The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-17_2111 PINEHURST DRIVE - US HOME CORPORATIONMY l OF July 11, 2011 CUMNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 U.S. Home Corporation Attn: Jim Weaver & Carole Toohey Administration 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1100 Wayzata, MN 55391 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Re: Letter of Completion — 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance #2009-17 Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Dear Jim and Carole: Engineering This letter is to inform you that the City is in receipt of the revised sketch plan dated Phone: 952.227.1160 September 13, 2010 for the above -referenced property. Staff has verified that the Fax: 952.2271170 site complies with the hard surface coverage shown on the sketch plan. The hard Finance surface coverage on the site is 24.98%; the site may not exceed 25% site coverage. Phone: 952.227.1140 Therefore, no additional hard surfaces may be installed beyond what is shown on the Fax: 952.2271110 sketch plan dated September 13, 2010. Park & Recreation A signed registered as -built survey is required by city ordinance, to be submitted Phone. 952.227.1120 to the Engineering Department. When the as -built is submitted the city, it must Fax: 952.227.1110 show all current improvements to the property and listed in the hard surface Recreation center coverage calculations. Please contact Steve Lenz at 952-227-1163 with any 2310 Coulter Boulevard questions regarding the asbuilt survey requirement. Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 or akairies ,ci.chanhassen.mmus with any questions. Planning & Natural Resources Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.2271110 � ..c. Public Works U 7901 Park Place Angie Kairies Phone: 952.227.1300 Planner I Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center c: Todd and Amy Gleason Phone: 952.27/1125 2111 Pinehurst Drive Building File Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site G:\PLAM2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Varimce\2111 Pinchursl Drive letter of canpletion.doc www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED 6`l-1-11 /- Kairies, Angie From: Jim.Weaver@lennar.com Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:02 PM To: Kairies, Angie Cc: Todd.Gleason@Pentair.com Subject: 2111 Pinehurst Attachments: ATT00002.gif Angie, Lennar will replace the Gleason's driveway after the 2011 road restrictions are taken off. The plan is to have the work completed by 6/30/2011. Thanks LENNAI2 Jim Weaver Area Mgr Lennar Pm.WeayerRiennar mm www.lennar.com Office Phone: 952-249-3004 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 SCANNED RECEIVED February 2, 2010 FEB 1 0 2010 City of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHASSEN Attn: Angie Kairies 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance Application Dear Ms Kairies: The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that our item be tabled at the February 8s', 2010 City Council meeting. We would like to extend the review time of our application until June 30th, 2010. This letter also serves as the authorization to extend the review time of our application. This additional time will allow us more time to research potential solutions to our variance request. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-3012 Sincerely, / e oohey eave� Lennar Corporation )Ielnnar Corporation totleason Homeowner WANNED 935 Wayzata Blvd. E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Main: 952-249-3000 • Fax: 952-2493075 LENNAR.COM 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mministratice Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227 1160 Fax: 952 227,1170 FIRM Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Pare* n Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Rewaflon Coder 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natund Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Pu6Bc Weft 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior onerfer Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 web site woradohanhasseamn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I DATE: February 8, 2010 "V? SUBJ: Gleason Hard Surface Coverage Variance 2111 Pinehurst Drive —Planning Case #09-17 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation within the Single -Family Residential District, by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance will allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a future 100 square -foot patio to be constructed in the rear yard. STAFF UPDATE On November 23, 2009, City Council reviewed and tabled action on this item. The applicant submitted a letter to extend the development review deadline to January 20, 2010. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to resolve the impervious coverage variance request. The City Council was of the opinion that the applicant could and should bring the site into compliance with the impervious coverage and eliminate the variance request. The applicant discussed the use of pervious materials, such as pervious concrete or bituminous. The city code does not provide a mechanism that credits pervious materials; rather they are included in the hard surface coverage calculations. If pervious materials were permitted, this option would have been provided to the applicant prior to the variance request. Being that pervious materials are not a viable option to bring the site into compliance with the 25% hard surface coverage limitation, the applicant has opted to proceed with the variance request rather than remove excess hard surface coverage. CbaMassen is a Cmwuu ft for life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 1g U �m vu cc-6?,vk-� Todd Gerhardt February 8, 2010 Page 2 of 3 The item was rescheduled for January 11, 2010; however, the applicant requested the item be tabled to February 8, 2010, to allow time to research other options. The applicant has not contacted staff with a solution prior to the meeting. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2009 Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three-fourths of the members present; therefore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues pertaining to the variance request: The approved driveway proposed on the building permit application was deemed by the builder as not functional. The builder made the decision to increase the area of the driveway, exceeding the hard surface coverage. The homeowner then purchased the home "as is"; not realizing the site did not comply with the hard surface coverage limitation. The homeowner did not create this situation. • Would approval of the request set a precedent for building permits to reflect one driveway, receive approval, then construct a larger driveway and request an after -the -fact variance? The homeowner would be willing to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request the existing driveway to remain on the site. The revised request would be for a 0.8% or (148 square -foot) variance, as stated in attached letter dated October 30, 2009. • Two previous hard -surface coverage variances were denied in the Pinehurst Subdivision: ➢ 2101 Pinehurst Drive requested a3.3% (648 square -foot) variance. ➢ 2081 Pinehurst Drive requested a 2.6% (538.25 square -foot) variance. Staff Update Since the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the erosion issues located on Outlot B, which is owned by the City, have been repaired. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Action." Todd Gerhardt February 8, 2010 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Letter of Development Review Extension dated January 11, 2010. 3. Letter of Development Review Extension dated November 23, 2009. 4. Letter from homeowner dated October 30, 2009. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 3, 2009. 6. November 23, 2009 City Council Minutes. 7. January 11, 2010 City Council Minutes. gAplan\2009 planning cases\0947 2111 pinehmt drive variance\1-I1-10 executive summaryAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio — Planning Case No. 09- 17. On January 11, 2010, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed variance on November 3, 2009 and recommended denial. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission minutes, heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 —4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a 10'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re - platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2"d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100 -square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 2 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this l Id' day of January, 2010. CHAN14ASSEN CITY COUNCIL IM Its Mayor GAPLAM2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\CC Findings of Fact 1-11A0.doc 3 January 11, 2010 City of Chanhassen RECEIVED Attn: Angie Kairies JAN 1 2 2009 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance Application Dear Ms Kariries: The purpose of this letter is to respectfidly request that our item be tabled at the January l 1`s, 2010 City Council meeting. We would like to move it to the February 8th, 2010 City Council meeting. This letter also serves as the authorization to extend the review time of our application. This additional time will allow us more time to research potential solutions to our variance request. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-3012 Sincerely, Jim Weaver Lennar Corporation Todd GI Ion Homeowner 935 Wayzata Blvd. E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Main: 952-249-3000 • Fax: 952249-3075 LE N NA R.0 OM Q October 30, 2009 To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Fr: Todd and Amy Gleason Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Chanhassen Su: Nov 3`d After -the -fact variance hearing Members of the Planning Commission — Thank you for allowing us to submit written comments as they pertain to the November 3, 2009 variance hearing associated with our property. Unfortunately, because of work- related travel conflicts, we will be unable to attend the hearing. We understand several representatives from the building company (Lennar) responsible for construction of our home / hardscape will be at the hearing. We submit this written request to strongly urge the commission for variance approval. We understand and are sensitive to the local zoning requirements. The staff report recommending against the variance may be technically correct and certainly we are sensitive to the natural reluctance to set precedence. However, clearly the variance hearing process exists for a reason — and therefore, the case-by-case nature of the hearing process must at times yield a variance approval. Here are the facts or circumstances as we see them 1) We moved from NJ to MN in late 2007 and targeted Chanhassen given its community reputation. 2) In May, 2008 we purchased and moved into 2111 Pinehurst Drive. 3) We did not design the home or manage the construction ... the home was already built when we purchased the home. Additionally, we did not request any property modification prior to purchase. 4) Prior to moving in the city inspectors (we are not sure of exact titles) notified Lennar that certain windows did not meet code. Lennar replaced the specific windows and we were provided with an occupancy certificate. At that time we fully expected the residence met all codetzoning (why wouldn't we). 5) Subsequent to May of 2008, we have made significant enhancements to landscaping, decking, etc., but have added no hardscape. 6) In December 2008 (7 months after moving in) we received notification that our current property exceeded hardscape by 148 sq/ft ... and that we could not add the "in design plan" 100 sq/ft patio. 7) Over the past months we have confirmed with Lennar (builder) that through no fault of our own the driveway was constructed larger than had been designed. We have also concluded with Lennar that the "designed" driveway would greatly detract from the functionality of the driveway / garage space. In short, the Gleasons (us) are the only people that have a financial and emotional impact on the decision rendered in this hearing. We occupied the home for 7 months prior to notification that the hardscape issue existed. And, we made investments and purchases we otherwise may not have made. What else could go wrong? Our experience, to date, with the city offices of Chanhassen has been less than stellar. While not directly germane to the topic of hardscape we have struggled to understand how the following incidences could also occur in the 12 months since we purchased the home: 1) During the inspection of our newly constructed deck the city inspector made the erroneous assumption that we were also finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector saw an electrician in our basement and jumped immediately to the conclusion that we were finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector did not ask us, the home owners, for confirmation or clarification. Instead, we were slapped with an embarrassing "cease and desist" order which shown brightly on our door for days. We spent time and energy (and frustration) getting this error corrected and removed from our record (we assume). We never received an apology and were specifically treated with disdain when we contacted the named inspector. 2) At the edge of our property is a substantial retaining wall. The wall was constructed, inspected and approved prior to our purchase of the property. A portion of the wall is on our property and certain sections are on city property immediately adjacent to our yard. Despite "passing inspection" the wall allows for erosion and numerous times, large and clearly dangerous holes exist. We have continuously repaired holes on our property to ensure safety and responsibility. Despite numerous conversations with the city to have them repair a very large (8 feet in diameter) hole on the city property, no corrective action has occurred. The individual we spoke with (Terri Jeffries) has not fulfilled their commitment to fix the hole. We also spoke with the city Engineering Office as well as Terri and it was indicated the wall was not built correctly. We, the home owner, are now responsible for repairs or continuous erosion issues. Congratulations. So, while admittedly not directly pertinent to the hardscape variance, I'd remind the committee that we are residents of Chanhassen and struggling to understand how all of this is our responsibility? Proposal We request approval of the variance. Approval would avoid, in our opinion, unnecessary and potentially costly modifications to our driveway. If necessary, we agree to not install the patio or add any additional hardscape to our property. In essence, what we're asking is for approval to keep things the way they are. If approved, we acknowledge appreciation but do not feel as though we've won anything. Instead, approval would be great but honestly just allow us to cross one of the disappointments off the list. Sincerely, Todd and Amy Gleason Residents of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 11/3/09 CC DATE: 11/23/09 REVIEW DEADLINE: 12/11/09 CASE #: 09-17 BY: AK, AF, JM, TJ PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council Planpring Ceffunissien, as the BeaFd of Appeals and Adju9hxents, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Aetien Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact 1.38% hardcover variance to construct a driveway and patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). LOCATION: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2" d Addition APPLICANT: Jim Weaver Todd and Amy Gleason US Home Corporation 2111 Pinehurst Drive 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.41 (18,000 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 26.38% hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. The property is zoned Single -Family [i] Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 8 Residential (RSF). It is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst Td Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. On August 27, 2007, the City issued a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 24.88% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. Following completion of the building, the builder provided the City with an as -built survey. The as -built survey showed an increase in the sidewalk and driveway widths which resulted in an increase in hard surface coverage beyond the maximum 25% permitted by City Code. Staff notified the builder, who notified the homeowner. The builder stated that the proposed driveway was not feasible for the position of the garage and was therefore increased. The builder then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property; the approved building permit met the 25% hard surface coverage requirement, which included a 100 -square foot future patio. Alternatives exist that comply with the hard surface coverage. The total hard surface coverage on the site must be reduced by 148 square feet. Adequate access can be provided to the garage using less hard surface. Approval of this application could set a precedent within the Pinehurst subdivision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage _ r f� b 1 , L ` i � l On August 27, 2007, the City issued a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 24.88% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. Following completion of the building, the builder provided the City with an as -built survey. The as -built survey showed an increase in the sidewalk and driveway widths which resulted in an increase in hard surface coverage beyond the maximum 25% permitted by City Code. Staff notified the builder, who notified the homeowner. The builder stated that the proposed driveway was not feasible for the position of the garage and was therefore increased. The builder then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property; the approved building permit met the 25% hard surface coverage requirement, which included a 100 -square foot future patio. Alternatives exist that comply with the hard surface coverage. The total hard surface coverage on the site must be reduced by 148 square feet. Adequate access can be provided to the garage using less hard surface. Approval of this application could set a precedent within the Pinehurst subdivision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, which is zoned Single - Residential Family (RSF). The subject property has an area of 18,000 square feet, frontage of 91.2 feet and approximate depth of 141.30 feet. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot area, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot depth. The subject site exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the site was approved on August 28, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 24.88%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 24.88% coverage included a 100 -square foot future patio as required by City Code. Based on the building permit application, there was un to 122 souare feet of hard surface in which to accommodate a patio. Ops% Z_T w� M� X •MS1 22 ��..► Ji''.:r�1�Ti 1 HOUSE I PORCH = 7439 8Q FF. DRNEWAYMIDEWA MSQFf. TOTAL HARD (AVER --. !,al9Q A. PERCEM Or HAROCOVEII 4.4n I ISAW - 44,39% Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 4 of 8 The developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for future improvements or additions within the Pinehurst Subdivision. In 2006, as part of the approval process of the Pinehurst Development, staff expressed concern over the potential future hard surface coverage within the subdivision. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. As a result, Pinehurst was re -platted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the area of some of the lots. Also, on July 6, 2006, in an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, the City amended Sec. 20-905 of the City Code. This section requires all applicants requesting a building permit for the construction of a new home to show a minimum 10' x 10' patio area. This section reads as follows: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. This variance would permit the existing size of the driveway and sidewalk, as well as a 10' x 10' patio. The lot area is 18,000 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, future patio, etc. may occupy 4,500 square feet. The original building permit showed 4,478 square feet of hard cover. The remaining impervious surface allowed was 22 square feet. Building Pemut Survey As -built Survey The size of the driveway was increased from the original building permit by 240 square feet and the sidewalk from the front door to the driveway was increased by 30 square feet. This brought the site to 25.8% (excess of 148 square feet); this does not include the future 100 square foot patio as shown in the original approval. b a0�4• \ o \ .) B I / 1 / O / \ \ �( tl9529 \ , % N Building Pemut Survey As -built Survey The size of the driveway was increased from the original building permit by 240 square feet and the sidewalk from the front door to the driveway was increased by 30 square feet. This brought the site to 25.8% (excess of 148 square feet); this does not include the future 100 square foot patio as shown in the original approval. Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 5 of 8 In addition to the increased driveway and sidewalk area, the applicant is also requesting a 100 square foot patio in the rear yard. The increased driveway and proposed patio exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation by 1.38% or 248 square feet. A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Ordinance Building Permit Existing Proposed Increase Lot Area 1 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 House 1 3,309 3,309 3,309 Stoop 144 144 144 Driveway 822 1,062 1,062 +240 Sidewalk 103 133 133 +30 Future patio 100 1 100 HSC 4,500 4,478 4,648 4,748 +248 Percents a 25% 24.9% 25.8% 1 26.38% 1 +1.38% A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 6 of 8 is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types B and C, soils containing non -permeable material, such as clay. Outlot B South of the subject site is an outlot, platted as part of the Pinehurst Subdivision, which contains a retaining wall and stormwater pond for the development. Outlot B is owned and maintained by the City. Staff researched the possibility of allowing the homeowner to purchase a portion of Outlot B. However, based on review of the plans and stormwater calculations for the development, it is not recommended to sell a portion of Outlot B. The basis for this conclusion is due to the pond's modeled high-water level relative to the bottom of the retaining wall. During a 100 -year storm event, the pond is designed to bounce to an elevation of 1027.2 feet. Under the proposed plan, the toe of the retaining wall was to be at an elevation of 1028 feet which would have allowed for 0.8 feet of free board. However, the Certificate of Survey for the grading as -built shows that the base of the wall is at an elevation of 1025.9 feet which is less than two feet above the normal water level for the pond. Thus, the wall goes under water. In addition, there is a stormwater outlet just south of the subject site directing runoff into the stormwater pond. Relocating the property line to the south of the structure would put the outlet Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 7 of 8 on private property, making it difficult to ensure the outlet is functioning and maintained properly. The outlet is necessary for the runoff of the site and should remain part of Outlot B. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two -car garage. A single- family home with a three -car garage is currently constructed on the property. The driveway is aligned virtually straight out from the three car garage. The width is 30 feet at the garage and 24 feet at the right-of-way. The width could be reduced on the left side of the two -car garage and angled inward as it comes in contact with the right-of-way and Pinehurst Drive. The driveways shown to the right are adjacent to three -car garages within the RSF district. The width at the garage ranges from 26 to 28 feet. The width at the right-of-way ranges from 17 to 20 feet. Reduction of the driveway width will result in an overall reduction in hard surface coverage and provide adequate access to the garage. RECOMMENDATION Staff reeefamends 4hat and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the following motion: A. "Me Chanhassen City Council PlanpAft Gemmission, as the BoaFd of Appeals and Adjust ts, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17, and adoption of the findings of fact and aetiee recommendation." Or, Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 8 of 8 B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Ao ien Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of proposed lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of as -built lot survey. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. g:\plan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pindhmst drive variancekc staff reportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio — Planning Case No. 09- 17. On November 3, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a 10'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re- platted due to staff s concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2°d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100 -square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, recommends that the City Council deny an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3rd day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN PLANNING CONMUSSION Its Chair GAPLANM2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\PC Findings of Fact -dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: 115 VrTf z C (-'vc Myzh Yl n as -E rl (K& \ cog k.A e'_ '? vd . Contact. ,r�rnle`Lnnt�e �\�mYJeaver Phone:9---a 3U9 �crnFax. S3 Otin 3n�S Email 2Csro\z tooter Co lar rnr • (nrn m Planning Case No. CA—\1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: �lnr,hO C_�f 11 I ! IN 5533 1 Contact: Phonegn&513•XI-43 Fax: Email: kocE). Q\enSar 2D pent d_x r. (_0 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Itzro Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Ez ow for Filing Fees o " rney Cost UP/SPR/VA A AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 MinorSUB TOTAL FEE $C_ 445b An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/:" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: v �tYYz,11�N5 o�^� LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: �a-hCX\-r�� e--a�Ul I in TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES i--� NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONIP PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATIC REASON• - - • J\Eh CL 3AaChe r :trl . FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should Confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tide, 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 (31PIANIFomrs0evelopmmt Review Application. DOC -9 iog Date 9/19/0 Date Rev. 1/08 SCANNED September 11, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting an impervious surface variance for 2111 Pinehurst Drive on behalf of the homeowner. The constructed home (include driveway and sidewalk) is currently over the impervious surface maximum by .8%. The size of the driveway changed from what was originally proposed in the building permit survey. The proposed driveway was inadequate to support the size and use of the garage for this home. The driveway built today is wider, thus causing the slight increase in impervious surface. In addition, this homeowner would like the ability to build a small patio off the back of his home. If this patio is added, it would increase the total impervious surface to 26.37%. When reviewing this variance application, we respectfully request the staff and City Council of Chanhassen to look at the big picture. This particular homesite backs up to an open outlot, which could be added to the homesite's overall pervious surface calculation. The homeowner has been living in this home with this larger driveway and has acquired belongings based on this driveway. To force the homeowner to change their driveway or way of living at this point would be hardship. With this variance request, we are requesting to work with the City of Chanhassen to find a reasonable solution to this minor error. Below is our point by point narrative for the variance request. a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his home. The driveway that was ultimately constructed was built to fit the type and intended use of the garage with this home. This homeowner has purchase items based on this driveway and its intended use. To take away the driveway would limit his use of his whole home. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his backyard. Prior to finding out that the driveway was constructed larger than originally shown, we had always anticipated on a 10' x 10' patio in the backyard of this home. It would be a hardship to take away something based on the driveway error. SCANNED 545 Indian Mound E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Phone: 952-473-0993 • Fax: 952,476-0194 u LENNAR.COM Fm b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. This impervious request is speck to this homeowner due to the fact that there was an understanding when he purchased the home. He has desired to build a 10'x 10' patio in his rear yard. We had calculated this with the original survey. However, the original driveway was not sized appropriately, thus putting him over the 25% maximum coverage. Without a variance, he is unable to have the patio that he originally desired, nor the driveway that is now sized appropriately for him home. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of this variance application is not for profit or income. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. This hardship was not created by the homeowner. It was an error on the builder's part for not having an appropriate sized driveway on the original survey. 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. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public or cause injury. 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 increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property value within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion of the public streets. In fact, by granting this variance and providing this homeowner with an adequately sized driveway, they will be less likely to store their vehicles in the street, thus reducing potential congestion. This proposed variation will also not impair neighboring property values. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-249-3000 Sincerely, LENNAR CORPORATION Carole T eyl tm Weaver SCANNED 401� 3® SCALE IN FEET �.; /// \\ � \ \� •IgLA //at v.. 22 \ \\ /OSA % F� Pary Pte- I kMFRAa.,Na,�':.:w t.>DvreAx ESA: r Ta.a 'eve aw LEGEND Denotes Iran Monument • Dangles Surface Dlalndge r— Denotee Proposed Remotion IDa4 Denotes Existing Elevation, suu Denotes Tap Iron Pipe w Denotes Retaining Wall RE Denotes Proposed Contour Runes 1u: STORM SEWER O-•(9 SANITARY S — WAIERMAIN.HYDRANT. AND VALVE 116009]'6RWLLLArffi`61 uonr a •n,mp4aFr. Nouse. rorc:n . a,rdea rt. aRrn.»n.larnerd. Faes�r. CY" oK es RMNrM IURocovrn dAlrlr4(Iq•kaY♦ NOTES: 1.Add. 3111 PYMYTOMa 3,N .ft: 1.TN.H. season LOLL 36 d, alone d. PINEHORST IND ADDITION. ELEV. • 10I7 4 3. T.N.H.6'up Nrrl q Nanceasr DMe B1 Oulbl'e A ane e, PINENURST 2ND ADDITION ELEV.•034e4 I. TIP m Na arvii-imard, otlapabn me 0l lna IMnI oI Wopnee neuro. TIP n Ra, 10.0 bq Mus"malds q We moroeed bewlna r,a— ELI V. • 1056 26 ]. Na air -drum, enMr, IsuM In Me .4 won M4 ianNnab. gh—ld Inr veal M nor abucuan wllnoul .in, checked eoaHal Nn bumcbmarka Mown rn Nle survey. 1. No buYJhO rnar melon pWvrWd by be survey annW °e.. xinwul bar, nnecec° e°ainal omnMcnwlpbna Led ametletlum, Worm for UuIdery mnnruceaa WfPngx a. 5. Tlitmums EoxhaveotmkW,IpoomuMInnban Ince. Wonrvmm,Mwmy IIIn InorurvaY. bul nova ettounlM iw II venin Ino xNdM. LPropose, Container are per the oneF° an naYNp 4 WnawugmIm eoor Vrolml Sol,.., . W 2121105. I . Neuan.a owl on Sano. Prepvee W of Muw Revenuer •1051.1 Parsing, grange gnavarbn al pvdnwd door • 16..5.4 Proppwa bwealMInd elwNbn •I0t4.4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION La II, Buck 1. PMENURST IND.ADDmON. Carver County. "no.. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I bargee, edgy Meubo aunty, pen or Iepen wag paMre by me or under m, gaol mupervber eM MI I On s dvN Loomed land surveyor underNa Ism 01 We WN of MerM10a. Deaad Wig W, In day q Aupurl. M03. McCombs Freud Rees AasObltl, IM. Homy 0. Nwarge. Lead l4ragoing, Mignignalur Licarings No 17255 The cnrU r olon a nq valla unbv vel waxed In blue ink. "22 TDI I ranirx.a prsdypy PINP.IIDRST 2}ND ADDITION PNff .n1N '011/' / b `.\ ala6B3 Xj- Denotes Suryocr Drainage ♦— / r i Denotes Etlisting Elevatlon alta teras Denotes Retaining Wall w Denotes Proposed Contour I.Inae STORM SEWER 2TK'::^--■ A—_<- SANITARY SEWER_.— WATERMAN, HYDRANT. AND VALVE N6sa mien rte LOT U1G .Ie.Weea. Fr. .U. •leoeea FT. 2a oMtzw v e ,me eo n ro7w wRo cove�.we No rt. -(Y•r -m6 / 30 0 30 2 SCALE IN FEET ti—I `, ��lf'l Lnsh•srsw I ..ma s. Aft IN _— Par dada LENNAR Aft IN —rat �.�dam w.+w.,..84dr":1„ H+_m wmanav LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Suryocr Drainage ♦— Denotes Proposed Elewtuh xDa) Denotes Etlisting Elevatlon alta Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Retaining Wall w Denotes Proposed Contour I.Inae STORM SEWER 2TK'::^--■ A—_<- SANITARY SEWER_.— WATERMAN, HYDRANT. AND VALVE N6sa mien rte LOT U1G .Ie.Weea. Fr. .U. •leoeea FT. iT. oMtzw v e ,me eo n ro7w wRo cove�.we No rt. PERLENT.IWD., e.we11400•teeA NOTES: I. Address: 2111 Pkteho st Drive 2. SenMmeM: 1. T.N.N. Belwun Lots 3 6 a, Block 3, PINEHURST 2NO ADDITION. ELEV. • 1037.42 2. T.N.X. lying west of Manchester Drive t Ouse's A and B, PINENURBT FNO ADDITION. ELEV,•10£8A8 3. TIP on the southeasterly, extension line of the inner of Proposed house. TIP 4 Sing 10.00 feet southwesterly of Me proposed building corner ELEV. a 1060.26 3. No Nevetlon , suer found M Ne Aid or on this ceNfble, should be used for onstruction without being cocked liplaul the berwhmnke shown on this suns, 4, No building Inlprmtlbn provided by Nus survey should be used without bad a checked against amhXecu 1piens. Use ronbclunl plane far building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a blear ledge *found Me front lace. Wun notshowNa h In the survey. W I havumauMed Itt a wM1N Me reaseke. e. P-Tuad Creature are par Me grading Pon created by Westward Professional Served.. leo. dated tat Ads. 7. House wee takes an 813402. Fort Floor • 1056.0 Oenae(War alw.Wn el Overholt dour •1053.7 Lowell Nor elevation sINS ,6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LO122. Bock 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Caner County, Minnnate SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE'. 1 hereby oto Mel the survey. plan or frond wee prepared by me or under my direct supervision and Met I and s duty Licensed Land $urveyor tent the laws W in. axle W M.hrow., Dated Ihla he eM day of Deeamberer 2008. MOCom aIF it Rpas Ase0cla3 s, Inc. /5 H D.! sot, Lend Surve Monsey Lka as No. 1723 Tho canal eta N not valid unless wet signed In bide Ink, Lot 22 Block1 cwrlfraorsturvay PINffluR r 2tND ADDITION cutsag As BuiN (bwbueq MN Permit No.2007-01921 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 October 22, 2009, 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 Variances to 2111 Pinehurst Drive — Planning Case 09-17 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this-W^ay of Cir 4 es% r 2009. Notary Publi KIM T• MEUOSSEN ta Publ'ic Notary. _Minne� maimsJan 31.2010 W (gmmu b" Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for after -the -fact variances on property zoned Proposal: Residential Single Family RSF Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation Property 2111 Pinehurst Drive Location: (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sere/plan/09-17.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Kairies by email at akairiesCdici.chanhassen.mmus or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party Is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process, The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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 somethina to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of thea enda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for after -the -fact variances on property zoned Proposal: Residential Single Family RSF Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation Property 2111 Pinehurst Drive Location: (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition) A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/09-17.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Kairies by email at akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 5oo feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. BEN & MARGARET LIAO BRIAN K & JOAN O SCHIMKE BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH 3645 FORESTVIEW LN 2040 HIGHGATE CIR 9 HAWKINS DR PLYMOUTH MN 55441-1336 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 NORTHPORT NY 11768-1527 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8009 DOUGLAS G & SARAH P HIPSKIND 2061 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2165 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2117 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 OJARS A PAPEDIS TRUSTEE OF O PAPEDIS TRUST 2101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS 2021 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER 6710 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 DANIEL C & JANE A MCKOWN 2171 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS 343 SYDMOR DR E BOISE ID 83706-5668 JAYSON C DREHER 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOSHUA T KRIENKE & CHRISTINA A KRIENKE 2375 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7403 LEIGH STOCKER BERGER 2140 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 ROBERT A JR & BRENDA K NESS 2121 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8010 SCOTT D & SONYA B SCHROEDER 2081 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 DANIEL J DOHSE & MARIT S LEE- DOHSE 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 JOHN M & NICOLE L THAYER 2122 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 KEITH K & CHRISTINE M CLARK 6620 CHESTNUT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4580 MICHAEL D & DEBRA H ANDERSON 6681 AMBERWOOD LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4582 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 1851 WEST LAKE DR #550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8567 S R SOMURI & NISHA AGRAWAL 2091 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 THOMAS J WOODS TODD R & AMY A GLEASON TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC ATTN: 2031 EDGEWOOD CT 2111 PINEHURST DR MARY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 18001 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA MN 55345-4150 WILLIAM V & NANCY M U S HOME CORP WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE SWEARENGIN TRUSTEES OF 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 6739 MANCHESTER DR FAMILY TRUST WAYZATA MN 55391-1849 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8007 XUEBING FENG & XIAOGUANG yURI FARBER DENG 2135 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-6700 6724 MANCHESTER CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Councilman Litsey: It's probably against fire code. Todd Gerhardt: No candles. COVERAGE VARIANCE. APPLICANT: US HOME CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. The item before you, 2111 Pinehurst Drive is part of a subdivision where we've had a couple other requests for variance. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on November 3rd and I'll circle back and talk about that in a minute. Located in the Pinehurst neighborhood just off of Galpin. 1.38% hard coverage is being requested from the 25% for additional hard coverage. All site plans go through the, as they're gone through the different departments we do look at the hard cover requirements of this permit as it was issued did meet the hard surface requirements. You can see the site plan itself and then the calculation on the right. After they're built they are requested to show an as -built survey. So at the time that the as -built survey was submitted back to the city, so the permit was issued on August 27d' and then back when the, on December of '08 when the survey was submitted, you can see the difference in the site plan or the layout itself which included the driveway configuration increasing and the sidewalk itself. So staff did inform the builder that it was in error and the builder did inform the homeowner that it did not meet that so they were in non-compliance with that. Again as a part of the city's ordinance we do require a back patio on all lots. A 10 by 10. We found that, that was one way that some of the builders were finding a way to meet the requirements by leaving that off and we felt it was important when there is a patio door that at a minimum we provide that 10 by 10 and that was left off. In reviewing the calculations where you can see what the building permit showed and then how it went up for the percentage of square foot. The owner is requesting that they leave the driveway and they would forego the patio in the back. The Planning Commission struggled a lot with this. I think some of the confusion came in and we put two motions in place for you on your recommendation. The applicant, or someone representing the builder has stated that they didn't feel that that driveway worked as itself. Now if you went through the neighborhood, most the homes are built that way with the neck down and we've had two other requests in this neighborhood. If I was to go back to the first one. The homes immediately to the, two houses to the east there also have applied for variances and the addresses are in your staff report had also applied for variances and those were turned down by the City Council. Those addresses were 2101 Pinehurst, and that was a 3.3% and 2081 Pinehurst and that was a 2.6% hard cover so they're approximately 650 square feet and another 530 square feet, or 40 square feet and both of those were also denied so being consistent with that. I think where the Planning Commission struggled and why we put the additional recommendation in is the Planning Commission was struggling with all or nothing kind of thing. Obviously the builder's reluctant to pull the driveway out now that the homeowner's been in there. It's been in there for a while so they were struggling so we tried to give you a couple different options in looking at that, and I'll go to the recommendation here. So certainly within that, excuse me. I'll show these are the two that had the variances on there. 2101 and the 2081. Actually the one at 2081 actually bought the additional property there to make that lot larger. So we did put in an additional recommendation in there but we're still left struggling. The staff's recommendation was for denial. The staff s 10 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 recommendation struggling with not having a patio. Whether it's this homeowner or homeowner in the future, that's kind of makes it desirable when you come out of that back patio door. Certainly there's a deck above that but what that does to the livability and the desirability of the property in the long term. So with that we did provide Findings of Fact. If you wanted to do some motion inbetween there and then we would recommend that we come back with Findings of Fact at your next meeting but with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have a couple questions. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The two variances you spoke about, I think you showed a picture of them earlier. Were they denied after the fact? You know what I'm saying? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. But you do you understand my question? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. And. Kate Aanenson: If your question is were they given relief based on that, I don't believe so. They were denied so they would have had to remove it. If there was anything there. Councilwoman Tjomhom: That's what I was asking. If this happened before or after there was something already existing there. Kate Aanenson: That I can't comment on but. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And if that happened before it was built or purchased the way it's happening now. Second question I have is when we do put a driveway in there's a permit pulled and the plans are submitted and the driveway's completed. Do we send an inspector out to inspect the driveway? Kate Aanenson: No. We look at the survey when it's put in place and it's the obligation of the contractor to follow the survey and we've worked, long education curve over the years to stop this problem that's occurred and we've actually gone back and done as-builts for this particular reason where we've had changes in grading and drainage where it may cause problems too so it's the builder's responsibility to submit those surveys. Often times you have weather conditions that make it impossible to get the survey in a timely manner, or the driveway in in a timely manner also so sometimes those things play into consideration too so the survey does lag behind someone trying to moving in and getting the as -built done or finishing grading. They may want to move in before some of that. Things that are not life safety issues are done. But it's our intent 11 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 that when they submit the survey that that's what they're going to follow and if there's a problem or if they want to change it up, they would come meet with somebody. Make modifications, which does happen. Someone may want to change something. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I'm surprised about that because even when you put a new deck on, you know they'll come out and inspect the footings and do everything else as a process. Kate Aanenson: Yeah but a driveway is kind of like a patio. As long as that is put in place and follows those sort of things. We try to catch it with the as -built. Not every you know would be similar to a patio if it's not shown on the plan and someone calls on something like that but we don't stand out there and follow up on all of those. Those would be complaint driven. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time? At the Planning Commission there were comments made. How did this occur? Kate Aanenson: Well again the staff's, reviews the, I'll go back to the one that shows the survey here. Sorry. So the survey would be submitted with the application. Now lots of times when these come through there's a conversation that's being held with the builder because it doesn't meet the requirements so it's a negotiation of how do we make it work. Mayor Furlong: At the time that they request the permit? Kate Aanenson: At the time the permit's being issued. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: While the building inspectors are reviewing the plans, the engineering and the planning department's reviewing, looking at making sure that it follows the grading plan which is very important. Engineering reviews that part of it and then the planning department's looking at the hard cover portion of it, so those are the other two departments that are all working together to get the permit issued. If it's not, if it meets all the hard surface coverage and we still make sure that, if it's supposed to be a look out or walk out that it follows the grading plan so engineering department would follow that process to make sure. So often times it's a simple phone call to talk about. It looks like there's some additional, you know they sometimes show a future pool or something like that, or a tennis court or a sport court. We would inform them that you're getting close to the maximum. Let's talk about some ways that we can meet your goals. We try to be you know advocating for them to make sure that they can meet their needs. They can provide that and when this house did come in it did provide for that 10 foot back patio, which is a requirement because there is doors going out. But that was, so the permit did meet the ordinance. And somewhere in the process the contractor it appears, and it was stated in the Planning Commission, the contractor decided that that didn't seem to make a lot of sense. The way the driveway was laid in place, nor the sidewalks so they chose to deviate from the plan. So that's how it happened. And it wasn't caught until the survey, done at a later time requirement, the as -built was submitted back to the city. And then the planning department did notify the builder that they didn't follow the plan and they were in violation. Now the homeowner's burdened with the problem of non-compliance. 12 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Sure. Yeah. Was there anything at the Planning Commission, and that was, well it turned coming through as a recommendation because of the vote. Anything expressed in terms of the hardship that's created? Kate Aanenson: Well I think, I think that you know the vote was 4 to 2. I think there was some concern that again the homeowner got, it's not a good welcome to the city which we don't want to have happen. We want everybody to you know have those choices that they can make later with their property. That they've got some of that additional hard cover so I think there was the two votes that were, didn't support the denial had some concerns regarding that. But I think the rest of it felt like, it was a little bit of where we spent a lot of time with the builder has done work in this city. A little bit of disregard for the following the requirement. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions at this time for staff? Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have another one. This neighborhood seems to have a lot of these problems and I guess I'm confused. I mean we've set ordinances and building codes in place before this was, before this development was even built and I'm wondering why we're having so many problems with this particular. Kate Aanenson: We'd love to talk about that for a minute. When this project came in, and we noticed, the lots came in at the minimum and we were concerned because they were larger homes. Now we're at the top end of the building cycle when there was a big desire to move to this area and actually the builder came back to us and said we'd like to put a 4 car garage on there. It was like, there's no way we can get a 4 car garage in there because they realize the houses at that time are moving up towards the top end. The different builders in there and at that time they did drop some of the lots to make them work so actually some of these lots, there were 2 lots that were dropped on the bottom part to actually make some of these lots bigger. Our normal lot size is 15. If you look in the staff report, we put the average in there which I believe was closer to 18 or 20,000 so we're bigger than most of the lots so these are large homes, and people do want to have those additional amenities. Whether it's the third car garage and the patio out the back. The fire pit in the future. Some of them want the sport court. Some of those things which we want to build in that flexibility but we do have a large footprint on these. On some of the lots are small. That's why I think you're seeing some of the lots up there, people have combined, actually bought two lots to make it work. To meet their needs. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Okay, is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. Carol Toohey: Good evening Mayor, council members Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Carol Toohey: My name is Carol Toohey with Lennar Corporation, also known as US Home. We're here on behalf of the homeowner in regards to the hardship difference on the home site. 13 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 There is, was obviously you can see the discrepancy between the building permit driveway and the as -built survey. Ms. Aanenson did a good job of describing basically what happened and the contractor decided to install a driveway they felt was more appropriate given the type of driveway, or the garages and the use of those garages and unfortunately our builder didn't, wasn't there the day that they installed it and now obviously we didn't catch it until the as -built survey was completed and unfortunately that was also after Mr. Gleason had purchased his home. So we're here on behalf of the homeowner to try and help him to allow him to have the new driveway that he did purchase from us. We have modified the original application which did include both a larger driveway and a patio to just the driveway as it is today. We do understand that is an increase above the maximum surface but the, we believe the difference between this hard surface and for example the patio hard surface is where the water goes. This additional surface does flow to the street and into the storm sewer in the street whereas the back yard would flow into the grass and the ponds and there were some issues there so we believe there is also a difference in that kind of request so we're here to respectfully request that the council consider the new Findings of Fact that the staff is presenting where they do accept the driveway as it is today. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions? Carol Toohey: Any questions? Councilman McDonald: Yeah I've got a question Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I understand a lot of this was probably a mistake or something along those lines. Why haven't you offered to fix the driveway back to the way it should be as built? Carol Toohey: Because the homeowner did buy this home as it with the driveway in and had an understanding that this is what he was purchasing through no fault of his own. He didn't know that we had a mistake, made a mistake and at that time we had not known so we're doing all that we can for the homeowner to try and let him keep what he purchased. Councilman McDonald: Okay. When I was on the Planning Commission there were at least 2 or 3 homes in this development that came through because again as Kate had stated, you wanted to maximize the size of the house that went onto the lot and based upon that no one could put in retaining walls. They could not put in any landscaping. We went through a lot of iterations with people coming through trying to convince us that we could dig holes in the ground and do basically little sump pumps or water gardens or something along those lines. And at the same time 3 years ago when there was a flood a lot of water ran off from this area down below here. Flooded out homes. We had those homeowners coming in up in arms because basements had been flooded out. Property had been flooded. To me the solution is you fix the driveway. He may have bought what is there but that is not what was approved. The solution is fix the driveway. Either the homeowner can do it or you can do it. I'm not going to vote for a variance because again too many people have come through here. This has been an ongoing problem and 14 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 I'm just not going to tolerate it. You're not going to get my vote to allow for this variance. You're going to have to fix this problem. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or comments for Mrs. Toohey? Todd Gleason: Can I make a, or I'm not sure what the process is. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Nope, that's fine. Please, Mr. Gleason. Good evening. Todd Gleason: Thank you. Good evening. I'm not probably prepared with comments other than I did submit some written statements and I appreciate if you had a chance to take a look at that. I travel a lot for my job and wasn't sure I was going to be here this evening. That said, I do you know sort of ask you know for a couple comments. One is, I know our neighbors of course. You know you know the people in your neighborhood and when you're faced with an issue you share certain frustrations with your other fellow neighbors and often times they share their experiences and so this has been one, as you can imagine, for people like myself, this is a new neighborhood. You know this is one of the topics. You know I guess I would, you're asking for an answer. I don't know if I can say the exact answer regarding the two neighbors that applied for a variance but my understanding, because one is our next door neighbor. They applied because they wanted a larger patio to be put in. It had nothing to do with their driveway and I believe the other one on the corner, they were looking to put in something in their back yard as well. That why they purchased the lot next to them, so they now have a larger lot for them to do what they want to do in their back yard. Again my understanding is, it had nothing to do with their driveway. You know as my letter I think outlined, if you had a chance to read it, I would just sort of share my frustration with the entire process here. I'm not going to argue the facts or the technical aspect or the, you know the erosion ratios. That's really not what I do. I know that we moved here from New Jersey. We found this house. We were attracted to the community and frankly you know since that time we've struggled with a lot of processes associated with the purchase of this home and some of the things that my family and I are dealing with, now including this driveway which was there when we bought the house and we did actually call the city regarding hardscape to understand what limit we were up against. While I'm sensitive to you know Councilman McDonald's frustration with the you know the history of this. I guess I would just remind the council that, my family and I didn't create the history. When we called the city, specifically for hardscape. Specifically for other reasons. When we weren't given a permit to move in until we got windows fixed. You know to find out 8, 7 months later that there was this issue, I struggle with understanding how now we're the ones that are going to have to fix something that hopefully I believe is a minor variance but that's my comment because you've read my written statements. I don't want to go over that again. If you've had a chance to read that, I appreciate it. Mayor Furlong: No, I appreciate that and thank you for providing those comments and realizing that it's pretty clear from what you said, what we've heard tonight and what was said at the Planning Commission, this wasn't something you created. But unfortunately you're dealing with it and the process is sometimes one that isn't designed for efficiency but for clarity and making sure that everybody gets heard in a timely manner so I appreciate you putting up with the process 15 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 as it's been. Any other questions for the applicant or for Mr. Toohey? Councilwoman Ernst, did you want to ask a question? Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I have a question for Kate. Can you tell me, after reading the staff report, the patio seemed to be the bigger issue for water runoff, is that correct? And is there really a concern with this driveway? Kate Aanenson: I don't think either issue was more important. We just brought up the patio because we think it's, it makes the house, it's like not having a front sidewalk. Sometimes it's just one of those things that will make a house more livable. The Planning Commission didn't talk on that nor we. I think they're both hard cover and just the viability and livability. Councilwoman Ernst: But I mean is there a bigger, was there, is there an issue with the driveway being in there for a while? Kate Aanenson: Well it's just hard cover. Councilwoman Ernst: Zero point percent. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Alright, maybe that's a question Councilwoman Ernst for our city engineer Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, sorry. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, does it matter if the water runs off in the front of the house or the back of the house or, in terms of storm water management? Paul Oehme: Well, not really. I mean it either goes through their yard into the wetland and through those ponds out in back or it ends up in the street and eventually ends up in the pond so there may be some, maybe some water quality benefit if it goes through surface drainage to the back yard and into the wetland but it still should be treated and consistent with other properties in the area. Councilwoman Ernst: Is there anything that they can do to help that situation with the current situation that they're in right now? Paul Oehme: I mean it all comes back to hard surface coverage. We've talked to the council about you know storm water improvements that could potentially help the situation. We're not you know there yet I guess in terms of who's, what type of improvements potentially could be added to address these type of conditions but. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I know in the past we've talked about additional landscaping and that sort of thing that might help the situation. I'm wondering if there's anything that they could do that is similar to that that would. 16 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Kate Aanenson: I would just point out, we did spend a lot of time talking at one of the other applications up here. They brought in a long, kind of expansive drawings of what different alternatives they could use and at that time we chose not to accept that as a path because we didn't have you know a policy or plan in place to make that happen. The one that actually bought the other lot. They were looking at some, kind of some creative alternatives to reduce their hard cover. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah and I don't, I'm not getting the feeling that we're looking at comparable situations here when we're talking about, for example 2101 and 2801. We don't know if they had a driveway. If they were dealing with an existing condition or if it was after the fact. And then. Kate Aanenson: I think Mr. Gleason stated the facts pretty much, pretty clearly that they both want to do additional coverage to their property. I think we're all in agreement that Mr. Gleason didn't cause the problem but the contractor didn't follow the plan. Yeah. So it's just the additional hard cover. We're not saying you know we'll leave that up to you to decide the merits of that. Whether or not there was, one's more egregious than the other. Councilwoman Ernst: Well and so because I don't feel that we're dealing with comparable situations. I'm just asking if there's something that he can do with additional landscaping or something to help remedy the situation. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. We did look at, there's an empty lot to the west and we looked at you know replatting the area and buying additional land, but now we've just pushed the problem kind of downstream again. You're going to have to see a smaller home that's next door that's not the tradition in this neighborhood so, this is a tough one. I mean one of the things that we've talked about when we have situations like this that if we could bank property somewhere in the area and people buying into that situation is the only thing that staff has come up with. With the tight clay soils in Chanhassen, it's very difficult to use some of the products that are out there today. So you know we just haven't gotten to that point of trying to find a piece of land in this watershed district where property owners could come in and buy some open space and that would have to remain open now and into the future is really the point that we're at. Councilwoman Ernst: Yep, and I see that as being a potential long term solution whereas the situation that we're dealing with today is right in front of us and we need to figure out how we can help this homeowner when he was not, he's really not responsible for what happened here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Oh I'm sorry, Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: Well, Mr. Gleason in your letter you stated that prior to moving in there, were there actually building inspectors out there on the site to deal with the window issue? It says in here prior to moving in the city inspectors notified, there's an issue with windows apparently. How did that come about or was that, were they actually on site to look at that or was it just? 17 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Todd Gleason: Well I believe they were. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Todd Gleason: I certainly didn't, you know I mean my recollection of 2 years ago now it seems like, but was that we did receive a call from Lennar that the inspector had come in. Verified that certain windows didn't pass I believe it was efficiency ratings and that they needed to be replaced. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Todd Gleason: You know and so. Councilman Litsey: Okay. And is your assertion then that the city inspector should have caught the other issue at that time? Todd Gleason: Well I guess my assertion might not be that necessarily. My assertion is that you know 7-8 months after moving into the home, receiving a letter from the city that we were over the hardscape was a surprise, not only based on that fact but also based on the history that we had that it seemed to us that a process had occurred and again I'm not professing to be an expert in the area of permits, inspections and the like, but that certain people had come into our home from the city to approve it's you know, it being a habit you know. I mean us being able to move into the home. It's occupancy. That coupled with the phone call that we had made because we were exploring what we could do in our back yard and finding out that we were already was you know that we're at 24.88 percent of hardscape, which apparently was on the as -built. All of this is my point is, you know we had had a couple of conversations with the city about the hardscape. We then obviously you know, I wouldn't say delayed our move in but we were sensitive to maybe delaying our move in. That somebody had come and inspected our home. The windows needed to be replaced. We were fine with that process because we were renting a home in the area. You know all of that, you know the bottom line equation is that it certainly felt like a lot of people, a few people had looked at our home. Inspected it. We moved in and now we're here. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one point of clarification. We do not do the as -built. That's up to the builder so that was Lennar's responsibility to check to make sure it was built, the driveway was built correctly. And the rest of the survey, the hard cover, that's their job to do and that includes the elevations for the drainage and that sort of thing so there's a time line, and I think I pointed that out. The permit was issued in 2007. These take a few months to build but the as - built wasn't submitted until our records show 12-1-08 so it was over a year before we got the as - built back so. Councilman Litsey: That was my next question. Because I mean you normally wouldn't pick that up on an inspection anyway because that's not something... Kate Aanenson: Not the driveway stuff, nor would they pick up, yeah. The measure the setbacks from the street and that sort of thing but not the as-builts. That's up to the builder. 112 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: I asked Ms. Aanenson hardship and that's one of the factors that comes into play with a variance. The hardship of, you know but for. You dealt with this I'm sure as a builder and looking for variances more than Mr. Gleason has. He's an unfortunate participant I think here which is pretty clear from his statements. Where is, is there a hardship here? Or not allowing, you know if the variance is not allowed. Carol Toohey: Well, in our application Mayor we explained the hardship as this gentleman you know bought the home as you see it today. Had expectations of use. As you can see you know the driveway. Just looking at the two different driveways, there's two completely different potential uses. The width in front of the third stall, or the single stall, the depth of the pavement is only about 16 to 18 feet deep. Typically the third stall is used for recreational vehicles. Extra cars. That is not an appropriate depth to use in that stall in that way. My understanding of why the contractor built the driveway as you see it today so that they could actually properly use that stall for it's use. That homeowner has lived there for 2 years now so has bought what the understanding of the use of the driveway and was using it and so that hardship would be you know taking away the enjoyment of the driveway as you see it today. Mayor Furlong: Is the building permit survey, the one on the left there, is that, that driveway configuration, is that a normal configuration for other homes in this neighborhood or throughout that you build or was it abnormal? Carol Toohey: You know I don't know. My assumption is that is just the standard template that the engineer uses. Doesn't actually look at the garage or the use before they lay it on there. They have a little ... plop in their CAD. Mayor -Furlong: So it's a pretty typical layout and I guess that's been my experience just not only in this neighborhood but throughout the city is with a third car garage, while it may have a driveway with the width of 3 cars at the house. By the time you get to the access off the street it's down to a 2 car width. Carol Toohey: That is standard but if you do look though, you know depending on the home, and there was an aerial. The car is parked there. You know say someone had a truck or a boat, it would be at an angle and then cutting into the 2 car portion of the driveway, which... Todd Gleason: And maybe if I could make a comment Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Certainly Mr. Gleason. Todd Gleason: If I legitimately, and maybe that's already... If I really thought that that driveway that is, that was proposed in the permit would be functional for us, given, I wouldn't be here today. I mean I really wouldn't try to be wasting your time over, it's not like I'm dying to have a larger driveway. I mean that's not my goal in life. Frankly I think a gray box on the screen is interesting but you know for me to pull out of my third car stall there, because I give my wife the other, for me to pull out of that and weave around the way to that, I know my 19 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 driveway, would be very difficult for me to believe that it would be anywhere close to the same level of you know use in my current driveway which is, doesn't feel that excessive when I'm on it I would state. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Very good. Any other questions or comments? Very good, thank you. Appreciate you being here for your comments. Let's bring it to council for discussion and comments. Thoughts. Unless there are any follow up questions for staff at this point. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have one more question for Kate. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: The two variances that were denied that you discussed earlier in your presentation, what was the percentage or what was the overage of hard surface coverage? Kate Aanenson: The first one at 2101 was requested a 3.3% or about 650 square feet. And the second one was. Councilwoman Ernst: 2.6. Kate Aanenson: The first one was 3.3. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. About 250 square feet. The second one at 2081 was 2.6. About 540 square feet. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: And the results of those were? Kate Aanenson: Both, they were both denied. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any thoughts or discussion? Councilman McDonald: Well I guess the only comments I'd come back to is again is, you know I feel very strongly about my position in this and part of it goes back to again I remember when this whole development came up for platting and staff did point out a few problems as far as lot sizes and types of houses and there was a reduction in lots as I recall you know just to accommodate that. This has been a problem from day one and it was brought up when I was on the Planning Commission. We made it known to the builder then that you know they were creating a ticking time bomb because people wanted to do things with their homes and the builder wanted to go ahead and go forward with the type of homes they wanted to put on there and that was fine. I remember one of the comments I made at the time was that whoever buys the home should be made aware of some of these limitations to these homes. I know that never K11 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 happens and it probably didn't happen in this case either but it's not as though no one knew going in what the rules were and what the problems were. If this were a total surprise to everybody I might feel differently but because from day one knowing what had happened with this, I'm not surprised and it's, I understand from the owner's standpoint. I wouldn't want to be in your position either. There's a few of your neighbors that I know that one came in from California and before they even got moved in they were being told they couldn't do what they wanted to do with the property. But I cannot support a variance in this case. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I believe that the owner didn't know in this situation and as we talked about previously we don't, the other two residents in the same neighborhood, we don't know if that situation was similar to this one or not at this point. We do know that the overage was more than what we're talking about today. Today we're talking about 0.8%, which is not a huge percentage of square feet. Percentage over but you know really with the situation that, and the details that we've talked about here today, I would support Option B on this because I feel that it would be the right way to go. The homeowner's willing to forego the patio and live with that if we give him the driveway and I would be okay with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah. When I look at variances I often you know, I guess the key word for me or a flag is a hardship and I think another key word that I've made up for this is probably self inflicted and I just feel that as a homeowner this was not self inflicted. This was obviously a lack of communication between the builder and the contractor, or whoever was putting in the driveway and they made a huge mistake that now the new proud homeowner has to deal with and I'm sorry for that. Welcome to Chanhassen. We used to be called Chanhassle and we've worked very hard to not be called that anymore and so I'm hoping that from now on you'll find it a pleasant place to live. I just, you know I, I feel that this was not an intentional overage of hard surface coverage by the homeowner and Councilman McDonald I totally understand your frustration with this development and how as a council and planning commissioners we work with staff to, to protect our water. We watch where the surface water flows and where it goes and how it's treated and so I understand your frustration and I'm with you on that but because this I don't feel was, this was not something that was intended by the homeowner. It was a miscommunication way before he even probably came to Minnesota, I'm going to have to support staffs option of allowing the driveway to exist but denying the patio. Mayor Furlong: So you're supporting Option B? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes I am. Mayor Furlong: Is that Option B? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So, okay. Thank you. Councilman Litsey, your thoughts. 21 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Councilman Litsey: Well I certainly sympathize with Mr. Gleason's situation so what I'm about to say isn't from lack of sympathy for what your situation is but I agree with what Mr. McDonald said in terms of, well let me back up. What I think this is more of is the City's getting pulled into a situation they really shouldn't be in in the first place. It's a builder/owner issue and that's really where it should remain in my opinion. We're being asked now to help out a situation that clearly does not meet our ordinance or code so I just think that we have to, we have these in place. We have to be consistent in it's application. A lot of these variances that come in, it is oversights or whatever. I don't know that this could really be classified as an oversight. This was just the builder didn't do what they should have done and I think Mr. Gleason has, you know is an aggrieved party in that, and the builder has to make good on that. That's what the issue really is and that's where I think it should stay. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Obviously a challenging issue based upon the different thoughts and opinions and one that is, as much as this council continues to try to accommodate and be flexible, this is a challenging one. I reckon back to, I think back to other after the fact variances where the building or property improvements have occurred and it exceeds the hard surface allowance and these are the toughest ones that we do. Especially in this case where the homeowner wasn't the one that created it. We've got other ones with sport courts and other things that have come in and at least there you can say you know they may not have known but you know we make adjustments there. My concem here is, the biggest concern, I think the driveway design that was in the, in the permit survey is very typical design. That many, many, many homeowners have throughout the city and it's designed specifically because it minimizes the overall surface area of the driveway. Could the other design, the existing design be preferable? Perhaps and I think if my, you know the concern is, this was a mistake. It was a mistake according to the Planning Commission minutes that it was done by the contractor who was working for the home builder. How many mistakes are going to occur? I'd like to find a way to accommodate the homeowner and try to find out something that can occur but I have difficulty here doing that from the standpoint that you know, to come in after the fact a mistake was made and Councilman Litsey I think you know, the issues shouldn't even be in front of the council here. It's a, if a mistake was made that was, if another mistake was made that didn't, wasn't because of a restriction that the city had put in place long before the permit was ever requested back at the time that the, you know these ordinances have been in place for years and years and at the time of platting, you know we wouldn't be here and I think this was an issue. I struggle even with item B, though I'd like to find and we have found in the past some accommodation, someway to try to come up with something that helps and find some flexibility from, with the staff and I don't know if anything exists there. I'd like to think it would. We've got, I guess Option B is a partial but you know my concern there is the next homeowner's going to come in and want a patio, you know and whether they knew or not. Or there are a number of homes yet to be built in this neighborhood and the fact that we've already seen on, with 4 neighboring lots, 3 requests for variances on the exact same issue, this is a problem that's been identified and with more open lots there, now how do we respond to the other, to the other 2 neighbors that said, you know we said stay within the 25. What if we had given them .8 or 1 percent more than that as well? I mean that was an issue we were dealing with at the time. So I'm really struggling with trying to find the justification to go forward. The desire here is different functionality, and I appreciate that. I mean I've got a driveway that's like the, you 22 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 know with the two and the third stall and I appreciate what you're speaking to but I have trouble saying that functionality or use is now a hardship. So I would certainly, if there's some other options that might be available I'd certainly be willing to table this to let staff work with the applicant to try to find a way to come within the 25. To try to find a way to avoid a variance here because I think that's the issue is, it has more effects than just on Mr. Gleason. I feel for Mr. Gleason. I mean he's been caught in the middle here but I think that there needs to be a way to try to find, try to find something else if we can so I prefer to try to table this this evening. See if the applicant can work with the staff and come up with some alternatives that might work. I don't know if they're out there and if they're not they're not but we're going to have issues going forward in this neighborhood and I'd like to find a way not to start providing variances because of mistakes. You know, so that's my thought and I'd be open to other ideas from the council. Or further thoughts and comments if there'd be, if other members of council would be willing to let staff take a little bit of time and see if they can come up with an alternative to find a way to fit it within the ordinance. And maybe that's not the case and if that's not the case we may get it back with the same proposal but that would be my proposal at this point in time. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I'm willing to give staff more time to work with it but Mayor I think you bring up a good point that this seems to be a pattern that's developing. A serious pattern that's developing and staff and council or someone needs to come up with a solution to where we're not meeting our every new neighbor in this neighborhood on these terms and I'm not sure how that is done but you know the good news is we're probably catching it now before we get 10 homes in this neighborhood and they all have problems. But I think that something needs to be done to ensure that this doesn't happen to another homeowner. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom I appreciate those comments because that's exactly the case. This is the third one now out of 4 homes on this street, but there are other homes in this area too and you know the rules I think were pretty clear at the beginning. When the plat was designed and the size of the lots that were created and the size of the homes that they were planning to put on there and we're seeing, you know Councilman McDonald talked to that. That's why I think this is just another one and I hate to extend the process. I can appreciate Mr. Gleason's frustration but that's what I would prefer at this point is that we, let's see what we can do from a creativity standpoint. See if there's someway to get them into compliance at the 25%. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And Kate, I don't mean to go, become a planning commissioner again or go back to the plat but when these were platted, were patios in the back included? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we do require a 10 by 10. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. That's what I thought. Kate Aanenson: This did meet that. We've also required in all these types of projects, now that they show typical home plans that are going in. Different projects have different styles of homes so on all projects now we ask that the, kind of the illustrative plans that these are the types of homes that we'd be building on these lots. Now again, these were kind of the last of the ones 23 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 that we've done with the larger footprints home styles up there in a highly desirable, beautiful area. Again we don't want to make this our meet and greet either with our residents either so. Mayor Furlong: No. And I think that's why part of the meeting, part of the look for flexibility would be to work with, work with the other builders in that area and try to find ways to avoid meeting all of our new residents in this way. Okay, so I would certainly entertain a motion to table if somebody would like to make it, or I could make it myself. Councilman McDonald: I'll make the motion to table it. I can support that. All I want to do is see the problem solved and again like I say I'm tired of seeing this particular development come up before us and causing problems and so I'd like to see a solution. So I will make a motion to table it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion on that? Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Roger Knutson: We'll need an extension. We're out of time before your next meeting. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So you'd have to get something from the applicant. Roger Knutson: In writing granting us an extension until the end of December. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that something that the applicant would be interested in doing at this point? Are you officially the applicant or is Mr. Gleason or who's the applicant here? Carol Toohey: We filled out the application on behalf of the homeowner. Roger Knutson: Maybe both could sign them on behalf of. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Can you write up something quick while we play the Jeopardy jingle. Kate Aanenson: Let's see if they want to grant it first. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, did you have another comment? Carol Toohey: I have a question Mayor, council members. 24 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Carol Toohey: Just a clarification. What do you mean alternatives to meet the 25%? Are you talking about what Councilmember Ernst was doing like you know maybe some alternative landscape that helps stormwater so they can keep the driveway or alternative materials or, just some clarification on what you're looking for. Mayor Furlong: I mean currently within our ordinance I don't think those options are available. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Correct, so we need to find something that meets within the ordinance would be my thought. Carol Toohey: Okay. So you're talking more like materials. Kate Aanenson: Hard cover. Councilman Litsey: Hard cover. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think staff would probably answer that. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry? Yeah, work with, I think working with staff to try to find a way to find, to get into compliance. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I guess I'd like to get a better idea of what that is. Does that mean that potentially he might have to remove some of that hard surface? Kate Aanenson: Potentially... Mayor Furlong: Well, I'm looking to alternatives but I want to you know, for reasons I stated earlier, without going back and repeating what I said, I think that I'd like to take some time for you and especially as the builder as Lennar, not only here but with the other ones. Work with staff and let's figure out how we can avoid these situations for the benefit of Mr. Gleason and all his to be neighbors as well. And keeping it consistent with our ordinance and what the expectations are. Carol Toohey: Well we are interested in looking at working with the City so that he can keep the use of his driveway but also being in compliance with the ordinance. Mayor Furlong: That'd be great. That's be great. While we play the Jeopardy song here for a little bit longer, Mr. Knutson is working on. Roger Knutson: One more word. It's hard enough to read Mayor when I write slow. 25 Chanhassen City Council — November 23, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Make sure, Mr. Knutson, if you could make sure, we only have one meeting in December so, which is the 14d', so if we could extend this to perhaps January, or whatever time would be sufficient. Otherwise we're effectively just doing a 3 week. Maybe we can come back at our December meeting, that'd be great to try to finish it out. Kate Aanenson: That's what we were just talking about. Mayor Furlong: But I want to make sure there's sufficient time that we don't have to get to another extension. Kate Aanenson: Correct, because we only have one meeting in December. We were just talking about that so we may have to ask for another extension. Todd Gerhardt: January 20th works. Kate Aanenson: When? Todd Gerhardt: January 201h. Kate Aanenson: That's better. Signed. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. A motion's been made to table and it's been seconded. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve a motion to table the after the fact hard surface coverage variance request for 2111 Pinehurst Drive (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CITY CODE AMENDMENTS: APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. We've discussed with the completion of the City's comprehensive plan, the implementation of two new commercial zoning districts. What we have for you tonight, after the review by the Planning Commission, numerous meetings and work sessions with the City Council, the draft of that, of those two ordinances. One being the community commercial and the other being the lifestyle or the regional commercial zoning district. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on November 3'd to review these and they did recommend 6 to 0 to approve. What I'll do is circle back to their comments as kind of we walk through the two zoning districts themselves. Specifically the comments that were received were on the regional commercial zoning district so. The community commercial zoning district is, in the staff report we went through, we gave you a lot of background information regarding the retail study that McComb's did recommending that we do need some additional property in the downtown. That was the impetus for both commercial zoning districts, that based on the market analysis the city could support additional acreage in the core of downtown as we were running out and again this would extend and compliment that Chanhassen City Council —January 11, 2010 CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: The one item that will change, staff's recommendation for item 1(e) has been to table that item rather than to follow their recommendation that was in the packet so item 1(e), our consent agenda motion would be to table that. I think everybody received the letter requesting that from the applicant. Are there any other items, a, b, c or d that anyone would like separate discussion on? Seeing none, is there a motion to adopt items 1 (a) through (d) and table item (e)? Councilwoman Ernst: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 14, 2009 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 14, 2009 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 8, 2009 b. Resolution #2010-01: Approve Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 87681M with MnDOT for Highway 101 South of TH 5 to Lyman Boulevard. C. Resolution #2010-02: Approve Resolutions Designating Old 212 and Highway 101 South of TH 5 to Lyman Boulevard as County State Aid Highways. d. Resolution #2010-03: Hidden Creek Meadows, Project 05-12: Accept Street and Utilities. e. Table Gleason Variance, 2111 Pinehurst Drive (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition): Request for an After -the -Fact Hard Surface Coverage Variance. Applicant: US Home Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mark Halla: I'm going to sneak up very quickly. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Halla, good evening. _ l Z fl }1 r IFS) J •\ J [A- JJ P r,r� CNq.atiAsrej AW !Lr- ALS DA-/ i EDP 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Adninishation Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning B Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Cerda Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhwen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I DATE: January 11, 2010 Dk(P SUBJ: Gleason Hard Surface Coverage Variance 2111 Pinehurst Drive — Planning Case #09-17 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation within the Single -Family Residential District, by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance will allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a future 100 square -foot patio to be constructed in the rear yard. STAFF UPDATE On November 23, 2009, City Council reviewed and tabled action on this item. The applicant submitted a letter to extend the development review deadline to January 20, 2010. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to resolve the impervious coverage variance request. The City Council was of the opinion that the applicant could and should bring the site into compliance with the impervious coverage and eliminate the variance request. The applicant discussed the use of pervious materials, such as pervious concrete or bituminous. The city code does not provide a mechanism that credits pervious materials; rather they are included in the hard surface coverage calculations. If pervious materials were permitted, this option would have been provided to the applicant prior to the variance request. Being that pervious materials are not a viable option to bring the site into compliance with the 25% hard surface coverage limitation, the applicant has opted to proceed with the variance request rather than remove excess hard surface coverage. Chanhassen is a Camanity for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Toml Todd Gerhardt January 11, 2010 Page 2 of 3 Staff attempted to contact the applicant prior to the meeting regarding the status of the variance request. However, the applicant did not respond to staffs request. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2009 Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three-fourths of the members present; therefore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues pertaining to the variance request: The approved driveway proposed on the building permit application was deemed by the builder as not functional. The builder made the decision to increase the area of the driveway, exceeding the hard surface coverage. The homeowner then purchased the home "as is"; not realizing the site did not comply with the hard surface coverage limitation. The homeowner did not create this situation. • Would approval of the request set a precedent for building permits to reflect one driveway, receive approval, then construct a larger driveway and request an after -the -fact variance? • The homeowner would be willing to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request the existing driveway to remain on the site. The revised request would be for a 0.8% or (148 square -foot) variance, as stated in attached letter dated October 30, 2009. • Two previous hard -surface coverage variances were denied in the Pinehurst Subdivision: ➢ 2101 Pinehurst Drive requested a 3.3% (648 square -foot) variance. ➢ 2081 Pinehurst Drive requested a 2.6% (538.25 square -foot) variance. Staff Update Since the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the erosion issues located on Outlot B, which is owned by the City, have been repaired. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Action" Todd Gerhardt January 11, 2010 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Letter of Development Review Extension dated November 23, 2009. 3. Letter from homeowner dated October 30, 2009. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 3, 2009. 5. November 23, 2009 City Council Minutes. &Nplan\2009planningcases\09-172111 pinehurst drive variance\I-11-10executive sum ry.dm Administration Phone: 952227,1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Fiance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Pareation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Beaeation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Bes"Ces Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web she www.d.ct anhasse .mn.us PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard - surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09- 17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance would allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a 100 square -foot patio to be constructed in the rear yard. If the 100 square -foot future patio is eliminated, the request is for a 0.8% (148 square feet) hard surface coverage variance for an after -the -fact driveway. Plannine Commission Update A public hearing was held at the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three-fourths of the members present; therefore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. Chedrassen is a Caneariry for file - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow BC"k o 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITY OF CgANHASSEN FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I 7700 Market Boulevard DATE: November 23, 2009 61P PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Gleason Hard Surface Coverage Variance 2111 Pinehurst Drive — Planning Case #09-17 Administration Phone: 952227,1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Fiance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Pareation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Beaeation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Bes"Ces Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web she www.d.ct anhasse .mn.us PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard - surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09- 17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance would allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a 100 square -foot patio to be constructed in the rear yard. If the 100 square -foot future patio is eliminated, the request is for a 0.8% (148 square feet) hard surface coverage variance for an after -the -fact driveway. Plannine Commission Update A public hearing was held at the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three-fourths of the members present; therefore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. Chedrassen is a Caneariry for file - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow BC"k o Todd Gerhardt November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues pertaining to the variance request: The approved driveway proposed on the building permit application was deemed by the builder as not functional. The builder made the decision to increase the area of the driveway, exceeding the hard surface coverage. The homeowner then purchased the home "as is"; not realizing the site did not comply with the hard surface coverage limitation. The homeowner did not create this situation. • Would approval of the request set a precedent for building permits to reflect one driveway, receive approval, then construct a larger driveway and request an after -the -fact variance? • The homeowner would be willing to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request the existing driveway to remain on the site. The revised request would be for a 0.8% or (148 square -foot) variance, as stated in attached letter dated October 30, 2009. • Two previous hard -surface coverage variances were denied in the Pinehurst Subdivision: ➢ 2101 Pinehurst Drive requested a 3.3% (648 square -foot) variance. ➢ 2081 Pinehurst Drive requested a2.6% (538.25 square -foot) variance. Staff Update Since the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the erosion issues located on Outlot B, which is owned by the City, have been repaired. The City Council minutes for November 3, 2009 are item la of the November 23, 2009 City Council Packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation" Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Letter from homeowner dated October 30, 2009. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 3, 2009. g:\plan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\l 1-23-09 executive sum ry.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio —Planning Case No. 09-17. On November 23, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard -surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed variance on November 3, 2009 and recommended denial. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission minutes, heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 —4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. 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 original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 100 square -foot patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The 100 square -foot patio was never constructed. The builder states the proposed driveway submitted as part of the building permit was inadequate for the size and function of the garage, thus it was increased. The homeowner purchased the property "as is" and was not aware that the driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage of the site. The original variance request included constructing the 100 square -foot patio in the rear yard. However, the homeowner eliminated the future 100 square -foot patio from the request, reducing the variance request to 0.8% or 148 square feet. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2°d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. The builder/developer was aware of the site coverage limitations when going through the subdivision process in 2006. The developer eliminated two lots to increase the size of some of the lots to accommodate the potential homes on the lots. Additionally, in 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk constructed by the building, prior to the homeowner moving into the home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site at 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and function of the garage. The homeowner purchased the home "as is" and was not aware that the increased driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage permitted on the site. 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 runoff from the increased driveway is directed to the street and into the storm sewer. However, increasing the runoff in the rear yard with an additional 100 square -foot patio may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Increasing the site coverage beyond the capacity of the storm water pond located in Outlot B could be detrimental to the neighborhood and cause problems with flooding in heavy rains. The homeowner has agreed to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request a variance to keep the existing driveway which exceeds the 25% hard surface coverage by 0.8% or 148 square feet. 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 increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 23, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies a 0.58% hard -surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of these Findings of Fact and Action. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 23'a day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL M Its Mayor gAplan\2009 planning cases109-17 2111 pinchu t drive vafimcetcc findings of fact doc Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) SCANNED Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, 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 CITY OF CHANHASSEN newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as CARVER & HENNEPIN amended. COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The that is to this Affidavit identified No. b PLANNING CASE 1 NOTICE IS HEREBYBY GIVEN EN (B) printed public notice attached and as was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said that the Chanhassen Planning Notice is hereby incorporated as art of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of YP Commission will hold a public the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both hearing on Tuesday, November 3, inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council and publication of the Notice: Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwttyz this hearing is to consider request for after -the -fact Variances an zoned property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 2111 By: rAv�w/��/w/ Pinehurst Drive (Lot 22, Block It Laurie A. Hartmann Pinehurst2ndAddition). Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public Subscribed and sworn before me on review on the City's web site at Aww.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/ plan/09-17.h tm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. 01 this day of C7Gtr(1-+'V. , 2009 All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Kairies, Planner I JYMME J. BARK Email:r NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA akairiesA.ci chanhassen mn us No blic My Commission Expires 01/31/2013 Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, October 22, 2M; No. 42%) RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified ratepaid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.43 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 10/30/2009 2:10 PM Receipt No. 0113554 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Lennar Family of Builders Planning Case #09-17 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 105.00 Total Cash Check 00813521 Change 1901=1111 0.00 105.00 0.00 (-rl- i-1 SCANNED 03138566 tennar Family of Builders JPMorgan Chase Bank NA STUB CHECK NO. 813521 1901006 1010.16 . BwOTCE 1 of I DATE 10/28/09 CO.0 NUMBER DATE PAYMENTADVICE GROSS DISCOUNT NET 17096 20091010500 INV 102209 2111 PINEHURST ADDRESS LABELS $105.00 $0.00 $105.00 SCAN 4 1874551 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Muku Boulevud $105.00 $0.00 $105.00 P 0 Box 147 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 cm of (952) 227-1100 CHMM To: Carole Toohey U.S. Home Corporation/Jim Weaver 935 East Wayzat Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 10/22/09 upon receipt NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for November 3. 2009. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #09-17. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio —Planning Case No. 09- 17. On November 3, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a 10'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re- seANNE0 r platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2"d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100 -square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. N 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, recommends that the City Council deny an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3rd day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: ai GdPLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\PC Findings of Factdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Rnance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952 227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 j jr Planning & Natural Resources Phase: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 n Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952 227,1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site v wad.chanhassen.mn us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I DATE: November 23, 2009 K SUBJ: Gleason Hard Surface Coverage Variance 2111 Pinehurst Drive — Planning Case #09-17 PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard - surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after- fact 0.8% h� surface coverage variance for an existing driveway d d igs- . % hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09- 17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance would allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a 100 square -foot patio to—be constructed in the rear / (q8 17/rn If the 100 square -foot future patio is eliminated, the request is fora 0.8% (148 n square feet) hard surface coverage variance for an after -the -fact driveway (/x,1' stde�(r LV Planning Commission Update yard. A public hearing was held at the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three -fourth embers present thereore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues pertaining to the variance request: • The approved driveway proposed on the building permit application was deemed by the builder as not functional. The builder made the decision to increase the area of the driveway, exceeding the hard surface coverage. The homeowner then purchased the home "as is"; not realizing the site did not comply with the hard surface coverage limitation. The homeowner did not create this situation. • Would approval of the request set a precedent for building permits to reflect one driveway, receive approval, then construct a larger driveway and request an after -the -fact variance? • The homeowner would be willing to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request the existing driveway to remain on the site- The revised request would be for a 0.8% or (148 square -foot) variance, as stated in attached letter dated October 30, 2009. 1_ • Two previous hard -surface coverage variances were denied in the Pinehurst Subdivision: ➢ 2101 Pinehurst Drive requested a 3.3% (648 square -foot) variance. ➢ 2081 Pinehurst Drive requested a 2.6% (538.25 square -foot) variance. Staff Update Since the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the erosion issues located on Outlot B, which is owned by the City, have been repaired. The City Council minutes for November 3, 2009 are item 1 a of the November 23, 2009 City Council Packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Letter from homeowner dated October 30, 2009. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 3, 2009. 9Aplan\2009 pLwning cmes\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\I 1-23-09 executive summary.doc L. i\u: CTTY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,1vIINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio Planning Case No. 09-17. On November 23, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard -surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed variance on November 3, 2009 and recommended denial. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission minutes, heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 —4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. 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 original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 100 square -foot patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The 100 square -foot patio was never constructed. The builder states the proposed driveway submitted as part of the building permit was inadequate for the size and function of the garage, thus it was increased. The homeowner purchased the property "as is" and was not aware that the driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage of the site. The original variance request included constructing the 100 square -foot patio in the rear yard. However, the homeowner eliminated the future 100 square -foot patio from the request, reducing the variance request to 0.8% or 148 square feet. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst TO Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. The builder/developer was aware of the site coverage limitations when going through the subdivision process in 2006. The developer eliminated two lots to increase the size of some of the lots to accommodate the potential homes on the lots. Additionally, in 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk constructed by the building, prior to the homeowner moving into the home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site at 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and function of the garage. The homeowner purchased the home "as is" and was not aware that the increased driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage permitted on the site. 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 runoff from the increased driveway is directed to the street and into the storm sewer. However, increasing the runoff in the rear yard with an additional 100 square -foot patio may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Increasing the site coverage beyond the capacity of the storm water pond located in Outlot B could be detrimental to the neighborhood and cause problems with flooding in heavy rains. The homeowner has agreed to eliminate the 100 square -foot patio from the request and just request a variance to keep the existing driveway which exceeds the 25% hard surface coverage by 0.8% or 148 square feet. 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 increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 23, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies a 0.58% hard -surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of these Findings of Fact and Action. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 23d day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN C]TY COUNCIL Its Mayor gAplan\2009 planning casm\09-17 2111 pinehuM drive variance\cc findings of facldoc October 30, 2009 To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Fr: Todd and Amy Gleason Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Chanhassen Su: Nov 3d After -the -fact variance hearing Members of the Planning Commission — Thank you for allowing us to submit written comments as they pertain to the November 3, 2009 variance hearing associated with our property. Unfortunately, because of work- related travel conflicts, we will be unable to attend the hearing. We understand several representatives from the building company (Lennar) responsible for construction of our home / hardscape will be at the hearing. We submit this written request to strongly urge the commission for variance approval. We understand and are sensitive to the local zoning requirements. The staff report recommending against the variance may be technically correct and certainly we are sensitive to the natural reluctance to set precedence. However, clearly the variance hearing process exists for a reason — and therefore, the case-by-case nature of the hearing process must at times yield a variance approval. Here are the facts or circumstances as we see them 1) We moved from NJ to MN in late 2007 and targeted Chanhassen given its community reputation. 2) In May, 2008 we purchased and moved into 2111 Pinehurst Drive. 3) We did not design the home or manage the construction ... the home was already built when we purchased the home. Additionally, we did not request any property modification prior to purchase. 4) Prior to moving in the city inspectors (we are not sure of exact titles) notified Lennar that certain windows did not meet code. Lennar replaced the specific windows and we were provided with an occupancy certificate. At that time we fully expected the residence met all code/zoning (why wouldn't we). 5) Subsequent to May of 2008, we have made significant enhancements to landscaping, decking, etc., but have added no hardscape. 6) In December 2008 (7 months after moving in) we received notification that our current property exceeded hardscape by 148 sq/ft ... and that we could not add the "in design plan" 100 sq/ft patio. 7) Over the past months we have confirmed with Lennar (builder) that through no fault of our own the driveway was constructed larger than had been designed. We have also concluded with Lennar that the "designed" driveway would greatly detract from the functionality of the driveway/ garage space. In short, the Gleasons (us) are the only people that have a financial and emotional impact on the decision rendered in this hearing. We occupied the home for 7 months prior to notification that the hardscape issue existed. And, we made investments and purchases we otherwise may not have made. What else could go wrong? Our experience, to date, with the city offices of Chanhassen has been less than stellar. While not directly germane to the topic of hardscape we have struggled to understand how the following incidences could also occur in the 12 months since we purchased the home: 1) During the inspection of our newly constructed deck the city inspector made the erroneous assumption that we were also finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector saw an electrician in our basement and jumped immediately to the conclusion that we were finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector did not ask us, the home owners, for confirmation or clarification. Instead, we were slapped with an embarrassing "cease and desist" order which shown brightly on our door for days. We spent time and energy (and frustration) getting this error corrected and removed from our record (we assume). We never received an apology and were specifically treated with disdain when we contacted the named inspector. 2) At the edge of our property is a substantial retaining wall. The wall was constructed, inspected and approved prior to our purchase of the property. A portion of the wall is on our property and certain sections are on city property immediately adjacent to our yard. Despite "passing inspection" the wall allows for erosion and numerous times, large and clearly dangerous holes exist. We have continuously repaired holes on our property to ensure safety and responsibility. Despite numerous conversations with the city to have them repair a very large (8 feet in diameter) hole on the city property, no corrective action has occurred. The individual we spoke with (Terri Jeffries) has not fulfilled their commitment to fix the hole. We also spoke with the city Engineering Office as well as Terri and it was indicated the wall was not built correctly. We, the home owner, are now responsible for repairs or continuous erosion issues. Congratulations. So, while admittedly not directly pertinent to the hardscape variance, I'd remind the committee that we are residents of Chanhassen and struggling to understand how all of this is our responsibility? Proposal We request approval of the variance. Approval would avoid, in our opinion, unnecessary and potentially costly modifications to our driveway. If necessary, we agree to not install the patio or add any additional hardscape to our property. In essence, what we're asking is for approval to keep things the way they are. If approved, we acknowledge appreciation but do not feel as though we've won anything. Instead, approval would be great but honestly just allow us to cross one of the disappointments off the list. Sincerely, Todd and Amy Gleason Residents of Chanhassen PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council Planning Cormnission, as the Board of Appeals and A4*tments, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Ac4ien Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action" PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact 1.38% hardcover variance to construct a driveway and patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). LOCATION: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition APPLICANT: Jim Weaver Todd and Amy Gleason US Home Corporation 2111 Pinehurst Drive 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.41 (18,000 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 26.38% hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. The property is zoned Single -Family Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 8 Residential (RSF). It is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. On August 27, 2007, the City issued a building permit for the s- Jpct site that reflect a24.88% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate,a future pati . Following completion of the building, the builder provided the City with an as -built sury The as -built survey showed an increase in the sidewalk and driveway widths which resin in an increase in hard surface coverage beyond the maximum 25% permitted by City Code. Staknotified the builder, who notified the homeowner. The builder stated that the proposed driv ay was not feasible for the position of the garage and wastilerefore increased.. The builder thfitted a variance L r i request for the subject ste. (�e rC . _ —1, Staff is recommenllinj ddm'at of the aIVrcan('s request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property; the approved building permit met the 25% hard surface coverage requirement, which included a 100 -square foot future patio. Alternatives exist that comply with the hard surface coverage. The total hard surface coverage on the site must be reduced by 148 square feet. Adequate access can be provided to the garage using less hard surface. Approval of this application could set a precedent within the Pinehurst subdivision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, which is zoned Single - Residential Family (RSF). The subject property has an area of 18,000 square feet, frontage of 91.2 feet and approximate depth of 141.30 feet. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot area, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot depth. The subject site exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the site was approved on August 28, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 24.88%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 24.88% coverage included a 100 -square foot future patio as required by City Code. Based on the building permit application, there was up to 122 square feet of hard surface in which to accommodate a patio. NO kkq 22 14� qk coven CAL AXAIIOnS LOT AREA = I&ODO SO FT MOUSE I POPCH = 3453 Sa FT. ORNEWAMIDEWAIK - K5Sa FT. PROPOSED PATIO 18OSa FT. TOTAL BARO COVER - 4,4703a FT. PERCEMOF/ DCOVER 4.4781 MAN -44.58% Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 4of8 The developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for future improvements or additions within the Pinehurst Subdivision. In 2006, as part of the approval process of the Pinehurst Development, staff expressed concern over the potential future hard surface coverage within the subdivision. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. As a result, Pinehurst was re -platted ua_ 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the area of some of the lots. Also, on July 6, 2006, in an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, the City amended Sec. 20-905 of the City Code. This section requires all applicants requesting a building permit for the construction of a new home to show a minimum 10' x 10' patio area This section reads as follows: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The-applicantis-requesting-w—"8% hard surface -coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. This variance would permit the existing size of the driveway and sidewalk, as well -w.a.10' x 10' patio. The lot area is 18,000 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, future patio, etc. may occupy 4,500 square feet. The original building permit showed 4,478 square feet of hard cover. The remaining impervious surface allowed was 22 square feet. Building Permit Survey N 0019 M, '. As -built Survey The size of the driveway was increased from the original building permit by 240 square feet and the sidewalk from the front door to the driveway was increased by 30 square feet. This brought the site to 25.8% (excess of 148 square feet); this does not include the future 100 square foot patio as shown in the original approval. Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 5 of 8 In addition to the increased driveway and sidewalk area, the applicant is also requesting a 100 square foot patio in the rear yard. The increased driveway and proposed patio exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation by 1.38% or 248 square feet. A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Ordinance Building Permit Existing Proposed Increase Lot Area 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 House 3,309 3,309 3,309 -Stoop 144 144 144 -Driveway 822 1,,062 1,062 +240 Sidewalk 103 133 +30 Future patio 1001 1 HSC 1 4,5001 4,4781 4,648 4,7 +248 Percentage 1 25% 1 24.9% 1 25.8% 26.38% +1.38% A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 6of8 is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types B and C, soils containing non -permeable material, such as clay. Outlot B South of the subject site is an outlot, platted as part of the Pinehurst Subdivision, which contains a retaining wall and stormwater pond for the development. Outlot B is owned and maintained by the City. Staff researched the possibility of allowing the homeowner to purchase a portion of Outlot B. However, based on review of the plans and stormwater calculations for the development, it is not recommended to sell a portion of Outlot B. The basis for this conclusion is due to the pond's modeled high-water level relative to the bottom of the retaining wall. During a 100 -year storm event, the pond is designed to bounce to an elevation of 1027.2 feet. Under the proposed plan, the toe of the retaining wall was to be at an elevation of 1028 feet which would have allowed for 0.8 feet of free board. However, the Certificate of Survey for the grading as -built shows that the base of the wall is at an elevation of 1025.9 feet which is less than two feet above the normal water level for the pond. Thus, the wall goes under water. In addition, there is a stormwater outlet just south of the subject site directing runoff into the stormwater pond. Relocating the property line to the south of the structure would put the outlet Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 7 of 8 on private property, making it difficult to ensure the outlet is functioning and maintained properly. The outlet is necessary for the runoff of the site and should remain part of Outlot B. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two -car garage. A single- family home with a three -car garage is currently constructed on the property. The driveway is aligned virtually straight out from the three car garage. The width is 30 feet at the garage and 24 feet at the right-of-way. The width could be reduced on the left side of the two -car garage and angled inward as it comes in contact with the right-of-way and Pinehurst Drive. The driveways shown to the right are adjacent to three -car garages within the RSF district. The width at the garage ranges from 26 to 28 feet. The width at the right-of-way ranges from 17 to 20 feet. Reduction of the driveway width will result in an overall reduction in hard surface coverage and provide adequate access to the garage. RECOMMENDATION Staffer and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the following motion: A. "The Chanhassen City Council Plam9ng Conmiission, as the Beafd of Appeals and Adjustments, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17, and adoption of the findings of fact and ashes recommendation." Or, Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 8 of 8 B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Aetien Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of proposed lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of as -built lot survey. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan12009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variancekc staff teport.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio — Planning Case No. 09- 17. On November 3, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a 10'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re- platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2°d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100 -square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kahies, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, recommends that the City Council deny an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3'u day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chair G: PLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\PC Findings of Fact.doc 3 FKIN l CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: 1a5 Ct;fQM z"Cn e)S "t= w n \ �. ' - r. V-A vd . 3 Contact. r�rnl Tc�r�lte hlmWeave� Phone:9-5a ayq co Fax. S3 Wit- 3n�s Email' ar\rnr - (Am m Planning Case No. G`1_\1_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: 1.Ar.'�) M f S . C1\en_s'-,c> r�)-\ll �';reYNr.rsA.'Df- r o r'i\rkSS�rl 1 "'N 55 33 1 Phone'.1-0a.513 - R 1-43 Fax: Email: �oc�1.q\easoc C� ne_r1t� r. cnm NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) t2ro Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees orney Cost" 11P/SPR/VA A AP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ +P � 4'+Sb An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/:" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (`.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECTNAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: c� i`� \ �t �l�a(S� 01 Aaa-"(n n --w ain l In a)ao TOTAL ACREAGE: , A4 \ a WETLANDS PRESENT: YES ✓ NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONIN PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATK 11 11"• 111'• • • J a1 " .t �. �r . :� • :f0. FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of GAPLAMPonns\Development Review Application DOC 1-1 of Date 9 ► 9/09 Date Rev. 1/08 SCANNED September 11, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting an impervious surface variance for 2111 Pinehurst Drive on behalf of the homeowner. The constructed home (include driveway and sidewalk) is currently over the impervious surface maximum by .8%. The size of the driveway changed from what was originally proposed in the building permit survey. The proposed driveway was inadequate to support the size and use of the garage for this home. The driveway built today is wider, thus causing the slight increase in impervious surface. In addition, this homeowner would like the ability to build a small patio off the back of his home. If this patio is added, it would increase the total impervious surface to 26.37%. When reviewing this variance application, we respectfully request the staff and City Council of Chanhassen to look at the big picture. This particular homesite backs up to an open outlot, which could be added to the homesite's overall pervious surface calculation. The homeowner has been living in this home with this larger driveway and has acquired belongings based on this driveway. To force the homeowner to change their driveway or way of living at this point would be hardship. With this variance request, we are requesting to work with the City of Chanhassen to find a reasonable solution to this minor error. Below is our point by point narrative for the variance request. a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his home. The driveway that was ultimately constructed was built to fit the type and intended use of the garage with this home. This homeowner has purchase items based on this driveway and its intended use. To take away the driveway would limit his use of his whole home. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his backyard Prior to finding out that the driveway was constructed larger than originally shown, we had always anticipated on a 10' x 10' patio in the backyard of this home. It would be a hardship to take away something based on the driveway error. SCANNEO 545 Indian Mound E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Phone: 952-473-0993 • Fax: 952-476-0194 LENNAR.COM b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. This impervious request is specific to this homeowner due to the fact that there was an understanding when he purchased the home. He has desired to build a 10'x 10' patio in his rear yard We had calculated this with the original survey. However, the original driveway was not sized appropriately, thus putting him over the 25% maximum coverage. Without a variance, he is unable to have the patio that he originally desired nor the driveway that is now sized appropriatelyfor him home. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of this variance application is not for profit or income. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. This hardship was not created by the homeowner. It was an error on the builder's part for not having an appropriate sized driveway on the original survey. 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. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public or cause injury. 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 increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property value within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion of the public streets. In fact, by granting this variance and providing this homeowner with an adequately sized driveway, they will be less likely to store their vehicles in the street, thus reducing potential congestion. This proposed variation will also not impair neighboring property values. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-249-3000 Sincerely, LENNAR CORPORATION ( _ -Carole Too IJim Weaver SCANNED saftra m FRa Ops wYp Rbmhp -° I - Panrws•srw I,ENNAR INA&A 1EI MIJIM, Lvml ra eW4P w<+ -ra W.Y+.4 nA' heaneA. LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument • Denotes Surface Drainage �— Denotes Proposed Fawtion aOwN Denotes ERlsOng Elewtlon a Ira Dotes To, Iron Pipe nr Denotes Ret°Ining Wall As Denote. Proposed Contour Una 121 STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER s �— WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE HARD004 MMOuLATONS IOTMU .180MMAT IpWk'Y`P,CN . &410001 m rN FNM MM.".. L. n:p RNBIrCeNWCN2n Mw"lusm. Aa3Y NOTES: 1. Achimms: 3111 Pbanunl DMe 2. Bencxmerb: 1. T.N.H. Beleeen Lp4 39 4. Block 3. PINENURST ]ND ADDITION. ELEV.. 1031.13 2. T,N.M. ykp won b 11eMxN4r DfM M 0 Wbl's Aene B, PINEHURST UP ADDITION, ELEv.. 1039.48 ]TIP4 Iyk, 14.00 MVwudwMnry al ne prepoeed bWbinO rnmer . 1050.26 ], Na ebvslbM. eXMr Pard In Uw Mb w an MY c.NM.4,.xrM M used bcpn.Ncd. whMt wbp cnepXeO awHalMe 5snmmwke.nown on M4 survey. 1, M chaMpMe, U.N pwVged8 IM survey enpYb MYseO wIIn0V1 xNnO [nailed BOeinel timnq.ewol oboe Ua. arcm4ounrWw. for bW101np wnaUuclbn pwpwee. $. IDB nraa dor neve o bdek laew m.M the bond lace. We are nm snowkq NN Mo sumst.bw neva..owned Yr II whin 0. rWecM. 8. PrManed Can'Wn are Far Me gnu a 1, Pon wau4d by WrNveod ProM1o1pM1 Servbe, IM. d.w=1103. 8. Hou. w. .eked an 5/901. Pmwand 4p 0ho. foundation .1ab1.1 Prapwed WnpelbonMolbn a walkout door • l06]A Preapaad bwaal0ooreW'Mba .1085.1 PROPERTY DESCRO TION Lw l; Block 1. PWEHURST 2NO ADDITION, Cedar Co.M,. Mbmeove SURVEYORS CSRTI.KATE1 IMMy gYMYaurvry, npnpenxy 11...1 Leave momma dbecl.penl.Ion eM Mellen edu Lb.H Land angor Yndw Me sew. of Me eY4 WMMM.4. D.ed No lM 310 fty4Aupl.1, w03. McComb. Pe" Pow A.00Y1., Iw. M 0.kLeasyar u Licks. ji This ceMOwllpn Is not veib unbam, wet labeled b blue Ink, CababbeI ADDITION I CmHEo-kofsur"Y I 4 L so P tl \ \� P� N OKD e 0 Ile 22 rid \ \\ !L \ \ `'Iden.) YYY��Rx+hhhhh\ . Y r 4. ter) Ion NM1 Mab fig_rcued •[. F� Fn9hserNd ' Plvnnlnp ' 4vae)Np Ir� a se m "Whola 1�4 M And�ln.k pb,.AW wnH ' NOTES: 1. Address. 2111 Plnhunt OMs 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Sasnn Lou 3 8 4, Slick 3, PINEHIIRST 2ND ADDITION. SLEV. • 1037.42 2. T.N.H. sing sent of Manchester Drive M Doctors A and 8, PINEHIIRST 2110 ADDITION. ELEV. • 1028.88 3. TIP on the sombwssbM extension line or Ina bon, of propend Muse. TIP Y "I 10.00 M.1 sdulllwoWly W end Pmpoud buMlnp comp ELEV. • 1060.26 3. No elevation., either found In the IoM Or on no cankers, should be used for construction without being idnel egaHar Ihs benchmarks he.. on me survey. e. No building Intimation bovine by this survey should be used without being checked epaNal pNNedurelplane. Use archdnlunl plana for building construction purymu, S. This house doom have a brick loops around Ne front face. We m not showing If In ch.survay, but May e ..... bids fdr It within In. mall 6. Papered Cdnwun.n per Mdmg . gnplan created by Westwood Promotional 8 enkes. Inc. acted 2111103. ). Hous wav Mos on N307. FlnVloor • 1036.0 Ch., M.fal.nMh at ovphnd door •1063.7 Lownl Mor sbvstlon •1046,6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 22, Bbck 1. PINEHORST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: I hasty of mid the survey, plan or report sea. compared by no or under my direct sunm'blon and mid I am • duty Licensed Lend Burvnor no., the Iaws d th. emit of Mennen. Dated Nm the 611, dry 0 Daumbpn 2008. MCCom • Fnnk Root Anoint s, Inc. Xn D.t all "rise. MMnna1 Llce ANo. 17 2! The certlf col b not vale unless ..I .',bad In blue lick. LBNNnn Lot 22 Bloc cntlBDaloonvem PBJ�k6ALDDITION Gndmg Aon BUt wilmil Afrl M-t—MMR PmmitNo. 2009-01921 LEGEND Denote. Iron Monument Denotse Surface Dr.InOgs / Denote Proposed Elewlion xDakO connotes E.IsUng Elevation xlau / Danotae Top Iron Pipe s b / Denote[ Risolning Wall se Denotes Proposed Contour LMu STORM SEWER />\e e\ nmgD yp34 e,my SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN. HYDRANT, AND VALVE / \ 30 0 30 tlalTl'Y \\;. LOTAREA •lease.. IT. \ J n a etl aM.x SCALE IN FEET souse [TDD, .1.ou •),ball. FT, 21.0 FT. is Fr. / X W4 x cant TOTAL NARD CMR / ;>\ ?> _.._ /'//L P[RCEfROFXARDCO'vSR Ax411r.LW. do a I 4 L so P tl \ \� P� N OKD e 0 Ile 22 rid \ \\ !L \ \ `'Iden.) YYY��Rx+hhhhh\ . Y r 4. ter) Ion NM1 Mab fig_rcued •[. F� Fn9hserNd ' Plvnnlnp ' 4vae)Np Ir� a se m "Whola 1�4 M And�ln.k pb,.AW wnH ' NOTES: 1. Address. 2111 Plnhunt OMs 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Sasnn Lou 3 8 4, Slick 3, PINEHIIRST 2ND ADDITION. SLEV. • 1037.42 2. T.N.H. sing sent of Manchester Drive M Doctors A and 8, PINEHIIRST 2110 ADDITION. ELEV. • 1028.88 3. TIP on the sombwssbM extension line or Ina bon, of propend Muse. TIP Y "I 10.00 M.1 sdulllwoWly W end Pmpoud buMlnp comp ELEV. • 1060.26 3. No elevation., either found In the IoM Or on no cankers, should be used for construction without being idnel egaHar Ihs benchmarks he.. on me survey. e. No building Intimation bovine by this survey should be used without being checked epaNal pNNedurelplane. Use archdnlunl plana for building construction purymu, S. This house doom have a brick loops around Ne front face. We m not showing If In ch.survay, but May e ..... bids fdr It within In. mall 6. Papered Cdnwun.n per Mdmg . gnplan created by Westwood Promotional 8 enkes. Inc. acted 2111103. ). Hous wav Mos on N307. FlnVloor • 1036.0 Ch., M.fal.nMh at ovphnd door •1063.7 Lownl Mor sbvstlon •1046,6 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 22, Bbck 1. PINEHORST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: I hasty of mid the survey, plan or report sea. compared by no or under my direct sunm'blon and mid I am • duty Licensed Lend Burvnor no., the Iaws d th. emit of Mennen. Dated Nm the 611, dry 0 Daumbpn 2008. MCCom • Fnnk Root Anoint s, Inc. Xn D.t all "rise. MMnna1 Llce ANo. 17 2! The certlf col b not vale unless ..I .',bad In blue lick. LBNNnn Lot 22 Bloc cntlBDaloonvem PBJ�k6ALDDITION Gndmg Aon BUt wilmil Afrl M-t—MMR PmmitNo. 2009-01921 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being fust duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 22, 2009, 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 Variances to 2111 Pineburst Drive — Planning Case 09-17 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 swom to before me this -3 o4'% lay of lag r 2009. Notary Publ a�°++p KIMT.MEUWISSEN Minnta 37 Notary Publia(� �� zow M My �pmmiss� ExP Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for after -the -fact variances on property zoned Residential Single Family RSF Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation Property 2111 Pinehurst Drive Location: no (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sere/plan/09-17.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Kairies by email at akairiesOci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majonty vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustrlal. • 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. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for after -the -fact variances on property zoned Residential Single Family RSF Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation Property 2111 Pinehurst Drive Location: (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-17.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Questions & Kairies by email at akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure; • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial. • Minnesota Stale Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative 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 somethina to be Included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. BEN & MARGARET LIAO BRIAN K & JOAN 0 SCHIMKE BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH 3645 FORESTVIEW LN 2040 HIGHGATE CIR 9 HAW KINS DR PLYMOUTH MN 55441-1336 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 NORTHPORT NY 11768-1527 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8009 DOUGLAS G & SARAH P HIPSKIND 2061 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2165 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2117 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 OJARS A PAPEDIS TRUSTEE OF O PAPEDIS TRUST 2101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS 2021 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER 6710 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 DANIEL C & JANE A MCKOWN 2171 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS 343 SYDMOR DR E BOISE ID 83706-5668 JAYSON C DREHER 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOSHUA T KRIENKE & CHRISTINA A KRIENKE 2375 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7403 LEIGH STOCKER BERGER 2140 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 ROBERT A JR & BRENDA K NESS 2121 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8010 SCOTT D & SONYA B SCHROEDER 2081 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 DANIEL J DOHSE & MARIT S LEE- DOHSE 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 JOHN M & NICOLE L THAYER 2122 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 KEITH K & CHRISTINE M CLARK 6620 CHESTNUT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4580 MICHAEL D & DEBRA H ANDERSON 6681 AMBERWOOD LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4582 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 1851 WEST LAKE DR #550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8567 S R SOMURI & NISHA AGRAWAL 2091 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 THOMAS J WOODS TODD R & AMY A GLEASON TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC ATTN: 2031 EDGEWOOD CT 2111 PINEHURST DR MARY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 18001 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA MN 55345-4150 WILLIAM V & NANCY M U S HOME CORP WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE SWEARENGIN TRUSTEES OF 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 6739 MANCHESTER DR FAMILY TRUST WAYZATA MN 55391-1849 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8007 XUEBING FENG & XIAOGUANG YURI FARBER DENG 2135 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-6700 6724 MANCHESTER CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 ,f .1,1 w , 2111 Pinehurst Drive Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Request A 1.38° hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum to permit additional hard surface coverage. Building Permit Approval _ ,v Increase Driveway Hard Surface Coverage Reasonable Use iM Gpp emt cwmn#r hm nmackb w of 1M Pinehurst Subdivision l r � I Recommendation A 'The Chanhassen City Council denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard -surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio. Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Recommendation. Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approv%san after -the -fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoptioA of the Findings of Fact And Action." �` Applicable Regulations Sec. 20-615 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. • The ma)dmum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25%. Im Aoes surface means any material that substantially reduces r prevents the infiltration of storm waster. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parting area, buildings and structures. 61�- )-I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 2009 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Denny Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Angie Kairies, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: G_LEASON VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCES ON U.S. HOME CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 09-17. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item. Larson: I'll start with you Mark. Undestad: That one, we had this once before but the neighbors ended up buying more land? Or they were able to buy more? Kairies: Not this particular property but in the subdivision. Undestad: And this was a subdivision we went way back to take the two lots off because we knew we'd have some issues coming up? Kairies: Correct. Undestad: And we do. Nothing else. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: Can you go into more of what they're trying to accomplish with their variance. I mean I understand the patio, they want to construct a driveway? Kairies: The driveway is already constructed. Thomas: Constructed, correct? Kairies: Right. Wider than what was shown. SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Thomas: Okay. Kairies: So they want to maintain the driveway that's there. Thomas: That's there and then they want to add the patio as well by 100, okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Larson: Tom. Doll: Were the homeowners aware of this when they purchased the house? Was this a model home or? Kairies: It's my understanding that the home was constructed prior to them purchasing it. The driveway, it was their belief that it was constructed within the code. However it did not meet the building permit plan. Doll: Is there any you know take out the 100 square foot patio you're still .8% over. Kairies: Right. Doll: And you would, the City would like them to remove part of the driveway? Kairies: It's staff's belief that they could meet the 25% hard surface coverage by reducing the driveway. Doll: And has there been any alternative you know things they could do to their property to reduce storm water runoff? Could they create rain gardens or, I mean. Kairies: At this time in the City Code there aren't any mechanisms that would allow for crediting to do that so it's a 25% with what's on the property. Doll: Okay. And does the City know how much it costs to take out 240 square feet of? Aanenson: Let's back up. I'm not sure we're answering the question correctly. They want to put the patio in the back so they're already over. So the question comes in to put the patio in. Kairies: They're already over 148 square feet. Aanenson: Right, right. Kairies: So that's what would need to be removed. Doll: You sent out a letter that said they would consider not having the patio I thought. Maybe I misread that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Kairies: Right. Doll: In a letter that they sent that you kind of a supplementary. Kairies: Yep, and what they did. So they're currently over 148. They want to do an additional 100 that would bring them to 248. Aanenson: That's the point I want to make sure that you understood. They want to, they still want more. They're already over and they still want more. Doll: Okay. Do you have that letter or am I? Kairies: Yep. Doll: I thought they were considering that they didn't want to add. Larson: It's on. I think it says it in that last. Kairies: Yep. They stated in their letter that they would just not do. Doll: Okay, they would not install the patio. Kairies: Right. Doll: Okay. Kairies: They're still over. Doll: That's all. Larson: Dan. Keefe: Yeah, just a couple of things. You know the ill fated Pinehurst neighborhood. Is there anything sort of on a broader basis that we've been able to do in terms of these lot sizes? I know they've tried to max out the home sizes. You know the lots were expensive. We've got to build a really expensive house. Max it out. Is there anything on a global basis that we've been able to kind of come up with here? Aanenson: Maybe I could just give some background on that. Keefe: Yeah. Aanenson: If you recall, at one time the staff asked for a code amendment to require larger frontages on these types of lots. And at that time as, when the subdivision came through, obviously the goal is to get the most number of lots you can on that. While they are above the 15,000 square foot minimum, I think the average in here was 20 something. Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Kairies: Almost 21,000. Aanenson: But that's after we dropped them down because there was, they lost 2 lots to make them work. After this application, shortly after this subdivision was approved the developer of the subdivision actually looked at asking for variances to do 4 car garages, which we were shocked because we actually moved to where we asked them to show what type of house they're going to put on that lot. So never under a 90 foot frontage did we anticipate a 4 car garage. We didn't feel like there was enough frontage on those so you know it's, it always leads to the situation we have now where someone feels you know not welcome to the city because, through no fault of their own, bought this house. It's already in and now they want to put their patio out the back. Rightly so. But it's already over the top as far as the hard cover. So we tried to catch it on the front end and you know they submitted a survey that met the ordinance. Unfortunately through the construction of the driveway they chose to take, not follow that and the sidewalks and now that pushed them over the top because they're at, and we pointed out most of these are at close to the 25%, so. So it's not the homeowner's fault. It's, you know they. Keefe: Well and this neighborhood's particularly sensitive given the 100 year events that we've had you know. Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: And as it relates to you know directly adjacent neighborhoods so, you know this one's particularly sensitive in terms of that hard surface coverage. Aanenson: Right. Keefe: You know, I think it was on 2101 that we had a fairly lengthy discussion around you know alternative drainage systems. Have we gotten anywhere on that? I mean are we you know looking at doing anything along those lines? Is there you know anything that we would want to do along those lines? Aanenson: I'm not sure just based on our clay soils we haven't had the, it's also a maintenance and it's construction issue too. Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. And then in regards to the patio request, I mean there are alternative you know materials that can be used for patios these days aren't there that allow for you know, seep through. Is there anything approved within the city for patios or? Kairies: No, that goes along with the maintenance issues and inspecting and how do you make sure that it gets done properly and maintained and so there is not a mechanism at this time. Keefe: What about, as far as something like a you know deck, you know that's a grade level deck? Kairies: They could do a grade level deck. 4 P-< Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Keefe: Yeah, right. Aanenson: And there is a deck on the property. Kairies: Right on the second story. Keefe: But sort of they're talking like a paver type of you know patio right? Okay. That's all I have. Larson: Kevin. Dillon: If this variance is denied then what? What happens next? Kairies: That would be removal of the 148 square feet that's addition on the site currently. Dillon: So they'd take a, they'd wreck out part of the driveway? Kairies: Correct. Dillon: Okay. What were the, I do recall a couple previous variances and what was the amount of extra coverage they were seeking in those because 1.3%, I can't believe I'm here tonight talking about that almost. Really... Aanenson: Well you can split this though. You can say, well. Keefe: But you weren't here for the person that had 5 feet of water in their basement. Aanenson: Right, we've had water in the basement of neighbors of this area, correct. Keefe: Directly below this. Aanenson: They're asking for an additional, they're asking for an additional 100 square feet. Dillon: I get that. Aanenson: Okay, so you could leave what they have today. You don't have to rip anything out. You could. Dillon: But that's what she just said I thought. Aanenson: No, you could grant them a variance on what they have in place today without giving additional or you can give them the entire thing. But if you go back to this entire subdivision there's only a few houses built up there. And you've denied 2 other variances up there so. Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Dillon: So let me ask my question again. If we deny this variance then what happens to the property? Kairies: The additional would need to be removed if it's denied. Dillon: That's not what you said. Aanenson: No, you have choices within that. You can leave what's there today and not give them the additional 100 feet. You can change the recommendation. You can add to, subtract from the recommendation. Larson: Keep the driveway. Aanenson: Right. Larson: But not being able to add on there. Aanenson: Right. Dillon: And so do we know what the percentage for the previous ones were? Kairies: That I don't have on hand. Dillon: Because there are matters of degrees in these things too. Aanenson: Correct. Dillon: I think we should get that. If we could get that before we vote tonight that'd be great. For me. Kairies: Sure. Aanenson: Sure. Dillon: The other material is a question I was going to ask that one too. So also do we know like the survey's like accurate here? I mean because you could be off a couple inches one way and there's your 1.3%. Aanenson: That's quite a bit of square footage. Yeah. Dillon: Okay, so we don't know the answer to that question or? Aanenson: Well if you go to the slide that shows what it was designed and that was built, clearly it's significant. It's different. Undestad: They had a certified. 24 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Aanenson: Certified survey, as built as it was done so there's the approved one. Generous: Had a professional calculate it. Aanenson: And again if you go to what the original survey is, they bumped up tight to that 25% so there wasn't a lot of flexibility in that, the original survey. Dillon: Alright. And then you know I kind of, I looked at the letter that the homeowner sent to the City trying to justify the kind of the litmus test that we have for a variance and I you know I think their logic makes sense to me in just about all of those counts so I mean, you know I don't know. It is, so I mean we can take time to read it if you want but it's, I read through that and it seemed to me like they make some good points. I'm done with my questions. Larson: Okay. I have a question for you. When was the driveway put in? After they purchased the house correct? So they were the ones that ordered this? Aanenson: I don't believe so. Larson: It was put in before they purchased the house? Aanenson: Correct. Larson: Well I wouldn't consider that their fault then. Aanenson: No. It's the fact that they wanted the additional 100 square feet is what we're saying. Larson: I know but she's saying that. Dillon: It gets ripped out. Larson: It has to get ripped out if we don't change it so maybe our recommendation for the city, the city wasn't willing to put that in a recommendation that they wouldn't have to rip it out to make it the 25%. Aanenson: But you can certainly modify that. Larson; But we can? Aanenson: Absolutely. Larson: Well that to me makes. Keefe: I think you bring up a good point though. It's sort of like when do you find out there are violations and you find out one, when there's something that's brought to them. I mean they 7 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 were sort of out there doing aerial surveys saying oh well, this developer put in too much. It's only because they're coming in and asking for an addition that now it becomes an issue. Larson: So that's where they came in. Keefe: Yeah. Is that correct? Aanenson: I'm not sure. Generous: Well no, when we got the as built survey we saw that they were over the 25% and at that point. Larson: And then when did you get the as built survey? Generous: It's after their, I don't know the exact date but it's usually after. Larson: I mean in conjunction from when they bought it. When they purchased the property or when they closed on it. I thought I saw something in here, in their letter that said it was something like 10 months after. Doll: It's my understanding that you do an as built survey after the house is built and the sod is in the ground. And that landscaping is in. Larson: Okay. Doll: This house may have been there and then these people purchased it from the builder. Larson: So the grass might not have been in yet? Doll: Well no. This was an already built home. Larson: Okay, but nobody lived there yet. Doll: I don't believe, but I don't know if that's true. Larson: The fact that they had certificate of occupancy. Okay. Have you got some news? Kairies: Yep. For 2101 the request is for a 3.3% which equaled 648 square feet, and for 2081 it was 2.6% which equaled 538.25 square feet. Larson: One other thing I wanted to bring up. Kind of referring back to the letter that they sent us. They're talking about a retaining wall in the back that's been a problem it looks like. Has holes in it and when it rains real hard, holes exist. Does that not kind of cover the reason why we're so strict on the hard surface? Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Kairies: The retaining wall is built as part of the subdivision. It was inspected as part of the subdivision. Larson: Well I think my point being is they're sort of bringing this up and it's something that needs to be repaired. It's got an 8 foot in diameter hole. No corrective action's been made but my point being if they have too much hard surface coverage already, they're getting too much water already. Kairies: Right. Larson: That's running there. So it's sort of like thanks for bringing that up. Dillon: Or there's some fault with that wall. I mean there could be other things. Larson: Well right and I understand that's not the issue at hand but the fact that they brought it up sort of solidifies the reason for the City being strict on that. And I suppose that's not even an issue for us to go into as far as whether or not that needs to be fixed because that's. Aanenson: It's on the docket. Larson: Okay. I think that's all I've got. Have we got an applicant? State your name and address please. Carol Toohey: Hello. My name's Carol Toohey with Lennar Corporation. We're representing the builder and the homeowner because the homeowner could not make it this evening. We look like, it sounds based on your conversation that there's kind of, we can look at this two separate requests. We can look at it as a request to accept the driveway as it was actually built, and then a second request to have the back patio built as an extra 100 square feet. To address the driveway, we found that there was an error in the proposed survey is that the driveway, as you can see is actually, the stall in front of the third stall is actually quite narrow for the proper use of the third stall. At it's widest points it's only 18 feet long. When you've got SUV's that run an average 16 feet long. A boat and a trailer, easily 19 feet long. You know it doesn't give you the adequate use of that stall or that area of the driveway. If you can go to that aerial picture that you actually have. The aerial. That one. Kairies: This one here? Carol Toohey: Yep, that's perfect. If you see the red truck on the north side of the picture, second house in. That is a perfect example of you see the vehicle's actually at a slant and kind of covering up the other 2 stalls. That's what it would be like for the homeowner to use it if we had built it as proposed. That is why the driveway installer installed the driveway as wide as he did so that they could have adequate use and adequate access to their garage. So that's why it was built the way it was. And then to address the runoff, the driveway, the water would actually be running toward the street and into the catch basin and the storm sewer system that runs in the street. If you look at the patio situation, that one would run off into the back yard and potentially impact the existing wall issue so those two separate impervious surface areas do go to separate Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 areas and impact it differently. So just you know to keep it in a two separate request kind of outlook on it. Larson: Except that's not how it was presented. Carol Toohey: Well originally. Larson: And we have to go with what was presented. Carol Toohey: No, and I understand that and originally we were going forward as a whole request and then the homeowners decided you know what? If I can't get that patio, as he stated in the letter basically. He's like I'm willing to give up the patio but he just you know wants that driveway as it was built because obviously they've built their life around it. Aanenson: Can I just ask a question then? So when you do a 3 car garage should we be expecting those types of driveways because our concern with this was that we're close to, and so there's a way to kind of fudge it to get the permit and then we do what we want after? So I'm just you know, should we be expecting when there's a third stall that all of them should be that length? Carol Toohey: Well I honestly I can't answer exactly what happened between the... Aanenson: But you're saying a driveway that length doesn't work for a homeowner because we have other ones. I'm just trying to figure that out. Carol Toohey: Well I'm just saying you'll get situations you know where they can't use that stall. It's not, it becomes more of an inconvenience than you know a useful third stall. And I can't say what happened between. Aanenson: I just think it'd be helpful for us to know that. If that's how it should work then we should expect them to be wider at the beginning and not try to taper it down because then that wouldn't be successful so maybe our expectation should be that they should always be wider and come in that way. Do you know what I'm saying? I think it would just make it smoother on both sides. Carol Toohey: I understand the concern. Yep. Aanenson: Just so we're you know, we don't have this problem down the road. Carol Toohey: No, and I understand the concern and it should be addressed in the future and properly handled and. Aanenson: No, I'm just saying that maybe it should be wider all the way down if that's the goal. To make it more useable. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Carol Toohey: Well and the initial permit survey should be more accurate on where the driveway would be, correct. Aanenson: Yeah. Carol Toohey: And unfortunately we found an error occurred and unfortunately our homeowner's stuck in a difficult situation which of course we don't want and. Larson: I've got a question for you, just looking at this picture and referring back to your comment about the red truck. Carol Toohey: Correct. Larson: If I were looking at this in the same way you were looking at that picture I would make the assumption that the red truck would be, say if you're looking at the as built survey, it would be more towards where it says driveway is where you'd be parking that truck. Carol Toohey: Well if you see where it bumps in a little bit right there. That's that third single stall. Larson: That's a bigger stall? Carol Toohey: It's, because you've got the typical 2 car garage. You've got the 2 car stall with a double door and then you've got the single stall. Larson: Is it taller? Carol Toohey: Nope. Same. Same height. Larson: So why would you pull your truck in right there if you had a big truck and you probably couldn't fit it in there anyway? You know why would you put that vehicle right in front of the front door? I'm just being you know I'm looking at logic here. Carol Toohey: Well you know and different homeowners have different use. Maybe they've got 3 cars and you know maybe they've got 3 trucks or you know. Larson: But I can see your point if we had gone with that original thing. If a truck were in fact being parked closer to the front door. My inkling is to think that that wouldn't be the case but. Carol Toohey: What we find what they typically use a third car stall for is an extra vehicle or sporting equipment or a trailer and a boat and that kind of stuff and that you also need the driveway in that area to accommodate such a use. That's why I was using the truck as an example. Larson: Okay. I was just playing devil's advocate. 11 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Carol Toohey: Nope, I understand. I can understand completely. Larson: Guys have any questions for her? Mark does. Undestad: I just have one. Just to say clarify this but from the building permit survey, which is what was proposed, then the builder made the change for all the hard surface coverage on his own? While they were trying to sell the house and then the homeowners came in and bought it after the builder increased all that or, who made the decision? Carol Toohey: The homeowner did buy it as is. With the driveway and everything in. The homeowner didn't say I want the driveway to look like this or anything. Undestad: And the builder sold that home to the homeowner? The builder who increased all the hard surface, is that right? Carol Toohey: I don't know who makes the decision. Was it just the driveway installer just put it in? Jim Weaver: No, we make the decision. We have... Asphalt put it in and they should have done it off the original plot. Larson: Sir could you maybe step up to the podium and give your name and address so we know who's talking. Thank you. Carol Toohey: Sorry about this. Jim Weaver: My name's Jim Weaver. I'm with Lennar also. I'm an Area Manager in construction service. Normally our contractor would take the initial plat and go ahead and put in the driveway like that. Why they didn't, we don't know. We didn't do it intentionally but we did make the mistake of putting the driveway in as it is to the right, as I'm looking at the picture. So it wasn't the homeowner's fault. It was builder error. Now did the builder do it intentionally? No, we didn't. Our contractor did it that way. Took it on his own to lay it out that way. Unfortunately our supervisor on site didn't catch it. If he would have caught it on site the day they were doing it, we probably would have had it removed. The customer moves in. Uses it for 7 to 8 months. That's the reason we're here. Wants his driveway to stay as is. Undestad: So just one more while you're up there. Jim Weaver: Sure. Undestad: You're with Lennar then. Between building it this way and getting the as built survey and then again selling it to the homeowner, no flags were raised inbetween there that you guys knew that this was overbuilt? Carol Toohey: We actually got the as built completed after it was sold to the homeowner due to the timing. 12 . Q, • Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Dillon: So who's in the hook to pay if this gets like the death penalty? Jim Weaver: Oh we'll pay. Lennar will. Not the customer. And we've already told the customer that. Carol Toohey: They just lose the use of that part of their driveway. Jim Weaver: We're not here on behalf of us. We're here on behalf of the homeowner. Larson: Anyone else? Thomas: No, I don't have a question. Larson: Okay. Well I'll open it up to public hearing. Does anybody in the audience who would like to address this issue? No? You guys are for the next issue. Okay I will close the public hearing. Let's discuss guys. What do you think? We'll start with you. Keefe: Well I'm sort of in denial on both counts. You know I think that runoff in this particular neighborhood is a very real issue. I mean we've had people in here who've had serious water in their basement due to the mega events adjacent to this neighborhood and you know we've got the ordinance in there for a reason you know and so I think we really need to enforce it. The other reason is you know I think they have reasonable use. And then thirdly to be consistent. We've already made the ruling on a couple of other homes in this neighborhood. Now we're all of a sudden going to change our stance and be inconsistent I think, I think it's a problem. Larson: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: I am not in favor of what the staff is recommending here. I would be in favor of an alternate resolution or whatever you call these things to say that they can keep the driveway but not add the extra hard surface coverage for the patio. I was here and voted for the two previous. I don't even remember what I voted but I do remember the two previous discussions and so this was a little bit different from that from our recollection because this was you know the homeowner here is kind of like in a tight spot because they didn't know when they bought it and they're the ones that are going to have you know the problem and you know they've gone through the heartache of all the stuff so far. So you just I would say I'd be fine with you know letting the driveway keep where it is. It's in the front of the yard. It doesn't have a super material impact on the footings issue in the back so just let it go. Larson: Tom. Doll: I feel the same way. Larson: Kathleen. 13 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Thomas: I'm a little disappointed first off in the whole building of the driveway. It was what it was versus what it is now. It just, especially since we approve things and we do our best to ensure that we aren't creating runoff issues and things like that by having the hard surface coverage met on the property and not going over. With that said I understand the homeowner's position. You know they bought a house that they thought was just, was right. You know there's nothing that they knew that was wrong with it so I mean it's very unfortunately for them that they're in this position. Because of that I would be in favor of leaving the driveway and the sidewalk alone and not granting the patio. Just for something. I mean I just, I hate to see that they have to completely rip back out everything to ensure they meet their requirements but I don't know how everyone else feels regarding it. Larson: How about you Mark? Undestad: I, you know I mean again I feel bad for the homeowner getting it that way and bottom line yeah, I don't want to see them tear their driveway up. But I don't want to come up with is 3 lots down the road just build it this way and then we can do it later and not have to deal with it so you know the fact that we have Lennar kind of standing in their place saying yeah we did it. We're sorry and we'll make it right. You know that's I guess where I'm kind of torn up too is, I hate to see them lose their driveway but on the other hand I don't want to set this up where somebody comes in. It wasn't me. It was built this way and we leave it so. Larson: Okay. Well I kind of feel the same way as you guys. The fact of the matter is it was built differently than what the City expected. The fact that they want to add to it. The only way, in my opinion that they would be able to do that is if they cut back the driveway to the point where the 200 extra feet for the patio would still stay within the 25% hard surface coverage. My thoughts, golly I hate to see them pull it out but again Lennar has admitted to the fact that you know they'd be willing to correct it and because of the fact that she, or let's see the homeowner, I don't know if Todd or Amy wrote this but the fact that they've got trouble in their back yard with that retaining wall and the hole and the water and the whole issue of all that, I'd be willing to you know deny it so at that I'll take a motion. Anyone? Keefe: I'll go ahead and make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action. Larson: Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor, except for Commissioners Dillon and Doll, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. 14 Planning Commission Meeting — November 3, 2009 Dillon: So just, I don't know the rules of the road here but so could we put forth an alternate thing at this time or are we done? Aanenson: Well actually it goes to City Council because you need a 75% so you don't have that so it automatically gets appealed to the City Council so they'll make the final decision. And they'll take all the consideration of the different options into consideration. Dillon: Okay. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND REGIONALILIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Chair and commissioners. Actually we've been working at this process for a long time. We did a lot of preference survey. We looked at a lot of pictures and so now hopefully we have an ordinance that will allow us to move forward and provide the opportunity for future development and redevelopment in the community. Little background on the community commercial and regional commercial. The city in 2006, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce worked to have a retail market study performed. As part of this market study it showed that the city could support additional commercial lands as we continue to build out and we don't have enough land available. In the downtown area we're looking for an additional 12 acres that could be supported and then as part of a regional center at 212 and Powers Boulevard they looked at from 88 to 113 acres of additional commercial land that could be developed. As part of the comprehensive plan update that the city did in 2008 we incorporated some land use amendments to designate land specifically to allow for these types of commercial developments. Adjacent to 212 we made a land use amendment from residential to office and commercial to permit a lifestyle or regional commercial center. Just to the southwest of downtown area in some commercial area that has some vacancies and vacant land we've designated the land for office industrial and commercial uses to permit a community commercial type use. So let's go first with the community commercial. Again this is the area just to the southwest of downtown. The idea would be to expand our downtown area with uses that would compliment or enhance the existing downtown but provide for different shopping opportunities that currently aren't available in here. It would permit, the idea was to permit a medium scale, bigger box user to develop here, but not to allow multi tenant, strip malls to go into this area. So we're really trying to target it for uses that could, would not necessarily compete directly with all our smaller businesses in the downtown. The big issues that we have in creating these districts were a minimum business size. The lower end of this development that we would permit and also a maximum business. And also we wanted to try to make sure that the list of uses that would be in this district would actually enhance the downtown area. And if you look at the attached ordinance at the back of your staff report we have the newly commercial district and what we did as part of this was to have, propose a minimum business size of 15,000 square feet and a maximum business size of 65,000 square feet. This permits a full range of shopping opportunities that aren't available here such as electronic stores, furniture stores, things that we don't have in our downtown area right now. However it's big enough so that you're not going to get a bunch of multi tenant users because 15,000 square feet's just too big. That's usually the 15 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact 1.38% hardcover variance to construct a driveway and patio on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). LOCATION: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2m Addition APPLICANT: Jim Weaver Todd and Amy Gleason US Home Corporation 2111 Pinehurst Drive 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.41 (18,000 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 26.38% hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 25% hard surface coverage. The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). It is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. scu+Wu Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 8 On August 27, 2007, the City issued a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 24.88% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. Following completion of the building, the builder provided the City with an as -built survey. The as -built survey showed an increase in the sidewalk and driveway widths which resulted in an increase in hard surface coverage beyond the maximum 25% permitted by City Code. Staff notified the builder, who notified the homeowner. The builder stated that the proposed driveway was not feasible for the position of the garage and was therefore increased. The builder then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property; the approved building permit met the 25% hard surface coverage requirement, which included a 100 -square foot future patio. Alternatives exist that comply with the hard surface coverage. The total hard surface coverage on the site must be reduced by 148 square feet. Adequate access can be provided to the garage using less hard surface. Approval of this application could set a precedent within the Pinehurst subdivision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 3 of 8 BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition, which is zoned Single - Residential Family (RSF). The subject property has an area of 18,000 square feet, frontage of 91.2 feet and approximate depth of 141.30 feet. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot area, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot depth. The subject site exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the site was approved on August 28, 2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of 24.88%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 24.88% coverage included a 100 -square foot future patio as required by City Code. Based on the building permit application, there was up to 122 square feet of hard surface in which to accommodate a patio. / 1100, �,� e ' /p\ Q\• � � _ TT7 ! \\ \L\•� 'e"' > \ •444wRD-QP eA CAATans \ LOT AREA =18.WO SO Ft L� _ HOUSE/PORCR = 9,155SOFr OROPC3W PATIO LK — 52550 Ff TOTP MRO ]QQS.O,F1_ � TOTAL RARO COVER � 1,.)850. FT. PERCERTOfI COVER 4./AI18AW-US8s Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 4 of 8 The developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for future improvements or additions within the Pinehurst Subdivision. In 2006, as part of the approval process of the Pinehurst Development, staff expressed concern over the potential future hard surface coverage within the subdivision. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. As a result, Pinehurst was re -platted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the area of some of the lots. Also, on July 6, 2006, in an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, the City amended Sec. 20-905 of the City Code. This section requires all applicants requesting a building permit for the construction of a new home to show a minimum 10' x 10' patio area. This section reads as follows: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. This variance would permit the existing size of the driveway and sidewalk, as well as a 10' x 10' patio. The lot area is 18,000 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, future patio, etc. may occupy 4,500 square feet. The original building permit showed 4,478 square feet of hard cover. The remaining impervious surface allowed was 22 square feet. Building Permit Survey As -built Survey The size of the driveway was increased from the original building permit by 240 square feet and the sidewalk from the front door to the driveway was increased by 30 square feet. This brought the site to 25.8% (excess of 148 square feet); this does not include the future 100 square foot patio as shown in the original approval. Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 5 of 8 In addition to the increased driveway and sidewalk area, the applicant is also requesting a 100 square foot patio in the rear yard. The increased driveway and proposed patio exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation by 1.38% or 248 square feet. A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Ordinance Building Permit Existing Proposed Increase Lot Area 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 House 3,309 3,309 3,309 Stoop 144 144 144 Driveway 822 1,062 1,062 +240 Sidewalk 103 133 133 +30 Future patio 100 100 HSC 4,500 4,478 4,648 4,748 +248 Percentage 25% 24.9% 25.8% 26.38% +1.38% A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after -the - fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after -the -fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number of lots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square -foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 6 of 8 is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types B and C, soils containing non -permeable material, such as clay. Outlot B South of the subject site is an outlot, platted as part of the Pinehurst Subdivision, which contains a retaining wall and stormwater pond for the development. Outlot B is owned and maintained by the City. Staff researched the possibility of allowing the homeowner to purchase a portion of Outlot B. However, based on review of the plans and stormwater calculations for the development, it is not recommended to sell a portion of Outlot B. The basis for this conclusion is due to the pond's modeled high-water level relative to the bottom of the retaining wall. During a 100 -year stone event, the pond is designed to bounce to an elevation of 1027.2 feet. Under the proposed plan, the toe of the retaining wall was to be at an elevation of 1028 feet which would have allowed for 0.8 feet of free board. However, the Certificate of Survey for the grading as -built shows that the base of the wall is at an elevation of 1025.9 feet which is less than two feet above the normal water level for the pond. Thus, the wall goes under water. Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 7 of 8 In addition, there is a stormwater outlet just south of the subject site directing runoff into the stormwater pond. Relocating the property line to the south of the structure would put the outlet on private property, making it difficult to ensure the outlet is functioning and maintained properly. The outlet is necessary for the runoff of the site and should remain part of Outlot B. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two -car garage. A single- family home with a three -car garage is currently constructed on the property. The driveway is aligned virtually straight out from the three car garage. The width is 30 feet at the garage and 24 feet at the right-of-way. The width could be reduced on the left side of the two -car garage and angled inward as it comes in contact with the right-of-way and Pinehurst Drive. The driveways shown to the right are adjacent to three -car garages within the RSF district. The width at the garage ranges from 26 to 28 feet. The width at the right-of-way ranges from 17 to 20 feet. Reduction of the driveway width will result in an overall reduction in hard surface coverage and provide adequate access to the garage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies an after - the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17, and adoption of the findings of fact and action." Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of proposed lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of as -built lot survey. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of US Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio — Planning Case No. 09- 17. On November 3, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of US Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as -built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a 10'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re- platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2°d Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after -the -fact variance. Both requests were denied. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100 -square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square -foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies an after -the -fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17, and adoption of the findings of fact and action." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3`d day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M Its Chair gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehursl drive varianceTindings of fact.doc 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952,227.1 too Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 9552.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site wvev.d.chanhassen. mn.us January 6, 2009 Mr. Tom Tamte, Product Development Manager Lennar Homes 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: As -built Survey for 2111 Pinehurst Drive Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition Dear Mr. Tamte: While reviewing the as -built survey for the above -referenced address, it has come to the city's attention that the property currently exceeds the maximum 25% hard surface coverage limitation for properties zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). The survey for the approved building permit reflected 24.88% (4478 square feet) hard surface coverage of the 18,000 square -foot lot. The as -built survey, received on December 16, 2008, reflects 25.8% (4,648 square feet) hard surface coverage. The site currently exceeds the maximum allowed in the RSF district by 148 square feet. Additionally, a hard surface area is not shown for the walkout level door; in which case a 10' x 10' future patio shall be assumed and included in the hard surface coverage calculations. With the inclusion of the future patio, the site exceeds the hard surface maximum by 248 square feet - The City is unable to approve the as -built survey or refund the escrow funds until the non -conforming conditions on the site comply with all City Ordinances. A revised as -built survey must be submitted following the reduction of the excess hard surface coverage on the site for City approval. Please advise the City of your intentions to rectify the situation no later than January 20, 2009. I can be contacted at 952-227-1132 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Angie Auseth Planner I cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Steve Lenz, Engineering Tech III cc: Todd and Amy Gleason Building Permit File g:xplanlzaxcode enforcement\angie-s letters & photoslasbuilt hsc\211 I pinehurst drive hsc.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providing for Today and Planning for Tontons SCANNED tFse--- -4 4�\lP\lll'l JL� CITY OF CHANHASSEN (g1ECEWED DEC 16 2008 Engineering Department City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 147 952-227-116o ENGINEERING DEPT. Certificate of Grading Asbuilt We hereby certify that on we conducted an onsite inspection at: (DATE) (LOT) (BLOCK) (STREET ADDRESS) (ADDITION NAME) and do certify that the grades and elevations of the site and building structure(s) are consistent with the approved plans submitted on the certificate of survey and approved to obtain the building permit. Any inconsistencies between the plan submitted for the issuance of the building permit and the asbuilt survey will require submittal of a corrected asbuilt survey. By signing below I attest that I am a duly licensed Engineer and or Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and to the best of my knowledge certify that the survey submitted is true and accurate. Signed: Company Name: License Number: Date Signed: This certificate must have an original signature and be submitted along with an asbuilt survey meeting all requirements required at the time of issuance of the permit to the Engineering Department before recommendation is made for the issuance of an occupancy permit, or a refundable asbuilt escrow may be posted. Note other conditions may be required by other departments for the issuance of the C.O. 5/25/2008 G/Eng/Fomis/Certificate of Grading Asbuilt 6914 / 'o / lom E� tos57, 4 / �osfi.s � 70 �` \ X1059.3or ` y / \ �/o I 03,2; \ / Fp lw�o3r ` X10529 45l' it X10413 \ 5 / \ 045.0 10521 11 \ 30 0 30 2 L■ SCALE IN FEET A .3 /X1051.2 \ X 1919.5 - y x10427 4) / \ 9 A /�.\ \ 044.922 / li 4, \ \ �f_� OCT- \ \/ X10418 \X1013.5 / /�4j' S I iP✓� \\ 5 \ )d D41.7/FENCE `XrL�r \ � a \ RW1037.7 No Date 9y Remab i -1039A ` v < 1 I FC;Fwn Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Retaining Wall Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE • 5 H HARD COVER CALCULATIONS 4 LOT AREA = 18,000 SO. FT. =F HOUSE =3,309 SO. FT. Z- STOOP = 144 SO. FT.DRVE t21 P` Sl DEV WK =133500. �jxC Q0r1,S N TOTAL HARD COVER = 4,648 SO. FT. c PERCENTORM COVER4,648/18,000=25.8% NOTES: 2 /-fig 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outlot's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the southwesterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 10.00 feet southwesterly of the proposed building corner ELEV. = 1050.26 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2/21/05. 7. House was staked on 8/3/07 First Floor = 1056.0 Garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1053.7 Lowest floor elevation = 1045.5 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 22, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 8th day of Decemberer 2008, Frank Roos Associates. Inc. Land e No. This certif`catiVn is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. Nn Dab 9y Remab DedWed Draen FRN Dae 12/O4Ate aserkM HN Aannod Engineering • Planning • S - Ag INu t99 Ad M • .9Afr fa „y,.,,,�b . �/„ McCwbsFrmkRan Man MT/iJs-ea0 . a �arH1e-evz Amcetrq roc. E-"mb.9niamn LENNAR Wayzata, 64N Lot 22 Block 1 PINE T 214D ADDITION 0hanbasse4 MN Cl:rtificate of survey Ciradmg A313: Permit No. 20074)1921 1 M }7Lg N0.:16573 RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2008 CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS "PV07 SCALE IN FEET '/..e ..r F)1114 14 building (,uufse accommoda': porch. A f0i the cc' , ai O.1vrrE qkF FrglreshC Plonnv% . sL:36 WOran E1M 1fsO0 M.. Aa X - 4- 1p IN 01.&W tlmN £tmk /loos � �4��E-Yrt Oaardmaaa Maned Ass�ut4lne. O oZ ° � Q N QOZCL a ?® U WOZ3 04 2 ey a i— Z V Q O W < 7 x W W Z a r2 O Q w H ��Qpv~i0 Z W W= p = Q 0 W 6 Ww a O v Z J l7 V Q D — W V11V F V Oa LL U W LL O in CONTACT DEVELOPER FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE LOCATION LE NAR Wayzata, MN NFED DEPT: DATE: HARD COVER CALCULATIONS LOT AREA HOUSEIPORCH PERCENT OF HARD COVER NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive = 18,OD0 SQ FT. 4/`8/18,000=24.88% a2 �O l 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outiot's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the southwestedy aaagaigg line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying a ou westerly of the proposed building corgi - ELEV. = 1050.26 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created: bay Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2121105. _h�: M 7. House was staked on 813/07. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Minnesota I hereby certify that this survey, plan or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007. Mccoyibs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 200? is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink.CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS Lot 22 Block 1 PINEIiLTRST 21ID ADDITION Chanhassen, MN Shea Tifle I Shea Certificate of Siam I I / I g� p, Denotes Iron Monument DEPT:�Iw.� Denotes Surface Drainage DATE:�j,�,a$ Denotes Proposed Elevation ,..: Denotes Existing Elevation BY, Q S Denotes Top Iron Pipe PT.:j;etsl:,,,� Denotes Retaining Wall " DATE:y•�f7_d_ Denotes Proposed Contour Lines BY: # .5d a5, STORM SEWER DEPT.: SANITARY SEWER DA. 6 _ � _� WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE SCALE IN FEET '/..e ..r F)1114 14 building (,uufse accommoda': porch. A f0i the cc' , ai O.1vrrE qkF FrglreshC Plonnv% . sL:36 WOran E1M 1fsO0 M.. Aa X - 4- 1p IN 01.&W tlmN £tmk /loos � �4��E-Yrt Oaardmaaa Maned Ass�ut4lne. O oZ ° � Q N QOZCL a ?® U WOZ3 04 2 ey a i— Z V Q O W < 7 x W W Z a r2 O Q w H ��Qpv~i0 Z W W= p = Q 0 W 6 Ww a O v Z J l7 V Q D — W V11V F V Oa LL U W LL O in CONTACT DEVELOPER FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE LOCATION LE NAR Wayzata, MN NFED DEPT: DATE: HARD COVER CALCULATIONS LOT AREA HOUSEIPORCH PERCENT OF HARD COVER NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive = 18,OD0 SQ FT. 4/`8/18,000=24.88% a2 �O l 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outiot's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the southwestedy aaagaigg line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying a ou westerly of the proposed building corgi - ELEV. = 1050.26 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created: bay Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2121105. _h�: M 7. House was staked on 813/07. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Minnesota I hereby certify that this survey, plan or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007. Mccoyibs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 200? is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink.CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS Lot 22 Block 1 PINEIiLTRST 21ID ADDITION Chanhassen, MN Shea Tifle I Shea Certificate of Siam I I / I January 11, 2010 City of Chanhassen Attn: Angie Kairies 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance Application Dear Ms Kariries: The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that our item be tabled at the January I la', 2010 City Council meeting. We would like to move it to the February 8'", 2010 City Council meeting. This letter also serves as the authorization to extend the review time of our application. This additional time will allow us more time to research potential solutions to our variance request. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-3012 Sincerely, Jim Weaver Lennar Corporation Todd Gl on Homeowner 935 Wayzata Blvd. E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Main: 952-249-3000 • Fax: 952-2493075 LENNAR.COM CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 09-17 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for after -the -fact Variances on property zoned Si,Sle-Family Residential (RSF) located at 2111 Pinehurst Drive (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst Addition). Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen,mn,us/sgnL/plan/09-17.htm] or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Kairies, Planner I Email: akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 22, 2009) SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 10/14/2009 1:06 PM Receipt No. 0112143 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Lennar Family of Builders Planning Case 09-17 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total Cash Check 00807000 Check 00810194 Change 450.00 0.00 250.00 200.00 0.00 SCANNED Ori 11 06063547 LENNAR FAMILY OF BUILDERS JPMorgan Chase Bank NA STUB CHECK NO. 807000 1901006 . 1010.16 INVOICE 1 of 1 DATE 09/16/09 CO.0 NUMBER DATE PAYMENTADYICE GROSS DISCOUNT NET 17600 200909 25000 CRA 091009 VARIANCE APP FEE 2111 PINEHURS $250.00 $0.00 $250.00 1874551 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MaFka Boula ud $250.00 $0.00 $250.00 PO Box 147 __ (-HANffMMFNMNMl7 0313$566 Lennar Family of Builders JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. STUB CHECK NO. 810194 1901006 . 1010.16 INVOICE 1 of 1 DATE 10/07/09 O.8 NUMBER DATE PAYMENTADVICE GROSS DISCOUNT NET 17103 200909 20000 CR 092809 2111 PINEHURST SIGN RENTAL $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 1874551 C1IY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Morket Boulcmd $200.00 $0.00 $20-00-071 PO Box 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0147 CITY of CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 BuAdng Nisliectim Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fag: 952.227.1170 Fi1m11ce Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us October 13, 2009 U.S. Home Corporation Attn: Jim Weaver & Carole Toohey 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Variance Application for 2111 Pinehurst Drive in Chanhassen Planning Case 09-17 Dear Jim and Carole: This letter is to inform you that we are in receipt of the complete variance application for property located at 2111 Pinehurst Drive in Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The remaining $200 balance for the application was received on October 12, 2009; therefore the 60 day review deadline to process the application is December 11, 2009. I look forward to working with you, if you have any questions please contact me at (952) 227-1132. Sincerely, Angie Kairies Planner I 9:\planx2009 planning can X09-17 2111 piochurst drive variancex2111 pinehurst drive complete apptication.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Prov ing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED 2111 PINEHURST DRIVE VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 09-17 $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow $450 TOTAL $250 Less Check No. 807000 from Lennar $200 Less Check No. 810194 from Lennar $0 BALANCE DUE Com) - 1-1 SCANNED Carver County, MN i Owe . a • i I '/j moot s Property Information Parcel ID: 256110220 AS400 Acres. 0 Taxpayer Name: TODD R & AMY A GLEASON Homestead: N Taxpayer Address: 2111 PINEHURST DR School District: 0276 Taxpayer City St. Zip: CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4579 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF CREEK Property Address: 2111 PINEHURST DR Tax Exempt: N Property City CHANHASSEN Platname: PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION GIS Acres: 0.41 N W+E S Disclaimer. Tha map was aeatea utirg carver Countys Goograoic Map Scale Inlgmatno Systems IGISI. d a a runpilatwn of mlgmuMn arm dab hom 1 inch = 168 feet va,gra Crty.Ca ty. State. aM FMeral opxEs. Thy map n ml a sn W ,x "Ry reraeM map aM is InterNer! to lte uses as a reference Carver County h mt responside for any naccuracres Map Date mntamea he,en 10/6/2009 N W+E S MEMORANDUM TO: Angie Kairies, Planner I FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: October 13, 2009 SUBJ: Review of after -the -fact variance request to increase hard -surface coverage at 2111 Pinehurst Drive Planning Case: 09-17 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment. G:\PLAN\2009 PlanningCases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\buildingofficialcomments.doc City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 �1my Chanhassen, MN 55317 bl l i OF (952) 227-1100 Date: October 13, 2009 Review Response Deadline: October 23, 2009 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Angie Kairies, Planner I Subject: Request for an after -the -fact hardcover variance to construct a driveway and patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located at 2111 Pinehurst Drive (Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition). Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation Planning Case: 09-17 PID: 25-6110220 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 12, 2009. The 60 -day review period ends December 11, 2009. 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 November 3, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Ctianhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than October 23, 2009. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources — Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Mmnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Mmnegasco Carver County, MN STA: JS 1 1 f Al Property Information Parcel ID: 256110220 AS400 Acres: 0 Taxpayer Name: TODD R & AMY A GLEASON Property Address: 2111 PINEHURST DR Property City: CHANHASSEN GIS Acres: 0.41 Tax Exempt: N Platname: PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION Iaa lmer. TMs map waa aealeE l+s^W caner C mys Geograpnlc Homestead: N Taxpayer Address: 2111 PINEHURST DR Inhxmahpn systems (GIs), E is a c Iamh of mNrtna4m Eha muon arsta n vars Clh.County, state, arM Federal offices. Tho map o hot a School DisMct 0276 Taxpayer City SL Zip: CHANHASSEN, MN 553174579 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF CREEK Property Address: 2111 PINEHURST DR Property City: CHANHASSEN GIS Acres: 0.41 Tax Exempt: N Platname: PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION Iaa lmer. TMs map waa aealeE l+s^W caner C mys Geograpnlc Map Scale N Inhxmahpn systems (GIs), E is a c Iamh of mNrtna4m Eha muon arsta n vars Clh.County, state, arM Federal offices. Tho map o hot a 1 inch = 168 feet rveyed or legally receded map and is IntendeE to Oe plea as a W E (reference Carver County is nol respon&D b any haCuaa m o lamedneren Map Date 10/6/2009 S September 29, 2009 uC�I�TuY�O�F��l�i CHANHASSEN US Home Corporation 7700 Market Boulevard Attn: Jim Weaver & Carole Toohey PO Box 147 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 Finance Re: Variance Application for 2111 Pinehurst Drive in Chanhassen Administration Variance Application $200.00 Phone: 952.227.1100 Dear Jim and Carole: Fax: 952.227.1110 Notification Sign Lease $200.00 Building Inspections This letter is to inform you that we are in receipt of your variance application for Phone 952.227.1180 property located at 2111 Pinehurst Drive in Pinehurst 2nd Addition. As stated in our Fax: 952.227.1190 earlier correspondence via email on 8-20-09 and 9-24-09, the total fee for the variance application at the time of submittal is $450.00. Engineering Sign fee of $200.00. Therefore, the application is incomplete. Phdre:952227.1160 The fee submitted with the application on September 24, 2009 is incorrect. The Fax: 952.227.1170 required fees are as follows: Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Variance Application $200.00 Fax:952.227.1110 Recording Fees $50.00 Notification Sign Lease $200.00 Park & Recreation Total $450.00 Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 As of today's date, the submitted fee of $250.00 did not include the Notification Recreation Center Sign fee of $200.00. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 We will not be able to review the application until the fees have been fully Fax: 952.227.1404 submitted. This also means that the 60 -day deadline to process an application will not begin until we have received all the necessary application requirements. The Planning & Natural Resources submittal deadline for the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting date Phone: 952.227.1130 is October 2, 2009. Fax: 952.227.1110 If you have sent the remaining $200 balance prior to receipt of this letter or have Pulific Wadcr any questions please contact me at (952) 227-1132. 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Sincerely, y. Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fan: 952.727.1110 Angie airies Planner I Web site www.d.diardiassDtmaus giplanx2009 planning casesx2111 pinehurst drive incomplete application.doc SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow September 11, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting an impervious surface variance for 2111 Pinehurst Drive on behalf of the homeowner. The constructed home (include driveway and sidewalk) is currently over the impervious surface maximum by .8%. The size of the driveway changed from what was originally proposed in the building permit survey. The proposed driveway was inadequate to support the size and use of the garage for this lt/ home. Thedriveway built today is wider, thus causing the slight increase in impervious surface. In addition, this homeowner would like the ability to build a small patio off the back of his home. If this patio is added, it would increase the total impervious surface to 26.37%. When reviewing this variance application, we respectfully request the staff and City Council of Chanhassen to look at the big picture. This particular homesite backs up to an open outlot, which could be added to the homesite's overall pervious surface calculation. The homeowner has been living in this home with this larger driveway and has acquired belongings based on this driveway. To force the homeowner to j change their driveway or way of living at this point would be hardship. With this variance request, we are requesting to work with the City of Chanhassen to find a i A reasonable solution to this minor error. ow is our point by point narrative for the variance request. a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 land develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet / this criteria. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his home. The driveway that was ultimately constructed was built to fit the type and intended use of the garage with this home. This homeowner has purchase items based on this driveway and its intended use. To take away the driveway would limit his use of his whole home. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his backyard Prior to finding out that the driveway was constructed larger than originally shown, we had always anticipated on a 10'x 10' patio in the backyard of this home. It would be a hardship to take away something based on the driveway error. 545 Indian Mound E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Phone: 952-473-0993 • Fax: 952-476-0194 LENNAR.COM SCANNED F,I b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. This impervious request is speck to this homeowner due to the fact that there was an understanding when he purchased the home. He has desired to build a 10'x 10' patio in his rear yard We had calculated this with the original survey. However, the original driveway was not sized appropriately, thus putting him over the 25% maximum coverage. Without a variance, he is unable to have the patio that he originally desired, nor the driveway that is now sized appropriately for him home. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of this variance application is not for profit or income. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. This hardship was not created by the homeowner. It was an error on the builder's part for not having an appropriate sized driveway on the original survey. 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. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public or cause injury. 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 increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property value within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion of the public streets. In fact, by granting this variance and providing this homeowner with an adequately sized driveway, they will be less likely to store their vehicles in the street, thus reducing potential congestion. This proposed variation will also not impair neighboring property values. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-249-3000 Sincerely, -11 O M/•\ :Zeffl7 ZiJ 7 WGPL � SCANNED ORNNV.DS •� f N r P•W OOOMIS3M vn. ^arv. v +w o+ w .w w aMw rn rn..Pn •rw:• ..n.• wP n +.x s awa (YT V wIJ II o I I e II 11 �M ,wM w nrusq A+•vl qe mbipq YN•'ILIIIWI Y #�V /. .41~Y,...a r TV 9 witl iM.f N P www+. •Y F77- F F, 'IML wi n'n••wN YfY h+v,nnV wrl.wY+wwo IMr w w•m/w rn A nw wn w•IwWwnw w•rl•wL+n+^-a o Iwa-wv�+s I 1 a NO/1100'd aw 1 SHnm3N/d CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Adreinisbadon Phone: 952227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building InspecBons Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 Park & Recreagon Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Raxeallon Carter 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Moral Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Carlo Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.w.us Memorandum TO: Angie Karies, Planner 1 FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: Oct. 20, 2009 RE: Lot 22, Block 1 Pinehurst 2"d Addition Planning No. 09-17 I have reviewed the plans and stormwater calculations for the above referenced development. Based upon my review I have concluded that it is not in the City's best interest to sell a portion of Outlot B. The rationale for this conclusion is based upon the modeled high water level for the pond located in Outlot B relative to the bottom of the retaining wall. During a 100 -year storm event, the pond is designed to bounce to an elevation of 1027.2 feet. Under the proposed plan, the toe of the retaining wall was to be at an elevation of 1028 feet which would have allowed for 0.8 feet of free board. However, the Certificate of Survey for the Grading As Built shows that the wall is at an elevation of 1025.9 feet which is less than 2 feet above the normal water level for the pond. In addition, because the water elevation within the pond frequently comes up to the toe of the wall, there would be no net gain in impervious surface. This is because standing water has a curve number of 98 which is the same as a bituminous roadway. This means that all water that falls on the pond goes into the pond and there is no infiltration that occurs. Because of the reasons I discussed in this memorandum, I would recommend against yielding control of any portion of Outlot B to an entity other than the City of Chanhassen. This concludes my review. Should you have any questions, please contact me at extension 1168. Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - -1 caz: ara ; a i� rg Jnr TnfTvf nI 0 J / / 70 / / / AW.5 y0 `. \ X1059.3 \ 5 X105z /Y 'w\ Fly' lw�gt� 30 0 30 2 SCALE IN FEET G_ \ yc\'V�° /(,It�+pyyy��I�errr-io�44.e \ \ Lx1043.3 \ y ^^r8 T 045.0 i \ \ .0 Ifb44.2 `h\ I /xl 3 /x1051.2 / \ •`t � �\ i p11y / \ \ • 104&8 9 2 /�\ 044.9 y xt04z7 8-10216 \ 22 \ \ ��.A Os- t'm \/ x1043.8 \ \ 0415 \\X1041.7/\, \ p � /q• Y FENCE L I / n ' ! i/ Na Dote By Renato Na Date By Renals 3DM- EMEM /x 10317 LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainaee Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Retaining Wall Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE • X (1214) X 1214 TIP RN HARD COVER CALCULATIONS Vm LOT AREA =18,000 SO. FT. HOUSE = 3,309 SO. FT. STOOP = 144 SO. FT. DRIVEWAY = 1,062 SO. FT. SIDEWALK = 133 S0. FT. TOTAL HARD COVER = 4,648 SO. FT. PERCENT OF HARD COVER 4,648/18,800=25.8% NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 8 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outlot's A and B. PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the southwesterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 10.00 feet southwesterly of the proposed building corner ELEV. = 1050.26 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2/21/05. 7. House was staked on 8/3107. First Floor = 1056.0 Garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1053.7 Lowest Floor elevation = 1045.5 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 22, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 8th day of Decemberer 2008. Frank Roos Associates, Inc. This cert*atiVn is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. SCANNED oeela.E ora., sa Vm Enoeering • Manning F� Nmaam 4a u . a+ 140 ria • s y 1AdmkFmt Hme P+e. 70/4 0•eaz 1476-6YI2 Ammass, Iac E- mFa[b . LENNAR Wayzata, MN Lot 22 Block I PINEI QRST 2�TD ADDITION Certificate of Survey Grading As Built Permit No. 20(17 1921 1A MFF -4 FQ.E NO.: 16573 Date 12/04/Ofi O.*W ION /ppr n d K J SCALE IN FEET LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Retaining Wall Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE S7Wf4D--ssss� is---pGg HARD COVER CALCDLATIONs ><ryle7�h7- [3�5i�F ria, HOUSE/POFCH = 3,453 SO. Fr, ORIVEWAYMMWALK = 92.5SO.Fr. PRDPO.SEO PATIO 100 eO. FT. TOTAIHAROC.OVER • 4,470 50. FT. PERCENT OF HARD COVER 4,478119.000.24.88% NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 8 4, Block 3. PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Mancchestar Drive at Outlays A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, ELEV.=1023-88 3. TIP on the southwesterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 10.00 feet southwesterly of the proposed building corner ELEV. =105026 3. No elevations, eflher found In the field or on this cert8kale, should be used far construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing It In the survey, but have accounted for it within the selhacks. S. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2121105. 7. House was staked on 813107. Proposed lop of house foundation - 1054.1 Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1053.8 Proposed lowest floor elevation = 1045.4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Loi 22, Block 1, PINEHURST 2N0 ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2067. 1 I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Henry D_ Nelson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 17255 This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. • Pf—bg • Stn 919,100-ftxli g COeot Project Sheet rifle L/11 41(eNSll la leer By R. D. EN Lot Lot 22 Block I Certificate of Survey I/ Dab 12/04/06 Ibl f ba K . 9i tip 8.848 !pit McCam6.hP rm. 1aS1M-aP • 4?;= Wsy� 14NPINEI URST 2�ID ADDITION �' 1 B Mnawe Anav¢& la. E-rret i4e�Or'rO°° (baOL>>sten, MN TM=: 1657 4 N= / las o t � / / d / 4 �o / 105191 / V. 2 0 �\b 5\ 30 0 30 / \ SCALE IN FEET N= [inhiaaIVM1 FRA . PlanningSLrselfng mn ERN aN%04+a An K • 9a M ow 1z/ot/os ar�4 w,�•srin O,� ION dgmbs Frmk Rro Ft. ]Si�f]6-r010 . Ra :G1�IlydCII Appo Msod ,,,Inc. r nMnracan LENNAR Way7^ MN 1■IrelIti, l01 Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Retaining Wall Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE • r x(Izs) X 123.4 W Rif 1231 S7MN-ss SS ,:ca AAV'_ LOT AREA =13.000 SQ FT HOUSEIPORCH = 3,4535x. Fr. DRIVEWAYfSIDEWAtx = W55a.Fr. PROPOSEO PATIO 100 UOr FT, TOTAL HAND COVER - 4,478 SO. FT. RERCEW OF HARD COVER 4.478/18.000-24.88% NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Plnshurst Drive 2, Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 8 4, Black 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. =1837.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outlet's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV_ =1028.88 3. TIP an the southwesterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 10.00 feet southwesterly of the proposed building corner ELEV. =1050.28 3. No elevations, either found M the fluid or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use archaectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 8. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2/21105. 7. House was staked an 913107. Proposed top of house foundation -1054.1 Proposed garage flow elevation at overhead door = 1053.9 Proposed lowest flow elevation = 1045.4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 22, Block 1. PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carves County. Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby cer* that this survey, pian or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 3rd day of august, 2007. McCombe Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Henry D. NoWn, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 17255 This certification Is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. Lot 22 Block I PNT URST *D ADDITION Certificate of Survey tlr ntIese MN SCANNED / a 1052 //\'+� e\ 30 0 30 a /.P SCALE IN FEET hours / c22) MOO \\els �yO / A her M FRA° Fann2.3 a Mp flawPwwar rr+s e.a•rw LENNAR chwas_ MLOMPos M. MIm/m- 4nav WSyu4 NJJ LEGEND Daneta. Iron Monument Denotae S.0.. Dralnege r Denotes Proposal Demotion :Baso Denotes Existing Dayation slaw Denotes Tap Iron Pipe So Denotes Retalning Well Ira Denote. Proposed Contour Unea 23�— STORM SEWER snow® a p—:m'n SANITARY SEWER xa+`----)p-- 3 — WATERMAIN, HYDRANT. AND VALVE aJe -w - IMMCM4R VLCLLkigM _� LOLMFA •II,OepW FT. IgrreE rrwiGN au]w" pRNEWAYIeOEW41{ • EMm P i OPCOVER eA "Pubmt. keA OS KMAOCOVEn aAT]IIRW]•]IpY NOTES: 1. AW.: 2111 Plash ... I DrNe 2. Brmalso .rot: 1. T.N.H. BeMean Lots 2 6 a. Back 2, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV.-1019.12 ]. T.N.N. lyl, west W MerlannMl DrNe nl Outlet'. A ens B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION EL V.-10211.111 3. TIP on Ino wumwasrerly otl neon MN 01 me lronl al WOp SW house. TIP Is Mbq le.00FMal somhwasmy d rhe p.,W suably, coer 3. NO OMrelker s, mbar alnO In me mN Or an this wnNlCoa, snouts Is used for commonflon wlmOOl being clh cmd Sooner me Oencnmmxs shown an mM rummy, a. NO eusasrg Information fl—ki by INs a.mr, moms Oe OeeO wnnWr hems thaSkal egebal .n,fulecumlmons. uko arenie[wmlPansmromaing COn]vmlbn parpmCe. s. this he. do. novo C hrock lodge Owe no they lr.uer.. W. O ro nmahoSM'p In Ins survey, but nibs looRmma for a wWom the semecks. e. Pme..etl Carlos. ere Per Micas, In. cased ey Wedded PrMNebnnl Sonic., I. coma 212 t M3. 2. House wee laked an 113I37 Proposed we el house foramrson -to"'I Prepowu ge.ge fiber MevWOn at cowhand door -1033.8 Proposed Mwosl floor emuatlon -10131 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Let 22, SWck 1, PINEHURST 2NO AUDITION, Cervn Cause. Mmnesola SURVEYOR'3 CERTIFICATE: I hereby celWy met the su.ey, pan Or repent was prepared by me or under my b.ct supenblon an it mel I we a duly LkYONd Lena Surveyor undo, me Iowa OI rhe emle of Mlnnewle. Deed the; the 3m ay a August, 2009. McCombs Flank ROOS ASSOCLIUM, Ine, Harry D. 4.II06. Land Surveyor Mlnnwoa License No. 17255 S C A N N F This CWifbtlan Is nal vela unless wet aigned In hire ink. Meadow. MN CmBficeta o1 Su v, l LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument • Danolee Surface Drainage / \ 0enotes Proposed Elevation a 0ssq / M. Denotes Existing Elevation x1214 Denotes Top Iron Pipe 'A / / / • a, / •, Denotes Retaining Wall ee / dgxe Denotes Proposed Contour Lines \ 4v STORM SEWER sc.-..--_ =—.. cr Mo6W SANITARY SEWER e /// _._.. \�r\ �Nyyt1 WATDiMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE _ - / _ / \ 30 0 30 x.=oeovenede�urox- /��` wis, /e\ Ae+ Lor AREA Ic22peo Fr. qq�� \ OWE •144SO..". ek did, mu SCALE IN FEET OR :1,04 :iy%drFT. �� L MpEV Y yMoNA esu i TOTAL HARD coven • 4.weao. Fr. nRCEFT OF Keep COVER 4,wrlk,M,26.ew ./ `C h.,b/ � -4 �`�•� 1.Aaer...: 2111PlnehanlDMe 2. Benchmarks 1.T.N.H. Between Lore 334, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ��'• /r //a// ^'w' �/ �,/ +, �J /`J/ ELEV.. 1037.42 All 2.T.N.H.IyMu gwl of Manchester on,. at Center'. A and B, P INEHURST 2ND law 4 �y3b rdP' aQ'n a-1 °st \ \�� ADDITION. / 1 c s1052g e �{a 1 i \ G ELEV. •f028.eB 3. TIP oa the exihwmerty exunelon line of the front of prap.A.d house. TIP is / (• \ C' M \ y \ Well 10.00 bet southwesterly of the proposed bulMing comer ELEV. •105026 J'v'0St. + ice' // 01114 3. No elevations, either found In the&Id Oran tole cenNceu, should be used for comwdlon wlrM1oat •� ;qq \`` Date BIOH.2 // 4 r, being checked against lee banchmed. shown an this survey. �•\ �� ]" /el0ltA ``; / . 4, No building Information provided by this survy should be used whhour being checked e0alnn / // \ •. \\%� /(T(( \ architectural plans. Use architectural plans for bulldog construction purpose.. twee 4042.7 \\ p 2 &A•a( \ 1. s. This house dose her. a brick book around me front lac.. We are net showing tun me survey, but \ \ 8 �'2 22 he V. amounted for n within the setbacks. \aLFjj �\� \ \ �.21o4as L / IiN� / 6. Prap2.ed Comoun are per Me trading pion created by WkeWood Probaemnelsemcae.Inc. \ Aw �\ d.bd2mros. 5s \ O�,e ,1. �rt�(s� \ 4j // Q ). House wee staked on L3M7. \\ !L \ �{'`,NOILT/ / �1y� / First Floor .1056.0 \\ J /,"@7` a \ `�/ ftpu Omo. fm., MaystainI voki doer .1053.7 Lowest floor bv.fte • 1045.5 e \ 'p0 \ ��//j n00J / !, _f `• PROPERTY DESCRIPTION \ a\�\.♦�I ,/ �6 .y g rrL Lot 22, Black 1, PINEHURST 210 ADDITION, Carver Count,, Min ... Me SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: S \ �qr-tense <v.v Ihereby eenlry that his Move, pion or report was prepared by me Or under my din supervMlon and •f \` Ides, ' m.Ll.m. May Licensed Land 6ure.yor under the lawa of eek nate of Mlnn.mb. z L 1 / a-wid. Cited Me the SM day of 0 ... most., 2006. Ma prediction, A ... cal s, Inc. Im, �N ccom D,'go s,Lend 9u Nie... useo .a Na. 17gsw SCANNED Thee non el n 4 notvelM um... wet.Ian.d In bw.Ink. �J Revisions Client hpjew S Tide wx s, a.M♦ pw11 qi, Eng -ow re ' F%AxosMo • A—'ad, x. eSeat n. ar sass.. n.,. "` �. mFRa [.Of22Block TRgTI Crtifieatd dfSurt'dY I� ♦ 5 mrtvm r�mw NdlwYe• ••- ""'°""°'% on. I.ro•m ._.�.._.'!�:� LENNAR PINPi-1TiR CT 7{dil AT1T1TTTf1N �_.:._,_.,..:1. 1 2111 Pinehurst Drive 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition file -Family Residential District (RSF) Request surface coverage e 25% maximum I hard surface Dval y. Increase Driveway /' . MOV, Hard Surface Coverage P,,dn9Pemin WOW Plopo Inc�BOse 18." IB" II` � 3.JW J809 -� LW IAE -\ ', 1062 .2b --'! 1n I_IIIIIIIIIIIIII'\ WO Re!`'t,snnrlble UiC Alternate Driveway Layout Pinehurst Subdivision Recommendation Commission, as the stments, denies an ace coverage W nd future patio, n of the October 30, 2009 To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Fr: Todd and Amy Gleason Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Chanhassen Su: Nov 3rd After -the -fact variance hearing Members of the Planning Commission — Thank you for allowing us to submit written comments as they pertain to the November 3, 2009 variance hearing associated with our property. Unfortunately, because of work- related travel conflicts, we will be unable to attend the hearing. We understand several representatives from the building company (Lennar) responsible for construction of our home / hardscape will be at the hearing. We submit this written request to strongly urge the commission for variance approval. We understand and are sensitive to the local zoning requirements. The staff report recommending against the variance may be technically correct and certainly we are sensitive to the natural reluctance to set precedence. However, clearly the variance hearing process exists for a reason — and therefore, the case-by-case nature of the hearing process must at times yield a variance approval. Here are the facts or circumstances as we see them: 1) We moved from NJ to MN in late 2007 and targeted Chanhassen given its community reputation. 2) In May, 2008 we purchased and moved into 2111 Pinehurst Drive. 3) We did not design the home or manage the construction ... the home was already built when we purchased the home. Additionally, we did not request any property modification prior to purchase. 4) Prior to moving in the city inspectors (we are not sure of exact titles) notified Lennar that certain windows did not meet code. Lennar replaced the specific windows and we were provided with an occupancy certificate. At that time we fully expected the residence met all code/zoning (why wouldn't we). 5) Subsequent to May of 2008, we have made significant enhancements to landscaping, decking, etc., but have added no hardscape. 6) In December 2008 (7 months after moving in) we received notification that our current property exceeded hardscape by 148 sq/ft ... and that we could not add the "in design plan" 100 sq/ft patio. 7) Over the past months we have confirmed with Lennar (builder) that through no fault of our own the driveway was constructed larger than had been designed. We have also concluded with Lennar that the "designed" driveway would greatly detract from the functionality of the driveway / garage space. In short, the Gleasons (us) are the only people that have a financial and emotional impact on the decision rendered in this hearing. We occupied the home for 7 months prior to notification that the hardscape issue existed. And, we made investments and purchases we otherwise may not have made. What else could go wrong? Our experience, to date, with the city offices of Chanhassen has been less than stellar. While not directly germane to the topic of hardscape we have struggled to understand how the following incidences could also occur in the 12 months since we purchased the home: 1) During the inspection of our newly constructed deck the city inspector made the erroneous assumption that we were also finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector saw an electrician in our basement and jumped immediately to the conclusion that we were finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector did not ask us, the homeowners, for confirmation or clarification. Instead, we were slapped with an embarrassing "cease and desist' order which shown brightly on our door for days. We spent time and energy (and frustration) getting this error corrected and removed from our record (we assume). We never received an apology and were specifically treated with disdain when we contacted the named inspector. 2) At the edge of our property is a substantial retaining wall. The wall was constructed, inspected and approved prior to our purchase of the property. A portion of the wall is on our property and certain sections are on city property immediately adjacent to our yard. Despite "passing inspection" the wall allows for erosion and numerous times, large and clearly dangerous holes exist. We have continuously repaired holes on our property to ensure safety and responsibility. Despite numerous conversations with the city to have them repair a very large (8 feet in diameter) hole on the city property, no corrective action has occurred. The individual we spoke with (Terri Jeffries) has not fulfilled their commitment to fix the hole. We also spoke with the city Engineering Office as well as Terri and it was indicated the wall was not built correctly. We, the home owner, are now responsible for repairs or continuous erosion issues. Congratulations. So, while admittedly not directly pertinent to the hardscape variance, I'd remind the committee that we are residents of Chanhassen and struggling to understand how all of this is our responsibility? Proposal We request approval of the variance. Approval would avoid, in our opinion, unnecessary and potentially costly modifications to our driveway. If necessary, we agree to not install the patio or add any additional hardscape to our property. In essence, what we're asking is for approval to keep things the way they are. If approved, we acknowledge appreciation but do not feel as though we've won anything. Instead, approval would be great but honestly just allow us to cross one of the disappointments off the list. Sincerely, Todd and Amy Gleason Residents of Chanhassen SIMMIUM" Non -Scannable Item Item Description. f=older Number 2 Folder Mame og �� P Job Number 2 Box Number o02-3