff. 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 intent of the proposed porch is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: While the applicant has reasonable use of the property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck, the property was platted in 1956 and predates the zoning ordinance. The conversion of 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch will not increase the impervious coverage on the lot, or reduce the existing shoreland setback from Lotus Lake. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The recornmended proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site, or intensify the current nonconforming shoreland setback. Enclosing the deck will increase the runoff produced on the site, however, the homeowner will provide a roof design that will minimize erosion caused by runoff from the roof. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9 - Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the 0 0 danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #08-19, dated November 10, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The City Council approves Planning Case #08-19 for a 15-focit variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of an existing 15 x 20 foot deck to a porch on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24d1 day of November, 2008. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL FIT Its MAYOR gAplan\2008 planning casesk08-19 peters variancekl 1-24-08 appmval findings of fac.dw 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Administration Moe: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227,1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 lingirleffino Phorle: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Fillance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Pu* Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site wwad chanhassen.mus 0 16 November 20,2008 Richard and Eunice Peters 7301 I-aredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance — Planning Case #08-19 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peters: M61; This letter is to formally notify you that on November 10, 2008, the Chanhassen City Council approved Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adoption of the Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must be applied for prior to November 10, 2009 through the City's building department. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at aauseth@ci.chainhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Angie Auseth Planner I c: Jerry Mohn, Building Official Building Permit File gAplan\2008 planning cas�N()8-19 peten varianceMetter of approval.doe Chanhassen is a Community for Life - - -, ; - i 11, �- 1 --� �- - — --r --,n City Council Meeting - Novem* 10, 2008 0 CA - 1,9 d. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, 8201 Main Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD & EUNICE PETERS: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND SETBACK TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING DECK INTO A PORCH AND ADDING ANOTHER DECK. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. As you recall we discussed this item at your October 27 1h meeting. It did appear before the Planning Commission on October 7"' and the Planning Commission did recommend 3 to 2 to deny it. And in following up on this item staff listened to the concerns of the City Council in reading through the minutes. Tried to redirect the applicant in what we understood the direction that you wanted to go. Again this property is located on 7301 Laredo Drive. The issue was the 15 foot shoreland setback. That was for an existing deck, which they now wanted to convert to a year round facility. And in addition to that there was a, so this would be the deck in orange, and the additional, into the year round facility porch or living structure and then an additional deck with stairs going down. That one the Planning Commission again denied. The closest point to the shoreland was 60 feet. So and the compromise on that, and I want to pass something around, was that you have in your staff report was for denial. The applicant was pursuing this application which still included the 60 foot setback from the lake and a smaller deck. As you recall from the discussion their goal was to be able to, to be able to have a place where they could barbeque. Put that on that same level as the structure because it's sitting up on the second story as opposed to the walkout level. And in looking at that and from the direction that the staff understood from, in the report, and this is on page 2 of the cover memo but I also have a slide. Was that we felt by adding onto the non -conformity, even though there was a variance, that there should be some compromise. The deck would have to come down. Additional footings be put in place. So in that kind of that mitigation, what we would do to improve this situation would actually try to move that existing structure back. So with this would still be a 15 by 20 deck and then a smaller 6 by 8 structure for the barbeque so what the staff's proposal, and that was the handout I made so there's a new motion if that was the direction you wanted to go. And that would change it to a 10 by 20. Again in looking at that structure you'd have to put different footings in place. And the existing patio area would be 3.5 by 7. That's a blue line adjacent to the structure would be staying within that would meet the shoreland setback. The 75 feet so the 64 feet, that would be that mitigation in order to enclose the structure. So that's the direction the staff moved, based on what we heard the council's direction was to provide, try to find some way to reduce the non -conformity, even though the deck was already approved with the encroachment. We're expanding that deck so to make it to the porch. So that's what the staff is recommending. This isn't what we're recommending. That's the Planning Commission's recommendation. What we arc recommending, and I believe the applicant still his preference would be still the 15 by 20 but we're recommending, and I've prepared, so you've got both motions in front of you, would be the 10 by 20 with the smaller 3.7, 3.5 by 7 foot deck and the Findings of Fact that would match that are also attached. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 2 ScAmIED City Council Meeting avember 10, 2008 0 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Litsey: I had a, going back to that drawing in the green area there. That would be the additional for the, I guess to have an outdoor grill or whatever to accommodate that concern. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Litsey: And then the stairs would come down and hook up with the existing walkway then? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Litsey: And then keeping back 75 feet from the shoreland except for the existing variance. Kate Aanenson: Right. So originally they, so it took off that 5 feet to make it less of a variance. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah Kate. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So the proposed new deck, that still needs a variance. I mean the addition? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Because they're adding to that. Increasing the non -conformity, right. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So they do need a variance with that still? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Were there any other scenarios or options talked about? Kate Aanenson: This is their first choice to stay on this side without removing any of the trees or the vegetation on the other side. That was their first proposal that came through. Let's see if I have some of other pictures that were on here. If you go back to looking at the structure. The vegetation that was around there. How the structure's sitting up. So this one shows the original request. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then the request you're, or the proposal you're submitting is that they take that existing deck and go back 5 feet? City Council Meeting - Noven* 10, 2008 0 Kate Aanenson: 4 feet. Councilwoman Tjornhom: 4 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I said 5. It's 4. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And has the applicant talked to you about that at all? Kate Aanenson: Yes. That would not be their first choice. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so their first choice is still what was first proposed? Kate Aanenson: The 15 by, the 15 by 20, that's correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: With the shorter deck though. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, yeah. I'm just making sure that I understand what everyone's proposing. Mayor Furlong: And let's, in a few minutes I'm going to have Mr. Peters and Mrs. Peters come up if they want to so we can ask that. Just to clarify. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman McDonald: If I could ask just. Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: The handout that you gave us then would be a proposed motion incorporating what you would recommend for the reduced deck at this point. Is that right? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: And this motion doesn't require a variance then, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Well it does because they're adding to that structure. It's not increasing the hard cover but they're still increasing the non -conformity. Councilman McDonald: Okay, but they're increasing it based upon the current footprint. Kate Aanenson: The setback from the shoreland, yep. El City Council Meetingoovember 10, 2008 Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Well to clarify, under staff s alternative or staff s recommendation the footprint would be smaller. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But the structure itself would be and going from a deck to a. Councilman McDonald: An enclosed room. Mayor Furlong: And enclosed, year round room. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they're increasing the non -conformity by intensifying that deck, making a four season porch. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That's our interpretation. Mayor Furlong: The footprint is smaller than what they currently have or what they requested. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And just to clarify, both proposals, the hardcover surface is not being increased, is it? Kate Aanenson: Well there is hard cover underneath the patio right now. Or the deck. So if you would move it back, that could be reduced too by not making it hard cover. Councilwoman Tjomhom: But it's not being increased to what they have right now. Existing. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And just to be clear, I guess where we were going with that, what we understood was that, because they're intensifying it, that we try to find some ways to mitigate that, and that would be to increase the setback from the shoreland. Todd Gerhardt: And to provide more pervious. Or impervious. Councilwoman Ernst: Pervious. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? We may have some others. Anything at this point? Councilwoman Tjornhom: One more. Underneath the deck, what's underneath the deck right now? Kate Aanenson: That's what we believe is impervious. So that's why I'm saying. 61 I City Council Meeting - NovenO 10, 2008 0 Councilwoman Tjomhom: Is it a slab or something or? Kate Aanenson: It appears to be rock and hard cover so that's why we're saying if we can move it back we can make that be green. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I think we noted in that first presentation there was a lot of patio put on there that we have no, prior to, the house goes back a number of years so there is a lot of hard cover in the back of the house. Mayor Furlong: Alfight. Mr. and Mrs. Peters, if you'd like to come forward at this time. Rich Peters: Again I'm Rich Peters, 7301 Laredo Drive. Eunice Peters: And I'm Eunice Peters. Mayor Furlong: Hello again. Thank you for coming back. Rich Peters: I'm confused a little bit here because we're bouncing around back and forth. We started out by the 15 by 20 foot deck, to make it a, enclose it in some respect. And we had an 8 by 31 foot deck added on. Farther away from the lake than the original deck. Okay. Okay, then when the Planning Commission said can you just live without the deck, and I said no. Okay. Now after the meeting 2 weeks ago you wanted a compromise so we cut off 80% of the deck. We're down to 6 by 8 instead of 8 by 3 1. Just enough room for people to stand and, around a grill and drink a diet Coke you know. That's all we're asking for there. And to enclose the deck that we have now. The proposal that the City's coming up with, which is taking 5, chopping 5 feet off the deck would leave you with a 10 foot room. And when you start putting furniture in a 10 foot room, you don't have much space left at all at that point. We don't even think that's something we would consider. It would end up being a 10 by 20 foot hallway is all it's going to be. And in a 31/2 foot wide deck wouldn't even fit my grill on it. My grill which is nothing fancy. It's a 15 year old Weber. It's 4 feet wide and you couldn't fit that, you know a grill on it so that's, you know we think a 6 by 8 foot deck is adequate, at least for people to stand on. You wouldn't put a table or anything on it but just people stand around and have a barbeque grill there and then finish off the 3 season porch. You asked for a compromise and that's what we understood was you were looking for. For something you know. And so that's where we stand today. Below that deck, where the deck was, as I mentioned before was a cement block patio. I don't think the cement blocks are there. Just dirt. Call it dirt basically what it was. That was there with the original building was there in 1960. The patio below was there in 1962. We just put new blocks in it, that's all. Mayor Furlong: So is the cement block patio taken out when the deck was put in? Rich Peters: No. Well. The cement blocks might have been. But it's din. Eunice Peters: They're holding down the, so the weeds don't grow. City Council Meetingoovember 10, 2008 Rich Peters: Put your house picture up there. Yeah. Yeah, below that is, you know it's built up to about. Mayor Furlong: Below the lattice. 0 Rich Peters: Yeah, the lattice, I would say a foot. There's probably a foot between the deck and the dirt. Eunice Peters: And there's fabric and then. Kate Aanenson: Somewhere in here, yeah. Eunice Peters: The rocks are on top of the fabric to hold it down. MayorFurlong: Landscaping rocks? Eunice Peters: Well the squares that were the patio before. Rich Peters: Those thin square, ancient you know. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Eunice Peters: And all the hard surface that is there was there when we moved in. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'm sorry, are we at questions? Mayor Furlong: No. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I got ahead of myself. I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Please. No, that's fine, if that's okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Sorry, Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhorn: When you, whatever happens tonight and if you do do your addition or your porch, staff talked that you'll have to pour footings. Is that correct? So what will you do with the concrete blocks and everything that are there now? Eunice Peters: They would be hauled away. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And just replaced with fabric or dirt? 7 City Council Meeting - NovenG 10, 2008 0 Rich Peters: Just fabric probably. I don't know what they put underneath a crawl space you know because it would be blocked in for fertilizer. What am I thinking of? Eunice Peters: I don't know. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Insulation? Rich Peters: Insulation, yes. You have to fill around the edge for insulation so it will be a crawl space. The crawl space we have in another place in the house is just dirt. You know below the kitchen in fact is dirt. So I would expect that but I'm not a contractor. Mayor Furlong: So to clarify, rather than just footings with posts you're looking at putting in a 4 foot foundation block wall or something all the way around. Rich Peters: Could be, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With a crawl space underneath. Okay Councilman McDonald: I have a question. On the proposed compromise that the staff recommended, I understand that that's probably not enough room for a grill but why couldn't the grill go down on the patio? Rich Peters: Because the kitchen sits up off the deck. There's sliding glass doors and there will be some kind of doors there out to that too. But so then you'd have to walk all the way down. Down through the, you know through the porch. Through the deck or steps to get down and then back up again. So you'd be running back up. Or, I suppose you could go out to the garage, or the basement. Walk down through the living room, which you know you can't see here, and come out the very bottom there by the table and chairs on the bottom. It just wouldn't be very handy. Because the dining room and living room and everything's upstairs. Councilman McDonald: But whenever you go to eat, wouldn't you go down to the patio anyway in the summer because this is when you're going to be using it is mainly in the warmer weather, is that correct? Rich Peters: Yeah, I tell you we normally eat in the kitchen. You know if we have company or something, there's more room in the kitchen. And grill outside you know. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Mayor Furlong: Other questions Councilman Litsey or Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one more. If you don't have one first. Counci I woman Ernst: No, go ahead. City Council Mectingoovember 10, 2008 0 Councilwoman Tjomhom: Staff has made their proposal and you have your's. Is there any way you guys could meet in the middle? Where you know they're proposing 14 and you want 20. Rich Peters: I thought we gave up 80% of the deck was a huge compromise already you know. And the fact of losing 5 feet off our deck that we have now, we would just as soon leave it as a deck. Councilwoman Tjornhom: That's what I'm saying. Is there any compromise in that number, you know between you and staff? Eunice Peters: Instead of a 10 foot wide deck you mean, or room, have a 12 foot? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Rich Peters: You know it's a 12 by 20 and still, and then have a 6 by 8 foot deck. Eunice Peters: I tell you what I would do, I'd give up the deck totally. Just forget the deck and let us have a sun porch. Rich Peters: Yeah. That was one of the Planning Commission's recommendations, or I shouldn't say recommendation. One of the things they threw at us was can you just give up the deck and have the porch. At this point, it's November 10h . If we're going to do something we've got to do it now. You know because they're going to want to, working on a porch and get it filled in so they can work inside and stuff like that. So you know if you want to leave a deck off, we'll go with having a screened in, you know build a porch or a sunroorn on top of the deck. And no deck. But we can't, you know to get anything done this year we've got to do it now with winter approaching. Councilwoman Ernst: So just to be clear then when you're talking about the screened in porch. Are we looking at that to be the 8 by 3 1 ? Kate Aanenson: No. Rich Peters: No, that would be. Councilwoman Ernst: The additional? Rich Peters: No, the screened in porch would be, is now 15 by 20. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Oh, okay. I see. Rich Peters: And that's all. In other words, the least we would take is, other than not getting anything at all is, is just give us the porch we have now. Or deck we have now and we'll make a porch out of it. No further deck. 0 City Council Meeting - Novene 10, 2008 0 Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. I don't want to confuse the matter but just to be clear. The way that the staff had recommended the smaller deck, I'm not sure, but that would not require a variance because they're behind the 75 foot shoreland setback. That little part of the deck so. Just so if we're negotiating. If it stayed smaller, as long as it stayed within that 75 foot setback, they would be permitted. Mayor Furlong: Without a variance. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Eunice Peters: But a 3.5, excuse me. You could not put a sliding glass door in there. It would have to be a door that opened out. Rich Peters: Coming from the porch, for the 3 season porch. Eunice Peters: A 3.5 wide deck is, I mean you might just as well pitch over the side. That's a pretty you know whatever deck. I'd just soon have none at all. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey, you had a question regarding, or comment. Or question. Councilman Litsey: That's alright. No, I think it's kind of been answered so that's okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this point? No? Okay, thank you. Okay, any follow-up questions of staff9 If not, thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I think that, I mean if they're okay with that, with negotiating having the porch versus the deck, that sounds like a compromise and where you originally started, because I actually was in favor of them having the original proposal that they came up with. So I would definitely be in favor of the 15 by 20 porch. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: I do have a question of staff. So what you're saying is it wouldn't require a variance for the deck that is being proposed. They could go ahead and do that anyway. Kate Aanenson: Right, it would be smaller but it sounds like it doesn't meet their needs. As long as it stayed within that 75 foot shoreland setback, that's correct. Councilman Litsey: So we really can't make that a condition of, that they not, I mean I appreciate the spirit of compromise but by saying you'll do with, you could really go ahead and do it anyway. Kate Aanenson: I guess that was my point. Just to say if they wanted to come back later and put a narrow, it may not meet their needs but they could do something narrow. Yeah. Councilman Litsey: Thank you. 1101 City Counci I Meeting 00vember 10, 2008 0 Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? Unless somebody else wants to go. Councilman Litsey: No, I'm fine with it. The struggle with these, as we've all said, and last time too with allowing you know the use of your property. Reasonable use and I understand that if you start narrowing that up too much it does become more or a hallway than a living area so I guess I'd be interested to hear what other people say and then come back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: I'll go ahead and jump in. Yeah as far as the 15 by 20 foot deck, converting that sunroom, I guess because it already exists I was in favor of doing that. It's always been this other patio that I've had a problem with. So I mean if it comes down to enclosing the current deck into a sunroom, I'm fine with doing that because we're really to me it's kind of net zero effect. It still stays within the parameters of where it's at, whether it's a deck or an enclosed structure so I'm fine with that. What I've always struggled with has been the auxiliary deck that comes off of there. I understand 3 1/2 feet may be unreasonable but by the same token I really don't want to intensify the encroachment that's currently there so that's kind of where I'm thinking at this point. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom, thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, you know I too kind of scratched my head when I try to envision a 10 by 20 porch. It just didn't seem to be something that would be a very comfortable room or you know you want to use it obviously and if the space is as such where you can't use it, why have it? So it didn't make a lot of, I mean for me as a porch goes, it didn't make a lot of sense to do that so still am in favor of the 15 by 20 enclosure. And I try to always be really consistent when it comes to shoreland setbacks and hard surface coverage, that if they're being affected and increased you know I'm never in favor of that and 1, that's why with this I don't see it being increased. I understand that you got a variance to increase it in 1996, or whenever it was but so did everybody else it sounds like and so it just comes down to me to logic and what is reasonable use of your property and I feel the enclosure is a reasonable request and you know I wish that the deck could be bigger so you could have a grill. That seems reasonable too but if not having that deck, or the extra deck is going to get your porch done, then I'm in favor of that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess my thoughts on this, as I had mentioned last time was, and I think as Councilman Litsey and I know others have said before and feel that these are tough requests because but for the location to the lake, putting on a porch, an addition to the house certainly is something that seems reasonable. I think the challenge here is how do we do that given the parameters for it's setback to the lake. It was my hope and expectation that, as we have done in the past, sought compromise when there's an increase to the non -conformity, which going from a deck to an enclosed addition, porch, sunroom, whatever we want to call it, it's going to be a year round use. Interior use for the house. That's an intensification and the challenge is, where is the hardship? Where is the justification for that? I'm having trouble with that. I do appreciate the applicants and staffs working together to try and compromise this. This is still a difficult, difficult call simply because, well the compromise is being proposed is, we City Council Meeting - Noven* 10, 2008 0 want to make these improvements. We won't make quite as many improvements as a compromise. It was my hope, and 1, with staff's recommendation of a 10 foot, which would give a 4 or 5 point reduction of the encroachment in the setback and actually improving the impervious surface, I like the concept. I like the motivation. I too am, and Councilwoman Tjornhom said the 10 by 20 seems a difficult room to use and manage. I was, and in coming here I was kind of hoping you know if we could go with a 12 by 20 or not come back quite so far, and then maybe go ahead with the deck that they were looking for originally because assuming that's a slotted deck. It's not increasing impervious and so it doesn't affect the impervious. We'd actually be improving the impervious. The porch itself will be bigger than staff's alternative but not quite as big as what the applicant was saying, and yet they'd have that outside deck to use as well. It was more usable. And by here I'm talking about their alternative, the 6 by 8 structure as it was which would still be further back from the lake than the edge of even a 12 foot porch so. I see you're nodding up and down because you're probably understanding my, I don't know if it's an agreement but maybe I'll ask that. If there can be some compromise there to try to reduce the impervious surface coverage. That's why I think, you know there's an email in our packet from the DNR saying that they don't support it. I think reducing, bringing it back a little bit from the lake, and then taking those cement blocks out and replacing it with even landscaping or anything, is a reduction of the, a little bit of the reduction in the impervious surface but still provides, there's still intensification. There's no question you're in the setback area but I'm, and I'm thinking about this as I'm hearing other people talk. You know is there a compromise there that might be available so maybe I'll throw that out and see if that's something that, and if you understand my thought rather than. Rich Peters: I'm not sure. That's why I'm coming up here. Mayor Furlong: I guess my proposal would be, and I think you know I'm picking up a little bit on the question that Councilwoman Tjornhom said. Is there some distance on the porch between the 15 and the 10? I'm saying maybe a 12 by 20 porch but then going forward with the 6 by 8 deck that you've been, your reduced deck. If something like that would work for you. Rich Peters: I think, I know what you're saying and I think at this point, if that's what it's going to be, let's just drop the whole thing. Because we like what we've got as far as a deck now. We don't want to give up part of that space. We'll give up the new deck, but we'd like to keep what we got now and just make it more useful and efficient. If we're going to cut down the size of the deck, the old deck, we'll just drop the whole request for a variance and go back to, we're going to do some remodeling anyway. Inside you know. And we'll work on that instead of the, but. Still I don't think, this impervious word comes around here all the time and I'm sorry I'm not familiar with variance process so much so I'm sure but we're not really putting any more space, covering up any more space than we have now. That's what I'm saying. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and I guess what I was looking for was to see if there was some arrangement where we could actually reduce the amount of space you're covering up and still provide you with a porch and deck option. Rich Peters: I would just as soon you know leave the 15 by 20 and forget the deck and that way we're 50 square feet less than we are right now. But obviously I'd prefer to have somewhere to 12 City Council Meeting avember 10, 2008 0 put the grill. You know on a 6 foot. 3 1/2 won't work. 6 by 8 would be our preference. But if that's going to be that difficult, let's skip that and just do the sunroom, addition, porch, whatever you want to call it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: I did have one follow up question, if I could ask it. When you talk about doing some remodeling and stuff to the house too. Is where the new structure you're proposing abuts with the house, the existing house. Are any walls coming down there or is this all. Rich Peters: Outside? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Rich Peters: No. Councilman Litsey: No, where the porch attaches to the house on here. If you do the porch is what I'm saying. Rich Peters: If we do the porch, yeah. Councilman Litsey: And it abuts to the house - Rich Peters: Yeah. Councilman Litsey: There's a common wall there. Rich Peters: Well there's a sliding glass door. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Are you proposing to take any of that... Rich Peters: The sliding glass door may be gone. You know what we've got is a heating problem out there too you know because you're sticking it out there, you know what I mean? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. What I'm getting to is you're saying it restricts. If we're looking at bringing it down to a 12 by 20 foot porch, if you're going to be taking out some wall, would that help that, mitigate that problem for you because you actually then would be using part of the existing house to kind of give you some more room? Rich Peters: It depends on which end of the 20 feet you would be finishing off. If you finished off the, it would make more sense if you were going to do that, which I don't want to do. You'd do the north end, you know. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Rich Peters: But that wouldn't work very good. 13 City Council Meeting - Noven* 10, 2008 0 Councilman Litsey: Yeah and I don't know the inside layout of your house but it wouldjust, there's a difference between having a stand alone kind of room where you're enclosed with 4 walls versus if you have some latitude to kind of bring that porch through some openness into the house itself, but I don't know if your house... Rich Peters: This would open up into the house Councilman Litsey: Okay. Eunice Peters: Yes, the kitchen will be, we'll be taking out the sliding glass door so we can move from the kitchen into the porch. Councilman Litsey: So to me that means, the, you know you talk about being pretty confined if you have 4 walls around you but that would allow some openness there, even if we reduced it down a little bit, would it not? I mean. Rich Peters: We're getting down to nit picking so much as far as square feet that you know, to me it's not worth it anymore. You know we've got a nice deck and we'll, maybe we'll just have to stick with that. Eunice Peters: And we also want something that looks nice, and we've got it drawn up. We know what we want and like with that little teeny deck. That would not look nice. We would like something that looks nice and not just to have this porch. We want a porch that we can use the way we want to use it. And if we can't, we'd just as soon not have one. Okay? Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Ernst: So I just have one other question. So just to be clear, you would be fine with the 15 by 20 porch, because I keep hearing deck a lot and so I just want to be clear. Rich Peters: I refer to deck because that's what it is now. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, right. Rich Peters: Yeah, just leaving that and making it a 3 season or a sunroom. Eunice Peters: Just enclosing what we have now. Councilwoman Ernst: And you'd be fine with that? Rich Peters: That would be the minimum we would. Eunice Peters: Enclosing what we have now. Rich Peters: Yep. Yes. 14 City Council Meeting lovember 10, 2008 0 Eunice Peters: We will settle for that. Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you. Eunice Peters: You're welcome. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well maybe I'll finish my comments, and I fully appreciate the clarification because I'm, I guess I'd like to continue hearing from members of the council. I'm just, I'm concerned about, about what the intensification of literally adding what appears to be an addition to the house, a 15 by 20 addition to the house. Even though there's a deck there and it's impervious, it's still an intensification I think. Clearly I saw, I'm still concerned about being able to support it but I'm, I'd like to listen or, Councilman Litsey I don't know if you have any thoughts having listened to others. Councilman Litsey: Well I guess what I was getting at with the applicant is if you can eliminate that wall, something to give you some more room, I think that would be helpful. That's not just a, 4 walls around you then. So I'd like to see some movement on that if possible so we could get, I like the idea of you know cutting it down a little bit just to get some more surface there but... Councilman McDonald: I guess if I could, you know as I've stated, I'm okay with the 15 by 20 foot deck, but not the auxiliary deck that they want to build out because I think that's the intensification and that's where I would ask about, is because the 15 by 20 space already exists, the net effect is actually zero. We're not increasing anything as far as the encroachment upon the lake. All those numbers remain the same. So that's why, at least I'd be in favor of the 15 by 20. Now if that drives towards Councilman Litsey's point of when you begin to look at this and if you want to give up some of that space to then add the deck that would fit in without the variance, that's a choice that the homeowners can make once they've had a chance to reassess this but I guess that's what I would ask is, how do you see the 15 by 20 as maybe, I understand that it is an intensification because we're building a structure. Mayor Furlong: Right. That's. Councilman McDonald: But if I look at just the raw numbers of again the setbacks and the impact, I see zero impact with just that structure because it's already an impervious surface so we're not increasing that. That remains constant. We're not increasing the setbacks. We're not increasing any encroachment into the buffer zone. So if we just stay with that, I guess I'm willing to look at that as my compromise toward all this. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my thought to that is, that's where the struggle is. From an aerial view, from just squares on a piece of paper, there isn't a difference. Clearly from a structural standpoint, when you start looking at putting in a 4 foot high foundation wall with a crawl space underneath and the room addition effectively, porch, sunroom, whatever, that's where the intensification. And that's the struggle so, but that's fine. So just, I don't know if that helps clarify my thoughts or not because I do understand the comments that you've made is that, 15 . City Council Meeting - Nover& 10, 2008 0 is that strictly from a coverage standpoint, there's no change under this. UndcrJust going forward with the 15 by 20 porch. So I do understand that. Councilman McDonald: And then I guess what I look at there is, is again once you've got a defined space to work with, now there are other compromises, especially if you're going to be doing work inside the house anyway, there may be another way around that to work at least with that space. Mayor Furlong: And I think that's where Councilman Litsey was probing-, Councilman McDonald: Right. Mayor Furlong: Is if there's some adjustments? Is there some other options? What I heard is that, as far as what they want to do, they want 15 by 20 at a minimum. So, I don't know if there are any other thoughts or comments. If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Doesn't it get to be a little bit of a problem for a motion because if I'm, what I'm in favor of is the 15 by 20 and I don't think we have anything before us that covers that because the one that staff passed out is for a 10 by 20. Councilwoman Ernst: Can't we just change it? Councilwoman Tjomhom: You just change the name to we approve and then just leave off the deck construction. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Roger Knutson: Members of the council. If you want to do that I would just suggest you make that motion with direction to staff to bring back findings at your next meeting consistent with your discussion here tonight. You I think are going to pass the motion ahead of the findings under these circumstances. We don't want to, if you want to do this, I'm sure you don't want to hold anyone up unnecessarily. But the finding is to come back with approval at your next meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: So just make the motion to approve a 15 by 20. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just read this. Councilwoman Ernst: That we approve. It's not a variance, right? Anymore. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, variance to convert an existing deck into a porch. 16 City Council Meeting -ovember 10, 2008 0 Councilwoman Tjomhom: No... Councilwoman Ernst: I'm sorry, the existing porch and construction. Councilwoman Tjomhom: On Lot 12, Block 1. Councilwoman Ernst: On Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action, but to be a 15 by 20. Kate Aanenson: Clarification. So I believe what you want to say is, that City Council approve the Case 8-19 for a 15 foot variance allowing for a 15 by 20 deck, and then strike the next sentence. Removal of the balance of the deck because to be clear, if they stay within the setback they can do that, and then with the Findings of Fact to be attached, presented at your next regular meeting. Councilman McDonald: Okay, if you wrote that down I'd be glad to read it. Todd Gerhardt: You can reference. Councilman McDonald: What I would do is make a motion based upon what Ms. Aanenson read to us. That the City Council would he approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shorcland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff. Roger Knutson: At your next meeting. Councilman McDonald: At our next meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? I guess what I'm hearing is the justification is that there's effectively no increase in the impervious surface coverage within the setback is a primary justification. Councilman McDonald: That's the primary justification. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, if I may. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Terr y Jeffery: Councilman McDonald, the question's arisen, is there additional impact by taking a deck and converting it to a enclosed structure, and there is in terms of if you look at the setback from the lake and the bluff that exists, in that what you've done is you've effectively taken sheet flow that would run through the deck and drop down below and then goes laterally, or flow out into the yard and created a situation where you actually have concentrated flow off of the roof through some type of down spout, to the bluff that actually exists at the top of it. Not to say that 17 . City Council Meeting - Nover* 10, 2008 0 that could not be mitigated for in the way that they lay out the roof and how they do the drainage pattern but I do think it's important to make that clarification. There is, in addition to the additional structure, there is a drainage issue. Or potential for drainage issues that do not exist in flat deck situation. Councilman Litsey: How would you mitigate something like that then? Terry Jeffery: For instance you might look at, if you were going to have a hip facing towards Lotus Lake. Get rid of that hip. Have that he a gable end. Where are you going to have the down spouts run to? If there's some way to do some energy dissipation before it goes to the bluff. So there are a number of different ways in which it could be done. I just think it needs to be addressed in the plan that is finalized. Councilman McDonald: And is that part of the reason why the DNR is probably not for this? Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, yes. That's precisely the reason. Or at least a large portion of the reason. Councilwoman Ernst: And as I understood it they planted additional, did you not? Like additional bushes and things like that also for landscaping. I mean something like that certainly helps with it being more previous, is that correct? Terry Jeffery: It will help. It isn't the imperviousness of the feature that I'm referring to though. It is the drainage patterns that will result as, after the roof is in place and how that roof drains through the yard and to the bluff and to the lake. Councilman Litsey: So could that somehow be worked into. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think it'd be appropriate to add a condition that we mitigate the concentrated roof runoff by looking at alternatives such as where the drainage is going gutters and the design of the roof. Councilman McDonald: I would gladly accept that onto my motion. Mayor Furlong: Who seconded it? Councilwoman Ernst: I did. Mayor Furlong: Is that okay with you? Councilwoman Ernst: Yes. I accept that. Mayor Furlong: From adding that condition. Councilman Litsey: Could I just ask one question to that? lu City Council Meeting kember 10, 2008 0 Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Councilman Litsey: Thank you. What enforcement capabilities do you have with that though? I mean... Kate Aanenson: Well when they issue the building permit we would check it at the time. When there's a variance on any piece of property, then we go back to the original conditions so that, when it goes through for routing, then we would check to make sure that it's compliant with that. The roof design and then if they have gutters and how they're managing the drainage. Councilman Litsey: So we have some. Kate Aanenson: Right, the permit would not be issued unless it was in compliance. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: So the condition is effectively to mitigate any, what is the condition? Terry Jeffery: It would be to design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. Mayor Furlong: Whether that's the roof design or maybe it's the gutter system or working with storm water runoff from the addition so. Kate Aanenson: Correct. There's a couple different ways to manage it. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Okay, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a roof design, because we don't want to be designing their house but the goal, how the goal is achieved. Terry Jeffery: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: We have a motion and second. Any other discussion? I guess I will add in terms of, especially with this added addition but also looking at the issue of the impervious surface coverage. The lot to match it's age of the development. Bottom line all things considered, I think each of these have to be addressed individually. Any request for a variance. This is a difficult one but I think all things considered I can support it as it's been laid out in front of us this evening and I do appreciate and I want to make sure that this is on the record, thal I appreciate the Peters' willingness to work through sometimes a slow and perhaps painful process but nonetheless a process that I think ultimately, ultimately is designed to make sure that ordinances and laws are applied fairly and equally across the city as well as in this case to deal with issues relating to lake water quality and lake protection, and I know as homeowners on the lake you have no desire, or I'm assuming you have no desire to reduce the quality of the lake, and I know that's not the case so I thank you for your patience through the process and for staff and for everybody to work together to try to find a way to make it good for all of us so, those are my final thoughts. If there's any. 19 City Council Meeting - Noven* 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I was just going to, I agree with those comments and although again it may seem like a lengthy process, I think through this it gives everybody a comfort level and I appreciate the council's insight on this too. It was helpful to me because I haven't had as many of these before me as some other people on the council so this certainly did help and I think with conditions set forth, so I too support this so. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we have a motion before us that's been modified with a condition and subject to the Findings of Fact being presented in the next meeting, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP, LLC: REOUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER. Public Present: Name Address Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78h Street, Edina Andrew Ronningen 2669 West 78h Street Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm going to pass around, there's two letters of support that came with this project. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 22 Id . The applicant is requesting to amend the PUD to allow for a drive thru window. The subject site is located at a neighborhood commercial zoning district, as I mentioned done as a PUD that's located down on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard, bordered by West 780. This is one of those pocket neighborhoods that we put in place with the upgrade, or when we did the Mghway 5 corridor study, to provide some convenience commercial for that neighborhood in this area. So again the applicant did appear before the Planning Commission and before I go through the slides I'll just summarize what the PTO CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN 55317 AchninWhalfion Phone: 952,227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineeiring Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Firl Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227 1404 Planning & Moral Resources Phone: 952,227.1130 Fax: 952.227,1110 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM- Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: November 10, 2008 A� Ll SUBJ: Shoreland Setback Variance — Planning Case #08-19 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck to a screened porch and the construcfion of a 6 x 8 foot deck. OCTOBER 27,2008 CITY COUNCIL: TABLED ACTION This item was tabled at the October 27, 2008 City Council meeting. The City Council heard the applicant's request to convert the existing deck into a screened porch and add an additional 8 x 31 foot deck on the lake side of the home. While the conversion of the deck to the screened porch seemed a reasonable request, the additional 248 square -foot deck encroaching into the setback did not constitute a hardship; Council directed the applicant and staff to develop a compromise for the request. Puhlic ftks A Public Hearing was held at the October 7, 2008 Planning Commission meeting for 1591 Park Road this item. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the variance request. The Phone: 952.227.1300 Planning Commission discussed whether the request constituted a hardship and if Fax: 952.227.1310 there was an alternative location for an expansion to the home to increase the living space. The Planning Commission also provided an alternative motion to approve the Senior Ceft conversion of the existing deck into a screened porch and deny the construction of Phooe: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 the new deck. The applicant chose not to deviate from the original request. Web Site Since the October 27, 2008 City Council meeting staff and the applicant have had wmathanhassen.mus discussions to work toward a revised trequest. Staff and the applicant wetre unable to agree on a revised plan. Chanhassen is a Commundy tor Ufe - Providing for Today and Planning for Tonnorr Gw C91 cral Todd Gerhardt Shoreland Setback Variance November 10, 2008 Page 2 -.4 HI.." __q <0 IN 111" The applicant's original request consists of The applicant's altemattve request consists of'. 1. Enclosing the 15 x 20 foot deck into a screened 1. Enclosing the existing 15 x 20 foot deck porch. 2. A 5 -foot encroachment to construct an 2. A 5 -foot encroachment to construct an additional 6 x 8 foot (48 square -foot) deck with additional 8 x 31 foot (248 square -foot) deck. stairs. While the lengffi of the encroachment request remains the same, the applicant's alternative proposal significantly reduces the area of the proposed deck. The original proposal was for a 248 square -foot deck and the current proposal is for a 48 square -foot deck. The area of the deck within the shoreland setback changes from a 108 square -foot to a 27 square -foot encroachment. Both proposals include stairs and landings as part of the deck, which may encroach within the shoreland setback. --I <0 _F h.. 'h ... I 11,11.11k HI'M Stafrs goal is to reduce the overall nonconformity of the existing deck. In order to recommend approval to intensify the structure from an open deck to a screened porch, the nonconforming lakeshore setback should be reduced. Staff's alternative consists of I . Reducing the nonconforming setback of existing deck by 4 feet (10 x 20 foot deck). 2. Enclosing 10 x 20 foot deck. 3. Constructing an additional 3.5 x 7 foot (24.5 square -foot) deck with stairs (no encroachment into setback). Todd Gerhardt Shoreland Setback Variance November 10, 2008 Page 3 Staff is recommending denial of the 15 -foot shoreland setback variance and the construction of the additional 6 x 8 foot deck. The City Council minutes for October 27, 2008 are item I a of the November 10, 2008 City Council Packet. RECONTMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "Ibe Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Revised Survey dated October 28, 2008. 3. Email from Rich Peters to Angie Auseth dated October 15, 2008. 4. Email from John Gleason, M[N DNR Waters, to Angie Auseth dated October 6, 2008. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 7, 2008. GAPLAN\2008 Pinning Ca�\08-19 Peten VarianmNIO-27-08 Exmutive Su�ry.doc 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck — Planning Case No. 08-19. On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct of a 6 x 8 foot deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. The decision of the Planning Commission was less than 3/4 majority vote. The City Council reviewed the item at the November 10, 2008 City Council meeting 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 (1.5 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. 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-exisfing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75 -foot structure setback, three of which were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. The applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two -car garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a 0 0 porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The applicant was granted a 15 -foot lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home. While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of 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 intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self -mated as the applicant has reasonable use of the property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site, nor will it decrease the current shorcland setback. However, it would be an additional structure within the shoreland setback f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantiafly increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantiafly diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 2 9 0 5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and construction if a 6 x 8 foot deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this I& day of November, 2008. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL I-IV Its Mayor GAPLAN\2009 Planning Cases\08-19 Petm VarianceXI 1-10-08 Denial Findings of Fact.dix 3 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Buill" Inveclions Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engh" Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227,1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recream Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 ftwq& Nakffall Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952,227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227.1300 Fax: 952,227,1310 Soft Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web She wwad.chanhassen.mus 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I DATE: October 27, 2008 ov SUBJ: Shoreland Setback Variance — Planning Case #08-19 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck to a screened porch and the construction of a new deck. Plannina Commission Update A Public Hearing was held at the October 7,2008 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the variance request. Because the vote is less than three-fourths of the members present, the vote serves as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council decision requires a majority of members present. The Planning Commission discussed whether the request constituted a hardship and if there was an altemative location for an expansion to the home to increase the living space. The Planning Commission also provided an alternative motion to approve the conversion of the existing deck into a screened porch and deny the construction of the new deck. The applicant chose not to deviate from the original request. The Planning Commission minutes for October 7, 2008 are item I a of the October 27, 2008 City Council Packet. Manhassen is a Consmily for Ute - ProvIding for Today and Planning for Tornorno SCANNED Todd Gerhardt Peter's Variance October 27, 2008 Page 2 RECONE%IENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend to following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Email from Rich Peters to Angie Auseth dated October 15, 2008. 2. Email from John Gleason, MN DNR Waters, to Angie Auseth dated October 6,2008. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 7, 2008. GAPLAN\2008 PlmningC��\08-19 Peten Varim�\10-27-08 Exmutive Summmy.dm I -T 1/z to /cu Avp� 0 -7 4`� \T� CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEWED ICT 2 8 2oo8 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP7- Auseth, Angie Subject: Variance Request From: Rich Peters [mailto:richpeters@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:37 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Variance Request Angie: Couple things concerning the variance: 1. We had planned on adding a "sun room". In the variance request that went to the Planning Commission it reflected a "porch". Maybe there is no difference as far as the city is concerned but we had planned on using this room year around, if possible, including winter. I didn't make a big deal about that because the variance was denied by the PC so no reason to bring it up. Is this a major issue or not? I don't want this to be an issue down the road, if indeed, it is an issue. 2. As it concerns the "hardship" issue When we moved into this house in 1994 we were empty nester's. Since that time our family has grown to ten including both our sons, their spouses and children. They do not live with us but do live in the area and spend a lot of time with us. The original house was 2100 sq ft. walkout rambler built in 1960 with no additions ever made to it, although we were able to add couple hundred square feet of finished space through remodeling. The only way to add any more floor space to our home is to finish off the deck. We cannot expand to the north due to the lot line. To the South is the drainage area for the lot as well as two, 100 year old trees which we have no intention of removing. In the front of the house we again have very old oak trees. We are environmentally concerned citizens of Chanhassen and Lotus Lake. We do not want to do anything that is not environmentally friendly to the Lake. In fact, this surnmer we replaced all the grasss on the shore line with 1150 plants to protect the Lake from fertilizer run-off. This is approximately 20% of our total lot planted in wild flowers and grasses indigenous to Minnesota. Give me a call if you have any questions. I can drop up and discuss further thursday morning if you wish Thanks Rich Peters 0 0 Auseth, Angie From: John Gleason Pohn.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:58 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: DNR Comment on Peters Variance Request Dear Ms. Auseth: I am responding to the memo from you dated September 9, 2008 regarding review of the Peters Variance request. The DNR objects to issuance of this variance. We oppose any structural variance unless there is demonstrated "hardship" as defined in Minnesota statute, unique to the property. Based on the materials distributed, no such hardship exists. If you have any questions, please contact me. Regards, lack John (lack) Gleason, Area Hydrologist -West Metro MN DNR Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651-259-5754 (W) 651-772-7977 (F) John.Gleason(@dnr.state.mn.us Visit our website at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/index.html 1 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Plann4ng Genuris City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of an existing 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and the construction of an additional deck within the shoreland setback. LOCATION: 7301 Laredo Drive Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition APPLICANT: Richard and Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo DTive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.58 acres DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAICING: 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. PROPOSAL SUMMARY In 1996 the applicant received a 15 -foot variance firorn the 75 -foot shoreland setback to construct a 15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home, as well as a 25 -foot bluff setback variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to convert the existing deck to a three -season porch, which intensifies the use, and construct an additional deck on the lake side of the home. The proposed deck would be7l feet from the ordinary high water mark and would lead to the incremental encroachment of the stairs and landing toward the lake, which is set back 67 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The proposed structures will not decrease the distance to the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 OetebeF 7, 2008 October 27, 2008 Page 2 of 6 The existing nonconforming deck was approved in 1996 to allow a reasonable use of the property. While the conversion of the deck to a porch and the addition of the deck will have minimal impact to the site, from a site coverage standpoint� enclosing the deck increases the nonconformity. Since the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property, including the existing outdoor living areas, this request is a self-created hardship, as defined by the City Code. The proposed porch enclosure increases the habitable space which is proposed to be located closer to the lake than would be permitted in other circumstances. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The properties to the south are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The lake is located to the east and the cul-de-sac is located to west. WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is available to the site. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. • Chapter 20, Article XII, Shoreland Management District. • Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) District. Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 Oetabef 7, 2008 October 27, 2008 Page 3 of 6 BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, which is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Sunrise Hills Addition was created in 1956 and consists of 28 lots. The subject property was developed in 1960 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland District Regulations and does not meet the current standards for a riparian lot. The lot has an area of 23,701 square feet (0.58 acres). Minimum lot area for a riparian lot in the RSF district is 40,000 square feet. The applicant received approval for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance in 1996 to allow a 60 -foot shoreland setback to construct the existing 15 x 20 foot deck. The deck was built over an existing patio; therefore, it did not increase the hard surface coverage on the property. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing deck into a porch and maintain the existing footprint. The intent of the applicant's proposal is to use the deck area more months out of the year and to create more livable space. The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot. From a lakeview standpoint, the proposed 8 x 31 foot deck and stairs within the shoreland setback (to be located over a portion of an existing paver patio) will increase the projection of the structure to the lake from that area of the structure. While the proposed deck will not increase the hard surface coverage on the site; it is an additional structure within the setback which increases the nonconformity on the lot. ANALYSIS The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Reasonable use within the RSF district is defined as a single-family home and a two -car garage; according to criteria outlined in the City Code for granting a variance. As such, the applicant has Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 0610bff 7, 2008 October 27, 2008 Page 4 of 6 a reasonable us of the property with the existing home and garage. In addition, in 1996 the applicant was granted a 15 -foot variance to the 75 -foot shoreland setback and a 25 -foot variance from the bluff setback for the construction of a 15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home. The applicant would like to convert tins deck into a sun room so they can enjoy the lake view and additional space more months out of the year. The applicant is also proposing to add an additional deck along the lake side of the house that will maintain a greater setback to the lake than the existing deck, but will bring that portion of the structure closer to die lake. 41 ?0;t' 60, 67 12 The applicants' proposal for the porch and deck will not change the distance from the existing structures to Lotus Lake. The original deck was built over an existing patio, therefore, the impervious coverage will not be affected; however, enclosing the deck and adding the new 8 x 31 foot deck mcreases the nonconformity and therefore requires variance approval. The City Code states that a variance may be granted if the literal enforcement causes undue hardship and the property owner does not have reasonable use of the property, which includes comparable properties within 500 feet. Reasonable use within the Single Family Residential (RSF) District is described as a single- family home with a two -car garage, which is currently constructed on the property. The property was granted a variance to construct the existing deck in 1996, which is consistent with the neighborhood. There is also a paver patio on the lake side of the home. Peters Variance Request 0 Planning Case 08-19 Oetebef 7, 2008 October 27, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Staff surveyed the neighboring properties within 500 feet of the subject site to determine if there were preexisting conditions throughout the neighborhood that would wan -ant granting of a variance to enclose the deck and add a new deck. There have been four variance requests, which include three lakeshore setback variances and one non-lakeshore variance. There are two variances to construct outdoor living areas on the lake side of the home (one of which is the subject property). The third request was to construct an addition on the lake side of the property. Case # Address Riparian Request Action 25 -foot shoreland setback 85-15 7300 Laredo Drive YES variance for the Approved construction of a 32 x 20 - foot deck and porch 21 -foot front yard setback 89-3 7307 Laredo Drive NO variance for the Denied construction of a garage and deck 8 -foot shoreland setback 95-9 7343 Frontier Trail YES and a 16 -foot bluff setback Approved for the construction of an addition 15 -foot shoreland setback 7301 Laredo Drive variance and a 25 -foot 96-2 (subject site) YES bluff setback variance to Approved construct a 15 x 20 foot deck Of the lakeshore lots within 500 feet of the subject property, with and without a variance, the subject site is the second closest to the lake at 60 feet. The applicant was granted a variance for the deck which provided an outdoor area in which to enjoy the lake. This is consistent with the previous variance requests. There is also an existing 320 square -foot patio on the lake side of the property, which provides an outdoor living area and reasonable use of the property. While the proposed additions will not increase the impervious coverage on the property or decrease the distance to the lake; the hardships listed by the applicant are inconsistent with the criteria specified in the Zoning site Lotus Lake Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 0"W7,2008 October 27,2008 Page 6 of 6 Ordinance for granting a variance. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the variance. If the Planning Commission feels that this variance request is a reasonable request and does not adversely affect the surrounding properties, as they are not increasing the impervious coverage or decreasing the distance to the lake, the Planning Commission may decide to approve the application. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the variance request, they would need to amend the findings of fact consistent with such approval. Staff would further recommend that, as a condition of such approval, the Planning Commission adopt the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 2. Erosion control, as required by City Code, must be installed prior to construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff and meemmends th the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action: 'The Chanhassen Planning Gefantis City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot survey. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. GAPLAN\2008 Pbnning C�\08-19 Pet= vad�\Ce 10-27-08 Staff RcporLdm 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck — Planning Case No. 08-19. On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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 I . The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75 -foot structure setback, three of which were granted vanance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. The applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two -car garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code. 9 0 b. The conditions upon which apetition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The applicant was granted a 15 -foot lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home. While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of 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 intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant has reasonable use of the property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parrel is located. The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site, nor will it decrease the current shoreland setback. However, it would be an additional structure within the shorcland setback f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et a], is incorporated herein. 0 ACTION 0 "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and construction if a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7th day of October, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMNUSSION M Its Chairman gAptan\2008 plmning cw�\08-19 petm varianceVindings of fnt-dw PLEASE PRINT 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard – P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 – (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 0 Planning Case No. APOCant Na7 iy%ddress: Owner Name and A2ress: C 6 S M11) Y-51 -7 Contact: heteicv Contact: Phone:5� -9 47, j'Fax: Phone: Fax: Email: 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 Permt Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEiVED SEP 0 5 2008 Site Plan Review (SPRr HASSEN PLANMN' Sui Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAQ Variance (VAR) Welland Mteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRfVACIVAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds -S450MinarSUB cr-*��j6o 9-) - W C " Si 2-'00 TOTAL FEE $--4:L,5 �Ctt tez 2�� C. — 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 (116) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11 reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (*Aif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAME: &14CO&X IV,:�IjZDAJ 4' 1r'145)C6V�- 640e - LOCATION:. I-Ou'r 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: -1--/ TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: —,N— YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: ��Z e,�l j�, A:��l A,1;7r-e— ..I� I �.11 . .�= MCCI�KIA�k�kl. FOR SITE PLAN REViEW: include number of existing employees: and new empioyees� 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 16 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this requeM, This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tille, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature Signature of OP Date 9 IsIzoo s riate / Review Appli�ticn.DOG Rev. 1/08 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SEP 0 5 2008 7301 Laredo Drive CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT We are requesting a variance to transform our present deck into a sunroorn as well as to re -locate the present deck at our residence. We previously received a variance to install the deck in 1996. The original variance was for a 15 foot variance to the required 75 foot shoreline setback on Lotus Lake. Making the deck into a sunroorn and re -locating the deck will keep the structure still within the requirements of the previous variance, i.e., the 15 foot variance. The following addresses the six requirements of the variance process: 1. The addition of the sunroom will allow us the use of the additional space during more months of the year. With the addition of 4 grandchildren over the past 7 years, our house sometimes becomes a little crowded. Presently the deck is obviously useable only during the prime summer months. The sunroom will allow us to use this space more efficiently through -out the year. The home is a small rambler built in 1960. 2. Numerous homes on Lotus Lake have sunrooms or screen porches similar to what we have planned. Our next door neighbors at 7300 Laredo Drive have a similar structure. 3. We have no intentions to sell the property in the foreseeable future. This room is not being added to add value to the property. This home was purchased to be our retirement home and we have very recently retired. 4. ne present situation was not self-created as the home, built in 1960, did not have any deck or sunroorn and had little open space facing Lotus Lake. 5. This structure will have no impact on our neighbors. Both homes on either side of us are very supportive of the structure. The neighbors have a very limited view of the present deck structure and this will not change. 6. The proposed sunroorn will not affect any homeowners or any public streets. It will more than likely increase the property values of the homes on either side of us. SCANNED :"I &""Ll W :3 1 mw� ONOI almao A;AMW m Md 'ONI'SaIVIDOSSV T O'd3SNOUS X OPP z 0 0 z 0 !g �0- 2 LU > Q Z U) D 0 z all Lu U) D I Z m 14 od Onga.1 g� tHj; 1396-.1 4gl 51 Mg. 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2008 CHANHASSEN P ANNING DEP'r Yl! vi- I SCANNED _v) 0 *crrY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2001 CHANHASSEN PLANNING1 , .JE el i - C5 60 lq PLk-j,4 c;z) SCANN�o 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2008 HANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP7 /n 0 - X 73 -7 L -A CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP' SCA1414ED 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF M1NNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 25, 2008, 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 Peters Variance — Planning Case 08-19 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, Nfinnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and swom to before me thisc:.�dayof Sepkinber ,2008. /VK _T - Notary kbljc N Dep-AIT,'Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota ..W. My Commmion Expr� Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 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. Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance from the shoreland setback to expand Proposal: an existing legal non -conforming deck into a porch and adding an existing legal non -conforming deck into a porch and adding another deck on property zoned Residential Single Family Applicant: Richard & Eunice Peters Property 7301 Laredo Drive Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice._ The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: public hearing through the following steps: 1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. the pro'ect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/r)lan/08-19.html. If you wish to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-19.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Auseth by email at aauseth Oci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Auseth by email at aauseth @ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday online on the project web site listed above the Thursday Ing Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings. land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • 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 spolkespersonlrepresentative 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, lfyouwishtohave 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, October 7, 2008 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. Request for a Variance from the shoreland setback to expanF Proposal: an existing legal non -conforming deck into a porch and adding another deck on property zoned Residential Single Family Applicant: Richard & Eunice Peters Property 7301 Laredo 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 o f 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 pro'ect. 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/plan/08-19.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth @ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 9 52-227-1132. 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 prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland 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 a 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 re dlf' 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 recommendalion 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 razonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • 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). • Bemuse 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. — Print Labels MATTHEW J VALEN 7208 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782 ROBERT A & CELINE R SCHOLER 7212 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9782 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605 ERIC WALETSKI 7333 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9778 ARCHIE D & EVELYN L GLASER 7200 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317 -9782 SUNRISE HILLS C/O CHARLES ROBBINS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9797 JOHN J & JULIE C BUTCHER 7299 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4600 DAVID J & SUSAN K WOLLAN 7303 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317 -7904 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796 0 JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7210 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9782 WILLIAM L HEIMAN & MARY C BELSKI HEIMAN 7209 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9605 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON 7307 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN. MIN 55317 -7904 MICAH THEIS 7332 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608 ALEX N CASTERTON 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9704 DAWNA MCKENNA MILLER 7331 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317 -9608 Page I of 2 0 JACK R & KARLENE M MIKESELL 7207 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN . MIN 55317 -9605 WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY 7211 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605 JOEL SCOTT JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRIL PO BOX 158 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -0158 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778 ROLF G ENGSTROM & LAWRENCE P LEEBENS 7201 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9605 JON H &JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9782 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608 DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN 7329 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9608 http://carvergiswebl.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/govemment/general/parcel—buffer/print—labels.asp 9/17/2008 Print Labels DAVID M & JOANNA POINAR 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608 FELIX& LOIS WHITE 7306 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778 STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796 0 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -960B ARLIS A BOVY TRUSTEE OF A BOVY REV TRUST 7339 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796 MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778 0 JOHN C LEE 7337 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796 FRED L CUNEO JR 7335 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9796 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778 Page 2 of 2 http://carvergiswebI.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/govemment/general/parcel—buffer/print—Iabels.asp 9/17/2008 Gry OF T700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 October 29, 2008 Richard and Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, NIN 55317 10 Re: Lakeshore Variance Request Development Review Deadline Planning Case 08-19 Administration Sincerely, Mm:952.227.1100 Dear Rich and Eunice: Fax:952.227.1110 Building Iftspwbris The City Council tabled action of your variance request, Planning Case 08-19, at Phone: 952,227.1180 the Monday, October 27, 2008 City Council meeting. The item was tabled to Fax: 952.227.1190 allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to work together to revise the variance request. Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Your variance request has been scheduled for the November 10, 2008 City Fax: 952.227.1170 Council meeting. This date exceeds the application review deadline as required Finance by State Statute. Being that staff is unable to process this application within the Phone: 952.227,1140 60 -day review deadline; the City is taking an additional 60 days to complete its Fax: 952.227.1110 review. The review deadline for this item is now January 3, 2009. Park & Recreation If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1132 or Phone: 952.227.1120 aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fac 952.227.1110 Remation CmW Sincerely, 2310 Caller bkod Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax. 952.227.1404 Planner I Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Caft Phore: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site www.d.charmassennn.us ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director gAplan\2008 planrfingcu�\08-19 peten varianc6extension lettendm Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow RIM SCANNEO City Council Meeting - Octob*, 2008 40 C)8 19 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would anybody like to submit a motion? Councilwoman Ernst: I will. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve the attached resolution establishing procedures for reimbursement bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Service code. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2008-61: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing reimbursement of public works building bonds as regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Greg for all your hard work on this, and for everyone else as well. PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD AND EUNICE PETERS: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND SETBACK TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING DECK INTO A PORCH AND ADDING ANOTHER DECIC Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. First I want to make sure that you did receive Findings of Fact. In your staff report attachment #1 was supposed to be the Findings of Fact. I apologize. They weren't included. I have passed those out. So with that, the Peters as you mentioned, are requesting a variance. Their address 7301 Laredo Drive. It's part of the Sunrise Hill Addition and is a riparian lot. They're asking for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance for the conversion of an existing deck into a screened porch, and addition of a new deck. The background on this is that the site was developed in 1960 which pre -dates adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The existing house meets the 75 foot setback line. If you're looking at the photograph, that would be the blue line is the existing 75 foot. So the house does meet that. So the previous variance for the porch was granted in 1996, so that's in orange there. On the other side of the 75 foot, and that was for a screened in porch. It also was given a setback from the bluff ordinance, which is shown, the bluff is shown in green there, if you can see that, so that was given relief for 2 sections of the code to allow for the deck, which you can see in the picture. Just would like to review the applicable regulations on this. The city ordinance does allow for water oriented structures. In this circumstance, because there's a patio underneath, which I'll show in another picture in a minute, is attached to the house. The interpretation made by staff was that it was not a water orientated structure. When we looked at updating the code a number of years ago we actually gave a pretty good, or I would say generous interpretation of 15 SCANNEI) City Council Meeting atober 27, 2008 0 water oriented structures. We do have people that put fire pits that do, boat houses and those sort of things so there is a mechanism in place but those are typically separated from the structure itself is our interpretation of that. The other, the shoreland district is the, how the water orientated structure must comply, so there's some specifics on that too. I just want to make sure that how we're interpreting, how we came to the interpretation of some of the background information. Again the bluff protection, so they did receive valiance from that. They would still stay behind the original granting of that variance. And then the other one that comes into play is, not necessarily this one but just want to remind you when we started doing zoning permits in 2006, we had houses that were at the maximum for impervious surface coverage, but they didn't permit or allow or provide for a patio coming out of a back door. So we said at a minimum on those houses, because if you're selling it that way, the first thing the homeowner's going to come in and ask for is a patio. Is that they provide a minimum of 10 foot by 10 foot minimum. Often those are larger, the hard surface coverage, so they meet the setback from the lake and the like so the homeowner isn't burdened with something that they have to immediately seek relief from. So those are the background ordinances. Again with the zoning permit we ask now, there's a lot of things that go on properties that may not need a building permit, but we also ask now for zoning permit and we've worked really hard to try to get communication on this. Often if there's a call for Gopher One or something like that, we also follow-up with a phone call. While it may not need a building permit, like I mentioned, if there's grading involved, a structure, something like that, in an easement area or water drainage area, those sort of things, we want to catch those. Also we find sometimes that people don't understand what, even though they don't need a permit, there's also setbacks from certain structures and those are even accessory structures under a certain square foot so that would be another rule. Again, this house built a number of years ago, a lot of these things don't come into play but all those put together help us formulate the recommendation that we had put together in the staff report. So again in summary, they're requesting to enclose that 3 season porch, so that would increase the setback, or the use of that. They would like to enjoy the use of that. And they're adding an additional deck, so the increase from a deck to a porch is the orange structure. And then the additional deck above the patio, which I'll show you in a minute, is an additional encroachment. It's into the setback. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, you've got to go back. I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: I'll go back to a picture here, I think that might help. This picture here. Then I'll go back to the other one. Councilwoman Tjornhonn: Can you go back to the orange? Kate Aanenson: Yep. I'll show you where that is on here. Councilwoman Tjornbonn: Okay. Because that is the deck they wanted to put... Kate Aanenson: Yep, that's where I was going to go with this one. That's the existing deck on this picture here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I know but I like the lines that. 16 City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I'll go back and show that. And then that patio that we have no record of going in, that is on, so there'll be another deck above that. Does that make sense? Councilman Litsey: Above the patio? Kate Aanenson: Above the patio. So the deck would be above the patio space. Councilman Litsey: And where would that connect into the house there then? Kate Aanenson: That will connect into the house via the screened in porch. Going in that patio door. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So now I'll go back to that so you kind of get that picture, so there's. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay so, the yellow part is the new deck that would be coming in. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Over the patio, correct. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then the current patio, or the current deck is being enclosed too. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right, that I got. I just was confused. So. Kate Aanenson: They're on the same plane. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So the surface, there's no surface coverage issues? Kate Aanenson: No. Right. You are correct, and that's the one thing, will not increase the surface, impervious surface. Right. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So then the issue becomes, kind of looking at the shoreland regs and the like. They're increasing a non -conformity. So you're right, it's not increasing impervious, on the pros and cons, but it is increasing the non -conformity. And then it's not increasing the distance to the lake, except that the new deck does. Encroaches further. That structure encroaches further, or closer to the lake. The new deck. Not the screened in deck. Okay, and then that's showing that again on this side right here so. So, in looking at the reasonable use of the property, the strictest interpretation was, it seemed to be that that was reasonable use of the property. At the Planning Commission meeting on October 7'h they struggled with some of these issues too. The water orientated structures and what are the other options on the site. It's already closer than the 75 feet. They actually offered a compromise is to improve the improvement to the existing deck, but not encroach, or increase the additional deck. So it allowed it to be a 3 season, 4 season, but 17 City Council Meeting 10tober 27, 2008 0 not, but the applicant at that time wanted the entire request so they mulled that around and eventually recommended 3 to 2 to deny the entire request. Any questions so far? Councilman McDonald: Well have you had any further conversations about the compromise. Is that still the owner doesn't want to take it or? Kate Aanenson: Well I think that's for the owner to discuss with you tonight. We just left it at face value. Again at the Planning Commission you have to have a 4/5 majority. Otherwise it automatically goes to the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong: The council. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me. Automatically goes to the council. The Planning Commission doesn't have a super majority so, and in comparing what's around there, staff looked at some, 3 other riparian lots and there is again, because this is an older area, there are some that are closer so the first one was given a setback for construction of a deck and a porch. I think that's kind of, you know saying well somebody else got it. So there is, the next one is a 20 foot front yard variance. That's a non -riparian lot so, but it was in that area. We kind of surveyed within 500 feet here. Then the 8 foot shorcland setback with a 16 foot buffer. And then the 15 foot shoreland setback and a 25 foot buffer, which is the subject. So with that, the Planning Commission recommended denial for the shoreland setback. And then also they base it on the Findings of Fact which I did pass out copies to you. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, can you explain to me, I Vess I'm not real clear on what they're not conforming to on this. Kate Aanenson: The additional deck. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Kate Aanenson: Well both of them. This patio was open, and you're putting a roof over the top. There's a structure underneath, and now I don't know what the original approval was. Right now when we look at decks, if they're not a structure underneath, we don't count them towards hard coverage. Because we don't know what happened when that was originally granted. Whether that was part of it or not. Obviously it's not being treated as hard surface. So they're increasing that. But I think the Planning Commission kind of felt like there might be room for a compromise to include that. But adding that additional deck increased the setback towards the lake, so that's the part they didn't feel, because they had reasonable use with the patio on the ground floor. Certainly the other deck provided an option to come down off that deck too the other way, coming back down onto the patio on the ground floor. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And I know the Planning Commission had talked about other options for them. Adding on in different areas of their home, but I believe there's some beautiful trees it looks like ... those options, is that correct? 18 City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 0 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And again, kind of making the best use of coming down off that way, over the other patio so we'll let the applicant address that too if you have questions on that. MayorFurlong: The current deck was approved with the '96 variance. Does that basically extend straight towards the lake from the house? Is there, is that, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the house is right at that 75 foot line. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But for a little comer here it looks like so. 4 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that was, that was the extension and that's the 15. Kate Aanenson: The first encroachment into the setback. Mayor Furlong: Is that the 15 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: The 15 by 20? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the proposed new deck, would that be an elevated deck? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that's an elevated deck. It's going to come off the proposed new room and that would also be 15 feet out from the house, is that. What's the dimensions of the new deck? Kate Aanenson: I don't have that dimension. Rich Peters: It'd be about 8 feet. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: That's okay. 8 feet out from the house. Rick Peters: 8 feet from, yeah. So it'd be farther from the lake than the present. 7 feet or something like that. 19 City Council Meeting -6tober 27, 2008 0 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: It's more long than wide then. Todd Gerhardt: 31 feet long. Councilman Litsey: It'd be 8 feet by 31. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So it will be 8 feet into the setback area. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And the current deck is 15 foot by 20 and this would be 8 by 31. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So it doesn't encroach in that same plane. Mayor Furlong: I understand, yep. Okay. Alright, and talk a little bit about the hardship or in staff's view lack of hardship. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess the literal interpretation is, there's the setback. Do you have reasonable use of your property, and that's the literal interpretation that the staff makes. I think in the spirit that the Planning Commission looked at, going to what Councilwoman Tjornhom said too, is that it's not increasing the hard cover so they felt like maybe encroaching the feet, the original, or the current deck. Councilwoman Ernst: Which is pervious. Kate Aanenson: Right. May be reasonable. So they fell good about recommending that but not the new deck. MayorFurlong: Alright. Kate Aanenson: Or walkway or, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess what I was trying to understand, and maybe it's in the Findings of Fact here but basically from a hardship standpoint staff is looking at it and doesn't see the hardship. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, the strict interpretation, that's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Any other questions for staff?. At this point. Mr. and Mrs. Peters are here. I'd certainly invite you to come up and address the council if you'd like. Rich Peters: Thank you. I'm Rich Peters. My wife Eunice. 20 City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 40 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Rich Peters: We have lived in Chanhassen for 32 years. Last 14 in this house on Laredo Drive, and by the way the street's looking good. We moved here, back into this house. We moved away for a couple years. Came back into Chanhassen in '94 and bought this house as a retirement home. It's a 2,100 square foot walkout rambler. A Schroeder model, if anyone's familiar with Schroeder homes, and it's the second one we've lived in in 32 years. But only had 2, 100 square feet, which we thought was fine. Children are grown. Well now our children are still grown. They're married. We have grandchildren and we need a little bit more space. And you know just when the whole family is here, which is quite often. They live in the area here. We can't, the hardship part, we can't go left or north or south because we've got a 100 year old oak tree sitting on both ends of the lot. In fact on the north end there's no room to build. The lot is too close. The lot line's too close. So there's no really, and if we go to the front yard, the non - lake yard, there we've got oak trees there too that we'd have to cut out to do that so we don't really, that's not an option for us. We're not goingtodo it. So wejust want to, looking for an extra, little extra space. 200ot-300feet. Whateverthatis. Area. Putting a deck up there, you know even though it's farther from the lake than the present deck is. We would have to have, we would like to have you know some place where we could put a grill or something like that, rather than putting it in the bottom patio. The bottom patio is not where the kitchen is. The kitchen's up above. And the other thing about the deck was, we built over an earth patio that was there since the house was built in 1960, and the patio below that was there since 1960 too, so that's probably why there's no record of it. But we're just looking for a little extra floor space in our house. We understand eco friendly, environmental friendly part of the lake. We just planted 1,200 wildflowers and indigenous plants on our lakeshore, so 20% of our lakeshore lot now is in wildflowers. Eunice Peters: And grasses. Rich Peters: And grasses. Indigenous types. So we understand that and we're not trying to go any farther to the lake than we are now. We've got a variance for the deck already from 12 years ago. The next door neighbor's got the same variance as we're requesting for a patio. A porch. And that one really goes closer to the lake than our's, and again that's 1960's house. Any questions? That's basically. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Peters? At this point. Councilwoman Ernst: I'm sorry, did you say that your kitchen is on the second level? Where you wanted the. Rich Peters: Where that deck is, yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Rich Peters: Where the present deck is. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. 21 City Council Meeting Stober 27, 2008 0 Councilman McDonald: The Planning Commission had offered up a compromise as far as doing the four season porch and then not doing the deck, and as I was reading in the minutes, there was a lot of discussion back and forth. Are you willing to consider that or is that off the table and if so, why, Eunice Peters: If we were to go out, we want a place to put a g -Fill and for us to come, we have a great big window, so if we were to put just a little, tiny deck. Rich Peters: Go to the picture of the house. There, yeah. Eunice Peters: So we would put just a little, tiny deck. The deck would end up coming in the middle of that big window. I mean we tried to figure this out, how we can get across without putting the deck tight in the middle of the window. And so we have to come across. We have to get over that door and down. That'swhyweonlymadeit8feet. Wejustwanttogetagrill out there and then be able to get down. You see this big oak tree there. We can'tgo that way because that oak tree I can stand on our deck and I can almost touch that oak tree, so there's no place to go there, and then you come down a hill. If that is understandable. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Fmjust trying to, in my mind okay so you've got it 8 feet wide and then 32 feet long. If all you're trying to really accomplish is a place for a grill, why that length? Rich Peters: The other part of it was to get down, having a walkway down. Councilman Litsey: Off the deck? Rich Peters: You had to get past the doors, the sliding glass doors in the bottom there. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Rich Peters: You know to get, there's not enough room between the sliding glass doors and the deck to get down. Councilman Litsey: So there'd be stairs going down off of that then? Rich Peters: There would, that's what our proposal is. At the end of that narrow walkway. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Is stairs. Kate Aanenson: Can you zoom in on that Nann? This one shows a little bit more clearly... So you can see now, so this is the deck here and then this is the stairs. Councilman Litsey: Okay, I wasn't really seeing that on the page. Rich Peters: We didn't want to, we needed to get past that door and then plus, rather than come Fight back down the patio. 22 City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 0 Eunice Peters: And our living room window. Rich Peters: Which is on the second. Eunice Peters: Which isn't there. It's bumped out but you can't see it there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we'll go back to this other one quick just to make sure we're on. Councilman McDonald: So then is the only purpose for the deck so you can walk out and then go down to the patio? IVII Rich Peters: And have a grill. Councilman McDonald: And the grill would be down on the patio? Eunice Peters: No, no. The grill's going. Rich Peters: No, we want it up on top because the kitchen's up on top. Eunice Peters: Off the kitchen. Rich Peters: Yeah. Councilman Litsey: How about if you created a space for the grill outside, and I'm not trying to re-engineer this for you but use the existing stairs going down. There isn't that big a difference is there I mean it's a little more inconvenient but. Rich Peters: Putting a grill, existing space next to the. Councilman Litsey: Well using the existing space or making that deck proposed a little bit smaller than what you're saying. And not incorporating stairs into it. Because you have stairs the other way and I realize that's not quite as convenient but. Eunice Peters: Then we'd have to put a door on each end you mean? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Not as ideal I understand. Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the questions, I think it was in an email sent to one of the staff members. You talked about the difference between calling it a sunroom or a porch, but it's a. Rich Peters: It's a sunroom. Mayor Furlong: Sunroom? 23 City Council Meeting Stober 27, 2008 0 Rich Peters: Yeah. I don't know where, in the original variance I called it a sunroom. Somehow when it got to the documentation it was a 3 season porch. Mayor Furlong: Porch, okay. Rich Peters: Now is it a. Mayor Furlong: A rose by any other name. Rich Peters: You know that's why I said in my email, I don't know if this changes things but the request was not what I asked for. Mayor Furlong: But and in that, even with the sunroom you make a point in your email that it's your intention to use this year round. This is a year round expansion. Year round addition to the home. Rich Peters: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Over the existing deck and then to however you're using your current deck now or at least some of those uses you'd want to use on the new deck. Eunice Peters: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: Alfight. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: No. To the, I don't know if it's the north side or the northwest side where it looks as though the walkway comes out that goes around from the driveway all the way to the patio. What is that surface there? Is that brick or? Rich Peters: You're talking about that curved thing? Councilman McDonald: Right. This one that goes all the way around. Rich Peters: Oh that one. That's just a narrow little pathway. You know it's stone. Eunice Peters: It's mulch and stone. Councilman McDonald: Is there any room there to put a grill? Rich Peters: There's only about 2 feet. 3 feet. Maybe 3 feet. Eunice Peters: That's what you see. Rich Peters: Yeah, that's all you see. And there's a big tree then there's a lot line right by the tree. That is the tightest to the lot line over there. That's the north side or somewhat. 24 City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 0 Eunice Peters: And it's also the way to get around our house. Rich Peters: Yeah. That's the only way to get around the house on the side. Eunice Peters: Without going on the neighbors property. Rich Peters: The south side has more room but you two 100 year oak trees, plus you've got the drainage between the lots you know. All that between our's and ... next door to us, all the drainage goes through there so you've got to really, but we're not going to take the trees out of here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Litsey: One more quick one. Where's the kitchen in relationship to the deck? Rich Peters: Right. Councilman Litsey: Right inside there? Rich Peters: Yeah. Right inside the door. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks. Rich Peters: That's why we didn't want to put a barbeque grill on the patio downstairs. You'd have to walk a long way. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? Alright, thank you very much. Any follow up questions for staff? If not, thoughts and discussion. Councilwoman Ernst: I mean based on everything I've seen here and what the applicant has said, I mean basically what they want to do is they want to build this deck. Where it doesn't interfere with impervious surface because it would be a pervious deck, and I'm going to call it a deck because I don't know, I think that's what it is. And I mean they've been very friendly. Very environmentally friendly by planting trees and flowers. He's already said he wouldn't cut down the trees and basically I really would support that they get this variance because 1, even though there's no hardship involved that I've been able to hear or see, I think that it's still acceptable based on the information we have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I guess when I look at variances I always, I know they're called a variance but I always kind of in my mind think of them as like the exception to the rule and why would this be a good exception to the rule and tonight I think with this, and every case is different but tonight I think I need to figure out something in the middle between the literal interpretation and then my common sense, and we live in Minnesota and being outside at night can get to be pretty buggy and pretty miserable so really it's not necessarily, the seasons you can 25 City Council Meeting Stober 27, 2008 0 use Your deck. It's sometimes just the time you can use your deck comfortably and you know I have no problem with you adding a little comfort to Your relaxation and enjoyment of your lake by adding on a structure that would give you a little more space. And for me the deck along the house adjoining the porch, or whatever we're going to call it, just makes sense. It's not intruding on anyone's space. It's not, it's just I think actually giving you reasonable use of your property and enjoying what you have and so because of that I would recommend that we would actually approve the valiance to convert an existing deck. And add on the porch. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I'll go. Yeah, I don't have a problem as far as converting the deck to the sunroom. I think I read through the Planning Commission and I also wrestle with the other part of it though as far as the hardship and that's where I'm having a problem is with this proposed deck. When I was on the Planning Commission we fought long and hard about variances and about encroachments and all of these things and we did look for compromises in order to try to accommodate homeowners but, I'm having a problem with the proposed deck because it just, it makes an encroachment more, I don't see the hardship. That's kind of where I'm at at this point. I mean I'm in full agreement as far as converting the existing deck to a sunroom but I'm a little hung up on the proposed deck portion of it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more thing to add to my comments. Mayor Furlong: Sure Councilwoman Tjomhom: Thank you Mr., Councilman McDonald for talking about the hardships because usually I do look for that, and reading the Planning Commission minutes and then listening to tonight, for me the hardship comes from the fact that they have trees around them that really blocks their potential from doing anything else, and I guess they're beautiful trees. They're 100 year old oaks and so that to me is a hardship in itself. And I forgot to add that in my comments. Having to take those down would be a hardship. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Litsey. Councilman Litsey: No, it is a struggle and I think the trees do create a legitimate hardship. The same thing on my lot. I've got some beautiful oak trees and I've had to work around them or face the decision whether to cut them down, which I don't want to do either. So you're boxed in there. I think the fact, one thing that helps me through this decision is that, I think you have tried to minimize the impact. I think if you were really trying to go where you maybe would have liked to have gone, you'd have brought the deck out to match up with the existing deck, the porch perhaps, I don't know. But at least it seems like you've tried to do the minimal amount to accomplish what you're trying to do. So I do want to balance the reasonable use of your properly. I'm very sensitive to encroachment on shoreland, wetlands. I've been a strong advocate of protection there but I think in this particular case, given the case that's been laid out, I think I'd be inclined to grant this as proposed. 26 P '. City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 0 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess as I looked at this, the proposed designs seemed like a reasonable extension of the existing home. Adding a porch on, for reasons stated, adding a, having a deck out there are certainly reasonable requests. I think the challenge that I'm having, and when I ever look at these, and I'm going to come at it differently than what I'm hearing the rest of the members of the council saying, and it's never, trust me it's never easy to say no but the challenge that I'm having goes right back to the beginning and a variance is an exception and one of the primary reasons to get that exception is because of hardship. And the hardship here seems to be, and I'm not being critical of that because everybody goes through that, is more space. We get the house isn't big enough for how we want to live in it, and I fully understand that having started out, we were empty nesters when I first got married but for another reason and now we've, I don't know, well I know what happened but. We ran out ofspace. We ran out of space and so that's where I'm concerned that if the, if more space is needed becomes a standard for the hardship and if trees are a standard for a hardship, I'm very concerned in this city, and that that is now a new standard. Especially along the lake. Especially along a shoreline. Lotus Lake in particular where we're seeking to try to improve water quality. The fact that there was an impervious surface below the existing deck back, I think we heard 1960 or before, and that's okay now to increase the encroachment, which is really an addition to the house, I'm struggling with that. It's our role to try to minimize non -conforming situations. We've had other situations come to us, other proposals from residents where there's some give and take. Where there is a, we'd like to go into the setback her to put a porch on into the existing setback but we're going to come back here. We're going to add in some more pervious surface someplace else, and I'm thinking of some over on Lake Minnewashta where we've done that where there were some back and forth, and I don't see that here. I see this as simply a, the non- conformity from an impervious surface doesn't change at all, and the expansion of the non- conformity use is simply increasing. And the reasons given, again for me. I'mjust speaking for myself. I don't see the more space as a valid hardship from a variance request standpoint. And again, if there was any give and take on impervious coverage or on the, and we do this, it's all the time. It's, because the request, if you forget about the setback from the lake. The request to add on a 3 season porch over an existing deck and put a deck next to it, people are doing that all the time. That is not an unreasonable desire in terms of use or an expansion of an existing home. The difference here is you can't ignore the lake. You can't ignore the setback and you can't ignore the impervious surface and that's where you get into the variance request and I think what we need to walk carefully on is, even while the proposed addition seem reasonable in the normal course, when the variance is there, we have to make sure that these are the same standards we'll apply to future variances. That's where I'm struggling, and having listened I know I'm on the opposite end here from the rest of you, and that's fine, but I would give some caution and maybe suggest that what we haven't looked at here is any of that, you know there was a proposal, something offered up at the Planning Commission which wasn't really accepted. They had a small compliment. They didn't have the full compliment of commission members there. There's really been no change between there and here, and so it's, you know is there some compromise? Is there some give and take that can occur that we can evaluate? At this point there hasn't been, and again to the Peters, I'm not saying that what you'd like to do with your house is in any way unreasonable. The issue is, because it's expanding within a setback that it is, and it's not improving any of the non -conformity. In fact we're kind of just, what I'm hearing a little bit is, it's okay to expand the house over the deck because the deck underneath it is 27 City Council Meeting Otober 27, 2008 0 impervious. That's a non -conformity and so we're really not making it worst, but we're not making it any better either. I think whenever we have these opportunities seeking to try to make it better, it's something that we should do. So I'll throw that back to the council and see if there are thoughts or comments or reaction in that regard. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess Mr. Mayor, I mean that's part of my problem. When I was on the Planning Commission we dealt with a lot of homes over on Lake Riley and Lake Minnewashta and again you have small lots. You have lots of different shapes and people are trying to use those as they exist and one of the things that happened in most of those cases is we did reach compromise, and that's something that's why I asked the question and why I'm having a problem with the proposed deck portion of this. And that's why I'm kind of leaning toward, I don't see the hardship and I also do not feel that we should be granting variances as a matter of course, so without a compromise or something along those lines, I mean where I'm leaning is not to approve this. And again it comes from, I took at equal treatment of everyone that comes in here and we've had a lot of people that have come in and have had, they want to expand for living space but the rules and the ordinances are such that we have to meet certain criteria and if that criteria is not met, I really cannot in good conscience vote for it because the hardship hasn't been identified as to what it is to you and there's no, I guess spirit of compromise to make this a lesser situation than what it currently is so that's kind of where I'm at. I mean I'll always, I feel for you and I understand where you're at but I just feel that if we start granting variances, then we have no leg to stand upon and at that point we might as well throw the ordinances out and it's just everybody can do whatever they want to with their property. So based upon that I'm leaning to vote no. Councilman Litsey: Is the suggestion then that it go back to the Planning Commission or before the Planning Commission and see if they can work out a compromise? Councilman McDonald: Was it the Planning Commission or with staff? Kate Aanenson: If I can just offer up a suggestion. I think in the past when we have had, as you are mentioning Councilman McDonald is that, sometimes they've looked at mitigation. They have commented that they have done some plantings and you know some of those sort of things so if we can kind of get some ideas of some of the other things that they've already done or spend a little bit more time looking at other options based on the design of the house. We haven't spent a lot of time doing that because they weren't, wanted to kind of see what their options were here. Mayor Furlong: Sure, I understand that and I think, you know I fully understand the, well it's even more than a hesitancy but a design not to take down some big trees on the property. I fully appreciate that. What we do know though is trees don't last forever and variances do so I think trying to make sure that we find, that we look at everything. Every alternative because again I think, to be fair to others that have been in these chambers before as well as those that will come in the future, we want to make sure that we're treating people fairly and for, and applying reason consistently, and that's where again given the lack of hardship that has been stated, and the lack of compromise, I mean I'm not even sure where that would go but the fact that those discussions haven't even taken place I think gives me significant pause at this point in time. W-3 I City Council Meeting - Octob&, 2008 0 Councilman Litsey: I think you bring up a good point that I didn't fully recognize when we were talking here but it sounds like it would be worth to have staff work with the homeowner and see some of the things, or articulating some of the things that have been done, that you've done already and then perhaps some areas that may be adjusted to be more in conformity with where you would like to be in terms of our ordinances and bring it back. I hate to delay it but I think in the interest of trying to work this through, that might be a good route to go. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we'd be happy to work with them. See if there's some other options or something that's workable for the applicant. Just to be clear we're at the end of 60 days in November so we'd ask for an additional 60 days to work through that. But obviously we'd like to do it as expediently as possible but. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's hear if there are any other thoughts or comments from members of the council. Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts. Councilwoman Ernst: Well Mayor, I heard you mention something about, and this keeps coming back as the impervious issue. So are you saying that, from what you see here you think that there is an impervious issue or not? Mayor Furlong: There is not an overall. There's not a, as I understand it from the staff report, there's not a, they're not at or above the limit of the lot from an impervious surface standpoint. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Because I thought that you were under the impression, and I wasn't seeing it here, that there was additional impervious surface, and I wasn't seeing that, so I just wanted to be clear on that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I'm, that wasn't my thought. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. You know we constantly need to be looking at our ordinances and reviewing them and I agree that we should be treating all equally, but they have come here and requested a variance. And I'm not, and I'm just hearing this periodically where people just go ahead and do these things without even coming to the city. And so I respect the idea that they're coming here and asking for permission to do this. And again based on what I've seen, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. But based on what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing, I would still support the variance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I think I'm kind of still where I was before. I just, I think as long as I've been on the Planning Commission, the counci I, I have certainly taken our ordinances very seriously. But then I've also tried to weigh that out with common sense and what seems to be right for the situation and I think the standard of reasonable use that were applied and defined years ago have changed a little bit from today and what is a reasonable use and so you know I 29 City Council Meeting Gtober 27, 2008 will certainly go along with giving them more time to work it out with staff. See if they can find a compromise, but I would be fully, I would certainly be willing tonight to vote for them to get their variance and enjoy their lake property. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments or is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I would make a motion that this be tabled and turned back over to staff to work with the applicant and kind of explore some other areas as far as compromise or coming up with something that does not increase the encroachment. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Well having talked it through, I'm willing to second that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion's been made to table and refer to staff to work with the applicant to look for some additional alternatives. Is there any discussion? Additional discussion on that. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the variance request from the shoreland setback to expand an existing non -conforming deck into a porch and adding another deck at 7301 Laredo Drive. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: So that motion, was it 4 to P Councilwoman Tjornhom did say, yep. Okay. So that motion prevails 4 to 1. Thank you. And thank you and hopefully we can find something that works for everybody. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I only have one item, and unless you've been in an igloo for a while there's an election coming up a week from tomorrow. With that said I would encourage voters to learn about council candidates. City Council candidates. We have two seats open and as well as candidates for Minnesota State House and the federal candidates as well. That is a week from tomorrow, November 4 1h . And if people are looking for polling information or where they are supposed to vote, they should check, is it the city web site? Todd Gerhardt: City web site. Or come into City Hall. Mayor Furlong: Come into City Hall. Carver County web site would have that information. There'll be a lot of information out there. I don't believe there's been any changes in the polling locations for precincts since last, since 2 years ago, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if you have any information on registration, you can get that from the county or call city hall as well and we'll get you the information that you need. So thank you. Anything else for council presentations? If not, Mr. Gerhardt. 30 06 - 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7,2008 Acting Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner and Angie Auseth, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: PETERS VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SHORELAND SETBACK FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 7301 LAREDO DRIVE. APPLICANT: RICHARD AND EUNICE PETERS, PLANNING CASE 08-19. Public Present: Name Address Richard & Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Jerry Fox 7300 Laredo Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: I have one. You stated that you didn't know when the patio was constructed, is that correct? Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: I'll ask that question of the applicant when they get it, but tell me this. Would the patio be subject to any restrictions or variance or anything? Auseth: The 75 foot setback is for any structure so we just started back in 2006 1 believe to require a zoning pernut for patios and other structures that don't require a building permit so that we can catch these things before they happen. Laufenburger: Sure. So what you're saying is if the patio was constructed prior to 2006, then it would not be subject to any variance? Auseth: We didn't have a permitting process for it. It would still have to meet the setback. Planning Commission Ileting - October 7, 2008 0 Laufenburger: Okay. Would it have to meet the setback after the fact even though it's been in place for a period of 2 or 3 years? What would staff s view on that be? AI-Jaff: They would, if it pre -dates the ordinance, if a structure existed prior to adoption of the ordinance, then it's grandfathered in. It becomes legal non -conforming. Laufenburger: So non -conforming but they can continue to use it? Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. And you, do I understand this correctly too staff, that you said that the structure that they're asking to build above that would not change the, what's the term you used? The impervious coverage, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Because the deck was constructed over a patio, so. Laufenburger: Actually has it been constructed already? Auseth: No. The existing deck, the 15 by 20 foot, there was a patio there prior to that deck being built. Laufenburger: Okay. Auseth: So those hard cover calculations are already included. Laufenburger: Okay. So whether there's a deck over that portion or whether there's an enclosed structure over the top of that, it wouldn't change that. Auseth: Right. Laufenburger: I was referring to the patio which is the lower level patio. Auseth: Sure. Laufenburger: Could you go back to the property for a moment. This, I'm talking about the one around which the table and the deck chairs, it looks like outside the walkout. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. That's the patio I'm referring to. Is that subject to ordinance at this time? Auseth: That's the patio that we were saying we don't know when that was installed. I-aufenburger: And ordinances to cover that were in, were enacted in 2006? 2 Planning Commission MeetinActober 7, 2008 0 Auseth: There was a zoning permit enacted in 2006 which we use to catch these things before they happen without, if this was constructed prior to 2006, there was not a permitting process for it. Laufenburger: So it's, they would be legal non -conforming. Al-Jaff-. May I add one thing? Laufenburger: Please do. Al-Jaff: One of the things that we adopted, knowing that individuals want to overlook the lake. They want to construct a water oriented structure. And that was a request that we�saw quite often. That's when the ordinance was adopted and it was to limit the size of those structures to 250 square feet. Laufenburger: Say that number again. AI-Jaff: 250 square feet. Laufenburger: Okay. AI-Jaff. But that structure had to be detached. That was key. So you can say a boat house for instance along the lake, or. Laufenburger: A gazebo. Al-Jaff: A detached deck or a gazebo, and there is a height limitation and there are a few things that were required as well. Laufenburger: Okay. AI-Jaff: But the key was water oriented structure, detached from the rest of the house, not to exceed 250 square feet. L.aufenburger: Okay. I'm going to ask you one last question. This is hypothetical but let's assume that this patio did not exist today. Would the applicant have to file a permit to construct that patio? Al-Jaff: They would apply for a zoning permit. Laufenburger: Zoning permit. And would the zoning permit be granted based on the guidance that's in place today? Auseth: The patio would have to meet the 75 foot shoreland setback. Laufenburger: Good. Planning Commissionking - October 7, 2008 0 Dillon: So you'd be getting a variance for that one too. Al-Jaff. Correct. Dillon: Right. Laufenburger: Okay. Alrighty. That answers my question. Thank you very much. Thankyou Chair. Larson: Kevin. Dillon: So these other variances that were requested, I guess there's the 95-9. That's an 8 foot shoreline so that's kind of like in a similar boat. Pardon the expression. Auseth: Right. Dillon: The other ones were front and, oh the first one was a shoreline. Auseth: The first one was a shoreline. Dillon: Ahight. So was 85 the year that it was granted? Auseth: Yes. Dillon: So these are old. Alright. You know I don't have any more questions. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: Yeah, I do have a question. So back in 1996 when they came in and they originally had gotten this variance for the deck that they have there now, if they had decided at that point and just made it instead of a deck, could they have made it into a 3 season porch at that point or is it, how, I was asking if it was just like a bad timing issue. You know like as if had they asked for it then, you know would it have been any different of any answer than it is today? Sorry, I just you know, I just wonder if it, if it was just a bad you know, because I feel like you know sometimes I know that happens you know when we put in place things to protect different things. You know bluffs or that kind of stuff that I understand so I was just trying to see if maybe. Al-Jaff: I can't speak for staff as to what they were thinking at that time. Thomas: Sure. Al-Jaff: Or what the Planning Corrunission was thinking or City Council when they made their recommendation. However, we always, whenever we look at a request we always evaluate do they have reasonable use of their property? And what constitutes reasonable use? When you are next to a lake, you need to enjoy a deck and be able to overlook the lake. That can be accomplished from the deck and from this side of the house. Do you need, so the question now Planning Commission Meeting*ctober 7, 2008 0 becomes do you need to enlarge the home to truly enjoy the home? Staff's recommendation is that currently they have reasonable use of the property. They have an existing deck. There's an existing patio. Dillon: So just to go back. So these other variances that were granted you know, was there a hardship or something like that involved with them? It's probably way before anyone's time here so I don't know if we can answer that question but you know, was it the first deck they were putting on these houses to use the lake or does anyone know the details on that? Because precedent is kind of like been set in a few of these cases. I'm just kind of wondering to you know, not be inconsistent. AI-Jaff: We go back to the applicant has reasonable use of the property. They've already been granted a variance to put on the deck and. Dillon: Yeah. I get that. Thomas: I do have, I have one more question. Sorry. Okay. I just know in the, it said also we could, they could put on an, like an addition in the front or the side, is that correct? Auseth: Yes. Thomas: And then I guess my question is where? Auseth: Well, within the required setbacks and there would have to be, as part of the layout of the home but there's room, if you look at the survey, there's room to. Thomas: Liketotheright? Ijust, just so I know. Auseth: Sure. As long as they stay within that 10 foot side yard setback. Soifyoulooktothe north side of the property. Thomas: Uke where that little half circle, that what you mean? Auseth: On that half circle portion. As long as they stay within that, outside of the 75 foot setback and outside of the 10 foot side yard setback, that could be a possibility if the intent is to expand the living space. Staff was saying that there were other options as far as. Thomas: Yeah I just wanted to, yeah. See where staff was thinking in that, just so I knew too. Okay, thanks. Keefe: Just a follow-up on that. I mean did you get it through any evaluation or did the applicant do any evaluation of a possible addition on that side of the house? It looks like, what is that, the south side? What is the orientation? Auseth: This is north. So the. Planning Commissioneeting - October 7, 2008 Keefe: The page is facing north/south, okay. Where that half circle is towards the bottom side of the house as we're looking at the page. Auseth: Right. Or there can be additional, there's space within the 30 foot front yard setback as well so there's room within the buildable area for expansion. Keefe: Well I'm thinking of you know is there a spot that they could get enjoyment of the lake. I mean I don't know how this house lays out and maybe that is a garage over there and it makes absolutely no sense to put there but you know I'm just curious if there is room without any, and was that ever discussed with the applicant or did the applicant consider that? Auseth: I'm not sure if the applicant considered that or not but there is space within that half circle area. Keefe: Okay. Potentially. Describe for me just a little, it's more of a definitional question. Just the enhancing of the non-conformance is really means what in this case? I mean when you say enhancing a non-conformance. Al-Jaff: It's intensifying the non -conformity. We're turning. Keefe: The non-confornuty here is that you have a deck that's. A]-Jaff: That encroaches into the 75 foot setback. Keefe: Yes. Yeah. Al-Jaff. So now you're taking the structure that is an accessory structure at that time, and by enclosing it and we often see porches that are 3 season porches. They are used year round pretty much. That becomes a living space. That's an intense, you're intensifying a use from accessory to part of the primary structure. Keefe: Well and you're leading to me, to my question which is, is there something greater in terms of, that they can do with this? I wouldn't quite go all the way to you know say a four season. You know is there something inbetween that they can do, or is anything that they do beyond what it currently is an intensification? Interpreted as an intensification. Al-Jaff. Once you enclose the space it becomes an intensification. Keefe: Three season, even 3 season, okay. Alright. Larson: Anybody else? Laufenburger: I had one last question. Larson: Okay, go ahead. 101 Planning Commission Meetingactober 7, 2008 0 Laufenburger: So they're asking for a variance of two things. Number one, intensifying the usage of the existing deck. And they're also asking for approval to build a deck above the floor level patio. Auseth: Right. Al-Jaff. Well in reality the intensification of the existing deck becomes a moot issue because you're taking that space and converting it completely into another structure. Laufenburger: What I'm trying to figure out is, if the intensification of the existing deck alone was the request, or if simply adding a deck, I'm going to call it kind of a runway because it looks like it goes in front of the bay window. Would either of those elements alone meet the standard of acceptance, or would the, again I'm asking hypothetical question. Would staff recommend denial of either of those individually? A]-Jaff: Based upon the findings that we had in the staff report, when we compare it to what the guidelines of. Laufenburger: Yep. AI-Jaff. The ordinance Laufenburger: That's what I'm asking you to do. A]-Jaff. Requirements are. It is staff s opinion that they currently do have reasonable use of the property. There is no demonstrated hardship and as such we would recommend denial of the request. Laufenburger: Okay. But to be clear, they are asking for approval of both an intensification of the existing deck, enclosing it, and adding that runway deck across the lake facing portion. Al-Jaff. Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. ThankyouChair. Dillon: If it was only enclosing the one deck, would they even have to be here? Auseth: They would. As it's intensifying what was approved in the original variance. Dillon: I see. Larson: So the new, bigger deck without the walls, that's a problem too? Auseth: Yes, because it doesn't meet the 75 foot setback. 7 Planning Commissionteting - October 7, 2008 9 Larson: And do we know, you may have already covered this. The potential, the site has a potential for additional site coverage on the lot. Is that where, that's on your page 3 just below the picture. You've got that written. Is that where you're saying it should be either in the front of the house or the side of the house or anywhere but within what they want to do? Auseth: If the intent is to provide, or expand the livable area, there are other places in which that can be achieved on the site. Larson: But do we know what the floorplan of the house is? I mean the places that you're thinking that would be a better spot, does it even make sense to do so? I mean say if it's on the front of the house and the room where you say it should, could be is a bedroom or a bathroom or something that really potentially you would not be able to add onto. You know I suspect that they're looking at this as being able to expand the enjoyment of the house, which I don't know. Okay. I guess that's all I have anyway. Anybody else? Dillon: So I'mjust kind of looking at the application here and it says requesting variance to transform present deck. Okay, we get that. And then relocate the deck. What's getting moved? Auseth: I think that's interpreted as that additional deck so now that the one deck will be gone, the new deck will take it's place. Laufenburger: I think by definition they're saying our existing deck will become a sun room. Therefore the deck is no longer there and this, that runway that I call it will be the deck. Dillon: Oh. Laufenburger: So the terminology the applicant is using it just to describe how they, I don't, we can ask the applicant but my guess is they're not going to pick up the deck that exists and re- frame it in front of the house. I think they're going to take new wood. You know new footings. New wood and then build a sun room on top of the frame. That would be my guess. That's how I would do it. Dillon: Choice of words is confusing because nothing's getting relocated. Something new is getting built. Larson: Okay. Have we got an applicant? Come on up. State your name and address for the record please. Rich Peters: Okay. My name's Rich Peters and I live at 7301 Laredo Drive. I think you've got a pretty good idea. No, we're not relocating the deck. We're just putting a different deck, putting a deck in a different place. This house is a 1960's Bob Schoeller walkout rambler. They're all over the older part of Chanhassen and it has limited space. We put the deck on. We moved there in '94. We put the deck on. Built it over the top of a, what do you call it? It was a patio. Built up patio. You can see in the picture. Laufenburger: Something that existed before? 8 I Planning Commission Meetingooctober 7, 2008 0 Rich Peters: Oh yeah. It was I assume part of the original house, wasn't it? In 1960, yeah. But it was 2 feet below the floor. The top floor so we built a deck on that. Now after being empty nesters for quite a while we have grandchildren. Not living with us, but grandchildren around a lot, and the house gets a little cramped you know with all the kids around and stuff so we'd like to just be able to use the deck more than 3 months out of the year. Have a little more time to use it. As far as putting additional, could we build it somewhere else? The top part of that picture, the north side would not give any room at all because I think we have probably less than 10 feet there already. Plus there's two, there's a 100 year oak tree there and a 100 year old ash tree. If you go out the other side there's probably room but there's two 100 year oak trees setting there that we're still trying to keep alive, and I have no intentions of taking any trees down of 100 years old. If you go out the front side of the house, which would be the only option you would have, and there's another 100 year old tree sitting out in that front part too, but you wouldn't get any view of the lake. Plus the end where they have that curved pathway there, that's bedrooms down there. It's a typical Schoeller house. You've got the kitchen on one end and the bedrooms on the other and so we wouldn't you know be adding bedrooms on. That's all it would be down there. Basically we're just, we're not trying to go any closer to the lake than we arc now. I think we're 67 feet away or something like that, and that's where it's going to stay. The new deck will be closer to the house. Farther from the lake than it was before. So we're really not changing any footprint or anything like that. But question about the lower patio. I think Denny you were asking about that. That was put in, excuse me. It was there when we got there in '94 and it was the patio blocks. The rectangle cement patio blocks and all we did was in 2001 changed it to be a circular brick one rather than a square. Laufenburger: Like pavers or something like that? Rich Peters: Pavers, yeah. So it was there before and I assume that was there at the very beginning too but you know in 1960. Laufenburger: So you, when did you acquire the home? Rich Peters: '94. Laufenburger: And that was there. Rich Peters: Yeah. Laufenburger: So when did you make your improvements to the patio? Rich Peters: 2001. Laufenburger: Okay. RichPeters: Spring2001. I don't think there's anything else. Eunice? Oh,l'msupposeto mention. We took all the grass out of the back yard going down to the lake and planted wild Planning Commission 9eting - October 7, 2008 flowers. Indigenous wild flowers and grasses so. You don't see, you see it in the picture a little bit but the picture was probably too close. But it's growing. There's 1,200 plants in there. Larson: I just see grass in this picture. Rich Peters: Yeah. Yeah, it's below that. Below that wall you know. Larson: Use your imagination right. Rich Peters: We planted 1,200 wild flowers and indigenous grasses, etc. Come back in 2 or 3 years. It takes a while to grow, But that's all we're asking for basically is to use our deck a little bit more than 3 months out of the year. Larson: Okay. You guys have any questions for the applicant? No? Rich Peters: Similar to what Jerry Fox who's sitting here, got back in 1985. He got the same variance of a, of a porch. Larson: Okay. Laufenburger: I do have one question. Larson: Oh, go ahead Denny. Latiferiburger: Why'd you put the wild flowers in? Rich Peters: Why? Laufenburger: Why did you put the wild flowers in? Rich Peters: Just for the lake. Laufenburger: Did the lake want the wild flowers? Rich Peters: No. Get the grass, it was solid grass. Then you've got all the fertilizer and all that stuff flowing into the take, and the Clean Water, Lotus Lake Clean Water Association. Something like that. Can't remember the whole name of it. You know I've been to a couple of those meetings. They're trying to clean up the lake and so, and they had a list of contractors on the web site that did this type of thing so we went through the list and did that. There's a second reason too. Do you want to hear the other reason or not? A little bit selfish. Laufenburger: That's satisfactory. Rich Peters: I had to mow that so, but it's better for the lake. Laufenburger: How many grandchildren do you have? 10 Planning Commission MeetinActober 7, 2008 0 Rich Peters: Four. Laufenburger: Congratulations. Rich Peters: Thank you. Laufenburger: Alright, that's it. Larson: Okay. Rich Peters: Anything else for me? Larson: No, I think that's it. Thank you. At this time I will open the hearing to the public. If anybody else wants to speak about this. Please state your name and address. Pardon? Jerry Fox: I'd like to speak to the issue. Larson: Okay. Please state your name and address. Jerry Fox: I'm Jerry Fox. 7300 Laredo Drive. We're the property immediately north and it was my good fortune to appear before this body 13-14 years ago with a very similar request to add a deck and porch within the 75 foot setback. You very graciously granted me the variance and I cannot tell you how much we've enjoyed that ever since. We live on that porch all summer long and I think I can honestly say if it had not been granted, we probably would have moved. We wouldn't be there today. But it's so good to have that. It's a wonderful addition to the house. It's a wonderful addition to the community and it certainly adds to t ' he value and what can I say. It's just a plus, plus, plus all the way around for the community and for me as a neighbor and for them as occupants. So I wholeheartedly support it. I certainly hope you grant the variance. Thank you. Any questions? Laufenburger: I do. How long have you lived on your property? Jerry Fox: 19, 38 years. Laufenburger: Oh, not 1938. Jerry Fox: No. No, no, no, no. The house wasn't built in 1938. Laufenburger: So 1970. Jerry Fox: That would be 39 years. Laufenburger: 1969? Jerry Fox: Yep. And enjoyed every minute of it. Thanks to your help too. Thank you I I Planning Commission Oeting - October 7, 2008 0 Larson: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody else, I'll bring it back for discussion. How about you Dan? You want to start? Keefe: Well just a couple things. I mean you know, we're suppose to enforce the rules and despite what I might like ... I mean the question is, is there a hardship here? So I'm struggling to see if I can come up with a definition of a hardship, and the only thing that kind of comes to mind is, are the trees and do the trees sort of force our hand in the event that there's nowhere else to do anything like this. It sort of forces, the question is, is that a hardship and do they have to do this? No, they probably have reasonable use of the property. And I think the rules state that you know, we're here to interpret the rules and that's my thought on that. Larson: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. That we have to interpret the rules and like I say, I struggle with just the aspect that I worry that it's a matter of because they didn't do it then, now they can't do it now. Dillon: Do what? Thomas: Make it into a porch then, in '96. Larson: Before the new rules. Thomas: Before everything occurred. I mean if you came in here and you asked for a variance then, and you just didn't make it into a porch then, you know I struggle with that because it just, it doesn't seem, I don't know it just doesn't seem completely right but. If we need a hardship I would say the trees are a hardship because I don't really see it's important to be cutting down 200 year old trees, or 100 year old trees on a property just to make space and I don't know, I mean we live in Minnesota. I have a deck too and it stinks not having it enclosed because you can't be out there with mosquitoes hanging around and that just, you know I don't know it's a hardship for me so sorry. I'] I have to think about it. Larson: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I would tend to agree with Dan. I mean it seems like it's a nice to have, you know for the applicant. It's not like a you know, the grandkids are living with them and they need the extra living space, or anything like that. I mean I don't see the hardship. There are you know the rules. There's, so we're asked to you know interpret them so I would, I mean it's maybe, I mean there's reasonable use of the property. Seems to be a good view of the lake. I mean I don't know. I think I'm inclined to support the staff's recommendation on this one. Larson: Okay. Denny. Laufenburger: I think it's important that we acknowledge that the staff is doing theirjob in interpreting the rules and the guidelines that are in effect that govern this thing. These sorts of 12 Planning Commission Meetinwctober 7, 2008 0 things in Chanhassen so staffs to be acknowledged and commended for that so thank you. I'm in favor of doing, allowing them to do with the existing deck what they want to do, but I think I'm not in favor of accepting the proposed deck. They have the patio which does give them use of that space. They want additional living space. I think I tend to say, make your choice. Do you want a deck or do you want to enclose the deck that you already have? So that's kind of what I'm leaning towards but if I was forced to choose between either approving it as requested or denying it as the staff recommends, I think my inclination is to go along with the staff and deny it the way it exists. Larson: Okay. Laufenburger: That doesn't mean that the applicant couldn't come back with a modification but given the facts that we have right now, I'd be inclined to deny it the way it is. Larson: Okay. Well my thoughts on it are, the fact of the matter is that Kathleen brought up, if they had worked on this or done it 2 years ago before this new ordinance came in, they wouldn't have been able to do it, correct? Dillon: No. Larson: No. They still would have had to get, gotten a variance. AI-Jaff. Correct. Larson: However, looking at the neighboring property, Mr. Laufenburger: Fox. Larson: Fox's property, you know he's 50 feet as opposed to the 60 feet that they're going for. I honestly don't have a problem with what they want to do. I would be inclined to go against what the staff's recommendation, but that's just my thoughts because I think the fact that Dan had mentioned that the hardship with the trees, you don't want to go and cut down trees. They would like to be able to enjoy the property more, and I think the ordinance is wrong. They're not asking for anything large. They're not going beyond the impervious. I honestly don't have a problem with this so that's just my thoughts so. Dillon: But the trees and the hardship have nothing to do with this. I mean there's an express intent to have a view of the lake and the trees aren't anywhere near that so it's no hardship. Larson: Well the hardship Kevin is with, they can't, the other spots where they could potentially expand the house, if they wanted to. Dillon: But the point made was, and they very clearly stated, and I would, if I'm living there I'd want the same thing, to have a good view of the lake and the trees are on the side and the front of the house, it doesn't afford a good view of the lake. 13 Planning Commission Qeti ng - October 7, 2008 0 Larson: They want to expand the house so they have more use. Dillon: That's not what I heard but. Larson: Well. LaufenburgeT: What I heard was expanded living space because of 4 grandchildren are invading them and they want to make good space for them. Larson: Right. Laufenburger: I think his words were, you know we're running out of space. Larson: Yeah, I mean right. Dillon: Okay, well. Larson: Is that not? Dillon: That and have a good view of the lake too so I mean. Larson: I guess. Keefe: There are limited locations they could put this to have a view of the lake. But the question comes back is, do they have reasonable use and that's really what the ordinance, what we have to interpret. Determine reasonable use and is there a hardship... Larson: But where my disagreement is, is their definition of, the City's definition of reasonable use is different than their definition of reasonable use and I tend to agree with them so. But that's just my opinion. Right or wrong. Okay. Have I got a recommendation? I can't do it. Oh, I'm sorry. Dillon: I'll make a motion. Larson: Hold on. I didn't close the public hearing. Sorry. Now I will take a recommendation. Laufenburger: Can we talk about this just a little bit more? Larson: Sure. I-aufenburger: I'd like to hearjust a recap of the commissioners view of approval, approving the staff s recommendation for denial or over ruling the staff's recommendation and recommend approval of the permit. Dillon: That's what we're going to vote on. 14 Planning Commission Meetinooctober 7,2009 0 Laufenburger: Yeah. I'd like to hear just a little bit more dialogue about that. Hear the arguments why you feel one way or another. Dan, could I just ask you for clarification? Keefe: Well I mean just to kind of re -state what I said. Laufenburger: Yeah. Keefe: You know I think we're hereto interpret the rules. Is there a hardship? Finstrugglingto come up with one. I really can't find a hardship and so, you know it's my, you know in the absence of a hardship we have to follow through all this now. Despite what I might like to do. I mean we're here to interpret the rules. That's our job so. Laufenburger: Okay. Keefe: That's kind of where I come down. Laufenburger: Kathleen. Can I hear you again? Thomas: Sure. Mine is, I really think that the deck to be enclosed is, not that, I'm trying to make it so it's concise. I'm in favor of enclosing the deck into a porch. If not because I think reasonable use of the property is having a good view of the lake and having it to it's full potential and knowing where we live, the climate and everything, I understand that aspect of the porch. Wanting it for more than 3, you know 3 months out of the year, if that in Minnesota and I guess my parents had a 3 season porch, not in the city by any means but we used it 3 seasons. I mean she used it as a giant refrigerator in the wintertime. That's where all the leftovers went so, it's not like it's something that the grandkids can be playing outside in in 3 season in January you know. It's something that's livable space. Larson: Kevin, you have anything? Dillon: Yeah, I too cannot find the hardship in this application and you know that has been pretty you know clear. One of the guidelines for granting a variance is that there needs to be some sort of expressed hardship or lack of use of the property or something of this sort and I can't find any of that. Plus, and you know it's, the letter from the DNR, you know they have an opinion here that they oppose structural variances unless there's a demonstrated hardship as defined and you know they can't find one either. And not that they're always the all and end all in these issues but I think it's an opinion that it matters and you know so that's just another bit of rationale. Laufenburger: In re -stating why I think from my perspective the, if ourjob is to interpret or to act on the permit the way it's been applied, I would tend to decline, to deny it in support of the staff. However, I do share Kathleen's view that turning the deck into a 3 season porch, that seems like a reasonable use of that, so that's where I would go. Thank you. Dillon: We've got kind of an all or nothing deal here. 15 Planning Commission fleting - October 7, 2008 0 Laufenburger: Yeah. Unless we choose to go forward with some other recommendation. Dillon: Well that would be up to, then the applicant I think would want, I mean you know we can... Laufenburger: Yeah, it would be inappropriate for us to say you can't do that but if you want to do something else, we'll allow you to do that. Well we don't know that they want to do that. Dillon: Well we can't say that until we know what it is so. Laufenburger: Right. Dillon: I mean I think we've got to vote on this as it stands. Laufenburger: I would agree. Keefe: Agree. Laufenburger: Thank you for indulging me Chair. Larson: Okay. No problem. Now, can I get a recommendation. Dillon: So, yes. AI-Jaff. If you choose to vote on enclosing the deck and not approving the building of the brand new deck, then you can make a motion to that effect. So right now you have two requests in front of you. The first one is enclosing the existing deck. The second, and turning it into a porch. And the second one is building a new deck. Thomas: So we turn it into two things. Right? Al-Jaff: So you can vote to deny both of them. Approve both of them. Approve one. Deny the other. Dillon: So we closed the public part of this but in your discussions with the applicant, is that something that they'd be okay with? I mean, or else are we just wasting our time doing that? AI-Jaff. The applicant is here should you choose to. Dillon: Can we open that? Larson: Would you like to, yeah. Let's open it back up. Could we get the applicant up here again? Get your opinion, if you don't mind. Rich Peters: So what you're saying is, no on the deck and yes on the. Excuse me, no on the additional deck. Yes on the porch or sunroorn. 16 I Planning Commission Meetinpoctober 7, 2008 0 Larson: It's just a thought. What do you think? Rich Peters: I don't know if I'd want to do that, yeah. I really don't Larson: So you want all or nothing, correct? Rich Peters: Yeah, I think so. I just don't think the rest of it would fit at all. But the part about the trees, I want to get back to that again as long as I've got the floor here. You can't build at each end of the house. They're big oak trees. Ash trees. Some maples. You know we're not going to take down trees to add onto our house that way. It just doesn't make any sense. Dillon: But even if they were little oak trees and you know they were very small little saplings and they could, would that even be something you'd consider? See because I don't, what I thought is you want the lake, right? Rich Peters: Yeah, yeah, but you yeah, you'd have to, but the end that has the room, okay. Assurniing they're small trees, is bedrooms. You know there's 2 or 3 bedrooms at that end and bathrooms. There's. Eunice Peters: And it's drainage. Rich Peters: Yeah, it's a drainage also. Yeah, that's another thing. All the water from the street and the lake you know drains down to the lake through that, through the property lines there you know. It's a, they call it a dry creek bed. So you wouldn't, you couldn't really do it there either because of the water drainage. Dillon: But okay, say no trees. No water problems. Would you still want to do something there? Rich Peters: At the end of the bedrooms? No. No, because it wouldn't make any sense to put a family room at the end of the bedrooms. Without remodeling the whole house. Larson: Anyone else have questions for him while he's up here? Thank you. Okay. We're now closed. Keefe: Can we discuss just a little more? Larson: Okay. Keefe: I want to hear a little bit more just on why you like one over the other. Looking at sort of... I-aufenburger: I think from my perspective I'm trying to satisfy what they're requirement. You know their state of requirements. They want more living space so the grandchildren can be there. I guess it's Kathleen who thought 1, articulated it quite well and that is turning the deck 17 Planning Commission etting - October 7, 2008 0 into a 3 season sunroom would give them that living space. You know the space in front of the walkout doorway, which is a patio, seems to be functioning as a very, very good view and livable area outside of the house which gives them access to the lake. So I think what 1, my interpretation is I think it's, I believe it's acceptable although it's a term that the staff uses is correct. It intensifies the usage. I would view that that would be an acceptable way of giving them the livable space that they're looking for and not setting a precedent of additional variance for that deck which would be within, that would fall within the 75 foot setback. So that's, I guess I was thinking, that feels like a compromise that might be satisfactory. We now know from the property owner, the applicant, that that's not acceptable so I thinkthat Dan by itself makes it a moot point. Keefe: Okay. That's all I have. Dillon: So I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and action. Larson: Do you want to second? Laufenburger: Second. Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor, except Larson and Thomas who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Larson: Next on the agenda. Laufenburger: Just point of order Chair. Larson: Pardon? Laufenburger: Is our recommendation for denial of the request, does that go to the City Council? Larson: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. So it's quite possible the City Council can overrule our recommendation? Larson: Correct. Very possible. Keefe: That is if they choose. A]-Jaff: If your decision was appealed, then yes the City Council can overrule. 18 Planning Commission Meetin*ctober 7, 2008 to Keefe: It's at their request. Laufenburger: It's at the applicant's desire or not. Keefe: To appeal it. If it's unanimous then that's not the case. Al-Jaff. You need three-fourths vote for a motion to pass and in this case it was three-fourths. Uufenburger: Three-fifths. A]-Jaff: Three-fifths to deny and that's the motion on the record right now. Laufenburger: Okay. Al-Jaff: Should the applicant choose to appeal your decision, then they appeal it to the City Council and. Larson: Okay. Onto the next. PUBLIC HEARING: WALL VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 800 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DOUGLAS AND MARTHA WALL, PLANNING CASE 08-20. Public Present: Name Address Stan Ross, AE Architecture Douglas Wall 13860 Fawn Ridge Way, Apple Valley 800 Carver Beach Road Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Keefe: So here's a question. On reasonable use, the definition of reasonable use here. This addition is required or fits within the definition of reasonable use. Is that the thinking? You know as sort of opposed to the one that we just visited where we're saying well, he's already got reasonable use of his property. Now we're saying, and we denied that because we say they already had reasonable use. Well, in this case they made a request or saying well there is a hardship here because yeah, the lot isn't deep enough but you know do they already have reasonable use of the, I guess that's the question. Do they already have reasonable use of it? Auseth: They do have a single family home and a two car garage. Keefe: Right. 19 0 0 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINI)INGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck — Planning Case No. 08-19. On October 7, 2008, die Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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 I . The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills 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. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75 -foot structure setback three of which were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property The applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two -car garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code. SCANNED b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The applicant was granted a 15 -foot lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home. While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of 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 intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. 'Me property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant has reasonable use of the property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site, nor will it decrease the current shoreland setback. However, it would be an additional structure within the shoreland setback f The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 0 0 ACTION "Me Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15-filot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and construction if a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7b day of October, 2008. gAplan\2008 planning �\08-19 petm varimcc\findings of fwt.doc PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shorcland setback for the conversion of an existing 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and the construction of an additional deck within the shoreland setback. LOCATION: 7301 Laredo Drive Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition APPLICANT: Richard and Eunice Peters 6 7301 Laredo Drive k(11 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.58 acres DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAIUNG: 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. PROPOSAL SUMMARY In 1996 the applicant received a 15 -foot variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback to construct a 15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home, as well as a 25 -foot bluff setback variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to convert the existing deck to a three -season porch, which intensifies the use, and construct an additional deck on the lake side of the home. The proposed deck would be7l feet from the ordinary high water mark and would lead to the incremental encroachment of the stairs and landing toward the lake, which is set back 67 feet ftorn the ordinary high water mark. The proposed structures will not decrease the distance to the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). SCANNED Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 October 7, 2008 Page 2 of 6 The existing nonconforming deck was approved in 1996 to allow a reasonable use of the property. While the conversion of the deck to a porch and the addition of the deck will have minimal impact to the site, from a site coverage standpoint, enclosing the deck increases the nonconformity. Since the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property, including the existing outdoor living areas, this request is a self-created hardship, as defined by the City Code. The proposed porch enclosure increases the habitable space which is proposed to be located closer to the lake than would be permitted in other circumstances. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The properties to the south are zoned Single Farmly Residential (RSF). The lake is located to the east and the cul-de-sac is located to west. WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is available to the site. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances, • Chapter 20, Article XII, Shoreland Management District. • Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) District. Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 October 7, 2008 Page 3 of 6 BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, which is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Sunrise Hills Addition was created in 1956 and consists of 28 lots. The subject property was developed in 1960 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland District Regulations and does not meet the current standards for a riparian lot. The lot has an area of 23,701 square feet (0.58 acres). Minimum lot area for a riparian lot in the RSF district is 40,000 square feet. The applicant received approval for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance in 1996 to allow a 60 -foot shoreland setback to construct the existing 15 x 20 foot deck. The deck was built over an existing patio; therefore, it did not increase the hard surface coverage on the property. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing deck into a porch and maintain the existing footprint. The intent of the applicant's proposal is to use the deck area more months out of the year and to create more livable space - The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot. From a lakeview standpoint, the proposed 8 x 31 foot deck and stairs within the shoreland setback (to be located over a portion of an existing paver patio) will increase the projection of the structure to the lake from that area of the structure. While the proposed deck will not increase the hard surface coverage on the site; it is an additional structure within the setback which increases the nonconformity on the lot. ANALYSIS The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Reasonable use within the RSF district is defined as a single-family home and a two -car garage; according to criteria outlined in the City Code for granting a variance. As such, the applicant has Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 October 7, 2008 Page 4 of 6 a reasonable us of the property with the existing home and garage. In addition, in 1996 the applicant was granted a 15 -foot variance to the 75 -foot shoreland setback and a 25 -foot variance from the bluff setback for the construction of a 15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home. The applicant would like to convert this deck into a sun room so they can enjoy the lake view and additional space more months out of the year. The applicant is also proposmg to add an additional deck along the lake side of the house that will maintain a greater setback to the lake than the existing deck, but will bring that portion of the structure closer to the lake. ?0 67 The applicants' proposal for the porch and deck will not change the distance from the existing structures to Lotus Lake. The original deck was built over an existing patio, therefore, the impervious coverage will not be affected; however, enclosing the deck and adding the new 8 x 31 foot deck increases the nonconformity and therefore requires variance approval. The City Code states that a variance may be granted if the literal enforcement causes undue hardship and the property owner does not have reasonable use of the property, which includes comparable properties within 500 feet. Reasonable use within the Single Family Residential (RSF) District is described as a single- family home with a two -car garage, which is currently constructed on the property. The property was granted a variance to construct the existing deck in 1996, which is consistent with the neighborhood. There is also a paver patio on the lake side of the home. Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 October 7, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Staff surveyed the neighboring properties within 500 feet of the subject site to determine if there were preexisting conditions throughout the neighborhood that would warrant granting of a variance to enclose the deck and add a new deck. There have been four variance requests, which include three lakeshore setback variances and one non-lakeshore variance. There are two variances to construct outdoor living areas on the lake side of the home (one of which is the subject property). The third request was to construct an addition on the lake side of the property. Case # Address Riparian Request Action 25 -foot shoreland setback 85-15 7300 Laredo Drive YES vanance for the Approved construction of a 32 x 20 foot deck and porch 2 1 -foot front yard setback 89-3 7307 Laredo Drive NO variance for the Denied construction of a garage and deck 8 -foot shoreland setback 95-9 7343 Frontier Trail YES and a 16 -foot bluff setback Approved for the construction of an addition 15 -foot shoreland setback 7301 Laredo Drive variance and a 25 -foot 96-2 (subject site) YES bluff setback variance to Approved construct a 15 x 20 foot deck Of the lakeshore lots within 500 feet of the subject property, with and without a variance, the subject site is the second closest to the lake at 60 feet. The applicant was granted a variance for the deck which provided an outdoor area in which to enjoy the lake. This is consistent with the previous variance requests. There is also an existing 320 square -foot patio on the lake side of the property, which provides an outdoor living area and reasonable use of the property. While the proposed additions will not increase the impervious coverage on the property or decrease the distance to the lake; the hardships listed by the applicant are inconsistent with the criteria specified in the Zoning 75' site Lotus Lake Peters Variance Request Planning Case 08-19 October 7, 2008 Page 6 of 6 Ordinance for granting a variance. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the variance. If the Planning Commission feels that this variance request is a reasonable request and does not adversely affect the surrounding properties, as they are not increasing the impervious coverage or decreasing the distance to the lake, the Planning Commission may decide to approve the application. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the variance request, they would need to amend the findings of fact consistent with such approval. Staff would further recommend that, as a condition of such approval, the Planning Commission adopt the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 2. Erosion control, as required by City Code, must be installed prior to construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action: "Me Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15 -foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHNMNTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of lot smvey. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2008 planning ca�\08-19 petm varianc6staff repomdoc 0 Auseth, Angie From: John Gleason [John.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:58 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: DNR Comment on Peters Variance Request Dear Ms. Auseth: 0 I am responding to the memo from you dated September 8, 2008 regarding review of the Peters Variance request. The DNR objects to issuance of this variance. We oppose any structural variance unless there is demonstrated "hardship" as defined in Minnesota statute, unique to the property. Based on the materials distributed, no such hardship exists. If you have any questions, please contact me. Regards, lack John (lack) Gleason, Area Hydrologist -West Metro MN DNR Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651-259-5754 (W) 651-772-7977 (F) John.Gleason(@dnr.state.mn.us Visit our website at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/index.html 1 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers SCANNED State of Minnesota) )SS. CITY OF CHANHASSEN County of Carver CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 08-19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized that the Chanhassen Planning agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- Commission will hold a public lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: hearingonTuesday, October7,2008, at7:00p.m. in theCouncil Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 (A) These newspapers have complied with die requirements constituting qualification as a legal Market Blvd. The purpose of this newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33 1 A.02, 33 1 A.07, and other applicable laws, as hearing is to consider a request for. amended. a variance from the shoreland setback to expand an existing legal (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. Y115 non -conforming deck into a pooch was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in die attached Notice and said and adding another deck on Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of property zoned Residential Single Family (RSfl and located at 7301 the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Laredo Drive. Applicant: Richard inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and Eunice Peters. and publication of the Notice: A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public abcdefghijklumopqrstuvWxyz review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn,us/sery/ DlanZQ8-l9.htmI or at City Hall duringregularbusinesshours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with ftspect to this proposal. Angie Auseth, Planner I Subscribed and sworn before me on Email: aauaeth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen this d-l�' day of 2008 Villager on Thursday, September 25,2008; No. 4115) JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA Q 9 IAy Commission ExPims 011311013 -,j N,t� Cbli, Y 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 .............................................. $12.19 per column inch SCANNED (-)C6 - I q CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 08-19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a variance from the shoreland setback to expand an existing legal non -conforming deck into a porch and adding another deck on property zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) and located at 7301 Laredo Drive. Applicant: Richard and Eunice Peters. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn,usl�e�/ Ian/08-19.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 September 25, 2008) SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Invoice P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 an of (952) 227-1100 aMSER To: Richard & Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS K M TM 9/25/08 upon receipt I WUAN111Y I DESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICE AMOUN 1 39 1 Property Owners List within 500' of 7301 Laredo Drive (39 labels) 1 $3.00 $117.10TO TOTAL DUE $117.00 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 October 7. 2008. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #08-19. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/29/2008 3:17 PM Receipt No. 0082503 CLERK: katie PAYEE: RICHARD AND EUNICE PETERS 7301 LAREDO DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Planning Case #08-19 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 117.00 Total Cash Check 9091 Change ----------- 117.00 0.00 117.00 ----------- 0.00 SCANNED PM A.58200120 Parcel Information Property Address: 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN Parcel Properties GIS Acres: 0.58136521 Homestead: Y School District: 0112 Parcel Location Section: 12 Township: 116 Range: 023 Payable Year 2009 Est. Market Value Land: $575400 Est. Market Value Building: $230000 Est Market Value Total: $805400 Last Sale Information Sale Date: 05/18/1994 Sale Price: $255000 QualifiedtUnqualified: QUALIFIED SALE 0 Taxpayer Information: RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Year Built: 1960 Above Grade Finished SQ FT: 1842 Plat Information; SUNRISE HILLS FIRST ADDITION Lot -012 Block -001 CARVER COUNTY GIS DATA DISCLAIMER: This data was created using CaNer Couns Geographic Infortnation System (GIS), it is a compilation of inforrnation and datafro. Ous County Offices. This data is not a legally recorded document and is intended to be used as a Ic reference. Carver County is not responsible for any ina=racies contained herein. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/08/2008 2:51 PM Receipt No. 0080521 CLERK: katie PAYEE: DZURIK CONSTRUCTION 5280 LAKE SARAH HEIGHTS DR LORETTO MN 55357 PETERS VARIANCE PLANNING CASE 08-19 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total ----------- 450.00 Cash 0.00 Check 56180 50.00 Check 56181 200.00 Check 56182 200.00 Change 0.00 SIAN"En DZURIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC City of Channhassen 0 Licenses and Permits recording fee 0915/2008 !j G't4 N L) 56180 Wells Fargo Peters Residence - Variance request 50.00 DZURIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. I City of Channhassen 0 0915/2008 56181 Licenses and Permits application fee 200.00 SCANNED Wells Fargo Peters residence Variance request 200.00 DZURIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. City of Channhassen 0 Licenses and Permits "Proposed... "Proposed *9/6/2008 sign" for Variance applicati 56182 200,00 Wells Fargo "Proposed... sign" for Variance application proce 200.00 0 0 PETERS VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 08-19 $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow $450 TOTAL Dzurik Construction Company, Inc. paid the following: $50 Check #56180 $200 Check #56181 $200 Check #56182 SCANNED CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DZURIK CONSTRUCTION CO. OF LOT 12, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS IST ADDITION CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING 5685+- S.F. HOUSE 2325+- S.F. DRIVE AND WALK 2142 DECK 305 PAVER PATIO 320 STONE STEPS AND WALL 13Y DECK lie LAKE STEPS & WALL 170 LOOSE STONE WALK 53 WELL COVER 25 BOULDER WALL 34 AIC PAD CONCRETE EDGING 22 PADS 14 STONE STEPS 51 TOTAL 6586+- S.F AREA OF LOT -237044. S.F. 5585/23704 x IW -23.66% HARDCOVER 08-277 0 20 40 60 80 .aaaaa.wawl SCALE IN FEET 10 0 60 PROPOSED HARDCOVER CHANGES NEW HARDCOVER TOTAL 5807+- S,F 65071237D4xl00=24 60% HARDCOVER A W, OR wk�-- 1< 0 4A: 0 0 0 0 0 .12 IST ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 12. Blook 1, SUNRISE HILLS I ST ADDITION This survey shows the boundaries of Me abo�e decribed prop", the c<tflim of an tocaling house, aid drl�ay Memon and all oMer Isible 'harccover' themon, and Me proposed location Of 0 proposed sun�, decit and steps- It does not purpoft to sfow any other Improvernents W enaoschmiffil. o : ron nwarker W Belialngs Mmw am bausal upon an assurneo catum Dartum: Minnewta DNR 0 0: w W 0 .ZMM L) z z z N LLT 0 LU 0 5x <w < 0 w Z 0>0 U) ILI MIT 0 N _j 0 LU Z _j M FD § L� Z z zwzo 0 =� 'x > I (L 5685+- S.F. REMOVE OLD DECK -305+- ADD NEW DECK, STEPS &SUNROOM +624+. SUBTRACT PAVER PATIO UNDER DECK -97+- NEW HARDCOVER TOTAL 5807+- S,F 65071237D4xl00=24 60% HARDCOVER A W, OR wk�-- 1< 0 4A: 0 0 0 0 0 .12 IST ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 12. Blook 1, SUNRISE HILLS I ST ADDITION This survey shows the boundaries of Me abo�e decribed prop", the c<tflim of an tocaling house, aid drl�ay Memon and all oMer Isible 'harccover' themon, and Me proposed location Of 0 proposed sun�, decit and steps- It does not purpoft to sfow any other Improvernents W enaoschmiffil. o : ron nwarker W Belialngs Mmw am bausal upon an assurneo catum Dartum: Minnewta DNR 0 0: w W 0 .ZMM L) z z z N LLT 0 LU 0 5x <w < 0 w Z 0>0 U) ILI MIT 0 N _j 0 LU Z _j M FD § L� Z z zwzo 0 =� 'x > I (L M!W "I �-Ix- 11 , 1; �e .. ' , . 1 1. . . I .4 AL oz -4 714 ,(� Am A AL L I 3 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DZURIK CONSTRUCTION CO. OF LOT 12, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA P% + X6 + 7 <0 %) \&N 0 AIC PAD CONCRETE EDGING 70. 3jl C& '0 0 20 40 60 80 W. 00 N PS E ING WALL moo 'PAVER 10 SCALE IN FEET G) 10, PROPOSED 10, 0 STEPS ..'VAG PADS e.. ST ESTEPS(TYP) W E 13312 STONE STEP I I .0 -TIO -f DI iST ILL V a F6 bO ED j�7 E 0 z SF ENTPERPLAT L, 0 LU UTILITY E L-0 L'U 0 > 5 W W z 0 z L01 W� tw- W 0 53 co Z< W= 411�/ z Uj (D W W ow; z W fL 0 '0 W W EL LV 00 � WW 0 LMLJ a. 0z UW) �'� 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lo 5 ZW LU ION W L) 0 Lot 12, Block 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1 ST ADDIT z 0 < W ='0 610 >- LU This survey shows the boundaries of the above decribed property, the location of an existing house > %1). LU W and driveway thereon, and all other visible "hardcover" thereon, and the proposed location of a W < W < proposed sunroom, deck and steps.. It does not purport to show any other improvements or 0 >- LU < z ca W m5w W encroachments. W a. W (0 a0z < M zz 0 LU o Iron marker set C) Ld Ld Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum 3:w y < 0 Datum: Minnesota DNR V) Q� CL Uj Uj HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING HOUSE 2325+- S.F. DRIVE AND WALK 2142 PROPOSED HARDCOVER CHANGES DECK 305 5585+- S.F. PAVER PATIO 320 STONE STEPS AND WALL BY DECK 116 REMOVE OLD DECK -305+- U� LAKE STEPS & WALL ADD NEW DECK, STEPS z lim 17Z & SUNROOM +624+- 0 < LOOSE STONE WALK 53 SUBTRACT PAVER PATIO — WELL COVER 26- UMDER DECK -97+- U� Of BOULDER WALL -34, > A/C PAD 41- NEW HARDCOVER TOTAL 5807+- S.F. L-1 CONCRETE EDGING -22- PADS 14 5t07/23704x100=24.50"% HARDCOVER STONE STEPS 61 2 - TOTAL 6585+- S.F. M AREA OF LOT=23704+- S.F. 2-7-- LU 5585123704 x 100=23.56% HARDCOVER < C� 08-277 ; 41'W6 '+ �� '0 L0 MW Lo -me Z UZI Lo 'T CO) Z 5 CL Z2 C2 'T UJ C3 z LLF 0) X W 0 LL 0 U>j- 0z U J ca zcx on,! LU LU z ca FZ3 LZL J Z Lu ;jo 0 ::2 L() 't X (L 0 CONCRETE EDGING 70. 3jl C& '0 0 20 40 60 80 W. 00 N PS E ING WALL moo 'PAVER 10 SCALE IN FEET G) 10, PROPOSED 10, 0 STEPS ..'VAG PADS e.. ST ESTEPS(TYP) W E 13312 STONE STEP I I .0 -TIO -f DI iST ILL V a F6 bO ED j�7 E 0 z SF ENTPERPLAT L, 0 LU UTILITY E L-0 L'U 0 > 5 W W z 0 z L01 W� tw- W 0 53 co Z< W= 411�/ z Uj (D W W ow; z W fL 0 '0 W W EL LV 00 � WW 0 LMLJ a. 0z UW) �'� 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lo 5 ZW LU ION W L) 0 Lot 12, Block 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1 ST ADDIT z 0 < W ='0 610 >- LU This survey shows the boundaries of the above decribed property, the location of an existing house > %1). LU W and driveway thereon, and all other visible "hardcover" thereon, and the proposed location of a W < W < proposed sunroom, deck and steps.. It does not purport to show any other improvements or 0 >- LU < z ca W m5w W encroachments. W a. W (0 a0z < M zz 0 LU o Iron marker set C) Ld Ld Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum 3:w y < 0 Datum: Minnesota DNR V) Q� CL Uj Uj HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING HOUSE 2325+- S.F. DRIVE AND WALK 2142 PROPOSED HARDCOVER CHANGES DECK 305 5585+- S.F. PAVER PATIO 320 STONE STEPS AND WALL BY DECK 116 REMOVE OLD DECK -305+- U� LAKE STEPS & WALL ADD NEW DECK, STEPS z lim 17Z & SUNROOM +624+- 0 < LOOSE STONE WALK 53 SUBTRACT PAVER PATIO — WELL COVER 26- UMDER DECK -97+- U� Of BOULDER WALL -34, > A/C PAD 41- NEW HARDCOVER TOTAL 5807+- S.F. L-1 CONCRETE EDGING -22- PADS 14 5t07/23704x100=24.50"% HARDCOVER STONE STEPS 61 2 - TOTAL 6585+- S.F. M AREA OF LOT=23704+- S.F. 2-7-- LU 5585123704 x 100=23.56% HARDCOVER < C� 08-277 ; 41'W6 '+ ��