The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-24_MARK AMBROSEN & ANN SENN VARIANCE REQUESTb2) CITY OF CBANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration NM: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park It Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Pads Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ckhanhassen.mn.us September 25, 2009 Mark Ambrosen & Ann Senn 3830 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Ambrosen-Senn Variance Planning Case #08-24 As -Built Survey/Escrow Dear Mr. Ambrosen & Ms. Senn: This letter is to inform you that staff has reviewed the as -built survey for 3830 Maple Shores Drive. The site is in compliance with the 25% Hard Surface Coverage requirement in the Residential Single Family (RSF) District, as outlined in the conditions of Planning Case #08-24 variance request. The escrow funds have been released and a check in the amount of $4,000.00 is enclosed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 or akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, A� Angie Kairies Planner I Enc. ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director cc: Building Permit File gAplanx2008 planning ceses\08-24 a bro en-senn vanancex08-24 escrow release letterAm Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow •CANNED NH CITY CHAASSEN 7MARKET NH P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1140 Pay FOUR THOUSAND AND XX / 100 To the order of Mark Ambrosen M&I MARSHALL 5 91L�SLEY BANK 142902 Date Amount 9/25/2009 $4,000.00 lie L4 29020 1:09 L00 L L571: 00446u-Lv?0751i' Check Date: 9/25/2009 Check Amount: $4,000.00 Vendor No: ambrmark Vendor Name: Mark Ambrosen Vendor Acct No: Invoice Number Date Description GL Account 092109 9/21/2009 Security Escrow: 3830 Maple Shores Dr. 815-8221-2024 Amount 4,000.00 a - -,a - 1r RECEIPT 0 CITYOF TM MARKET BLVD. • P.O. BOX 147 CIMMSEN PHONE: (9 2) 227-110055317 7 No- 79382 RECEIVED OF �mbrQ&-e4-) DATE—Il1IVB� DESCRIPTION PERMAIC. AMOUNT FUND SOURCE ORJ. PROG. (/ O3A bale shm,4or " sub e v o v TOT AMOUNT CHECK CASH ❑ l �� I) `DEPUTY TREASURER 1' 1 C , 000) SCANNED Jul 2 1 M2"PI r 2000 M T W T F M T W T F ST F S1 2 3 S 512--3 4 5 6 7 8 0 3 8 9 10 11 12 7 6 99 10 11 12 13 14 15 15. 14 15 16 17 18 19 to 15 1616 17 18 19 20212220 21 22 23 2425 26 2f 22 2323 N 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30.31 --- 28 29 M30 31 _ _... .... _... ...._.... Securities iStart DW _ S _ . _ P Category Description 9/11/10 9111/10 Ambrosen/Senn Variance Escrow Agreement for removal of impervious surface 3830 Maple Shores Drive Planning Case 08-24 Receipt No. 79382 11/14/08 $4,000 Notify Angie Kairies 6/I/09 - 60-day extension requested by applicant and approved by City Council on 5/26/09. Check status 7/30109. Kim 7130/09 - Notified Angie Kairies. Kim 8/13/09 - Notified Angie Kairies. Kim 8/13109 - Per Angie: They are supposed to submit their ashuilt survey tomorrow. They have not requested an extension. I am expecting it then. I will follow up on Monday (8-17-091 if we have not received it. 9/2109 - Per Angie, administrative extension granted to 9/11109 due to weather. Check status 9/11/09. Kim 9/17/09 - Per Angie, new surveys received today. Okay to release escrow. Kim 9/181D9 - Requested $4,000 check from Finance to return with letter. Kim 9/25/09 - Mailled letter and escrow check to Ambrosen/Senn. Activity Closed. Kim O3 Ldunevehq,ns,cG .250W 1205M S-Sft.P-Pm* Pagel � fl ' .'t: �r— MAPLE SHORES !Z) to DRIVE o 91 Y , 5 o 5af � 16 . Concrete 3� J � N 839 g 33„ 2150 sq. W d a j03 slog op Steps GARAGE \ Floor Elev.=986.5 25 _ o M Ent. Elev.=987.8 EXISTING HOUSE 13830 Wolkw! Elev.�978.0 od"', te! Hot ;;�%/�/�� /I `a�fi9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE �� AA gna" i G� r � Para �y SITE ADDRESS. / 100. kS�! 3830 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55331-9602 E� EXISTING HARDCOVER sj House & Attached Garage 3,620 Sq.Ft. Shed (lakeside) 127 Sq.Ft. 0 Driveway 2,150 Sq.Ft. o�< l Stoop & Walks 132 Sq.Ft. G�a� (flagstone/patio stone) kk? Patios: 9 (at front entry) 190 Sq.Ft. \ �� (rear patio) 476 Sq.Ft. (rear patio under deck) 532 Sq.Ft. (patio near lake) 290 Sq.Ft. j LAKE Total Hardcover Lot Area 90 of Hardcover o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed elev. ---� Denotes surface drainage DEMARS—GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 6875 Washington Ave, So. Suite 209 Edina, MN 55439 Phone:(952) 767-0487 Fax: (952) 767-0490 7,517 Sq.Ft. 30,268 Sq.Ft. 24.8 9% Hard Cover Survey Revised: 5104109 Revised: 9104109 Revised. 9115109 ff "] Concrete driveway construction, hardcover revisions, final hardcover comps. additional hardcover breakdown 1 hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me File No. or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land 73708 C Surveyor under the Laws of the Stat�--o\ Vti nes to n David E. Crook Scale Date: April 77, 2009 Minn. Reg. No. 22414 7"=20' MINNEWASHTA OHW ELEVATION = 944.50 WATER ELEVATION APRIL 17, 2009 = 944.30 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY CiTv OF RECEIVED SSEN SEP 17 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT PREPARED FOR: MARK AMBROSEN aS-o4 ESCROW AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of 2008 by and between Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn, husband and wife ("Applicants'), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. The Applicants are the owners of real property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive in the City of Chanhassen (the "Property"). B. The Applicants have applied for a building permit for the construction of a building addition (the "Building Addition") to the Property. C. Construction of the Building Addition results in 28.5% impervious coverage, which exceeds that which is allowed by City Code. D. The Applicants have applied for an impervious surface coverage variance (the "Variance'). E. The Applicants have submitted plans (the "Plans") with the building permit that indicate that certain impervious areas (the "Impervious Areas") on the Property will be removed in order to comply with the City's impervious surface requirement in the event that the Variance is not granted. F. The estimated cost to remove the Impervious Areas and revegetate with seed and mulch is $4,000. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. *Establishment of Escrow. The Applicants hereby escrow with the City the sum of $4,000 (the "Funds"), to be held pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Funds must be deposited by the Applicants in cash. 2. Completion of Work by the Applicants. The Applicants agree to construct improvements as shown on the Plans. The Impervious Areas must be removed and revegetated by May 31, 2009 unless the City has granted a variance. If the Applicants do not remove and revegetate the Impreious Area, in the event a variance has not been approved, by May 31, 2009, the City may draw down the escrowed funds and the City and it's contractor's may enter the property and do the work. souurEo 3. Return of Funds to the Applicants. Unless the City has drawn down the escrowed funds as provided herein the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants, without interest, when the Impervious Areas are removed and revegetated. In the event that the Variance is granted, the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants. 6. . Amendment of Escrow. No rescission or modification to this escrow agreement shall be effective without written consent of the City and the Applicants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. PROPERTY OWNERS: Mark Ambrosen Ann enn STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this --L day of 2008, by Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn. By kil<A,(.I L m'LO'% AShLJESSICA A. IIEINIPkiER � No Public, � (L Coun Minnesota NOTARY KKJC - W* ESOTA - My ommission expires 1N COW"M EON An. 31 2012 �. SCANNED • RECEIPT CITYOF 7700 MARKET BLVD. • P.O. BOX 147 HANHSSEN,CHMIMSEN PHONEA(952) 227N 10017 RECEIVED OF DATE No. 79382 08-aq May 27, 2009 CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN Mark Ambrosen & Ann Senn 3830 Maple Shores Drive 7700 Makt Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Ambrosen-Senn Variance Planning Case #08-24 Administration Extension request Phone: 952.227,1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Ambrossen & Ms. Senn, Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 This letter is to grant a 60-day extension, per your request, to the required Fax:952.227.1190 deadlines to remove and revegetate the excess hard surface coverage and to provide an as -built survey, for property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive (Lot Engineering 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition). The variance request was denied by the Phone:952.227.1160 Chanhassen City Council on January 12, 2009. The conditions with the revised Fax:952227.1170 deadlines are as follows: Finance Phase; 952.227.1140 1. The site must comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage Fax:952.227.1110 requirement as outlined in the City Code. Park 1i Bxation 2. Excess hard surface coverage must be removed and revegetated no later than Plane:952.227.1120 July 30, 2009, revised from May 31, 2009. Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Center 3. An as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required and must be 2310 Coulter Boulevard submitted no later than August 14, 2009, revised from June 15, 2009 to ensure PIM:952.227.1400 compliance. Fax: 952.227.1404 4. Final building inspection will not be approved until verification of compliance. Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 Fax:9522271110 or akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works Sincerely, 1591 Park Road PFax::52.227.1310 Fax: 952.227.1310 y J`Z (/ Senior Center Angie Kairies Phone:952.227.1125 Planner I Fax:952.227.1110 ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Web Site cc: Building Permit File www.d.chanhassen.maus g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-24 ambrosen-senn variance\08-24 deadline extension letter.doc SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227,11 BO Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227,1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I DATE: May 26, 2009 &W SUBJ: Ambrosen-Senn Deadline Extension for Compliance 3830 Maple Shores Drive— Planning Case #08-24 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 60-day extension for the removal and revegetation of excess hard surface coverage and required submittal of an as -built survey for property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, Planning Case 08-24." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 60- day extension to the deadlines outlined in the conditions of denial for the removal and revegetation of excess hard surface coverage beyond 25% and submittal of an as -built survey. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council denied a hard surface coverage variance to exceed 25% site coverage on a riparian lot located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. The conditions of denial specified May 31, 2009 for the removal and revegetation of the excess hard surface coverage, and June 15, 2009 for submittal of an as -built survey to verify compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation. Palft Works The applicant has requested a 60-day extension to the above- mentioned deadlines to 1591 Park Road bring the site into compliance and submit the as -built survey. The timing of the road Phone:952.227.1300 restrictions delayed the removal and thus the applicant is unable to meet the original Fax:952.227.1310 deadlines. The applicant is working diligently to bring the site into compliance. Sane Center Staff is recommending the deadlines be revised to July 30, 2009 and the required Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 submittal of the as -built survey be revised to August 14, 2009, respectively. Web Site wwaci.chanhassen.mn.us SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for We - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Ambrosen-Senn Extension Planning Case #08-24 May 26, 2009 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 60-day extension for the removal and revegetation of excess hard surface coverage and required submittal of an as -built survey for property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, Planning Case 08-24." ATTACHMENT 1. Email extension request from Mark Ambrosen dated May 4, 2009. gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-24 ambrosen-senn varianc6deadline extension request memo 5-26-09.doc Kairies, Angie From: mark ambrosen [mspmadz@mac.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:04 AM To: Kairies, Angie Subject: ambrosen/senn may 31 as built survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged dear ms. auseth, following up on our conversation of a couple of weeks ago, it is now apparent that we will be unable to complete the landscaping required to reach the 25% hardcover compliance in time to have the subsequent as built survey completed by the may 31 deadline. i am requesting a 60 day extension, as you recommended, on submitting the survey. thank you, mark ambrosen 952 470-2235 January 13, 2009 j]CAI�TY'O(�F CI1Hll�1 lllitlSEN Mr. Fred Bruning Sawhorse Design & Builders T700 Market Boulevard 4740 42nd Avenue North Pe147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Re: Ambrosen-Senn Variance Admklisiratan Planning Case #08-24 Phone'. 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Bruning: Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 This letter is to confirm that on January 12, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council azy tY Fax:952.227.1190 denied Variance #08-24 for 3.7% hard surface coverage variance on property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive (Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition) with boleailg the following conditions: Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 1. The site must comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage Finance requirement as outlined in the City Code. Phone: 952.227,1140 Fax:952.227.1110 2. Excess hard surface coverage must be removed and revegetated no later than May 31, 2009. Park & Reereabon Phone: 952.227,1120 3. An as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required and must be Fax: 952.227.1110 submitted no later than June 15, 2009 to ensure compliance. Reaeation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard 4. Final building inspection will not be approved until verification of compliance. Phone:952.227,1400 Fax:952.227,1404 Enclosed is a copy of the signed escrow agreement for your reference. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 227-1132 or Planning & aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Natural Resources Phone: 952.22i.1130 Fax:9522271110 Sincerely, Pub Public Works Park Road J� ((// Phone:952.227.1300 Angie Auseth Fax: 952.227.1310 Planner I Senor Cenkr Phaie:952.227.1125 Enc. Fax:952.227.1110 cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Web Site cc: Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn wNw.d.chanhassen.mn.us Building Permit File g9planx2008 planning casesx08-24 ambrosen-senn variancex08-24 denial letter-doc SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providng for Today and Planning forTomonow OS= A ESCROW AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of 00 , 2008 by and between Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn, husband and wife ("Applicants"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. The Applicants are the owners of real property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive in the City of Chanhassen (the "Property"). B. The Applicants have applied for a building permit for the construction of_a building addition (the "Building Addition") to the Property. C. Construction of the Building Addition results in 28.5% impervious coverage, which exceeds that which is allowed by City Code. D. The Applicants have applied for an impervious surface coverage variance (the "Variance")- E. The Applicants have submitted plans (the "Plans") with the building permit that indicate that certain impervious areas (the "Impervious Areas") on the Property will be removed in order to comply with the City's impervious surface requirement in the event that the Variance is not granted. F. The estimated cost to remove the Impervious Areas and revegetate with seed and mulch is $4,000. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. 'Establishment of Escrow. The Applicants hereby escrow with the City the sum of $4,000 (the "Funds'), to be held pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Funds must be deposited by the Applicants in cash. 2. Completion of Work by the Applicants. The Applicants agree to construct improvements as shown on the Plans. The Impervious Areas must be removed and revegetated by May 31, 2009 unless the City has granted a variance. If the Applicants do not remove and revegetate the Impreious Area, in the event a variance has not been approved, by May 31, 2009, the City may draw down the escrowed funds and the City and it's contractor's may enter the property and do the work. 3. Return of Funds to the Applicants. Unless the City has drawn down the escrowed funds as provided herein the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants, without interest, when the Impervious Areas are removed and revegetated. In the event that the Variance is granted, the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants. 6. Amendment of Escrow. No rescission or modification to this escrow agreement shall be effective without written consent of the City and the Applicants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. PROPERTY OWNERS: Mark Ambrosen 2 Ann enn STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Tate foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14� day of 12008, by Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn. rwwra0866k .,, By Y� JES�C�/LIfJIPlGER _ Not Public, Count Minnesota My oNOMl1►tqC•MMEssionexpires ��1 * CW bla lti" .M. 31. 2012 68 —DL/ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 08-24. On December 2, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage to allow 1,038 square feet of hard surfaces at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property including a single-family home and a three -car garage and a turnabout in the over 130-foot long drive. The applicant showed the removal of 1,039 square feet of existing impervious surfaces, including the removal of the turnabout (725 square feet), in order to obtain a building permit to construct 848 square feet of home improvements on the site while maintaining 24.9% hard surface coverage. This demonstrates that the applicant can achieve their goals of constructing the additions and comply with City Code. Therefore, the hard surface coverage variance request is a self- created hardship. SCANNED b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Single -Family Residential District. All properties within the RSF district are limited by the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. In the past there has been erosion problems in the bluff located on the south side of the property. Retaining walls have been constructed on the site to mitigate those erosion issues; however, increasing the hard surface coverage on the site will increase the runoff and may cause additional erosion issues. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home in addition to the existing hard surface coverage on the site. The applicant has demonstrated that additions can be constructed and the site can be brought into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface limitation as outlined in the City Code. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property, as a single-family home and a three -car garage are currently located on the site. The applicant has demonstrated that 1,039 square feet of hard surface coverage can be removed to meet the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in the RSF district in order to construct 848 square feet of improvements. As part of the building permit, the applicant included removal of the turnabout in the driveway (725 square feet). Prior to issuing a building permit for the improvements and processing the variance request, staff advised the applicant of staff's interpretation and recommendation for the denial of the request. This request is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The increase in the amount of hard surface coverage on the site will increase the runoff from the site and may cause additional erosion which may run into Lake Minnewashta. I. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. w 5. The planning report #08-24, dated December 2, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage to allow 1,038 square feet of hard surfaces on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 2"d day of December, 2008. CHANHASSEN CI TY,PLANNING COMMISSION U1 giplan\2008 planning cases\08-24 anabrosen-senn variance\I2-2-08 findings of fact.doc Its Chair City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilwoman Tjomhom: And Happy Birthday. Mayor Furlong: Enjoy your ride back. Hopefully it's shorter. APPEAL VARIANCE, AMBROSEN/SENN, 3830 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE, LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE, APPLICANT: SAWHORSE DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, OWNERS: MARK AMBROSEN AND ANN SENN: REOUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on December 2°d and at that time they recommended 6-0 to deny the variance. This site is located on Lake Minnewashta, off Minnewashta Parkway. Maple Shores Drive and specifically it's a cul-de-sac with a lot. There was some confusion about this being a flag lot. It's not a flag lot. As we interpret a flag lot, a flag lot or neck lot has 30 feet of width. This is an unusual shaped lot but it does meet the requirements of a regular lot. What we measure the lot width where it meets the 100 foot depth, so it does meet that requirement so technically this came up at the Planning Commission. There's some other information in the staff report that was brought up by the Planning Commission. I'm not going to go through all that tonight unless there's specific questions on it. Just some background I think that the planning, the applicant had raised that we addressed and just to kind of reiterate so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. Just kind of focus on the issues itself. Again the Planning Commission did recommend denial so the application, or the request before you tonight follows through on that same motion. So the request is for a 3.7% increase in the hard surface coverage. This request was derived by the fact that the applicant had come in to do an addition to the house. The lot itself was slightly over. They wanted to proceed with the application prior to the frost so the staff did find a way to work through the process of allowing them to proceed, but requiring an escrow for that application itself. So this is the existing home on the site. The applicants wanted to take one of the garage stalls, the 3 stall garage. Turn it to a laundry area and add an additional garage stall so that would increase the impervious, so as it sits today, this is how the lot looks and this is the proposed addition, so you can see the existing garage in this space, so we're over off the 28.7% so kicking out this additional garage space. So with that the applicant, again trying to work with the applicant, we did request that, if they did want to proceed that they would provide security to remove the hard surface coverage, which they demonstrated they could do, and allow them to proceed with that security in place with their requirement that they did proceed for the variance, so they have done that. So in looking at that application itself, you can see in this area here where they could remove the hard surface coverage to meet the requirement. At the Planning Commission there was a lot of discussion on lake erosion and that sort of thing but I think what we really want to kind of keep the discussion on the portion of the application here is where we could remove the hard surface coverage to meet the requirement. It is a lakeshore lot so there is enough square footage to get them under the, as you can see here, the percentage down to the 25% which includes some of the removal of the fire pit area. The extra turn around. I'll show you some pictures that you do have in your packet. I think they show up a little bit clearer. There was an issue regarding the potential flag lot, how to back down. Again the staffs opinion, when they went out looking and our staff, Angie Auseth who wrote the staff report and visited the site, felt it was pretty flat and relatively easy to back out and felt that that probably wasn't part of the hardship, and obviously the 28 SCANNED City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Planning Commission in their recommendation concurred with that, but that was some of the concern that being a flag lot it would be hard to back out, but in our opinion again that front part of the lot does appear to be relatively flat and that shouldn't be part of the problem. So with that the, we believe that they can meet the requirement by reducing some of that hard coverage, which we had recommended. They did have to submit a detailed survey for us in order to determine, for them to proceed ahead of time. They would have needed it with the application, but with the building permit to figure out where, how much they were over, so that was a requirement as a part of this too, and as -built survey in order for us to figure out exactly how much hard cover they have. So again the staff's opinion was that there was reasonable use of the property. We had put in the report that these are larger lots. At that time the lakeshore rules did require 20,000 so this is a 28,000 square foot lot so it is a little bit bigger and the homes obviously down in that area are larger too and they do have a 3 car garage, so these are some of the factors that the Planning Commission also looked at in their determination of the recommended, supporting the staff s variance. Again the hardship was that they didn't want to have to remove the hard cover that was already there. So with that, that was the staff report. The Planning Commission concurred with that and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman McDonald: The question I guess I would have in looking at this, you said that you all had gone out there and kind of assessed the driveway. Is there room if someone is in the garage to back out and maneuver so that you can drive down instead of back out? Is there enough turning space? Kate Aanenson: Well there's a 20 foot space here. Along the driveway that you could back out. Even on this one too, you could back into that. This is the additional driveway. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Okay, so really at that point you would still, you wouldn't have to back down the driveway then? Kate Aanenson: I don't believe so but even if you wanted to. Councilman McDonald: It's flat enough and open enough that it doesn't create a. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: And it's also from. Kate Aanenson: The visibility appeared very clear. You're at the end of a cul-de-sac. It didn't seem to be a big conflict. Councilman McDonald: And it was also flat. Kate Aanenson: Right, because that's what most people would do would be back out their driveway. Yeah. It's relatively flat. 29 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilman McDonald: Okay. That was the biggest question I had because that was the biggest area and I was just wondering how much space was actually there. Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, some of the things that you noted in here was the re-establishment of vegetation cover would slow the movement of surface water. Kate Aanenson: Well I think we got into a big discussion on the back yard. We got into some side issues I think of whether it's a flag lot. The erosion in the back yard, but again certainly re- establishing the back yard would be great, but I'm not sure that's the main thing that we're looking at here tonight. If we want to have a discussion on that, I think those are some of the points that I brought up that were brought up at the Planning Commission. We kind of touched all bases on that issue. Councilwoman Ernst: Well the reason I'm asking that question is because I'm wondering, depending of course on how much vegetation would be replaced, is would it compensate for a majority of the additional percentages being asked for? Kate Aanenson: Well, some vegetation was taken down during the construction of some of the structures in the back yard. Terry Jeffery: If I may Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Ernst. Mayor Furlong: Yes Mr. Jeffery. Terry Jeffery: No, I do not believe that it would count in saying for the additional hard covers that would be put onto this site. First of all, I mean it's a DNR shoreland regulated area so they don't have, within the SNR rules. There isn't something that says if you go over by this and you do this to mitigate, then it's okay. It's just a flat rate. So exclusive of our city code for the 25% impervious, there's the DNR rules because this is a shoreland area. So even if we didn't have the 25% hard cover within the rest of the city, you'd still apply it here. But like Kate had said, it did. It became some side discussions. What about this? What about that? We put in this patio for these reasons when really the issue is, can they build their stated goal and meet the 25% hard cover and they've demonstrated that they can. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I know that we have made slight concessions in the past, depending on what the owner was willing to do and I'm curious as to what the DNR regulation is. So when you were talking about the DNR regulations, what is that for this kind of property that we're talking about? Terry Jeffery: Anything within 1,000 feet of a DNR regulated water body cannot have more than 25% impervious cover. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. So that's outside of our city code? 30 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Terry Jeffery: Correct. Our, we put together our own shoreland ordinance and submitted it to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources for their approval so that we then could regulate the lakes within our city instead of having to rely upon an outside entity. So our rules need to be consistent with the Department of Natural Resources rules. Councilwoman Ernst: But I mean even if we were to do that, it sounds like it would be against what DNR regulations are. Terry Jeffery: Correct. The Department of Ag, or the Department of Natural Resources would need also to sign off on it. Typically they will defer to the city but it would need to be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for their approval of any variance that would be requested, or granted. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may, I just want to clarify. We have had smaller beachlots in Carver Beach and some cabins that were on Minnewashta that have gone over. I don't want to say we've never gone over the hard, and I think Councilwoman Ernst is correct. We've tried to apply mitigation. But we look at the hardship rule. Some of those old cabins didn't have a garage and we as Minnesotans, in weather like this, have deemed not having a garage is a hardship. So then we would find a way to mitigate that providing additional landscape. In this circumstance the Planning Commission felt having, already having a 2 car garage. Converting that and adding on didn't meet their belief of that hardship rule. If that clarifies where, kind of where, because we have done that before. Provide that mitigation but it was that hardship test that they were struggling with. Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Ms. Aanenson, a couple questions. First of all, can we, let's start with this picture right here that you have of the 8 shaded red areas, or red shaded areas. Are those the proposed removal of impervious surface on the site? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And who put this together? Kate Aanenson: The applicant did because we wanted to see if they could meet the test before we issued the building permit. That's why we asked for that design, because when we saw the building permit come in, it appeared to be over so we asked them for the as -built so we could determine what. Then we had to make the next decision. They really wanted to go forward and now we're trying to be you know as accommodating as we could so we looked at could they find a way to do it. If they had to and didn't get a variance. Mayor Furlong: And the answer was they came back with this showing that they could. Kate Aanenson: Yes. And just to be clear, I don't think we would have felt comfortable letting them proceed, because we don't have that authority to allow them to go without an opportunity 31 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 to meet that requirement so we wanted to say, does that seem a reasonable way to meet the requirement and let them proceed with the building permit in violation of the code, so we had security in place. So that was the reason we went that way. They provided that information to say this could work. Otherwise we wouldn't have granted them that opportunity because normally we would say you can't proceed until you work through this process. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then if you could scroll back up a couple. You showed the existing square footage. Kate Aanenson: Oh sure. Of the original house? Mayor Furlong: Well that's the proposed addition. That one right there. The existing site coverage. That already exceeds the 25%? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Did that happen with some patios and such...? Kate Aanenson: I would guess. Probably a patio or fire pit or something like that. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And generally permits now a permit is required but over the years Kate Aanenson: They're not always achieved, right. Mayor Furlong: They haven't been, okay. Alright. And if you scroll down then to the proposed additions, the proposal in front of us is to allow the additional 850 square feet without removal of even the existing, or the pre-existing violation. But that the proposal is to allow what they were before plus the addition of everything, is that what they're asking for? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah. Well to get to the 25%, so we didn't give them the .7, is that what you're asking? Mayor Furlong: No, I just want to clarify that the 28.7 that's being requested includes what the, how the property was existing before any of the additions plus all the additions. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's correct. Yeah, the next slide I show them together. I think that there's a comparison there. That's probably a better comparison, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now at the bottom there, percentage with reductions. So that actually within a few square feet. But what staff is recommending with the Planning Commission also recommended is that they be required to, with the additions, still remove enough so that they meet the 25 foot, 25% requirement. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. 32 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mayor Furlong: So they can have, increase the additions but they have to take something out. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Okay, anything else at this time? Okay, is the applicant here this evening? Representative, that will work just fine. Please approach the council and state your name and address for the record sir. Fred Bruning: Yeah, my name is Fred Bruning. I'm with Sawhorse Designers and Builders, 4740 42°d Avenue North in Robbinsdale. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Please. Fred Bruning: Good evening Mayor and council members and city manager and attorney. I assume you all have read the report and think you guys seem to know some of the issues, so I'm not going to repeat the narratives and things I did before. What I'd like to do is comment on some of the items in the staff report. Also if I could now ask some questions for clarification. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. Fred Bruning: What I did is I made some copies of some notes and comments that I have. Mayor Furlong: Please. Maybe if you have copies for the staff as well. Fred Bruning: Well I have 6 copies. I counted 5 council members and the mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well maybe we can share up here but I want to make sure that staff has copies too. Councilwoman Tjomhom: You go ahead and take a copy and Jerry and I will share. Assuming you'll share with me Jerry. Mayor Furlong: Please continue. Fred Bruning: Yeah, and I'll show you how this all works as we go through it but I've highlighted some things I'd like to comment about. First highlighted one with the one off to the left there. Based on the guidelines of the city code for the RSF district, the property owner does have a reasonable use of the property which includes a single family home and a 3 car garage. I've gone around a little bit on this as far as like a definition. I mean what is reasonable use? When I've asked staff before if it's an R-1 zoned house and a 2 car garage, it's reasonable use. It seems like that term could be substituted for reasonable use and be much more clear what is reasonable use. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, Mr. Knutson? Kate Aanenson: Well I think, you know are you talking about for a single family lot? 33 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Fred Bruning: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: A single family lot, depending on the type of home, you could have a rambler on that that meets our minimum which is probably less than 1,000 square feet with a 2 car garage. There's no requirement in the city that you're obligated for a 3 car garage. Fred Bruning: No, so my, and just for clarification then. You know the definition is an R-1 zoned house with 2 car garage. I mean that's reasonable. That's the only recognized reasonable use. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Fred Bruning: Okay. It'd be helpful I mean if you guys wanted to adjust things, put that language in there and it, you know it eliminates a lot of ambiguity. There is a reference I'd like to make, if you look to page 10. There are numbers at the bottom. Section 20-58 in the city code, the highlighted portion. For purposes of definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes the use made by the majority of comparable property within 500 feet. The comparable property within 500 feet of this property exceeds, a majority exceed hard cover. I mean if you look at aerial photos it's obvious. You know it seems that reasonable use is supposed to include uses made by the majority of people within 500 feet. Kate Aanenson: Can I clarify that? That was, most of these points were brought up at the Planning Commission I believe were addressed but there is a house that they pointed out that's over the impervious and we're following up on that one. We have some other ones, if we're made aware of them and they've done work without a permit, we're following up on those. I don't believe a majority of them are over the 30%. Again, 25%. Yeah, again most of those lots on the end of that cul-de-sac are larger too, so. Mayor Furlong: But for clarification, the 25% requirement, obviously the allowable impervious coverage varies by the lot size because the 25% is of the lot size. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, so you really have to do a survey. Mayor Furlong: A larger lot would have larger impervious surface coverage allowed. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And this lot is 28,000 so it's already given quite a bit more hard cover. Fred Bruning: Yeah, I mean part of our issue at the City Council meeting was, we were asked to document that. I mean I don't have any right to get a survey of someone else's property. And if I were to survey 32 properties, I mean $32,000. So it's hard. You can go on the Carver County web site you can look at it and we did math. At work we tried to be very fair but we came up with 20 out of the 32. The technique that was used to determine that this lot was over hard cover and required the calculations was the city staff doing an aerial photo examination of the property. 01i City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Mayor may I just want to clarify that. Survey, as -built survey was submitted and that's what we used. The survey that was submitted. Fred Bruning: Requiring as -built survey, the determination to require that was actually made, Rick Mylar our staff architect isn't here but we met with the city ahead of time to go through the whole process to make sure that there weren't any bumps in the road. We as a company try to do that so everything's smooth sailing for our clients. Kate Aanenson: Again let me clarify for the council. The staff acted in good faith to allow the applicant to proceed knowing fair well they were exceeding the hard cover. We rarely do that but we acted in good faith to let them proceed based on the survey they submitted to us showing a hard cover. So we wouldn't have issued you the building permit had you not submitted that. It wasn't an after thought. It was permission for you to proceed. Fred Bruning: That was part of the building permit to require the survey. The calculation for hard cover actually weren't initially asked for. We don't mind providing that. I mean don't get me wrong. We don't mind providing them. The clients agreed to the terms and everything to grant the permit. I mean we're acting in good faith too. I'm just trying to understand you know the process and how things work here. I mean, so that's my only question on this item. Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify again? There's a disconnect here because how would we know they were over and allow them to proceed with security in place unless there was an as - built survey? Mayor Furlong: I guess the question, your question sir is about normal process so let me ask some questions for clarification. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: The normal process, assuming weather's not a factor. A property owner will come in seeking a building permit. Perhaps with a representative and will, one of the steps prior to issuing that permit is hard surface coverage considered in any of those? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Every time. Mayor Furlong: How many? Kate Aanenson: Every one. Mayor Furlong: Every time. Kate Aanenson: Every time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And to the extent that the additions or the existing property, the properties existing built out or the additions would exceed the impervious surface limit for that property, what's done? 35 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Well normally we wouldn't let something proceed. We would say you need a variance and stop right there. Mayor Furlong: Prior to proceeding with any. Kate Aanenson: With any building permit. Mayor Furlong: Before issuing a permit. Kate Aanenson: Right. Now let me just clarify. If you have a permit that was issued 6 months ago with an as -built survey that someone wanted to put a deck on within 6 months or a year, would we ask them for a new one? This was built a number of years ago so specifically. Mayor Furlong: But that would just be what information would be requested to issue the permit. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But the, if I'm understanding the question correctly, and maybe I'm not so correct me if I'm wrong sir but I'm getting the sense that the question here is, we just came in for a permit and this hard surface issue came up later. Kate Aanenson: Right. I guess where I'm confused is, we tried to be, in good faith, we tried to do them a favor and now we're being like we're the bad person you know. Mayor Furlong: I guess I'm not hearing that but. Fred Bruning: No, not at all. Mayor Furlong: Maybe you could keep moving along here so that. Fred Bruning: Sure. Mayor Furlong: I mean make sure we understand what your concerns are Fred Bruning: Sure. My clients come in, well there's many of them and maybe I get onto the rest of the points but the whole process. I mean we're replying we agreed to these things along the way. I, this first term here. I'm just, what's reasonable use of a property? In the city code it says a reasonable use is also a use that's enjoyed by the majority of people within 500 feet of this, well comparable properties within 500 feet of this. Mayor Furlong: And what I understand you're saying is that in your opinion 20 of the 30 or 30 plus properties nearby also exceed the impervious surface coverage. Fred Bruning: Right, but I can't you documentation because I don't have a legal right to do that. On the web site you can actually look and see that. I mean I realize that the city has an issue tri City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 with hard cover and it has become apparent further, we're trying to address that and maybe it will become more apparent later on but I think I have an understanding of my question. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Fred Bruning: Second point here. The process of obtaining the building permit and the reduction of 1,039 square feet. Staff indicates that demonstrates their goal of adding a home, adding to their home and bringing the site into compliance with the 25% minimum hard cover can be achieved. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry sir, where are you in your document? Fred Bruning: Oh, the first page, the second highlighted item. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Fred Bruning: Page 3, and if you look over at the right hand side. The two with the circle on it. In one of the narratives I brought the point of just because my home, my clients are willing to accept a hardship, it doesn't mean that the hardship doesn't exist. Part of the process going through here is we had winter quickly approaching. We talked to the staff way ahead of time, end of September and just went through the steps of what we were proposing to do. We want to make sure there's no hiccups in the road. Want to make sure it's smooth sailing. Initially it went pretty smooth but then you know all these things started coming up, which we handled, and we agreed to everything that we're into now. We were going to go through the variance process at the same time we're going through the permit process. What we proposed to do here we're suggesting is a hardship. What we're being asked to do. Remove the driveway. Forcing our clients to back down 140 feet of driveway. Narrow driveway. Earlier when I said, and I had no way to comment at the time, the proposed driveway, I design a lot of driveways. I design a lot of projects. You can't turn around out of 2 of those 3 garage stalls. The only one is the one nearest the house that you have a chance of backing up and going down the driveway. The other two, no. I mean the turning radius of a car to clear the garage doors, you can't. That's part of the issue is they would be required to back down a driveway. Mark Ambrosen: Excuse me. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Mark Ambrosen: Mark Ambrosen, 3830 Maple Shores Drive. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mark Ambrosen: I just wanted to, the point of backing out of the garage is. Mayor Furlong: Which picture do you want? Kate Aanenson: I'm trying to find a picture with the driveway. 37 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mark Ambrosen: Okay. The problem with backing out of the garage, to turn around and go down, you're, the red depiction doesn't show the 2 trees. There's actually 3 trees in the middle of the turn around. We have an island built up around those trees. If you want us to cut down those trees, then we could back up but I don't think anybody wants to do that. But that's what's preventing us. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess my question then is why did you show us the potential to be removed to meet the code, because that's what we agreed to when we advanced that, that could be removed. Fred Bruning: Like I stated, we're demonstrating something could be removed because we needed a permit. We anticipated getting a variance because what we've demonstrated is a hardship and that's why we're asking the City Council and Planning Commission to decide. Councilman Litsey: But out of each of those garages you could back out down the driveway. Each of those stalls. Fred Bruning: The only chance you'd have is the one closest to the house. It would give you enough turning radius to back up in the remainder there and head down the driveway. Councilman Litsey: No I'm saying back down the driveway. You could back down the driveway from any of those stalls. Fred Bruning: Oh sure. Sure. Councilman Litsey: Okay, and that's the normal way most people exit their garages is to back down the driveway. Now you're saying perhaps because it's a longer driveway that's creating some kind of additional undue hardship. Is that what you're saying? Fred Bruning: Correct. Yeah, backing down a 30 foot straight driveway, sure. It's not an issue. Some of the neighbors on that street actually do that. This is the closest stall is 140 feet. And it's an 10, well average width about 10 foot 9 in the driveway. Councilman Litsey: Well I guess where it gets confusing is you make it sound like there's no way out of those other stalls. There is. It's backing down the driveway and then it's a matter of whether that creates an undue hardship or not. Fred Bruning: Sure. I would just comment, there was a question for staff before I came up and it was said that you could back out of those garage stalls and turn around and head straight down the driveway. There's only one chance on one of the stalls you could do that. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, if I could add a point here. You know you could look at putting a hammer head in, but you would have to find another spot to pull out more City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 impervious. Fire pit as an example could come out of there. Allow you the prioritizing of which of the two you'd prefer versus backing all the way down or having the fire pit taken out and putting that impervious as a hammer head. If that makes sense. Mark Ambrosen: As far as I'm concerned, and my wife, we would take out the fire pit and patio down by the lake, we'd take out everything else. We really do think that having the turn around is a safety issue. My wife wanted me to tell you that she can't back down. Todd Gerhardt: No, it's. Mark Ambrosen: The other thing in, it's probably not a problem legally but we do have a problem at the end of the cul-de-sac. If you look straight down that driveway on the bottom picture, 3 driveways back into, if we're one of them, back into that spot. To the right is no factor. The house is coming down a driveway right across, yeah. Right across a broad expanse of one so there's good visibility. To the left there was a large blue spruce tree. About 25 feet tall. They come, they back up a hill blindly. Fred Bruning: You can actually see it on page 6. Mark Ambrosen: Okay, on page 6. Yeah, that's a good example. That guy has already backed in and hit my wife as she was parked in front of the mailbox because he can't see her. So that's kind of a blind issue. When you have 3 driveways backing into the same area. Compounding that, in the same picture you'll see what is the neighborhood basketball hoop. That is owned by the entire neighborhood. We have 15 children in that cul-de-sac under the ages of, the oldest is 15. As you can imagine that gets a lot of activity. The youngest are, I think we have a 5 year old and a 7 year old. Mayor Furlong: And what, I'm sorry, where's the basketball hoop? Mark Ambrosen: Yeah, on page 6. Todd Gerhardt: Here's a picture of it. Mark Ambrosen: Just to the left of the driveway. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so they. Okay so the hoop, and we see that in cul-de-sacs where the hoop faces out towards the street and children play in the cul-de-sac. Mark Ambrosen: Correct. That's the only flat place in our cul-de-sac because in the actual circle at the top, that's fairly flat. Otherwise you have a hill all the way down to the parkway. Todd Gerhardt: The city manager loves basketball. Mark Ambrosen: That basketball hoop is, I don't know how long it's been grandfathered but that site has been there since before we were there in 1999. 0 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council members, from staffs perspective, Terry if I can speak for you, we don't care where the impervious comes out as long as you hit the 25%, and if you're willing to take the fire pit out, staff could live with a hammer head or the U shaped as long as the square footage. Kate Aanenson: And the square footage, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, is the same. Mayor Furlong: What I'm hearing is the overall square footage for the property Kate Aanenson: Yep. We went by what their recommendations were. That's why,I was totally lost where they were going with the discussion. That was their recommendation they made so I would agree. If they can find whatever they want to take out to meet it. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. You don't have to follow the red as long as you hit the 25%. Fred Bruning: One of my concerns though is part of the process. We were required to do calculations, which we did. Once this whole process ends we're required to get an as -built survey of the property by registered surveyor. If their documentation is different from our's? I mean I'm not a surveyor. I mean ... that's what I was required to do. All said and done when it comes to the end, maybe the fire pit isn't big enough. Plus we're being asked, I think we were 200 square feet over before we even started this on the hard cover for the lot. We're being asked to mitigate what we're adding plus that original 200 square feet. Councilwoman Ernst: Is that the .7? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It sounds like we kind of need to meet on kind of where the hard coverage may be and we can work that out. Mayor Furlong: Perhaps. I don't know if there's an understanding here that, and Mr. Bruning I'll let you continue but as I understand it, the schematic that showed the red area was submitted by you, through staff, saying here's how, based on our best information, here's how the 25% could be met. And that was submitted in order to obtain the permit and in anticipation on your side of achieving a variance. Fred Bruning: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But nonetheless it showed that the property, with the additions, could meet the 25%. Fred Bruning: Yeah, and that was a requirement for the permit, exactly. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Okay. Alright. And so what I'm hearing here tonight is, if we go forward tonight and adhere to the 25%, the red is not required. It is the overall property, 25% on the property. So whether that is a patio, pavers somewhere else, whatever that is necessary to get City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 down to that 25%, it doesn't, what I'm hearing staff, Mr. Gerhardt and Ms. Aanenson say is, it doesn't have to be the red if it's, if you believe in terms of safely driving in and out of your driveway you want to keep some of the red up by the driveway but remove something else somewhere else on the property, that that would meet the requirements. Is that, am I stating that correctly? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. If you look on the slide, our goal is to get to the 1,039 square feet. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, so. Does that? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and to answer your question, I'm following you. Once you get the actual survey completed you may want to have a fallback plan on the driveway because when you look at the red on the driveway, and you look at the size of the fire pit and the little patio next to it, having those two taken out probably isn't going to match exactly to the red area in the driveway. So you may want to look at reconfiguring that driveway a little bit also. But you know it's the 25% is kind of the rule that we're following so I would start looking at potentially another alternative area and do the best math you can. Fred Bruning: Yeah, I mean we'd probably do that after the as -built survey. Kate Aanenson: Well let me just bring something back. We let a permit issue that's not meeting it so I just kind of want to understand. We hadn't done that before. Wherever the council's feeling about that and you know again we issued it in good faith that they're going to try to meet it and I'm hoping that they're still trying to meet it. Fred Bruning: No, no we're. Todd Gerhardt: I hear they are Kate. Fred Bruning: This isn't adversarial. I'm sorry if you're taking it that way Kate Aanenson: Okay, yeah. Fred Bruning: Like I said, very early on in the process you know part of my job is to be creative. I met with the city way before we were going to even apply for a permit you know in September and laid out some different steps. What we were proposing to do. Through a collaboration of going back and forth, this is what we came up with. Everything was fine. Okay, this is what we're going to do. We're going to apply for a variance you know and so yeah, I mean we were going to request this being a hardship. You know it was understood and if the pre-existing conditions are deemed a hardship and is ruled in our favor, great. If it's not, here's the fallback position. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Help us understand then, to clarify I think it would help, what the hardship or hardship factors are. What are the special hardship factors? 41 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Fred Bruning: Okay, I'll, to answer your. I was going to get to that but I'll get out of sequence here and cover that. In my narrative, and I'll have to find it here. This one here. There are variations on the theme. If you look on page 3, the second paragraph. That explains the hardship and I can read it into the record if you'd like. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you go ahead for those watching at home. Fred Bruning: Yeah. For the little kids at home. Because of the shape and topography of their lot my clients need to use precious hard cover for an atypically long driveway to access their home and retaining wall patio system, drain system to protect it. Three properties to the south have driveways longer than my clients. Each has a turn about. However they are near level lots. Two have flag lot exemptions to the hard cover requirement. The remaining is a much larger property. To the east are the only two lots within 500 feet that have an elevation change greater than this property. However it is only slightly greater and over a longer distance. This property is unique that it has both of these elements combined on a single parcel. Combined on a parcel that is substantially smaller than any of them. The lot size combined with the shape and topography is the hardship. It's not self created and the willingness to accept a hardship doesn't negate or create it. As part of that discussion, on page 11. Section 18-21. Building permits. It talks about variances and in hardship is that hardships are not mere inconveniences. The turn about on, to have a turn about isn't just a convenient thing when you have a 140 foot driveway. It's actually pretty inconvenient to back down a 140 driveway. The patio paver system in the back of the house is protection for the house. I mean they're not doing it out of convenience. They're doing it out of property preservation. We're submitting that these, because of the shape of the lot, you know how far the home has to be set off the street, that that 46 feet of grade change in the back of the home make this lot unique to anything within 500 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think what I'm hearing is, is as the shape and the topography of the lot that you're saying is the hardship in this case. Fred Bruning: Yeah, and in Section 18-22 I think you know it says that the hardship is caused by particular physical surroundings, shape or topography, conditions of the land. And that's. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Anything else you wanted to share with us at this point? Then we may have some questions. Fred Bruning: And actually, I mean this is working fine if you want to ask questions along the way. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. I just want to make sure we keep moving and you get an opportunity to present everything you want to so I don't want to cut you short. Fred Bruning: If you continue onto page 2. Councilwoman Ernst: Can I ask just a question? Back up for just a second. Mayor Furlong: Sure. 42 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: One of the things that you mentioned is that the pavers are protecting the property and preserving the property. In what way are they preserving the property? Fred Bruning: When Mark and Ann bought their home there was nothing back there. It was just you know the grade. In the first few years they were there, the hill, I mean just rain water would erode the hill and wash it out. I mean lots of soil I assume ended up in Lake Minnewashta. Councilwoman Ernst: So from erosion more or less? Fred Bruning: Erosion Todd Gerhardt: It was a gravel driveway is what you're saying? Fred Bruning: Oh no. This is the, she was asking about the pavers in the back of the home Todd Gerhardt: Oh, back yard. Mark Ambrosen: The previous owner was a Vikings football player and he had cut down all the trees existing on the hill at about a 6 foot level so he had a great view. Subsequently we had some serious erosion so we started attacking, and this is what I think the young lady was referring to when we started getting off on the side conversations in the Planning Commission. But it also addresses some of the hard cover that we put back there. We built out the patio. As you see the pretty tall retaining walls back there. We built those and some of the smaller wing walls as you go down that hill. We let all the trees grow, especially the fast growing maples and some of the others. We planted a lot of vegetation trying to get that to go. Well Kenneth went back and forth. The vegetation took hold. Trees grew up real tall. Then we had a real thick canopy. Vegetation cease to grow. We put in a couple more holding walls on the hill and we did thin out some of the trees on either side with the intent of letting the sun go back in. Getting water in. Putting more vegetation back there. Councilwoman Ernst: So what's the square footage of the hard surface that you put in to prevent erosion? Mark Ambrosen: I think that was 7.8. Fred Bruning: I think 7-23. That you know to allow that, to allow an exemption for that portion of it actually resolves the whole issue. Everything else can go back in and we can mitigate the hard cover if that's considered an exemption. I mean that eliminates our issue. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mark Ambrosen: One of the options given to us was replace that paver stone in the back with decking because then that would not, that constitute a non -hard cover surface I believe. Councilwoman Ernst: Would that serve the same purpose for erosion? 43 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mark Ambrosen: No. No, it wouldn't. Because then the water would just go right through. Fred Bruning: If you had like a 4 foot retaining wall or something, yeah it would make a difference. I mean if that's open soil and it could drain everything, but this is over 30 feet tall. I mean as soon as the soil gets saturated, I mean just the pressure on that wall with that column of water. It was engineered to actually take the water past the slope of the hill and discharge it onto, into a lower elevation. Since it was done they haven't had any erosion problems. I mean it solved the problem. So I mean they're kind of reluctant to remove that. It's worked for 10 years. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Fred Bruning: No. No, that's fine. On page 2 towards the bottom. Line number 5. Mark addressed a little bit of that there. You know the, and I'm sure they're willing to provide more ground cover. A type of ground cover that you find suitable. However I mean you could talk to Mr. Jeffery. That makes no impact. I mean that's not a consideration for hard cover. I mean hard cover is. Mayor Furlong: Is hard cover. Fred Bruning: It doesn't make any difference if that's a barren sand lot or if it's got a forest of trees. You know they act different as far as runoff but the city code doesn't recognize a difference. I think Mr. Jeffery is actually working on some things in that but it doesn't help us. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Fred Bruning: I guess it's in the page 3 towards the bottom. Options. I mean you know I spelled out 4 things I'd like you guys to consider. I mean obviously the first one is if you recognize a hardship. You know to grant the variance. The second on page 4, the second item is what Vicki was I think kind of alluding to. To grant an exemption for, to the hard cover calculations for like the necessary features of the property. That retaining wall, patio system that protects their hill. You know the city already recognizes similar exemptions for things like swimming pools. Driveways on flag lots. When you get into commercial properties you allow much more hard cover for a commercial property than you do a residential property. So that's a second item I'd like you to consider. Number 3 is, and like I say Mr. Jeffery is working on some of these things but request that you look at other means of mitigating hard cover. If the spirit of the code is to protect our water resources. To keep the soils from washing in, prevent erosion, there's a lot of ways to do that that aren't recognized by the current city code. If you look at page 9, in my original narrative, item 3(a) to 3(g). I mean talk about some of them. There's more permeable driveway, patio surfaces available and the U of M Arboretum has been testing these, but you guys don't have any data on it. And so like permeable pavers, all those things are, don't qualify, even though they would improve the situation. There's a portion of their property that the shed at the lake is considered hard cover even though it's elevated off the ground because water can't get underneath the shed. To put downspouts on the shed and push the water underneath it would also make that a permeable surface. You know that's not recognized. I City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 mean Mark and Ann are trying to come up with solutions to get at what the whole point of the hard cover code is and they're willing to put effort, put money forward to do that. We're just asking you to consider those options. Holding ponds. You require those on commercial properties. They'd be willing to do one here. Drain fields. Taking down spouts. Dispersing that water over larger area. Dispersing it to areas that are actually covered by hard surfaces. Allowing water to be under a hard surface. Putting a drain field underneath a driveway. Putting a drain field underneath a patio. Councilwoman Ernst: Is that the same as drain tile? Fred Bruning: Yeah, similar. Yeah, very similar. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Fred Bruning: We proposed granting easements. The neighbor to the north and east of them, huge lot. I mean you know hard cover is probably 7%. But to allow them to do an easement to their property to spread out their hard cover onto that adjoining property. That isn't allowed. One I actually kind of like because it solves a lot of problems is actually doing a cistern. You're trying to mitigate you know storm water. Water that in a short period of time you have a large water volume to handle. To bury a cistern. A buried tank in the ground that can disperse the water over a long period of time. Run down spouts to the house into it. Put the catch basin, a drain in for. The thing that's nice about that is you can also use it for irrigation. You can water your lawn and use less city water. There's other things. I mean soil types. You know ground cover. Different things you can do with pitch and grade and berms. The unfortunate thing is none of those things are recognized. Mark and Ann are willing to, if you choose, be a test case. I mean it's been suggested none of these things can be monitored. The technology is to monitor all of these. My favorite, the cistern idea is very simple. Remove the cover. Take a water depth reading you know after rain. Find out how quickly it's dissipating. Punch more holes in the bottom if you want it to dissipate further. You know faster. So they're willing to consider that as a way to mitigate. Another thing is pea gravel has been suggested. We've actually done that as a mitigating factor for their dog kennel. To use pea gravel instead of a hard paver system. That's also something that possibly could be used as a turn about for a driveway. Down side to that is, it's not a hard surface. It's hard to snow plow that. You know the stones. The small stones are bad you know because they get washed down the driveway. End up in the storm sewer. The only thing worst for a storm sewer than sand is pea gravel. It just catches in all the low spots. I guess the one last point I'd like to make is, and I think Bloomington's going to adopt a 25% hard cover rule also but from my knowledge I think Chanhassen's the only one who requires 25%. Shorewood, Mound. I mean Mound even has a 40% for some lots. Hard cover. 25 percent's pretty tough. I guess that's my points. Do you have any questions? Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Bruning? I guess the, you know the question before us here is the hardship. You brought up reasonable use and I think that's really where it comes down to. What is the reasonable use creating this situation that we're here this evening so. 45 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think one of my comments would be, earlier we discussed that the items proposed by staff in red. Kate Aanenson: That was the applicant. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Was that the applicant? That maybe those need to be worked on a little bit more. Is that correct? The applicant seemed willing to reconsider some or to move to give and take some or I'm trying to figure out what I heard about 20 minutes ago regarding that issue. Fred Bruning: Sure. We proposed what's in red in consultation with the client. However they've had a dumpster in the driveway at the turn about. They've had to back down this driveway and they realized you know how difficult that is. In weighing that all out the fire pit near the lake is less important you know than having the turn about and so they're willing to put that hard cover back into the turn about. I fear when it's all said and done, as you can see from the drawing, it's not enough space. It's not enough mitigation. We're not going to have enough ground, enough hard surface from the fire pit to create that turn about. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Just so I'm clarified then. This is the proposal and there's nothing else on the table for us to consider, or for you to consider tonight? When it comes to this variance. Fred Bruning: I think, well I think I've given you a lot of things to consider. For us we tried to work up the best thing and I think Mark and Ann are going to sacrifice their fire pit to add as much turn about as they can but like I say, my fear is that it won't be enough. That there's not many other, we've taken out about anything we could think of to take out. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. This plan is not a requirement. The requirement is to, at least the recommendation of staff and the Panning Commission is to get down to the required 24 or 25% hard coverage. How you get there is up to you. Do it. Whether it's this or something else. That's the recommendation. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so just to the point of clarification for me then, what am I voting on tonight? Whether they should do that? Or whether this is what they should do or? I'm confused about. Roger Knutson: No. The question is do you grant them a variance or don't you. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Roger Knutson: If the answer is no. No variance is granted. Then they have to get to 25%. If you grant a variance, then it depends on how much you grant. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Cb1 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? For Mr. Bruning at this point. If not, thank you. I think we'll bring it back to, unless there's anybody else that wants to comment on this. I don't see anybody else. Mr. Ambrose, do you want to say anything else? Mark Ambrose: No, I think it's pretty clear that we're requesting a variance to exceed the 25% but as little as possible. We would get rid of everything and if we could keep the turn around in the driveway. So what that would wind up being I'm not sure. Fred Bruning: Yeah, and like I say, I mean they've taken out everything they possibly could take out. Things we've done in the addition to minimize that. I mean taking out their dog kennel. I mean they've stripped out as much as they can and you know this is where they're at. Mayor Furlong: But for clarification though, they're building an addition onto their house. They're adding 800 square feet. Fred Bruning: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So it say they're taking it out, I think what's creating this issue is the desire to expand. Mark Ambrosen: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mark Ambrosen: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Fred Bruning: We're just suggesting that it's a hardship that they have to have these hard cover surfaces on their property that other properties don't have to have because their topography is different. Because their shape is different. The properties that do have to have a longer driveway, you know within 500 feet, have turn about's. This is the only one of this length that would not have one in this 500 feet. Councilman Litsey: Are you already committed to the design. Kate Aanenson: It's under construction. Councilman Litsey: It's under construction. Okay. Fred Bruning: We've already pushed, that's part of it too. I mean for hard cover, a lot of other reasons, we've actually rotated and pushed the addition into the house. Taken square footage from the house away to get the addition, so we've, we've been pretty creative trying to reduce as much as we could. 47 .4 ..-a City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Just to clarify again. I just want to make sure everybody, there was a 3 car garage. They had a 3 car garage. Fred Bruning: There still is a 3 car garage. Kate Aanenson: Right. You converted one of them to a laundry room and added on so that was part of the addition, so. Mayor Furlong: And then there was another garage stall put in to replace the one... Kate Aanenson: Right, so that was the addition part. The 800 square feet. So I guess that's where we were trying to find that balance and wherever they shake out on that yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And one. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: This is all kind of clear as mud for me. I just want to make sure I do thinks right tonight. So if, say the council does not approve the variance and they have to meet their 25% and they can't, what happens to their construction? Or what will happen. Roger Knutson: What will happen it they will be required to meet it some way. It will be their decision on how to meet it. Councilwoman Ernst: And they're at 25.7% today, right? Kate Aanenson: Right. Right, so it's the addition that caused the. They were at 25.7. Councilwoman Ernst: But they haven't started any of the addition. Kate Aanenson: Yes they have. It's under construction. That's what I'm saying, we in good faith let them proceed. Councilwoman Ernst: Sony. Okay. Fred Bruning: One thing I also have you consider. Worst case scenario, if you want to deny everything else, have us mitigate the hard cover that we've added to the property. I mean don't have us you know take it down to 25% below where we even started. Have us mitigate the hard cover that we've actually added to the property but the, what we've added to what we started with. Mayor Furlong: And that was, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilman Utsey: Well I mean the bottom line is you have, if we deny, you have to meet the 25%. How you do that is up to you. I don't think that's up to us to tell you how to do that. Or what you can and can't do. m City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Fred Bruning: But we started with 25.7. Councilman Litsey: Oh I see. Fred Bruning: Before we even built an addition. Councilman Litsey: You want the baseline to be 25.7. Fred Bruning: If everything else fails, yes. I mean that's. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that was the question I had asked earlier Ms. Aanenson of, before the addition it was 25.7. They were already in violation of our ordinance and the question was how did they get there? Was it the original permit or was it? Fred Bruning: How did the other 20 out of 32 properties get there? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, we disagree on that. Mayor Furlong: We're talking about this property right now and. Kate Aanenson: Right, and we don't know. It could have been a fire pit. It could have been some of the retaining walls. It could have been the dog pit you know. Mayor Furlong: Patios. Kate Aanenson: A lot of these go, correct. Mark Ambrosen: Excuse me. How long has this ordinance been on the books? Kate Aanenson: Impervious surface? Since I've been here in 1991. Prior to that. Mark Ambrosen: How long has it been enforced? Kate Aanenson: It's always enforced. Sometimes we don't know if people cut down trees. Mark Ambrosen: We had a, we had an addition put on about 10 years ago. I years ago that added onto the other side of the house, and there was no inquiry then about the hard cover. Kate Aanenson: I can't speak to what the application was, or what review and I'm not sure, if somebody checked it or not so. I'm pretty confident somebody probably did. Mark Ambrosen: I was told by a young lady that was taking a lot of this information that the city didn't start enforcing this until 2 years ago. M City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: No, we asked for the as -built surveys 2 years ago. We've always enforced the 25%. Mark Ambrosen: Well that was the verbology that was used to me. Councilman McDonald: I was actually on the planning council more than 3 years ago and I enforced it very strongly so it's been enforced ever since I've been here for 3 years and before that. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I think he's just saying what was told to him. Mark Ambrosen: That was told to me. Councilman McDonald: Well I just want to clear the air that the city was. Kate Aanenson: Mayor, can I get back to the question that was asked? And that was the addition was the 800 and, 848 square feet. That was the addition that we showed over here. Fred Bruning: It's on your previous drawings. You have it I think in blue. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So there's the proposed additions. So to get, yeah. Actually driveway space to get out of that one garage. Mayor Furlong: What's the total square footage of the house, either before or after? Before the additions? Fred Bruning: It's on, I don't have that paperwork. It's in the documentation that we sent to the city as far as those calculations for hard cover. It has the original house. Kate Aanenson: 2779. Mayor Furlong: Is the footprint? Kate Aanenson: Total square footage. Mayor Furlong: Finished square footage? Kate Aanenson: That's the lot size. Fred Bruning: My recollection is like 2,500 square feet is. I don't know the exact number but that would be approximately what. Mayor Furlong: For a footprint? Fred Bruning: Footprint, correct. Footprint of the house. Garages, you know etc. b71; City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor if I may. Within the packet, wherever we're at. Kate Aanenson: It's on page 4. Terry Jeffery: Yeah, it says more than 27, 2779 square foot footprint of the home itself Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's bring it to council for discussion. Try to work through the issues before us. We've got clearly the issue before us is whether or not there's a hardship. Applicants propose the shape and topography is the hardship as well as some alternatives. Thank you. I'll start just to make some comments. I believe it was at least 2 years ago we talked at length about impervious surface coverage and ways that that could be mitigated and we spent a number of times as a council, a lot of the alternatives that were mentioned, we discussed at that time as well. We didn't take any action on it but those were discussed. But in any event we had some alternatives put forth, and I guess I'd be interested in where members of the council are in terms of the, Councilman Litsey? Thoughts. Comments. Councilman Litsey: Well I think it's important to look at it. I think it's an evolving you know way to look at things but we're not there yet. We haven't really looked at it with enough data and information and recommendation from staff I think so, I still think we've got to kind of look at it from where we're at with the ordinance currently stands. I mean that technology's evolving and I think we need to move in that direction but we're not there yet so I don't know that I can really consider that at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else on the request? Councilman Litsey: Well I think partly the hardship was created obviously, as they put it, from the addition. It was fine before. They chose to move forward with it knowing that this was in place. Personally I don't see any reason to deviate from staff recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I'd like to talk about 723 square feet of hard surface that was installed to prevent erosion. That to me sounds like a hardship. 723 square foot of hard surface, but it was put there for a reason, and so to me that should, we should look at that in terms of what do we allow for credit for that. So that's one of, that's one point. The other one is, I mean the whole big issue is runoff. That's what we're talking about and we've had, this is not the first time this issue has come back to council to look at. I mean we have a 25% limit of impervious surface and we have, we have a resident who has come in and they're saying okay, in order to compensate that we are willing to do these things and I, what is it? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 options here. And in addition to that, which they sound like reasonable options tome. In addition to that they're willing to be a test for any of these options. And I know that we have talked about permeable pavers before. You know can we do a project on that? We haven't done, I don't think we've done anything with that yet, but they're willing to be a test for that. Maybe this is an opportunity. I don't know. But I mean they've, I think that they've given us a lot of information 51 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 where we have some various options and if we would be willing to give them the opportunity to do that, which I think we should, I would be in favor of granting a variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Where do I start? Well I've, this is I guess my second term on council so that means I was on council for 4 years. And prior to that I was on the Planning Commission and so that dates me quite a bit and I recall reviewing quite a few of these so I know the ordinance has been enforced for quite some time. What I kind of scratch my head about is, a lot of times we'll see these cases come before us and people have started a project or they've completed a project and just didn't know what was happening. But this is peculiar to me because the applicant knew that there was a problem and so now they're coming before us asking us to make an exception to the rule even though construction has already started. I always look at these cases for hardship and I look at that quite earnestly and I don't see the hardship. I think they have reasonable use of their property and the hardship I think, or the problem was created with the addition and the beginning of construction on their property. And so because of that I am going to recommend denial of this variance request. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well I too have a lot of experience, especially in this area of Lake Minnewashta because a lot of the homes you're talking about we've had quite a few people come before us. One guy I know wanted to build a 3 car garage. We would not allow it because again he took over the impervious surface. Compromise came back. He got a 2 car garage and I think that was fair use of the property. The issue about the pavers and using this as a test case, I don't think you want the city out there on a constant basis monitoring things. The Arboretum about 3 years ago came before the Planning Commission and talked to us about all this. It was all in a study phase and they had a lot of promising ideas but they had not brought anything to the city yet to say what was going to work so I think we leave that to them. Yeah, hardship unfortunately is a legal term that is ambiguous. I would agree with you, but it's that way for a reason because it applies on a case by case basis and in this particular case, whereas you bring up a lot of exceptions to other properties but that's those properties and I think we would have to look at them on a case by case basis and determine it. Here, I don't see the hardship. I mean based upon everything that we've done in the past. We've been very consistent as far as granting variances. They're not granted unless certain conditions are shown and those conditions have not been shown here. So at that point I would not be in favor of granting the variance either. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I think some of my thoughts are consistent in that the issue before us here tonight on this request is whether or not there's a hardship. Does the shape and topography of the lot, which has been put forth, create a hardship. Being able to back down, back out, back down the driveway. Is that a hardship because of the length of, and that gets back to the shape of the lot. Some of the other items proposed I don't think are necessarily hardships. I think they are preferences in terms of property use. The issue as far as, and Councilwoman Ernst you brought up the 723 square feet that was presented. One of the things that we have done over the last year or so, when we look at and you can see it. I don't know if this is still showing on the screen or not but this lake view picture, just leave it right there. You can see that 52 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 there are retaining walls there that have been put up, and I'm sure that's part of the erosion control because it changes the slope of the lot by leveling out a certain portion. The retaining walls we've been pretty clear are not considered part of the impervious surface coverage, even though vertically they might be because what they effectively do is they do change the slope and so they minimize runoff. What the issue here is, that on top of the retaining wall is a paver patio and that's the impervious surface coverage. I absolutely think paver patios are nice and that popular in use but that's where the impervious surface is coming from is how is the ground covered above the retaining wall for that. You know what it gets back to and Mr. Bruning started his comments about reasonable use of the property and we can talk about what the definitions are, but my sense is, and I think it was mentioned that there was reasonable use of this property prior to the addition being started. The addition might be preferred but the reasonable use was already there and while they were slightly over the 25%, my sense is it came from some of these minor additions that occurred over the years. Whether it's the dog kennel. The pad for the gas grill. The shed. The patios. I mean all of these are just normal additions that occur over someone's use of their house over a lifetime and use and enjoyment and there was just kind of an incremental expansion that would not necessarily be caught by the city process simply because up until recent years there was no need to get a permit for putting in a patio or for doing some of these other things. And so there was no check that might have occurred. I don't know how many of these occurred before or after the last addition but when I step back and from a bigger picture is, I think from what I've heard my fellow members of council say is, is there was reasonable use before the additions. The additions go forward knowing full well that that would put them in an overage. It would make them more out of compliance than what they already were, and so I don't see where the hardship is. If there was reasonable use before with the shape and topography, how can there, how can there be reasonable use after when there's been an addition? I think it is self created from that sense and so why I'd like to allow people to expand and improve their properties as they want, you know we have to do it within the confines of the ordinance and treat people fairly. If we have other property owners that have exceeded that, you know there have been a number of times when we have after the fact variance requests. Or something's been put in without the knowledge. They find out they've got to go through the process. Here staff was working to try to accommodate the request of the property owner and to move forward quickly, knowing that they had this in place. So this was, and I think Councilwoman Tjornhom mentioned it. This wasn't an after the fact. This was known going in and I just, I can't see the hardship here given the fact that I think they had reasonable use before and what's creating this hardship now is the desire to expand. So unfortunately in this case I can't see moving forward. There are a lot of additional factors that would suggest that we should move forward. It's a lakeshore property. One of the biggest reasons we have these storm water ordinances in place is to protect runoff into our lakes. If we're going to look at a test case or something like that, I'd rather do it as far away from a lake as we could. Not on a lake. And while I appreciate the property owner willing to do that, and over time we may change our ordinance to include some of those components and if we do then those ordinance would apply across the city, and all property owners will be able to modify their properties as they saw fit and take advantage of or work within whatever the ordinances were so, I've gone on a little bit here but it's never enjoyable to say no to somebody for when they're trying to improve and expand their enjoyment of their property. So that's why I wanted to talk a little bit more but from evaluating the facts that have been presented, and even with the alternatives this evening, I can't 53 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 see supporting the variance request. Any other thoughts or comments? If not is, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'll make the motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I make a motion the Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% impervious coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, with conditions 1 through 4 on pages 8 and 9 on the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Facts and Action. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any modification to the motion? Kate Aanenson: Can I just for clarification? What I heard from the council is that they had discretion of what they wanted removed to get to that percentage so we can still work with the applicant on that? Mayor Furlong: I think that would fit within this motion as it's been proposed. Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7 % hard surface coverage variance on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage requirement as outlined in the City Code. 2. Excess hard surface coverage must be removed and revegetated no later than May 31, 2009. 3. An as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required and must be submitted no later than June 15, 2009 to ensure compliance. 4. Final building inspection will not be approved until verification of compliance. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 54 Memorandum TO: Angie Auseth, Planner 1 FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: December 18, 2008 RE: Ambrosen/Senn Variance Request This memorandum is in response to the argument proffered by the consultant, on behalf of the applicant, at the December 2, 2008 Planning Commission. Mr. Bruning contends that the patio and retaining walls located behind the property are a solution to the erosion issues on the slope. I strongly disagree with this contention. The very act of placing hard cover immediately adjacent to the top of bluff results in an increase in the volume of water running off of the surface as well as a decrease in the time of concentration for this runoff. This means that more water is running off the area at an increased velocity. Some of the water will infiltrate through the brick pavers but without a substrate of engineered soils, an underdrain system and regular maintenance, this infiltration is limited and diminishes annually. Evidence visible in the photographs, such as plant growth in the joints and an absence of granite chips in the joints, indicates that regular maintenance of the patio as a drainage system does not take place. The re-establishment of a vegetative cover would do more to slow the movement of surface water in the area, create a more diffuse flow pattern and promote infiltrate of water into the soils than an engineered hardcover system. This would also eliminate the need for the point discharge of drain tile westerly in the retaining wall system. Finally, the removal of the vegetation on the bluff itself exposes the soil to the full erosive force of the rainfall as well as the erosion which results from runoff. No fewer than four trees were removed on the bluff. City code allows for the removal of thirty feet or thirty percent of the lot width, whichever is less. This tree removal created a large opening in the canopy exposing a considerable area of bare soil. Replacement of these trees would go a long way to ameliorating the erosion problem on the lot. This concludes my review. Should you have any questions, please contact me at extension 1168. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: AMBROSEN/SENN VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 3830 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE (LOT 7 BLOCK 1 MAPLE RIDGE) APPLICANT: SAWHORSE DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS. OWNERS: MARK AMBROSEN AND ANN SENN PLANNING CASE 08-24. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item Papke: Kevin, we'll start with you. Dillon. Were the other driveways that, that 66700 and 6760, where are they, those houses, those homes in relation to the 25% coverage? Are they right up against it? Auseth: For this survey we were mainly looking at the driveways so we did not do a full survey of each property. Dillon: Okay, because I'm kind of, just jumping way ahead here. If you grant a variance for this one to make the turn around and those other ones don't have turn arounds, will we start down a slipper slope of granting more variances for turn arounds, but maybe they're well below the 25%. It's not a big deal. I don't know so. AI-Jaff. I am familiar with those sites and they do meet the code requirements. They do not exceed the 25%. Dillon: And do they, so is everyone in this place backing out of their driveways? I mean all the homeowners around here. Is that part of the, or? Al-Jaff In the specific subdivision? Dillon: It would look that way. Well not everybody but SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Al -Jaffa Some of them do have a turn around. Based upon the lot area, and some of them don't, but it's not a busy street as such they are able to get out of their driveways. Dillon: That's all I have right now... Thomas: I don't have any questions of staff. Laufenburger: I don't either. Papke: Okay. If there's an applicant here this evening, would you please step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record and tell us what you have to say about your request. Fred Bruning: Well good evening council members. Thanks for taking the time to hear me. I'm Fred Bruning. I'm with Sawhorse Designers and Builders. I'm here on behalf of the owners, Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn. I have a brief statement to read, but before that I'd like to you know thank Angie for her time. She's, we may not have always agreed but she's always been courteous and helpful so I appreciate that. I do have additional copies of this, if I could. Staff has suggested that the only reasonable use of a property in R-1 zoning is a single family home with a 2 car garage. I submit that this view is not current thinking of land use. The majority of properties within 500 feet of this property are much more than that. 10 out of 13 houses on Maple Shores Drive have 3 car garages or more. A clear majority. In addition an examination of the aerial photos on the Carver County web site shows that 20 of the 32 residences in this area appear to be over the 25% hard cover restriction. Some extremely over. These are pre-existing standards for the neighborhood. In comparison to a majority of homes in the area, Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn are not asking for an unreasonable use of their property. Because of the shape and topography of their lot my clients need to use precious hard cover for an atypically long driveway to access their home and a retaining wall, patio drain system to protect it. Three properties to the south have longer driveways than my clients, and each has a turn about. However they are on near level lots. Two have flag lot hard exemptions to the hard cover requirement. The remaining is on a much larger property. To the east are the only two lots within 500 feet that have an elevation change greater than this property. However it is only slightly greater and over a longer distance. This property is unique in that it has both these elements combined on a parcel that is substantially smaller than any of them. The lot size combined with the shape and topography is the hardship. It is not self created. The willingness to accept an undue hardship does not negate the hardship or create it. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which this parcel is located. Mark and Ann have incurred both the monetary and more importantly the hard cover expense to mitigate runoff erosion problems caused by topography of their lot. Without this allocation of protective hard cover my clients would be able to construct their addition and meet the hard surface coverage limitation while maintaining their driveway and turn about. They should not be penalized for efforts to comply with the spirit of the hard cover code simply because they do not meet the letter of that code. However, a denial of the variance could endanger public safety. While staffs Findings of Fact does not agree, we feel that backing a vehicle down a narrow wooded sloped driveway in excess of 130 feet could be a danger to public safety. I ask the Planning Commission to consider the following actions. Number one. Grant the variance as requested. Number two. Grant an 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 exemption to the hard cover calculation for the retaining wall, patio drain system in the rear of the home. The City currently recognizes similar exemptions for swimming pools and driveways on flag lots, etc. Number three. Request the City Council consider recognizing other means of mitigating hard cover. I have a list of these submitted on the original narrative in the file. Number four. Modify the recently added condition requiring my clients to use an as -built survey signed by a registered land surveyor to ensure that the lot complies with the 25% hard surface coverage. We request that the variance, we request if the variance is denied, Mark and Ann should be asked to maintain their existing hard cover condition currently an estimated 25.7%. The current excess hard cover is a pre-existing condition that appears prevalent in the area. We appreciate your considerations of this variance and I'll make an attempt to answer any questions you may have. Undestad: I don't have any right now. Keefe: You know you've referenced that changes in grade and you know the thinking, I mean is that the change in grade at the front of the house towards the lake side? Fred Bruning: Yeah, at the lake side. I mean front to back, from the lake to the back corner is 46 feet on this lot. Most of it happens, over 30 feet happens right outside their back door. Keefe: Okay. And the, so. Fred Bruning: The lot, right off the lake they have a very flat area where that fire pit and that is down there. I mean it's 70 feet that's relatively level and then in the next, you know 15 feet, it goes up 30 feet. Keefe: And the impact of that is what? Fred Bruning: Well in the past they've had, and in the original narrative I explained this. When they originally bought the home they had nothing back there and the soils, I mean they're highly erosive soils. I mean very fine silts and sands and that hill had actually eroded within 6 feet of their foundation. I mean they needed to do something to protect their home. Keefe: And so what you're saying is that, because they've had to add the drainage system and retaining wall, that has essentially taken up some of the allowed hard surface coverage? Fred Bruning: Correct. That's one of the issues that does. That the topography requires them to do that. Papke: If I can just step in at this point. Keefe: Yeah. Papke: Excuse me Dan but just since you're on that topic. We just had a case last week where the retaining walls are not being counted. Now I don't see them in the calculations here. Could Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 city staff clarify if the retaining walls are being taken into account or how is that calculation being done? Auseth: The retaining walls should not be included in the hard cover. Fred Bruning: And they are not. Papke: Okay. So we're cool there. So what are you really asking for? Fred Bruning: Well the back of their home they had, it was an engineered system. Because of the, I mean it's 30 feet of grade. It was engineered that, they put hard surface right up to these retaining walls and actually drained that water through the wall and get it to that lower level. To have the soils that are open, and right now they have pavers but the amount of water that's gone through those pavers is still eroding the soil and they have to make some modifications to change that, but to have that open gives you, when the soils become saturated, you get a 30 foot column of water. Hydrostatic pressure in 30 feet, I mean it's tons per square foot on that wall and so what was determined to do is actually protect it. You know like the top of the mountain, when you see mountains erode. Put a hard surface on top. Take that water past the erosion point. Past that steep grade so it wouldn't carry the fine silts and sand down the hill. Keefe: So is that part of your scope of work to do that? To put it additional in. Fred Bruning: No. They already had that engineered and installed to protect their home. Mark Ambrosen: That was done fairly soon after we bought it because, that's probably been in over 10 years. When we first moved in the walkout went out about 6 feet and then it was grass and then it just dropped down, there was nothing, so we were getting erosion there. Keefe: But am I clear? They're not getting, it's not being counted as a part of the. Fred Bruning: Yes. Mark Ambrosen: The 723 square feet. Fred Bruning: The patio ... part of that system is being counted. Dillon: And what's it made out of? Fred Bruning: It's pavers. Mark Ambrosen: At the top right hand comer. Fred Bruning: That's the picture you have in the comer. It goes out an average of, I mean it's the only back yard they have outside their door. It goes in and out but the average is 12 feet. The in and out was necessary because the height of the wall, you know they have a straight wall. Some articulation. 4 to 5 is the wall. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Laufenburger: I do have a question Mr. Chair. This may be for staff. Is it correct for me to understand that the homeowner will be able to retain their existing coverage, which is currently 25.7%. So .7% over acceptable. Will they be able to retain that if this is fully denied? Because that's a request that Mr. Bruning is making in his, yeah in his statement. Number 4. Do you understand the question? Al-Jaff: The applicant is requesting that they be allowed to retain it. However that is a non- conforming situation. It's a continuing non -conformity because when the site was developed, that ordinance was in place. Laufenburger: Okay, so they're .7% over limit and it will be their responsibility to bring that back within limit? Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Then one other question for, I think this may be for you Mr. Bruning. In the staff report it reflects that there is 1,039 square feet of proposed reductions, including dog kennel, changing pea rock, etc. You're familiar with those recommendations? Fred Bruning: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. And if you do those then, then the compliance will be within the 25%. So you're familiar with those? Fred Bruning: I am familiar with those. I actually proposed them. Laufenburger: Your idea? Fred Bruning: Correct. Mark and Ann are, and I reiterate. They're willing to suffer this hardship. The hardship isn't, you know isn't the shape of the drive. I mean having a narrow driveway and backing down the driveway. I mean the hardship is the lot. The size of the lot. The topography of the lot. The shape that requires a long driveway. If they didn't have those factors, it would be a non -issue. These are factors other properties don't have and are able to do similar things that Mark and Ann are asking to do. But because, the uniqueness of this lot and the combined factors on the small size creates the need for these things. Creates the need for a long driveway. Creates the need for this retaining wall patio system. That is the hardship. And they're willing to suffer that hardship to have an addition. I'm just asking you guys not to make them suffer it you know. Laufenburger: They like living there, don't they? Fred Bruning: Yeah. Yeah they do. Laufenburger: That's it Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Papke: Kathleen. Thomas: Not right now. Papke: Kevin. Dillon: So in your letter here, you know the Carver County web site shows that 20 of 32 residences are over the 25% hard cover. Fred Bruning: Yeah, one three houses down looks like it's about 55-60% hard cover. Dillon: Well looks or is? Fred Bruning: Well, I don't know, do you have it up? On the south side, go down 3 houses. Right there. If you look at the one that's right below the E in Maple. They have a 4 car garage. A tuck under in back. You know you do the calculation. You can't tell for sure something has plastic under it but just looking at the hard concrete surfaces, that's over 50%. Dillon: So question for the staff. How do we kind of get in this spot? I mean I can't tell if that's 50% or not from here but if, you know we knew that their lot's 25.7% today and that's over the 25%. It's kind of a newer home. How did that get by way back in the day? Auseth: Unfortunately without somebody coming in and requesting a building permit or a permit to do this, it's difficult for staff to keep tabs on all of those, which again is why the zoning permit was put into place. So that patios, sheds under 120 square feet, small retaining walls, those have to come in for a permit now so that we can avoid these situations in the future. Dillon: Okay. So then since this is so close to the lake and the hard surface variance is being asked for, have any of the local water authorities or lake authorities weighed in on this? Auseth: We sent out referrals for, to the DNR and the watershed and have not heard back from them. Dillon: I know we've seen responses from them in the past so when they do not respond, does that mean they don't care or they just haven't gotten around to it yet? Jeffery: Chairman Papke, Commissioner Dillon. I have spoken with Michael Wyatt of the Watershed District. The way the Watershed District rules are set up, they do not oversee the shoreland regulations. The City has that authority granted to them by the commissioner of the DNR. While they generally not favor increasing the hard cover, they are not in a position to regulate that increase. They can only regulate storm water treatment features on that, or obvious erosion control issues that would exist on the property. Dillon: Okay. And then just to kind of build on the question that Denny asked. So if we've got some proposed reductions that the applicant has put forth, and it would get everything into compliance, kind of like why are we here? I mean you know if the applicant's putting them in 0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 there and they get us under the 25%. I know maybe it's not the best solution that the homeowner would like but it seems to me to be a pretty reasonable compromise. Fred Bruning: Does the whole, and I can read a section of the variance code. The whole idea of variances is to allow people to have a reasonable use that's comparable to what their neighbors have. To recognize conditions that all lots aren't equal. That sometimes you have, and it specifically names lot topography, the shape and size. Usually when I go through the variance process I have one of those factors. This property actually has all three and it's just, the variance is a means to allow them a reasonable use that other properties have. Their lot demands a long driveway. Their lot demands some mitigation to the elevation, topography change in the back. Take for example the ones towards the mouth of Maple Shores Drive. They don't need any of those considerations. Their lots are wide enough that their house can be close enough to the street to have a short driveway. They have level lots. They don't need huge retaining walls, mitigation to runoff and erosion. This is the whole point of recognizing unusual conditions of lots. Something I'd like to add. In the code itself, division 3 in variances. Section 20-58. Line item 1. A third of the way down. It recognizes that reasonable use includes a use made by the majority of the comparable properties within 500 feet. In my words here, and looking at the aerial photos, that's all we're asking for is a use that the majority of the homeowners within 500 feet of this property enjoy. Dillon: Okay. So then, and this is again maybe directed towards the staff but what is the staffs position about getting into alignment with the 25.7 down to the 25? What actions would, if we deny all of this stuff tonight and kind of wash our hands of it as the planning commission, what then? What are the next steps and how is that going to impact the homeowner? Auseth: Well one of the conditions for the denial is that an as -built survey be done. But one of the reasons is because staff worked with the applicant to approve the building permit for those additions prior to this evening's meeting so I'm assuming that those additions will still be constructed. Fred Bruning: They're underway. Auseth: And so if the variance is denied, and staff talked with the applicant at length about this that the as -built survey would be required either way to make sure that the site complies with whatever the Planning Commission decides on the variance. Dillon: Those are all the questions I have. Papke: Just one question from me. The 25.7 that's there now that the applicant is asking for, was there any variance granted to achieve that? So that in this particular case, if I understand things correctly, the applicant exceeded the 25% accidentally, or but. So you're asking for something that in your statement here you're asking to retain that. However there was not granting of a variance to achieve that in the first place. Just so we understand that. Fred Bruning: No. We're just asking to recognize a pre-existing condition that the vast majority of people around them. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Papke: Pre-existing that was... Fred Bruning: 25.7. Papke: ... city code by the applicant. Fred Bruning: Which the majority of property owners within 500 feet also are in violation of Papke: For which we have no evidence other than your visual inspection of these aerial photographs. Just so we understand. You know the Planning Commission has to make decisions on the data we have in front of us. The data that's on file in the city records and so on. You know we can't make decisions on the basis of your visual observation of aerial photographs. Fred Bruning: I understand. My visual observation may be biased. You could have staff look at the same photos. They're, I mean you actually have, I would suspect that this looks very similar. I suspect this is from the same web site. They did the same calculation when they required us to do an as -built. To do a survey of the property. The survey requirement and reducing the hard cover to 25%, that was very late in the process. You know going through this whole process, you know the client's doing the addition. The applications and everything. It was a very late thing to add. You know I guess I just ask, I ask you to think about it and consider the reason of it you know. Putting them in the situation to enforce their hard cover. I mean some of these, I mean look at some of these lots. I mean if you guys are going to take the approach of pulling them into compliance, when you have neighbors like this that are, I mean you don't even have to do a survey to look at some of these and you know, know that they're way over 25%. Papke: Anything else? Fred Bruning: No. I guess that's it. Papke: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anybody else like to speak? Okay. Seeing none, close the public hearing and bring it back to Planning Commission for comments and discussion. Undestad: You know the comment about the neighbors or who's in compliance, who's out of compliance. That's why we started the zoning ordinance. You know we have no idea how many people are out there that are over the 25% now but the idea is when people come to do this kind of stuff, or add a patio or a shed or anything, that's when this stuff is caught and then we have that opportunity to fix it. Unfortunately that's what this is. Somebody came in for the permit application for an addition and oh by the way, you know we're already over it before we start so. As far as the use of the house, you know I'm not sure what everybody else has inside their house in the neighborhood. I don't think that really matters the way it lays out here so. You know again what I see here is something that Commissioner Dillon brought up later is the variance for the driveway or the hard surface or anything, again for neighborhoods like this, you know just one right after another one's going to come in and want the round about's and the turn around's so I guess I'm kind of siding with staff on this one. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Papke: Okay, thank you. Keefe: Yeah, I'm struggling with the hardship. Really what it is and I think reasonable use is probably, I think these guys probably have reasonable use so that's kind of where I come down on it. Laufenburger: One of the things that I'm thinking about is the engineered patio. The 723 square feet I think, but even if you disallowed that, considered that not part of the impervious, they're still over so, I appreciate their attention to attempting to keep the erosion down but even if that was considered pervious, they would still be over. I don't know. I look at that and like you Mr. Chairman, we don't know that that house is over 25%. Visually it looks like it, and if I was a neighbor I would be upset that how can they do that. But that's not our job. Our job is to enforce the code of the City of Chanhassen and so therefore enforcement of the code is where I would settle too. Papke: Thank you. Kathleen Thomas: I think everyone has said it well and enforcement of the code is what the important part is so that we don't have more of these same issues or people coming in and asking the same thing and saying, well what's 3%? What's 4%? That kind of stuff so I agree. Dillon: You know I think on page 6 of the package we got here, under the paragraph that calls compliance, I mean it kind of nets it out pretty well for me. The applicant has demonstrated that the goals of the homeowner to add onto the home can be achieved without the need for the variance. It's my perception that that's mostly what they want is to increase the living space here, and it sounds like they can get that, and you know kind of can change the dog kennel. Change the pea rock. You know make the gas grill thing, eliminate that. Yes, a little bit smaller on the turn around things but it kind of sounds like it would get at the public safety issue of the backing out all the time and so it would seem to me that that would be the best win/win situation is to deny the variance but say go ahead with this other stuff. We wouldn't even have to say go ahead with it. It sounds like it's already in play. Papke: Well said. The only thing I'd add to all the discussion so far is, I appreciate the challenges that the homeowner has with the topography on this lot. We have a lot of these situations in Chanhassen. However on the flip side, this is almost 2/3 of an acre and I think there's plenty of opportunity here for other alternatives. I think with the driveway, we've seen that several neighbors have equivalent or more challenging back-out's and there's plenty of alternatives to do gravel turn around or something like that where pervious surfaces are, I'm sorry. The public hearing is closed now. So I think there's, the applicant does not have a hardship from the perspective that there are many alternatives that could be employed to stay within city code in this case. So anyway that's all I have to add. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2008 Undestad: I'll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case 08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action and subject to conditions 1 through 4. Papke: Is there a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case 08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage requirement as outlined in the City Code. 2. Excess hard surface coverage must be removed and revegetated no later than May 31, 2009. 3. An as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required and must be submitted no later than June 15, 2009 to ensure compliance. 4. Final building inspection will not be approved until verification of compliance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of Planning Commission meeting dated November 18, 2008 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10 October 30, 2008 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEp, The home of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn is located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive. Maple Shores Drive is a street with an increasing elevation to Lake Minnewashta, when it terminates at their property its elevation is at its maximum. The North to South elevation change of this property is over 46 feet. This dramatic change is further exacerbated by the slight change in grade for the first 70 feet abutting the lake. Their property is also unusually shaped; a canted "L" with its narrowest border abutting Maple Shores Drive. These factors obviously guided the original owner(s) to position the home where it is on the site — my clients are not the original owners. After years as Chanhassen residents, Mark and Ann would like to alter their home, like homeowners frequently do to meet the changing needs of their families in order to stay in a community and neighborhood they call home. In order to accomplish this, they have already decided to incur the added burden of canalizing an existing garage stall and replacing it with a new garage stall so they could push their proposed addition into the footprint of their existing home in order to meet the side yard setback portion of the city code. Unfortunately this was not enough to achieve their goal. While the size of their lot would normally easily allow them to comply with the hardcover portion of the code, two factors prevent this: 1. Because of the shape of the lot, an extremely long driveway is required to access the home. Driveways of this length create the need of a turnabout. The combined hardcover of these two elements is 3,143 sq.ft., 16% more than the hardcover footprint of the home itself. Sa�co� jA Ctvv, yx ,) m ,X j 2 2. Because of the dramatic change in grade on the South of their lot, Mark and Ann were faced with an erosion problem at the rear of their home. Water had eroded the slope to within six feet of their foundation. The solution was to construct a series of retaining walls, a paver patio and a system of drains installed along the entire rear elevation of their home. This 723 sq.ft. of hardcover was designed to alleviate the problem, unfortunately the small amount of water that was able to permeate the pavers has caused some erosion to continue. They have had the failure evaluated and the recommended solution is to replace the pavers with an even less permeable concrete slab. They are not inclined to remove this protection to their home. I suggest that it would be an undue hardship to require my clients to remove these hard surfaces and to the best of my understanding, the current Chanhassen city code recognizes few if any of the less permeable alternative surfaces now available. I also offer another hardship for you to consider: 3. The strict, literal enforcement of the hardcover code over its intent is a hardship in itself. Mark and Ann are two of the most environmentally "green" people I've known. They understand the need to restrict water runoff into our lakes and streams. SCANNED We don't understand why viable alternatives that can accomplish the spirit of the code cannot be used simply because it doesn't follow the letter of the code. There are many examples: a) Permeable and semi -permeable pavers. b) Downspouts that can direct water to otherwise inaccessible permeable areas. c) Holding ponds d) Drain fields e) Easements to permit neighbors to exchange permeable areas. f) Cisterns (in addition to mitigating hardcover, these systems can also be used to reduce the demand on city water for irrigation) g) Other considerations including but not limited to; soil type, ground cover, grade pitch. They would be willing to provide data that proves the viability of these systems. Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn did not create these hardships. The purpose of this request for variance is not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of this land. I cannot envision how the granting of this variance could be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, it would not increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Fred Bruning Senior Designer Sawhorse Designers and Builders 763-533-0352 fredbruning@sawhorseusa.com CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP SCANNED 0 CITY OF CBANBASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952,227,1110 Park 8 Recreation Phone. 952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Carter 2310 Caulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning 8 Nakral Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci,chanhassen. mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Auseth, Planner I Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: January 12, 2009 A SUBJ: Ambrosen/Senn Hard Surface Coverage Variance Planning Case #08-24 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% impervious coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, with conditions 1 through 4 on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet. Planning Commission Update A Public Hearing was held at the December 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the variance request. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. The applicant presented a narrative dated December 1, 2008, stating that the topography of the site causes an undue hardship. However, based on the guidelines of the City Code for the RSF district, the property owner does have reasonable use of the property which includes a single-family home and three -car garage. The Planning Commission discussed the fact that the applicant showed a reduction of 1,039 square feet of hard coverage in order to obtain a building permit to construct the additions. This demonstrates that their goal of adding onto the home and bringing the site into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage can be achieved. The homeowner submitted security and a signed escrow agreement to ensure compliance with the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt Ambrosen-Senn Hard Surface Coverage Variance January 12, 2009 Page 2 The applicant stated that the condition requiring an as -built survey was added late in the process; however, staff conveyed this requirement to the applicant prior to issuing the building permit. Water Resource Response In response to the narrative given by the consultant on behalf of the applicant, at the December 2, 2008 Planning Commission; Mr. Bruning states that the patio and retaining walls located behind the property are a solution to the erosion issues on the slope. Staff disagrees with this statement. The very act of placing hard cover immediately adjacent to the top of bluff results in an increase in the volume of water running off of the surface as well as a decrease in the time of concentration for this runoff. This means that more water is running off the area at an increased velocity. Some of the water will infiltrate through the brick pavers, but without an underlying layer of ifiltration is limited and diminishes annually. Evidence visible in the photographs, such as plant growth in the joints and an absence of granite chips in the joints, indicates that regular maintenance of the patio as a drainage system does not take place. The re-establishment of a vegetative cover will slow the movement of surface water in the area, create a more diffused flow pattern and promote infiltration of water into the soils compared to an engineered hardcover system. This would also eliminate the need for the point discharge of drain tile westerly in the retaining wall system. Finally, the removal of the vegetation on the bluff itself exposes the soil to the full erosive force of the rainfall as well as the erosion which results from runoff. No fewer than four trees were removed on the bluff. City code allows for the removal of thirty feet or thirty percent of the lot width, whichever is less. This tree removal created a large opening in the canopy exposing a considerable area of bare soil. Replacement of these trees would go a long way to improve the erosion problem on the lot. The Planning Commission did not find any objection to staffs recommendation for the variance request. The City Council minutes for December 2, 2008 are item la of the January 12, 2009 City Council Packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% impervious coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, with conditions 1 through 4 on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Narrative, dated December 1, 2008. 2. 60-day Development Review Deadline extension letter dated December 5, 2008. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated December 2, 2008. gAplan\2008 planning mm\08-24 ambmsen-seen variance\I-12-09 ecxudve summary dm December 1, 2008 Staff has suggested that the only reasonable use of a property in R-1 zoning is a single- family home with a 2-car garage. I submit that this view is not current thinking of land use. The majority of properties within 500 feet of this property are much more than that. 10 out of 13 houses on Maple Shores Drive have 3 car garages or more (a clear majority). In addition, an examination of the aerial photos on the Carver County website shows that 20 of the 32 residences in this area appear to be over the 25% hardcover restriction, some extremely over. These are pre-existing standards for this neighborhood. In comparison to the majority of the homes in the area, Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn are not asking for an unreasonable use of their property. Because of the shape and topography of their lot, my clients need to use precious hardcover for an atypically long driveway to access their home and a retaining wall/ patio/ drain system to protect it. Three properties to the South have longer driveways than my clients and each has a turnabout, however, they are all on near level lots. Two have flag lot exemptions to the hardcover requirement; the remaining is on a much larger property. To the East are the only two lots within 500 feet that have an elevation change greater that this property, however it is only slightly greater and over a longer distance. This property is unique in that it has both these elements combined on a parcel that is substantially smaller than any of them. The lot size combined with the shape and The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which this parcel is located. Mark and Ann have incurred both the monetary and more importantly the hardcover expense to mitigate the runoff/erosion problem caused by the topography of their lot. Without this allocation of protective hardcover, my clients would be able to construct their addition and meet the hard surface coverage limitation while maintaining their driveway and turnabout. They should not be penalized for their efforts to comply with the spirit of the hardcover code simply because they don't meet the letter of that code. However, denial of this variance could endanger public safety. While staff's finding of fact does not agree, we feel that backing a vehicle down a narrow wooded sloped driveway in excess of 130' could be a danger to public safety. I ask that the Planning Commission consider the following actions: 1) Grant the variance as requested. 2) Grant an exemption to the hardcover calculation for the retaining wall/ patio/ drain system in the rear of the home (The City currently recognizes similar exemptions for swimming pools and driveways on flag lots, etc.). 3) Request that the City Council consider recognizing other means of mitigating hardcover (see list in original narrative) 4) Modify the recently added condition requiring my clients to use an as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor to ensure that the lot complies with the 25% hard surface coverage. We request that if the variance is denied, Mark and Ann should be asked to maintain there existing hardcover condition (currently at an estimated 25.7%). The current excess hardcover is a pre-existing condition that appears prevalent in the area. We appreciate your considerations for this variance. Smcerel , Wing Senior Designer Sawhorse Designers and Builders 763-533-0352 fredbruning@sawhorseusa.com a -z� CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.11 B0 Fax:952.227.1190 B0Mg Phone:952.227.1160 Fax:952.227.1170 Run Phone:952.227.1140 Far:952.227.1110 Park 8 Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Colter Boulevard Phone:952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Odds Phone:952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us December 5, 2008 Fred Bruning Sawhorse Design & Builders 4740 42nd Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Re: Hard Surface Coverage Variance Development Review Deadline 3830 Maple Shores Drive --Planning Case 08-24 Dear Mr. Bruning: Your hard surface coverage variance request appeal has been scheduled for the January 12, 2009 City Council meeting. This date exceeds the application review deadline as required by State Statute. Being that staff is unable to process this application within the 60-day review deadline; the City is taking an additional 60 days to complete its review. The review deadline for this item is now February 28, 2009. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1132 or aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, 4ilth Planner I cc: Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn cc: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director GAPLANM2008 Planning Cases\08-24 Ambrosen-Senn VariancexExlension Letter.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED Auseth, Angie From: Fred Bruning [FredBruning@Sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:06 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Variance decision appeal Angie, We would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Could you tell me the date the appeal would be heard? Would you confirm this request for the appeal? Thank you, Fred -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:36 AM To: Fred Bruning Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Meuwissen, Kim Subject: Variance decision appeal Fred, I wanted to remind you that you have four days in which to submit a written request to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The appeal must be submitted no later than Monday, December 8, 2008. If an appeal is not submitted, the decision of the Planning Commission is final. Please let me know if you have any question. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% impervious coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% impervious coverage limitation by 1,038 square feet on a lakeshore lot, zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). LOCATION: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Additions APPLICANT: Fred Bruning Mark Ambmsen & Ann Senn Sawhorse Design & Builders 3830 Maple Shores Drive 4740 42' Avenue North Excelsior, MN 55331 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.64 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, west and east are zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) and contain single-family homes. Lake Minnewashta is located to the south. WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is available to the site. 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. SCANNED Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 2 of 9 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances • Chapter 20, Article XII, Shoreland Management District • Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) District • Section 20-615 (5) Lot requirements and setbacks • Chapter 20, Article XXHI, General Supplemental Regulations • Section 20-908 Yard Regulations PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance to construct improvements, including garage expansion, house addition, and driveway expansion on property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. L '� Maple Shores Drive h Lake Minnewashta The 28,100 square -foot lot is a lakeshore lot located on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The applicant submitted and obtained a building permit, in addition to the variance application, to add two additions onto the home and necessary accesses, totaling 848 square feet. Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 3 of 9 The applicant wanted to commence construction before the ground froze; therefore, staff worked with the applicant to process the building permit prior to the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The applicant demonstrated that the site could comply with the 25% hard surface coverage by proposing to remove 1,039 square feet of hard surface. Staff has obtained a security deposit and a signed escrow agreement to ensure the removal and revegetation of the hard surfaces exceeding 25%, should the variance be denied. Staff has advised the applicant of staffs interpretation and recommendation for the denial of the request. The homeowner currently has reasonable use of the property, which includes a single-family home and a three -car garage. The applicant has demonstrated that the hard surface coverage on the site can be reduced to achieve their goal of constructing the additions on the site. This request is a self- created hardship, as defined by the City Code. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, which is zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF). The Maple Ridge Addition was platted in 1985 and consists of 13 lots. The subject property was developed in 1986 and complies with the current standards for a riparian lot. Minimum lot area for a riparian lot in the RSF district is 20,000 square feet. The subject site has an area of 28,100 square feet (0.64 acres). The Single -Family Residential zoning district was adopted in 1972 which includes the maximum 25% hard surface coverage per lot. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the proposed additions to the home. Staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required for the 848 square -foot expansions as the site would exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage by 3.7%. The expansions include converting one stall of the three -car garage into a laundry room and adding a new third stall onto the north side of the existing garage, a driveway expansion to access the third stall, and a two-story theater addition with a wraparound balcony on the east side of the house with concrete stairs and patio. Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 4 of 9 The applicant wanted to commence construction prior to the ground freezing, the applicant applied for a variance and a building permit simultaneously. Prior to issuing the building permit, the applicant demonstrated that the site could meet the 25% hard surface coverage by eliminating 1,039 square feet of hard surfaces. The applicant fi ••�tgWW4rrt ' rc.•q,MYI�,y. l�,!'+'` 1r� i >43M nT V'"B I� i l � wain nrM cep ne/ar�•. RECEIVED +c+ o ; <a,e CXAf R65 _%'%SPE'—ONS O provided an escrow of $4,000 and an escrow agreement to ensure the removal of the excess impervious coverage, bringing the site into compliance with the 25% maximum site coverage, should the variance request be denied. ANALYSIS The subject site is a riparian lot and has an area of 281,000 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot area in the RSF district by greater than 8,000 square feet. Additionally, the site currently exceeds the 25% hard surface coverage by 190 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the size of the homelgarage and site improvements by 848 square feet and keep the existing hard surfaces currently on the site. The applicant is requesting a 3.7% (1,038 square -foot) hard surface coverage variance. Existing Existing Lot size 281,000 House/ ara a 2,779 Driveway/entry sidewalk (concrete) 3,143 Shed (concrete) 120 Walkout patio(pavers) 723 Fire pit patio avers 256 Dog kennel (concrete) 167 Pad for gas grill (concrete 33 Total 7,215 Percentage 25.7% Proposed Additions House/garage additions 692 Service door pad (3x6 concrete) 18 Driveway spur 90 connection Steps & patio for (6 treads) 48 addition Total 848 Variance Request Square footage 1,038 Request Percentage 28.7% Without reductions Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 5 of 9 Site Characteristics The subject site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The property is an inverted `L' shape and the majority of the property is oriented north/south to the lake. Most of the south side of the lot is a bluff with an elevation change over 46 feet and occurs within the first 70 feet abutting the lake. The soils are classified as "highly erodible land" by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. In the past, there have been erosion issues concerning the bluff on the site. To mitigate the erosion problems; the applicant has had retaining walls engineered and a patio installed on the site. However, increasing the hardcover will subsequently increase the volume and rate of runoff and may lead to additional erosion. As shown in the photograph to the left, wood stairs have been installed down the bluff from the home to the lake to provide access. This is permitted through Sec.20-1402, Stairways, lifts and landings, of the City Code. Driveway Due to the `L' shape of the property and location of the home on the lot, the driveway is over 130 feet in length and includes a turnabout. The driveway occupies I 1 % of the allowed hard surface coverage of the lot (3,143 square feet). The applicant states that removing the turnabout is a hardship as the alternative is to drive in reverse down the 130-plus-foot driveway. However, as part of the building permit and several discussions with the applicant, it was conveyed by the applicant, on behalf of the homeowner, Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 6 of 9 that the turnabout portion could be removed to meet the 25% coverage to receive building permit approval for the additions. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. Upon inspection of the site, staff noted that the driveway is relatively flat and straight. Driving in reverse down the driveway does not create a safety issue and does not require a turnabout as outlined in the City Code. According to Section 20-1122 (11) of the City Code, a turnabout is required on driveways that enter onto a state highway, county road or collector roadway, and city streets where deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. The subject site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac that serves 13 single-family homes. Of the 13 properties, four have driveways longer than 30 feet, which is the minimum front yard setback requirement in the RSF district. The subject site is the only driveway with a turnabout, which the applicant has demonstrated can be removed if the variance is denied. Additionally, Maple Shores Drive is not a through street and non-residential traffic is minimal. Compliance The applicant has demonstrated that the goals of the homeowner to add on to the home can be achieved without the need for a variance. The applicant wanted to begin construction of the additions before winter and submitted a building permit, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, to construct the additions. The applicant has submitted an application for a building permit which does not increase the hardcover. Instead, it mitigates for the hardcover by eliminating several of the existing elements on the property: the driveway, dog kennel, grill pad and portion of the patio near the lake. Proposed Reductions Dog kennel (change to pea rock) 167 Pad for (eliminate) 33 Driveway/turnabout (reduce) 725 Fire pit size reduction 50 Driveway in front of new laundry Room 64 Total 1039 Compliance Total existing & Proposed 8,063 Total reductions 1,039 Proposed Total 7,024 Percentage w/ reductions 24.9% Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 7 of 9 In speaking with the applicant, prior to issuing the building permit, the applicant explained that the additions were important to the homeowner, who was willing to risk the turnabout in the driveway and various hard surfaces on the site to be able to begin construction. It is staff's interpretation that this request is a self-created hardship. The applicant submitted security and signed an escrow agreement stating that should the variance be denied, the excess RECEIVED hard surface coverage would be removed by May 31, 2009. A condition is added that an as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required to ensure the lot complies with the 25% hard surface coverage. The registered land survey must be submitted to the City by June 15, 2009. In addition, the applicant stated that a portion(s) of the 250 square -foot patio and 120 square -foot shed located near the lake could be removed or reduced to bring the site into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the site if necessary. 500 feet The City Code states that a variance may be granted if the literal enforcement causes undue hardship and the property owner does not have reasonable use of the property, which includes comparable properties within 500 feet. Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 8 of 9 Of the properties within 500 feet of the subject site (outlined in yellow), there have been two variance requests (outlined in green). One of the requests was for a 2- foot side yard setback to construct a two - car garage at 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive. The second request was for a 79-foot lot frontage variance for the construction of a single-family home at 3727 South Cedar. The consultant for the applicant suggests a number of examples for reducing the impact of increased hardcover. While it may be true that some of these practices would offset the effects of increased hardcover, there is no process by which these alternative management practices can be evaluated. There is also no way to assure that these alternative practices will be kept in place in the future. It is the intent of the hardcover code to maximize vegetative cover as much as it is to minimize total paved area. The benefits garnered by maintaining an area in natural vegetative cover will always outweigh the benefits of an engineered pavement system regardless of how well designed or installed. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Under the current conditions, the homeowner has reasonable use of the property including a single-family home and a three -car garage. The hardships listed by the applicant are not inconsistent with the criteria specified in the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action: "Me Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage requirement as outlined in the City Code. Ambrosen-Senn Variance Request Planning Case 08-24 December 2, 2008 Page 9 of 9 2. Excess hard surface coverage must be removed and revegetated no later than May 31, 2009. 3. An as -built survey, signed by a registered land surveyor, is required and must be submitted no later than June 15, 2009 to ensure compliance. 4. Final building inspection will not be approved until verification of compliance." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of site layout, stamped "Received October 31, 2008". 4. Reduced copy of architect drawings, stamped "Received October 31, 2008". 5. Letter attached to Building Permit, dated November 20, 2008. 6. Copy of Escrow Agreement. 7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 8. Reduced copy of site layout with removal areas, stamped "Received November 7, 2008". gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-24 ambmsen-seen vanmce\staff cepondoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 08-24. On December 2, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage to allow 1,038 square feet of hard surfaces at 3830 Maple Shores Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property including a single-family home and a three -car garage and a turnabout in the over 130-foot long drive. The applicant showed the removal of 1,039 square feet of existing impervious surfaces, including the removal of the turnabout (725 square feet), in order to obtain a building permit to construct 848 square feet of home improvements on the site while maintaining 24.9% hard surface coverage. This demonstrates that the applicant can achieve their goals of constructing the additions and comply with City Code. Therefore, the hard surface coverage variance request is a self- created hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Single -Family Residential District. All properties within the RSF district are limited by the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. In the past there has been erosion problems in the bluff located on the south side of the property. Retaining walls have been constructed on the site to mitigate those erosion issues; however, increasing the hard surface coverage on the site will increase the runoff and may cause additional erosion issues. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the home in addition to the existing hard surface coverage on the site. The applicant has demonstrated that additions can be constructed and the site can be brought into compliance with the 25% maximum hard surface limitation as outlined in the City Code. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property, as a single-family home and a three -car garage are currently located on the site. The applicant has demonstrated that 1,039 square feet of hard surface coverage can be removed to meet the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in the RSF district in order to construct 848 square feet of improvements. As part of the building permit, the applicant included removal of the turnabout in the driveway (725 square feet). Prior to issuing a building permit for the improvements and processing the variance request, staff advised the applicant of staffs interpretation and recommendation for the denial of the request. This request is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The increase in the amount of hard surface coverage on the site will increase the runoff from the site and may cause additional erosion which may run into Lake Mmnewashta. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood. 2 5. The planning report #08-24, dated December 2, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION "The Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-24 for a 3.7% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage to allow 1,038 square feet of hard surfaces on Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 2nd day of December, 2008. CHANHASSEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RU Its Chair gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-24 ambmsen-senn variance\12-2-08 findings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: 4--14n -47.No p r-,ti1 1�i-,RINSflgtc � ,YIN SS42.2 Contact: Fri P zuv,� Phone: 1.2 ,ii-CIS Fax: 7L,3-533-2i4L-h Email: Ore Ihrun or (a � Y1LlG<" ••ti .i.i`:Yl Planning Case No. J } Owner Name and Address: 2 Rom. it o - ci4pakC i72 UC. GY(G tiih; fl)tjN lls��i Contact: MM "Mntb5ar4 Phone: R5Z- 4-0- 12.35 Fax. Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review ^ITY OF CHANH� RECEIVEF OCT 3 1 2UU, "HANHASSEn Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost* - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $1 L\ 5 O • C�p An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/:" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LOCATION: ''R ;J P'%P-OUE SNurZLS CuZiue LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID I Dt noD P,wcjL cxa ( (�4 AO Sri rwP I I to � t Ohi) 0In02S44SOo-7o TOTALACREAGE. _G5 WETLANDS PRESENT: _X YES NO(M1t-4KewP6t4TA t A'LC) PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authored person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. frame u� nppuwrn / .- GI Signature „ITY OF CHAN,-o;. RECEIVED Dat OCT 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN Pi ANNWNG DEP- Date G:\planVorm \Development Review Application.DOC SCANNED Rev. 1/08 �------- Engineering - Planning • surveying RA Irs Frank Boos mocialss, Inc. October 9, 2008 Sawhorse Designers & Builders 4720 Qm Ave. N. Robbinsdale Minnesota 55422 Fax 763 533-2668 Phone 763 533-0352 SUBJECT: Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge, Carver County, Mn. 3830 Maple Shores Dr Excelsior, MN 55331 To Whom It May Concern: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED O C T 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT We hereby certify that the acreage of the above mentioned Lot 7 is 28.100 square feet, more or less, or 0.65 acres. Sincerely, MFRA, Inc. Henry Drelson Land Surveyor Minnesota Lic. # 17255 ,ilInI Movw An Equal Opportunity Employer 14800 26th Avenue North, Suite 740 • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone763/478.6070 • fax7631476.8532 • e-mail.mtraftfra.com SCANNED CITY CE CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2008 CHANHASSEN PtANIVING DEP, The home of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn is located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive Maple Shores Drive is a street with an aseending elevation to Lake Minnewashta. �chen it terminates at their property its elevation is at its maximum. The North to South elevation change of this property is over 46 feet This dramatic change is further exacerbated by the slight change in grade for the first 70 feet abutting the lake. Their property is also usually shaped, a canted " L" with its narrowest border abutting Maple Shores Drive While the size of their lot would normally easily allow them to comply with the hardcover portion of the code,. these two factors prevent this. 1. Shape of the Lot - Because of its shape, the buildable area is limited to the Eastern side of the lot requiring an extremely long driveway to access the home. Driveways of this length create the need of a turnabout. The combined hardcover of these two elements is 3143 sq.ft., 13% more than the 2779 sq ft footprint of the home itself. This disproportionate percentage of hardcover needing to be utilized for a driveway is a hardship. 2. Topography - Because of the dramatic change in grade on the South of their lot, Mark and Ann were faced with an erosion problem at the rear of their home. Water had eroded the slope to within six feet of their foundation The solution was to construct a series of retaining walls, a paver patio and a system of drains installed along the entire rear elevation of their home. This 723 sq ft. of hardcover was designed to alleviate the problem. They are not inclined to remove this protection to their home. The amount of hardcover needed to provide this protection is a hardship We are asking for a variance to the hardcover ordinance to 28.5% vs. the 25% required. Findings for granting a variance - Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn did not create these hardships. Reasonable use -- aerial photos of the neighborhood, show that this L-shaped lot and this length driveway is atypical to the immediate vicinity The purpose of this request for variance is not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of this land. The owners simply want to use the property differently. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. nor would the variance impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, it would not increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 1 also offer another consideration The strict, literal enforcement of the hardcon er code over its intent is a hardship in itself Mark and Ann are two of the most en,, ironmentally "green" people I've known They understand the need to restrict water runoff into our lakes and streams. Thev don't understand why a viable alternative that can accomplish the spirit of the code cannot be used simply because it doesn't follow the letter of the code_ We offer a lew examples a) More permeable alternative drivewayipatio surfaces available. the Uof M Arboretum has been testing systems and promoting to improve water quality run off issues from parking lots. driveways and patios_ (recent Kate l 1 expose") b) Downspouts that can direct water to otherwise inaccessible permeable areas c) Holding ponds d) Drain fields e) Easements to permit neighbors to exchange permeable areas t) Cisterns (in addition to mitigating hardcover, these systems can also be used to reduce the demand on city water for irrigation ) g) Other considerations including but not limited to, soil type, ground cover, grade pitch. We would be willing to share information and data if the city decides to allow one of these options After years as Chanhassen residents, Mark and Ann would like to alter their home to meet the changing needs of their family in order to stay in a community and neighborhood they call home. We feel that granting the variance to hardcover would he unique to their property and it's situations. We appreciate your considerations for this variance Sincerely. Fred Bruning Senior Designer Sawhorse Designers and Builders 763-533-035_ fredbaming(r'sawhorseusa com �RrH F PLdv' y -t J"Le e7 ty 1 5��ay o� .gILE kV T`t 19s5 ►+At4oYe4L 4'ALuALAS'100 T/4,6UthTW rAw rle�o MEA'wFe Mer1TS r-Au- 2ebf CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 3 12008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP' /*VGIT f&I4S Pam= fALL. ZOOS MARK /k14 rl �M 05Ala 4 � 383o MA" 4VPeC6 04'le EXCEIFiI o(L Mhl. 66391 lea lttA ♦ Is M.F. 0,,Jvtp - SCANNED zz a11 l "c}.6St3 ,W i[ull-,11ygig o z a��=5Mill I I W g z a j C a 0 g a AlR 01E d6 l'A Ott �'A 4� M1} rfl+z m s os o u g :b � z S 41, r .0 w zfp �y J i rc y A 9 Aua W an xa 3 6" CITY OF CHANHASSEN � r4 RECEIVED S a ! a OCT 3 1 2008 ,+ '�h w � CHANHASSEN PLANN NG DEP"' 4' SCANNED SCANNED __�I�illi�� il��i �lp� �I I�I ��•.�.-.�_._.��I�� uli I 6 - �- 04, EAST SIDE IMA&E It Offlcei Studio STALL OECK -- POP .... .-.� CITY OF CHANHASSEN UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1 2008 own �® i r �. i CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Plane: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Pfwne:952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227,1190 November 20, 2008 Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn 3830 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Ambrosen and Ms. Senn, Due to the construction season coming to a close as winter approaches and your desire to add on to your home while exceeding the hard surface requirements on the property; both a building permit and a hard surface coverage variance application have be simultaneously submitted to the City of Chanhassen. The hard surface coverage variance request will be heard at the December 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that meeting you have submitted security in the amount of $4,000 and a signed Escrow Agreement to the City to ensure the removal of the excess hard surface coverage should the variance be denied. Engineering As stated in the escrow agreement, the removal and revegetation must be Phone:952.227.1160 completed no later than May 31, 2009. Should this condition not be met, the City Fax:952.227.1170 may draw on the security to bring the site into compliance. The final building Finance inspection will not be approved and an asbuilt survey, signed by a registered land Phone:952.227.1140 surveyor, will be required for the property to verify compliance with the decision Fax:952,227.1110 of the Planning Commission/City Council. Park & Recreation Should you have any questions please contact me at 952-227-1132 or Phone:952,227.1120 aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Best regards, Phone:952.227.1400 Fax:952.227,1404 Angie useth Planning& Planner Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 cc: Building File cc: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PubkWorks Jerry Mohn, Building Official 1591 Park Road Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Phone:952.227.1300 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Fax:952.227.1310 Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Senior Center Roger Knutson, City Attorney Phone:952.227.1125 Fred Brunning, Saw Horse Designers & Builders Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.achanhassen. mn.us Chanhassen is a Community for Life. Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow ESCROW AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of 2008 by and between Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn, husband and wife ("Applicants"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. The Applicants are the owners of real property located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive in the City of Chanhassen (the "Property"). B. The Applicants have applied for a building permit for the construction of a building addition (the "Building Addition") to the Property. C. Construction of the Building Addition results in 28.5% impervious coverage, which exceeds that which is allowed by City Code. D. The Applicants have applied for an impervious surface coverage variance (the "Variance'). E. The Applicants have submitted plans (the "Plans") with the building permit that indicate that certain impervious areas (the "Impervious Areas') on the Property will be removed in order to comply with the City's impervious surface requirement in the event that the Variance is not granted. F. The estimated cost to remove the Impervious Areas and revegetate with seed and mulch is S4,000. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. 'Establishment of Escrow. The Applicants hereby escrow with the City the sum of S4,000 (the "Funds"), to be held pursuant to the terns of this Agreement. The Funds must be deposited by the Applicants in cash. 2. Completion of Work by the Applicants. The Applicants agree to construct improvements as shown on the Plans. The Impervious Areas must be removed and revegetated by May 31, 2009 unless the City has granted a variance. If the Applicants do not remove and revegetate the Impeeious Area, in the event a variance has not been approved, by May 31, 2009, the City may draw down the escrowed funds and the City and it's contractor's may enter the property and do the work. 3. Return of Funds to the Applicants. Unless the City has drawn down the escrowed funds as provided herein the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants, without interest, when the Impervious Areas are removed and revegetated. In the event that the Variance is granted, the Funds shall be returned to the Applicants. 6. . Amendment of Escrow. No rescission or modification to this escrow agreement shall be effective without written consent of the City and the Applicants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. PROPERTY OWNERS: Mark Ambrosen Ann enn STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) . Tjte foregoing� instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ��' , 2008, by Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn. ..as.�ar. By oJCGI. ffWAkAQ G(-- JES$rAA.AEININGER No Public, Conunmty Minnesota KTMr rt.Hx - MNJNEBOTI My ommission expires I W MY Cm*" EVWN An. 31 2012 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 20, 2008, 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 the Ambrosen/Senn Variance — Planning Case 08-24 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thi 1' day of NUYEmi]et! 2008. �Nota ublic Kaperi J. E V ardt,D46y Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota �``-kly Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property zoned Single Family Residential Applicant: Sawhorse Designers & Builders/Mark Ambrosen & Ann Senn Property 3830 Maple Shores Drive Location: (Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge) 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-24.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all properly 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 Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/'ndustrial. • Minnesota Slate Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification Date & Time: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a hard surface coverage variance on property Proposal: zoned Sin le Family Residential Applicant: Sawhorse Designers & Builders/Mark Ambrosen & Ann Senn Property 3830 Maple Shores Drive Location: (Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-24.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial, • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, lease contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification. THOMAS & MARY MANN GARY THOMAS & DIANE E COBB PETER M & CARLA M BENJAMIN 7211 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3859 RED CEDAR POINT DR 7231 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9668 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9668 TIMOTHY J & LAURIE A JENZER JASON E & CARRIE S LANDSTROM JOANN J HALLGREN 3920 MAPLE SHORES DR 7301 MINNEWASHTA PKY 3921 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9629 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9670 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9629 TERRY D & CARRIE B CARNS ROBBY D & SUSAN E SEGAL CHARLIE S SCIMECA 3911 MAPLE SHORES DR 3901 MAPLE SHORES DR 3900 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR , MN 55331 -9629 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9629 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9629 THOMAS L & SANDRA M GIESEN FRANCES T BORCHART CRAIG D & JANIE S NORBY 3930 MAPLE SHORES DR 7331 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7351 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9629 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9670 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9670 THOMAS P MANN PETER J SCHISSEL KEVIN M CLARK 7211 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3851 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3841 RED CEDAR POINT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9660 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 JIM P & SUSAN M GULSTRAND MICHAEL D & CYNTHIA H WENNER HEIDI ANN MARX 3831 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3801 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9676 JASON A JERNELL TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON GERALD & MELANIE KELLY 3821 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3720 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3841 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9687 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9602 BRADLEY D & BONNIE J STRAKA RUSSELL C & KRISTI M LEUTHOLD DAVID & BARBARA A SCOULER 3881 MAPLE SHORES DR 3861 MAPLE SHORES DR 3890 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9602 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9602 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9602 DEAN J & JILL R BARTA MARK E AMBROSEN & ROBERT C 8 ANN OSBORNE ANN CSENN 3937 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3815 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7766 383E MAAPLEPLE SHORES EXCELSIOR. MN 553311 -9602 WILLIAM R HAUGH JAMES P & SUSAN S ROSS CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3727 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3725 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3719 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688 KENT J & JULIE A FORSS JOSEPH H & GEORGIA G KANDIKO 3850 MAPLE SHORES DR 3870 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9602 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9602 N-0tiTH 13d Pt.a( �l lrr6 6*t JT't b rur'I h�Tt�ttY �� F�� w/�irY 1955 T/04uL^TG0 r124ki riLLO MEA5JR4`-MtWTS rou zoos RECEIVED NOV 0 7 2008 CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS ti U4 �,u �q i tj?Q Zo C-Xl6T. .e1k.eY' M��urr,a C.M4"- 2 vRl,lEupYtl'Ra+T f hF4:i•,o _ 93a_p. srcPa PnoPoseo A001T Ia4s f'o�- *- FALL ZOOS M bf - 5 5530 rNru�- SrtDR�S GfvY� f�xeE,L.iIof,,M/ . �;5331 O-i -.Pa �LA140IA4 } h e $ Go 4. P. (A&U.. F � P-s�t'crt p�avcth \ d y\\ J t' i Y y� �', \ \ate CPU t,+� �• �� s t�410 ` '\ � o s � �Jv aA. i Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:59 AM To: 'Fred Bruning' Subject: Variance Criteria Attachments: Docl.doc Fred, The variance criterion are based on state statue, which I have attached for your reference. Please let me know if you have any questions about tonight's meeting, if not, I will see you at 7:00 in the Council Chambers located in the lower level at City Hall. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 394.27 CREATION AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Subdivision I.When controls adopted. Whenever a board of county commissioners shall have adopted official controls it shall at the same time as the adoption of such controls create a board of adjustment by ordinance. Subd. 2.Procedure, qualifications. The board of adjustment shall consist of at least three but not more than seven members, including at least one member from the unincorporated area of the county, whose appointment, term of office, or removal from the board shall be as provided in the ordinance creating the board of adjustment; provided that no elected officer of the county nor any employee of the board of commissioners shall serve as a member of the board of adjustment and that one member of such board of adjustment shall also be a member of any planning commission appointed under the provisions of sections 394.21 to 394.37. In an ordinance creating a three -member board of adjustment, provision may be made for one alternate member. The alternate board member shall, when directed by the chair, attend all meetings of the board and participate fully in its activities but shall not vote on any issue unless authorized to do so by the chair. The chair shall authorize the alternate board member to vote on an issue when a regular member is absent, physically incapacitated, abstains because of a possible conflict of interest, or is prohibited by law from voting on that issue. Any question of whether a particular issue involves a conflict of interest sufficient to disqualify a regular board member from voting thereon shall be decided by majority vote of all regular board members except the member who is being challenged. In the ordinance establishing the board of adjustment provision may be made for removal of any member for nonperformance of duty or misconduct in office and for the filling of vacancies for any unexpired term. The regular and alternate members of such board of adjustment may be paid compensation in an amount determined by the county board and may be paid their necessary expenses in attending meetings of the board and in the conduct of the business of the board. Subd. 3.Officers. The board of adjustment shall elect a chair and vice -chair from among its members and shall appoint a secretary who need not be a member of a board. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and shall keep a public record of its transaction, findings, and determinations. Subd. 4.Meetings. The meetings of the board of adjustment shall be held at the call of the chair and at such other times as the board in its rules of procedure may specify. Subd. 5.Authority. The board of adjustment shall have the authority to order the issuance of variances, hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by any administrative official charged with enforcing any ordinance adopted pursuant to the provision of sections 394.21 to 394.37, order the issuance of permits for buildings in areas designated for future public use on an official map, and perform such other duties as required by the official controls. Such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of a town, municipality, county, or state. In exercising its powers under this subdivision, the board of adjustment shall take into consideration the town board's recommendation when the board of adjustment's decision directly affects land within the town. Subd. 6.Appeals. An appeal from any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any administrative official shall be taken in such time as shall be prescribed by the ordinance creating the board of adjustment by filing with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal and give due notice thereof to the appellant and the officer from whom the appeal is taken and to the public and decide the same within a reasonable time which shall be defined in the ordinance establishing the board of adjustment. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the board of adjustment to whom the appeal is taken certifies that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. The board of adjustment may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal was taken and may direct the issuance of a permit. The reasons for the board's decision shall be stated in writing. Subd. 7.Variances; hardship. The board of adjustment shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the terms of any official control including restrictions placed on nonconformi ties. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any official control, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. "Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The board of adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. The board of adjustment may consider the inability to use solar energy systems a "hardship" in the granting of variances. Subd. 8.Filing orders. A certified copy of any order issued by the board of adjustment acting upon an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination by an administrative official, or a request for a variance, shall be recorded with the county recorder or registrar of titles. The order issued by the board of adjustment shall include the legal description of the property involved. The board by ordinance shall designate the county official or employee responsible for meeting the requirements of this subdivision. Subd. 9.Appeal to district court. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting variances or in hearing appeals from any administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination shall be final except that any aggrieved person or persons, or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days, after receipt of notice of the decision, to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of law and fact. History: 1959 c 559 s 7: 1963 c 692 s 5; 1974 c 571 s 23-29; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 13 Ex1979 c 2 s 40: 1981 c 356 s 248: 1984 c 392 s 1, 1986 c 444; 1987 c 312 art 1 s 10 subd 1; 2005 c 4 s 97 Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:35 PM To: 'Fred Bruning' Subject: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Attachments: Print Labels.htm Fred, Attached is a list of the properties within 500 feet of 3830 Maple Shores Drive. The staff report will be available online at the address listed below. On the right hand side of the webpage will be a link called "Proposed Development and Improvement Projects" that will take you to ongoing projects. This request will be listed under residential. This way you will be able to view all of the attachments as well. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 1 Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:00 PM To: 'Fred Bruning' Subject: RE: Building Permit Sorry about that, I will make sure to have the correct spelling of both in the future. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Fred Bruning [mailto:FredBruning@Sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:16 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Building Permit Angie, Thank you for the copy of the letter. Fred P.S. No problem, but for the sake of accuracy, Sawhorse is one word and my last name is spelled Bruning. Thanks again. -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:03 PM To: Fred Bruning Subject: Building Permit Fred, As we hung up from our phone conversation, just a minute ago, as the representative for the homeowner it would be better for you to bring up sharing your information during the meeting on December 2, 2008. We do not have any grounds for adding in the staff report as that is not an option for staff or the Planning Commission to make a recommendation based on our current code. I hope that makes sense, I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions regarding the letter. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial:952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us November 20, 2(X)8 Mark Arnhiown and Ann Senn C�j Oj 3830 Maple Shores Drive C�111! 11�1SEN Chanhassen. MN 55317 Dear Mr. Ambrosen and Ms. Senn, PO Bor.147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Due to the construction season coming to a close as winter approaches and your desire to add on to your home while exceeding the hard surface requirements on the property: both a building permit and a hard surface coverage variance Administration application have be simultaneously submitted to the City of Chanhassen. ..im The hard surface coverage variance request will be heard at the December 2, 2008 Building Inspections Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that meeting you have submitted security one an . i 100 in the amount of $4,000 and a signed Escrow Agreement to the City to ensure the Fax 952 227 1190 removal of the excess hard surface coverage should the variance be denied. Engineering As stated in the escrow agreement, the removal and revegetation must he completed no later than May 31, 2009- Should this condition not be met, the City may draw on the security to bring the site into compliance. The final building Finance inspection will not be approved and an asbuilt survey, signed by a registered land Phone 952227.1140 surveyor. will be required for the property to verify compliance with the decision Tar9`"^?'?1?0 of the Planning Commission/City Council. Park& Recreation Should you have any questions please contact me at 952-227-1132 or Pion %2.22 .1120 aausethlu`ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fax. 952-227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Ccd'er Boulevard Best regards, Phone: 221400i Fax ssz2271a�a 52 Angie Auseth Planning & Planner I Natural Resources <" 952.227.1130 Fax 952.2271110 cc: Building File cc: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Public Works Jerry Mohn, Building Official 759' Park Rkd Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director w'k, 9522277.1300 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Fax 952271310 Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Senior Cer& Roger Knutson, City Attorney Phare,9522271125 Fred Brunning, Saw Horse Designers & Builders Fax 952 227 1110 Web Site , ra, vi. u. uhaahas_so nn. us Chanhassen is a Community for Life a^ '11 7u : w1 "arn II #a T unarw. Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:43 PM To: 'Fred Bruning' Subject: RE: Variance Narrative Fred, With the new figure for the house/garage increasing by 70 square feet the deductions portion will have to reflect a change as well to mitigate that square footage to comply with the 25% maximum hard surface coverage for the site. This is the basis for the approved building permit. Also, when you send the revised narrative please include a revised table showing the breakdown of the hard cover with 2,779 sq ft house and the additional mitigated area. Again, an asbuilt survey will be required for the property for either outcome. I want to be sure a be upfront with you during this process. Please let me know if you have any further questions Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Fred Bruning[mailto:FredBruning@Sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:48 AM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: Variance Narative «S KM BT_C45008111312270. pdf>> Angie, Please find attached the naritive revision you requested. Any comments would be appreciated. Fred Auseth, Angie From: Rick Riley [RickRiley@Sawhorseusa.comj Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:36 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Fred Bruning; Gary Rossow Subject: RE: Escrow Agreement thanks Angie for your assistance. I have spoken to Mr.. Lenz in engineering and Mr.. Hoese in building department to try to keep it moving. thanks again. Rick Riley -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.usj Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:06 PM To: Rick Riley Subject: RE: Escrow Agreement Correct. Both signatures must be notarized. As soon as the permit has been approved by all departments and the escrow and agreement are submitted we can issue the permit. The city's building department will contact Gary Rossow when it is ready to be picked up. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aausethPci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Rick Riley [mailto:RickRiley@Sawhorseusa.comj Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:21 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Escrow Agreement Thanks Angie, this notary clause would allow Mark and Ann to go to a local notary in person, sign and notorize together and Mark Ambrosen then could bring this signed notorized document into your offices with the check and the escrow agreement would be complete - have I understoo that correctly? Rick R --Original Message --- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.usj Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:43 AM To: Rick Riley Subject: Escrow Agreement Rick Attached is the updated escrow agreement which includes the Notary Public space. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Roger Knutson [RKnutson@ck-law.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:52 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Administrative is fine. -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:25 PM To: Roger Knutson Subject: RE: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Would that agreement have to be approved by council, or can a document be written administratively? Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth(cDachanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Roger Knutson [mailto:RKnutson@ck-law.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:19 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Itg is always a concern to let someone proceed in anticipation of granting a variance. You should have an agreement that if the variances are not granted they will remove the designated impervious surfaces withing x days or the city will use the security and the city will do it. -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:37 AM To: Roger Knutson Subject: 3830 Maple Shores Drive Good morning Roger, I have received a variance application for 3830 Maple Shores Drive located on Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is requesting an impervious surface variance to add two additions to the home (attachments Site Layout002 and Hard Cover Calcs). The homeowner would like to begin construction on the additions as soon as possible, so they have applied for a building permit and have shown that they can reduce their impervious coverage on the site to meet the 25% maximum (attachments Building Permit Survey and Building Permit Calculations). Being that staff is aware of their request to exceed the impervious coverage and winter is quickly upon us, we would like the applicant to post security to remove the excess hardcover, as shown in the Building Permit attachments, should the variance request be denied. I am working with Alyson Fauske as far as an amount of security to be posted by the applicant/homeowner. Do you see any problems with processing the building permit and posting the security prior to the hearing for the variance request? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aausethCWci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Rick Riley [RickRiley@Sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:39 PM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Gary Rossow; Fred Bruning Subject: RE: Application for permit Angie, per our conversation the square footage of the existing home will be reduced by the further clarification that any bay/cantilever does not count against hardcover and that siding projection would also not count as hardcover... only foundation footprint. As you noted these are not ways that we are "mitigating" the hardcover, simply acknowledging our previous values were inaccurate. We will modify the calculations form and resubmit to your office. Two other issues; 1) you are conferring with city attorney procedures for bonding/escrowing funds sufficient to remove the driveway if the variance is not granted. 2) language of variance application - needs to be rewritten (Fred to confer with Angie Asset - ASAP). Thank you for your expedited review of this file and forwarding to engineering ASAP. Sincerely, Rick Riley --Original Message ----- From: Gary Rossow Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:40 AM To: Rick Riley Subject: FW: Application for permit Please get back to her on this & Cc... me - I'm not privy of any bay projections being removed Gary -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie (mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:35 AM To: Gary Rossow Subject: RE: Application for permit Gary, What are the siding/bay projections? It states that these are to be removed for an additional 73 sq ft, however, I do not see them located on the survey. Can you send me a drawing that shows what and where these are located? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Gary Rossow[mailto:GaryRossow@sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:00 AM To: Auseth, Angie Cc: Rick Riley Subject: Application for permit Angie, M, my name is Gary and I'm a project manager for Sawhorse Designers & Builders. On Friday the 7th I dropped off the application and all the information that Rick Riley had put together for the Ambrosen/Senn IV job. I understand that your office is trying to move things along for us and issue a permit. If you need anything if a problem or ? arises please feel free to call me at 612-328-6536 and I'll get you whatever is needed. I would like to try to beat the weather and start the dig - of course after the permit is in hand, so anything you can do to help achieve this goal is very much appreciated. Regards, Gary Rossow PM Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:48 PM To: 'Pam McCullum' Subject: RE: Ambrosen-Senn project - Sawhorse Designers & Builders (Email 2 of 2) Pam, Thank you for the information. Do you have the rest of the hard cover calculations, such as the house, existing garage and lot area? It would best if there was a table showing the existing and the proposed calculations, broken down into each individual item. I assume the hard copies will also be arriving today, so I will watch for those. Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Pam Mccullum[mailto:PamMcCullum@sawhorseusa.comj Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:27 PM To: Pam McCullum; Auseth, Angie Subject: Ambrosen-Senn project - Sawhorse Designers & Builders (Email 2 of 2) Angie, Attached are of files of Ambrosen-Senn plans and a copy of the survey for variance your approval per Fred Bruning. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! Pam <<SKMBT_C45008103112500.pdf>> <<Page 3 Ambrosen-Senn.tif» Pam MCCullum, Drafting Department Sawhorse Designers & Builders 4740 42ntl Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 (763)533-0352 Phone (763) 533-2668 Fax Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:28 PM To: 'f redbrunn ing @ sawhorseusa.com' Subject: Easement agreement Fred, I spoke with the City Attorney regarding an easement agreement between the neighbors to mitigate the impervious coverage issue. Being that the land will not be owned by the subject property it would not increase their lot size. They would have to purchase the land to gain the necessary green space. Please let Terry or myself know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Auseth, Angie From: Auseth, Angie Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:57 PM To: Knutson, Roger Subject: RE: Easement Attachments: image001.jpg Thank you, Roger. I didn't think it would work, but I thought I'd better check. Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen. MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax: 952-227-1110 email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: Roger Knutson [mailto:RKnutson@ck-law.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:44 PM To: Auseth, Angie Subject: RE: Easement Sorry, the easement would not increase their lot size and therefore would not help them. -----Original Message ----- From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:55 AM To: Roger Knutson Subject: Easement Roger, Roger, There is a home in Chanhassen, that would like to gain more lot area for the purpose of increasing their impervious coverage on their lot. The adjacent neighbor has a very large lot. Rather than purchase a portion of the neighboring lot, could an easement be recorded over a portion of the neighboring lot and achieve the same goal? Thank you, Angie Angie Auseth Planner I City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Direct dial: 952-227-1132 Fax:952-227-1110 email: aauseth(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Angie Auseth, Planner I FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: November 4, 2008 SUBJ: Review of a request for a variance at 3830 Maple Shores Dr. Planning Case: 08-24 I have reviewed the request for the above variance and have the following comments: 1) Building Permit(s) required. 2) Structure(s) must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. GA\PLAN\2008 Planning Cases\08-24 Ambmsen-Senn Variance\buildingofficicialcomments.doc City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: November 3, 2008 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Angie Auseth, Planner I Subject: AMBROSEN/SENN VARIANCE: Request for hard surface coverage variance to construct additions on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive (Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge). Applicant: Sawhorse Designers and Builders. Owners: Mark Ambrosen & Ann Senn. Planning Case: 08-24 PID: 25-4450070 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 31, 2008. The 60-day review period ends December 30, 2008. 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, Sheet 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 December 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 19, 2008. 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. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Ambrosen/Senn Variance Request 3830 Maple Shores Drive Planning Case 2008-24 SC. nIIED t1.of rH I"> 30' Ptaj �11-r1 GRtfTt 17 r4r 1 4 L)r-leay o�3 f�(Lt W a TY 192,5 T/4-6Ut4T�-O P (`ZLO ME+SJI�ME �'S �- zaoa rr4cfo&,-,o /aOL�iTlq�s �Ofi ALL ZOeB MAf-K /dry tl ,AM bczo5 983o Map 51tnp GIZJe I`X�El,SiofL�Mhl. ti5331 o �+ T 1 7 — VV 1 4147014J7 SURVEY FOR: 9900 S51 A] N . APPROVED BN-7 DDq BY: 9 DEPT.; q9 DATE: yya BY: DEV .: G.AD DATE 7° 9 Rdwy) _ 1 ,o NAMES J143m/ Prepared BY: 'SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Englnbers • Surveyors. Planners • Soils Testing 10550 Wayzata Boulevard .Minnetonka, Mn. 65343 Tel. 548-7601 �Cl_ 1-' V4 &� lz` CAso. oo •' ' 4794 57' 17.45 9q2Y. 3 �F. N � n p� Gar. � \ pI Jo Utility aeea 5.1 his"' ___ . po rrKU tl 14 �9, Ease i Z�� 0 (f'4iK u ,N ° \ 'bp (I BY: / 30 0 \ DEPT.: DATE:^e_'� c, 2� aD / l k a�o� \ \ 1 ` 11E�ir: sunder \ ,)'(1 to . BY. COn.sGCS C7, Cn) a DE DESCRIPTION: ,P e I /h oy"' D TE: Lot 7, Block 1, 1tAPLE RIDGE. BENCHMARKS: `� \ N� rd. (SJvne 1) Top of hydrant on the northwest corner of Lot 7. \; \ $ Elevation = 982.48. 1 2) Top of stake on the west face of 30-inch Oak, 25 feet east of centerline of east side of house. Elevation = 977.00. ; 3) Top of stake on the east face of 24-inch Oak, 25 feet `./ north of the northwest corner of house. Elevation = ° 983.00. (73 4) Line in rock on old fireplace 10 feet west of northwest corner of garage. Elevation = 987.00. GENERAL NOTES: �1 on 1) 0 - Denotes iron monument set. 3•A /�y�� e� 2) 0- Denotes wood stake. �``' \dtef 3) x969.0 - Denotes exisl:ing spot elevation. 4) -Denotes direction of surface drainage. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under 5) Proposed garage floor,elevation = 982.10. my supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stat of M nesota. NSTALL ; VpE / ER0510N Theodore . Kemna C°NG AS SOI HWry ON CpNT�THE PLAN AND OR Date: 25 September 1985 License No. 17006 ,•ATE OF SURVEY PR;Op TO `GE AAN MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT 15 i..CTlO DURING WINTER CITY OFCHArF,'+s r N SLAKED HA`( BALES MAY RECEIVED LIEU OF FENCING OCT 3 1 2008 \ CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Auseth, Angie From: Pam McCullum [PamMcCullum@sawhorseusa.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:27 PM To: Pam McCullum; Auseth, Angie Subject: Ambrosen-Senn project - Sawhorse Designers & Builders (Email 2 of 2) Attachments: SKMBT_C45008103112500.pdf; Page 3 Ambrosen-Senn.tif Angie, Attached are of files of Ambrosen-Senn plans and a copy of the survey for variance your approval per Fred Bruning. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! Pam <<S KM BT_C45008103112500. pdf>> <<Page 3 Ambrosen-Senn.tif>> Pam MCCt111Um, Drafting Department Sawhorse Designers & Builders 4740 42nd Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 (763) 533-0352 Phone (763) 533-2668 Fax � || |3� 9 § .2�.\ `7 §UJ DL IL ; , 2 § \ �} \i | Hardcover mitigation plan for 3830 Maple Shores Drive a) Allowed Existing lot size Total 28.100 Allowable hardcover factor 25% Allowable hardcover Total (a) 7.025 sf b) Existing House/garage (deducted for sung and bay pro/ecbons) 2,709 sf Driveway/entry sidewalk iconcrete) 3,143 sf Shed (concrete) 120 sf Walkout patio /pavers) 723 sf Fire pit patio (Pavers) 250 sf Dog kennel iconcrete) 167 sf Pad for gas grill (concrete) 33 sf Total (b) 7,145 sf c) Proposed Additions House/garage additions 682 sf Service door pad (axe concrete) 18 Driveway spur connection 90 sf Steps & patio for addition re treads) 48 sf Total (c) 838 sf d) Proposed Deductions Dog kennel (change to pea rock) 167 sf Pad for gas grill (ekmnatei 33 sf Driveway slab in front of proposed laundry area (e6ndnatel 64 sf Drivewaylturnabout (reduce per attached plan) 725 sf Total (d) 989 sf Total b+c 7,983 sf Total (d) 989 sf Coverage Totals Actual (b+c+d) 6,994 sf Allowable (a) 7.025 sf Variation (31) sf HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS 10/17/08 (revised 10/30/08) Ambrosen/Senn Residence 3830 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN. 55331 Total Lot area (.65 of acre —attached letter dated 10/13/08) Allowable hardcover 25% Houselgarage - existing Driveway/entry sidewalk Shed 2,782 sf 3,143 sf 120 sf Existing walk out patio 723 sf Additional fire pit patio 250 sf Dog kennel — concrete 167 sf Grill pad — concrete 33 sf Sub total -existing conditions 7,218 sf Proposed House and Garage Additions 668 sf Proposed driveway spur connection 120 sf Remove drive in front of new laundry <64>sf Proposed steps and patio for addition 60 sf Subtotal 784 sf Subtoatl existing and proposed conditions Percentage of hardcover — existing and proposed (approx.28.5%) Amount of hardcover to be compensated for to meet 25% RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 28,100 sf 7,025 sf 8,002 sf 977 SF SCANNED OCT 3 1 2008 m �s MAPLE SHORE DRIVE m BLUFF IMPACT AND SHORELAND ❑VERLA'WIHASSEN PLANNINiv -Y, OCTOBER 2008 SCANNED r n T X N �+ Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) CITY OF CHANHASSEN )SS. CARVER &HENNEPIN County of Carver ) COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEALING PLANNING CASE NO.00.24 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Mark Weber, beingdulyswom, on oath says that he is the publisher or the authorized a ent of the that the Chanhassen Planning publisher of the nw known as the Chaska Heraland the Chanhassen Villager and has Commission will hold a public P �P� g hearing on Tuesday, December 2, full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33IA.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as thishearing isto consider a request amended. for hard surface coverage variance to construct additions Re property g The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. zoned Single -Family Residential was published mi the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice Drive located at Block 1. Maple Shores Notice is hereby incorporated as art of this Affidavit.Said notice was cut from the columns of Drive (Lot 7, Block 1, Maple Ridge). y - rpo p Applicant: SawhorseDesignersand the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Builders. Owners: Mark Ambrosen inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition & Ann Senn. and publication of the Notice: A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz review on the City's web site at www ci hanha24.htm or tun City Hall plan/08-24.htm1 or at City Hall � during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to By: this public hearing and Mark Weber express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Angie Auseth. Planner I Subscribed and swom before me on Email: useth(,cichanhassen tun us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, November this ot0'h day of !I/OU�,,.. , 2008 20, 2008; No. 4138) LAURIE A. HARTMANN f - NOTMY Pl Exp — jan 31. 20 Mr Commission E�a.Mn. 31, E010 - Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... S40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.19 per column inch SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MY OF (952) 227-1100 CHMSEN To: Mr. Fred Bruning Sawhorse Designers & Builders 4740 42nd Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Invoice Re: Ambrosen/Senn Variance Request SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 11/20/08 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 31 Property Owners List within 500' of 3830 Maple Shores Drive (31 labels) $3.00 $93.00 TOTAL DUE $93.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for December 2, 2008. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #08-24. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/26/2008 3:50 PM Receipt No. 0086877 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Sawhorse Designers & Builders Planning Case #08-24 3830 Maple Shores Drive ---------------------------------------- GIS List 93.00 Total 93.00 Cash 0.00 Check 93.00 Change 0.00 SCANNED SAWHORSE DESIGNERS & BUILDERS Check 100746 November 25, 2008 Invoice Number Invoice Date Invoice Amount Number of Invoices: 1 08-24 11/20/2008 $93.00 100746 City of Chanhassen $93.00 Amount Paid Disc Invoice Description $93.00 labels for ambossen/senn (variance) Job SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11/03/2008 2:20 PM Receipt No. 0085184 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Frederick Wallace Bruning Planning Case 08-24 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total Cash Check 10280 Change 450.00 0.00 450.00 0.00 AMBROSEN/SENN VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 08-24 $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow $450 TOTAL $450 Frederick Wallace Bruning Check 10280 SCANNED Mark Ambrosen and 3830 Maple Shor Sawhorse Designers and Buil Senn / 51-0 5/8' / Z2. ZS n..t 3 C^60 2q ,y.l 3-"IZ k3.3� S,�t3 3,t'o � 4m 2•� 4740 42nd Avenue North Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 su�.L ��oi1Tl� OF CITY RECEWFD �� OCT 3 1 2008 I e' = 30' P (,.oT orb GRe,&Tep �o 6, 011 &Y 04 -f-e Lt W 64TY 19216 r+*t40V M (�iLe U L/lTIa l Ti4 tit.*Tw rAw rill-0 MeftoNaMErl?S ram- zoos n3t43�Fk�0Nrpe 95.q-8 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPI P►bP Q AVpeT rC446 Mti = �AL(. ZOOS 3830 tMfLJ§ 6ttD06S PPle: fX4& 41 o(L 1 Mf4-• Ii6331 S� KLW�I�� fRE� h 5Tp.1fJGer14�TE 't�kr�oMet, k vtrPs GiRui Pao 33 S, f (emir.) `\ 3 d \d Y� \ o, - PROP05ED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1 /41' = 11-01I ELECTRICAL 5YMBOL5 110 WALL RECEPTACLES Ground Fault Protected Receptacles Water Proof Cover Receptacles 220 volt RECEPTACLES Existing Outlets FLOOR RECEPTACLES WALUGLG LIGHT RECESSED LIGHT alo FLOOD LIGHT FLUORESCENT LIGHT E EXHAUST FAN SINGLE 5WITGH EXISTING 5WITGH THREE OR FOUR WAY 5WITGH SINGLE 5WITGH DIMMER PHONEJAGK TELEVISION JACK THERMOSTAT DOOR BELL/CHIME O SMOKE DETECTOR CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR SPECIAL PURP05E (le_GD a GARBAGE DISPOSAL) ANY ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING OR HEATING WORK INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT ASSUMES THE EE5TING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (5) WITHIN THE PRESENT CODE STANDARD. IF UPDATE 15 REQUIRED BY THE INSPECTOR THE COST 15 TO BE ADDITIONAL CHARGE. YVARNIN& PRODUCTS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF YOUR REMODELING PROJECT MAY CONTAIN THE CHEMICAL FORMALDEHYDE. FOR SOME PEOPLE FORMALDEHYDE MAY CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS SUCH AS IRRITATION TO THE EYES, NOSE AND THROAT, SNEEZING, COUGHING HEADACHES SHORTNESS OF BREATH OR CHEST OR STOMACH PAINS. CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF TWO, ELDERLY PEOPLE WITH BREATHING PROBLEMS OR PEOPLE WITH ALLERGIES MAY HAVE MORE SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES. IF YOU HAVE QUESTION ABOUT PROBLEMS YOU M&Y HAYE, WITH FORMALDEHYDE CONSULT DOCTOR •------------1 PROP05ED GARAGE ADDITION (3416 S.F.) J N PROJOT MANAGER. SHEET CiPftDATE: 1ol lob PLANS FOR: THREE 5TORY ADDITION GARY R055OY4 612-32b-6596 MARK and ANN DESIGNER: FRED BRUNING REV: ArMBR05EN/5ENN 3830 MAPLE 5HORE5 DRIVE as Of EXGE1.51OR, MN 55551 DESIGNERS ♦ SUILDERS E-MAIL: 763. 533.0352 DRAWN BY: JOB: 2036 4740 4YND AYE N., R0B6INSDAI.E, NIN 5542E RR copYRtsHT pops MN. LIC. •2382 \ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i / / / / wuwkrrn �� 1 Ir MAIN FLOOR PLAN - PROP05ED 1 /811= 11-091 --------� F1 i s � 1/8 11 /811 = 11-011 PROJECT YANAGM GARY R055OV4 612-328-6536 DESIGNER: FRED BRUNING 763.533.03SE 4740 42ND AYE N., ROBBINSDALE lIN 5542E IMM CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CPR DATE: 10l lob FLANS FOR: THREE 5TORY ADDITION MARK and ANN REV. AMBR05EN/5ENN 3550 MAPLE 5HORE5 DRIVE EXCEL510R, MN 55331 COPYRIGHT 2008 MN. WC. 11238E STREET 51DE IMAGE UPPER LEVEL PLAN 3 1 /411 = 11-011 PROJECT MANAGER: GARY ROS5OkN 612-328-6536 DESIGNER: FRED BRUNING s� D f 5 1 9 N f R 5 d B U I L D f R 5 763.533.0352 4740 42ND AVE. N., ROBBINSDALE. MN 55422 SHFzr 3 Of DRAWN BY: RR SEN I CHANHASSENaLAq rn€w• CPR DATE: 10/ /08 PLANS fOR THREE STORY ADDITION MARK and ANN Rev. AMBROSEN/SENN 3830 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2036 E-MAIL: COPYRISRT 2008 MN. LIC. 02382