The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-05_2017-05 VAR OWNER: AMBER PASSThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Shana N. Conklin Amy B.Schutt James J. Monge, III Jerome M. Porter Kurt S. Fischer l ), 1;1 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association April 5, 2017 Ms. Jenny Potter City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Miscellaneous Recorded Documens Dear Ms. Potter: Please find enclosed, for the City's files, the following documents which have been recorded with Carver County: 1. Variance 2017-02 recorded February 21, 2017 as document number A641618; 2. Encroachment Agreement with J&S Ventures 1 and Knoblauch Builders for property located at 260 Preserve Court, recorded March 9, 2017 as document number A642305; 3. Variance 2017-05 recorded March 20, 2017 as document number A642672; and 4. Encroachment Agreement with Justin and Jennifer Baggenstoss for property located at 658- Joshua Circle, recorded March 20, 2017 as document number A642673. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center 1 860 Blue Gentian Road Jean1 Suite 290, Eagan, \IN 55121 651452-5000 /jmo Fax 651-234-6237 www.ck-law-.com Enclosures 190708v2 Document No. A642672 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Recorded on -March 20. 2017 3 27 PM Fee: $46.00 IIII II III IIIII IIIDavid County 642672 Y Recorder CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MIINNESOTA VARIANCE 2017-05 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. 2. Propertv. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Block 1, Ithilien. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). b. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. c. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 7, 2017 SCANNED k ......... rr t. CFFY OF CHANHASSEN knm I , <�►� ,� D y Lauf urger, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 day of March arch 2017 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 NOTARY PUB IC 17— cK— CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Madsen and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Amber Pass Josh Kimber Erik Dale Liz Kozub Luke Thunberg Zhexin Zhang Jon Gilbert Joe Shamla Kaylene Thompson Marissa Weber 1392 Ithilien 2060 Majestic Way 1190 Lyman Boulevard 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. 1701 Mayapple Pass 1455 Bethesda 1641Jeurissen Lane 1691 Mayapple Pass 1802 Cotton Grass Court 1190 Lyman Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: 1392 ITHILIEN — VARIANCE REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. OWNER/APPLICANT: AMBER PASS. Walters: As mentioned this is Planning Case 2017-05. It's a variance request for 1392 Ithilien. The request is for a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. The applicant has stated the intent of the request is to address drainage issues on the property. The location is shown here. This is the Ithilien subdivision. Subdivided in 1992. Little bit of background. The house was built in 1993. In terms of permits '97 a permit was filed for the 120 square foot deck and then in '97 a pool and fence were approved on the property. In 2006 a zoning permit was approved for grading work on the property and we'll talk about the work that was done at that time later. Regarding what brings us before just a very brief case history is presented. Essentially Inspector Tessman was responding to a neighborhood report of potential construction going on without a permit. Issued a stop work order and in the case of addressing that we discovered that the property had likely exceeded it's hard cover due to various work done prior to pulling zoning permits. A more detailed timeline is contained in the staff report. So it's RSF, Residential Single Family district. Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Maximum zoning is 25 percent lot coverage. 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 10 foot side yard. Minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The parcel in question meets all the required setbacks. After stuffs calculated out it has 14,810 square foot lot so it is right about, a little bit below the usual minimum and it currently has 4,525 square feet of lot coverage for about 30.5 percent. There is some dispute about how much hard cover was pre-existing versus what's been added. Just so you know if it was held to the 25 percent standard for the district it would be limited to 3,702 square feet. The applicant has stated that the house had a pre-existing hard cover of 4,223 square feet. Staff using the 2006 survey has calculated that at 4,028. Round up 29 square feet of hard cover. Currently as mentioned it has 4,525 and they are requesting a variance to maintain that amount. Staffs recommendation is that a variance be granted for 4,224 square feet and we'll explain the rationale behind that in a bit. I should also mention the applicant would like it to be known that the property had about, a little under 800 square feet of impermeable poly around it on the landscaping. The City does consider that impervious surface. However in terms of establishing status as a non -conforming use, because the City was never aware of it and never approved it's installation it's not standard practice to credit that as a non -conforming use so that isn't typically grandfathered in. Essentially we consider what is pre-existing to be what the City knew about and approved at the last time. So to go over the hard cover that would have existing before the improvements were made, staff looked at different aerial photos going from the year 2000 to 2016 and we compared them to the 2006 survey that was on file. We could not detect any noticeable change in hard cover between 2000 and 2016 when the aerials were taken. You'll notice there's a thin concrete around the pool, slightly wider in that comer and a thin walkway connecting the pool and the patio in the 2000 aerial. This is the same as is shown in the 2006 survey. The 2005 aerial and the 2016 aerial. That's why staff feels pretty confident that what's shown in the 2006 survey is definitive for what was there historically and approved by the City. In terms of what hard cover has been added to the property, in the applicant's submitted packet they've indicated that a sidewalk was installed along the south side of the property. They installed 270 square feet of concrete. Removed approximately 16 square feet so that would be a 250 square foot increase in hard cover. They've stated that the driveway was replaced as is and that concrete in the back was replaced as is. When Engineering Technician Ferraro did the grading inspection he observed that it did not look like the rear patio area was at the same dimensions as the aerial photos he had seen. When staff went out to take pictures for this report we confirmed that the sidewalk is expanded as shown. However our observations indicate that bard cover was also increased in the rear patio around that narrow walkway we saw as well as quite a bit of hard cover here inbetween the pool and the house. If you'll look at the aerial you'll see the pool hard cover here had stopped right about at the beginning of the tree and as you can see in the photo it now stops much closer to the end of the tree. We don't know exactly how much was added. Best guess from the aerials would be about 140 to 160 square feet there. Maybe a little more. In terms of the drainage issues that the applicant is trying to address, there are some pretty well documented drainage issues for this property and through the neighborhood. In 2006 because of the very steep slope that you see here the original, I believe original homeowner but previous homeowner constructed an alley way to try to direct water to the back yard and then also constructed an alley way between the pool and the house and installed drain tile with the idea of capturing some of that runoff and diverting it out back. One of staff s, well 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 first of all the grading improvements conducted by the current owner are reinforcing that alley way. Building a dry creek bed with the goal of increasing infiltration and dealing with the standing water that was pooling in the back yard and then they also poured that southern sidewalk here to prevent water from going into the basement. Because that concrete was poured in this area around the pool staff is concerned that this interferes with the ability of the water to be moved to the backyard and runs the risk of pushing that onto neighboring properties and increasing their water issues. As mentioned the south sidewalk was designed to prevent water from infiltrating into the basement. Speaking with the Water Resources Coordinator staff is of the opinion that the sections along the basement are likely justified by the water issues the property has. We're of the opinion that about the section from the service door down, about 195 square feet of hard cover that was added are justified based on the unique conditions of the property. That steep slope and the potential for water to pool right along that basement there. Staff's initial recommendation when speaking with the applicant during the grading permit process had been that they hold off on re -pouring the driveway. Replace this section here with river rock and remove the installed patio area around the pool. That would have brought them to just a little bit over what was the historic non -conforming hard cover and we believe would have adequately addressed the drainage issue by allowing them to retain the sidewalk along the south of the property. In summary there is pre-existing hard cover that would be a non -conforming use on the property. Based on the 2006 survey staff calculated that out to be 27.2 percent so 2.2 percent over the residential district's 25 percent. Since then the hard cover has been expanded to 30 and a half percent. Staff does believe that a portion of the southern sidewalk is justified by the unique situation of the property with regard to the drainage and staff recommends that a partial variance be granted to accommodate this portion allowing the lot to have up to 28.5 percent hard cover. Staff is very concerned about the potential impact of properties to the north with the extra hard cover here essentially pushing water down that way onto the neighbor's properties. If you have any questions I would be happy to take them at this time. I know there was a lot of numbers and I can try to break them down as much as I can. Aller: Any questions based on the staffs presentation at this point? Randall: I guess I had one question for you. Is that considered a flat lot? Walters: So yes it is technically a flag lot. This case started before we passed the recent ordinance that would exclude the section here from the calculations. In this case because at the time the ordinance was silent staff chose not to treat it as a flag lot because it made the situation a little better for the applicant. Thus is a rare flag lot where the neck actually helps the property because it only has about, I think I calculated around 13 percent coverage within the neck so it helped you know kind of defray some of the hard cover from the pool. So because we had some discretion at the time I chose not to treat it as a hard lot. Cause less hard cover issues. Aller: Okay based on that response any additional questions? Hearing none if we can have the applicant step forward. Yes, now is time for your presentation so if you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: Okay my name is Amber Pass and my address is 1392 Ithilien. Aller: Welcome. Amber Pass: Thank you. So what I just want to share is that the area that you're recommending we take out, that was all polyurethane. Hard like not non -permeable polyurethane on top of there with rock and there was a lot more than that section that was, it was impervious surface when we went there and took that out along with a bunch of polyurethane and rock around the side of the house. It actually wrapped all the way over to that little square where the pool heater is so just in reference to worrying about water drainage for the neighbor. There was a lot more impervious surface there before that concrete pad. I know the neighbor's been concerned about it but there's a back story to that. I was greeted when I moved in with somebody putting stakes in along what he thought was the lot line my first week there and we had to have the yard surveyed and found out he was about 15 feet off and at that point things went downhill and calls came in to you guys. I did call the day the contractors were scheduled to come for concrete just to double check if I needed a permit and I was told by your office I did not need a permit to pour so I spent $30,000 re -landscaping this yard. Addressing water issues that I was not aware of when I bought the house last spring. I called the City. Additionally this area was all super thick hard plastic with rock so it's actually less than there was before so I guess I'm asking for a variance to keep this. The house was in really poor shape when we bought it. We did a really good job. We worked really hard on it. We had to obviously address the drainage issue on the side of the house because we were getting water in the basement which wasn't disclosed when we bought it and again that was already impervious surface so if anything it's going to be better for the neighbor because there's less impervious surface now than there was when I got there in that area. Plus I installed a beautiful dry creek bed in back where when we got to the house he couldn't even mow his lawn. They can actually mow back there. It was so wet so I just, I'm asking to leave my yard the way it is and not have to pay somebody to come back and tear out something. Aller: Any questions of the applicant? Weick: I do if that's okay. Alley: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Hi. Amber Pass: Hi. Weick: The area that's kind of in question here between the pool and the house, I notice there's a section of it that's kind of up against the deck and then there's home there. Does this new concrete area like the sidewalk help in any way with drainage away from the house? !1 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: If it does it would just kind of go towards the back of the lot where that dry creek bed is. Weick: Okay. Amber Pass: So and we actually had the yard graded really, really nicely so that, because everything would go back to that dry creek bed. The back story on me is my son spent 2 weeks in Children's because he was bit by a mosquito and got encephalitis of the brain so long story short we almost lost him so when we addressed this water issue it wasn't just for my yard. We didn't want standing water next door because that's how our son got sick and we're still dealing with the ramifications of that illness so we took care of the water issues. Weick: One other question if that's okay. I'm also looking at, I'm on page 9 of I 1 in the report. Maybe the image. Yeah it's this image here in the lower right. As you look to the north where the fence is it looks to me like it's higher than your pool. Does the property go up there? Is there kind of Amber Pass: Yeah there's a big like this along the back of our property down to our neighbors and it kind of just tapers off and that's where we put in that creek bed. I mean it goes the span of our entire back yard. Really nice big thick moss. Weick: And then my reason for that question is to wonder if there is a concern for increased runoff in the north direction. It doesn't look, it looks to me like there's natural boundaries from that going straight north into the property. That's what I'm trying to figure out but thank you. Amber Pass: Thank you. Weick: For your clarification. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Alright, thank you very much. Amber Pass: Thank you. Aller: At this point we'll open up the public hearing portion of the item and ask for any individual who wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the request for the variance, they can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion and comment. Randall: I guess I kind of, I should have asked how much that new ordinance benefits the applicant. Walters: You're referring to the classification of flag lots? Essentially the area within the flag would be excluded from both the hard cover calculations and lot area calculations. As I Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 indicated because in this case the flag portion is below the 25 percent it would bounce their hard cover higher. Randall: Okay. Walters: Oh I'm afraid I don't have the numbers for that off. Randall: That's okay. Aller: Thoughts? Yusuf: Are there any other options because it seems like? Aller: Well it's been done so the question becomes whether or not we're going to reduce it which would require some movement on their part to remove, to come down to a certain extent or whether or not it would remain the same as the request. Weick: I mean I don't know. In my opinion I'm convinced that there was some type of impervious surface in that area so it was kind of moved from one to another. I'm not wholly convinced that there's an immediate threat to the directly to the north because of the way that, I am familiar with those properties and they do funnel down to the back and there's, I don't know what to call it. I mean they made it a dry creek bed but it extends beyond that you know down the length of these homes. Kind of along that tree line that's back there so I, I struggle with this one because it's you know clearly there have been renovations made to improve pretty tough condition on that property. Not just with water draining in the basement but also pooling in the back yard which all have been fixed which I think is good. And I'm not wholly convinced that that small section that's in question is significantly going to change from past water drainage on the property. Aller: I think when I first read the report I was thinking of course of the old adage about requesting forgiveness instead of permission and sat back and said how am I going to treat this and how am I going to view it and so I wanted to view it in a way that if it came forward today, not having a history which is why I didn't ask any questions on the history, what would I do and so I think for the purposes of accepting the report and the facts in the report and the facts as stated I'm certainly willing to look at the modified and my only concern and question is the additional so I'm happy certainly with the recommended. Staffs recommendation at the 28 percent but I'm not, that's where I'm struggling. The 28 to the 30 and knowing that they got the benefit of the flag lot had they come forward today they actually probably would be receiving less unless there was a real hardship. And in looking at a variance we're supposed to apply the least onerous modification because otherwise we're kind of opening Pandora's Box for anyone that wants a variance to say well you gave them an additional 100 feet. I would like additional 200 feet and then pretty soon we're giving away the store and we're creating a situation where Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 our planning isn't effective. So if anybody has some comments that can help me one way or another on that additional square footage that would be great. Yusuf Well I think I'm on the same page as you are. I think it makes sense to support the 28.5 but it's hard to get to 30.5 and justify that. Amber Pass made comments from the audience that were not picked up by the microphone. Aller: And I'm not discounting what you said as a fact. That's why I wasn't really. Amber Pass: ...I wouldn't have paid for that and now paying the money to tear it out you know. It would have been nice to have someone come out... Randall: So one question too on the part of the driveway. How much does that lower the percentage? Walters: I'm afraid I'd have to run those numbers because I'd have to measure out that section of the lot and then that subsection of the driveway and I apologize I did not think to do those calculations. Randall: That's fine. Is that a fairly big section? Walters: It's not huge no. I mean if you look at the map you'd essentially have this triangle here. Randall: I guess not that. The part that we talked about right here in the back side to cut down the hard. Walters: Oh, that section. You're talking about the turn around bump out and about the first third here? Randall: Yeah. Walters: Memory tells me that worked out to about, it was going to be like 150 to 180 square foot range. Somewhere in there. Randall: Okay. Would that be, how do got to figure out how much that would take off the percentage? Just that one section. Weick: You talking about the driveway? Randall: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Aller: And I would tack onto that and ask what direction the water flow or what impact would that have for purposes of? Walters: My memory of the grading is that the water coming here essentially you know runs down the driveway into the street and then the issue is what hits here. The grading plan from, you know talking with the Water Resources Coordinator and Engineering Technician Ferraro who did the grading permit and that inspection, as was mentioned filling is meant for everything to pull to this north and then run down here. That's one of the reasons why if you look at the, so if you look at the 2006 grading plan they didn't do any work up here because that water again supposed to, the plan is that it hits the driveway and goes down here. It goes here. It was supposed to be just through the natural slope and the alley way brought it to the back yard and then here it was supposed to be directed from there into the drain tile and conveyed into that section back here and through. So that was the you know original grading plan for the area. Or my understanding of it from conversations I've had. Randall: Okay. I was just wondering like because that's not, that recommendation that you had for that one little area there to take that out, if that would change a lot of the percentage for them. Amber Pass: I would be willing to do that. To take out that back part of the driveway if I have to do something. Walters: Sony I'm going the wrong direction aren't I? Yeah that was our, again when Engineering Technician Ferraro and I first spoke with the applicants and when he went out into the field visit it was our belief that they would not even need a variance if this section of the sidewalk was retained. This patio and this driveway was removed. At the time, if memory serves me right the driveway had not been poured. Amber Pass: It's poured but I would rather, I mean I would like to leave the patio intact because I guess before that was all, there was a lot more ... all the way around that. Aanenson: Chairman if you could have the applicant step up to the microphone, sorry. Aller: Yeah please. I'm sorry. Aanenson: It's hard to hear. Amber Pass: I'm sorry. Aanenson: That's alright. Amber Pass: I would, I mean if we have to take something out I would be, I mean if that's what we have to do I'd be open to take the driveway out but like I said that whole area was rock all the way over to the pool heater before with thick black stuff under it so there's actually now sod Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 between there and our patio where there was even rock and stuff but maybe with taking out the driveway that would get it to the point where you guys are comfortable. Walters: Unfortunately you know we don't have a good registered land survey of exactly was there before. Aller: Right. Walters: From the aerials you can see the rock section in that lighter brown here and here. The section here where the patio is, to my eye is a green. Amber Pass: It wasn't. It was rock with some bushes in it. Aller: Okay. Randall: I was hoping that that would be a compromise... Aller: Well I'm just wondering whether or not if there's, I'm not looking for a compromise. I'm looking for what direction that water's going and whether or not we can, I mean the whole purpose of a variance is to correct this hardship and I do agree there was a hardship and I do agree that there's a benefit and I think the City does as well so, so I'm not removing the top of the driveway is going to make a difference and that's why. Weick: To that point though I don't, in my opinion I don't think removing the patio makes a difference either personally. I don't. Aller: Well I think that that would be the case but I'm comfortable with the fact that, the facts as I would come to them I believe there was some polyurethane there and some rocks and potentially we should give the benefit of the doubt there so I just want to make sure that the water for this property as well as the neighbors that may be impacted and that's where my shift is. That's where I want to know whether or not there's going to be water going somewhere else where we're creating a problem by trying to fix one and that's what I'm focusing on at this point. So my big question is will removing any of that driveway be a betterment as far as stormwater drainage for the neighboring properties? And if not I'd just as soon leave it. If it is then I would say, if it was performing before, before it was poured I would say leave it out. Undestad: MacKenzie how, again you just had a rough idea. It was 150, 60 square feet of that driveway? Walters: Yeah. Undestad: On that end. W Chanhassen Planning Commission —March 7, 2017 Walters: Gut check 180'isb at most. 160 on the low end for that section of the driveway plus the concrete up to the service door. Undestad: And if they take that out, going backwards on the numbers again but what percentage does that put them at if they take 180 out of the driveway there? Walters: Well I'd have to grab a calculator but it'd be. Undestad: It just looks to me like the grades on the back there, everything kind of, it does, I mean it doesn't go straight north as you can see by the topography they have there. It kind of kicks down the hill a little bit there but the other thing I'm thinking is taking out that patio down there, you know how much turf and how much is going to get ruined to get down in there to pull that out and what is going to do when we start tearing all that concrete out where I was just trying to see if there was a way to, you know if the driveway removal, if the applicant's okay with that. If that gets us closer to not doing too much damage in the back yard again. Walters: The driveway would move you to sorry, 29.3 percent. Aller: Any additional questions or comments or concerns or I will entertain a motion from anybody that's thinking about making one. Weick: The total amount is? I mean I'd make a motion but I don't think it's. Aller: Well you can start it and tell us what your idea is and then we'll go from there. Weick: Well I personally would, I would. Aller: Well you're going to make a motion. Weick: I will make a motion then. Aller: To? Weick: I would make a motion to increase the hard cover by 5 '/2 percent to 30.5 percent. So maintaining. So increasing the variance by 5 '/2 percent. Aller: So what does that do to the original motion? Or the potential to do. Weick: Well it wouldn't be a partial variance. It would be a full variance. Aller: So the full variance is the 3.5 percent? Weick: The full would be 5.5 percent. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Walters: Yep. So instead of reading what's on the screen you would just a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. Aller: Is that your motion? Weick: Well I haven't technically made it. Aller: Right, I got you. And at that 29.3 percent hard cover that would be an addition of what? Weick: 4.3. Aller: 4.3. Weick: And I would also be okay with that if there was a preference to do that. Aller: Anyone? So I mean I certainly can support the 4.3 right now if somebody has, I mean we can vote on it or have further discussion after the motion's made. Yusuf: Can we just have one quick discussion? Aller: Absolutely. Yusuf: Mark you wanted to share some opinions on how much work or effort it would take to do some tearing up in the back yard and would that do more damage? Or how significant. Undestad: Well I think it would but I think the track that we're looking at on the driveway is you know the give and take and it helps as much as we can without going into the back yard and doing damage so. Yusuf. Okay, thank you. Aller: So is there anybody that wouldn't support a motion for 4.3 at this point? Hearing none is there a strong argument. Weick: Would we have to amend? Alley: No you can just make a, because we haven't made one yet. Weick: Okay. Aller. And we would just modify that to the. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Weick: Because how that's achieved is up to the homeowner. Okay. Aller: Well it would be the driveway so. So I'll still entertain a motion. Weick: I'll propose a motion. Alley: We need a formal motion to act. Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. Aller: Go ahead, to address. Weick: To address drainage issues on 1392 Ithilien subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Okay, so now I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf. Second. Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion to modify the motion at all or to amend or viewpoints? I think we've discussed. I think everybody's fairly confident with this so. Weick moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AUAR — PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE AVIENDA ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW AVIENDA (SUBJECT OF THE AUAR) IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD. 12 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Madsen and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Stephanie Smith, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Amber Pass Josh Kimber Erik Dale Liz Kozub Luke Thunberg Zhexin Zhang Jon Gilbert Joe Shamla Kaylene Thompson Marissa Weber 1392 Ithilien 2060 Majestic Way 1190 Lyman Boulevard 8661 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. 1701 Mayapple Pass 1455 Bethesda 1641 Jeurissen Lane 1691 Mayapple Pass 1802 Cotton Grass Court 1190 Lyman Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: 1392 ITHILIEN — VARIANCE REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. OWNER/APPLICANT: AMBER PASS. Walters: As mentioned this is Planning Case 2017-05. It's a variance request for 1392 Ithilien. The request is for a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. The applicant has stated the intent of the request is to address drainage issues on the property. The location is shown here. This is the Ithilien subdivision. Subdivided in 1992. Little bit of background. The house was built in 1993. In terms of permits '97 a permit was filed for the 120 square foot deck and then in '97 a pool and fence were approved on the property. In 2006 a zoning permit was approved for grading work on the property and we'll talk about the work that was done at that time later. Regarding what brings us before just a very brief case history is presented. Essentially Inspector Tessman was responding to a neighborhood report of potential construction going on without a permit. Issued a stop work order and in the case of addressing that we discovered that the property had likely exceeded it's hard cover due to various work done prior to pulling zoning permits. A more detailed timeline is contained in the staff report. So it's RSF, Residential Single Family district. Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Maximum zoning is 25 percent lot coverage. 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 10 foot side yard. Minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The parcel in question meets all the required setbacks. After stuffs calculated out it has 14,810 square foot lot so it is right about, a little bit below the usual minimum and it currently has 4,525 square feet of lot coverage for about 30.5 percent. There is some dispute about how much hard cover was pre-existing versus what's been added. Just so you know if it was held to the 25 percent standard for the district it would be limited to 3,702 square feet. The applicant has stated that the house had a pre-existing hard cover of 4,223 square feet. Staff using the 2006 survey has calculated that at 4,028. Round up 29 square feet of hard cover. Currently as mentioned it has 4,525 and they are requesting a variance to maintain that amount. Staff's recommendation is that a variance be granted for 4,224 square feet and we'll explain the rationale behind that in a bit. I should also mention the applicant would like it to be known that the property had about, a little under 800 square feet of impermeable poly around it on the landscaping. The City does consider that impervious surface. However in terms of establishing status as a non -conforming use, because the City was never aware of it and never approved it's installation it's not standard practice to credit that as a non -conforming use so that isn't typically grandfathered in. Essentially we consider what is pre-existing to be what the City knew about and approved at the last time. So to go over the hard cover that would have existing before the improvements were made, staff looked at different aerial photos going from the year 2000 to 2016 and we compared them to the 2006 survey that was on file. We could not detect any noticeable change in hard cover between 2000 and 2016 when the aerials were taken. You'll notice there's a thin concrete around the pool, slightly wider in that corner and a thin walkway connecting the pool and the patio in the 2000 aerial. This is the same as is shown in the 2006 survey. The 2005 aerial and the 2016 aerial. That's why staff feels pretty confident that what's shown in the 2006 survey is definitive for what was there historically and approved by the City. In terms of what hard cover has been added to the property, in the applicant's submitted packet they've indicated that a sidewalk was installed along the south side of the property. They installed 270 square feet of concrete. Removed approximately 16 square feet so that would be a 250 square foot increase in hard cover. They've stated that the driveway was replaced as is and that concrete in the back was replaced as is. When Engineering Technician Ferraro did the grading inspection he observed that it did not look like the rear patio area was at the same dimensions as the aerial photos he had seen. When staff went out to take pictures for this report we confirmed that the sidewalk is expanded as shown. However our observations indicate that hard cover was also increased in the rear patio around that narrow walkway we saw as well as quite a bit of hard cover here inbetween the pool and the house. If you'll look at the aerial you'll see the pool hard cover here had stopped right about at the beginning of the tree and as you can see in the photo it now stops much closer to the end of the tree. We don't know exactly how much was added. Best guess from the aerials would be about 140 to 160 square feet there. Maybe a little more. In terms of the drainage issues that the applicant is trying to address, there are some pretty well documented drainage issues for this property and through the neighborhood. In 2006 because of the very steep slope that you see here the original, I believe original homeowner but previous homeowner constructed an alley way to try to direct water to the back Yard and then also constructed an alley way between the pool and the house and installed drain tile with the idea of capturing some of that runoff and diverting it out back. One of staff s, well 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 first of all the grading improvements conducted by the current owner are reinforcing that alley way. Building a dry creek bed with the goal of increasing infiltration and dealing with the standing water that was pooling in the back yard and then they also poured that southern sidewalk here to prevent water from going into the basement. Because that concrete was poured in this area around the pool staff is concerned that this interferes with the ability of the water to be moved to the back yard and runs the risk of pushing that onto neighboring properties and increasing their water issues. As mentioned the south sidewalk was designed to prevent water from infiltrating into the basement. Speaking with the Water Resources Coordinator staff is of the opinion that the sections along the basement are likely justified by the water issues the property has. We're of the opinion that about the section from the service door down, about 195 square feet of hard cover that was added are justified based on the unique conditions of the property. That steep slope and the potential for water to pool right along that basement there. Staff's initial recommendation when speaking with the applicant during the grading permit process had been that they hold off on re -pouring the driveway. Replace this section here with river rock and remove the installed patio area around the pool. That would have brought them to just a little bit over what was the historic non -conforming hard cover and we believe would have adequately addressed the drainage issue by allowing them to retain the sidewalk along the south of the property. In summary there is pre-existing hard cover that would be a non -conforming use on the property. Based on the 2006 survey staff calculated that out to be 27.2 percent so 2.2 percent over the residential district's 25 percent. Since then the hard cover has been expanded to 30 and a half percent. Staff does believe that a portion of the southern sidewalk is justified by the unique situation of the property with regard to the drainage and staff recommends that a partial variance be granted to accommodate this portion allowing the lot to have up to 28.5 percent hard cover. Staff is very concerned about the potential impact of properties to the north with the extra hard cover here essentially pushing water down that way onto the neighbor's properties. If you have any questions I would be happy to take them at this time. I know there was a lot of numbers and I can try to break them down as much as I can. Aller: Any questions based on the staffs presentation at this point? Randall: I guess I had one question for you. Is that considered a flat lot? Walters: So yes it is technically a flag lot. This case started before we passed the recent ordinance that would exclude the section here from the calculations. In this case because at the time the ordinance was silent staff chose not to treat it as a flag lot because it made the situation a little better for the applicant. This is a rare flag lot where the neck actually helps the property because it only has about, I think I calculated around 13 percent coverage within the neck so it helped you know kind of defray some of the hard cover from the pool. So because we had some discretion at the time I chose not to treat it as a hard lot. Cause less hard cover issues. Aller: Okay based on that response any additional questions? Hearing none if we can have the applicant step forward. Yes, now is time for your presentation so if you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: Okay my name is Amber Pass and my address is 1392 Ithilien. Aller: Welcome. Amber Pass: 'Thank you. So what I just want to share is that the area that you're recommending we take out, that was all polyurethane. Hard like not non -permeable polyurethane on top of there with rock and there was a lot more than that section that was, it was impervious surface when we went there and took that out along with a bunch of polyurethane and rock around the side of the house. It actually wrapped all the way over to that little square where the pool heater is so just in reference to worrying about water drainage for the neighbor. There was a lot more impervious surface there before that concrete pad. I know the neighbor's been concerned about it but there's a back story to that. I was greeted when I moved in with somebody putting stakes in along what he thought was the lot line my first week there and we had to have the yard surveyed and found out he was about 15 feet off and at that point things went downhill and calls came in to you guys. I did call the day the contractors were scheduled to come for concrete just to double check if I needed a permit and I was told by your office I did not need a permit to pour so I spent $30,000 re -landscaping this yard. Addressing water issues that I was not aware of when I bought the house last spring. I called the City. Additionally this area was all super thick hard plastic with rock so it's actually less than there was before so I guess I'm asking for a variance to keep this. The house was in really poor shape when we bought it. We did a really good job. We worked really hard on it. We had to obviously address the drainage issue on the side of the house because we were getting water in the basement which wasn't disclosed when we bought it and again that was already impervious surface so if anything it's going to be better for the neighbor because there's less impervious surface now than there was when I got there in that area. Plus I installed a beautiful dry creek bed in back where when we got to the house he couldn't even mow his lawn. They can actually mow back there. It was so wet so I just, I'm asking to leave my yard the way it is and not have to pay somebody to come back and tear out something. Aller: Any questions of the applicant? Weick: I do if that's okay. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Hi. Amber Pass: Hi. Weick: The area that's kind of in question here between the pool and the house, I notice there's a section of it that's kind of up against the deck and then there's home there. Does this new concrete area like the sidewalk help in any way with drainage away from the house? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Amber Pass: If it does it would just kind of go towards the back of the lot where that dry creek bed is. Weick: Okay. Amber Pass: So and we actually had the yard graded really, really nicely so that, because everything would go back to that dry creek bed. The back story on me is my son spent 2 weeks in Children's because he was bit by a mosquito and got encephalitis of the brain so long story short we almost lost him so when we addressed this water issue it wasn't just for my yard. We didn't want standing water next door because that's how our son got sick and we're still dealing with the ramifications of that illness so we took care of the water issues. Weick: One other question if that's okay. I'm also looking at, I'm on page 9 of 11 in the report. Maybe the image. Yeah it's this image here in the lower right. As you look to the north where the fence is it looks to me like it's higher than your pool. Does the property go up there? Is there kind of. Amber Pass: Yeah there's a big like this along the back of our property down to our neighbors and it kind of just tapers off and that's where we put in that creek bed. I mean it goes the span of our entire back yard. Really nice big thick moss. Weick: And then my reason for that question is to wonder if there is a concern for increased runoff in the north direction. It doesn't look, it looks to me like there's natural boundaries from that going straight north into the property. That's what I'm trying to figure out but thank you. Amber Pass: Thank you. Weick: For your clarification. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Alright, thank you very much. Amber Pass: Thank you. Aller: At this point we'll open up the public hearing portion of the item and ask for any individual who wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the request for the variance, they can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion and comment. Randall: I guess I kind of, I should have asked how much that new ordinance benefits the applicant. Walters: You're referring to the classification of flag lots? Essentially the area within the flag would be excluded from both the hard cover calculations and lot area calculations. As I Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 indicated because in this case the flag portion is below the 25 percent it would bounce their hard cover higher. Randall: Okay. Walters: Oh I'm afraid I don't have the numbers for that off. Randall: Tbat's okay. Aller: Thoughts? Yusuf: Are there any other options because it seems like? Aller: Well it's been done so the question becomes whether or not we're going to reduce it which would require some movement on their part to remove, to come down to a certain extent or whether or not it would remain the same as the request. Weick: I mean I don't know. In my opinion I'm convinced that there was some type of impervious surface in that area so it was kind of moved from one to another. I'm not wholly convinced that there's an immediate threat to the directly to the north because of the way that, I am familiar with those properties and they do funnel down to the back and there's, I don't know what to call it. I mean they made it a dry creek bed but it extends beyond that you know down the length of these homes. Kind of along that tree line that's back there so I, I struggle with this one because it's you know clearly there have been renovations made to improve pretty tough condition on that property. Not just with water draining in the basement but also pooling in the back yard which all have been fixed which I think is good. And I'm not wholly convinced that that small section that's in question is significantly going to change from past water drainage on the property. Aller: I think when I first read the report I was thinking of course of the old adage about requesting forgiveness instead of permission and sat back and said how am I going to treat this and how am I going to view it and so I wanted to view it in a way that if it came forward today, not having a history which is why I didn't ask any questions on the history, what would I do and so I think for the purposes of accepting the report and the facts in the report and the facts as stated I'm certainly willing to look at the modified and my only concern and question is the additional so I'm happy certainly with the recommended. Staffs recommendation at the 28 percent but I'm not, that's where I'm struggling. The 28 to the 30 and knowing that they got the benefit of the flag lot had they come forward today they actually probably would be receiving less unless there was a real hardship. And in looking at a variance we're supposed to apply the least onerous modification because otherwise we're kind of opening Pandora's Box for anyone that wants a variance to say well you gave them an additional 100 feet. I would like additional 200 feet and then pretty soon we're giving away the store and we're creating a situation where Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 our planning isn't effective. So if anybody has some comments that can help me one way or another on that additional square footage that would be great. Yusuf: Well I think I'm on the same page as you are. I think it makes sense to support the 28.5 but it's hard to get to 30.5 and justify that. Amber Pass made comments from the audience that were not picked up by the microphone. Aller: And I'm not discounting what you said as a fact. That's why I wasn't really. Amber Pass: ...I wouldn't have paid for that and now paying the money to tear it out you know. It would have been nice to have someone come out... Randall: So one question too on the part of the driveway. How much does that lower the percentage? Walters: I'm afraid I'd have to run those numbers because I'd have to measure out that section of the lot and then that subsection of the driveway and I apologize I did not think to do those calculations. Randall: Tbat's fine. Is that a fairly big section? Walters: It's not huge no. I mean if you look at the map you'd essentially have this triangle here. Randall: I guess not that. The part that we talked about right here in the back side to cut down the hard. Walters: Oh, that section. You're talking about the turn around bump out and about the first third here? Randall: Yeah. Walters: Memory tells me that worked out to about, it was going to be like 150 to 180 square foot range. Somewhere in there. Randall: Okay. Would that be, how do got to figure out how much that would take off the percentage? Just that one section. Weick: You talking about the driveway? Randall: Yeah. G] Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Aller: And I would tack onto that and ask what direction the water flow or what impact would that have for proposes of? Walters: My memory of the grading is that the water coming here essentially you know runs down the driveway into the street and then the issue is what hits here. The grading plan from, you know talking with the Water Resources Coordinator and Engineering Technician Ferraro who did the grading permit and that inspection, as was mentioned filling is meant for everything to pull to this north and then run down here. That's one of the reasons why if you look at the, so if you look at the 2006 grading plan they didn't do any work up here because that water again supposed to, the plan is that it hits the driveway and goes down here. It goes here. It was supposed to be just through the natural slope and the alley way brought it to the back yard and then here it was supposed to be directed from there into the drain tile and conveyed into that section back here and through. So that was the you know original grading plan for the area. Or my understanding of it from conversations I've had. Randall: Okay. I was just wondering like because that's not, that recommendation that you had for that one little area there to take that out, if that would change a lot of the percentage for them. Amber Pass: I would be willing to do that. To take out that back part of the driveway if I have to do something. Walters: Sorry I'm going the wrong direction aren't I? Yeah that was our, again when Engineering Technician Ferraro and I first spoke with the applicants and when he went out into the field visit it was our belief that they would not even need a variance if this section of the sidewalk was retained. This patio and this driveway was removed. At the time, if memory serves me right the driveway had not been poured. Amber Pass: It's poured but I would rather, I mean I would like to leave the patio intact because I guess before that was all, there was a lot more ... all the way around that. Aanenson: Chairman if you could have the applicant step up to the microphone, sorry. Aller: Yeah please. I'm sorry. Aanenson: It's hard to hear. Amber Pass: I'm sorry. Aanenson: That's alright. Amber Pass: I would, I mean if we have to take something out I would be, I mean if that's what we have to do I'd be open to take the driveway out but like I said that whole area was rock all the way over to the pool heater before with thick black stuff under it so there's actually now sod Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 between there and our patio where there was even rock and stuff but maybe with taking out the driveway that would get it to the point where you guys are comfortable. Walters: Unfortunately you know we don't have a good registered land survey of exactly was there before. Aller: Right. Walters: From the aerials you can see the rock section in that lighter brown here and here. The section here where the patio is, to my eye is a green. Amber Pass: It wasn't. It was rock with some bushes in it. Aller: Okay. Randall: I was hoping that that would be a compromise... Aller: Well I'm just wondering whether or not if there's, I'm not looking for a compromise. I'm looking for what direction that water's going and whether or not we can, I mean the whole purpose of a variance is to correct this hardship and I do agree there was a hardship and I do agree that there's a benefit and I think the City does as well so, so I'm not removing the top of the driveway is going to make a difference and that's why. Weick: To that point though I don't, in my opinion I don't think removing the patio makes a difference either personally. I don't. Alley: Well I think that that would be the case but I'm comfortable with the fact that, the facts as I would come to them I believe there was some polyurethane there and some rocks and potentially we should give the benefit of the doubt there so I just want to make sure that the water for this property as well as the neighbors that may be impacted and that's where my shift is. That's where I want to know whether or not there's going to be water going somewhere else where we're creating a problem by trying to fix one and that's what I'm focusing on at this point. So my big question is will removing any of that driveway be a betterment as far as stormwater drainage for the neighboring properties? And if not I'd just as soon leave it. If it is then I would say, if it was performing before, before it was poured I would say leave it out. Undestad: MacKenzie how, again you just bad a rough idea. It was 150, 60 square feet of that driveway? Walters: Yeah. Undestad: On that end. W Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Walters: Gut check 180'ish at most. 160 on the low end for that section of the driveway plus the concrete up to the service door. Undestad: And if they take that out, going backwards on the numbers again but what percentage does that put them at if they take 180 out of the driveway there? Walters: Well I'd have to grab a calculator but it'd be. Undestad: It just looks to me like the grades on the back there, everything kind of, it does, I mean it doesn't go straight north as you can see by the topography they have there. It kind of kicks down the hill a little bit there but the other thing I'm thinking is taking out that patio down there, you know how much turf and bow much is going to get ruined to get down in there to pull that out and what is going to do when we start tearing all that concrete out where I was just trying to see if there was a way to, you know if the driveway removal, if the applicant's okay with that. If that gets us closer to not doing too much damage in the back yard again. Walters: The driveway would move you to sorry, 29.3 percent. Aller: Any additional questions or comments or concerns or I will entertain a motion from anybody that's thinking about making one. Weick: The total amount is? I mean I'd make a motion but I don't think it's. Aller: Well you can start it and tell us what your idea is and then we'll go from there. Weick: Well I personally would, I would. Aller: Well you're going to make a motion. Weick: I will make a motion then. Aller: To? Weick: I would make a motion to increase the hard cover by 5 'h percent to 30.5 percent. So maintaining. So increasing the variance by 5 'h percent. Aller: So what does that do to the original motion? Or the potential to do. Weick: Well it wouldn't be a partial variance. It would be a full variance. Aller: So the full variance is the 3.5 percent? Weick: The full would be 5.5 percent. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Walters: Yep. So instead of reading what's on the screen you would just a 5.5 percent hard cover variance. Aller: Is that your motion? Weick: Well I haven't technically made it. Aller: Right, I got you. And at that 29.3 percent hard cover that would be an addition of what? Weick: 4.3. Aller: 4.3. Weick: And I would also be okay with that if there was a preference to do that. Aller: Anyone? So I mean I certainly can support the 4.3 right now if somebody has, I mean we can vote on it or have further discussion after the motion's made. Yusuf: Can we just have one quick discussion? Aller: Absolutely, Yusuf: Mark you wanted to share some opinions on how much work or effort it would take to do some tearing up in the back yard and would that do more damage? Or how significant. Undestad: Well I think it would but I think the track that we're looking at on the driveway is you know the give and take and it helps as much as we can without going into the back yard and doing damage so. Yusuf: Okay, thank you. Aller: So is there anybody that wouldn't support a motion for 4.3 at this point? Hearing none is there a strong argument. Weick: Would we have to amend? Aller: No you can just make a, because we haven't made one yet. Weick: Okay. Aller: And we would just modify that to the. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 7, 2017 Weick: Because how that's achieved is up to the homeowner. Okay. Aller: Well it would be the driveway so. So I'll still entertain a motion. Weick: I'll propose a motion. Aller: We need a formal motion to act. Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. Aller: Go ahead, to address. Weick: To address drainage issues on 1392 Ithilien subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Okay, so now I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf. Second. Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion to modify the motion at all or to amend or viewpoints? I think we've discussed. I think everybody's fairly confident with this so. Weick moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance request to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AUAR — PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE AVIENDA ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW AVIENDA (SUBJECT OF THE AUAR) IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD. 12 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider a variance for impervious surface for property located at 1392 Ithilian. Applicant. Amber Pass Property 13921thilien 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 What Happ ns public hearing through the following steps: at the Meet�lg: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Questions & Walters by email at mwalters(aci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWT Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments. Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested Party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments lake a simple majority vote of the City Counal except razonings and land use amendments from residential to commem101/Industrial. • Minnesota Stale 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 Deck with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonimpresentaeve is encouraged to provide a contact for city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be, included in the report, ease contact the Planning Staff pension named on the noUlcatich. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, trackir any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or prec in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found ph contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minne Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agreE defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brcutiaby l its employees or agents, or third games which anse out of the users ac'e5s or u, data provided. 55:k—A3 viftploft A3 �h CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.ain.us 9�P`eS PDST � PITNEY Bee'ES 02 1 P $ 000.460 000319.5036 FEB 23 2017 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE: 55317 mw rw �Avu�.. =AIL 31 a _ V 0 0 4 1 RETURN TO SENDER N-- -- —i— -AS L E A D 01 E CSGf1 6C: 553i76147.-s7 `iiie-SnS i5-28-iT )rvi irnrriiitli t1{u111t1(111111111 It!1,,!.11, 11111r tril Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:Ob P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider a variance for impervious surface for property located at 1392 Ithilian. Applicant: Amber Pass Property 13921thilien Location: A location map is on the reverse aide 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 Wthe Meeti at �g' 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Questions 8 Walters by email at mwalters(fti.chanhassen.mmus or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWT Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a Public hewing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 5W feet of the subject site to be notified of Me application in writing. Any interested pang is invited to attend the meeting. • Start 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 pan of the hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to Me 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 razoninge and land use amendments from residential to commercial/mdustri • Minnesota State Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within SO days unless Me applicant waives Nis 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 statue and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersoNrepresentative 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 heabrg, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any ocnespondence regarding the application will be included in" report to the City Council. B you wish to have something to be induced in the report. lease contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracki any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or prey in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found p contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minno Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that tht shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agre defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by I its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the users adeese-or u data provided. 5 5 3 17 > 014 7 SS331+9062 k17 n i 7Y OF WHASSEN 00 Market Boulevard I. Box 147 anhassen, Minnesota 55317 nu.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 02 IF "'-$ 000AV 0003195036 FEB 232017 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 YG>LE 3 3 a 7E i 'QBtL�=mot= RETURN TO SENDER MnnNI T%1=0&Ri F LG ADDRESSED C TIC 4fRCA OL_ i3_J l%01M%M% i"G011�1bc�a�LZ-y13- III It III I r s IIII 11 I I r III III I I 11I' I"" I I III" 1' 1' j Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until 'agenda. ' later in the evening, depending on the orde} of the Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider a variance for impervious surface for property located at 1392 Ithilian. Applicant: Amber Pass Property 13921thilien 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 What Happens public hear: c through the following steps: at 1. Staff wii, ve an overview of the proposed project. the Meet rig 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from;,thepublic. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Questions & Walters by email at mwalters*ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses. Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 600 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 pan 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 razonings and land use amendments Rom residential to cammercialfindusmal. • 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 waning 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 spokespersoNrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meat with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persoms). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hashing, the City Council time not. Minutes are taken and any conespondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Councilr you wish to have somedhing tow included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff pension named on the nobliution. wYYi•f 4<SC•<vl- i{j CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant Nat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and -u1e City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision N 7 x i F- in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City N O T shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents or third rti hick 1S 4 N(r '1 y�Ptss PN � pITNEY BOWE9 021 P $ 000.460 0003195036 FEB 232017 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 o . .�rL�oi: Tv DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD data provided. pa es w arise out of the users access or use of ^ _ * 1 7 A- — ^_. ^ = S - - SS3ii1-7& 1 4$!_ j,11,iit4• . CITY OF C HANHASSE N Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow March 13, 2017 Amber Pass 1392 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Hardcover Variance 1392 Ithilien: Planning Case #17-05 Dear Ms. Pass, This letter is to formally notify you that on March 7, 2017, the Chanhassen Planning Commission voted to approve the following motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves a 4.3 percent hardcover variance to address drainage issues on 1392 Ithilien, subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." The conditions of the variance are as follows: 1. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit." The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. The conditions placed on the variance must be met by March 7, 2018. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at mwalters ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, MacKenzie Walters Assistant Planner c: Building File GAPLAN\2017 Planning Cases\17-05 1392 Ithilien - Variance\Letter of Approval 17-05.dac SC.ANNrC PH 952.227.1100 • WWW.d.chanhassennn.us • FX952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Amber Pass for variance to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 5.5 percent on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF)-Planning Case 2017-05 On March 7, 2017, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 10, Block 1, Ithilien 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to address issues with standing water in the basement of the house and rear yard. The district's coverage requirements are designed to help manage the stormwater generated by residential districts. The constructed sidewalk and associated grading will help address the existing stormwater issues on the property by directing runoff from the property's southern neighbors away from the house and into the constructed dry creek bed, and is therefore in harmony with purpose and intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The property is a nonconforming use with hardcover in excess of 25 percent. It would not be possible for the homeowner to construct the sidewalk along the south side of building to address the parcel's stromwater issues without increasing the existing nonconformity. The parcel's stormwater issues constitute a practical difficulty in using the home's basement and rear yard for typical residential activities. Variances should be granted to the extent required to mitigate the practical difficulty. In this case, a portion of the expanded hardcover is not justified by the drainage issues. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the sidewalk variation is predominately based on the applicant's desire to remedy the property's stormwater issues. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The steep slope that borders the property's southern lot line generates large amounts of runoff which causes water issues in the house's basement and rear yard. This topographic feature is unique to the property and the southern sidewalk is part of the homeowner's attempt to mitigate the issues caused by this feature. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The house already had a large amount of hardcover. The expanded sections of hardcover are located in the rear of the house and are not visible from the road. The improvements made to address the property's drainage issues will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2017-05, dated March 7, 2017, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is incorporated herein. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance to exceed allowed hardcover by 4.3 percent, and adopt the attached Finding of Fact and Decision. The approved hardcover variance is subject to the following conditions:" 1. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7'h day of March, 2017. CITY OF CHANHASSEN W C Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) Application of Amber Pass for variance to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 5.5 percent on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF)-Planning Case 2017-05 On March 7, 2017, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 10, Block 1, Ithilien 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to address issues with standing water in the basement of the house and rear yard. The district's coverage requirements are designed to help manage the stormwater generated by residential districts. The constructed sidewalk and associated grading will help address the existing stormwater issues on the property by directing runoff from the property's southern neighbors away from the house and into the constructed dry creek bed, and is therefore in harmony with purpose and intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The property is a nonconforming use with hardcover in excess of 25 percent. It would not be possible for the homeowner to construct the sidewalk along the south side of building to address the parcel's stromwater issues without increasing the existing nonconformity. The parcel's stormwater issues constitute a practical difficulty in using the home's basement and rear yard for typical residential activities. Variances should be granted to the extent required to mitigate the practical difficulty. In this case, a portion of the expanded hardcover is not justified by the drainage issues. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the sidewalk variation is predominately based on the applicant's desire to remedy the property's stormwater issues. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The steep slope that borders the property's southern lot line generates large amounts of runoff which causes water issues in the house's basement and rear yard. This topographic feature is unique to the property and the southern sidewalk is part of the homeowner's attempt to mitigate the issues caused by this feature. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The house already had a large amount of hardcover. The expanded sections of hardcover are located in the rear of the house and are not visible from the road. The improvements made to address the property's drainage issues will not alter the essential character of the locality. £ Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2017-05, dated March 7, 2017, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a partial variance to exceed allowed hardcover by 4.3 percent, and adopt the attached Finding of Fact and Decision. The approved hardcover variance is subject to the following conditions:" 1. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). 2. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7" day of March, 2017. CITY OF CHANHASSEN l99 Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2017-05 1. Permit. subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to allow hardcover to exceed 25 percent by 4.3 percent. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 10, Block 1, Ithilien. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The property's hardcover is not to exceed 29.3 percent (4,345 square feet). b. The applicant must submit a registered land survey showing that the property's hardcover does not exceed 4,345 square feet. c. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 7, 2017 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: A44!PD73Laule urgerr,,�Maayoorr, AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of M Ck r h 2017 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOT PUB IC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2017-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 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 variance for impervious surface for property locatedat1392Ithilien. Applicant\ Owner. Amber Pass. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the city's- web site at wwwci.chanhassen. mn.us/2017-05 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. MacKenzie Waiters Email: mwalters@ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, February 23. 2017; No. 4414) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 1 //_y was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghfjklmnopgrstuvwxyz AWS- By: Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on d this2 3 �_day of J f/ 017 No y b is RATE INFORMATION JYMME JEMNE7E BARK NOTARY PLBUC - WNNESOTA WYNO MSSIONE70°RESu1.rJ1i'.a Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANgASSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Please revle�% and respond no later than the review response deadllne Agency Review Request Date: Agency Review Response Deadline: Date Application Filed: February 6, 2017 February 23, 2017 February 3, 2017 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: MacKenzie Walters 952-227-1132 mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Assistant Planner Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: March 7, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. March 27, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. April 4, 2017 Application: Consider a variance for im ervious surface for roe located at 1392 Ithilian. OwnerW licant Amber Pass. PlanningCase: 2017-05 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05 In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: Federal Agencies: Adiacent Cities: ❑ Attorney ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Chaska ® Building Official ❑ US Fish & Wildlife ❑ Eden Prairie ® Engineer ❑ Jackson Township ® Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: ❑ Minnetonka ® Forester ❑ Shorewood ® Park Director ❑ Carver County W MO ❑ Victoria ® Lower MN River Water Resources ❑ ® Minnehaha Creek El Law Enforcement Adjacent Counties: ❑ Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek ❑ Hennepin Carver County Agencies: Utilities: ❑ Scott ❑ Community Development ❑ Cable TV — Medi El Engineer School Districts: El Environmental Services ❑ Electric — Minnesotaota Valley El Historical Society El Electric — Xcel Energy ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Minnetonka 276 ❑ Soil &Water Conservation District El Natural Gas — Centel Energy ❑ Phone — Centuryl-ink Other Agencies: State Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad ElBoard of Water & Soil Resources Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum El Health ❑ Southwest Transit ElHistorical Society ❑ TC&W Railroad El Natural Resources -Forestry ❑ Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF CHANHASSEN Applications will be processed only if all requested items are submitted Prior to filing an application for a variance, the applicant shall attend a conference with city staff. The application shall include the following: (1) Completed Application Form. (2) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property. (3) Application fee to include the following: Type Fee Variance $200 Notification Sign $200 Document Recording Escrow $50 Property Owners' List within 500' of subject property (City to genemte, fee determined at pre -application meeting) $3 per address (4) Plot plan showing property lines, existing improvements, proposed improvements with setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etc. (5) Written description of variance request. (6) Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. RECCI REIVriASSEf-OFCHANHASSEN EIVED ITYRECEIVED FEB 0 20V FEB 3 0 20p HANHASSEN PNNNINWAASOP4ANNING DEPT Property Card Parcel ID Number 253640100 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name AMBER PASS Mailing Address 1392 ITHILIEN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9032 Property Address Address 1392 ITHILIEN City EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Parcel Information Uses Res 1unit GIS Acres 0.34 Net Acres Deeded Acres Plat ITHILIEN Lot 010 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Building Style S/Entry Garage Y Bedrooms 4 Year Built 1993 Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0276 1 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK Y I N N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2015 Values (Payable 2016) 2016 Values (Payable 2017) Last Sale Land $121,700.00 $126,000,00 Date of Sale 06/24/2016 Building $227,600.00 $233,200.00 Sale Value $284,000.00 Total $349,300.00 $359,200.00 The data prov ded to ewhP Is for reference purposes only. 1 his data is not suitable fa bga 1, engineering, surveying or other similar purposes. Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the Mormalion contained herein. This data is furnished on an 'as is bass and Carver County makes no representations or andanties, either expressed or implied, for the merohantabllity, or fitness of the Wormn tian proeridedi for any purpose. This disclaimers provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03 and the user of Me data podded herein aclmawledges that Carver county shall not be liable for any damages, and by using this data in any way expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and had harmless Caner County, its olfaas, officers, agents. employees, etcfrom any and all claims brought by anyone who uses Me informaVon provided for herein. as emidbyees or agents, or CARVER third parties which arise Out of usees ac braOr By acceptance of this data, Me user agrees not to transmit Mis data or provide across to it or any pad of it to another party unless Me user Includes COUNTY wiN Me data a copy of Nis dlsrlalmer. Tuesday, January 24, 2017 Carver County, MN CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 02/06/2017 2:54 PM Receipt No. 00338516 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Amber Pass 1392 Ithilien Excelsior MN 55331- 1392 Ithilien - Planning Case 2017-05 ------------------------------------------------------- Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 GIS List 3.00 Total Cash Check 10275 Change 453.00 0.00 453.00 0.00 Walters, MacKenzie From: Potter, Jenny Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 1:45 PM To: abcjunction3@gmail.com Cc: Walters, MacKenzie Subject: Variance Request for 1392 Ithilien Hello Amber, I am processing your request for a variance for 1392 Ithilien. We send postcards to the properties within 500 feet of the proposed variance property. The cost of that is $3 per address. There are 44 addresses on the list for your request. That is a total of $132. You included just $3 for that fee in your check to the city. We will continue to process your request but we need another check in the amount of $129. You can either drop off a check at City Hall or you can mail a check to us. The breakdown of fees is listed below. 1392 Ithilien - PLANNING CASE 2017-05 $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign Property Owners List (44 addresses x $3 $132.00 each) $50.00 Escrow for recording variance documents $582.00 TOTAL $453.00 Check 10275 from Amber Pass $129.00 BALANCE OWED If you would like to mail the check please make the check out to City of Chanhassen and mail it to: City of Chanhassen c\o Jenny Potter PO Box 147 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thank you, Jenny Potter Senior Administrative Support Specialist CITY OF CHANHASSEN PH. 952.227.1106 FX. 952.227.1110 www. ci. cha n hasse n. mm us r( V CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.2017-05 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 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 variance for impervious surface for property located at 1392 Ithilian. Applicant\Owner: Amber Pass. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the city's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05 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. MacKenzie Walters Email: mwalters(axi.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 23, 2017) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANgASSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL e,,later than the revie� response de2dl ne e,, _�nci respond no Agency Review Request Date: Agency Review Response Deadline: Date Application Filed: February 6,2017 February 23,2017 February 3,2017 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: MacKenzie Walters 952-227-1132 mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Assistant Planner Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: March 7, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. March 27, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Aril 4, 2017 Application: Consider a variance for im ervious surface for roe located at 1392 Ithilian. OwnerW licant Amber Pass. Plannin Case: 2017-05 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2017-05 In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, stone water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: Federal Agencies: Adjacent Cities: ❑ Attorney ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Chaska ® Building Official ❑ US Fish & Wildlife ❑ Eden Prairie ® Engineer ❑ Jackson Township ® Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: ❑ Minnetonka ® Forester ❑ Shorewood ® Park Diredtor O ❑ Carver County WMO ❑ Victoria ® Lower MN River Water Resources ❑ El Law Enforcement ® Minnehaha Creek Adjacent Counties: ❑ Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek ❑ Hennepin Carver County Agencies: Utilities: ❑Scott ❑ Community Development ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom ❑ Engineer School Districts: El Environmental Services El Electric — Minnesota Valley [I Electric — Xcel Energy ElEastern Carver County 112 El Historical Society El Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Minnetonka 276 ❑ Soil &Water Conservation District El Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — CenturyLink Other Agencies: State Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad ElBoard of Water & Soil Resources Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum El Healthest sit El Historical Society ❑ TC&W Railroad ❑ Natural Resources -Forestry ❑ Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation