The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-19_HASTINGS, GREG & KELLYrhomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson rhomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch loci J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' (ohn F. Kelly Toren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt • Also Licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center curve iuite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 $51-452-5000 I'= 651-452-5550 •ww.ck-law.com 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial: (651) 234-6222 E-mail Address: snel amAck- mcam June 3, 2005 Ms. Kim Meuwissen Chanhassen City Hall C1TM RECENEDOF SSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 JUN 0 6 2005 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CMANHhSSEN PLANNING DEPT RE: Miscellaneous Recorded Variances Dear Kim: Enclosed for your files please find the following recorded variances: OL4-19 • Sign Variance 2002-5 for the REMAX ACTION WEST building which was recorded on 09/11/03 as Document No. A365865. • Variance 2003-15 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7'" Addition (8170 Upland Circle) which was recorded on 07/23/04 as Document No. T147602. • Variance 2003-16 and CUP 2003-8 for Lot 20, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres Second Addition (7474 Moccasin Trail) which was recorded on 03/24/04 as Document No. A382455. • Variance 2003-17 for Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (114 Sandy Hook Rd) which was recorded on 04/07/04 as Document No. T145315. • Variance 2003-18 for Lot 16, Block 1, Greenwood Shores (6900 Utica Lane) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. T146888. • Variance 04-07 for Lots 17 and 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta (3637 South Cedar Drive) which was recorded on 07/26/04 as Document No. A392683. • Variance 04-11 for Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 (795 Ponderosa Drive) which was recorded on 07/15/04 as Document No. T147407. 9 a • Variance 04-16 for Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 50' Addition (8634 Valley View Court) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. A389723. Variance 0419 for Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres (9217 Lake Riley Boulevard) which was recorded on 08/06/04 as Document No. T147845. Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 21 Mi. F.101 MMU W.1 SRN:ms Enclosures Document No. OFFICE OF THE T 147845 REGISTRAR OF TITLES CARVER IIIIIII VIII VIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII Cert ## 312984 0602 COUNTY,ee lN$ 20 OOA Certified and filed on 08-06-2004 at 01:00 DAM qPM ='004-OS-06 IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII Cad W. Registrar of Hanson, CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-19 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: A side setback on the southeast side of the property provided the wall, including the eaves, follows the garage foundation line. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. b. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. C. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. 4. Law. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: June 1, 2004 (SEAL) 0 CITY OF SEN C BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -13`6y of 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the dj4 of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOT Y UBLJP KAREN J ENGELNARDI Notary Public - Minnesota Comms °ion City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gApian\2004 planning ca \04-19 - hutings varimm\=Ording doc nl.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND ]HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Greg and Kelly Hastings for a side yard setback variance to permit the expansion of a single-family home. On June 1, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Greg and Kelly Hastings for a setback variance for the property located at 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential, RSF. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 24 and 25, Shore Acres. 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 *C MMM0 r criteria. Finding: The applicant has made a reasonable proposal that conforms with the existing use of the property. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property, the intent of the variance is to create a more functional interior, match the existing roof lines and provide a home office. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The expansion of the house is caused partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the proposed expansion is dictated by the location of the existing structure. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 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 side yard setback variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood since this structure already exists. 0 5. The planning report #2004-19 dated June 1, 2004, prepared by Nathan Bouvet is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission approves seven -foot (7') side yard variance to Section 20-615 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow a home office addition to a single-family home provided the wall, including the eaves, follows the garage foundation line. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1s` day of June, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING BY: Its Chairman 0 0 Planning Case #: 04-19 Description: Variance to side yard setback to construct addition Location: 9217 Lake Riley Blvd Applicant: Hastings, Greg & Kelly Planner: Nathan Bouvet Description Date Date of Pre -Application Meeting if necessa ✓ Date Application Submitted 4/28/04 ✓ Date of Staff Meeting Review 5/3/04 Date Referral Notices Sent/Distributed 5/4/04 Date Referral Agency Comments to be Received By 5/21/04 Date PH Notice to be emailed to Villager 5/13/04 Date PH Notice to be published in Villager 5/20/04 Date PH Notice to be mailed to Property Owners 5/20/04 Date PC Reports due 5/24/04 Date PC Packet goes out 5/26/04 Date of Planning Commission Review PH date 6/1/04 Date of City Council Review 6/28/04 Date of 60 -Day Deadline from staff meeting review date -6kgw 4 17%2 IVY CITY OF CHANHAEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 6/24/04 04-19 Variance ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 6/1/04 04-19 Variance 04-19 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. - Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres ❑ FOR BIDS DUE For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US M enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints 227-1107 J 0 9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-19 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: A side setback on the southeast side of the property provided the wall, including the eaves, follows the garage foundation line. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. b. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. C. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. 4. Lapse. if within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: June 1, 2004 V 0 0 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CITY OF B-. Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisrlL"`liiay of 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the Z of Chanhssen a, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. 10917:101:017:1•fi City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 jv--4� u NOT Y 1JBLI giplant2004 planning cases\04-19 - hutings varianmVecmiing dowment.dm 2 KAREN J ENGELHARDT Notary public - Minnesota Commiesion Expires t131�C1� Engineering This letter is to formally notify you that on June 1, 2004, the Planning MY OF Commission approved Variance #2004-19 to allow a side setback on the southeast PP 1 June 4, 2004 CgA NSEN foundation line, with the following conditions: 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Greg and Kelly Hastings Phone: 952.227.1300 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Administration Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952.227.1100 2. The addition must be built r plans submitted on April 28, 2004. Pe P P Fax: 952.227.1110 3. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. Recreation Center Re: Variance Request #04-19 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hastings: Engineering This letter is to formally notify you that on June 1, 2004, the Planning Phone 952.227.1160 Fax: 952227.1170 Commission approved Variance #2004-19 to allow a side setback on the southeast PP Phone: 952.227.1130 side of the property provided the wall, including the eaves, follows the garage Finance foundation line, with the following conditions: Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Phone: 952.227.1300 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the Park & Recreation variance or the variance shall become void - Phone: F&9522.27.1110 Faz:952227.1110 2. The addition must be built r plans submitted on April 28, 2004. Pe P P 3. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 227-1134 or e-mail me at Fax: 952.227,1404 saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Planning & Natural Resources Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 � /1"'//V/OWL (�� Public Works 1591 Park Road Sharmeen Al-Jaff Phone: 952.227.1300 Senior Planner Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center c: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PFax:952.2.27.1110 Steve Torell, Building Official Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us g:lplan12004 planning cases\04-19 - hastings variancelappmval letterAm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A glean place to live, work, and play. Planning Commission rnmary — June 1 2004 • 64-i9 3. All light factures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RH.EY BOULEVARD GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen Al-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the side yard setback and if the eaves are included in that calculation. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the amount of encroachment. The applicants, Greg and Kelly Hastings explained their case along with passing out 10 i ' Planning Commissionfummary — June 1, 2004 • handouts. Chairman Sacchet called the public hearing to order. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked if there was an accurate survey for the property calculating impervious surface coverage, and that a condition be added about the drainage and how that is going to be handled. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motion was made. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #2004-19 to allow the new structure, including the eave, to maintain the same setback as the current garage foundation line on the southeast side of the property, with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. 2. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. 3. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 11 Planning Commission Meting — June 1, 2004 • the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much for all your comments. Good luck with your project. With that we come to our second item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARL4,NCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions. Claybaugh: The overhangs, what are they? Seeing as how the variance goes to the overhangs. Sacchet: It sounds quite a bit. I mean 2 feet is a pretty big overhang. Greg Hastings: I think it's just matching existing. Sacchet: It is currently that much? Greg Hastings: It's right down from the windows so it's just a different design. Claybaugh: But the side yard setback with respect to the variance is measured from the property line to the overhangs? Sharmeen? A] -Jaffa Pardon me, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Claybaugh: For our purposes, the side yard setback is measured from the property line to the eaves, correct? 31 04 -►9 Planning Commission Meeting —June 1, 2004 • Al-Jaff: It's from the property line to the eaves, that's correct. Claybaugh: Okay. So the size of the eaves is an important component. So that being said, that 4 foot 5 to 7 feet on that, where it runs askew to the property line is actually what, 2 foot 5 or, yeah. 2 foot 6. Al-Jaff: That would be correct, yeah. Claybaugh: So 2.6 to 5 feet it'd be. Okay. Let's see here. With respect to, you said the engineering staff was out on site looking at possible alternatives with the applicant. Where an addition could be placed, or just out by themselves I take it. No? Yes? Al-Jaff: I believe Chairman Sacchet contacted staff and it was, this was, this information was given to me by Nate and Kate so I apologize. One of the commissioners contacted staff. Sacchet: Yeah, it was about the slope I wanted to. AI-Jaff: About the slope and whether you can add onto the rear of the house towards the lake given there is a slope in the back. Our engineering department did look at that slope on the site and they concluded that yes, you can add. Claybaugh: And judging by the applicant's nodding his head that it can be built, it just isn't cost effective. Okay. Greg Hastings: No, I don't think any of that has anything to do with the addition's size. Sacchet: We'll have you up in a minute. And you can tell us that part. Actually I was curious about that too so we know kind of in general terms it could be done but not in specific terms. Is that what I'm hearing pretty much? AI-Jaff: That was what. Sacchet: Then you can tell us the specific terms, I think that is fair. Al-Jaff: That was what was stated by our engineering firm. Sacchet: Alright. Any other questions from staff. No? Rich no? I have a couple questions. First of all we have this list of variances that were approved in that neighborhood and I just want to clarify, I'm confused which one is actually from this property. In the text on page 3 it says 91-16 is the same property line but if I go by the address it's actually 98-6 is the property line here. I mean is the property we're dealing with so it seems like 91-16 is a different. I mean I see, and I would think the resident would know. He's adding his head yes. So that answers that question. Thank you. 32 Planning Commission Meeting—June 1, 2004 • Now, we've had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 example variances, out of which 6 'h were approved, correct? AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Most of these variances I would consider quite a bit more intensive than what we were asked to do here, right? Is that a fair statement to make? Al-Jaff: Not necessarily. Sacchet: Okay. Can you explain a little bit? Al-Jaff: I'm going to rely on memory here. Sacchet: That's fine. Al-Jaff: For instance 92-2, the 7 percent hard surface coverage variance. The original hard surface coverage variance was actually higher than that. Sacchet: So they're decreased. I remember some of those, yeah. Al-Jaff: Yeah, so they actually did... Sacchet: Usually we try to have a balance like if we have to give one area, we try to get in another. It has to be a balancing act, okay. Al-Jaff: 96-9 did something similar. Overall the city avoids granting variances for hard surface coverage along the lake. Typically what happens is either ... hard surface or... Sacchet: Reduce, okay. Now, what I'm trying to get at is the staff report also on page 3 states, a portion of the expansion that will require the variance is trivial. Trivial specifically meaning how much? Al-Jaff: ...that encroaches, well we figured 2 feet encroachment. Sacchet: Alright, that's what I want to know. So we're basically talking about 2 feet of that encroachment, okay. Al-Jaff: Without the eaves. Sacchet: And that's probably. Al-Jaff: With the eaves you're going with a 4 foot. Sacchet: It's going to be 4, yeah. That's going to be an interesting one for the applicant to give us a little insight why they want to go all the way out to the line because basically 33 Planning Commissionteeting— June 1,2004 • intensification is at the same line of the building would be carried forward. By what is it, 10 feet? Or even less. Al -Jaffa The overall encroachment into the required setback that it used to be let's say 100 square feet of the building encroached and now all of a sudden we're adding another. Sacchet: Okay. The staff report also talks about the roof line. That's probably more an applicant question to address that, okay. The alternatives, yeah. Yeah, I think that's probably enough questions for you Sharmeen. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to tell us your view of this. Do you want to state your name and addresses for the record. If you want to have something to hand out, that's perfectly acceptable. Greg Hastings: My name's Greg Hastings: One half of the team. Kelly Hastings: I'm Kelly Hastings, 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard. Ironically enough we are one mile away from the park and ride so I saw Sharmeen for 3 neighborhood meetings during that time and just as a side note I mean they, although I know that a lot of residents weren't necessarily excited about it, they really did address our questions and concerns and it ended up being a positive experience so I appreciate getting to know her on that level. What we have is a situation where we're long time residents of Chanhassen. Have a first and third grader. We like where we live. Don't plan to move so we're happy in our home. The one thing though, because our house was built in 1950 and I actually brought a picture and I don't know if we can take a look at that. The house was built in such a way that when you come in the front door, you're immediately in the kitchen, so you know our kids come home from school with backpacks and coats and boots and there's no place to hang anything. I mean that's our pantry there and a desk. There's no where to put anything so I use the term hardship only because it's consistent with what we have to identify, but I guess I would determine it to be a hardship for our family from that standpoint. And so what we really were hoping to do is that because the kitchen and entry that doesn't exist is set up this way, and because the placement of our home on the property and we'll look at the survey again I guess to take a look at that. That we really are pretty limited to where we can put an office. The reason we need to relocate the office is because what we're hoping to do is by moving the view I just showed you, that's the front door that you walk into and then you're right in that kitchen area. What we want to do is that front door, if it just slides over. See where those windows are, that's an office, and my husband actually works at home so we do need to have a home office for him. We just want to slide their front door over, but what that does then is eliminates his opportunity to work out of our home, and he needs to have a spot to work. So when we brought an architect over, she actually helped us then with the design and some ideas and we talked about what we were trying to accomplish. What she drew then would require us to ask for what we're requesting and that's the 7 foot side yard setback. And as I mentioned, let's see in that survey, because we are already so close here, you know extending it of course. This seems like the logical spot to place that office. And there were a number of things to consider I guess. First of all the fact that we really want the office to be on the main level. Greg gets the kids on and off the bus. 34 e Planning Commission feleting —June 1, 2004 • You know if they're outside playing, whatever it might be. From a safety standpoint we really want to have that home office on the main level, and so we're hoping from a lifestyle standpoint to have that you know be available to us. And when we talked to our architect about it, when she drew the plans, her concern was that if the, see the back of our home has kind of, yeah. It already has this kind of peak in the back so that consistent peak would be carried through with the office. But if it gets too close to the existing part of the house, she was concerned about there being a build up of ice and water type damage situation, so by sliding that over there's actually a hallway that helps with the roof line and then that office, as you mentioned, would be then consistent with the edge of the garage. So it kind of just extends straight back. The other thing that the hallway does that's really important is that that becomes then our access off the main level into the back yard, so that's how we would leave our upper level to get onto the deck or the kids to go in the back yard to play, whatever it might be. And the final thing that it does is, it acts as a place for our service door to come in from the garage out to the back yard. So those were all, I guess all the reasons why she recommended that location and it seemed logical to us to put it in that spot. We do have a couple shots here too of what that area looks like, so that's the service door I was talking about. And then right here, that's the garage. So then the hallway would come right here and the office would be right next to it. And again it would extend, and then the roof line would come up this way, and there'd be enough room here in the hallway to help with that potential drainage problem. Greg Hastings: Excuse me. One of the things that you had mentioned, I think you had said something you would have the applicant address, was the reason for bringing it to the end of the garage instead of putting that office right. Sacchet: A little bit in. Greg Hastings: Right, and you can see from the roof line, the reason the architect had designed it that way is because of, if we were to put a gable end on to kind of match the look of the home with the office, the gable end would come against the house on the side and create the ice problems, the issues and she said the only way to correct it was to, it would have been extending the roof of the garage up another 4 feet to be able to match up those roof lines and just had explained it, a tremendous amount of...hand framing and just labor and expense was another big issue that she had pointed out. And so there gives us another reason for us to try and think this might be the best option for us. Sacchet: Okay. Papke: Can I ask for a point of clarification, as long as you have that picture up there? I'm confused. Before we were talking about a 2 foot eave. Now are we looking at the east comer of the house here? It appears as if there is no overhang on the northeast side. Is that the place where we will have the setback? Greg Hastings: You'll have the setback from this corner extending back to this direction. 35 Planning Commissionfeeting— June 1,2004 • Claybaugh: So the gabled end is facing the property line? Greg Hastings: ...explain the ordinance, and you guys know it much more than I do I'm sure is that once the building does not meet the 10 foot setback, then you have to include the eaves in that so that's the request for the variance so no matter what it is, it's still going to be a little bit closer. We don't care what that overhang is. That's just, we'll do that, whatever we have to do. We don't have to have it be a 2 foot overhang. It's matching this portion of the house where that is going to match up with. This section, the house has a 2 foot overhang. The garage only has 12 or 16 inches I think it is. Something like that. I don't remember the exact number. Sacchet: So it could be less than 2 feet basically. Greg Hastings: Yeah, it can be less than 2 feet and yeah, so that is an option. But it wasn't going to make a difference he said in this request because the building already has come within the 10 feet. So he said to him, in the conversation I had with him before and afterwards were that you know we still had to do something with a variance and let's try it the way it is and see what happens. Slagle: Two quick questions, again as long as we have this photo here. Is it your intent that the deck would go behind the office? Greg Hastings: No, the deck's not going to change. It's just going to get cut off and then fill back in to where it currently is. It's not going to get extended to the end of the building. It actually may be tom down because it's getting to the point where we're, we don't use it anymore because we have a screened in porch on the other side. It's used only for drawing and we don't need any more deck space. Slagle: That brown building too I guess would be the northeast? Greg Hastings: Well that's actually orange, which is one of the people I did speak with about this. Slagle: And how is that? Greg Hastings: It's Kurt Pryor. You've probably all heard his name just because he's one of the people in the neighborhood that gets a phone call you know we call every year because of the way he keeps his property. Grass grows up this tall. We have to make some phone calls before it gets taken care of and he's perfectly fine with it. His attitude was that, you know anybody that's trying to improve their property, he's fine with it. He said you know do what you want. We said great, thank you. and. Slagle: I just have a follow-up deal on that. To staff. It looks like his building is pretty close to the property line as well. Do we have, it's not? 36 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 Greg Hastings: His is probably 15 feet from the property line. He's got a big asphalt piece that goes back to his, which we've learned is probably some of that is on our property. We have, you know because he's only about 2 feet from the comer of our house with that black top or asphalt that he has there. But he's quite a ways from the property line itself with the building itself. I don't know about the eaves and all that but from what I understand it doesn't have the. Sacchet: So his house is much closer to the lake than your's. I mean that's his house comer that we see on this. Kelly Hastings: That's the garage. Greg Hastings: It's quite a ways. I think in the report it states that we're 20 percent or less coverage of the property. But the back side of our house you don't see here is also, you know we can see the garage piece but then the house is a walkout in the back so there isn't any other spot to put a main level, and that was the part that we wanted to address. You know a conversation about there is a slight grade change going down. The whole part of the deck it changes with maybe a foot. This tight to the ground that the deck is, to the far end of the deck which is just beyond the comer of the picture there, is about this far. But then half of that is sloped down significantly to the lake and we have made some changes and some things there since we've been neighbors. Retaining walls... Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you wanted to add to your's? Kelly Hastings: Yeah, and then we just kind of elaborated I guess just after having read the plans, just that we did also notice that statement that the expansion that would require the variance is trivial. And we know that there are numerous variances. As a matter of fact we were granted a variance. We were one of those identified there and that variance was for, actually a front setback. So in the same sense that because of the position of our property, we added a third bedroom, I don't know, 6 years ago. After our daughter was born we didn't have a bedroom for her upstairs, so because our home was already so close to the front yard when we added on we were granted a variance here. So I guess in the same sense you know our garage is here, so we want to extend and hoping to get a variance for this. And then we also did notice you know like you said, there were a number of other variances that were granted and that our addition doesn't have an issue with the lake setback or the exceed the surface coverage limits. So all of those conditions were not certainly an issue. But I guess overall we were just that this is really about improving our home for our family. You know when our kids come home from school and having places to hang back packs and coats and we just feel like this is an important change for us to make and you know, it having an impact on the neighborhood, it really doesn't seem to do anything to negatively impact the neighborhood or our property. And it does angle back, so then we will be actually further away from the garage wall where it currently is so it does angle back this way. And you know we did notice the conditions that Sharmeen mentioned. If we're granted the variance is granted, there were certain conditions that, the amount of time we had to complete the building and we certainly 37 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • would be in a position to be able to comply with all of those recommendations so I guess all that being said, we were hoping to be granted the variance. Slagle: Quick question if I may. When you requested a variance, did you say in 96? Sacchet: It says '98. Slagle: Did you at that point also expand your master bedroom and the porch? Did that go to the southwest. Greg Hastings: Yep. Slagle: Okay, so it wasn't just the bedroom, it was. Greg Hastings: It was that whole end of the house actually. It went out 17 feet by 30 some feet because we only had, we had a master bedroom that was about 10 by 12 and that turned into you know. Kelly Hastings: We had 2 kids so then we ended up moving our bedroom to the back and then the kids got each have a bedroom in the front. Boy and a girl. Slagle: Sharmeen, do you know if I can ask staff, was there a side yard setback variance for that as well? Greg Hastings: No, the building's... Sacchet: It only says front yard setback in the table. AI -Jaffa It's only front. Sacchet: 7 foot. Slagle: So when you expanded that you weren't close to the neighbors to the south? Kelly Hastings: No. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: I guess I have one I'll just throw out. As long as you're coming back in with the addition, the home office portion, devoid of the hallway and adding the gable roof and tying that back into the garage structure, is there anything restricting you from setback standpoint from turning that perpendicular? 90 degrees to the way it's running now. in Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • Greg Hastings: The big aspect would be cutting out views of the lake. Quite honestly we would cut off, we would then have a tunnel coming out of our kitchen to just see you know ... cut off the angle to the north side of our kitchen so that would change our view and any future owner. Because it's 14 feet I believe and currently that is 7 '/� or 8 feet. It's 6 feet further and you can see by the one picture that we had here, currently, well you can't see that other section of the house there but there is an addition that comes off the back of that house. Well you can see on the plans I guess. On the. Claybaugh: I guess the other place I keep looking at that garage and unless the picture's terribly deceiving, with your new office addition put on per plan, how much separation do you think would be between your side wall on your office and the closest wall on his garage? Kelly Hastings: There's at least. Greg Hastings: He's at least 15, I would say, well I shouldn't say at least. I'm willing to bet that he's 15 feet from the property line. Kelly Hastings: Well I know he's had a car sitting next to the garage and you could easily fit another car so that's probably at least 2 car widths. Yeah, it's probably, it must look deceiving because it's. Greg Hastings: What you don't see in that picture is that the front of his house is tan and the sides are orange and the back above the deck are tan. That is just a side note to. Kelly Hastings: And there's like our shrubs are there and then he has a, on the other side of this is a driveway. That's a driveway in the side. Claybaugh: Okay, it's just terrible deceiving. Kelly Hastings: Yeah, it is though. It's quite a ways. I mean like I said, he had a car parked here. And there's a lot of things there still so you could easily fit maybe... Slagle: So the office would hide the view of the car. Kelly Hastings: Well the car's gone. Yeah, so. Greg Hastings: Well it would definitely improve on our view of the side of his house, there's no question about that. Because our shrubs haven't been able to get tall enough yet to hide any of that so. Slagle: Well you'll put a window on the side won't you? Greg Hastings: That's where the closet's going to be. 39 Planning Commission•eting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: I have a question too, actually more than one. So the use of the hallway is basically a traffic place? Like to get out onto the back and into the garage and the roof line but it could possibly be shifted in a little bit. I mean is there a reason why it has to be quite as long? Greg Hastings: Well because it's got a patio door. A sliding door. Sacchet: You need some space for that. Greg Hastings: And as was mentioned, things to sit on when we come in next to the service door coming in from the garage... Kelly Hastings: Kind of like a mud room type thing only... Sacchet: Right, right. When they come in through the garage. They would come in there, ahight. Alternatives. Alternatives, as staff was gracious to point out there are alternatives. Greg Hastings: Well in the conversation I had with Bob about that was that, when he said that their task is to, you know if there is an alternate way it could be done to meet the setback variances, then they recommend it not being granted. And I said, well what about all the items that we've talked about over the time and he said, those are things you'll definitely have to tell people. Tell the group about because of, he said it makes sense to him and it is logical to what we have addressed to him as the concerns and why we want to do this. The kitchen space and not taking up the office space and putting the hall back there, and the roof line issues and the ice and water issues and stuff, and he just asked to go through those things. To make sure that you guys were aware of those issues and at this point we'd like to see it be done the way it is because we really think it's a great plan for us, so that's why we haven't come to you with an option plan. Sacchet: So in other words you really don't see any viable alternative, or at least not one that would accommodate your needs to the same extent. Is that what you're saying? Greg Hastings: That's what I'm saying. It addresses what we feel we need, or what we would like to see the way the house, the back of the house looks. Sacchet: So the one area where he's able to mitigate all of this much overhang, but other than that you'd pretty much like to see it the way. Greg Hastings: We'd really like to see it this way because I think it just looks great and it gives me an office big enough... samples and one thing and I have to try and store those somewhere so my office space is kind of a deck and then a lot of storage. Samples and things that I sell. And so yeah, and... Kelly Hastings: Or to get out of the garage. !I7 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • Greg Hastings: Or the garage. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If somebody wants to address this. Add any additional aspects. Name yourself and state where you're from for the record please and we'll listen to what you have to say. Good evening Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just am curious a couple points they brought up was the fact that the neighbor's asphalt might indeed be across their property line. So I wonder if there's a survey that shows exactly you know where that asphalt comes because that could play in, not having the green space to absorb the water. I mean I have a 12 foot side yard setback in my yard and with this rain now, it is saturated. And if that water has nowhere to go except onto the asphalt and start running down, if it's a slope. You mentioned a slope. Sacchet: Especially by a lake. Debbie Lloyd: I'd be concerned that if you go for approval on this variance, that there be a condition about the drainage and how that is going to be handled. Sacchet: Good point. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Question from staff. We were talking a little bit a delicate line with something like that because it starts affecting the neighboring property. Al-Jaff: This is something that the engineering department will take a very close look at at the time of building permit. Sacchet: So engineering would look at drainage aspects when a building permit comes in. Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: And then in this case, if there would be no impervious surface that overlaps over their property and impacts the drainage, that would be a time when it could be taken care of? Al-Jaff: Typically what they do is they require the natural drainage way to, and drainage patterns to be maintained. So you can't re -direct the water onto the neighboring property. Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this? This is still an open public hearing. Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussions. 41 Planning Commission teeting —June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh: Let's see, with respect to the grades I didn't see any problems with altering the grades ... pure footings and not a continuous strip footings, so I don't believe that that will cause them any problems for maintaining the same grades. I guess I have some issues with taking it the length of the garage. I look at it from the perspective that if the existing garage was where it should be, or we'll say not necessarily where it should be but let's say that was set back 10 feet. And we were looking at approving that new office without that existing condition, would you approve it? I wouldn't. And that's kind of the platform that I look at it from. Slagle: You would? Claybaugh: I would not. Slagle: Okay. I believe that the concern that the addition for the new office perpendicular. Granted you're going to give up some sight lines, and I understand that. But there has been previous variances to the home. It's any time when we look at a variance it's a function of the occupant's needs versus the site's capabilities and part of the site's capabilities are those setbacks. And looking at that you do have an alternative in that location. Keeping the same gabled roof line. Granted coming off that hallway you'd have to go to a single atrium door. Remove the double door there to allow the closet to go up against the back of the garage but you can spin that and take it out and get it right up to the 10 foot setback. And I don't know, I believe that would actually allow you a wider office than the 8 feet. If you turned it on end so I believe that's an alternative that's right there, and it's a trade off. It's a trade off on the sight lines for the lake. On how far you want to project with that. I think that can be mitigated and off set by widening up that addition towards the property line, right up to that 10 foot setback so. I guess bottom line is I'm personally not prepared to support it. Papke: I agree with the previous commissioner and also my mind was made up when I looked at this particular drawing here and it's quite clear that the eave projects out and actually increases the incursion into the setback if you look at this drawing. Either this drawing is incorrect. There will be on the addition from the dormer. It looks like the eave of the dormer projects out beyond the current existing setback, and that's an additional incursion into the setback and I cannot support that. Sacchet: Comments Rich. Slagle: You know I've been thinking about that situation and I think the fair question to ask would be, and maybe now is not the time but it might be, given the vote. But I'm wondering if the applicant would go ahead with those eaves going into the side yard setback even further or to agree to maintain what appeared to be at least in the pictures no eaves from the side going to the gentleman that we referred to, his yard. If that was the case, and we did not increase to the side the non -conformity, I could support the request. If it does penetrate further, then I couldn't. So I don't know if we want to ask that or if we just vote on it as it is. 42 s • Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 Sacchet: We can discuss it first. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany. Tjomhom: I guess I kind of agree with Rich. I don't know if I'm real hard core against it. I think that if they were able to lessen the encroachment with the eaves, I think that maybe that would be a more meeting halfway and everyone being happy with the whole situation. Sacchet: I don't have too much extra to add. I mean in principle I support this variance with the exception of intensifying the encroachment. I think that's what we're hearing here. I mean different versions of how everybody expresses this. I mean as our responsibility to the city is that we keep this balanced. In this particular case there is not really a hardship by definition of a hardship. However that's not the only criteria we have to look at. The one balancing aspect to that aspect is there a hardship is, is it a reasonable request? And I would argue that yes, this is a reasonable request. Within the framework however and that's our responsibility as planning commission that we'd like to see a lessening of the non -conformity. Certainly not an increase. Now with the envelope, the building and the property line kind of all apart, by maintaining it, the straight line we could argue that you're not really increasing the non -conformity. You're not particularly explicitly lessening it but you're certainly not explicitly increasing it. It's longer but it's a little further back so you could say well that's somewhat of a wash. But if you have an overhang, that kind of shoots that in the back. So I don't know how far we can go with this that you don't have to come back for a variance. I mean one thing is we could say no variance and you try to have this 2 feet and make instead of the more rectangle thing, maybe more square type of office and then kind of balance it that way. I would think you'd still have plenty of room from the other roof parts so you don't get into an icing issue. The hallway might be a little shorter or depending how you shape the office, it may not necessarily even have to be shorten all that much. But I'm struggling with this trying to determine whether we want to insist on there being no encroachment whatsoever, or whether we're willing to give them some encroachment into that setback that does not further encroach. Basically that cannot go beyond, I would be prepared to give them a variance that if doesn't go beyond, including the eaves, beyond the line of the garage. Slagle: Well point of clarification. And I don't know who can answer this but if we went back to the picture that was shown earlier, it did not appear that there was an overhang on the side. Papke: The garage does not but if you look at the dormer that they're building, that does. Slagle: Okay. So I guess the question, I guess the question, getting back to your point is, is the applicant willing to maintain the same situation with no eaves to the side. 43 Planning Commissionfeeting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: Or it could be an cave with the office being set in. I mean if he wants a 2 foot eave, then the wall from the office would be 2 feet in. Papke: But if you're going to move that wall in, why not move it into the point where it does not... Claybaugh: Yeah, see if you moved it in the 2 feet, they're only projecting out 8 feet, okay. If they bring it in 2 feet you lost 16 square feet. If you take it out 2 feet after you do that, you've got 2 feet, 12 feet, you gain 24 square feet by just projecting out 2 feet. That's why I'm saying there's a very viable alternative by just shifting that space. Greg Hastings: In order, I need a variance it sounds like we needed to have the wall, it needs to be moved in 411/2 or 5 feet is the way ... within the building structure would not be within the 10 foot variance setback need. So in order for us to do that we'd just ... the office would have to shrink and the hall would have to shrink. We'd have to compromise on both things in order to accomplish what we're trying to do. To gain the space that we need. Papke: But wouldn't the closet move 3 feet. If your currently 7 feet away from the property line, you could move the wall in 3 feet. I'd be willing to compromise and saying okay if you've got a 2 foot easement, let your easement, or cave. You could let your eaves stick 2 feet. Greg Hastings: Well I'll cut the eaves down to a foot if that helps or down to nothing if we have to. ...I mean I don't know if you can do that architecturally to have the water... Claybaugh: You're not going to like your final product. That's what I'm saying, if you step in 2 feet you'd still remain your or retain your architectural balance. Okay. Your eaves can die in with your existing garage line and your gabled end. You're taking it in 2 feet to accomplish that. Now what you have is 12 feet. So if you want to re -capture the additional square footage, take it out from 8 to 10 feet and you gain square footage. That way you're not intensifying the non -conformity. Greg Hastings: ... one of the things that we were looking at is you know I mean. Papke: We're not able to design it here but if we could give an indication that as long as the wall does not encroach into the setback. You can work with your eaves and work with staff to make that happen. Sacchet: Question from staff. Did you want to say something first? Al -Jaffa I would like to explain something that the way the ordinance, our city ordinance reads. As far as an cave. Minimum setbacks. Minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. If that is the case then your, the eave on the house may encroach a distance of 2 %2 feet into that required setback maintaining a 7 1/2 foot setback. If a variance is granted, that's no longer an option. So your cave has to maintain whatever, let's assume that you said Ur! Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • okay, you have to, or we're going to allow you to maintain a 5 foot setback. The eave has to maintain that 5 foot setback as well. So I Just wanted to make that point of clarification. Claybaugh: If it's a function where it doesn't intensify the non -conformity, and like I said, in the final analysis when you look at the product without the eave, on a balanced gabled end like that, I don't think you'd be satisfied after they've seen it illustrated. But within the context that you don't intensify the non -conformity, whether you choose to take the wall back and go with zero eaves, that I can support. Any further intensification I won't support. Sacchet: Now Sharmeen, I think we have some sort of a consensus. Possible consensus I should say here that if the applicant does not go beyond the current line of the garage on the side, eave, wall, whatever, then it would not be a 7 foot side back variance would it be? Or how, about what would be the number? I mean if we would want to put that into something that then the applicant can take and all they do what they want. 3 foot eave, that's fine. It will go back 3 feet if they want a 1 foot cave. Then you have I foot to that corner of the garage. How would we define that? Al-Jaff That maintain the same setback and the foundation of the garage. Sacchet: Of the garage including the overhang eave. I mean the new, potential overhang eave. AI -Jaffa The new structure, including the cave, shall maintain the same setback as the current garage foundation line. Sacchet: Would that accommodate everybody? Tjornhom: I think so. Papke: I think there's a slight eave on the garage. A slight intrusion. Not much but. Sacchet: Just a little bit. Yeah, just a little to drop off. That makes sense. Papke: We don't want to see the roof line go out any farther than what it currently is. That's the bottom line. Sacchet: I believe we could support that, right? And then we don't express it in feet, we just explain it in the language like Sharmeen suggested. Okay. Alright, I guess we have our discussion. Would somebody like to try. Greg Hastings: Excuse me, does that require another variance? Do we have to bring it back to you? 45 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: No, that's what I'm trying to do right now so you don't have to come back. Somebody want to try to make this into a motion? Claybaugh: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends. Sacchet: No we approve in this case. Claybaugh: Approve. Oh, the Planning Commission moves approval of variance #2004- 19 to allow. Sacchet: A side yard, or side setback variance. Claybaugh: Yeah, a side yard setback not to exceed the existing foundation line running parallel to the applicable property line. I'm not sure what, there is no north arrow on this drawing. I'm not sure what property line we're talking about. Al-Jaff: That's the north. Sacchet: It's north. Greg Hastings: The property line and the house aren't parallel so I think they're... Sacchet: Specify that's the garage. Claybaugh: Against the garage. What direction? The north wall. Sacchet: North wall. North foundation wall of the garage. North wall, foundation of the garage. Claybaugh: Correct. I'll accept that Uli. Sacchet: Does that include the overhang? Do we need to say something about that? A]-Jaff: Including the eave. Claybaugh: No portion of the addition shall protrude beyond the foundation, northerly foundation line, be it building wall, eave, any combination of the above. Not to protrude beyond that line. Sacchet: And do we have those conditions here? Claybaugh: Yeah, what do we have for conditions? And conditions identified 1, 2, and 3. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? M Planning Commission Meeting—June 1, 2004 Papke: Second. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #2004-19 to allow the new structure, including the cave, to maintain the same setback as the current garage foundation line on the southeast side of the property, with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. 2. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. 3. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 47 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a six-foot (6) side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstheiropinionswithrespect to this proposal. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Email: nbouvet(ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227- 1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, May 20, 2004: No. 4183) 0 Li `i I `�_( Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. O (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. �a was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abrdefghijklmnopgrstuv mtyz 4uw_ A - &Iim� Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on Ns _day of U , 2004 Notary Public 3° GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARYFi16Uc MINNESOTA MY Commi:sian Exgim Jan. 31.2005 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: GREGORY HASTINGS Date: 04/30/2004 Time: 9:29am Receipt Number: DW / 5015 Clerk: DANIELLE VARIANCE 04-19 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------- DEVAP VARIANCE 04-19 USE & VARIANCE Total: Check 1496 Change: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! AMOUNT 250.00 250.00 250.00 0.00 *Location Map Hastings Variance 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-19 Lyman Blvd (C.R. Subject Property Lake Riley CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.w.us Lake Riley Subject Property This map is neither a legally recorded nip hor a wrvey and is not intendetl to be used! as one. This nap is a conpilabon of records, information and data located in various ah, ooumy, state and laderal offices al other sources regarding the area aldrin, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The Dry does not warrent that the Geographic Womation System (GIS) Data used to prepare gtis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, traciring or any other Iwrpose repairing enacting measuranenl of distance or drecuon or precision in dol depiction of geographic leatures. d errors or dscrebancles are frond pease contact 952-227-1107. The prece6ng dsclaimer is provided Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 W. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknovdedges that the City shall not he liaole for any carriages, and etpressly waives all Banc, and agrees to drfend, indenniy, and hold hanNess the City from any and all clairrc brought by User, its enployees or agentsor third dames which was out of the users access or use of data provided is • • Notice of PublicIng Chanhassen Planning Com�sion Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a six-foot (6) side yard variance to allow a home Proposal: office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF Planning File: 04-19 Applicant: Greg and Kelly Hastings Property 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: I A location map Is on the reverse aide of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or Comments: e-mail nbouvetOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. 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 court.. I except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclavindustrial. • 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, lease contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home Proposal: office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF Planning File: 04-19 Applicant: Greg and Kelly Hastings Property 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood • about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or Comments: e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • rvisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the WInIngs, g 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 alt 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/ndustrial. • 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 Plannino Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a six-foot (6) side yard variance to allow a home Proposal: office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF Planning File: 04-19 Applicant: Greg and Kelly Hastings Property 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or Comments: e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, 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 commerciaVindustrial, • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood 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 Plannino Staff person named on the notification. 0 Lake Riley Subject Property This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as ane. This map is a compilation of records, infOrnmon and data located in various city, county, slate and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shone, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that Me Geographic Infonebon System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and Me City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational, traolang or any other pwpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If Mors or discrepancies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding ciisdainer is provided pursuant to Mionesota Stautes §066.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of this map acknovifedges Mat Me City shall not be liable for any damages. and enpresay waves all pains, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harness Me City from any and all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mind parties which ansa out of Me users access or use of date pmvlded. Lake Riley Subject Property ulscfallner This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regaining the area shown. and is to be used for reference auMases only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infometion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this mp are error free, and Me City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring eaacling measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or decnamicies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding discerner is provided pursuant to Minnesota Starnes 406607. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable to any Manages, and expressly waives all clams, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harness the City from any and all claims brought by User, its enployees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. 0 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Email: nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 20, 2004) 94 City of Chanhassen I I T 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 aff OF (952)227.1100 MMSEN Date: May 3, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Coreg and Kelly Hastings. Planning Case: 04-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 28, 2004. The 60day review period ends June 27, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.rrL in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. 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 I Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. F A W H MSI C/1 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PC DATE#1/2004 CC DATE: 6/28/2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/2/2004 CASE#: Variance 2004-19 BY: NB A side yard setback variance for the construction of an addition. 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard, Lots 24 and 25, Shore Acres. Greg and Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density ACREAGE: Approximately 17,000 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a seven -foot (7') side yard variance to Section 20-615 of the Chanhassen City Code to allow a home office addition to a single- family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. The existing structure is 4.5 feet from the side lot line (not including eaves). The setback variance needs to include the eaves because ordinance does not allow eaves to extend into the setback if a variance is granted. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Variance 2004-19 • • June 1, 2004 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The proposed addition is located along the southeast portion of the existing structure. It has dimensions of 6 feet by 10 feet (hall) and 8 feet by 14 feet (office) of which approximately 28 square feet of the proposed addition encroaches into the required setback. The existing structure is 4.5 feet from the side lot line at its closest point, which is less than the 10 -foot setback required by ordinance. The eaves on the house extend an additional 2 feet into the setback. The request is for a 7 -foot side yard setback variance. The proposed addition is on the lake side of the structure; however, it does not encroach into the 75 -foot lake setback. The impervious surface coverage, including the proposed addition, is approximately 20%. The maximum coverage allowed for property zoned Single Family Residential is 25%. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District: (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. Variance 2004-19 • • June 1, 2004 Page 3 Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. BACKGROUND The Shore Acres subdivision was approved by the County Commission in 1951. The average lot size in this subdivision is 50' x 100'. The applicant's property includes Lots 24 and 25. On September 23, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed a front and side yard variance request (91-16) for the construction of an addition and a garage on the subject property. At that time, staff recommended denial of the variance, citing failure to find hardship. The front yard setback variance request was denied, but the side yard variance request was approved. The variance allowed the applicant to add a garage addition that extended directly from the north wall and kept the same side yard setback as the existing house, similar to the proposed addition. ANALYSIS Ordinance requires a 10 -foot side yard setback. The existing structure is located 4.5 feet from the north (side) property line. The applicant wishes to expana structure to ffe southeast, maintanngthe nonconforming setback. The expansion will result in an intensification of a nonconforming situation. Staff realizes that the nonconforming portion of the expansion that will require the variance is,trivial however in order to recommend approval of a variance, a hardship must exist. As explained in the narrative, itis necessary to have the addition in the proposed lockati—on—because with the existing roof line, this plan will reduce the chance for water/ice problems. Staff determined that alternatives exist where all required setbacks are met. Additionally, staff feels that a change in roof lines in order to meet the required setbacks would not adversely affect the property- There roperty There are numerous setback variances in this neighborhood due to the fact that the homes were built in the 1950's, before the current regulations existed. This particular lot, however, is larger than many lots in the neighborhood and does not have as many nonconforming issues. The proposed addition would not encroach into the lake setback nor would it exceed the impervious surface coverage limit. Staff believes that the applicant has reasonable use of the property and is recommending denial based on lack of hardship. Variance 2004-19 • • June 1, 2004 Page 4 Staff has reviewed properties within 500 feet and compiled the following list of variances: Me Number Property Lakeshore Variance Request Action Taken 91-16 9203 Lake Riley Yes 20 foot Variance to front and a Front Yard -Denied Blvd. 23 foot Variance to the side Side Yard -Approved yard setback 92-2 9221 Lake Riley Yes 14 foot Variance to front, 6.5 Approved Blvd. foot Variance to side yard setback, and a 7% hard surface coverage Variance 93-8 9243 Lake Riley Yes 9 foot Variance to the Approved Blvd. shoreland setback and a 7.9 foot Variance to the front yard setback 96-9 9225 Lake Riley Yes 3 and 5 foot Variance to the Approved Blvd. side yard setbacks, a 33 foot Variance to the lake shore setback, and a Variance to exceed hard surface coverage by 25% 98-6 9217 Lake Riley Yes 7 foot Variance to the front Approved Blvd. yard setback 03-7 9221 Lake Riley Yes 13,535 foot Variance to the lot Approved Blvd. size, 55 foot Variance from the minimum lot width, 38 foot Variance from the 90 foot lake shore width, a 6'8" foot Variance from the west side yard setback, a 4-5 foot east side yard setback variance, and a 18 foot Variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback 03-12 9203 Lake Riley Yes 7 foot Variance to the side Approved Blvd. yard setback Staff is recommending denial of this request based upon the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. Staff determined that alternatives exist where all required setbacks are met. 3. Failure to prove hardship. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this Variance 2004-19 • • June 1, 2004 Page 5 neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The applicant currently has reasonabl�pe of the property. This lot is 17,000 square feet, which is larger than the minimum 15,000 square feet required for property zoned RSF. Staff determined that alternatives exist where all required setbacks are met without having an adverse affect on the roof line. 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: Most properties within the same zoning district conform to the side setback ordinance. In this particular neighborhood, numerous setback variances exist due to existing nonconforming lots and structures. 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 added home office addition will potentially increase the value of the house; however, it is not the primary reason for completing the addition. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created. It is possible to complete the addition and meet the setback requirements. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance would not have a negative impact on the public welfare or the neighborhood surrounding 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 variance should not have an impact on the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nor will it have any effect on the congestion of public streets. The variance would not have any effect on the danger of fire or public safety and would not decrease property values in the area. Variance 2004-19 • • June 1, 2004 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #2004-19 to allow a 7 -foot side setback on the southeast side of the property for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. Staff determined that alternatives exist where all required setbacks are met. 3. Failure to prove hardship." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves variance #2004-19 to allow a 7 -foot side setback on the southeast side of the property, with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become void. 2. The addition must be built per plans submitted on April 28, 2004. 3. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application & Narrative. 2. Survey showing proposed addition (addition not to scale). 3. Elevations of proposed addition (not to scale). 4. Floor plans of proposed addition (not to scale). 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. VAplan\2004 planing rases\04-19 - hastings va imce\04-19 staff repoilAm C4-19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN • CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 APR 2 8 2004 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: GAA 4 -i- A/ ADDRESS: ),I% LAO, :LCy &VD, LI�R�itMSS�N, MV X5317 TELEPHONE (Day Time) 15�- 4%-3% OWNER: S ArA , ADDRESS: TELE H\ONE: o 2 ) 9� 1— 1 Z� q Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision* u, TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ❑ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. E PROJECT NAME: C, LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L U } S Z �S JhOt12 �GtteS TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: S i 0-_ c- AAh St.T 61, %el ST�ac1a L f 3 e,AWd 10 kl-b d/ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature oVApplicant Signature olffee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAplanVor s\Development Review Application -DOC April 25, 2004 Board of Adjustment and Appeal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeal, Please consider our request for a proposed addition per our plans delivered to the city office. We have lived in our 54 year old home for almost 18 years and our family is very happy in our neighborhood and we would like to stay in our home. The layout of our house is a little unusual because when you enter through the front door there is no foyer area with closets and storage, instead you are right in the kitchen. With a first and a third grader coming to and from school with backpacks, art projects, coats, etc... combined with our things, there is no space to put away any of these items or any visitor's things. We would like to build a new front entry to improve the existing front door "kitchen" entrance. However, this new entry will then take the place of Greg's existing home office/guest bedroom. Greg needs to continue working out of our home and it is important that he remains on the main level to be watching for the kids to come home from school. We are requesting a variance to build a new office for Greg behind our existing garage. This office will not be any closer to the lot line than the existing garage wall. Actually, the front comer of the existing garage is closer to the lot line than the office will be. It is necessary to have it at that location on our property because with the existing roof line,' this plan will reduce the chance for waterlice problems and major expense. Also this location would maintain a consistent look to the back exterior of the home. We do not think this will be detrimental to our neighbors as we have discussed it with some of them and they feel it would be fine. The board has already recognized the hardship that the location of our existing home on our property presents by approving the last variance we requested in 1998 — report #98-6. We hope that we will again get the opportunity to make our home better for our family. Thanks for your consideration. f d+, v""Y Greg Kelly Hastmgs 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Vnnvl nCl_LC AJJVI.IH I co, Inc. 941-3031 .9 2 /,_ C7`Q�- Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For_�j Na A tim S Book 3A Page z & he -I`�l�o►v � �•�oPo�c� _I CITY OF CNANNASSEN MEN J� JUN 2 21998 v l \moo. EN6AIEERIN6 0i. A n - Sca Ie � 0 • V o A .' l� \ '00/ N INSTALL TYPE L EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDICR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY. BE USED @N LIEU OF FENCING I hsraby d dy that�yyh••,��... trw y„�`.ion d .....y a K -5 r Jt_r County. Minnsaota and Of the I &Wh of all bmgs the on T".. X any. Irom or on aad lend Su, v.y.d Ey me the 1 L dry d—_�'� 0. _ 19 JUN 2 21998AROdEL-s�-- „� .__. ARLE 8 A SOCIATES, INC. STATE REG N0. 6508 ' mnr rVal — - F7 - v It -AV 6 m. nl I ilI Ag vr gxY S B nl { III b ul ul L — III I i III III mum .'III III III JY� 1 1r� III " In I I III p III i 5 I gg I y o i L;- isl tkl� y pg° P u PiP p�l i�ll¢6 I II I � ICY I R� 1n i I. -v . FIRST FLOM PIAN w�b�. KEY � kwrcr,.mrttx, C� RAGA�CG1G19C1KM C� C-0S11Y (LN519CfCN CONTFA M rO VERIFY 8 MATCH M5TING ROOD a.uq.Ls Is« Iroe'In�fttr pli'CN MPGM =55 V 2" 2R' miss.a 24` so/ c CON5TZZTI0N X AR R-61 MPLM 0.0VM IV`ALAitlN R-91 l • mywm� 9/8"p}9 9- 96 12 INRELR WPLMARfLM R-bl 9F�7 rotKR 4978 Mary. wmN CpiRG #q' PHpI RJw MNRN`40'0 / %�'' MALLAMJDNM1ISi MN.I"Il9/6 5/12 � �' s/Irzzwpaara rawwu e9row MR+v. MMW II ex'srwc asRwe �_ Y fLM 2V R.b1 0%L Z SflORlb b"Mtt RAAI.AtRTJ <R R-19 1x�vNu. fO f0.VG b u xi:AlMe 112. .ww R -A9 NEW OFF ICE IN a-ia war WM ARfLM R.b . f YvwaRR.VImR rot& R 22.98 ° s/b" me'•x'• rR M5TING CiA06r rwarewrtbae �ee�nraccoe I I �ae`ttiusHir�ow II s/�•• rNe slnn.eae R -'7O SATr I5LLATI R.'/ RIGIb WSIJ.M N � � 5 1l�A2PFtYNq'p $CAhMNG • wmep5(w arae au0 nSA2o.ap,Rle•'oL. I EP'ae rowe xe m&eo fosrvem n•• oea&rao nmsrrwnuc PULPING 5ECVON R:NSP R�1941 94CTN w N ri,xl ro, cre 0 0 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 May 20, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Variance to sideyard setback, Greg and Kelly Hastings- Planning Case #04-19 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. k4ren Jtf lhar Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisday of 12004. Notary Public g:tplant2004 planning casest04-19 - hastings variance\04-19 affidavit.dw ' KIM T. MEt1WISSEN NotaryPudic-Minnesota w CARVER COUNTY V My canmiss on Expires 1!31!2005 P $atm Sao-tI 955..2, B e lit 91E& oMe e »�Sm aaa"Sac z8gm^'€mN ��i o to 05 �v 5`< o mga �5 _rn•a?p�p, 're 3_ ar aa+ is I =a01 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home Proposal: office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF Planning File: 04-19 Applicant: Greg and Kelly Hastings Property 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or Comments: e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. 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 feel 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 Coun: I rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commemialAndustrial. except • 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 t project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Public HeariOlkj Notification Area M00 feet) Hastings Variance 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-19 Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18 �a zc L ParklaNa 0O N C �L. N e Sun vale Drivn �� Lake Riley a �e �e Subject Property Smooth Feed SheetsTM • • Use template for 51600 JONATHAN D & SARA E WORRE JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE BRUCE & MICHELLE L REINHART 300 SHOREVIEW CT 301 SHOREVIEW CT 294 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7608 GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN RICHARD D & FRIEDA A OLIN RONALD P LILEK & 9151 SUNNYVALE DR TRUSTEES OF TRUST MARY M BENNETT-LILEK CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8532 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9155 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8652 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8532 JOHN R & JODI A ANFINRUD DAVID G & NANCY A SOLIDAY DAVID A DUHAIME 295 SHOREVIEW CT 291 SHOREVIEW CT 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7608 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7608 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8652 PATRICK E & ANGELA D SIMMONS RICHARD D & JOANNE S SENGER ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD 300 DEERFOOT TRL 320 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 PAMELA N GUYER ROBERT M & NORA J MURRAY DIANE L SIMERSON 340 DEERFOOT TRL 360 DEERFOOT TRL 380 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 MARK J RAMSEY 8 LELAND G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN 400 DE K MCMURFOOT TRY 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD C/O LESLIE TIDSTROM 400 CHANHASSEN, TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 1 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 DALE B &DIANE KUTTER IRICHARD R & JILL M MADORE CURTIS G KRIER TRUSTEES OF TRUST 301 381 DEERFOOT TRL 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, TRL MN 55317-8604 I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 SCOTT ALAN VIARKELLY 8 STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKELY ROBERT J & LAURA B EVANS 361 DEEESA A KELLY 341 DEERFOOT TRL 331 DEERFOOT TRL 361 CHANHASSEN, TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8604 CRAIG GRANLUND DENNIS R & ANN BAKER JOY A & HILBERT F SMITH 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 PAUL KENT OLSON DEAN SCOTT JOHNSON THOMAS J & SUE A SUTER 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD 14095 FOUNTAIN AVE 11397 WELTERS WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 ST PAUL, MN 55124-5013 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-2851 //� AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM JAMES G & LAURA B HAMILTON 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 JOHN L & KATHLEEN H BRANDEL 15505 MN VALLEY BLUFF DR SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-8228 0 FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & JUDITH C POTTHOFF 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • Use template for 51600 RONALD W & ELIZABETH C YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8654 L AVERY® Address Labels Laser 51600 1 Ra 1 To: 44rj c, Date: 5 -//,o� �y From: l ' [c%- L -ice+ ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS OR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL NOTE & RETURN ❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ NOTE & FILE ❑ CALL ME ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ME ❑ ❑ REPLY & SEND ME COPY ❑ COMMENTS: Ys.,. j / do 0 Copynght 1969. 1970 --Laurel office Aids, Irw., Bm ille, NX 10708 V W Eimicke Associates, Inc., Bronxvllle, N.Y. 10708 Tel. (914) 337-1900 • Fax (914) 337-1723 Distributed in Canada solely by V.W. Einnicke Ltd., Peterborough, Ontano Tel. (705) 7434202 • Fax (705) 793-9984 PAINTED IN US, Form OA -4 MY OF Date: May 3, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department 11 By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. Planning Case: 04-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 28, 2004. The 60day review period ends June 27, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. April 25, 2004 Board of Adjustment and Appeal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeal, Please consider our request for a proposed addition per our plans delivered to the city office. We have lived in our 54 year old home for almost 18 years and our family is very happy in our neighborhood and we would like to stay in our home. The layout of our house is a little unusual because when you enter through the front door there is no foyer area with closets and storage, instead you are right in the kitchen. With a first and a third grader coming to and from school with backpacks, art projects, coats, etc... combined with our things, there is no space to put away any of these items or any visitor's things. We would like to build a new front entry to improve the existing front door "kitchen" entrance. However, this new entry will then take the place of Greg's existing home office/guest bedroom. Greg needs to continue working out of our home and it is important that he remains on the main level to be watching for the kids to come home from school. We are requesting a variance to build a new office for Greg behind our existing garage. This office will not be any closer to the lot line than the existing garage wall. Actually, the front comer of the existing garage is closer to the lot line than the office will be. It is necessary to have it at that location on our property because with the existing roof line, this plan will reduce the chance for waterfice problems and major expense. Also this location would maintain a consistent look to the back exterior of the home. We do not think this will be detrimental to our neighbors as we have discussed it with some of them and they feel it would be fine. The board has already recognized the hardship that the location of our existing home on our property presents by approving the last variance we requested in 1998 — report #98-6. We hope that we will again get the opportunity to make our home better for our family. Thanks for your consideration. Greg Kelly Hastmgs 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 APR 2 8 2004 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: �/�� d A/ ADDRESS: ChmAp. fNj Mti �5317 TELEPHONE (Day Time) 4%- 3%1 OWNER: 7 '}r'4. ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development` Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' U� TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ❑ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 PROJECT NAME: E LOCATION: Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Co TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: YES NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: i 0 t L -z t6t 5 -CT b1l}oc VI n; ANe e 7 %ee 51"n Acr"-t + 3 Fce-r 6AL,o -to kut) This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature oVApplicant n"', �"v V Signature o ee Owner I Application Received on Fee Paid 9 - :kg -oaf Date Date Receipt No The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:\planVorms\Development Review Application.DOC �nnur nCLLF a HJJVVIHI CJ, Inc. 941-3031 M;2,t % Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For_ Nn �`t; n�a Book 3-41 Page 2 ,�t File V ��bw — Pm posm m;:c, BY: DATE: 2j \jjjj �Al t CITY Of CHANHASSEN MROM JUN 2 21999 EUMEERING '*/ f L o -f INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDIOR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY. BALES MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING Sca Iz; C-30' R 4 __ I h., by �ly tM th.. aw„¢q rapeaa":¢on d a surv¢y ¢I Oy bw¢e.n¢s w L U I SIAOR� �1 �✓ S Cy ver Cany.Mn,n¢¢aaaMoltna 'O' of a,i 9 any, Uomp ...d land. Sur«sy¢0 OY me ih¢ 1 ( e¢y d__Z-1 _ , 19 JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE & A SOCI TES, INC. STATE REG NO. 6508 inn Ur nC�LC cc t-koou iA I co, inc. 941-3031 e - I Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344 --- Survey For_�,� F/ �-t;hTS Book 3.11 Page 2& File w4k6,, �.oPo�cL1 CITY OF CHANNAWN WON@ JUN 2 21998 EN6NlEERNiN INNO sc0.14; I 11 '30 , APPROVED B L., DEP DAT BY: -t> DEPT: E: DATE: �Jg BY: DEP rj DAT : _Z N I INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDIOR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY. BALES MAY. BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING Lot I NI,,sby May IN 1N... vw and Carts r.prasa �ai7 a, a It* E msfiss.1L rJ f i 2 � a n _2s S� OR E A R E 5 r .Ir r!ca,my. Mmna.aa aM a its bcaron a all E�ikings tM,eon all n1.. a.ny, Iroma on .a0l.nd. S�rweye0 by m. Ifta , It] I M .9__M N _ .19 JUN 2 21998 'AR DARELLE 8 A SOCI TES, INC. STATE REG NO. 6508 m •[ �� 4MRTt✓(dH9CNM o ey :j FOMA11ON OY r � rrxcrnemcrai o ewsn�raamcra, I� ® Cp5m1: MCARIfG.AR' Y1W1 ® KWNASAYICOMnRCnGN I� .W2-2 RiB1AANWM I .M.� RSO AM RiRM[OM1YMYOfTR MNRT eWIW AYARPJI.IG PIONIPI MYII EYJ%W LMXAVATEP -------------- 6� [K�Wllb rrWwrw I gRR�Mwo.e« I I I I L J - I r 6A5EMENT PIAN l III a nl 9 i CI III III III III III I , 0 iF I I � � I w.eM` I NfIM RB M1'vM »GKX'MRO YMN M r O IBX tl i nen�an g �wc.wm Wmxu w 5 r 6A5EMENT PIAN gyp. ey � rrwccw7aera+ cc R:AYM�CGNNRCfLN FOLWAf ON OY I � icwrariacnou I I I EwSnNG i c� amamcwnacncw � SCREEN PORcn v O PK,fY(Q6Rg121 I I b EXISTING I ° ® wHrummrxrca�smlmai mouoa.nno.n ma �' I 1 — —I= — — — — — — — — — — ® uwxxaararrnRem+ wLmmawna I l I p LINNGr00M vmwrowcc Mill gYn p wmww EMA5MR b ww sew \ I kA WW 07M LVPW OFE E5fNG �°mmden FKL 4 VW4 ROOM PN u�e �0 I uecai.'mwem wIk / I � aaic• uou�wf I a..» � I I NEW PfOBN / I / E%1511NG ' 9 MOnEmope=,MPWOM 2 — — — — — — — — — — ��MN n'xire• Ew5@JG Ew511N4 EwinNG yr N�y z OEW.00M3 WG �� rwn 'x.oa 6�7YLR I o I v �grce I arum rnvr• r a do 9tlp v..a nasmc..eoay. n'•ree•� m I I v'e•� r• • 4 � 'vow nY � vnmrew>meec_ — e n q laeec¢e Y —� L=— — — — — —— J rmiesi.;.u� - — — 21"xYM'xQ'M L----------------�w�- �� ertwmertMw .mm se xe rvwe�mmk> a, z• le• e.'ivr�mimn ' FIK5f FLOOR PIAN ev.e V,•.' w'ewn,n roc amu oweae nww.uea CONTX<rm ro veRVY a MArCN Ew5TING 00a Is• marR�c Far PITCH WOlM TaI55 I/z' ar mR,lc CON5fRETION 112x5.11^ o/c CILRRIOR AR FLM R-bl aLMM Rd91MILN R-M . P0.YVA°LR FI!l.CR 11 FOAID IM2RIGRMFLM R-61 sF7 TOfIL R 15.98 KRPY R Maw IpSRY /AT F1RI1 '� CAl KM5A54A'0 / i� � MA1.11WTI F/FFI26i AY1. l"IH/6 � 5/12 ' )/I45CGM.'1F ORN Kwwu. ceYtRc ` � 1 KRYR 9/Ilw � eabrt.easwab } M !%rR90RAR PLM R-.f9 125// W" zunnul R-%as �'�� 265(iDSslb"O/L b"FMTINSILh11RJ LR-5Bi) R-19 1a,YWi'm II FMYWMFH " II 1X6 /NRWOR OPP�Ci RliltR R-19 M? NR FLM R-b9 . IIW P YVNGRP.MAFR rOfN.R 11,98 a U 1/0, . W. FR. M5TiNG6ARA!& � M rorairw'naR ieencanFncax roceKM WHx I rw Lr eR9Fuua II �/," rLo iFnLee R-Bp IMAJ R-9 WVVINALAI5LLAT �sary F.crx Kion 11EAiE7 R.V✓.GW %EAMNG WMCp5lNGBM2 1tl014J.RG JpN3 • b" OG. LRpZ[ KW61I614ARG FOX MIM n^ oar Wino FRnrFcon�e PULPING 5ECTION XILC: i/C'.P • Wy4 1,8-01 RIN�R).LYQ 1 0 crrroe ceUsEN Date: May 3, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department r� u By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. Planning Case: 04-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 28, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 27, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. April 25, 2004 Board of Adjustment and Appeal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeal, Please consider our request for a proposed addition per our plans delivered to the city office. We have lived in our 54 year old home for almost 18 years and our family is very happy in our neighborhood and we would like to stay in our home. The layout of our house is a little unusual because when you enter through the front door there is no foyer area with closets and storage, instead you are right in the kitchen. With a first and a third grader coming to and from school with backpacks, art projects, coats, etc... combined with our things, there is no space to put away any of these items or any visitor's things. We would like to build a new front entry to improve the existing front door "kitchen" entrance. However, this new entry will then take the place of Greg's existing home office/guest bedroom. Greg needs to continue working out of our home and it is important that he remains on the main level to be watching for the kids to come home from school. We are requesting a variance to build a new office for Greg behind our existing garage. This office will not be any closer to the lot line than the existing garage wall. Actually, the front comer of the existing garage is closer to the lot line than the office will be. It is necessary to have it at that location on our property because with the existing roof line, this plan will reduce the chance for water/ice problems and major expense. Also this location would maintain a consistent look to the back exterior of the home. We do not think this will be detrimental to our neighbors as we have discussed it with some of them and they feel it would be fine. The board has already recognized the hardship that the location of our existing home on our property presents by approving the last variance we requested in 1998 — report #98-6. We hope that we will again get the opportunity to make our home better for our family. Thanks for your consideration. �J Greg Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 • • °`4- 1 9 CITY OFCHANHASSEN CITYCFCRECEIVED SEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 APR 2 8 2004 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: AR, ADDRESS: q),D L tt C nku 66fAJI M ti TELEPHONE (Day Time) 15 - 4%- 3%1 OWNER: 5'{t*"' , ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: �w�2 ) �►�'�— IZ�9 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mailing Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' Ola— TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ❑ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. *"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L0tS )-� j 0)\S 14r6fte,s TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: STnlcr"-c f 3Fte7eAc&l -YD ghJLb SOD �iU�✓ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the parry whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that N development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature �Applican Signature olffee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAplan\forms\Development Review Appiicatfon.DOC �nn�r nCLLC a, HJoIJI.IH I Co, Inc. 941-3031 dg;2,t-,- 041-t- Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344 em Survey For_�j r Nn �`t; y� s Book 3AI Page ?& File T t'1 `P.V��w �noPos� CITY 11 111111121 G36(EN@ JUN 2 2 1998 ER MEERN e "/ f 9®�a oil PROVED L:•7 3 4S: I 4E: `J� i rjE: Z i Sca fie; C- 30' Z'0 I 4? 4 _ J ! �v INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND OR �v CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER \ nC CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY v BE USED Sad LIEU OF FENCING l hereby oaney ttrt tM.: a tti. ane wr,.d ,e ..-ai �un d a'w y d the bovr "es d - L O / i 5 7 4 a n j_S 5 S N OR E A C RFS C� County. M,nnesda aM of the b aeon d all b..W.N.'her ell �L1t.. n any. 11 m w on said lana. Sir,wey.0 by m. theaq' 1 ( of C� — — — _1- / , 19 JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE 8 A SOCI TES, INC. STATE REG NO.6508 � 1 i Z'0 I 4? 4 _ J ! �v INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND OR �v CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER \ nC CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY v BE USED Sad LIEU OF FENCING l hereby oaney ttrt tM.: a tti. ane wr,.d ,e ..-ai �un d a'w y d the bovr "es d - L O / i 5 7 4 a n j_S 5 S N OR E A C RFS C� County. M,nnesda aM of the b aeon d all b..W.N.'her ell �L1t.. n any. 11 m w on said lana. Sir,wey.0 by m. theaq' 1 ( of C� — — — _1- / , 19 JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE 8 A SOCI TES, INC. STATE REG NO.6508 vnnu/ nCLLC a AJJVI�IH I co, Inc. 941-3031 0,2,17 0�al-x Land Surveyors � Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (Urtifira tic Of §buriIlel - Survey For_ N �'t;Ho 5 Book 3-11 Page 2 & File" _I` 0l uj P-.)fo3c11 _I , .moo. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MUM JUN 2 2 1999 ERHIEERING Sake; I"•30' r f i®d 6� APPROVED BY: -Z> DEPT: DATE: IR 4 ._ INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDIOR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY. BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING I Mreby c.n1h•l�ln�..y�.ln,.,ne/�w//as/,w.r«.,iond. wn.ydll+ew.e....d L U�5 2Q Glff� �� i-Y � Q E /� l� lC L � i' .fir r cwn�y. u,nr,asa. ana a in. n�.mn w an dnlEiny: ln.l.w1 m� OMAN,. A eny, Iran a m aro entl Su,.,ny "Ih. / �dw plC _ _ _ _ , 19 _ JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE & A SOCI TES, INC. STATE REG NO. 6508 WOEN pw '��iy�'aI�D: _ i/B1 a�{y�a ��s►,9 .)�alhi �^aI ��1 ��:- s/ryj•- �:�;�p% �� .�• <pc. � gip.. �p * . 9 i gy ww, 6 o epsrer.cwnarra I I I 1 F a i FOS A11ON KEY r I _ ww , � I o euznr�cpsrceav I ® emxorcw,vaclwsmcxv � � i ® rrxw.�exrawlazra, e I I� I IL miK.io°xm rox r � � � fol _ J RIICENWC�fp bTMfMLC9 R�.OMR e jai rlWf NpwUt `L�1_—_ [WSIW nusrrwmn "I m51NG MXCAVASP +f mf -__ _ __ ___--_FF: wwsumi Uf/b'At101MA4 WNT _____J�k�ac3s�s�==®sa®avaaamL 1 III a III III i III III III III N14N Yn m I 6 I I I F a i a g o.wM` I FNIM 28 miK.io°xm rox r � � � fol _ J RIICENWC�fp bTMfMLC9 N �lCI[ILlftl rmuf jai I gb'"'a"N„ I I = aaw�rmm I IM I I I � i eeocama L _J D/�LIVI{�IVI �LrvV f.� abd xMaof MI M.GYVA i., t..e. is zs' Tr,y.• KEY � rr�vraerecraF c� BFalmraFanCrtry FOMMON KEY I I I I I I I EwSfiNG I e� eto'xorue�ee+ai � XREEN PORGN v o cumerasnecna+ I I 4 i m ®erase nK'GM'fPMRCeW t.n.....oawa., EwSfING - i I n• rtumn Y"9 p LIIVN rOOM rove roaese I / F 191/T' yp b I F .aMc FEW , �w.xio•fe+ I MM`ER IiEfJROOM QN i "I no74 IOFpKE 1@ k wW I 'R E05%a \ i rxnr• FP , C FWD cmerew DINING ROOM \ I // /� a xo 1 I1O'�'x•,e' � o tv'^rt I cv¢oaevte ax4wn ggm NEWKfOEN MOGELE IfEDROOM n — — — — — — — — — — — —5 r "R DAfN \v EwSfiFY Ew NG EXE OEDPA7M D I cam' I % I „ 5° e II 4 w,wxtavuawaavc«'•x..•, I I ry V � I r . p41 (a.ecrtt — rwewwv rermc�rsr. — romcnrrw. z•� ezr� en� �n L ----------------J rse xe vws,mrw� '24' e9' le' . i/e•vnxun FIRST FIOOR PIAN wwvn.r e�vr amar wr.ar rw ro.wn a.� 0 nl I mill >u n I l J 1 i i C�_JI IL II II II H II 'I u u I I u II I \ IL ---------------- L _1 r� 4--- \\\ I -___ --- ____ I C3CJ \ I I I tuu uuG� CONTrxraz TO VERIFY B MATCH EM%NG ROOF yf s 156 RGI�G N2 rc.r PITON WOM TM55 9G a 2411 O/C a21" CON5MOION O MOM ARfLM R -b IN5IAMAJ R -M myv S/R G0.YVMLValp . 12 INR9LR AEG GLM R-bl 6� fO1N.R 15,8 KRrYG NAfw CpHN CT Rf01 _� N91.MVN5/T16�NN.1"NAME ATT KNRMRLO'0 �i� 5/12 i f/1]PN IAT OrTR i �' rEw wu eerow ` � 1 KAV � xARN I I � ewHwb oKRwe _ c � RCMO.L CWH. CXT"ARGILM R..Il SOA G R -b2 25/n"BLAMNe R -2.m 11 nx Our MH1w 2Y6511D5a1b"O/C IN0 R-19 N X 2ia%L6,aWe tt FMY OOIX R -.n NMOFCEt/2" T I 2 G-IRpMR W2RLRARGLM R. ha A %YvNGcwlemt rorA.R 22.98 m b/b',.rt ^w'rR. EXISTING GAPAa II II rc�a Kwmo 5enmxrorrxrwe tOR KKL MM rwaeRHWbnxe II b/�" tLb SprtLge R-109A1T IN5LLAIVN R-7 fdGID INSILAfION K,Grvdcncwarr 1REATV MYJAOOJ 5tANNG MMGpMY O'Mt 3Y014ARR.ILiM 616"OL, ucaR .wb%a M1.20 IOXN11X tt„ LSGl GLrRO flR19rfWGNG PUILPING 5�CTION WMW, Vi 9GH%GY% 0./w NJ. NSN City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 UM OF (952)227-1100 Date: May 3, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern e� rfVtAJ i 51- By: % Subject: Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. Planning Case: 04-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 28, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 27, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1 2004 at 7:00.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving yo You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your coopers on an assistance is grey y appreciated. 1. City Departments 8. Telephone Company a. City Engineer (Qwest or United) b. City Attorney c. City Park Director 9. Electric Company d. Fire Marshal (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator 10. Medicom g. Forester 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 2. Watershed District Engineer 12. Carver County 3. Soil Conservation Service a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 13. Other - 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14. 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 ff OF (952)227-1100 CNMSEN Date: May 3, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Subject: Request for a six-foot (6') side yard variance to allow a home office addition to a single-family home on a 17,000 square foot lot, zoned RSF, located at 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Greg and Kelly Hastings. Planning Case: 04-19 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 28, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 27, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. 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 f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. 0 0 April 25, 2004 Board of Adjustment and Appeal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeal, Please consider our request for a proposed addition per our plans delivered to the city office. We have lived in our 54 year old home for almost 18 years and our family is very happy in our neighborhood and we would like to stay in our home. The layout of our house is a little unusual because when you enter through the front door there is no foyer area with closets and storage, instead you are right in the kitchen. With a first and a third grader coming to and from school with backpacks, art projects, coats, etc... combined with our things, there is no space to put away any of these items or any visitor's things. We would like to build a new front entry to improve the existing front door "kitchen" entrance. However, this new entry will then take the place of Greg's existing home office/guest bedroom. Greg needs to continue working out of our home and it is important that he remains on the main level to be watching for the kids to come home from school. We are requesting a variance to build a new office for Greg behind our existing garage. This office will not be any closer to the lot line than the existing garage wall. Actually, the front corner of the existing garage is closer to the lot line than the office will be. It is necessary to have it at that location on our property because with the existing roof line, this plan will reduce the chance for water/ice problems and major expense. Also this location would maintain a consistent look to the back exterior of the home. We do not think this will be detrimental to our neighbors as we have discussed it with some of them and they feel it would be fine. The board has already recognized the hardship that the location of our existing home on our property presents by approving the last variance we requested in 1998 — report #98-6. We hope that we will again get the opportunity to make our home better for our family. Thanks for your consideration. Greg Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: A1'D LAKt' leh /JCVD, C6tihasS?raj MA) 55317 TELEPHONE (Day Time) 3%1 011 k .1�7 ADDRESS: R. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TELEPHONE: w 12 9 g- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' uo TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ❑ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/x" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: �j Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOS TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: %el 5T1tiLTu^t e` 3Ate--reAwi 10 kl-b ��>7, �U�✓ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. /L Signature oVApplicant s n, � Y Signature o ee Owner I Application Received on Fee Paid y - �1S-0 Date I_ Date Receipt No The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:\planVorms0evelopment Review Application.DOC �nvr nEZLL_C: Ol NJJVIJIN I tJ, Ir1C. 941-3031 w-kt7 � Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 55344 A$url)q Survey For r',, NL s -t; Ll9 S Book 3,41 Page 2 S Eile CITY OF CHANHASSEN JUN 2 2 1998 MMEERN . ?W06fa ' 2 PPROVED L: -7 3 48: I 4E: f qB: SE: Z I za-t Scale; 11130 24 _ �v INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDJOR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER \ C CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY. BALES MAY, V BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING I hsrsby carlgy tNl th:: SD �L A C RE 5 r V! r C--ty. Minnesota and of ma lacnon of all bdldinga IMresn all ��Is, N any. loom or on said lana. S.,w,s Oy m Ins 1 I t- e9' d_�'% l ME= JUN 2 21998 4RELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. STATE REG NO. 6508 �nunnr-LLC: d /-koouL IH I co, inc. Land Surveyors 941-3031 ��1"f Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For_ Nn r't;na s Book 3,41 Page ?8 File & k U �J pm) A tv APPROVED B Ly DEP DAT . a3 $ BY:7) DEPT: E DATE: 9� BY: 1 DEP : > DAT : Z i CITY OF CNANNAS5Et1 JUN 2 2199 EN6INEER{II� BE�i. Scale; 1"-30' "0/ 124 ..-- INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND'OR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT, IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY. V BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING in .by �ry 2.IN. ..,n,.,:w o«�.a �epew-.ionde.n�.�dx»m„ne.nK d - L 0t 5 2<1 6nsi S yr�'r(iS oQ R E A R S r Vertt cwnq.mmne.a.) m:n.A ..n Ball Wikirgs tMr y� Rim nl.. d any. I,om w on .sE lend. Swre.•syW by me Ihs 4 (Y def d-------,/! JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE& A SOCIATES, INC STATE REG NO.6508 l01 M SMM ,L h A 1 �• w 00 ` CITY OF CNANNAS5Et1 JUN 2 2199 EN6INEER{II� BE�i. Scale; 1"-30' "0/ 124 ..-- INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND'OR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT, IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY. V BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING in .by �ry 2.IN. ..,n,.,:w o«�.a �epew-.ionde.n�.�dx»m„ne.nK d - L 0t 5 2<1 6nsi S yr�'r(iS oQ R E A R S r Vertt cwnq.mmne.a.) m:n.A ..n Ball Wikirgs tMr y� Rim nl.. d any. I,om w on .sE lend. Swre.•syW by me Ihs 4 (Y def d-------,/! JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE& A SOCIATES, INC STATE REG NO.6508 l01 M SMM I Effis 11,11111 mill III llhiuimmillllllfi!'IIIII IIII ' I .. 9 f,_, f^'� q �.., iN� air_. q Nom• .. . Ir -e„ KEY � awraslpettM e� 2Momrcwmc+ex o amecccwrecleN r� i0WDA11ON KEY �r �'swcarsmettN I C� RtMO.TO fQd51RY1Yll tl ® KGI�i MASGM WHSMCNN ni 1' T KW Y]rl M1IW OUNpM ni I _ RPLtlCM1Qp.iM' p l7J MIT I R11P.� KY/,r101nLti 1 rIPnICMN' PIDbYAIWN. EY NG LWWAVnreo •C 2 KW Mi],.W lM1CMMMO WXW PsvObIW � �,I " a , pP.pP�rp \tIINfIW PpW MMKW POW DA-ceWN7 PIAN M,Po ibe, pO1WP ni �n ni i [ tlW R �.pV r O roPe.eaW,p PsvObIW � �,I " a , pP.pP�rp \tIINfIW PpW MMKW POW DA-ceWN7 PIAN M,Po ibe, N. q.�•i IR. n. .�. �.. KEY � fmc¢wm Cm CMOISDGM51RCttM _ _ FOMMON KEY I � rew'cnhmcaN co mRrnw/acmcrcx I xrgeNwcvcH I 0 OOPWi V.TYAethT' � � s �k 1 m EwSiING I ® LASRY..N4taa1'fQ151ACHp1 e•axeowfexvn MO: N 1 — — — — — — — ®NYI RAtlN!/WLIRCII4N a — —I" — — — — 1 1 �.,.�� I I EwSfIf.G / I �' rewert+e ,•,,•LNING�200M / oomroPw ems— 4 /_WW / ewsnNu io> \ I / QED ] I NEW jO / I MM` Ey XVWGM I VO INC / xw ^q R° Q FULL PINING ROOM aA«n.y�.b•. IpeP+e S I \vL____-_-__ I Ai ]+ f•EW KIiLFEN � mwsnm �[ f° I`r I // P, Ew506 I I dd MOLELEP BEPRCOM2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — . > 3 � QMH 1O'•°e OYMNG ew9nNG I EwsnNG v] N r eCmmm D me G.RAGE .wax.a 6�hCR I I Fir tv L—>—.__-----------JR,"M]1"Mtt'M------------�MbMbtl ON.DAPR ws wmfras cv J .g R1' fR' IB' a, i/.•na.re•e • FIR5f FLOOR FLAN urr.wa.n. e,no. aaa •tif Pf II.YIM. AM 0 r, — — — — — — — o � I � r- 1 IL d 11 II 4 H II II II I I n II II u II I LL_ \ _____ L---------------- L _ --------------- I I r � � I \ � I � I I I �uu�ur., CONMACTM ro VERIFY a MA'CN EXISTING ROOF as es 1a. R]TIWMf FI'fCDE t1 Fo m T0155 1ra�sa 24' 0/ C CON5TZ0ION e%RBLRARPLM R -b WBI.AMM R -M • ray ILLY VNL)P a/aeeR / M. R -be 12 l INRRIOR AR PLMFLM R -hl s� TOVLR 15.98 KITva RMW CYY.,ING P(xN mOl IC1T K.WSAS R9'0 � � IMLM'4N CMM1RSi MNI"/N' ke i enRawamro- rswwu. �ewro � � 1 VaR'Ya Mn1O1 � � — — CpfreY.oRRvrY � � N.e%1ERORNePLM ��17 b2�`A OL ru arewsb"aARe�CiLAflON .116 (RR?bw) R-19Rx1wM w Pq,YVNQPaBeOeR mR%eR.." INALMl R-IRM9GRNRPLM R-bBP0.YVNo%0.'HRR98 =OFFICE Val M "%. PR EXI5nNG algAGEw xR aeme9aASPeRvvrmurLooRc RR-1 a.rLoceR-e'O BAtt I5U MOON R-9 RIGIp IN�1AngJ �RiNEO R,$fEAMNG+u oBx oawlsvie"oc. uc)zR rbwexe mArz9 roerwm n^ uernwe9 �msrrtrner: PUI PING 5�010N ril.n a.a•'.,• W: xaao • 9R1rNQ% RHJ N9.CMQ Print PID# 257950120 Page 1 of 1 Lev; ...I Fames mturmaaon kroperty Address:r Intormaaan: anal ren to Fl [arimurs US rosna.rs 17 LAKE RILEY BLVD rIANH&SSEN,MN REGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS 17 LAKE Ra.EY BLVD ANHASSIN , MN 55317 W iag4aars arcel Properties cs,a Cwnry ROWS Acres: 0.33 Residential Year Built: 1950 tatas eslead: Y r Residential Square Footage: 1964 vrrteis Distrid: 0112 sada( PIab3N3 arca( Location Section: 21 t: 027 Township: 116 lock: Range: 023 Intuame: SHORE ACRES ayable Year 2005 kast Sale Information I Last Sale NOT ON FILE Market Value Land: $31111110 L Market Value Building: $227100 Map Created: 6-1-2004 1 Est. Market Value Total: $538100 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carve County is not responsible for any inaccuracies cuaaincd herein. http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_internet_recap/printdatamap.asp?PID=257950120 6/1/2004 vnnunnC ��.� a FiJJ VI.IH I CJ, Inc. 941-3031 Land Surveyors 7 c-Atcat.1- �', Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (ter of ira tic Of §burVeR Survey For , & Nn 1�5 Book 3,41 Paged File en CITY Of CHANNASSEN G36( EN@ JUN 2 21998 ERMEERIN 01. 9®6a�o VED_ 4P I Z i /-,o -t 24 -. INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ANDIOR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO -EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY, BALES MAY. BE USED IN LIEU OF FENCING I ne,.nSr c.nay mn misisa itis andAcane „,rase,'.hon w...N.y d In. eounda,»a dot a n� 7 " 0 Ve r ff Cwmy. Minneswa and d.., me m .Ion d all EudEbgs tMreon ali :. any, m oor m sad lana. Sul."Oy rrr In< 1 (r dry d JUN 2 21998 ARDARELLE & A SOCIATES, INC STATE REG NO. 6508 �IUi3C[i e-�6dIL AIL F; '' .. bi 11..may FIR5'f FLOOR PLAN rvww*lu, writes, MH. r�.wsra Irovr �eursaearo 9/12 K4vR I.VRell � R%2RLR M.IE.M R-61 EIOMJ IN`LLMILN R -M • P0.VVMq!C/FAiR � %/B" G1P. R-96 R rw INIR9GR N!RLM R -hl i TX R ".75 rvww*lu, writes, MH. r�.wsra Irovr �eursaearo 9/12 K4vR I.VRell � � ' �— — wY�lM'OvtgVNG � � RPIKNLCYbf. R a4aWi: R -A2 R-a,ea ) p b R-19 R-19 m PZw OFFICE z -be tl MIS m II II raarm'M1oq; row �VM1 �M rcrweRsruvM1ca 5/ 1" !YG 9MLLCQ i�r�nr�nrn N"N6 %6 tRMeR RP3l R.lfl tt' Re1M1I1CG 11C5lINIYY R-90 BATTINSLLAIION EX1571N6 QNZAa I3ULPING 5�CTION XILd,.B"-I' CONTPACrOR fO VERIFY & MAf01 EXI511N6 ROOF FIiCN KPOW 71x155 CONS RU1C11ON a . Vae 4Cf%p% rua 1Y1.Ue0 rer I I I ITY mamma o 1� FOMMON KEY �r o emrtrvcaxreerou I� ® eaHrc nunrxrrauHecial ® KwxnamrwaecrcN e I� r r 1!W ]-]MI M1IMAIMgM I III i In III III mloeea�me�n I rmxraol� uawerwxwwM � i �m��rax.a I r�lem I ievm�vW�aveam K.• kVG.tlAIW.. ew5nnla "XA W •�� mamma __tit/ nl III i In III III mloeea�me�n III e�� III �m��rax.a .�uni � III K.• ' 9 I rew]<va� nma.ux — _ryie_ley__—____ itoes v.�c.G am.l aro•rror rzrewxnauW. I I I S ---------- � r � a-wu rwe.rn � _ roasnmie jig e. I Wry I I mamv�e I I I I� I � I maeos�ww 1 � II ------J f6 r-■ DASEMENf I'I,AN