Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CAS-07_JOHNSON, TOM & JACKIE
0 IR The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. ' Approval Documents rhomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson rhomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch foci J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Marguerite M. McCarron Gioa M. Brandt 'Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 M-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 A .ck-law.com • 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association xxx Direct Dial. (651) 234-6222 E-mailAddress. snelson(a)ck-law.com June 3, 2005 Ms. Kim Meuwissen Chanhassen City Hall clTv RECEIVED SEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 JUN 0 6 2005 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CHAMHASSEN PLANNING DEPT RE: Miscellaneous Recorded Variances Dear Kim: Enclosed for your files please find the following recorded variances: • Sign Variance 2002-5 for the REMAX ACTION WEST building which was recorded on 09/11/03 as Document No. A365865. • Variance 2003-15 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7h Addition (8170 Upland Circle) which was recorded on 07/23/04 as Document No. T147602. • Variance 2003-16 and CUP 2003-8 for Lot 20, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres Second Addition (7474 Moccasin Trail) which was recorded on 03/24/04 as Document No. A382455. • Variance 2003-17 for Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (114 Sandy Hook Rd) which was recorded on 04/07/04 as Document No. T145315. • Variance 2003-18 for Lot 16, Block 1, Greenwood Shores (6900 Utica Lane) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. T146888. • Variance 04-07 for Lots 17 and 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta (3637 South Cedar Drive) which was recorded on 07/26/04 as Document No. A392683. • Variance 04-11 for Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 (795 Ponderosa Drive) which was recorded on 07/15/04 as Document No. TI47407. ec"11HD Variance 04-16 for Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5m Addition (8634 Valley View Court) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. A389723. Variance 04-19 for Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres (9217 Lake Riley Boulevard) which was recorded on 08/06/04 as Document No. T147845. SRN:ms Enclosures Regards, CAWBELL KNUTSON Professional Association eWMM ' Document No. OFFICE OF THE q 392 683 COUNTY RECORDER IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII FeeRiE 0 0OUNhec4IN12O lA Certified Recorded on 07-26-2004 at 01:30 ❑PM 2004-07-26County INMBCarl W. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-07 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: A 19.3 foot front yard setback, a Lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 3637 South Cedar Drive; Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. b. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. C. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake N innewashta. d. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and demolition. e. The tower and other elements of the project, which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code, must be designed by a licensed engineer. 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 8, 2004 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: iiL "" — Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor 6 AND:y_J— Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this3& day of Th A a6 20*by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. ,t �A<�hAAf�ilh.NhHAAAMAA6l Mm_ r KAREN d ENGELHARDT Notary Public - Minnesota ktlMy Commission ExGim 1(31l2C35., 'VVVvvvVVV' VV rvvvwvv'v' City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 CITY OF CHANHA41SEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER ORRANSMITTAL DATE 4/12/04 Sue Nelson Document ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3/31/04 04-07 Variance 04-07 3637 South Cedar Drive -Tom & Jackie Johnson 1 3/31/04 04-09 Variance 04-09 10240 Mandan Circle -Bruce Paul THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ® For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ® For Recording ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO: I ' SIGNED: 9 n im uwisse (9 ' 227-1107 SCANNEO If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. l� CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, M NNESOTA VARIANCE 04-07 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: A 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house 2. Progerty. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 3637 South Cedar Drive; Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. b. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. C. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. d. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and demolition. e. The tower and other elements of the project, which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code, must be designed by a licensed engineer. 4. Lapm. 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 8, 2004 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3tsTday of Th4A-t l v 20*by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. KAREN J. ENGELHARDT NotaryPublic- Minnesota My commission ExGi2s V31120I5 VVVVVVVVVVWVV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 March 22, 2004 Ci YOF CIIANNSEN Tom and Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive 7700 Markel Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance, 3637 South Cedar Drive — Planning Case #04-07 Administration Phone:952227.1100 Dear Mr. & Mrs, Johnson: Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections This letter is to confirm that on March 8, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council approved Phone: 952.227.1180 variances for a 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to Fax: 952.227.1190 connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and Engineering Phone:952.227.111;0 subject to the following conditions: Fax: 952.227.1170 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current Finance 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and Phone:952.227.1140 re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction' Fax: 952.227.1110 schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. Part A Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing Fax:952.227.1110 around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until Recreation Center all construction is completed. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone:952227.1400 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the Fax. 952.227.1404 principal structure and Jake Minnewashta. Planning 6 Natural Resources 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and Phone: 952.227.1130 demolition. Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 5. The tower and other elements of the project, which are beyond the scope of 1591 Park Road Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code, must be designed by a Phone:952,227.1300 licensed engineer. Fax: 952.227.1310 You will still need to apply for a building permit prior to beginning construction on the Senior Center Phone.952.227.1125 addition. Please contact the building department directly for information regarding the Fax:952227.1110 building permit process at 952-227-1180. The variance shall become void within one (1) year following the approval, March 8, 2005, unless a building permit has been Web Site issued and construction begins on the home expansion. If you have any questions or wnci.dwhassen.mn.us need additional information, please contact me at 952-227-1131. Since Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. • 0 oy - �-� CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, M94NESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Tom and Jackie Johnson for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home. On February 17, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Tom and Jackie Johnson for setback and lot coverage variances for the property located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential, RSF. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point 4, The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant could expand the house and comply with the required building setbacks on the side and lake side. Additionally, the impervious surfaces can be reduced. The use of the existing garage, which is currently non- conforming, appears to be a reasonable request. The majority of the garage expansion on this side maintains the existing non -forming setback, the architectural dormers on the second story encroach closer to the property line. Normally, such architectural features are permitted to encroach in to setbacks. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are numerous properties that are non -conforming and can be expanded without variances. There are also numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property, the intent of the variance over the garage is to provide two bedrooms for the property owner's children. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The expansion of the house to the side and toward the lakes would be new construction and therefore would be self-created hardship. However, the use and expansion of the garage, which is currently non -conforming, is caused partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the proposed expansion of these areas is dictated by the location of the existing structure. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of the side yard variance, may infringe on the improvements to the neighboring property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed front yard setback variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood since this structure already exists. 5. The planning report #04-07 dated February 17, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback and deny the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of February, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING CONMSSION VW Its Chairman • 0 c.0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior PlannerAQ- Cll l OF �V DATE: March 8, 2004 CgANgASSEN SUBJ: Johnson Variance, 3637 South Cedar Drive — Planning Case #04-07 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Administration Phone: 52227.11100 Fax:952.227.1110 On February17, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing to review g P g the request for setback variances from the front (a 19.3 foot variance from the 30-foot setback Building Inspections requirement for a 10.7 foot setback), side (a 2.6 foot variance from the 10-foot side yard Phone: 952.227 1180 setback for a 7.4 foot setback) and lakeshore (a 6.2 foot variance from the 75-foot setback Fax :952.227.1190 requirement for a 68.8 foot setback) to permit the expansion of their home. The majority of Engineering the expansion would take place over existing impervious surface; however, there would still Phone: 952.227.1160 be an increase in impervious surface to 46.6 percent from 43.9 percent. Since the Planning Fax: 952 227,1170 Commission vote resulted in less than 75 percent of the Planning Commission, their vote acts Finance a recommendation to City Council. Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952227.1110 The applicant has submitted plans that eliminate the side yard setback variance by redesigning the addition with a 2-foot, 6-inch (2'6") jog at the garage. They have also Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 redesigned the deck to follow the line of the addition. They would still need a variance for Fax:952.227.1110 the deck, since any addition would need to meet the 75-foot setback, but Council could limit Recreation Center the variance to the connection as shown on the plans stamped received March 2, 2004. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phoie:952.227,1400 ACTION REQUIRED Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning 6 City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of City Council present. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Fax:952.227,1110 Public works The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 2004, to review the proposed 1591 Park Road development. The Planning Commission voted three for and two against a motion approving Phone: 952.227.1300 the front yard setback variance and denial of the side and shoreland setbacks and impervious Fax: 952.227.1310 surface variances. Senior Center Phone :952.227,1125 RECOMMENDATION Fax: 952.2271110 Web Stan Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the two motions www.ci.cftanhasson.mn.us of the staff report: approving the front yard setback variance and denying the side yard and shoreland setback and the impervious surface variances. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Dan Anderson to City of Chanhassen Council Members dated 2/29/04. 2. Revised Main Floor Plan showing redesign interior and deck. 3. Revised Plan Showing Addition being removed from the Previous Plan. 4. Staff Report Dated 2/17/04. 5. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/17/04. gAplan\2004 planning cases\0447-johnson variance\executive sur unary.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 11 February 29`s, 2004 City of Chanhassen Council members Re: moving the foot print of the current design. To whom it may concern, As per the plans you will find that on the east property line we have moved the addition in from the original comer of the garage 2'6". The south east comer of the new deck has been removed and the new lay out follows the foot prints of the new addition as per plan. We feel this will satisfy all planning and council member and provide compliance with the current code and set back, also the messurement 2'-6" allows room for the soffit. space as well. Than;ersV Dan D.James architectural design Zb /j SI D/nJ /T)&Seo Z- S- 9�z 9qy 7 r7 f- nrl-raPft450Aj 2B66 011.R.M �'y M.I..Y e 4� S LLbaa Fwwr ( IP Y ° At a age �nAN revs m"M.w KNv [pYYW wu� am. LLbod Floc MeuMI mob TO. Floor i The following changes will show the east side of Yar the now addition end deck have been modified to show the house mop In 1b° from the origklal corns and the deck east/ West corner been clipped and brought on the match the out Ilse of the south ezterlor wa CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 0 2 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 3- Z-ay SOu D VL CE�A ®MANHOLE 'I NDT S 1 AT H� E DOCKS Pwv 1- 1 � CONTOUR LIRE / WATER LEVEL AA / DEC 2OD3 N A 'WAS xT LAK E MIN Dwg. No. 031571 `J CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA# February 17, 2004 CC DATE: March 8, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: 03/20/04 CASE #: 04-07 BY: RG, LH, ML, JS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home. LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point APPLICANT: Tom and Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 0.27 acre DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a variance from the front, side and lakeshore setback requirements and a lot coverage variance to expand a single-family home. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high le of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Planning Case #04-07 • • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting setback variances from the front (a 19.3 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for a 10.7 foot setback), side (a 2.6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for a 7.4 foot setback) and lakeshore (a 6.2 foot variance from the 75 foot setback requirement for a 68.8 foot setback) to permit the expansion of their home to connect the garage and the house, to add an entrance vestibule, to create a larger kitchen, to add three bedrooms and to expand the deck. The majority of the expansion would take place over existing impervious surface; however, there would still be an increase in impervious surface to 46.6 percent from 43.9 percent. The applicant could complete a majority of the building expansion without the need for a variance. This can be achieved by maintaining the 10 foot side yard setback by either aligning the expansion to parallel the property line or moving the expansion in 2.6 feet along its length, and reducing the area of the deck to maintain a 75 foot setback from the lake, which would still provide ample deck area in front of the proposed expansion. The only area of the expansion that would require a variance would be the bedrooms over the garage, which is currently non -conforming, and the expanded garage. Staff believes that the expansion of the garage to include second story bedrooms is a reasonable request and is recommending approval with the condition that the existing impervious surface be reduced. However, staff does not support the other variances for side, lakeshore and impervious surface coverage and is recommending denial. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-72(a) states that there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Section 20-72 (b) states that any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Section 20-481 (a) requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of recreational development lakes. Section 20-615 (4) of the zoning ordinance permits maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. Section 20-615 (5) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard and a 10 foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. BACKGROUND The subdivision including this property was recorded on August 30, 1913. The house was constructed in 1943. The development of this house on the lot predates the existing zoning ordinance. Planr Johns Febn Page Case 04-0, 1975 81-8 82-1, 85-2( 85-2( 85-T 87-1( 87-1: 88-11 91-4 92-1 93-3 93-6 96-4 2000 2002 ANA They of the existing garage is problematic since the majority of that structure does not meet the required front setback of 30 feet. It is reasonable for the homeowner to want to incorporate this structure into the overall remodeling of the home. In exchange for the city supporting the variance in this area, we would require that the property owner reduce below the current level the amount of impervious surface on the property. While it would be impossible to reduce the site coverage to 25 percent impervious, it can be reduced to approximately 40 percent. (Please note that decks are not included in impervious surface calculations unless the deck does not permit water to run down between the boards on the flooring, if there is a roof over the deck or if there is other impervious surface below the deck.) The balance of the expansion could be accomplished without a variance, but it would require a modification to the plans. The kitchen expansion would need to meet the 10 foot side yard setback and the deck outside the expansion would need to be shortened to meet the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Even with these restraints, there is considerable area for the house to expand. The property should reduce the current percent impervious surface. It appears that the extent of the driveway could be reduced in several locations to achieve the reduction. Planning Case #04-07 • • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 4 Section 20-1122 (e) states: "For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than ten (10) feet." The current driveway width at the ROW line is 55 feet. A majority of the driveway exceeds 36 feet in width. Section 20-1122 (e) states: "Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines, beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city." The driveway does not currently meet the side property line setback on the west side of the property. If a variance is (or variances are) approved, the applicant should work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake N innewashta. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant could expand the house and comply with the required building setbacks on the side and lake side. Additionally, the impervious surfaces can be reduced. The use of the existing garage, which is currently non -conforming, appears to be a reasonable request. The majority of the garage expansion on this side maintains the existing non -forming setback, the architectural dormers on the second story encroach closer to the property line. Normally, such architectural features are permitted to encroach in to setbacks. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are numerous properties that are non- conforming and can be expanded without variances. There are also numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property, the intent of the variance over the garage is to provide two bedrooms for the property owner's children. Planning Case #04-07 • • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 5 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The expansion of the house to the side and toward the lakes would be new construction and therefore would be self-created hardship. However, the use and expansion of the garage, which is currently non -conforming, is caused partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the proposed expansion of these areas is dictated by the location of the existing structure. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of the side yard variance, may infringe on the improvements to the neighboring property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed front yard setback variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood since this structure already exists. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the Planning coffimiss City Council approve the following two motions: A. 'The Planning Gewmis City Council approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. Planning Case #04-07 • • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 6 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. B. "rhe Planning GewAriiss City Council denies the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report." Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Tom and Jackie Johnson dated 01/14/04 3. Architectural Plans 4. Street Elevation Picture 5. Existing Structure Picture 6. Existing Deck Picture 7. 6' 9" Ceiling Picture 8. Driveway Picture 9. Room Above Garage Picture 10. Bedroom Picture 11. Kitchen Picture 12. Retaining Wall Picture 13. Impervious Surface Reduction Schematic 14. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 15. Lot Survey ,v 3 a Location Map 3637 South Cedar Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-07 CD D Red Cedar Point ROaa _ `D m eaat0 Subject Property LAKE MINNEWASHTA of CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: �M \%AY/f]/✓ Va ,A OWNER: ADDRESS: J/ % TELEPHONE (Day Lm) `1 Sa -9 ��� S-7 5 11�/ 9Sa -g7Y�l�f� (H) ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance a� Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escro r Filing Fees/Alto]j� �� Cost' $50 UP/SPRNAC/n/AWyVAP/Metes Bounds, $400 in rr SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ A list of ti all property owners within feet of the boundaries of the property m st included with the application. /Qe-&-ea.�' z� Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME I0ro AcAj 6 J q ck t E J/OP+A/SO N4 3J �� LOCATION 6, `7 OLtTH -/ U2-f Fiir= �XC�f S(DILr M/V 5S33, LEGAL DESCRIPTION LCT- 1% FXra-P/ T�46 E-iT lO F—t T"-z=-22Oi= AN4c(— OF LOT( / R 8 LD cr- )Zes � p, r JA/L pol n( 7 TOTAL ACREAGE 0 f S 90 S'R F� -- TDT-),j LoT S ( Z.0 WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING /Z> S / 6t)u T7 A �— REQUESTED ZONING S A rn E PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION P\E S I A -C—Pq T-7 i4 (— REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION SKI m > REASON FOR THIS REQUEST S> t A 77 }} CH This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by 7 of of Fee / / Q L Da e Application Received on r Lo LY: Fee Paid 4o?SG 0 o Receipt No. ,DW141(,69 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. January le, 2004 Re: 3637 South Cedar Drive Variance To whom it may Concern, This letter of description is to inform the members of the Planning committee and the city council our need for a variance on our home. The Variance will allow us to have a bedroom for both our son and daughter, at the present time both of the children are sharing the same room, our current lay out has a master bedroom and one bedroom. The addition will allow us to have a bedroom for both, as well as a bathroom to share. As per the plans we were able to utilize the room over the current garage by raising the existing roof. To accommodate this plan as well we are adding six feet to the west on to the garage below. All the added square footage allows the bedroom expansion to work. As far as the hard cover we are willing to match the current hard cover calculations as well as reduce by 3 to 5 % by adding in some planting areas. It is of our opinion we are not asking for unneeded space only making what is currently there, work. Variances requested are for the following: ❑ 30' set back on street side. (I F proposed — existing garage) ❑ 10' side yard setback. (7' proposed) ❑ 75' from high water mark. (73 proposed) ❑ Hard Cover (to maintain existing 43.91/o) Thank you very much. Tom and Jackie Jo n 3637 South Cedar Drive Chanhassen Mn CITY OF CH RECE VEpSSEN AN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLA,yNING DEFT 0 Johnson Residence 3637 South Cedar Drive •lxcelior, MN Demolition Foundation Architectural Plan Elevation* Structural Sections Interior Sections Room Finish Schedule OLOSM -It 1. • � t1cM hL CQ1^r411P1 • fwr! w • Fq ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ 0000000 # ��..,,- wMel .. I wq..b YwWy o.Yu ��f-0'SUY .I. U, N°idl' E VAIK �6 dRl'�u�;' n . 'I� ��YItLL L' N.1il��_ • Flop FPlen f .. I'•0en' 9cels fd% roar ply ./ cllp. $Fkgln l0 M1ah OXIA g - 40 roof Mulaliu With Ylarad ,.it wee by tw. cataract-- ' ulling rjip eM � moll 6 serfs w�l^"^^ I.a/Ix4.,.o cedar recta old YMOt, wnU alth f-0 U... VanlRg ! e,,K, 6xlnl0! .6 Wil con.t b. oc ELI - Ig Well I Iatlon ! iG floor p octx mall .Faaothog 40 aawlatlu In aping M .pray roan Hangar. 1.13 jolet I6' oc olld lIII I baem end aae. boll bI baem a. P. ergM Grade IIM MLs. E.IeHrg roudatlon 7n6 aail toner ac ed gold cemq 47' 1Y.Troo"11.1^ EA.tbg rootvg Tom and Jackie Johnaon ga"Ieo• x x �noliileoirc�aG 91ea�av � . CITY OF RECE,,4NH CH EN JAM 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN P A"""IVG I)EPr .� �:, _ �� �._ � _ � � " " �r- �..-�� �_ _ - - - _--�. s 'z, I __ � r_ ._ ._. ��-��� N� ����� � ; \��` • ` 6 " ' e+, Lob L,,,q? 1 e w •' �E�f ZM .!SLR$"" W 1_ �o �,-\ 4 (S� le_> � sl�p& 0 ON S o-mer— 4d fi �� � s��� G sv-F4cjr. aAwcr-o,10 50 FOUND 1/2' RAILROAD TIE WAIL i EXISTING RESIDENCE OF-p, 0 �y E R CEOZp s� 6� EXISTING ' N S GARAGE m SURFACE \ FLR EL ;w� P OSED ADDITION ��� g5$ P OPOSE , i DITION CONCRE PATIO w N rn n EXISTING RESIDENCE\ �1 o LOW FLOOR = 957.4 \ 9 N � o 1050 cr , C� gy8 SEWER O MANHOLE / FOUND 1/2` IRON PIPE 1 2i 1 1 9 11.1 1 I z0 GO L EXISTING STRUCTURE D 7.4 1 a � PROPOSED NEW DECK 0 5•'AT / f "• VS -.t 0 u '"? Iv 950— O3 1401 OCKS P A� R E', �� I.. N 81'26'19• �" —�11311 UNE FOUND 1/2 , \ 46 ~ 1 CAPPED IRON ' —J44.5—+ APPROXIMATE Or / 944 AREA OF RIP RAP ' OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE WATER IF\OR CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Johnson Variance Request (3637 South Cedar Drive) - Planning Case No. 04- 07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subs`cIri'b,ed and sworn to before me this 7� day of 2004. 4tM�7� Notary gAeng\formc\affidavit.doc W 39juty Clerk -AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA y KIM T MEUVVISSEN �, NotaryPublic- Minnesota CARVER COUNTY My Cornmission Wes 1/311M • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Setback and Lot Coverage APPLICANT: Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson Variances on Property Zoned RSF LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson, is requesting setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 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. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2004. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 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. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. E Planning Case No. 04-07 Public Hearing Notification Area Lake Minnewashta Subject Site AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON 3711 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9657 DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 ELIZABETH J SAVAGE & HEIDI J SAVAGE 3715 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9769 EVELYN Y BEGLEY 3701 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 JOHN R MARX & HEIDI A RIGELMAN 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9676 MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 ARLENE KAY HERNDON 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 DEBORAH S LOCKHART & DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9204 EMIL & PATRICIA SOUBA 14025 VALE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3017 GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 LINDA L JOHNSON 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER 8321 VIEW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1430 BIRUTA M DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 ELIZABETH J NOVAK 7210 JUNIPER EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9613 ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 GARY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 LUMIR C PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 PAMELA A SMITH 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING ROBERT CHARLES ANDING KATZ-G N M GUNTHER & HELEN NTHER 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3618 RED CEDAR PT 3628 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 3628 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 E STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1606 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-07 - johnson variance\ph notice labels.doc RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9687 ADVWCE SURVEYING & ENGLAWRING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 474-9267 SURVEY FOR TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON SURVEYED: December, 2003 DRAFTED: December 12, 2003 REVISED: January 19, 2004 to add dimensions. Also got a better idea of what the proposed deck is and this changed the proposed hard cover tabulation to plus 68 sq. 11. on the deck. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17, except the East 10 feet thereof and all of Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Lake Murnewashm, Hennepin County, Minnesota SCOPE OF WORK: I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description.. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that my matters of record, such as easements, that You wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided en this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees am. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction overyour project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes 12" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that Iam a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota _ "s H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE ( or rEKr ) crrr RECeE VEASR JAN 2 0 2904 cwwussEn Rnnsa+o cerrt HARD COVER TABULATION: LOT AREA TO OHW: 11,590 Sq. Ft EXISTING: House 1,181 Sq. Ft Garage 539 Sq. Ft Deck 431 Sq. FL Bituminous 1,988 Sq. FL Concrete 827 Sq. Ft Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft Rock Wall 84 Sq. Ft Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft TOTAL: 5,090 Sq. Ft % HARD COVER 43.9% PROPOSED: House 2,604 Sq. FL Deck 769 Sq. FL Bituminous 1,770 Sq. Ft Concrete 155 Sq. Ft. Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft Rock Wall 70 Sq. Ft Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft TOTAL: 5,407 Sq. Ft % HARD COVER 46.6% SEWER D.VL ®MANHOLE ro e 5O 13.?- SEWERMANHOLE EIGSTING FOUND i/Y O0SPNG ' STRUCTME -C ED IR 1 GARAGE gA ' SURFACE FLR EL - - 957.5 11.1 ` ADDITION P RAILROAD qye DITIDN Z TIE IN $ �1 15.50� 7.4 0 W 1. m E 3STI NG RESiDFHCA LOW FLOOR - £ $ 957.4 \ PROPOSED . - 5s NEW DECK i 1 g5A A5 TEO EISim 1n AD� 'I RESIDENCE. p 11ME NOT OOCKS ILO NEftE 1" gj76'19� uSUI ve/ —Gi I, `�. FOUND - CAPPED RON APPROO ATE It AREA OF RIP RAP 0 — DIM LEVEL CONTOUR LINE i WATER LEVEL DEC 2O03 ' EWASHTA LAK E MINN DW. Na 031571 CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjomhom, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive ZONED RSF LOCATED AT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM AND JACKIE JOHNSON, PLANNING CASE No. 04-07. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Craig. Claybaugh: What, do you happen to know Bob what the square footage of the side yard variance is? I know it was expressed in lineal footage but it's running at an askew angle, going from 2 foot 6. The dimensioning on my plans or the one present were too small to read. Generous: Yeah, it's approximately 20 square feet. Claybaugh: Okay. On table 3 with respect to the other lots in the area and the variances that have been granted, there wasn't any expression of dates. How far back does that table go? Generous: If you look at the case number, the first number represents the years. So it goes all the way back to 1975 and the latest one was in 2002. Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 Claybaugh: What year was the shoreland setback? Was that '87? Generous: That was the original shoreland. Aanenson: Probably when it was updated. Claybaugh: Okay, and I know we've discussed in the Carver Beach area but their property out there is a front walkout rambler? Is that accurate? Generous: Yes, it's a walkout. Claybaugh: Okay. What is the, and I don't know if you use best management practices handbook or what. You've used it express in the past but with respect with ramblers, what is reasonable square footage by current standards? Generous: Ordinance requires approximately 1,000 square feet. Claybaugh: So it's only 1,000 and obviously they're entitled to a 2 car garage and they're using what, 400 and some odd square feet or what is that? Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. I wasn't able to come up with the square footage that they've got for a footprint on this. Do you happen to have that available? Generous: They show the existing house as 1,181 square feet and proposed at 2,604. Claybaugh: So right now the current footprint is actually in excess of what you identify as a reasonable, okay. Were any issues raised by any adjacent neighbors prior to this point? I understand there will be a public forum tonight but. Generous: No, I haven't had anyone that's come in to object to it. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? Lillehaug: I have a couple. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Your list on page 3 of the existing variances that were approved. Recently we, or the city has approved a few variances that were approved actually as part of another approval. It wasn't a necessary variance on new construction but it was an existing variance. Is this, are all of these variances that were approved, are they variances 2 Planning Commission ee Meeting — February 17, 2004 • that were needed to expand on construction, because I think it's important? I kind of hit on that before is, I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Generous: There were two that were, three that were approved to permit new construction. The rest were for expansion. Aanenson: So if it was an existing lot of record, in order to get a house on there. It may have been undersized. Not a 15,000 square foot lot. Generous: Generally they may have the area, it's just they're too narrow. You have a lot of that in that neighborhood. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not sure if my question, if the question's being answered though. Are some of these, are a lot of these variances just simply being approved because they were already non -conforming and it was simply because they were non -conforming but not part of any new construction or expansion? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: So there are some then? Aanenson: There are. Lillehaug: And we, when I look at this I can't really distinguish between the two. Obviously I can't so. Aanenson: Well, except that the chart does say approved for a new home. There's 3 that are. Generous: Yeah. 8715, 9104 and 9604. Lillehaug: Okay. The next question on page 4. Finding letter A. You indicate the use of the existing garage which is currently non -conforming appears to be a reasonable request. Can you explain that? I'm not quite following the thought. Generous; Basically they want to maintain and expand that. It has a partial second flooring so they're going to raise the roof on that and it seems reasonable that if they're using that existing structure, that's a reasonable request. Lillehaug: What is staff's thoughts on actually expanding it to the front of the garage and increasing the non -conformity on the front yard. Are you saying that that's a good trade off for reducing the impervious area? Generous: Yes, because their expansion would be over existing impervious so they're not creating a new one and the new impervious in that location, plus we're going to get additional removal. 3 Planning Commission Ming — February 17, 2004 • Lillehaug: Okay. I think that's all I have for now. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from staff? Slagle: I just have one. Bob, as we look at again page 3 with the previous variances that have been sent to the city and approved, when we talk about the lakeshore setbacks, I think it's safe to say that the commission has looked at those closely over the last few years and my question is, is if you know on some of those requests where an example like 9604 or 9201, where we're looking at again numerous feet of variance. Were those on lots where, I mean was it a tight, short lot if you will and they were already encroaching if you will? Generous: Yes. They were substandard. Slagle: Okay. Do we know, do you know how wide this deck is now? The current deck? Dan Anderson: Left to right or... Slagle: Towards the lake. From house to lake. Dan Anderson: 12 foot. Slagle: 12 feet, okay. That's it. Tjornhom: I have one question on impervious surface and the deck. The deck is considered part of the structure of the house, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Tjornhom: And so that it's not part of the landscape per se because water can run through it, correct? Generous: Right, and generally we don't count decks against impervious surface. However under this there's a concrete patio. Tjornhom: That was my next question. Well then that's, okay. Generous: So that takes the impervious. Sacchet: So the deck does count as impervious because it's solid underneath? Generous: Well the solid underneath that counts. 4 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: That counts, okay. Okay, because I had a question about that too. Now, I'm still not sure exactly where the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Can you point that out on the map once more? You hinted at it before but I didn't catch it clear enough. Generous: ...the elevation. 75 feet would be to this point. Sacchet: So it's about halfway through the existing deck? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Roughly. Okay. And then just to be, we hit on this a little bit with those variances that you list here which was a pretty considerable list. None of those could be considered the precedent for this? It's a tricky question but you're in a better position to answer that than I. Generous: They're not exactly the same. They are, some of them are on sub -standard lots and this is narrower. Sacchet: This lot is a little bigger than most of those other ones? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Alright. I think that's all the questions. One more question Rich? Slagle: One more question Mr. Chair. Again getting back to the deck Bob. On page 6 of the photos that the applicant was kind enough to provide, I see existing deck... replacing bad wood. Is that to mean, from what you know, is that deck that we see a picture of, is that a recent deck or is that an old deck? Generous: It's repairing an old deck. Probably mostly new wood. Sacchet: Well thank you. If the applicant would want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know any additional information you'd like to add to this. Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson. Tom Johnson: 3637 South Cedar Drive. Excelsior. 55331. Dan Anderson: I want to address a couple small things. On this, as far as the hard cover and working with that, that doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to come up with that. ...underneath the deck you know there's, there's older concrete underneath there that can be worked with. The entrance to the driveway can be worked with. We want to improve the site as well. They bought the house and it was, it needed a lot of work and they have already done some work on the interior to make it suitable for their family and they've been there about a year and a half, two years and as per some of the pictures you've seen, 5 Planning Commission Meeting — Febmary 17, 2004 they've got a small boy and a small girl, they're sharing the same bedroom so the big key here is to get these bedrooms located up over this garage here. We're okay with using the existing structure. We've got a garage that's a sub par garage. You can't hardly put a mid sized vehicle in it, so where it expands out here so it can be useable, and also create a legitimate front entryway. It doesn't have furniture right now. A basement walk in. It was basically a cabin. So we can make all the work and like I said, we're okay with working with the hard cover issues and working with the driveway. The one thing though I would love to lend an ear to is this comer right here. I don't know if you guys have an interior picture of, do you have an interior shot? Sacchet: It's in the packet, yes. Dan Anderson: The interior, this doorway right here that brings us back into the bedroom area. It lines up center on this wall to allow a per code bathroom. That's a minimum sized bathroom per code. And to get the proper storage for the kids closet, to make the bedrooms actually work with the kitchen we came to this corner right here and went straight out from this. If there's one thing, you've got a very non -conforming neighborhood. You walk down the neighborhood, a lot of the things that aren't architecturally correct, and don't even come close. And what we don't want to do is add to that,.add to that. We want to be architecturally correct and keep this wall as straight as possible. To move this wall in right here 3 feet eliminates having a kitchen where it's supposed to go and to be able to get back into the bedroom area, to have a code width door, code width bathroom, and a code width hallway and move everything over this way. Now I encroach on a code width stairs, which is, you know if you look at this real close we're not adding any exorbitant square footage. We're not, nothing is that large. And even the deck over here can be, that could be all met. To meet with the codes and the setbacks, I'd like to make this redesign to make this all work just fine. Sacchet: But angling it is not enough. I don't think that comer that you're pointing out is the issue. It's that corner. Dan Anderson: Now if you go back to, I'll take you back to the survey. That comer is right there. That's 2.3 or something. Generous: 2.6. Dan Anderson: 2.6 and it's only 2 foot 6 inches into the setback, but if we can walk away with that one, then I can make all these items in here work. And like I said, typical hallway, typical bathroom, typical stairs going down. It's all pretty typical. And we can work, we'll actually work with obviously the rest of the, there is a small, I mean it's a parking lot out there. We can work with, there's a lot of asphalt to remove. You know and we want to remove that. That's where our landscape design. Make it more inviting. And we're willing to spend Tom's money as much as we can. And that's where we're going to spend it. But anyway, this corner is a very important corner. This corner hinges on this whole layout right here. To get to that existing structure, which we just want to use what's there. So if I had to say there's one thing we want to walk away with this, Gi Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 • where it's already been granted to us, we agree with that but we'd like to add that corner to that if we possibly could and the rest will definitely work. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, a couple questions. The stairs that you pointed to, those are new stairs or are those existing stairs? Dan Anderson: Currently those are concrete stairs, an outside situation. Claybaugh: But that's the existing entry? Dan Anderson: Same entry moved and we're just going to put them back in place. Inside the structure. Claybaugh: But that's the existing positioning of the entry to the house? Dan Anderson: Yes, correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And with respect to the 2.6 feet, is that dimension to the outside of the eaves? Staff. Generous: The 2.6 feet would be to the wall. Claybaugh: To the wall, okay. Dan Anderson: There again I think we have about a 12 inch or 11 inch soffit and fascia and that can even be worked with design wise. Backing up a little bit to your question, that is not the front entryway to this house. That's just an entryway to the side door to what's currently the kitchen. The actual, they're calling it the front door. It's the basement entrance on a lower level. Claybaugh: Right, so the stairs that you're pointing to are a consequence of building a new vestibule and that's where you orientate them? Dan Anderson: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a question. Looking at that same diagram there, you're carrying that wall on the top I'll say. Other wall, directly across from it, yep. You're projecting that out from the existing wall of the garage. Dan Anderson: Yeah, we're just lining it up. 7 Planning Commission fting — February 17, 2004 • Lillehaug: Why, and the problem is when you get to the top right corner, that's where the encroachment is across the setback. So why do you have to carry the house, the portion of the house wall, why does that have to carry on from the garage? Why can't it be shifted at the back of the garage where it is conforming? Shift it 2.6 feet and then you have a parallel wall going back. You do lose a little square footage in the house but it still needs a variance. Do you see a problem in that? And just one more thing, and I think it's a pantry if I were to look back on this. I mean that can be reduced in size and maybe even relocate it, and then you'll still have a conforming bathroom and stairwell and you're just basically the reducing the size of the pantry. Is that not doable? Dan Anderson: It's not the pantry that I'm worried about reducing and... It's having people walk in and out of this hallway. If in fact this, I'll draw a line here. If this moved in, and this is our work space, now we have an architecturally, we have an architectural issue here about it being in the way of the hallway. Having a clear hallway to shut this off and walk in and out of this. Because this is their main living area right now. Kids are here. The main area for the family is right here. I'm trying just to keep this open and keep it so it matches the rest of the architecture and to angle this wall wouldn't be, that would be an. Sacchet: Architectural harasses? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That'd be like, yeah no, no. Bad idea. Lillehaug: We're talking just 21/2 feet I mean. Dan Anderson: Well 21/2 feet, what that measurement is right there and that puts you in the doorway. When you're ending up with the kitchen cabinets that way. Sacchet: Yeah once you have a counter. Dan Anderson: Once you put a counter in there, and I'm standing there. Well if I'm standing there you're definitely not going to get through the door. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: You understand what I'm saying? Lillehaug: That's all I have. Sacchet: One more Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. To dovetail Steve's question here. The L return on the left side of the sink, on your cabinetry there, what is that? There's no dimensioning on it. It runs parallel with the pantry. 93 Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 • Dan Anderson: Right here? Claybaugh: Yeah. That dog leg return there. Dan Anderson: That right there is about 1 foot 8. Claybaugh: In terms of the projection. I'm looking at the base cabinets there, on the wall that the sink is located. Those are going to be a 2 foot depth so just I'm thinking that dog leg out of there has got to at least 3 foot 6. Dan Anderson: I don't have my full set of plans here but this, where it turns 90 and goes this way, that's actually about 2 foot 8 to 3 foot right in there. Claybaugh: Okay. So actually if, there certainly is, you'd lose the L return on it and I understand you don't want to walk down a hallway into the back of somebody preparing food, but. Dan Anderson: Well my only issue is, then I only have about 10 inches to stand. Claybaugh: If you take all of it. I'm talking about mitigating the first, okay. That's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end? Rich has a question. Slagle: Mr. Chair, I thought someone might ask a question about the deck but let me just ask you know what are your thoughts from the deck as far as falling within either the setback or reaching some type of compromise with the staffs recommendation and your proposal. Dan Anderson: Can you see what I sketched there. I could do something like this to make this work here. The grade is such that I would have liked to have the stairs built within that square footage of the deck. As it is, the deck is kind of exposed from down over here. We don't want them to cross the front because it blocks off views but they can come off over here, and we could do something like this over here would be kind of sharp looking. It would also look architecturally correct and have enough footage here where people can pass. That we can work with. That's not an issue. You can just see the layout on the main house, it flows so nicely and it all works the way it should work by keeping my 6 foot into the setback. And maybe even a compromise with 2 foot 6. Maybe you know I'll split the difference or something because that would give me, if you split the difference on that one, as you had said, we'd probably have a good foot and a half if you're standing there and have people walk by and not be an issue. Claybaugh: You know we want to leave you really with any less than possibly 2 feet but I don't have any dimensions on the plan. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 • Dan Anderson: Thank you. Claybaugh: I did have one extra. Did you explore options with locating the stairs? That's one of the things that you identified as your string of code issues starting with the current hallway, code bathroom, and code stairs. Obviously did you explore possibly taking it in through the living room or orientating those slightly differently to possibly recapture some of that space that you're requiring a variance for? Dan Anderson: Ah yes. Let me pull up existing structure. If you look at the way that the property sits in it's current state, you'll see that that is the most natural way to pull the stairs up. There's currently stairs right here. But when I put the stairs, if I leave those stairs where they currently land, I then tear up this whole, this spot right here and I've got a dead spot here. Claybaugh: Right, no I'm not suggesting that you should orientate them where they currently are, but in terms of adjusting them or aligning them a couple feet, I don't have any note there on the drawings either. I'm talking in terms of mitigating. I'm just asking if you explored it. Architectural orientation out there, some structural components that prohibited you from doing that. Dan Anderson: Structure, the old corner of the house is right here and there's less messing around with the whole roof, the wall system, the concrete blocks the wall, where they're currently stay we want to keep them. And outside as well as the inside right here. Claybaugh: Okay, but you did explore it? Dan Anderson: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: One more architectural question. You made it pretty clear that angling the wall would be pretty awful architecturally. Would it be as awful to put a jig in it rather than one straight line? Dan Anderson: We had thought about that about where the sink is, or where this stove goes, you can jog it in. There again you move the island in, it interrupts the door and then there's a lot of wasted space in there with the cabinetry. I think this is better, a simple compromise on the 2 foot 6 setback is either we split it or we work with what, you know go into the setback 2 foot 6 are the two best options. Sacchet: It seems like there's quite a bit of space on the other side of the island. Dan Anderson: Over here? Yeah, there is. Oh, there's this space out here but I think what you've got to look at, if you put yourself in this kitchen. I don't know if I've got a, I've got to look through this to see if I've got a cross section. Finished cross section. 10 Planning Commission I eeeting —February 17, 2004 • Okay, right here. Now we've got to zoom on that thing. There. If right here ... come forward. This whole cabinet right here goes away. This thing goes away. And to keep that line straight is going to take me away from just orientating the kitchen and having that wasted space there. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Craig. You've got another one? Claybaugh: You identified the hallway inbetween the pantry and the powder room there as it's labeled, as a code hallway. My dimensions on that, and like I said they're extremely small here on the reprint but it looks like 4 foot 8 Vh. Dan Anderson: Which one you looking at there? Claybaugh: I'm looking at the hallway. Inbetween the pantry and the powder room. Dan Anderson: Okay. Slagle: You're saying up on the landing of the kids room, is where you see it? Dan Anderson: Right. Sacchet: It's hard to read. Claybaugh: Now obviously the door opening is 3 foot and that's what you want but you've got 4 foot, and I don't know if that's inside frame, an inside frame and then you've got 4 foot 8 lh but that's certainly in excess of what code requires, unless it's something I'm not aware of. Dan Anderson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, what would you site as code for that application? Dan Anderson: Well we could probably skinny that up about, I could probably skinny that up, I think if we were to split that number and jog this. Claybaugh: What I'm after is if we left you what would be reasonable for an L so somebody preparing a meal in the kitchen wouldn't be obstructing the flow of the hallway. Backing off that 3 foot 6 dimension that you identified and mitigating the width and getting that down to more of a code width on the hallway that you've got between the pantry and the powder room, combination of those two I would expect would match your 2 foot 6, at which point at the back of the garage you could jog that addition. So that your kitchen layout could still function. It wouldn't compromise the code restroom. It 11 Planning Commission lvreeting — February 17, 2004 • certainly wouldn't compromise because the hallway isn't to code right now. It's in excess of code. Dan Anderson: I think we could probably get those ... it'd probably be pretty close. If I brought this back... Sacchet: There it is. Saw the back of your head instead of the drawing. Ahright. Dan Anderson: That right there. I forgot that measurement. Foot and a half or so, but that does go back to my statement of splitting it or something. That gets us closer obviously. Claybaugh: Right, but I mean if you drew a line down the side of the hallway and you narrowed that hallway up to even 3 foot 6. You had a 3 foot 6 hallway through there, okay. You come out of there, as best I can ascertain, it's 4 foot 8 �/2 and it's very small on my drawings, okay. So that's a net of a foot 2 1/2. You said 3 foot 6 is what your L return or your dog leg return was on your cabinetry. 2 feet would be reasonable I think. Okay. So that's a net of 1 foot 6 and you picked up 1 foot 2 so you actually got a couple inches to take back and work with however you want to redistribute it. Dan Anderson: That makes sense. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I apologize but I thought more about my deck question. Is it safe to say that the deck was built, the old deck was built prior to the Johnson's purchasing the property? Dan Anderson: No question. There's pictures in your packet that show that it was an existing structure. Actually it was pretty unsafe and they were trying to make it safe. There's a couple bad footings that we had to fix up and that kind of thing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Good discussion. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward, address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to express any aspects about this case? Please come forward. Nobody come forward, I'll close the public hearing. Oops, there's somebody. If you want to state your name and address for the record. Let us hear what you have to say please. Ahight, it's all your's. Dave Bangasser: M. I'm Dave Bangasser. The property directly to the east that we're spending quite a bit of time talking about. 3633 South Cedar Drive. It's been in my wife's family for about 60 years. You'd think that if the property's been in my wife's family that long that maybe she'd be here talking to you, but we took a vote and when the vote was over, it was quite clear to me that my vote didn't count. We're generally very positive about the plan. 12 Planning Commission Feting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're on the side where they want to be closer? Okay. Just to be real clear about that. Dave Bangasser: Just to the east. Sacchet: Where that side yard setback is being requested? Dave Bangasser: So again, we're generally very positive about the plan. I think the designer has been very creative with the plan, both the layout of the plan and particularly the tower is a great design. We do have a concern for the side yard setback. The last time I talked to Tom, some time in the fall. We went out there and looked at it and I think Tom you indicated that you were going to jog the wall and you weren't going to ask for a variance there. And the next thing I knew 4 days ago I got a notice saying you were asking for a variance. Needless to say I was surprised by that. We have a relatively tight 40 foot lot. One of the smallest on the lake. Again, as Bob mentioned, it's a very old subdivision. At 70 feet the Johnson's property is one of the biggest lots in the area. Not the biggest but among the bigger lots there. Because of the way the property line angles, and obviously that's a lot of the problems that we're talking about here. Because of the way the property line angles, the addition, and in particular the deck. In particular the deck, we really have a problem with the deck. With that angle, the deck appears to be oriented more towards our lakeshore. Not completely but again because of that angle it's geared towards our lakeshore so when we're down by the beach, if they're out on the deck, which as proposed is within 5 feet of the property, it just felt to us like we'd be almost imposing upon their space. I have to say I was really irritated that you showed the deck within 5 feet of the property line and never bothered to call. There's absolutely no function for it. There's no reason to line everything up. If anything, jogs add interest architecturally and I clearly was not happy with that. My wife was not happy with that. There's an existing mature evergreen tree that's right at the corner of that proposed deck which would have to go if the plan was built as proposed. That evergreen provides a nice buffer there right now. I think enough's been said about the plan itself. Again I see no purpose for what appears to me to be a 57 foot long deck across the front of that property. The kitchen, I agree with the earlier comments that you know I think modifications could be made. Quite frankly the house, I don't have a problem with. I think you've done a nice job of minimizing the windows that are oriented towards our property. I really wouldn't have strong objections with that but the deck clearly is an issue. We'd like to see that deck pulled back as far as possible. Again I think with the creativity that you've displayed with the design, I don't know why some of these modifications couldn't be made and still be a very functional house for you and you know again, we support all the other variances. We're concerned about the side yard setback. We think it'd be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments and discussion. Anybody? Ullehaug: Mr. Chair, could I ask a couple questions of staff? 13 Planning Commission �eting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I just want to get a clarification on the deck and encroachment of the deck, as well as the eaves into the side yard setback. My understanding is the eaves are supposed to be, they are supposed to be included in the setback? Generous: They're part of the variance, correct. Lillehaug: But they're not included as part of the variance right now as far as the distance, is that right? Generous: That's my understanding. They're not incorporated. Lillehaug: So actually the variance would have to be even more than it's shown? Generous: For the eaves, yes. Lillehaug: 11 inches I guess more. Okay. Now the second part of the question is the deck. Can the deck encroach into the side yard setback? Generous: The deck may encroach to within 5 feet of the side property line. Sacchet: Is that it? Okay. We have some more answers. Any discussion? Comments. Claybaugh: Would it be possible Mr. Chair to have the applicant comment with respect to the evergreen buffer? That it was something that hadn't been addressed. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? Claybaugh: I don't know if that's appropriate or not. Sacchet: Yeah, it's a valid question. I mean the concern that the neighbor brought up with the evergreen would have to be cut down because of the deck expansion. Dan Anderson: I think we've already made a general decision. As I commented earlier, Rich's question on the deck, we can work with the deck. That's not a major importance. I couldn't agree more with the neighbor on the deck. We can tie that back into a nice design on that... Tom Johnson's could not be heard. Sacchet: You can work with it? Tom Johnson: We can work with that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with bringing the deck in some. 14 Planning Commission N*Teeting —February 17, 2004 • Tom Johnson: I think that's fine. Sacchet: Yeah, I wonder whether that would actually make this, take the space for that evergreen. Dan Anderson: Trim off that tree a little bit but not enough to damage the tree or lose... The key is the buffer, is the way I understood it. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion from the commissioners. Anybody. Lillehaug: Can I ask staff one more question? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: Could you put the sketch back up showing the 75 foot OHWI_ line in reference to that tree. That's the tree we're talking about. Generous: 75 feet actually because the shoreline of the lake is a little closer than that. I was showing the 12 foot deck extension so this basically is a straight line. Lillehaug: Now a deck cannot encroach into the 75 foot. Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: Can I ask one question? What was the side yard setback for a deck? 5 feet? Generous: 5 feet. Aanenson: Just to be clear, when someone's asking for a variance, you can attach any reasonable condition you want to to mitigate that, and that might be the encroachment into the side yard. So while that's a standard... Claybaugh: Point of clarification Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: 5 foot setback with respect to the deck. Is that something that's grandfathered in because the existing deck is within 5 feet or is that? Generous: No. The code provides... Claybaugh: The code does provide so it isn't the 10 foot for that. Okay. 15 Planning Commission 010eeting — February 17, 2004 • Aanenson: For a deck only. Sacchet: Alright. Where do we stand with this? Lillehaug: Well I can start in comments. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I'm going to hit the four points I guess that we're talking about. First of all I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property as it currently is. I think that's the number one point that needs to be made. Number two point I guess would be is, I think we need to encourage refurbishing of the house. It's an older house. Somehow we need to encourage that but I guess number one, impervious area. My position is not increasing that at all, and I would stand firm on that. Whatever happens we cannot increase that impervious area because it's already non -conforming and it's grossly non -conforming. Front yard setback, you know I don't have a huge problem with it but I really do think there's already a reasonable use of that existing garage. To me it appears it's 24 foot deep. That's a standard depth of a garage. It's not cramped. That's probably the depth of my garage if I remember right. So expanding that garage to the front increasing the non-conformance, you know I'm not totally sold on that either. Side yard setback, I think there's many, many different options that can be, that could take place inside the house. Relocating the stairwell to one location or the other. I think I saw 4 baths in the new layout of the house. Is that a reasonable use? I guess I'm not going to say it is or isn't but there's many other things that can be done in the layout of that house to not encroach in that 10 foot side yard setback. I do not support any encroachment in that 10 foot side yard setback. What else would there be? Number 4. That'd be the wetland, 75 foot setback. Again, I don't support any encroachment into that at all. Sacchet: Thanks for laying it out Steve. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Let's see here. With respect to the front yard setback, I agree with my fellow commissioner that 24 feet depth on the garage is reasonable use. Again the plan that I have doesn't mention what the additional lineal foot attached to the proposed addition, but I guess I view that as the proliferation of a non-conformance with respect to, until it gets or achieves the front yard setback and I haven't totally made up my mind on that. With respect to the side yard setback, I agree that there's a number of components with the house's interior that could be modified, re- worked and it's well within their grasp to get that down so it's a variance free application. With respect to the deck and encroachment of the lakeshore, I don't see a compelling reason to support that. The, with respect to the hard surface coverage, I would suspect that when some of these things are addressed that they will be within line with what they're current non-conformance is and won't require a variance or won't require further intensification of it so, that's my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any additional comments? 16 Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 • Tjomhom: Yeah, I might come off sounding crazy I guess after hearing everybody else but you know, I'm all for taking something old and making it new and improving our city and making our lakeshores look better and our neighborhoods and so I thought it was a nice plan. I don't have a problem with expanding the garage. I don't have a problem with... architect or your builder seemed to be reasonable in working with these people and getting it back into some better parameters with regard to the lakeshore, and I'm still confused about the side yard setback. I hate to wreck a whole plan and something that seems to function for 2.6 feet. You know, it just seems to me kind of a crime to, well see I was thinking. But when the neighbor came up and had problems with it then I think okay, it is hurting somebody else and it's affecting somebody else and so then maybe it needs to be re -worked and so I guess those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Slagle: I will just make my quick. I think I would tag along with Bethany, and especially when she mentioned the functionality of the plan. I think it's a well thought out plan. I think with the concern of the neighbor, it led me to this thinking and the thinking is that it might be worth tabling this and allowing them to work out potential plan that could take into account the neighbors... Sacchet: Real quick where I stand. It's not a hardship but I think it's a reasonable use to expand on that whole garage. I think that's pretty clear. I agree with staff's position basically with the whole thing with one addition. I would like to see a condition that we preserve that evergreen. I think that would balance the scale in terms of the neighbors concern. But other than that I agree with staff. I'm not sure whether it needs to be tabled. I think the position is relatively clear. I think we've worked through different options. We established that there are ways to work it and I have full trust, I mean you've obviously put in a real quality project together here so personally I don't think we need to see it again. So with that I'd like to see a motion please. Can we make this into one motion or do we have to make it in two steps? Generous: Well you could combine them. One's for approval and the rest are denial. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions which aren't number but I would number them, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sacchet: Five would be the new one? No, no there's one on the other side there, okay. 17 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Lillehaug: And then 6 would be the new one. And the condition would be, to fully preserve the tree that we were speaking of. Sacchet: Evergreen to the east of the deck. Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: We know which one you're talking about. We have a motion, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: So are we suggesting that this motion is to deny the applicant's request for a side yard setback and a lakeshore? Sacchet: Yes, that will be the next motion. Should we make it into one motion? Generous: Well you can add that as the second part of the motion. Sacchet: We probably should make it into one. Lillehaug: Okay. And then should I just keep going on with my motion then? Sacchet: Yes. Why don't we add that to it. Lillehaug: Okay. And adding to my previous motion, I recommend that the Planning Commission denies the side yard shoreland, and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house. Same house, in according with the findings of fact in the staff report. Sacchet: Do we need another second since we added? Claybaugh: Yes, I'll second again. Sacchet: Okay. We have a second to both parts. Any discussion? Friendly amendments? Slagle: Another clarification. Just so we're clear, we, myself, I'll speak for myself. Approve of giving them the side variance setback and a lakeshore setback and the front yard setback, assuming that the deck would work, will actually be voting against this motion? Sacchet: Say again. lu Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: I lost you. Okay, you got an answer. Whatever the question. Slagle: What I'm trying to say is, there's a motion to approve the way it's written. Sacchet: Pretty much the way it's written, yes. That's correct. We're basically approving the front yard variance. We're denying the side yard, shoreland and coverage variance request. Okay? Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance and recommends approval of a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principle structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. 6. The applicant shall fully preserve the evergreen located to the east of the deck. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sacchet: There's two nays and three ayes. That means this has to go to City Council. Aanenson: Correct. 19 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Automatically goes to City Council. We need a big majority to make this ... so since it's not a big majority you will see the City Council on that, and they will make a final decision. Do we know when this goes to City Council? Aanenson: It'd be the 8`s. Sacchet: On the 8` 9 Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, we, this is a very interesting mix of situations. I think everybody, certainly you should specify why you voted nay. What we voted for here 3 to 2 is that we do agree with front yard setback. That we consider that a reasonable use. That we do not agree to give a variance on the side yard setback because we think there are ample possibilities to mitigate that, as well as with the deck. We definitely want to have the coverage reduced, not increased. That's the one area where we can mitigate the non-conformance of the situation, or the shoreland setback is the most sensitive in terms of the nature so anything you want to add in the for side? Why we are voting for this. Claybaugh: Yeah actually clarification. I made the point previously in my comments about the 24 foot deep garage. I think that was an argument for intensifying that non- conformity but in looking a little closer at the plans, I believe it's less a function of the garage depth and more a function of making the bedrooms above it work out. And as such I don't have any reservations about that. I wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Any more comments? Okay, the cons. Any comments why you voted against for City Council? You want to summarize your issue? Slagle: Concurring on the efforts on the deck, and then probably having ... on the description of ample. Sacchet: So what would be your balance point? Slagle: I think it's fine... Sacchet: It's fine encroaching with the kitchen. And the same for you Bethany? Tjornhom: I'd also like to add that it seemed to me that the neighbor and the applicant and the builder seem willing to work together to reach a reasonable agreement. Sacchet: Okay, so let them work basically. And last comment for council, that evergreen. I think we agree that we'd like to save that evergreen. So that's the summary for council. Ullehaug: One more quick comment? 0f Planning Commission Meeting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I think it needs to be a 3 foot 6 inch setback with the eaves. Didn't we clarify that earlier, and not a 2 foot 6, so it's more than 2 foot 6. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, ISD #112, PLANNING CASE NO.04-08. Public Present: Name Address Rod Franks 8694 Mary Jane Circle Paul Schlueter 427 Campfire Cv, Chaska Ben Merriman 8156 Mallory Court Bev Stofferahn 8123 Marsh Drive Ellen Rawson 2266 Boulder Road Lori Juelich 2246 Stone Creek Lane East Karen Kennedy 2051 Boulder Road Gary Feldick 2231 Boulder Road Gene Kruchoski 2030 Boulder Road Peggy Emerson 8409 Stone Creek Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions from staff. Slagle: Kate, in offering the two options if you will, would there be a reason the applicant would be opposed to that, from what you know? Aanenson: No, we did speak to them about that and I think they're comfortable with that. Again we don't anticipate that, but for some reason the school district decided or couldn't build the school in the future, it just protects our options of providing industrial, and also gives the residents some level of protection of what they think might go in there. Slagle: Okay. On page 3, where it talks about OI district. Maximum height. Aanenson: Two stories. 21 0 March 2, 2004 Via FAX 952/227-1110 Mr. Bob Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Tom & Jackie Johnson Variance Requests 3637 South Cedar Drive Dear Bob: RECEIVED - 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN We are writing this letter to express our support of the Johnson's variance requests that the City Council will consider on March 8, 2004. As you know, we spoke at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on February 17d' and expressed concerns regarding portions of the plan while expressing a generally positive view of the overall concept and architecture. Our property at 3633 South Cedar Drive is directly east of the Johnson home. Our primary concern was the location of the deck approximately five feet from our joint property line. We had initially been concerned with the request for a side yard variance to build the kitchen to within 7.4 feet of the property line. However, in subsequent discussions with Tom we indicated we would support the originally submitted kitchen plan since it minimized windows on our side and was an appealing architectural design. We are in receipt of the plans submitted to the Planning Department on March 2"d. This revised plan goes beyond our request to move the deck away from the property line by moving both the deck and the kitchen back. The kitchen would be setback ten feet from the property line with the east end of the deck aligned with the east wall of the addition. We are very appreciative of the Johnson's willingness to listen to our concerns and revise their plan. We believe the Johnson's addition as proposed will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood! Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Sincerely, Nal �14 Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC D : February 17, 2004 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 03/20/04 CASE #: 04-07 BY: RG, LK ML, JS, ST PROPOSAL: Request for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home. LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point APPLICANT: Tom and Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: 0.27 acre DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a variance from the front, side and Lakeshore setback requirements and a lot coverage variance to expand a single-family home. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high le of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. 1 Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting setback variances from the front (a 19.3 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for a 10.7 foot setback), side (a 2.6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for a 7.4 foot setback) and lakeshore (a 6.2 foot variance from the 75 foot setback requirement for a 68.8 foot setback) to permit the expansion of their home to connect the garage and the house, to add an entrance vestibule, to create a larger kitchen, to add three bedrooms and to expand the deck. The majority of the expansion would take place over existing impervious surface; however, there would still be an increase in impervious surface to 46.6 percent from 43.9 percent. The applicant could complete a majority of the building expansion without the need for a variance. This can be achieved by maintaining the 10 foot side yard setback by either aligning the expansion to parallel the property line or moving the expansion in 2.6 feet along its length, and reducing the area of the deck to maintain a 75 foot setback from the lake, which would still provide ample deck area in front of the proposed expansion. The only area of the expansion that would require a variance would be the bedrooms over the garage, which is currently non -conforming, and the expanded garage. Staff believes that the expansion of the garage to include second story bedrooms is a reasonable request and is recommending approval with the condition that the existing impervious surface be reduced. However, staff does not support the other variances for side, Lakeshore and impervious surface coverage and is recommending denial. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-72(a) states that there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Section 20-72 (b) states that any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Section 20-481 (a) requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of recreational development lakes. Section 20-615 (4) of the zoning ordinance permits maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. Section 20-615 (5) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard and a 10 foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. BACKGROUND The subdivision including this property was recorded on August 30, 1913. The house was constructed in 1943. The development of this house on the lot predates the existing zoning ordinance. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 3 Case # Address Variance Notes 04-07 3637 South Cedar Dr. 19.3' front, 2.6' side and 6.2' lakeshore proposed 1975 3715 South Cedar Dr. 20' front Approved for garage 81-8 3607 Red Cedar Point 13.5' and 7.5 lakeshores setback Approved for deck and entry 82-12 3732 Hickory Ln. 2' side and 33' lakeshore Approved, 11,342 sq. ft. lot 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Pt. 1.8' front Approved for garage 85-26 3713 South Cedar Dr. 15' front Approved for garage, 6,500 s . ft. lot 85-27 3701 South Cedar Dr. 5' front and 35' lakeshore Approved for addition 87-10 3601 Red Cedar Pt. 45' lakeshore setback Approved for addition, peninsula lot 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Pt. 12' front and 3' side Approved for new house 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Pt. 4' side and 2' side Approved for expanded garage and house 91.4 3727 South Cedar Dr. 79' lot width Approved for new house, triangular parcel 92-1 3607 Red Cedar Pt. 1.5' side and 14.5' lakeshore Approved for garage and house expansion 93-3 3841 Red Cedar Pt. 2' side Approved for garage 93-6 3618 Red Cedar Pt. 1 15' lakeshore and 8' side Approved for deck & porch 96-4 3705 South Cedar Dr. 3' side yards, 3 F lakeshore and 25% impervious Approved for house 2000-9 3733 Hickory Ln. 18' front, 5' side and 5% impervious Approved for garage 2002-5 3628 Hickory Ln. 13' front and 5' side Approved for garage ANALYSIS The applicant could perform a majority of the expansion without the need for a variance. The incorporation of the existing garage is problematic since the majority of that structure does not meet the required front setback of 30 feet. It is reasonable for the homeowner to want to incorporate this structure into the overall remodeling of the home. In exchange for the city supporting the variance in this area, we would require that the property owner reduce below the current level the amount of impervious surface on the property. While it would be impossible to reduce the site coverage to 25 percent impervious, it can be reduced to approximately 40 percent. (Please note that decks are not included in impervious surface calculations unless the deck does not permit water to run down between the boards on the flooring, if there is a roof over the deck or if there is other impervious surface below the deck.) The balance of the expansion could be accomplished without a variance, but it would require a modification to the plans. The kitchen expansion would need to meet the 10 foot side yard setback and the deck outside the expansion would need to be shortened to meet the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Even with these restraints, there is considerable area for the house to expand. The property should reduce the current percent impervious surface. It appears that the extent of the driveway could be reduced in several locations to achieve the reduction. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 4 Section 20-1122 (e) states: "For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than ten (10) feet." The current driveway width at the ROW line is 55 feet. A majority of the driveway exceeds 36 feet in width. Section 20-1122 (e) states: "Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines, beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city." The driveway does not currently meet the side property line setback on the west side of the property. If a variance is (or variances are) approved, the applicant should work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake N innewashta. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant could expand the house and comply with the required building setbacks on the side and lake side. Additionally, the impervious surfaces can be reduced. The use of the existing garage, which is currently non-confomvng, appears to be a reasonable request. The majority of the garage expansion on this side maintains the existing non -forming setback, the architectural dormers on the second story encroach closer to the property line. Normally, such architectural features are permitted to encroach in to setbacks. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are numerous properties that are non- conforming and can be expanded without variances. There are also numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property, the intent of the variance over the garage is to provide two bedrooms for the property owner's children. Planning Case #04-07 • • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 5 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The expansion of the house to the side and toward the lakes would be new construction and therefore would be self-created hardship. However, the use and expansion of the garage, which is currently non -conforming, is caused partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the proposed expansion of these areas is dictated by the location of the existing structure. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of the side yard variance, may infringe on the improvements to the neighboring property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed front yard setback variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood since this structure already exists. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following two motions: A. "The Planning Commission approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. Planning Case #04-07 • Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 6 The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. B. "The Planning Commission denies the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report" Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Tom and Jackie Johnson dated 01/14/04 3. Architectural Plans 4. Street Elevation Picture 5. Existing Structure Picture 6. Existing Deck Picture 7. 6' 9" Ceiling Picture 8. Driveway Picture 9. Room Above Garage Picture 10. Bedroom Picture 11. Kitchen Picture 12. Retaining Wall Picture 13. Impervious Surface Reduction Schematic 14. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 15. Lot Survey i Pi of CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:Li ad y�/7e f OWNER:! ADDRESS: >� .� % ( 1LJp ADDRESS:_ TELEPHONE (Dayilme l Sa -�Z%%�/) TELEPHONE: 9Sa -y7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance a� Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X EscroyOQr Filing Fees/Alto Cost" �($50 4UP/SPRNACAP/Metes Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ A list of all property owners within 5Q0 feet of the boundaries of the property m st b5 inc)uded with the application. lie &'e'� ��� .�. !Z-LcOIiL•� Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'h" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECTNAME rOM i}N6 JqUG!c J04q-CC>M 0ff�fCE �n LOCATION 5-3% SOUThf F-1)A �2r i�r EXC� LStOfLt M/U. 55733 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT l % Fx f T T�4(5 &,)q S i l0 f=7-�ff-T' Ttt -yz-eo f A�4-L OF LOT / R t3LoLK 4, CcJ(42 Poi ram( 7- TOTAL ACREAGE S 9 D S 4 F`� -- Tzj-4 t L vT S ( Z.t WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING /Zt6T/T714L REQUESTED ZONING S A rn i= PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION kE7S / A ri/ L7 A L, REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION SA m t REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Sc ATF�jCtqffn This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 1 am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by thgapplicant. Sig6, ture o Appt cant to 0 Si nature of Fee OVX& V Da e o0 Application Received on t Lo L�4 Fee Paid CRSO Receipt No. DW 41(,8 9 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. January 14`h, 2004 Re: 3637 South Cedar Drive Variance To whom it may Concern, This letter of description is to inform the members of the Planning committee and the city council our need for a variance on our home. The Variance will allow us to have a bedroom for both our son and daughter, at the present time both of the children are sharing the same room, our current lay out has a master bedroom and one bedroom. The addition will allow us to have a bedroom for both, as well as a bathroom to share. As per the plans we were able to utilize the room over the current garage by raising the. existing roof. To accommodate this plan as well we are adding six feet to the west on to the garage below. All the added square footage allows the bedroom expansion to work. As far as the hard cover we are willing to match the current hard cover calculations as well as reduce by 3 to 5 % by adding in some planting areas. It is of our opinion we are not asking for unneeded space only making what is currently there, work. Variances requested are for the following: ❑ 30' set back on street side. (I P proposed — existing garage) ❑ 10' side yard set back. (T proposed) ❑ 75' from high water mark. (73 proposed) ❑ Hard Cover (to maintain existing 43.9%) CITY of SSEN RECEIVED Thank you very much. BAN 2 0 2004 GHANHASSEN aLA;VNING DEP7 Tom and Jackie Jo on 3637 South Cedar Drive Chanhassen Mn quln Ja ro 8 8 BuW l ES N Johnson Residence Demolition 01 3637 South Cedar Drive Foundation Architectural PlanEleva� Olxcelior, MN Structural � Structural Sections � Interior Sections x x Room Finish Schedule O Y X X � OlER LE141 LflvXlibx 0 0 0 Cl • I wp w awwq wun 1 • ro x.� • p.t'' L PiKN i Floor Freni Plen j - • I'•O' Scdl¢ 40 M Id tlon In C Ilkg a -prey rwa E.falrg randailm f edx roar ply a/ cilpe t1w,gln to Mich eai-tlrg 4-� t bwlatlw elth prop Imwad veuk Wee by trve- elMufeclve celllrg OF aM will g art^'w I.B / d4 -aoolh railer fecla and -nlooin -offlt. alto Crntbu. writing r elaks exlerbr u, mall cast V oc - IS Well b Iatlm �iG rb Ip ccb wit onwtMig I4ngca 2.12 Joiet W ac clld nil I beam aril owe boll I been ea par erlgMeer fxadelme 11ptp° Exbtbg fcotlrg cant NC b good coat 17' Rd-t lmtl O O i Q) U -V i- x x I 1100111,40 ll� CITY OF CH RECEIVH SSEN JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PIA; yNING DEP7 ff /441 " I �>+P-u c � � U r Al G, t I LkNj,-\ � 16t r� C' e+ `' CgLI Lrw? f w yy's# +sie fyll theY,'' J2� � �rt'� +•. Y w. 'iR 3'x �' iF`.'� i'Yw �` �' '� f tjl{ To 2.1 v. .a t� } a _ Y ti e _ 9 A P is c+i �t n S otm--e-- 5� 110 ,�, t, e add 15 RNA, R34- a4 b- p , 2 c rE 3 's _xr��tq* �rjrWvAfji't' -> , r ,`{' .ski f$F't - g° a a �i ��x�' �xv� _711 _r �h .s, lam' r 'cz v n i —l- Y ,,M,�arJ i oKs 5L*-Nc� R A s� 5 ' �� rol FOUND 1/2' .f TIE i EXISTING RESIDENCE SEWER O MANHOLE FOUND 1/2 IRON PIPE i 1 1 _1 1 1 1 EXISTING STRUCTURE POSE I ITION Z of )NCRETE (� PATIO 7.4 rn 1 62 960 ° PROPOSED NEW DECK svR�c 5 ` 956 i � •�N�� R't-N 40 1 1p —7 ` t IVgA$ N I ND sr., � ED t 81"2g 19 , Ah 69.50 7^ -YUNE� SURVE � FOUND 1/2 , \ ' ' A6 1 CAPPED IRON — APPROXIMATE / g44 AREA OF RIP RAP O O ' OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE � WATFR CFVFl S `a EXISTING 'o GARAGE SURFACE \ FLR EL - 957.5 ;s P OSED ADDITION m ,Ah� g5g P C i [ C co rn EXISTING RESIDENCE i Z LOW FLOOR = f 957.4 OEM CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Johnson Variance Request (3637 South Cedar Drive) - Planning Case No. 04- 07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kafeen J. En t# dt, 134uty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 2004. 4t3l��Nota�ryi� gAeng\forms\affidavit.doc LKIMT. MEUV111SSENy Pudic- MimmotaYYYV ARVER COUNTYMssion E)iies 1l311M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Setback and Lot Coverage Variances on Property Zoned RSF APPLICANT: Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson, is requesting setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 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. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2004. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 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. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Planning Case No. 04-07 Public Hearing Notification Area Lake Minnewashta Subject Site AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON ARLENE KAY HERNDON BIRUTA M DUNDURS 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING DEBORAH S LOCKHART & DIANE DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY LEESON ANDING 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9657 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A EDW IN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES BARINSKY OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 7210JUNIPER J NOVAK 3719 SOUTH CEDAR 292 CHARLES DR XC JUNIPER E EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9204 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9613 ELIZABETH J SAVAGE & HEIDI J EMIL & PATRICIA SCUBA ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER SAVAGE 14025 VALE CT 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3715 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3017 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9769 EVELYN Y BEGLEY GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN GARY PETERSON 3701 SOUTH CEDAR AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO GREGORY BOHRER JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 7201 JUNIPER AVE 3706 HICKORY RD 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 JEAN D LARSON JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON JILL D HEMPEL 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3705 SOUTH CEDAR 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 JOHN R MARX & HEIDI A RIGELMAN LINDA L JOHNSON LUMIR C PROSHEK 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9676 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER PAMELA A SMITH TRUSTEES OF TRUST 8321 VIEW LN 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD 371E SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1430 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING ROBERT CHARLES ANDING KATZ-G N M GUNTHER & HELEN NTHER 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3618 RED CEDAR PT 3628 HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 362E HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1606 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-07 - johnson variance\ph notice labels.doc RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9687 SURVEYING & CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. l01 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 474-8267 SURVEY FOR: TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON SURVEYED: December, 2003 DRAFTED: December 12, 2003 REVISED: January 19, 2004 to add dimensions. Also got a better idea of what the proposed deck is and this changed the proposed hard cover tabulation to plus 68 sq. R on the deck LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17, except the East 10 feet thereof and all of Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta, Hennepin county, Minnesota SCOPE OF WORK L Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that my matters of record, such m easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you ere nor are wens familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " •" Denotes l2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted Ihereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or. under my direct supervision and that Iam a licensed Professional Engineer and J Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. esot �I"ilmaon 1 1 \ J `k'nn "a H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 lei RAa,I(OMMY.\a5 ( or rear ) JAN 2 0 2004 ouraussw aws" Darr HARD COVER TABULATION: LOT ARBA TO OHW: 11,590 Sq. Ft EXISTING: House 1,181 Sq. Ft Garage 539 Sq. Ft Deck 431 Sq. Ft Bituminous 1,988 Sq. Ft Concrete 827 Sq. FL Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft Rock Wall 84 Sq. Ft Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft TOTAL: 5,090 Sq. Ft % HARD COVER: 43.9% PROPOSED: House 2,604 Sq. FL Deck 768 Sq. Ft Bituminous 1,770 Sq. Ft. Concrete 155 Sq. Ft Railroad Tie Walt 15 Sq. Ft Rock Wall 70 Sq. FL Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. FL TOTAL: 5,407 Sq. Ft %HARD COVER: 46.6% 1 VESEVIER MANHOUE Af D - !�. �j ,! i sHO=R - I COSTINGMANHOLE ® FOUND 1/T / - - - EXISTING STRUCTURE - -C PIED IR - BITUOOUS I,'m GARAGE I - / SURFACE FLR EL _ 957.5 tt.t RAILROAD ' - 71ONTIC ;, � CONCAEIE m RATIO 7.4 m+l ,q U95iNG RESDF110E\ mJ /9 A LOW FLOOR \ £ 2 �I 957.4 ` G PROPOSED A s NEW DECK 9 N g 5.4 - O y • 5 UGC D951910- 10� RESIDENCE 9 1z' - T'4s TIME go So A, HERE boats PILEG IN �7C i I"IN�5y9- E� —F 69.50 FOUND 1/2 CAPPED IRON APPRO) MATE - / / / l 9µ , AREA OF RIP RAP G ONW LEVEL ' CONTOUR LINE DEC 2 LEVEL3 / DEC 0W - ,� �� NEyVAsgTA LAK E MIN D". Na 0315A 0 lul u U ::.I/ I X TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: January 22, 2004 SUBJ: Review of variance request for the expansion of a home located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. Tom and Jackie Johnson. Planning Case: 04-07 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have the following comments: 1. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. 2. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. G/safety/sLmemos/plan/variance/3637 South Cedar Drive SCANNED ACTION 1 To: a S Date: From: ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS FOR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ NOTE & RETURN ❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ NOTE & FILE ❑ CALL ME ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ME ❑ ❑ REPLY & SEND ME COPY ❑ COMMENTS: N'o I S4 %,Imo+ c c cpi,J H O Copydgbt 1969, 1s70--Laurel Me Aids, Inc, B.ille, N.V. 10708 V.W. Enntcke Assedates, Inc., 91onxville, N.V. 10709 SCAWND Tel. (914) 337-1900 • Fax (914) 337-1723 Distributed in Canada solely by VW Einnicke Ltd., Petelborougb, Onlado Tel. (705) 743-4202 • Fax VM) 743-999a MIMED IN USA Form OA-4 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: January 20, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department 16 �t 4ud 1 lzo lo`f �'1 c•.Q.¢ci t � 21 f p By: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Subject: Request for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive, Tom and Jackie Johnson. Planning Case: 04-07 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on January 20, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on February 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than February 6, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments 8. Telephone Company a. City Engineer (Qwest or United) b. City Attorney c. City Park Director 9. Electric Company (R Fire Marshal (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) Building Official Water Resources Coordinator 10. Medicom Forester Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County a. Engineer 4. MN Dept. of Transportation b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Other- (/6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 14. `7/. MN Dept. of Natural Resources GAPIW11GUohnson Variance 04-07\RefertalDOC 0 District Coordinator Minnehaha Creek Watershed 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55345-1597 Ms. Julie Ekman, Area Hydrologist Dept. of Natural Resources Metro Region Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 m p"J i 0•ts 5v-Fkcg� �d�4i �0,1 • 1yE > FOUND RAILROAD TIE WAIL i EXISTING RESIDENCE SEWER O MANHOLE EXISTING . ` S GARAGE bn' SURFACE FLR EL = 9 957.5 11.1 OSED ADDITION �y� 95e P OPOSE DITION CONCRETE PATIO rn 0 EXISTING LOW FLOOR ENCE\ i f 62 957.4 96 I v FOUND 1 CAPPED IRON 0 APPROXIMATE AREA OF RIP RAP 11 No FOUND 1/2- IRON PIPE 1 1 1 I 1 Z10 7.4 L •� r Z0 I3 EXISTING STRUCTURE L©t� AO —A ' 95� rn ' N 81 ' 69.50- -suR� u"E 1 � 41 i -.,944.5�i" 944' i r^ PROPOSED NEW DECK / WATER LEVEL OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE SCANNED Location Map 3637 South Cedar Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-07 1* Subject Property LAKE MINNEWASNTA Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 Rwd ran US Rlg"ays OR Righeays AI CSAH Cw,fty Roads Water Feawes Panels AuuIPWo loos PID# 256600380 Property Address: Owner Information: 37 SOUTH CEDAR OMAS C & JACQUF1.BdE JOHNSON �EXCELSIOR, MN 3637 SOUTH CEDAR CELSIOR, MN 55331 0.25 Y let: 0276 116 11FALMarket Value Laud: $228700 Markel Value Building: $106200 Map Created: I-29-20" Ir L Market Value Total: $334900 CARVER COUNTY GIB DISCLABNER: This map was crested using Carver County's Ce ,, of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a used as a refaetam Carver County is rot responsible for any imco Year Built: 1943 Square Footage: 1184 004 ne: RED CEDAR POINT LK t Sale Information Date: 10/26/2001 Price: $329900 lified/Unqualiliied: QUALIFIED SALE Information Systems (GIS), a is a compilation d or legally recorded map and is intended to be contained herein. http://156.99.124.1671website/parcel_intemet_recapiorintdatainap. asp. PID=2566O0380 1 /29/2004 WANNED Notices & Minutes City Council SummaryWarch 8, 2004 enforceable. Mayor Furlong stated he would prefer the city act as facilitator to get the parties to work together themselves rather than trying to do something through the ordinance. Neal Blanchett with Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South spoke on behalf of Paws, Claws & Hooves. He stated they support staff's recommendation to approve the permit and would be willing to work with city staff in revising the ordinance. Councilman Ayotte asked Neal Blanchett to explain how Paws, Claws & Hooves deals with noise issues. Todd Gerhardt asked the applicant to consider keeping the dogs inside permanently. Councilman Labatt suggested that Paws, Claws & Hooves provide a 24 hour contact via phone or pager to the city. Mayor Furlong stated that since he had skipped over visitor presentations, he invited any interested parties to speak at this point. Susan Rech, 1000 Hesse Farm Road stated she was one of the neighbors who have written letters complaining about the noise. She was also representing the Force's and the Ladd's who were unable to be at the meeting. They all live on Hesse Farm and have been dealing with this problem for a number of years with the incessant barking of these dogs. She cited numerous conditions of the conditional use permit which are not being followed, and written complaints filed with the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Labatt suggested the neighbors use a video camera to record the time and date and record the barking dogs. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive suggested that because of the topography, an officer might observe a barking dog and not hear it outside the fence as much as the neighbor up on the bluff. After discussion regarding the legalities involved with tabling or approving the permit and the time frame when a new ordinance can be brought in front of the council, the following motion was made. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the commercial kennel permit for Paws, Claws & Hooves at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT, SIDE, AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON. Kate Aanenson provided background information and action taken at the Planning Commission meeting. Council members asked for clarification on the drawing of what was existing and what was proposed. Dan Anderson spoke on behalf of Tom and Jackie Johnson at 3637 South Cedar Drive. Tom Johnson clarified the location of the 75 foot setback in relation to the deck design. The council asked staff for suggestions to amend the motion to approve the variances for shoreland setback and impervious surface coverage with conditions. Tom Johnson asked for clarification on what was being discussed by staff and council. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve variances for a 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: • City Council Summaryarch 8, 2004 • 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and demolition. 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. OF LYMAN BOULEVARD: SCHOOL DISTRICT 112. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and update from the Planning Commission. Councilman Peterson asked staff to explain how they are planning to compensate for the loss of this industrial office property. Bev Stofferahn who lives at 8123 Marsh Drive and is Superintendent of School District 112 spoke on behalf of the school board asking for the council's approval. Councilman Lundquist stated he will be working and watching staff to locate industrial zoning elsewhere in the city and the 2005 MUSA area. Resolution #2004-11: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the Land Use Amendment to Office/Industrial and OWiice/Institutional subject to the attached findings of fact and conditioned upon approval of the Amendment from the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION MEMBERS. Mayor Furlong requested that this item be added to appoint members to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and Planning Commission. Cl City Council Meeting arch 8, 2004 Councilman Labatt: Okay. I'm good with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other discussion? Susan Rech: Can I make a comment? Mayor Furlong: I'd rather not. Thank you. Keep this moving. We're going in the right direction so with that I guess if we're looking at a couple months to, for this council to be able to consider those ordinances, is there any reason for us to table this in advance of those ordinances or is it your opinion that by going forward with the permit now, that we'll take care of our concerns through the ordinance process. Roger Knutson: I think you'll take care of your concerns through the ordinance process, and I think it's also important to realize we're not just dealing with one kennel license. It will have effect on all sorts of licenses. There are many in the city and we want to make sure we kind of separate the two issues. Individual license versus the ordinance issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ahight, then I guess if there's other discussion, do we want to go forward. I guess I'll ask for a motion at this point with regard to the permit. Unless there's further discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the kennel permit for Paws, Claws & Hooves. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on this item? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the commercial kennel permit for Paws, Claws & Hooves at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. REQUEST FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT, SIDE, AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM & JACKH: JOHNSON. Kate Aanenson: The subject site is a lakeshore lot on Lake Minnewashta. The applicants did appear before the Planning Commission and because they did not, they had less than 75 percent, their motion goes forward as a recommendation for your consideration. The applicants have an existing home that they want to improve. There is a large expanse of asphalt as you're coming in a side loaded garage, so an existing non -conforming setback to the front of the lot. And then with the addition of the deck would encroach into the 75 foot setback on the side yard. The Planning Commission worked to see if they could get the setback to meet the 10 foot on this side, with the applicant's architect and designer. 25 City Council Meeting March 8, 2004 • They did work to make that setback work, the 10 foot, so what we're showing in pink there will be removed, so the side yard does meet standards. The area that doesn't is this area still on the deck where they want to walk out on this side to connect to the existing deck to the back. This area kind of hatched here in white and blue would still not meet the setback requirements. The other issue that the staff worked with the applicant on was to reduce the impervious. With the original one, 25 percent is the impervious coverage standard. They're at 46. With the changes they move to 43, and one of the recommendations is based on the asphalt that's out front, this is an approximate. In talking to the applicant they want to maybe alter that a little bit but to give the hard number of what we're looking at there, it's approximately 450 square feet and that would get us to reducing the impervious to 40 percent, and they've agreed that they think they can meet that. I think they just want that flexibility but I think what we'd like to put specifically in the motion is that getting to the 40 percent, so I'd recommend that you modify the condition. Councilman Labatt: Number one? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it'd be on page, correct. Page 5, condition number 1. The 43 to get it to the 40 percent. Again adding additional vegetation. Taking some of that driveway out. Unless you have additional questions, I think kind of the revised site plan, the Planning Commission did spend some time trying to see where there was some flexibility and again in good faith the applicants have worked to try to resolve through some change. Again it's a side loaded. A lot of the addition is going with what was already a hard surface coverage already so that, in moving towards reducing that, we think that's good and again flexibility of trying to eliminate some of the lakeshore setback. So with that we are recommending approval as seen in the staff report starting with the condition on page 5 with the amended as stated, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you had. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate what you have, Justin can you put that drawing back up? They currently have a side load garage now. What you're drawing there would require them to change the entrance 90 degrees. Kate Aanenson: No, it would still side load. It would come in this way. Still side load. Councilman Lundquist: Oh I got you. Take that hatched area they take out and replace with, okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes, and so they want some flexibility on how that works but what they're still trying to get to is that 40 percent. They might split it a little bit. Maybe doing of that over here. So we're giving that flexibility. The goal is to get to the 40 percent and we'll have them document that on the building but as they revise those plans. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, understand. Thank you. F City Council Meeting arch 8, 2004 • Councilman Labatt: Can you, Justin can you go back to that picture again. Can you just go over those colors again real quick. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Let me just put this up here real quick as we're still in the same focus. Again, this is the existing house so there's a space kind of to the back of the house. Here you have the garage which is ... trying to infill. That's where the addition is going. They're connecting the house to the garage because right now it's detached. Filling in that space. Again, when they originally came in, this is pinching down so what the Planning Commission was working to maintain that 10 foot side yard so the pink, when it originally came to the Planning Commission, had that on this through the, after the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They have agreed to remove that so they meet the side yard, correct. They meet the side yard. The problems still with the current setback on the back would be this area here where they want the deck to connect to the existing deck. That's still within the 75 foot setback. The Planning Commission did agree because this was in hard surface, to allow this variance to occur. What they were concerned was the lakeshore and the side yard. They thought there was flexibility in design and I think the applicant has again worked through that. Mayor Furlong: Can you point out on the map about where the 75 foot line is? Goes. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Actually pretty close to this, yeah. This is 68 to the back here. 72 up to right here so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the current deck is within the 75? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So are they asking for expanding further into the 75? Kate Aanenson: Right, with the new deck because this deck does not connect with the back of the house. The addition. I'll just show you on this plan. Get it going the same way here. They're proposing doors that would come out the back of the addition that would tie into the existing deck. Take advantage of that. Again they pushed everything to meet the side yard setback but they wanted to interconnecting this so the deck's in. Mayor Furlong: Questions then. If the, if we deny the 75 foot lakeshore setback, what does that do to the existing deck? Kate Aanenson: We have this little narrow area, probably right through here to connect between this deck and this deck. Mayor Furlong: But would the existing deck have to be removed? Kate Aanenson: No. Again, it's existing non -conforming. That's something that we always look at. Where can we try to get modification or movement towards meeting the 27 City Council Meeting Varch 8, 2004 • goals or the ordinance in place. Because that's existing and we didn't want to expand a non -conformity but we didn't ask them to tear it down, but we did look at the impervious surface to try and reduce that. It's certainly under a variance you can always attach any condition and make any recommendation you think is reasonable, and this was a recommendation that we had. I think the Planning Commission felt, there were some that felt not to change that strong about the impervious and some that felt strongly about the side yard setback modifications. Councilman Peterson: Kate, per their current request, how, give me a sense of how wide the current, not the current, but the proposed deck would be? Are they talking, do they want just a walkway or do they want it to be 10 feet to have some chairs out there and seating, etc, etc. Kate Aanenson: It's wider than, it's about 10 or 12. Dan Anderson: At the 45 degree angle? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Dan Anderson: About 8. Just enough for people to pass. Kate Aanenson: And that would be this area here. How about if I put it on this one, kind of that blue hatched area. Again coming out the sliding door. French door. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? One of the things that I read too was that underneath the deck there's impervious surface there as well. Is it their plan to add impervious surface underneath this new addition? That you're aware of. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure, no. No. Mayor Furlong: Maybe we can ask the applicant that question. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Is there any difference from staffs viewpoint in terms of where on the lot, is there a better or worse place for impervious surface to be? Kate Aanenson: Well again, most of the rear yard is landscaped, and that's the important side as you get towards the lake. Lake scaping. Again, because it's a side loaded garage, there is a lot of asphalt towards the front and because the house is sitting so close, we'd like to reduce that. That runoff towards the street to reduce, capture some of that too. It's a small lot. Under sized, similar to Carver Beach so when you increase the size of the home, and I think they've done a good job of trying to go vertical and maximize some of the, trying to connect the garage and going over the top of the garage, so as far as the plan in City Council Meeting Arch 8, 2004 • goes that's work pretty good. It is a narrow lot as it's pinching down and one of the concerns we have sometimes when you do a deck, depending on the type, it ends up being hard surface underneath it anyway because grass doesn't grow, whatever so sometimes we think we're getting some additional impervious but it doesn't end up that way over time. It becomes a storage area or something. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening and like to address the council in any manner? Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson at 3637 South Cedar Drive. If there are any questions I can answer, I realize there were some questions you were asking, or that I can answer. On the deck. Mayor Furlong: Well the guess the questions. Dan Anderson: To answer the question, you said the applicant would answer it at some point. Councilman Lundquist: Impervious surface under the deck. Mayor Furlong: Okay, yeah. I mean in terms of the impervious surface underneath the deck, if that was planned. You have that under the existing deck, is that correct? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That will remain. Mayor Furlong: Under the new portion of the deck will also be? Dan Anderson: That will be grass or some sort of landscape or that kind of thing. There's no need to bring that whole apron. Topography doesn't allow us to do that I guess, for drainage and slope. Sloping away. Kate Aanenson: Drops off. Dan Anderson: It drops off pretty good. Kate Aanenson: It drops off pretty good towards the lake... This is the existing deck. There is concrete underneath it. It's dropping towards the lake. Dan Anderson: This shows a maintenance... This is again, just a walkway to get you from here to there. Unless there's any other questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring it back to council for discussion then. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think I generally agree with staff. The only thing that I would consider would be letting him have that access from the new space, if it's 8 29 City Council Meeting arch 8, 2004 • or 9 feet, I don't think they need that to pass. What I'd do is I'd do minimum per code and minimize the setback to a great degree, so whether that's 36 or 42 inches or something so that a standard hallway, from a fire standpoint, I'd encroach on the easement that much but that'd be it. Mayor Furlong: And we'll put that in as, you're recommending that that goes in as a condition? Councilman Peterson: If it's. Mayor Furlong: If we move forward on that? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, you're Mr. Johnson? Tom Johnson: I'm the owner and one thing I wanted to, my name is Tom Johnson and I'm the home owner at 3637, and one thing I wanted to mention is that the actual 75 feet is about, right about there in the actual drawing. When I talked to Bob, when I came in initially he said you know that if we wanted to we could have come straight back and then come over like that but it would not then flow architecturally with the addition. And that was his comment. He was fine with the way that we redesigned. Initially my neighbor came and was upset with the fact that the deck came within 5 feet over here and he had given us a letter saying that as long as we had taken that part of the deck off, he was fine with the, actually he liked the overall design of the addition but I just wanted to make mention that if you bring it back like this, it's going to architecturally not flow with the addition as well, so that's really all I wanted to say. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Additional comments council. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilman Peterson. I'm sensitive to Mr. Johnson's comments about the architectural flow but in my eyes I guess there's, the purpose that they're looking for that piece of the deck is to connect the two and I think it's possible to do that and still get probably out of the variance altogether, and if not, at least minimize it which is I think what we should, what I would support doing. It may impact the architectural features slightly but I mean the choice is there. If it impacts the architecture too much, the choice is always there to not put it in at all so, you know we have to be sensitive to the ordinances, especially on the lakeshore side and I can support staffs recommendation with that addition that that be sent back to minimum for code or if they can get it out of that 75 altogether. I mean if it's 3 feet and that makes it a 5 foot thing and it's still bigger than code needs to be, then fine. As long as it's, we either do the minimum required by code or out of that 75 altogether because I'm okay with that then. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. 30 City Council Meeting arch 8, 2004 • Councilman Labatt: Kate I'm just trying, how big is the existing deck right now? About that far Tom, thanks. Dan Anderson: It's 12 feet by 36 feet. Councilman Labatt: So it comes out 12 feet right now? Dan Anderson: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay, that helps. 12 feet. And Kate, in taking Craig and Brian's comments, what do you anticipate the deck would have to come in to meet that 75 foot on that. Kate Aanenson: Well it appears that it may be, if it's over the 75 feet, then what I heard is what the minimum corridor passing would be per code, and that's kind of where I'm going. If it can be 3 feet, as Brian said, and still meet the 75, then it would be 3 feet or 4 feet, whatever that is. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, what I'm hearing is if it can be something bigger than code but still not encroach the 75. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Exactly, that's how I heard it. Mayor Furlong: And that's okay. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, exactly. Mayor Furlong: Or if it has to go into the 75, then it should be only as wide as code requires. Councilman Labatt: Clear as mud. Councilman Lundquist: And only for that new addition piece. The existing deck stays as is and we leave the existing deck alone. Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to clarify that real quick so, good. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other discussion items? I concur. I think that's a reasonable compromise. I would like to commend the applicant for making the adjustments that were recommended to Planning Commission by the neighbor for listening there so it makes it, I think what that does is remove even the request for a side yard variance, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. 31 City Council Meeting Joarch 8, 2004 • Mayor Furlong: So that's not even, I don't know that we have to deny something that's not being requested. With that, do you have some suggested language based on what we've talked about here tonight? B was to deny the shoreland setback so I think we need to put, we either approve that subject to the condition that we've been discussing here or we need some language here. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I have to go back to A and say, under A. Including the front yard setback, and then also put in the lakeshore setback. Mayor Furlong: Where do you want it? Kate Aanenson: I'd put it right up under A. Under the approval. At the end of front yard setback. Mayor Furlong: After the word setback, put in and? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes, and lakeshore setback to permit minimum code or corridor passing, is that what you're looking for Craig? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, or I'll even give you some leeway to say what's reasonable. If code is 36 and you look at it and say no, it really needs to be 4 feet, you know I'm open to that. I don't want to hold a ruler to it. I want you guys to use your discretion and do the right thing. Kate Aanenson: But to minimize, to make it work. Councilman Lundquist: Minimize the impact. Kate Aanenson: So if you put that right up in the A, and that's covered, those will be the conditions underneath that motion. With the 40 percent under 1. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any other discussion at this point? If not, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Just for clarification Mr. Mayor. So then we don't even need to address B at all then, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Because there's remove the side yard issue with taking off the deck. And. Mayor Furlong: And the house. The shoreland we're addressing in A. Kate Aanenson: Well B actually addresses the impervious surface that should be. 32 City Council Meeting Sarch 8, 2004 • Mayor Furlong: But aren't we requiring them to move it to 40? Was suggested, which I think they agreed to so. Mr. Knutson, are you comfortable with us, do we need to do anything with B? Kate Aanenson: I think we need to put the variance for impervious surface up here. I'd put it up in A too. Roger Knutson: Because you're agreeing. Kate Aanenson: Agreeing to impervious surface and it's qualified underneath it in 1. Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Kate Aanenson: So it's after that first lakeshore setback to permit code requiring and impervious surface. Roger Knutson: And he's withdrawing the side yard setback. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: Mayor, perhaps we could just have, so our record is real clear, have the applicant just stand up and acknowledge that he's withdrawing that. Tom Johnson: I have one more thing. The way this thing is coming out, we actually lose ground on the whole thing. We're giving on the impervious surface and we didn't get anything on the 75 foot setback. I mean we had it before. This doesn't make, I mean it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. See what I'm saying. Kate Aanenson: No, I think you're a little confused on the motion maybe. What they're saying is if you can get to 75 feet, you get to have whatever you get here to get to 75 feet, or the minimum width for passing between these two. Right here, this is showing 72 right to this point. This is showing 68 right to this point. So whatever the passing is, what they're saying is possible, if it's 36 or if it makes sense to make it 4, we'll sit down and look at that with the building official... Tom Johnson: Okay, but tell me before, I mean in the Planning Commission we didn't have this in and it was at 43 percent or whatever, so I guess I'm a little confused with, it seems like we're giving up on this and not getting what we wanted, yet we you know agreed to go back the 2.6 feet over here. I'm trying to figure out exactly what we're getting out of it. It seems like the city's getting more than what, I mean we're giving more than what we're getting on this. Kate Aanenson: You're getting a variance for the front yard setback and you're getting a variance to increase the impervious. Tom Johnson: Okay but we, didn't we have that during the Planning Commission? 33 City Council Meeting Arch 8, 2004 • Kate Aanenson: Their's was a recommendation only. Tom Johnson: Oh, that was a recommendation only. Roger Knutson: And just so we're clear. Let me go through the numbers. Kate, the required maximum impervious surface coverage is what? Kate Aanenson: 25 percent. Roger Knutson: And what do they have currently? Kate Aanenson: 46. Getting it back towards 40. Roger Knutson: And will they be under 25 when they have this? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: Sony to cross examine you, but so what we're getting at is, right now you could just say no because to any building expansion that expands the foot print of the building because they're increasing the impervious surface, so you're allowing them to increase the foot print of the building. You're getting that. Kate Aanenson: So the goal is to bring it in conformance by allowing you to expand, to bring those into conformity or reduce the non-conformance inasmuch as possible and that's what Planning Commission recommended. That's what the staff is working towards. To try to get those in as much as we can. Dan Anderson: If I can add one thing. I'd like not to go 36 inches. Kate Aanenson: Well I think they've agreed that we can talk about that. Dan Anderson: You'll just take 36 out of the equation. Councilman Peterson: We already did. Well we already did. Whatever, I said whatever is reasonable. Dan Anderson: ... reasonable but going on whether... they're going to push 36. I want to say 4 feet and be done with it. Kate Aanenson: Well that's up to them to decide so. Dan Anderson: Well that's what I'm trying to say ... over there, why get into the same argument over there if we finish it tonight and be done with 4 feet. 34 City Council Meeting Allarch 8, 2004 • Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable with 4 feet. You know I'm just thinking the 36 is probably code, but that's narrow. Dan Anderson: I can actually go 5 feet to the property line per code. Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable if my fellow council people have already went on record by saying I'll go 4 feet or whatever is reasonable. If it's 5 feet, I don't really care but 9 feet is much more than a walkway. Dan Anderson: If we can just come up with a number, a measurement then I've got something to work with. Councilman Peterson: 4 feet. I'll let my councilors agree or disagree with me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But one thing, if you could just confirm for the record that you are withdrawing the side yard setback variance request, is that correct? Tom Johnson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if you could just. Tom Johnson: We're withdrawing the 2.6 foot side yard setback requirement, or variance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is that good? Roger Knutson: Excellent. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Alright. Okay, any other discussion or questions? Clarification? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry, are we going to go with the 4 feet then? Councilman Lundquist: I'm okay with minimum of 4 feet. Mayor Furlong: Craig, do you want to make a motion? Councilman Peterson: Sure, I'll take a stab at this point. I'll make a recommendation that the City Council approve the item before us with the changes that were outlined in the last 15 minutes, I think there's 3 of them. That the setback for the lakeshore would be permitted 4 feet or as appropriate. The minimum would be 4 feet or as appropriate. The impervious surface would change to 40 percent. And what was the third one? Councilman Lundquist: To remove the one other. Mayor Furlong: The front yard setback, which was already in the staff report. 35 City Council Meeting arch 8, 2004 0 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then number 1 would also go to 43.9, would be 40 percent. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I already said that. Councilman Ayotte: What was the third one? Kate Aanenson: Well the third one is saying he's under A, it should also say, approve the 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface, and it's qualified what that percentage should be under item 1. Councilman Peterson: That's what I wanted to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Does somebody want to second that besides Kate? Councilman Lundquist: I'll second. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there any discussion on the motion? I think we've had enough too. Just one more opportunity if people have comments or concerns. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve variances for a 19.3 foot front yard setback, a lakeshore setback to allow 4 feet to connect the two decks, and variance from the impervious surface for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 40 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations and demolition. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. 36 City Council Meeting Alarch 8, 2004 0 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. OF LYMAN BOULEVARD: SCHOOL DISTRICT 112. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, council members. School District 112 is requesting a land use amendment to provide the opportunity to build a second school. When the staff first looked at this we contemplated rezoning the site and doing a single land use. In looking at it further their decision is a couple years down the road and similar to what we've done in the southern area of the city, we felt it's probably more appropriate to provide for two land use options. One in interest to the city, and then in interest of the applicant that they can close on the property and have an appropriate land use and when they come back for site plan review, at that time we would actually rezone the property. When this item was held before the Planning Commission, there was some concern of neighbors for the proximity to the railroad so we know when the school does come forward, that we need to look through some design issues, but again we put in the staff report the uses that were permitted under the industrial office park for the OI. Again we're adding, this is guided office industrial park, and office institutional would permit a school. Again when an application does come in, because it's guided for both land uses, you have the ability to decide which one you want to go with. And in good faith, what we're telling the school district that we understand that this could be a school. By having both land uses on there, if for some reason the school chose not to go there, we still have the ability to maintain the tax base and keep the IOP zoning in place. Again with findings of fact provide for the appropriate use that the city may have at that time if it were not to be a secondary school site. So with that, the staff is recommending approval. This item does have to go to the Metropolitan Council because it is a land use change. We don't see any issues with that. I have talked to our representative about that and it seems like that would be pretty much routine on their agenda because the school district does want to close on this property in the next few months, so with that we do have findings of fact in the staff report. So we are recommending approval of the subject site and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: Kate, you know I think we've talked about it for years. We don't normally like to see IOP go off. I mean what are you and your team, what can you do to, whether it's in the 2005 MUSA area or whatever to bring other IOP back on to compensate? Are we. Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and we did put that in the land use, the overall percentage and what the impacts of that change would be, and we certainly know that that's on the council's radar to be cognizant of the impacts of that and where we pick those up. And as we work through the development of the rest of those areas, we know that we need to see where we can pick up that difference. Again, because the school is 37 '--ak-1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjomhom, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Sam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive THE EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 0.27 ACRE LOT ZONED RSF LOCATED AT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM AND JACKIE JOHNSON, PLANNING CASE No. 04-07. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification regarding square footage of the side yard variance, the dates for variances granted in the neighborhood, and minimum square footage requirement for ramblers. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the variances in the area, if it wasn't a necessary variance on new construction but an existing variance. In other words, a lot of variances are just simply approved because they were already non -conforming and it was simply because they were non -conforming but not part of any new construction or expansion. He asked staff to explain Finding A that indicates the use of the existing garage which is currently non -conforming. It appears to be a reasonable request. Commissioner Slagle asked if variances granted in the last few years were on sub- standard lots. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification regarding impervious surface and deck. Chairman Sacchet asked staff to point out the 75 foot shoreland setback line on the plan and if there were any other variances that have been granted that would provide precedence for this request. Dan Anderson addressed the issues of hard surface coverage and the need for the side yard variance from an interior design standpoint. Commissioners asked the applicant to clarify some interior design features {CANNED i.. Planning Commission Ormary — February 17, 2004 and their positioning, i.e. the stairs and kitchen cabinetry. Commissioner Lillehaug asked the applicant to explain why he can't move the kitchen wall in 2.6 feet. Commissioner Slagle asked for the applicant's thoughts on the deck as far as falling within either the setback or reaching some type of compromise with the staff's recommendation and your proposal. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Dave Bangasser, 3633 South Cedar Drive, the neighbor directly east of the subject site. He stated their property has been in his wife's family for about 60 years. Generally they are very positive about the plan, except for the location of the deck being 5 feet from their property line. He also expressed concern about an evergreen which would have to go if the deck was built as proposed. Basically they support all the variances except the side yard setback. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. During commission discussion, Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the deck and encroachment of the deck, as well as the eaves into the side yard setback. Commissioner Claybaugh asked the applicant to comment on the status of the evergreen tree. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance and recommends approval of a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principle structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. 6. The applicant shall fully preserve the evergreen located to the east of the deck. 2 'r toCommission Omary —February 17, 2004 All voted in favor, except Slagle and Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Since it was not enough of a majority vote, the item automatically goes to City Council for review. Chairman Sacchet summarized the Planning Commission's concerns as, the vote of 3 to 2 is that they do agree with the front yard setback. They consider that a reasonable use. They do not agree with the variance on the side yard setback because there are ample possibilities to mitigate that, as well as with the deck. Definitely want to have the coverage reduced, not increased. That's the one area where they can mitigate the non-conformance, the shoreland setback is the most sensitive in terms of the nature. There was a concurrence to save the evergreen to the east of the deck. Commissioner Claybaugh clarified his position on the garage depth of 24 feet. It's less a function of the garage depth and more a function of making the bedrooms above it work out. As such he doesn't have reservations about that. Commissioners Slagle and Tjomhom stated they were in concurrence with the application. It seemed that the neighbor, the applicant and the builder were willing to work together to reach a reasonable agreement. Commissioner Lillehaug clarified that with the eaves, it would be a request for a 3 foot 6 inch encroachment into the setback. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE: AND A REZONING FROM A2 TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD. ISD #112, PLANNING CASE NO.04-08, Public Present: Name Address Rod Franks 8694 Mary Jane Circle Paul Schlueter 427 Campfire Cv, Chaska Ben Merriman 8156 Mallory Court Bev Stofferahn 8123 Marsh Drive Ellen Rawson 2266 Boulder Road Lori Juelich 2246 Stone Creek Lane East Karen Kennedy 2051 Boulder Road Gary Feldick 2231 Boulder Road Gene Kruchoski 2030 Boulder Road Peggy Emerson 8409 Stone Creek Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on what's allowed in the proposed zoning district. He also asked if there were any concerns with a school being located next to a sub -station. Chairman Sacchet asked if the 95 acres of industrial land was going to be replaced somewhere else in the city. Bev Stofferahn, Superintendent of District 112, spoke on behalf of the school • i 0-1 U `� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjornhom, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen PUBLIC HEARING: 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive ZONED RSF LOCATED AT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM AND JACKIE JOHNSON, PLANNING CASE No. 04-07. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Craig. Claybaugh: What, do you happen to know Bob what the square footage of the side yard variance is? I know it was expressed in lineal footage but it's running at an askew angle, going from 2 foot 6. The dimensioning on my plans or the one present were too small to read. Generous: Yeah, it's approximately 20 square feet. Claybaugh: Okay. On table 3 with respect to the other lots in the area and the variances that have been granted, there wasn't any expression of dates. How far back does that table go? Generous: If you look at the case number, the first number represents the years. So it goes all the way back to 1975 and the latest one was in 2002. Planning Commission Sting — February 17, 2004 • Claybaugh: What year was the shoreland setback? Was that '87? Generous: That was the original shoreland. Aanenson: Probably when it was updated. Claybaugh: Okay, and I know we've discussed in the Carver Beach area but their property out there is a front walkout rambler? Is that accurate? Generous: Yes, it's a walkout. Claybaugh: Okay. What is the, and I don't know if you use best management practices handbook or what. You've used it express in the past but with respect with ramblers, what is reasonable square footage by current standards? Generous: Ordinance requires approximately 1,000 square feet. Claybaugh: So it's only 1,000 and obviously they're entitled to a 2 car garage and they're using what, 400 and some odd square feet or what is that? Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. I wasn't able to come up with the square footage that they've got for a footprint on this. Do you happen to have that available? Generous: They show the existing house as 1,181 square feet and proposed at 2,604. Claybaugh: So right now the current footprint is actually in excess of what you identify as a reasonable, okay. Were any issues raised by any adjacent neighbors prior to this point? I understand there will be a public forum tonight but. Generous: No, I haven't had anyone that's come in to object to it. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? Lillehaug: I have a couple. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Your list on page 3 of the existing variances that were approved. Recently we, or the city has approved a few variances that were approved actually as part of another approval. It wasn't a necessary variance on new construction but it was an existing variance. Is this, are all of these variances that were approved, are they variances 2 Planning Commission Oting — February 17, 2004 • that were needed to expand on construction, because I think it's important? I kind of hit on that before is, I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Generous: There were two that were, three that were approved to permit new construction. The rest were for expansion. Aanenson: So if it was an existing lot of record, in order to get a house on there. It may have been undersized. Not a 15,000 square foot lot. Generous: Generally they may have the area, it's just they're too narrow. You have a lot of that in that neighborhood. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not sure if my question, if the question's being answered though. Are some of these, are a lot of these variances just simply being approved because they were already non -conforming and it was simply because they were non -conforming but not part of any new construction or expansion? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: So there are some then? Aanenson: There are. Lillehaug: And we, when I look at this I can't really distinguish between the two. Obviously I can't so. Aanenson: Well, except that the chart does say approved for a new home. There's 3 that are. Generous: Yeah. 8715, 9104 and 9604. Lillehaug: Okay. The next question on page 4. Finding letter A. You indicate the use of the existing garage which is currently non -conforming appears to be a reasonable request. Can you explain that? I'm not quite following the thought. Generous; Basically they want to maintain and expand that. It has a partial second flooring so they're going to raise the roof on that and it seems reasonable that if they're using that existing structure, that's a reasonable request. Lillehaug: What is staffs thoughts on actually expanding it to the front of the garage and increasing the non -conformity on the front yard. Are you saying that that's a good trade off for reducing the impervious area? Generous: Yes, because their expansion would be over existing impervious so they're not creating a new one and the new impervious in that location, plus we're going to get additional removal. Planning Commission Seting — February 17, 2004 0 Lillehaug: Okay. I think that's all I have for now. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from staff? Slagle: I just have one. Bob, as we look at again page 3 with the previous variances that have been sent to the city and approved, when we talk about the lakeshore setbacks, I think it's safe to say that the commission has looked at those closely over the last few years and my question is, is if you know on some of those requests where an example like 9604 or 9201, where we're looking at again numerous feet of variance. Were those on lots where, I mean was it a tight, short lot if you will and they were already encroaching if you will? Generous: Yes. They were substandard. Slagle: Okay. Do we know, do you know how wide this deck is now? The current deck? Dan Anderson: Left to right or... Slagle: Towards the lake. From house to lake. Dan Anderson: 12 foot. Slagle: 12 feet, okay. That's it. Tjomhom: I have one question on impervious surface and the deck. The deck is considered part of the structure of the house, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Tjomhom: And so that it's not part of the landscape per se because water can run through it, correct? Generous: Right, and generally we don't count decks against impervious surface. However under this there's a concrete patio. Tjomhom: That was my next question. Well then that's, okay. Generous: So that takes the impervious. Sacchet: So the deck does count as impervious because it's solid underneath? Generous: Well the solid underneath that counts. ri Planning Commission Oting — February 17, 2004 0 Sacchet: That counts, okay. Okay, because I had a question about that too. Now, I'm still not sure exactly where the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Can you point that out on the map once more? You hinted at it before but I didn't catch it clear enough. Generous: ... the elevation. 75 feet would be to this point. Sacchet: So it's about halfway through the existing deck? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Roughly. Okay. And then just to be, we hit on this a little bit with those variances that you list here which was a pretty considerable list. None of those could be considered the precedent for this? It's a tricky question but you're in a better position to answer that than I. Generous: They're not exactly the same. They are, some of them are on sub -standard lots and this is narrower. Sacchet: This lot is a little bigger than most of those other ones? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Alright. I think that's all the questions. One more question Rich? Slagle: One more question Mr. Chair. Again getting back to the deck Bob. On page 6 of the photos that the applicant was kind enough to provide, I see existing deck... replacing bad wood. Is that to mean, from what you know, is that deck that we see a picture of, is that a recent deck or is that an old deck? Generous: It's repairing an old deck. Probably mostly new wood. Sacchet: Well thank you. If the applicant would want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know any additional information you'd like to add to this. Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson. Tom Johnson: 3637 South Cedar Drive. Excelsior. 55331. Dan Anderson: I want to address a couple small things. On this, as far as the hard cover and working with that, that doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to come up with that. ...underneath the deck you know there's, there's older concrete underneath there that can be worked with. The entrance to the driveway can be worked with. We want to improve the site as well. They bought the house and it was, it needed a lot of work and they have already done some work on the interior to make it suitable for their family and they've been there about a year and a half, two years and as per some of the pictures you've seen, Planning Commission Oeting — February 17, 2004 • they've got a small boy and a small girl, they're sharing the same bedroom so the big key here is to get these bedrooms located up over this garage here. We're okay with using the existing structure. We've got a garage that's a sub par garage. You can't hardly put a mid sized vehicle in it, so where it expands out here so it can be useable, and also create a legitimate front entryway. It doesn't have furniture right now. A basement walk in. It was basically a cabin. So we can make all the work and like I said, we're okay with working with the hard cover issues and working with the driveway. The one thing though I would love to lend an ear to is this comer right here. I don't know if you guys have an interior picture of, do you have an interior shot? Sacchet: It's in the packet, yes. Dan Anderson: The interior, this doorway right here that brings us back into the bedroom area. It lines up center on this wall to allow a per code bathroom. That's a minimum sized bathroom per code. And to get the proper storage for the kids closet, to make the bedrooms actually work with the kitchen we came to this corner right here and went straight out from this. If there's one thing, you've got a very non -conforming neighborhood. You walk down the neighborhood, a lot of the things that aren't architecturally correct, and don't even come close. And what we don't want to do is add to that, add to that. We want to be architecturally correct and keep this wall as straight as possible. To move this wall in right here 3 feet eliminates having a kitchen where it's supposed to go and to be able to get back into the bedroom area, to have a code width door, code width bathroom, and a code width hallway and move everything over this way. Now I encroach on a code width stairs, which is, you know if you look at this real close we're not adding any exorbitant square footage. We're not, nothing is that large. And even the deck over here can be, that could be all met. To meet with the codes and the setbacks, I'd like to make this redesign to make this all work just fine. Sacchet: But angling it is not enough. I don't think that corner that you're pointing out is the issue. It's that corner. Dan Anderson: Now if you go back to, I'll take you back to the survey. That comer is right there. That's 2.3 or something. Generous: 2.6. Dan Anderson: 2.6 and it's only 2 foot 6 inches into the setback, but if we can walk away with that one, then I can make all these items in here work. And like I said, typical hallway, typical bathroom, typical stairs going down. It's all pretty typical. And we can work, we'll actually work with obviously the rest of the, there is a small, I mean it's a parking lot out there. We can work with, there's a lot of asphalt to remove. You know and we want to remove that. That's where our landscape design. Make it more inviting. And we're willing to spend Tom's money as much as we can. And that's where we're going to spend it. But anyway, this comer is a very important comer. This comer hinges on this whole layout right here. To get to that existing structure, which we just want to use what's there. So if I had to say there's one thing we want to walk away with this, L Planning Commission Wing — February 17, 2004 where it's already been granted to us, we agree with that but we'd like to add that corner to that if we possibly could and the rest will definitely work. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, a couple questions. The stairs that you pointed to, those are new stairs or are those existing stairs? Dan Anderson: Currently those are concrete stairs, an outside situation. Claybaugh: But that's the existing entry? Dan Anderson: Same entry moved and we're just going to put them back in place. Inside the structure. Claybaugh: But that's the existing positioning of the entry to the house? Dan Anderson: Yes, correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And with respect to the 2.6 feet, is that dimension to the outside of the eaves? Staff. Generous: The 2.6 feet would be to the wall. Claybaugh: To the wall, okay. Dan Anderson: There again I think we have about a 12 inch or 11 inch soffit and fascia and that can even be worked with design wise. Backing up a little bit to your question, that is not the front entryway to this house. That's just an entryway to the side door to what's currently the kitchen. The actual, they're calling it the front door. It's the basement entrance on a lower level. Claybaugh: Right, so the stairs that you're pointing to are a consequence of building a new vestibule and that's where you orientate them? Dan Anderson: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a question. Looking at that same diagram there, you're carrying that wall on the top I'll say. Other wall, directly across from it, yep. You're projecting that out from the existing wall of the garage. Dan Anderson: Yeah, we're just lining it up. 7 Planning Commission Wting — February 17, 2004 • Lillehaug: Why, and the problem is when you get to the top right comer, that's where the encroachment is across the setback. So why do you have to carry the house, the portion of the house wall, why does that have to carry on from the garage? Why can't it be shifted at the back of the garage where it is conforming? Shift it 2.6 feet and then you have a parallel wall going back. You do lose a little square footage in the house but it still needs a variance. Do you see a problem in that? And just one more thing, and I think it's a pantry if I were to look back on this. I mean that can be reduced in size and maybe even relocate it, and then you'll still have a conforming bathroom and stairwell and you're just basically the reducing the size of the pantry. Is that not doable? Dan Anderson: It's not the pantry that I'm worried about reducing and... It's having people walk in and out of this hallway. If in fact this, I'll draw a line here. If this moved in, and this is our work space, now we have an architecturally, we have an architectural issue here about it being in the way of the hallway. Having a clear hallway to shut this off and walk in and out of this. Because this is their main living area right now. Kids are here. The main area for the family is right here. I'm trying just to keep this open and keep it so it matches the rest of the architecture and to angle this wall wouldn't be, that would be an. Sacchet: Architectural harasses? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That'd be like, yeah no, no. Bad idea. Lillehaug: We're talking just 21/z feet I mean. Dan Anderson: Well 21h feet, what that measurement is right there and that puts you in the doorway. When you're ending up with the kitchen cabinets that way. Sacchet: Yeah once you have a counter. Dan Anderson: Once you put a counter in there, and I'm standing there. Well if I'm standing there you're definitely not going to get through the door. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: You understand what I'm saying? Lillehaug: That's all I have. Sacchet: One more Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. To dovetail Steve's question here. The L return on the left side of the sink, on your cabinetry there, what is that? There's no dimensioning on it. It runs parallel with the pantry. E Planning Commission Ating — February 17, 2004 • Dan Anderson: Right here? Claybaugh: Yeah. That dog leg return there. Dan Anderson: That right there is about 1 foot 8. Claybaugh: In terms of the projection. I'm looking at the base cabinets there, on the wall that the sink is located. Those are going to be a 2 foot depth so just I'm thinking that dog leg out of there has got to at least 3 foot 6. Dan Anderson: I don't have my full set of plans here but this, where it turns 90 and goes this way, that's actually about 2 foot 8 to 3 foot right in there. Claybaugh: Okay. So actually if, there certainly is, you'd lose the L return on it and I understand you don't want to walk down a hallway into the back of somebody preparing food, but. Dan Anderson: Well my only issue is, then I only have about 10 inches to stand. Claybaugh: If you take all of it. I'm talking about mitigating the first, okay. That's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end? Rich has a question Slagle: Mr. Chair, I thought someone might ask a question about the deck but let me just ask you know what are your thoughts from the deck as far as falling within either the setback or reaching some type of compromise with the staff's recommendation and your proposal. Dan Anderson: Can you see what I sketched there. I could do something like this to make this work here. The grade is such that I would have liked to have the stairs built within that square footage of the deck. As it is, the deck is kind of exposed from down over here. We don't want them to cross the front because it blocks off views but they can come off over here, and we could do something like this over here would be kind of sharp looking. It would also look architecturally correct and have enough footage here where people can pass. That we can work with. That's not an issue. You can just see the layout on the main house, it flows so nicely and it all works the way it should work by keeping my 6 foot into the setback. And maybe even a compromise with 2 foot 6. Maybe you know I'll split the difference or something because that would give me, if you split the difference on that one, as you had said, we'd probably have a good foot and a half if you're standing there and have people walk by and not be an issue. Claybaugh: You know we want to leave you really with any less than possibly 2 feet but I don't have any dimensions on the plan. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. W, Planning Commission *ting—February 17, 2004 • Dan Anderson: Thank you. Claybaugh: I did have one extra. Did you explore options with locating the stairs? That's one of the things that you identified as your string of code issues starting with the current hallway, code bathroom, and code stairs. Obviously did you explore possibly taking it in through the living room or orientating those slightly differently to possibly recapture some of that space that you're requiring a variance for? Dan Anderson: Ah yes. Let me pull up existing structure. If you look at the way that the property sits in it's current state, you'll see that that is the most natural way to pull the stairs up. There's currently stairs right here. But when I put the stairs, if I leave those stairs where they currently land, I then tear up this whole, this spot right here and I've got a dead spot here. Claybaugh: Right, no I'm not suggesting that you should orientate them where they currently are, but in terms of adjusting them or aligning them a couple feet, I don't have any note there on the drawings either. I'm talking in terms of mitigating. I'm just asking if you explored it. Architectural orientation out there, some structural components that prohibited you from doing that. Dan Anderson: Structure, the old corner of the house is right here and there's less messing around with the whole roof, the wall system, the concrete blocks the wall, where they're currently stay we want to keep them. And outside as well as the inside right here. Claybaugh: Okay, but you did explore it? Dan Anderson: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: One more architectural question. You made it pretty clear that angling the wall would be pretty awful architecturally. Would it be as awful to put a jig in it rather than one straight line? Dan Anderson: We had thought about that about where the sink is, or where this stove goes, you can jog it in. There again you move the island in, it interrupts the door and then there's a lot of wasted space in there with the cabinetry. I think this is better, a simple compromise on the 2 foot 6 setback is either we split it or we work with what, you know go into the setback 2 foot 6 are the two best options. Sacchet: It seems like there's quite a bit of space on the other side of the island. Dan Anderson: Over here? Yeah, there is. Oh, there's this space out here but I think what you've got to look at, if you put yourself in this kitchen. I don't know if I've got a, I've got to look through this to see if I've got a cross section. Finished cross section. 10 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Okay, right here. Now we've got to zoom on that thing. There. If right here ... come forward. This whole cabinet right here goes away. This thing goes away. And to keep that line straight is going to take me away from just orientating the kitchen and having that wasted space there. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Craig. You've got another one? Claybaugh: You identified the hallway inbetween the pantry and the powder room there as it's labeled, as a code hallway. My dimensions on that, and like I said they're extremely small here on the reprint but it looks like 4 foot 8'h. Dan Anderson: Which one you looking at there? Claybaugh: I'm looking at the hallway. Inbetween the pantry and the powder room. Dan Anderson: Okay. Slagle: You're saying up on the landing of the kids room, is where you see it? Dan Anderson: Right. Sacchet: It's hard to read. Claybaugh: Now obviously the door opening is 3 foot and that's what you want but you've got 4 foot, and I don't know if that's inside frame, an inside frame and then you've got 4 foot 8 'h but that's certainly in excess of what code requires, unless it's something I'm not aware of. Dan Anderson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, what would you site as code for that application? Dan Anderson: Well we could probably skinny that up about, I could probably skinny that up, I think if we were to split that number and jog this. Claybaugh: What I'm after is if we left you what would be reasonable for an L so somebody preparing a meal in the kitchen wouldn't be obstructing the flow of the hallway. Backing off that 3 foot 6 dimension that you identified and mitigating the width and getting that down to more of a code width on the hallway that you've got between the pantry and the powder room, combination of those two I would expect would match your 2 foot 6, at which point at the back of the garage you could jog that addition. So that your kitchen layout could still function. It wouldn't compromise the code restroom. It 11 Planning Commission Oting — February 17, 2004 • certainly wouldn't compromise because the hallway isn't to code right now. It's in excess of code. Dan Anderson: I think we could probably get those ... it'd probably be pretty close. If I brought this back... Sacchet: There it is. Saw the back of your head instead of the drawing. Alright. Dan Anderson: That right there. I forgot that measurement. Foot and a half or so, but that does go back to my statement of splitting it or something. That gets us closer obviously. Claybaugh: Right, but I mean if you drew a line down the side of the hallway and you narrowed that hallway up to even 3 foot 6. You had a 3 foot 6 hallway through there, okay. You come out of there, as best I can ascertain, it's 4 foot 81h and it's very small on my drawings, okay. So that's a net of a foot 2 1/2. You said 3 foot 6 is what your L return or your dog leg return was on your cabinetry. 2 feet would be reasonable I think. Okay. So that's a net of 1 foot 6 and you picked up 1 foot 2 so you actually got a couple inches to take back and work with however you want to redistribute it. Dan Anderson: That makes sense. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I apologize but I thought more about my deck question. Is it safe to say that the deck was built, the old deck was built prior to the Johnson's purchasing the property? Dan Anderson: No question. There's pictures in your packet that show that it was an existing structure. Actually it was pretty unsafe and they were trying to make it safe. There's a couple bad footings that we had to fix up and that kind of thing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Good discussion. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward, address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to express any aspects about this case? Please come forward. Nobody come forward, I'll close the public hearing. Oops, there's somebody. If you want to state your name and address for the record. Let us hear what you have to say please. Alright, it's all your's. Dave Bangasser: Hi. I'm Dave Bangasser. The property directly to the east that we're spending quite a bit of time talking about. 3633 South Cedar Drive. It's been in my wife's family for about 60 years. You'd think that if the property's been in my wife's family that long that maybe she'd be here talking to you, but we took a vote and when the vote was over, it was quite clear to me that my vote didn't count. We're generally very positive about the plan. 12 Planning Commission iketing — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're on the side where they want to be closer? Okay. Just to be real clear about that. Dave Bangasser: Just to the east. Sacchet: Where that side yard setback is being requested? Dave Bangasser: So again, we're generally very positive about the plan. I think the designer has been very creative with the plan, both the layout of the plan and particularly the tower is a great design. We do have a concern for the side yard setback. The last time I talked to Tom, some time in the fall. We went out there and looked at it and I think Tom you indicated that you were going to jog the wall and you weren't going to ask for a variance there. And the next thing I knew 4 days ago I got a notice saying you were asking for a variance. Needless to say I was surprised by that. We have a relatively tight 40 foot lot. One of the smallest on the lake. Again, as Bob mentioned, it's a very old subdivision. At 70 feet the Johnson's property is one of the biggest lots in the area. Not the biggest but among the bigger lots there. Because of the way the property line angles, and obviously that's a lot of the problems that we're talking about here. Because of the way the property line angles, the addition, and in particular the deck. In particular the deck, we really have a problem with the deck. With that angle, the deck appears to be oriented more towards our lakeshore. Not completely but again because of that angle it's geared towards our lakeshore so when we're down by the beach, if they're out on the deck, which as proposed is within 5 feet of the property, it just felt to us like we'd be almost imposing upon their space. I have to say I was really irritated that you showed the deck within 5 feet of the property line and never bothered to call. There's absolutely no function for it. There's no reason to line everything up. If anything, jogs add interest architecturally and I clearly was not happy with that. My wife was not happy with that. There's an existing mature evergreen tree that's right at the corner of that proposed deck which would have to go if the plan was built as proposed. That evergreen provides a nice buffer there right now. I think enough's been said about the plan itself. Again I see no purpose for what appears to me to be a 57 foot long deck across the front of that property. The kitchen, I agree with the earlier comments that you know I think modifications could be made. Quite frankly the house, I don't have a problem with. I think you've done a nice job of minimizing the windows that are oriented towards our property. I really wouldn't have strong objections with that but the deck clearly is an issue. We'd like to see that deck pulled back as far as possible. Again I think with the creativity that you've displayed with the design, I don't know why some of these modifications couldn't be made and still be a very functional house for you and you know again, we support all the other variances. We're concerned about the side yard setback. We think it'd be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments and discussion. Anybody? Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, could I ask a couple questions of staff? 13 Planning Commission Oeting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I just want to get a clarification on the deck and encroachment of the deck, as well as the eaves into the side yard setback. My understanding is the eaves are supposed to be, they are supposed to be included in the setback? Generous: They're part of the variance, correct. Lillehaug: But they're not included as part of the variance right now as far as the distance, is that right? Generous: That's my understanding. They're not incorporated. Lillehaug: So actually the variance would have to be even more than it's shown? Generous: For the eaves, yes. Lillehaug: 11 inches I guess more. Okay. Now the second part of the question is the deck. Can the deck encroach into the side yard setback? Generous: The deck may encroach to within 5 feet of the side property line. Sacchet: Is that it? Okay. We have some more answers. Any discussion? Comments. Claybaugh: Would it be possible Mr. Chair to have the applicant comment with respect to the evergreen buffer? That it was something that hadn't been addressed. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? Claybaugh: I don't know if that's appropriate or not. Sacchet: Yeah, it's a valid question. I mean the concern that the neighbor brought up with the evergreen would have to be cut down because of the deck expansion. Dan Anderson: I think we've already made a general decision. As I commented earlier, Rich's question on the deck, we can work with the deck. That's not a major importance. I couldn't agree more with the neighbor on the deck. We can tie that back into a nice design on that... Tom Johnson's could not be heard. Sacchet: You can work with it? Tom Johnson: We can work with that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with bringing the deck in some. 14 Planning Commission sting — February 17, 2004 • Tom Johnson: I think that's fine. Sacchet: Yeah, I wonder whether that would actually make this, take the space for that evergreen. Dan Anderson: Trim off that tree a little bit but not enough to damage the tree or lose... The key is the buffer, is the way I understood it. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion from the commissioners. Anybody. Lillehaug: Can I ask staff one more question? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: Could you put the sketch back up showing the 75 foot OHWL line in reference to that tree. That's the tree we're talking about. Generous: 75 feet actually because the shoreline of the lake is a little closer than that. I was showing the 12 foot deck extension so this basically is a straight line. Lillehaug: Now a deck cannot encroach into the 75 foot. Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: Can I ask one question? What was the side yard setback for a deck? 5 feet? Generous: 5 feet. Aanenson: Just to be clear, when someone's asking for a variance, you can attach any reasonable condition you want to to mitigate that, and that might be the encroachment into the side yard. So while that's a standard... Claybaugh: Point of clarification Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: 5 foot setback with respect to the deck. Is that something that's grandfathered in because the existing deck is within 5 feet or is that? Generous: No. The code provides... Claybaugh: The code does provide so it isn't the 10 foot for that. Okay. 15 Planning Commission Oeting — February 17, 2004 is Aanenson: For a deck only. Sacchet: Alright. Where do we stand with this? Lillehaug: Well I can start in comments. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I'm going to hit the four points I guess that we're talking about. First of all I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property as it currently is. I think that's the number one point that needs to be made. Number two point I guess would be is, I think we need to encourage refurbishing of the house. It's an older house. Somehow we need to encourage that but I guess number one, impervious area. My position is not increasing that at all, and I would stand firm on that. Whatever happens we cannot increase that impervious area because it's already non -conforming and it's grossly non -conforming. Front yard setback, you know I don't have a huge problem with it but I really do think there's already a reasonable use of that existing garage. To me it appears it's 24 foot deep. That's a standard depth of a garage. It's not cramped. That's probably the depth of my garage if I remember right. So expanding that garage to the front increasing the non-conformance, you know I'm not totally sold on that either. Side yard setback, I think there's many, many different options that can be, that could take place inside the house. Relocating the stairwell to one location or the other. I think I saw 4 baths in the new layout of the house. Is that a reasonable use? I guess I'm not going to say it is or isn't but there's many other things that can be done in the layout of that house to not encroach in that 10 foot side yard setback. I do not support any encroachment in that 10 foot side yard setback. What else would there be? Number 4. That'd be the wetland, 75 foot setback. Again, I don't support any encroachment into that at all. Sacchet: Thanks for laying it out Steve. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Let's see here. With respect to the front yard setback, I agree with my fellow commissioner that 24 feet depth on the garage is reasonable use. Again the plan that I have doesn't mention what the additional lineal foot attached to the proposed addition, but I guess I view that as the proliferation of a non-conformance with respect to, until it gets or achieves the front yard setback and I haven't totally made up my mind on that. With respect to the side yard setback, I agree that there's a number of components with the house's interior that could be modified, re- worked and it's well within their grasp to get that down so it's a variance free application. With respect to the deck and encroachment of the lakeshore, I don't see a compelling reason to support that. The, with respect to the hard surface coverage, I would suspect that when some of these things are addressed that they will be within line with what they're current non-conformance is and won't require a variance or won't require further intensification of it so, that's my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any additional comments? TI Planning Commission sting — February 17, 2004 • Tjomhom: Yeah, I might come off sounding crazy I guess after hearing everybody else but you know, I'm all for taking something old and making it new and improving our city and making our lakeshores look better and our neighborhoods and so I thought it was a nice plan. I don't have a problem with expanding the garage. I don't have a problem with... architect or your builder seemed to be reasonable in working with these people and getting it back into some better parameters with regard to the lakeshore, and I'm still confused about the side yard setback. I hate to wreck a whole plan and something that seems to function for 2.6 feet. You know, it just seems to me kind of a crime to, well see I was thinking. But when the neighbor came up and had problems with it then I think okay, it is hurting somebody else and it's affecting somebody else and so then maybe it needs to be re -worked and so I guess those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Slagle: I will just make my quick. I think I would tag along with Bethany, and especially when she mentioned the functionality of the plan. I think it's a well thought out plan. I think with the concern of the neighbor, it led me to this thinking and the thinking is that it might be worth tabling this and allowing them to work out potential plan that could take into account the neighbors... Sacchet: Real quick where I stand. It's not a hardship but I think it's a reasonable use to expand on that whole garage. I think that's pretty clear. I agree with staff's position basically with the whole thing with one addition. I would like to see a condition that we preserve that evergreen. I think that would balance the scale in terms of the neighbors concern. But other than that I agree with staff. I'm not sure whether it needs to be tabled. I think the position is relatively clear. I think we've worked through different options. We established that there are ways to work it and I have full trust, I mean you've obviously put in a real quality project together here so personally I don't think we need to see it again. So with that I'd like to see a motion please. Can we make this into one motion or do we have to make it in two steps? Generous: Well you could combine them. One's for approval and the rest are denial. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion. Sacchet Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions which aren't number but I would number them, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sacchet: Five would be the new one? No, no there's one on the other side there, okay. 17 Planning Commission feting — February 17, 2004 • Lillehaug: And then 6 would be the new one. And the condition would be, to fully preserve the tree that we were speaking of. Sacchet: Evergreen to the east of the deck. Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: We know which one you're talking about. We have a motion, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: So are we suggesting that this motion is to deny the applicant's request for a side yard setback and a lakeshore? Sacchet: Yes, that will be the next motion. Should we make it into one motion? Generous: Well you can add that as the second part of the motion. Sacchet: We probably should make it into one. Lillehaug: Okay. And then should I just keep going on with my motion then? Sacchet: Yes. Why don't we add that to it. Lillehaug: Okay. And adding to my previous motion, I recommend that the Planning Commission denies the side yard shoreland, and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house. Same house, in according with the findings of fact in the staff report. Sacchet: Do we need another second since we added? Claybaugh: Yes, I'll second again. Sacchet: Okay. We have a second to both parts. Any discussion? Friendly amendments? Slagle: Another clarification. Just so we're clear, we, myself, I'll speak for myself. Approve of giving them the side variance setback and a lakeshore setback and the front yard setback, assuming that the deck would work, will actually be voting against this motion? Sacchet: Say again. 18 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: I lost you. Okay, you got an answer. Whatever the question. Slagle: What I'm trying to say is, there's a motion to approve the way it's written Sacchet: Pretty much the way it's written, yes. That's correct. We're basically approving the front yard variance. We're denying the side yard, shoreland and coverage variance request. Okay? Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance and recommends approval of a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re -vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principle structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. 6. The applicant shall fully preserve the evergreen located to the east of the deck. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sacchet: There's two nays and three ayes. That means this has to go to City Council. Aanenson: Correct. 19 Planning Commission Meting — February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Automatically goes to City Council. We need a big majority to make this ... so since it's not a big majority you will see the City Council on that, and they will make a final decision. Do we know when this goes to City Council? Aanenson: It'd be the 8tb. Sacchet: On the 8's9 Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, we, this is a very interesting mix of situations. I think everybody, certainly you should specify why you voted nay. What we voted for here 3 to 2 is that we do agree with front yard setback. That we consider that a reasonable use. That we do not agree to give a variance on the side yard setback because we think there are ample possibilities to mitigate that, as well as with the deck. We definitely want to have the coverage reduced, not increased. That's the one area where we can mitigate the non-conformance of the situation, or the shoreland setback is the most sensitive in terms of the nature so anything you want to add in the for side? Why we are voting for this. Claybaugh: Yeah actually clarification. I made the point previously in my comments about the 24 foot deep garage. I think that was an argument for intensifying that non- conformity but in looking a little closer at the plans, I believe it's less a function of the garage depth and more a function of making the bedrooms above it work out. And as such I don't have any reservations about that. I wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Any more comments? Okay, the cons. Any comments why you voted against for City Council? You want to summarize your issue? Slagle: Concurring on the efforts on the deck, and then probably having...on the description of ample. Sacchet: So what would be your balance point? Slagle: I think it's fine... Sacchet: It's fine encroaching with the kitchen. And the same for you Bethany? Tjomhom: I'd also like to add that it seemed to me that the neighbor and the applicant and the builder seem willing to work together to reach a reasonable agreement. Sacchet: Okay, so let them work basically. And last comment for council, that evergreen. I think we agree that we'd like to save that evergreen. So that's the summary for council. Ullehaug: One more quick comment? 20 Planning Commission feting —February 17, 2004 • Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I think it needs to be a 3 foot 6 inch setback with the eaves. Didn't we clarify that earlier, and not a 2 foot 6, so it's more than 2 foot 6. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, ISD #112, PLANNING CASE NO.04-08. Public Present: Name Address Rod Franks Paul Schlueter Ben Merriman Bev Stofferahn Ellen Rawson Lori Juelich 8694 Mary Jane Circle 427 Campfire Cv, Chaska 8156 Mallory Court 8123 Marsh Drive 2266 Boulder Road 2246 Stone Creek Lane East Karen Kennedy 2051 Boulder Road Gary Feldick 2231 Boulder Road Gene Kruchoski 2030 Boulder Road Peggy Emerson 8409 Stone Creek Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions from staff. Slagle: Kate, in offering the two options if you will, would there be a reason the applicant would be opposed to that, from what you know? Aanenson: No, we did speak to them about that and I think they're comfortable with that. Again we don't anticipate that, but for some reason the school district decided or couldn't build the school in the future, it just protects our options of providing industrial, and also gives the residents some level of protection of what they think might go in there. Slagle: Okay. On page 3, where it talks about OI district. Maximum height. Aanenson: Two stories. 21 ay -o-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.04-07 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the request for a setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a Drive, Tom and Jackie Johnson - Planning Case No. 04-07. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1131 Email: beenerous(aci.chanhassen tun us (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, February 5, 2004; No. 4089) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duty 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. 11ed() 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: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Bylo ` lit t�✓ti'v`i Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on thik5i —day of 2004 "I. ,"M =RADUENZ safAN. 2005 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch SCANNED 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.04-07 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the request for a setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive, Tom and Jackie Johnson — Planning Case No. 04-07. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1131 Email: bizenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2004) GAPLAN\2004 Planning Ca m\04-07 - Johnson VarianceTH Notice to Villaga.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Johnson Variance Request (3637 South Cedar Drive) - Planning Case No. 04- 07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Lt4[day of 2004. 4�� Notary gAeng VormAatfidavit. do KaAn J. Ente dt, : uty Clerk T MEUVVISSENAKIM Nola�Public-Minnesota CARVER COUNTYCanmission Expires i/d1rM SCA14HED • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Setback and Lot Coverage APPLICANT: Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson Variances on Property Zoned RSF LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson, is requesting setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 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. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2004. E City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 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. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Planning Case No. 04-07 Public Hearing Notification Area Lake Minnewashta Subject Site AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON ARLENE KAY HERNDON BIRUTA M DUNDURS 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING DEBORAH S LOCKHART & DIANE DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY LEESON ANDING 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9657 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A EDW IN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES ELIZABETH J NOVAK BARINSKY OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 7210 JUNIPER 3719 SOUTH CEDAR 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9613 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9204 ELIZABETH J SAVAGE & HEIDI J EMIL & PATRICIA SCUBA ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER SAVAGE 3715 HICKORY RD 14025 VALE CT 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9769 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3017 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EVELYN Y BEGLEY GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN GARY PETERSON 3701 SOUTH CEDAR AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO GREGORY BOHRER JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 7201 JUNIPER AVE 3706 HICKORY RD 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 JEAN D LARSON JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON JILL D HEMPEL 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3705 SOUTH CEDAR 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 JOHN R MARX & HEIDI A RIGELMAN LINDA L JOHNSON LUMIR C PROSHEK 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9676 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING C MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER PAMELA A SMITH TRUSTEES TRUST 8321 VIEW LN 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD 371E SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1430 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING ROBERT CHARLES ANDING STEPHEN M GUNTHER & HELEN 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3618 RED CEDAR PT KATZ-GUNTHER 362E HICKORY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 0 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1606 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-07 - johnson variance\ph notice labels.doc RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9687 Applicant Info Invoices & Receipts CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET,BLVD CHANHASSEN MN f317 Payee: THOMAS JOHNSON Date: 03/18/2004 Time: 2:43pm Receipt Number: DW / 4871 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- GIS GIS LIST GIS LIST 102.00 --------------- Total: 102.00 Check 9526 102.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! • SCANNED i City of Chanhassen IV7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 M1OF (952) 227-1100 To: Tom & Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS Kim 2/12/04 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 34 Property Owners List within 500' of 3637 South Cedar Drive (34 labels) $3.00 $102.00 SUBTOTAL SHIPPING & HANDLING TOTAL DUE $102.00 Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #04-07. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! gAplan\2004 planning mm\04-07-johnson varianm\invoim-gis.dm Planning Case No. 04-07 Public Hearing Notification Area AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON ARLENE KAY HERNDON 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9657 DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 ELIZABETH J SAVAGE & HEIDI J SAVAGE 3715 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9769 EVELYN Y BEGLEY 3701 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 JOHN R MARX & HEIDI A RIGELMAN 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9676 MARIANNE I & RICHARD B ANDING TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 DEBORAH S LOCKHART & DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-9204 EMIL & PATRICIA SOUBA 14025 VALE CT EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344-3017 GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112-5433 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 LINDA L JOHNSON 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER 8321 VIEW LN EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347-1430 BIRUTA M DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 ELIZABETH J NOVAK 7210 JUNIPER EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9613 ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 GARY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112-5433 JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 LUMIR C PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 PAMELA A SMITH 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING ROBERT CHARLES ANDING STEPHEN M GUNTHER & HELEN 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3618 RED CEDAR PT KATZ-GUNTHER EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 3628 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9687 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410-1606 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 March 2, 2004 Via FAX 952/227-1110 Mr. Bob Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Tom & Jackie Johnson Variance Requests 3637 South Cedar Drive Dear Bob: RECEIVED MAR — 3 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN We are writing this letter to express our support of the Johnson's variance requests that the City Council will consider on March 8, 2004. As you know, we spoke at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on February 171h and expressed concerns regarding portions of the plan while expressing a generally positive view of the overall concept and architecture. Our property at 3633 South Cedar Drive is directly east of the Johnson home. Our primary concern was the location of the deck approximately five feet from our joint property line. We had initially been concerned with the request for a side yard variance to build the kitchen to within 7.4 feet of the property line. However, in subsequent discussions with Tom we indicated we would support the originally submitted kitchen plan since it minimized windows on our side and was an appealing architectural design. We are in receipt of the plans submitted to the Planning Department on March 2"d. This revised plan goes beyond our request to move the deck away from the property line by moving both the deck and the kitchen back. The kitchen would be setback ten feet from the property line with the east end of the deck aligned with the east wall of the addition. We are very appreciative of the Johnson's willingness to listen to our concerns and revise their plan. We believe the Johnson's addition as proposed will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood! Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Sincerely, Nou 4AO,* tam r44vq-- Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN S 317 Payee: THOMAS & JACQUELINE JOHNSON Date: 01/20/2004 Time: 11:O1am Receipt Number: DW / 4689 Clerk: DANIELLE VARIANCE/FILING FEES O4-07 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP VARIANCE/FILING FEES O4-07 USE & VARIANCE 200.00 PLAT RECORDING 50.00 Total: --------------- 250.00 Check 9471 200.00 Check 9451 50.00 Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! 0 SCANNED n U CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT ram/ h� i APPLICANT: � D!K \fJj� L_4 �di✓ OWNER: z "/ Z% ADDRESS: j/�j,� `7 L �X � P �S� d P �/yli✓ S�3 / TELEPHONE (Dayiime) 7sT'f,' 17Y-1.-2 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit X Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X EscrowfQr Filing Fees/Alto Cost" �($50 SUP/SPRNAC AR AP/Metes Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) _ Subdivision` TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 590 feet of the boundaries of the property must b included with the application. ` e�- ✓� ��[� _ `7 Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. `Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 11 PROJECT NAME /OM AN A J1QGI4[G j0gA/S0M /Z�-S/ 8n-q C �I , LOCATION �/03-] OkTH i�A2 8P-r 1r- -yC E—L-S102! /'1%�� ��33' LEGAL DESCRIPTION L 7- (% ?�X rt470T i -�4e &-)4 ST- lO FiTi5�r ? fz-- 2-rtO F f 69a Lk,L OF LOT / R 81-o c-K 4 kE-f� e e-br4(2- i)vi t i T- TOTAL ACREAGE / / I S 9D Soot FT -- TaT-A Lo7' S ! 7 WETLANDS PRESENT YES XNO PRESENT ZONING RtS / ►Jiv! - -(A L. REQUESTED ZONING - SA rr) E PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Re-S l Affy\.[ 7 7 i4 L REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION SA m E- REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Sf?E A ma CNE:n This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. MOMM. //M 0-1 SO rA�• �. Application Received on ! 2 0 AY4 Fee Paid 4:;� SG �o o Receipt No. b W 4/1, Q 9 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. January 10, 2004 Re: 3637 South Cedar Drive Variance To whom it may Concern, This letter of description is to inform the members of the Planning committee and the city council our need for a variance on our home. The Variance will allow us to have a bedroom for both our son and daughter, at the present time both of the children are sharing the same room, our current lay out has a master bedroom and one bedroom. The addition will allow us to have a bedroom for both, as well as a bathroom to share. As per the plans we were able to utilize the room over the current garage by raising the existing roof. To accommodate this plan as well we are adding six feet to the west on to the garage below. All the added square footage allows the bedroom expansion to work. As far as the hard cover we are willing to match the current hard cover calculations as well as reduce by 3 to 5 % by adding in some planting areas. It is of our opinion we are not asking for unneeded space only making what is currently there, work. Variances requested are for the following: ❑ 30' set back on street side. (I I' proposed — existing garage) ❑ 10' side yard set back. (7' proposed) ❑ 75' from high water mark. (73 proposed) ❑ Hard Cover (to maintain existing 43.9%) Thank you very much. i Tom and Jackie Jobfison 3637 South Cedar Drive Chanhassen Mn CITY Cp CHA RECEI VED SSEN JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPr SCANNED Johnson Residence 3637 South Cedar Drive 4Excelior, MN Demolition Foundation Architectural Plan Elevation* Structural Sections Interior Sections Room Finish Schedule • i1HLM EF1 �E*e4rtial MM 11 9 \■■■■■■■ 0 /�.Lmn' Ebnum mil DI.,.-., �I i VON: I� 11 ..rfw.. 11 In uulrg a .prey Existil roindetlon edx roar ply wl c1" 5lyn9lee to Mlt exleling - 40 root Inwletlon with prop payed vevk vu+e N tnw eenufa.'" ullmg gyp end well g .0'. m6I Ix4 fto u r feels and smooth earth. whh canllruee venting r ehake enlylp x6 well Corot 16' of - 19 Ubll IMwwtlen TGr wp colic yell eheathirg wepgye 7vp Jdel w` of olld rill I beam aid aoee boll %eel been as per yginey &I,u IIM notes 7xb wallwrot J�'�f8C �p9plete N.tat 9ed aomf 41' frwt footl . Exbtirlg rooting I • 2.6 E cth 3 Inner at A E.terlor wall be 2.6 pnq .,.ry s rnl �q u. �o.w wi ture r._ CITY OF CH RECEIVED SSEN JAN 2 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLA,VNiNG DEP, {CANNED -40 ��, 51, $,,1 bto(�- I Ljvcgd R %n Y- * e+' CIL( L,rw? 1 i� '^�,�A*SI^'1) "' R 'l>f5� •.,7 �{1,� } A�l A� a! L.k4h=X t '�. lZ Y f ✓A. ?{�Yr „ r ,y .. L I Al t7 W It �" 3s.. -7 2'4r� fk:}Y, $t i •4 _fir, i'. Z" F)F'f^- J K„ i F _. r yy w �o�, ►��� mil- s 4vv) --r- i 0 m G VVI p P � b 1 Y SEWER im Zoo RO MANHOLE R ,0 E D FOUND 1/2" Cs IRON PIPE t s p V 5 bi 169. g i I .� 13.2 1 FOUND 1/2' EXISTING a ' STRUCTURE �C PPED IRON` BITUMINOUS \ GARAGE SURFACE FLR EL 1L1 N ®r P OSED ' `;cp ADDITION h6 95$ o P OPOSE I RAILROAD a DMON Z TIE biz ` ,0 01 CONCRETE ; R PA j.4 rnGo 1 �g66 Z EXISTING FLOOR ENCE` i r 62 1 m 957.4 g60 Q PROPOSED y0 c� 955 NEW DECK ,g k Co. i A 4 5- OEGK 6 cr - tr 9y6 g56 ; EXISTING ` A0 RESIDENCE g5 -� 956� O , g5® 954 ; 7-7 NOT S a81 I ET I Ht �9 to Dos P N 81 2 6,1g„ —r l 1 �SURV Y LINE I v FOUND 1/2 CAPPED IRON ; i —944.5— APPROXIMATE / 944 AREA OF RIP RAP 0 OHW LEVEL 946 / ` CONTOUR LINE � WATER LEVEL SCANNED DEC 2003 • Plans , n11411 4111fIll TnLTM4Z0A1 TOXA .& TArICTR ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 474-8267 SURVEY FOR: TOM & JACME JOHNSON SURVEYED: December, 2003 DRAFTED: December 12, 2003 REVISED: January 19, 2004 to add dimensions. Also got a better idea of what the proposed deck is and this changed the proposed hard cover tabulation to plus 68 sq. ft. on the deck. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17, except the East 10 feet thereof and all of Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor up -der the laws of the State of Minnesota. H. Parker P.E. & P.S. GRAPHIC SCALE r�0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) HARD COVER TABULATION: LOT AREA TO OHW: 11,590 Sq. Ft. EXISTING: House 1,181 Sq. Ft. Garage 539 Sq. Ft. Deck 431 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,988 Sq. Ft. Concrete 827 Sq. Ft. Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 84 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,090 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 43.9% PROPOSED: House 2,604 Sq. Ft. Deck 768 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,770 Sq. Ft. Concrete 155 Sq. Ft. Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 70 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,407 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 46.6% 50 SEWER MANHOLE OO FOUND 1 RAILROAD TIE WAIL EXISTING RESIDENCE i DAR CE,1st p V` il / r EXISTING M \\o GARAGE E FLR EL = 957.5 P OSED ;c' ADDITION SEWER O MANHOLE FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE EXISTING STRUCTURE \ 7.4 co LA rn n EXISTING RESIDENCE\ O LOW FLOOR = 957.4 ` a PROPOSED NEW DECK I FOUND 1/2 CAPPED IRON Lo APPROXIMATE AREA OF RIP RAP o / / / q4 / 9 i OEM 0 10� \ \ g5® \ rn ' l-, N 8 69.50� — o USURVE Y UNE' \ 4� —.944.5—'+ / g44' 2 WATER LEVEL DEC 2003 / I ME 40T S PILE HEREDOCK \ Ielm Q \ I � OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE Nsf'w MI 5KTA A Dwg. No. 031571 031571 8/116/23 JOHNSON, TOM & JACKIE ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 474-8267 SURVEY FOR: TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON SURVEYED: December, 2003 DRAFTED: December 12, 2003 REVISED: January 19, 2004 to add dimensions. Also got a better idea of what the proposed deck is and this changed the proposed hard cover tabulation to plus 68 sq. ft. on the deck. CITY OF CHANHASSEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RECEIVED Lot 17, except the East 10 feet thereof and all of Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Lake BAN 2 0 2004 Minnewashta, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown, 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE to . HARD COVER TABULATION: LOT AREA TO OHW: 11,590 Sq. Ft. EXISTING: House 1,181 Sq. Ft. Garage 539 Sq. Ft. Deck 431 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,988 Sq. Ft. Concrete 827 Sq. Ft. Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 84 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,090 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 43.9% PROPOSED: House 2,604 Sq. Ft. Deck 768 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,770 Sq. Ft. Concrete 155 Sq. Ft. Railroad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 70 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,407 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 46.6% 50 SEWER MANHOLE SO FOUND RAILROAD TIE WALE EXISTING RESIDENCE oEo* i iy E DAR / "J O S 0� 89 52 / a EXISTING BITUMINOUS \ \ GARAGE SURFACE FLR EL = \ 957.5 OSED ADDITION /3617� 1 CO \rn tcR EXISTING RESIDENCE, LOW FLOOR 957.4 N N CP � oE� PATIO SEWER O MANHOLE FOUND 1/2" IRON 1 PIPE 1 1 EXISTING 1 STRUCTURE 1 z' 0 �0 7,4 � a PROPOSED a NEW DECK IIral o � g50 16 1-209 / �SURV Y LINE FOUND 1/2 CAPPED IRON --944.5—+" APPROXIMATE Yr / �944— AREA OF RIP RAP o / 0 0 / / / 944 I NOT SET PILE HERE THIS HIE Q 1 OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE WATER LEVEL DEC 2003 AS�TA NNE E MI LAK Dwg. No. 031571 54'A. J r-dp r-r 3'a• Y -s DEL MLA 14 DEL ML II 16 DEL MLA 1M 8 � � 6'4fi' d�tyt Master suite or ` Wood Floor DEL VCR ML A 1A1 b liMh 6WI EMS TRFI.E VCR ML 111/6 ✓� f Y ing Garage 7 m O Powder C �m LU Living Room 1 Q Wood Floor 7'•1V' Master Bath Tile Floor W-4P Gloset Q DEL VCR ML 111* � ad" � D} snr pros JJIB Ij�W 3� C� 3��9 nr floor Opm to bdn iL'f F OCloset IMFID V. C1nA13'•O' 134,10 4'•1' 11-64 11-r 11•6. 4'-r 3C•1• 7pOE q. I CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 0 2 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING KEPT The following changes will show the east side of the new addition and deck have been modified to show the house moving in 2:611 from the original corner and the deck east/ West corner been clipped and brought on the match the out line of the south exterior wall.