The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-42_BERLAND, JUDITH & RICHARDThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Br2ndt • Also licensed in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Fagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Faa 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com 0 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association April 22, 2005 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Chanhassen — Miscellaneous Recording Dear Kim: r p%el .-r APR 15 �"U CITY Ur UHANHASSEN Enclosed herewith for your files are the following recorded documents: Variance No. 04-42 recorded with the Carver County Recorder on April 6, 2005, as Document No. A 411276 and with the Carver County Registrar of Titles on April 13, 2005, as Document No. T 152041 (Outlot B, White Oakk Addition); and 2. Conditional Use Permit #05-03 recorded with the Carver County Recorder on April 6, 2005, as Document No. A 411277 and with the Carver County Registrar of Titles on April 13, 2005, as Document No. T 152042. If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON %B essional Associ ti n By: cjh Carole J. H Enclosure Legal Assistant Document NO. OFFICE OF THE T 152041 REGISTRAR OF TITLES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIryIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CAVER Che ## 308UTM E 4eeMINNESOTA Certified and filed on 04-13-2005 at 10:00 E�AM ❑ PM 3 I'll��111N1Carl W. Hanson, Jr. Registrar of Titles e • a�.r� rrr � - ice ",.. i L- L, Document No. OFFICE OF THE A411276 COUNTY RECORDER IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIIlliillllllllllllllill FeeCARVER COUNTY, 0UNTY eck#1MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on 04-W2005 at 04AM4-06 2005 IIIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIVIII CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, NHNNESOTA VARIANCE 04-42 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: A 1.5 foot variance from the 10 -foot Ordinary Highway Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square -foot variance from the 250 square -foot maximum area of a water oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. 2. Pro rt . The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: K Outlot B, White OaWAddition 3. Lam. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: December 7, 2004 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF i BY: Thomas A. Furlong, AND: ' ` o d Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisedday of 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 =QNot J. ENGELHARDTublic-Minnesota on Expires Jen 31, 2010 gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-42 - berland variancekuording documentdoc 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter • oLi -4z- LETTER 4zLETTER OF TRANSMITTAL JOB 3/30/05 Debbie ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 12/13/04 04-39 Variance 04-39 Wilder 1 12/7/04 04-42 Variance 04-42 Berland 1 1/24/05 05-03 Conditional Use Permit 05-03 (Walgreens) 1 2/28/05 05-07 Wetland Alteration Permit 05-07 Carver County) 1 3/15/05 05-09 Variance 05-09 Carlson 1 3/28/05 Grant of Nonexclusive Permanent Easement (Sinclair Oil Corporation) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, N[INNESOTA VARIANCE 04-42 1. Permit Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: A 1.5 foot variance from the 10 -foot Ordinary Highway Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square -foot variance from the 250 square -foot maximum area of a water oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Outlot B, White Oaks Addition 3. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: December 7.2004 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF SEN BY: A, VL, Thomas A. Furlong, AND: 'A LI& d Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this;-? day of l 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. _FF 1� IWKN:AREENGELHARDTNotarylic-Minnesotar 1E.xp6ey Jan 31, 2010 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAplan\2004 planning ca \04-42- baland variance\=mding dmummt.dm CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952221.1180 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 Pad At Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Far: 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 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 cal anhassen.mnus • March 9, 2005 Rick & Judy Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 0 Re: Variance, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case #0442 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Berland: oL{-4!2 This letter is to formally notify you that on December 7, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved the following: A 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary Highway Water Level (OHW) setback for a water oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 952-227- 1132 or by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, sh Metzer✓4— Planner I g:kplan\2004 planning casest0442 - berland variance'detter of approvalAm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautilul parks. A great place to live, work, and play. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. LOCATION: Outlot B, White Oaks Addition APPLICANT: Rick & Judy Berland ' 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.18 acre DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. Staff is recommending denial of these requests. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 Lake Minnewashta Subject Property St Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. The construction of a patio does not require building permit approval. However, patios must meet setback, impervious surface and size limitations. The site is located on the western shore of Lake Minnewashta: The site is an outlot east of Minnewashta Parkway opposite 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Roundhouse Park is located just southwest of the subject property. Access to the site is gained on foot via Minnewashta Parkway. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 1-2. Defmitions. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels,, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment, concrete slabs. Water -oriented accessory structure or facility means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (A) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: tnrctures Structures Sewage Classes of Public Waters Treatment nsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural nvironment 50 150 150 Recreational development 1100 5 5 Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 3 *One (1) water -oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-481(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (E) Design criteria for structures. (2) Water -oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water -oriented accessory s1ructure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20481(a) if this water - oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet.' Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least ten (10) feet; Sec. 20482. Shoreland alterations. (A) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (B) Vegetation alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: i. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf -on conditions, is not substantially reduced; Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 4 ii. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; iii. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and iv. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (C) In no case shall clear cutting be permitted. BACKGROUND Outlot B was created as part of the White Oaks Addition, Subdivision #2000-9 which was approved by City Council on October 9, 2000. The subject property is owned by Rick & Judy Berland (applicant) who live at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. This property is attached to their lot as a requirement of the subdivision approval. The City received a complaint in July stating that construction activity was taking place in the shoreland area adjacent to 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. July 8, 2004 inspection revealed that a retaining wall and patio/fire ring had been constructed in the shore impact zone. In a letter dated July 12, 2004, staff explained that all construction activity must cease and requested the applicant contact staff to discuss plans for the property. Staff informed the Berland's that a variance was required. ANALYSIS Upon review of the as -built survey prepared by Allan Hastings stamped "Received October 29, 2004", staff offers the following comments and recommendations: Lakes The Shoreland Management ordinance was established to ensure the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The intention of the ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. Lake Minnewashta is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). City code states that water -oriented accessory structures cannot be greater than 250 square feet and must be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the OHW (Lake Minnewashta- 944.5 MSL). The existing patio is approximately 314 square feet and appears to be setback 8.5 feet from the OHW. This does not meet the City's Shoreland Management ordinance. The OHW is not on the survey. The 8.5 foot setback was determined by staff's best estimates. Tree Removal According to city ordinance, property owners may clear vegetation along a shoreline in order to secure a view of the water. The limitations for clearing are 30% of the lot width or 30 feet, which ever is lesser, Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 5 parallel to the shoreline. A review of aerial photos shows that the southern half of Outlot B had canopy cover. The area not covered by large trees and canopy cover is approximately fifty percent of the lot width. There should have been no vegetation removal on the southern half of the lot and because of the elevation difference between the home at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway and Outlot B, pruning the existing trees and shrubs would have allowed a view of the lake. During a recent inspection of the outlot, three trees remain although there may possibly be four, depending on the property line. The trees include two significant trees, an ash and willow on the southern end and a small diameter, multi -stemmed boxelder on the northern end. The applicant has placed landscape planting along the top retaining wall consisting of shrub species. The approximate area of canopy coverage on the site was 3,480 square feet. The two remaining trees at the southern end could account for half of the canopy coverage. Applying city ordinance for tree preservation, the calculations for replacement plantings would be as follows: 1,740 (3,480/2) x 1.2 (penalty replacement value) = 2,088 2,088 / 1089 (standard area for one tree) = 1.9 trees Staff recommends that the applicant plant two trees on Outlot B. They shall be deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control A retaining wall was built within the right-of-way for Minnewashta Parkway. This retaining wall was required to be moved out of the right-of-way because it was a liability to the City and a potential threat to public health and safety. Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 6 I 1 I 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. Fynding: Mltteral enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship.# The applicant will be able to maintain a patio, just at a smaller size and further from the OHW without -the need for a variance. Also, property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake Minnewashta and a dock). b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. FSnding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 7 Finding: The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake Minnewashta. 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 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The size of the patio shall be reduced to two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 2. The setback of the patio from the Ordinary High Water Level shall be increased from 8 feet to 10 feet. 3. The applicant shall plant two trees on Outlot B which are deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter. 4. The Ordinary High Water Level shall be placed on the survey by a registered land surveyor." Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 8 Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed with the following conditions: 1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. As -built Survey for Outlot B. 4. Letter from Rick & Judy Berland dated October 25, 2004. 5. Letter from Bennett & Sharon Morgan dated October 24, 2004. 6. Letter from Joe & Darcy Piche dated October 25, 2004. 7. Email from Bobbie & Dave Headla dated November 30, 2004. 8. Letter from Lori Haak to Richard & Judith Berland dated July 12, 2004. 9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. GAPLAM2004 Planning Cases\04-42 - Berland Variance\Berland Staff ReportAm L7- O1 �en� I�t�er o� ofPc6gJ on Mond Pec,13,1 �k s} in Case. some oQe, a f ea s -On, 8&'I 5 io()- RI-,O) max e Su -m At r - s fie - Re�f_- _ea CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Rick & Judy Berland for a variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. Planning Case No. 04-42. On December 7, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Thomas & Jenny Wilder Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water - oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot B, White Oaks 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The applicant will be able to maintain a patio, just at a smaller size and further from the OHW without the need for a variance. Also, property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake Minnewashta and a dock). b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. c. The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake Minnewashta. 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. 5. The planning report #04-42 Variance dated December 7, 2004, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission the variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7`s day of December, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Chairperson A CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: 014- `f2. CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN OCT 2 9 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TELEPHONE (Day Time) f�� — �,;:kD $ `f rf TELEPHONE: jjjM 9Sa- 9a6 -5'a C?-? Comprehensive Plan Amendment I Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/MeteS & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 6LL} IcA—R W Vde ()apLcUaA of 1 Z — $ 000 "7 O TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: 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 authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Date Signature of Fee Owner Date �8 Application Received on O ZS fj4 Fee Paid ZSO°O Receipt No. �3-- The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CiAplanUor \Development Review Application.DOC S—SU1�T uR�lE.Y FOR; (�kPY -�OO ES rx d I - S 86�SZ 35��E s osl "•., � � Dswres to — �1.53 25+ ' rJ 8b`s-i tsbl Q2wA M®troy wZ06f I: heraCy certify that this is true and c.=e_c_t'r.pre..UtAtion at a .�._�y�} oa- QUTLOT 81 WHITE Ora( RDF 30t), CPINER County, Minneepti. -8,01s 113e and of record in tha Office of the County Recorder in: and for said County, TbAt I,aM A daly Registered Land gurveyor under the Lane of the Ste of. Yldnesata. fisted: u�tusT. 2� ZC64- .� . CRY R CHARFIASSEM RECEIVED Allan F. Rastinge. OCT 2 9 2004 Mineeeots Ragistration No. 17W9 Rig Rdest Arica. 8. . RA1l�6C®f Seita 'Ma. Shakopbe, Minnesota 55379. Phone 962 445 4027 To: City of Chanhassen From: Judy and Rick Berland Re: Variance request to permit existing patio October 25, 2004 We have completed an improvement of our beach area Prior to beginning work, our landscape contractor, Gary Jones of Design Acres, brought our plan to the city and asked both whether we needed a permit and whether there were any restrictions. He was told that no permit was necessary and that no restrictions applied. Therefore, we proceeded in good faith that we had complied with all laws and regulations. All work and materials are of very high quality and every precaution was taken to protect the integrity of the lake. We cleaned up the area (old docks, fittings, pipes, old picnic tables, old tires buried under the rip -rap and in the water, deteriorating steps and an eroding hillside), trimmed dead wood from the trees, improved the rip -rap, which was eroding and deteriorating and installed new grass and plantings. Many neighbors have complimented us on the improvements we made, including all three immediate neighbors (all of whom support this request). As part of our improvements, we installed a patio for sitting near the lake. It is constructed of pavers and is built to be permeable and stable. We have several relatives in their 70s and 80s who need a level, safe place to sit. Also this will be our retirement home and we hope to remain for many years. Like the rest of the project, the patio was costly to install. Immediate neighbors: Bennet and Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Dave and Bobbie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 SCANNED October 24, 2004 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear City of Chanhassen, Subject: Variance for Rick & Judy Berland Rick & Judy Berland recently purchased the lot and the Lakeshore outlot on Lake Minnewashta next to ours. They have recently put in a paver patio down by the lake as well as a number of other landscape improvements. We are writing to formally indicate that we have no issues or concerns with the patio or other landscape improvements already completed. We support a variance that would approve the patio and other improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bennett & Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 SCANNED To: City of Chanhassen From: Joe and Darcy Piche Re: Rick and Judy Burland October 25, 2004 We are writing in support of our neighbors Rick and Judy Burland and the improvements made to their beach front on Lake Minnewashta. The work they have done to their beach and shoreline has beautified and cleaned the area to make it more attractive than it was before they owned the property. The fire -pit and patio they built has a very low profile and is not even noticeable from the lake. The Burlands are conscientious and respectful people who in no way are interested in harming the natural beauty of the lake or lake shore. Our hope is that you will allow them to keep the fire -pit and patio as it currently is. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Chanhassen SCONNFD Page 1 of 1 Metzer, Josh From: Dave Headla [dave6870@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:40 PM To: Metzer, Josh Subject: Fw: Berland variance request by Lake Minnewashta Subject: Berland variance request by Lake Minnewashta We live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway, the second home north of the Berlands. When we built our home , in 1961, Lake Minnewashta was still a "raw lake". Sewage was leaking into the lake, shorelines were not being bashed by power boat waves, summer homes or cottages were a common scene and the lake was being used as a causal recreation. As time went by sewer and water service was established, many larger homes became common and life became more lively on the lake. Fortunately an ordinance was established defining what could or could not be on or near the lake shore. In the past few years there has also been a change where homes have been built to view and appreciate our beautiful lake . Lakeshores are being protected with rip rap, and laws implemented to limit wave action on the shoreline. In effect, Lake Minnewashta is being used as a recreational activity as well as a passive activity. I use the term passive as a word where we just look and appreciate what we have. We believe our ordinance is appropriate for it can control what is happening on the shoreline. Our point is, what is going on and around Lake Minnewashta has been evolving in a positive manner and the Berland request for a variance complements this direction. We recommend approval of the Berland request. Bobbie and Dave Headla 12/1/2004 July 12, 2004 CITY OF Richard and Judith Berland 69W-Va ay- CHANHASSEN `' 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952 227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phorie:952.227.1190 Fax: 952227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax 952227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952227.1120 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 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952n7.1300 Fax 952227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site wewncianhassen.mmus Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Recent Grading and Installation of Structures at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior, MN Dear Richard and Judith: This letter is to advise you. that the City received a complaint regarding the work that was recently done on your property at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. An inspection on July 8 revealed that a retaining wall had been installed, a fire pit had been constructed and work had been done within the shore impact zone of Lake Minnewashta. For your reference, pleW:find enclosed the City's shoreland ordinance. Installation of retaining walls over four (4) feet in height is regulated by Minnesota State Building Code_ (MPC) Section 1300.0120.. Please cease all activity ;Ol site an&contact meno later ttaanWe iiWsday, July 21, 2004 to discuss youi plans fbithe above�aropertyAdditional erosion control measures (primarilysod) ,vill teed;to beinst lei imtiiediately to ensure the protection of Lake Minnewashta Please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135 if you have questions. Thank you for your cooperation. G;1BNGxLarltnucs16900 Minnewaabtr Pukway.dm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A glial place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-42 NOTICE ,IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback on property located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Applicant: Richard & Judith Berland. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planning Intern Email: jmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 25, 2004) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 24, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for after -the -fact variance to lakeshore setback, Richard & Judy Berland — Planning Case No. 04-42 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. KarA J. En el dt, E e uty Clerk Subscribpd and swo to before me thiay of 2004. '�41. 1�� o Not lic KIM T. MEUIMSSEN Notary Public- Miumota CARVER COUNTY My Canmission Expires 1131r= Gomm Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback Planning File: 04-42 Applicant: Richard & Judy Berland Property 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to oommercialAndustdal. • 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 whiting to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and schetluling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback Planning File: 04-42 Applicant: Richard & Judy Berland Property 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1, Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alteratlom. 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 recommentlation. 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 commerciavindustrlal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. his map is neither a legally recorded map ria a survey and is not intended to be wed as one. No rnap is a conplagM of records, infonnadpt arid data located In Vancus city, county, state and Weral offices and other sources mgansng Me area shown. and is to be used for reference uryoses only. The Dry does not warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used I prepare this frets are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used )r imAgatiWa, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting Measurement of distance or rection or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. H errors or discrepancies are found lease contact 952-2271107. The preceding dlsclainer is provided pursuant to Minnesota aatwt §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not e liable for any damages, and expreesly waives all chins, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and cid hamtless the Qty from any and all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or thind arses whirls ansa out of the usees access or use of data provide,. Lake Minnewashla 1 Subject Property Tis Mas is neither a IeWy recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. Tis chap is a conpllation of records, information and data locatetl in yanous city, county, stale and ederal offices and other sources regarding the area shorn, and is to be used for reference wrWsm only. The City does nW woman that the Geographic Infomation System (GIS) Data used o prepare this map are error free, and the CM does not represent Ma the GIS Data can be used or navigatimal, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement W distance or fraction or precision in Me depicion of geographic features. n anors or discrepancies are /WM Aerie contacl 952-227-1107. The preceding disdainer is provided pursuant to Minnesota katules §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of Mis map acknowledges that Me City shall rust e liable for any damages, ad eVni waives all claims, and agrees to defend, intlemnify, aM iold harrniess the Dry from any and an clams brought by User, its employees or spools, or Mind whas Mich arise Wl of the usees access or use of data provided. Public Hearing Notification Area Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 0 U \� Hall ren Lane ra ord Rid e m W Ln Whit o Oak Lane Cs 0 Lake Minnewashta O Subject Property Kings Road Kin s Road cV RS Rem, a � eda�L1 I I 1 G�&V, Lake St Joe � ea Cedar . � on RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE DAVID L & DIANE E LIESER PO BOX 181 3881 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENNETT J & SHARON M MORGAN SCOTT BOLIN 3920 WHITE OAK LN 3921 STRADFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD T & DIANE L HUNTER JONATHAN S DUSTRUD & 3961 STRATFORD RDG KRISTINA P DUSTRUD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LENNART J & DEADRA S JOHNSON WILLIAM J MUNIG 6240 CHASKA RD 6850 STRATFORD BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A & JUDITH F BERLAND RICH SLAGLE 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKY 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS DALE REICHERT 3901 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH M & DARCY S PICHE 3960 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DARYL L & DEBRA A KIRT 50 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID R BARBARA M HEADLA 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 t ` c.. 4 0w A S -� � ext �-T _ v? �u�Y o� o�ES c� C;�// p Ff 9,5�- z9z--LQ333 S 89'52 35"E 33. a7 _ 19± 0i Rim hho koL�-z 53� ��sx D� NOt-FsaRaeK�o�Q,S �c'3 DE�cn-es P.ocKo2�uuut 3CO 't ) -:�! 2,06+ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a qg bu'11+ Savm carLm)oswEI o1Y 0U'I"1ox 1BI Whim, OPK NDDITIDO, CARER County, Minnesota as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, That I,am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State 00 T Dated: NUG\kGT ZD47 I. lij .4 ti 15 trV G•j^ l{ I Ikj Ailan R. Hastings. 11 I A`A,I Minnesota Registration No. C4 `E kt '" t� l 2:12 F-iffat AVsnue B. v Suite'.(i. / Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952 445 9027 17009 CITY OF CHANHASSEN OCT 2 S 2004 ENGINEERING DEPT. Location Map Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 Lake Minnewashta Subject Property St Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 7 Finding: The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake Minnewashta. 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 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 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission denies Variance #►04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed based on the findings of fact in the staff report . To come with compliance with the zoning ordinance, 1. The size of the patio shall be reduced to two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 2. The setback of the patio from the Ordinary High Water Level shall be increased from 8 feet to 10 feet. 3. The applicant shall plant two trees on Outlot B which are deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter. 4. The Ordinary High Water Level shall be placed on the survey by a registered land surveyor." Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-42 lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal Commission will hold a public newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as hearing on Tuesday, December 7, amended. 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said this hearing is to consider a request for after -the -fact Variance to Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of sh Lakeshore setback on property located the newspaper specified. Printed below is a co of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Pane P copy phabe at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Applicant Richard & Judith Berland. and publication of the Notice: A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review abcdefghijkhnnopgrstuvwxyz at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are - invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstheiropinionswithrespect By: to this proposal. Laurie A. Hartmann Josh Metzer, Planning Intern Email: imetzergei.chanhassen.mn, Subscribed and sworn before me on Phone: 952-227- 1132 (Published in the Chanhassen VillageroThursday, November 25, this day of / 2004 4305) , wsr GWEN K RADUENZ _ NOTASYPUBM MNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2005 zg�vle_?171 4412&7 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: RICHARD BERLAND Date: 12/08/2004 Time: 11:17am Receipt Number: DW / 5699 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST 04-42 ITEM REFERENCE -------------------------------- GIS GIS LIST 04-42 GIS LIST Total: Check 21925 Change: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! AMOUNT 39.00 39.00 39.00 0.00 • SCANNED • City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MY OF (952) 227-1100 To: Richard & Judy Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 11/24/04 upon receipt Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #0442. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED Lane D 0 U Public Hearing Notification Area Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 ne Ln Lake Minnewashta Subject Property Y (p Red C� a Lake St Joe E RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE PO BOX 181 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENNETT J & SHARON M MORGAN 3920 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD T & DIANE L HUNTER 3961 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LENNART J & DEADRA S JOHNSON 6240 CHASKA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A & JUDITH F BERLAND 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & DIANE E LIESER 3881 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT BOLIN 3921 STRADFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JONATHAN S DUSTRUD & KRISTINA P DUSTRUD 3980 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J MUNIG 6850 STRATFORD BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0 DOUGLAS DALE REICHERT 3901 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH M & DARCY S PICHE 3960 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DARYL L & DEBRA A KIRT 50 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID R BARBARA M HEADLA 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 L 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Rick & Judy Berland for a variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. Planning Case No. 04112. On December 7, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Thomas & Jenny Wilder Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water - oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot B, White Oaks 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The applicant will be able to maintain a patio, just at a smaller size and further from the OHW without the need for a variance. Also, property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake Minnewashta and a dock). b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. c. The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. sou+Mu 0 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake Minnewashta. 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. 5. The planning report #04-42 Variance dated December 7, 2004, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission approved the variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7'h day of December, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANPCNG COMMISSION BY:I Planning Commission Chairperson gA\plan\2004 planning cases\0442 - baland varianceVindings of fwt.doc Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 • Show the location of the existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard. g) Any retaining wall over 4 -foot in height must be designed by a registered structural engineer in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit from the City of Chanhassen Building Department. h) A concrete driveway apron and pedestrian ramps will be required at the access location. 12. Add a landscape buffer between the parking lot and daycare center. 13. Revise the parking lot plan to better accommodate the cars around the medians. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Public Present: Name Address Rich & Judy Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Gang Jones 6738 County Road 72 Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Chris Knox Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Claybaugh: Yes. Could you put that photo back up on the screen please. Sacchet: That one? Claybaugh: Yes ma'am, that's correct. Staff report indicates they're looking for a variance for a foot and a half or a 10 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. Either that photo is terribly deceiving or. Al -Jaffa Here is another one. Claybaugh: Okay, that looks a little better. Okay. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: There's a bunch of rocks. You see it's not the water. There's actually quite a bit of boulders put in there. Claybaugh: Okay. Typically when they call in and ask is a permit required. No it isn't. Is there any indication to the person calling in or the resident that there is other outstanding requirements for the shoreline setback or shoreline impact regulations, so on and so forth? Al -Jaffa Typically if we received a call, one of the first things we ask is, where is this. Give us a location. We can assist you better and that's how we answer questions. If this was on a flat piece of property that wasn't adjacent to a lake, it's a different answer than they would get. Claybaugh: I'm assuming that there isn't, but maybe there should be some kind of process for as people call in, at least something gets logged in that acknowledges that that person called in and what dialogue took place. Is there anything like that or has the city ever considered that? It seems like we get quite a few of these. I don't want to say deal with them frequently but it certainly seems that way sometimes. And it ends up being a bad situation all the way around. People feel like they've done due diligence and on the other hand, the land is out there continually taking you know small hit after small hit so. You don't have to answer. Al -Jaffa We get a lot of calls every day. Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Since the city amended the zoning ordinance we do have that zoning compliance review and we have been telling people, since that adoption that no, you don't need a permit but there is a zoning compliance review. So we'll look at. Claybaugh: So there is a paper trail at least? Generous: Well there should be if they come in for it but. Sacchet: Okay. Rich, questions? Slagle: I would just like to know how we define and the difference between a water orientated accessory structure. Call it a deck. I mean. Al -Jaffa There is a definition. Slagle: Okay. I just don't know it. I apologize. Al-Jaff: I believe it says an attached deck and we want to work with the applicant. We want them to enjoy the patio along the lake and we figure detached deck or gazebo or a patio, they fall under the same category and that's how we determined that this is a water oriented structure. It kind of falls under that. Slagle: So if I can, based upon your answer there are a lot of things that, if that picture was to be put up again, that we could view that would be that close to the lake, or call it another foot and a half, that we would consider okay. 76 Q_N:IA,a 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Claybaugh: And have walls and a ceiling. Slagle: And have almost yeah. I mean I'm just telling you, that seems really close from, and I'm a lakeshore owner as well. That seems really close. Just telling you folks. Anyway. Al -Jaffa Commissioner Slagle, if you turn to page 2 of the staff report, under water oriented accessory structure or facility, the last permitted use in that paragraph is detached decks. Slagle: Well and I've even seen screened houses and gazebos. Generous: And sheds. Sacchet: Fish house. Pump house. Boat house. Ahight, any other questions? Steve. Lillehaug: Page 4. There's one word that really gets me on that page and it's under lakes and it's the second paragraph and it says appears. It appears to be set back 8.5 feet, so really it might be 10 feet. Sacchet: Is it or isn't it? Al -Jaffa It might be. Lillehaug: So we don't even, I mean to me we can't even look at this because we don't know where the OHWL is and how are we supposed to make a fair judgment here, because we don't know where that's at right now. Appears is not a word that I'm going to make a judgment on. Sacchet: Good statement. Alright, that's not a question. That's a statement. We heard it. Any others? Questions. Slagle: You heard it? Sacchet: We heard it. I have a question. On page 5 on the bottom, it says the retaining wall was built within the right-of-way of Minnewashta Parkway. This retaining wall was required to be moved out of the right-of-way because it was a liability to the city and potential threat to public health and safety. Does that mean they actually have to move the retaining wall already? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: So they already accommodated that? A] -Jaffa Yes. Sacchet: By about how much? How much of it? A] -Jaffa They took the entire retaining wall out of the right-of-way. 77 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: So it wasn't just moving a couple rocks. This was major, significant. Okay. Thank you. I think that's the only question I have. I have a question for the applicant eventually but I think for staff, that's all I got. Papke: Can I ask one more? Sacchet: Absolutely. Papke: Following up on Commissioner Lillehaug's question, when we state appears in here, how was the calculation of the 8'/z foot setback determined? How did we come up with that number? Al-Jaff: Lori Haak who is our Water Resource Coordinator looked at the elevation, the OHW for Lake Minnewashta which is 944.5. There are a few elevations that are noted on the survey, but we don't, and we have the location of the shoreline but that does not mean this is where the OHW is. So based upon that, if this is 944.1, we figured within half a foot or so. It could be. It appears that it is about 8'h feet from the OHW. We are not surveyors. We're not qualified, just so you know that. Keefe: I've just got one more quick question. In regards to, in order to meet the 10 foot setback what would have to happen? Would they have to elevate it higher or would they have to push it back further? Decrease the size of it. Al -Jaffa They would need to locate the OHW on this parcel and then from that point on no structure can be located within that 10 foot setback. Keefe: So it's the distance from where that shoreline back goes? Not any elevation at all. Al -Jaffa No. Keefe: Okay, alright. Slagle: So, I'm sorry, if I can ask this. If I heard you right Sharmeen, you said they would have to locate the OHW. Al-Jaff: Correct. They need to add that on the survey. Sacchet: They would have to actually do the survey. Slagle: So wouldn't it be that we're here to suggest that they get a survey, and that might prove that they are okay. Claybaugh: Except the 350 square feet. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Al -Jaffa Well if you look at the variance, one of the things that they are requesting is that we waive that requirement as well. Slagle: I understand but I mean if that's done then it would almost be like the house that was on West 788. Have a survey done, it tells us whether we should be here or not. Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you. How about the applicant? Do you want to come tell us your story please? Rick Berland: Yes. Good evening. Sacchet: Do you mind pulling the microphone over? little more. There you go. Rick Berland: Okay, good evening. I'm Rick Berland. I live at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway and the other parcel of our property has been alluded to, but we want to thank the members of the Planning Commission for hearing our case and for staying late to do so. We also want to thank several of our neighbors who've come to support our request. For their patience and for their support and our contractor, our landscape contractor, Garry Jones of Design Acres who is also here. I apologize I can't be as brief as the previous speaker because I have a lot to say. And the first thing I want you to know my fellow citizens is why are we here, as you say after the fact? We did not do this intentionally. We didn't wish to do this. Our landscape contractor did not call the city and ask these questions. He came to the city with a plan showing what we intended to do and asked not only was a permit required, but also were there any restrictions. And we're told no. And so we proceeded then to look in the neighborhood to see what others have done and had done, together with what we wished to do and since the issue of the well is not an issue tonight but it did come up, I'd like you to know that the city itself or within the city there are several walls, retaining walls along Minnewashta Parkway that were built before my time but I understand that they were built when the road was improved, that are closer to the curb than our wall was. But we have attempted throughout to cooperate and to compromise. I'm pleased to hear several of the commissioners use the word compromise throughout this process. We've been unable to do so. We agreed with the forbearance and the help of our contractor to move the wall and change that design, but we have several reasons why we don't think that you should ask us to move our patio and I would like to go into those now. There are several points that we wish to make. First, the citizens of Chanhassen should be able to rely on the consistent interpretation of our ordinances and regulations. There are many issues I could raise there but let me raise specifically the issue of trees. May I ask Sharleen what the date of her aerial survey is? Al -Jaffa I believe it's 2002. Rick Berland: Okay. We purchased this property in September of 2003. I like trees as much as many of the commissioners. If you visited our property and walked through as you did the subdevelopment that it was, you will see that there are many mature trees, both down by the lake on our site and up in our yard where our home is. We preserved all the trees we could. But staff, until this written report came to us in the mail, never brought up the issue of trees. And so there were several others like that, that's one example. I understand that the commission has the right to give variances on the basis of hardship. My wife Judy is here. Our mothers are both living. 79 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 They're both 82. They like to visit us at the lake. They need a safe and stable place to sit. Many of our other relatives are in their 70's and 80's. I myself am 60. And so that's one of our hardships. There are others that I'll elaborate later. I can tell, I've never been to something like this before but just listening to the previous two cases, the commissioners are very thorough in preparing for this meeting so I want to tell you, and I will elaborate in a moment that the date of the city's receipt of our survey, which Sharleen showed you in this report, is very wrong. And it will also state, and I will tell you why in a moment that we believe we're already in compliance with the 10 foot setback requirement and we do however respectfully request a variance from the 250 square foot maximum size. On the subject of consistency, date and trees, the city requested the survey that you saw there. Garry Jones of Design Acres paid for it. He came to the city and asked the staff what was required on that survey. We complied with the city's request to my understanding. If we had been asked to put the ordinary high water level on it, we certainly would have done so. When the surveyor was already there on site, I'm sure it would not have cost us very much to have that added. If we need to pay for him to come back and make a special trip, I'm sure it costs a great deal more. So it's difficult for us as citizens to comply with ordinances and regulations and seemingly reasonable requests when the requests aren't made. I believe it was the responsibility of city staff, and in fairness Sharleen, to my knowledge has never been involved in this so I'm not speaking of her, but we can't know, or at least we should be able to rely on what the city tells us is needed and if we comply, and we did so. That city was hand delivered bX my wife Judy to the city shortly after receiving it. The city, the survey is dated August 25 . Gary brought it to us. She hand delivered it to the city. This would have been in early September. On page 7 of the staff report it states that the survey is received on October 29 . If I were sitting in your chair and I were reading that, I would think that I dragged my feet and didn't cooperate, but that's far from the truth and I can prove it. We have a voicemail from Ms. Haak. We can play it for you if you wish. It's recorded by the telephone company answering service so it's their date. It's dated September 16th. In that voicemail she stated that our survey had been reviewed. She brought up an irrelevant issue regarding the amount of hard surface, hard pack cover on our primary lot which was already permitted, approved, final inspections, everything done. She stated that the patio is the only remaining issue. She said nothing about trees. And she did not request any additional information, including that we amend our survey with the ordinary high water mark. We still have that voicemail. The date, as I said is supplied by the telephone company, not by us. We can play it for you if you wish. And I will state to you categorically that we removed no trees down by the beach, with the exception of one dead elm. And it had nothing to do with views. It was only to do with, I don't know how to do this. It had to do with the fact that, I remember, and I'm sure most of you do when one was required to remove dead elms and promptly. This was a long dead elm. It's the only tree we took out of there. This is the view that was used in the advertising brochure by Edina Realty, as you can see if you back up a little bit. From our home site down to the lake. We have a terrific view. We didn't need to take out any trees to, trees of our view and we did not take out any trees. So we believe that trees should not even be an issue in this discussion. As I said, we like trees too. On the other hand we spent substantial money doing the improvements we've also done. I don't believe that the city requires us to add trees if we took out none. I assume, I don't know but I assume that 2'h inch diameter trees are fairly expensive. We really don't wish to spend additional money at this time. In fact we had to spend additional money but for moving the wall because then we had to do plantings to stabilize the hillside. Before we would have had to done so, otherwise so we request that you remove that because we F9 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 don't think there's any basis for it at all. With regards to the setback, as I said, if the OHW had been requested, we'd have just done it but we do believe that we comply and I'll tell you the basis. Like the city staff, I'm not a surveyor. I can only give you antidotal basis, but Judy and I are both avid swimmers. We were in that lake virtually every day this summer, and by the way we enjoy the clear, clean water. That's why we're there. We're not, we have no interest in harming Lake Minnewashta. When you're swimming at the end of your swim, because we do as I think you, I don't know if you can see it on the picture but on the survey you can see, we have young grandchildren and we do have a sand beach for entrance and exit from the water for them to play on. But when you're coming out the last time of the day there's some tendency to walk out on the boulders so your feet stay clean, and I would regularly do that. Now when I received this, and with the help and he was very helpful of one of your staff people, Josh, I walked down to the lake and I measured where the actual water level is to the patio right now; This was 2 or 3 days ago. I come up with 13 feet 8 inches. I don't know if we have anything here where you can tell it but there's a fairly dramatic, the boulders are big. So that there's quite an elevation change for the water to actually come up high onto that first row of boulders. I don't recall that it ever did so this summer and I don't believe it did, and I have some information here for you that I have to find. This report is printed from the intemet and it shows that the ordinary high water mark on Lake Minnewashta is 944.5 as was reported earlier. Here is just a blow-up of this chart which shows the actual water level over a several year period, including this year and perhaps it'd be best if I pass this around. Sacchet: Sure. Rick Berland: You will see that this year, in 2004 summer, that the actual water level exceeded fairly dramatically the ordinary high water level. And yet as a swimmer who walked out of that lake, I will testify that the water never, to my best recollection, got anywhere near high enough to be within 10 feet of our patio. Mr. Jones will tell you later the results of a survey that he did, and where his measurement placed the ordinary high water level, and how far he believes we are from it. We are in violation of the area. Again, we didn't know there was any area requirement. It's pretty small violation from my perspective at least. I measure the diameter at 19 foot 9, which is just over 306 square feet in area. I think that's pretty close to what Sharleen said tonight, although I think it's a bit different by about, I don't remember how many feet from what's in the report that you received. We again request that that variance be granted so that we can leave our patio as it is. As you can see from both the photo, there's not a lot of room there for us to go back. That well was built to preserve that beautiful ash tree that you see there. So it takes away our room, and before we had this patio, we really, there was really no place down there where there was a level, stable place to put any furniture for the older visitors who come and for the rest of us who enjoy using the patio too. You'll notice the fire pit, just as while we're on it. I mean I think we did everything in very high quality. Those are pavers. They're designed to be permeable and stable. There was a report on TV that Judy happened to see this summer where someone from the Arboretum was recommending that people use pavers because they do allow percolation and prevent runoff over say concrete for example. Hardships, I mean the staff report seems to indicate that hardships are of our own making. We're very grateful that our mothers are healthy and able at the age of 82, but we take no credit for it. We need a safe and stable place for them and others to sit. Also I believe from listening to you tonight that you do have sensitivity to the issue of cost. We spent a lot of money to do this. Our landscaper is, in A Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 my experience a very good person. He spent a lot of his own money to change that wall, and it's expensive to do these things. And it may be that tearing up some of it and exposing the ground again and waiting for sod to take is more harmful to the lake than leaving things as they already are. In summary we believe we have the hardships necessary for a variance to be granted. Again we're sorry that we're here after the fact. If the commission is able to take context into consideration, we believe that if you have seen the property both before and after we did our work that you would be pleased with what you see. In our application we detailed some of the improvements we made and much of the various trash and hazardous materials that we hauled out of there, cleaning up that area. We thank you for your kind attention. Many of our neighbors have complimented us for our work. Passing by on the water or on the land. Our immediate neighbors have all written letters of support and again I thank you. Thank you for staying and thank you for your attention and we'd be pleased to answer any questions. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Do we have questions? Yes Kurt. Papke: You've made several mentions to some boulders along the shoreline from which you've measured the setback. Were those boulders put in as part of this landscaping project or were they pre-existing? Rich Berland: Yes sir. We did improve the rip rap. The rip rap was eroding and there were frost heaves in it. There were boulders falling out. We took out the old rip rap and we put in all of the boulders along the shore. Papke: So is it possible that as a result of putting these boulders in the water line moved out as a result? Without the boulders there, you're going to measure the shoreline at a slightly different spot, yes or no? Garry Jones: No, because actually when, on your high water mark, when you measure that you've got to follow that all the way back to the actual, to where it's going to be, so no matter where the boulders are. Papke: Okay, so the boulders are inconsequential to the calculation. Garry Jones: Right, correct. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? I do have a question for you. You are Garry Jones right? Garry Jones: Correct. Sacchet: And you brought these plans to the city. Garry Jones: Correct. Sacchet: And that was somewhere in August I presume. Or summer. Z 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Rick Berland: May or June. Garry Jones: Yeah, it was earlier in the summer. Sacchet: Okay. Do you remember who looked at it? Garry Jones: No I don't. I brought them in and just laid them out in front of, on the table there and I said is there any permits or any requirements that I need. And you know, just to take a look at that and see if there's anything that I need to follow. Sacchet: You routinely do that or? Garry Jones: Pardon me? Sacchet: You routinely do that? Garry Jones: Yes. Sacchet: Just to make sure everything is cool. Garay Jones: Yep, and then like she said, or actually it was a man. He had said no, there's no problems with this and so, and being that we're not licensed, there's no stamp or approval or anything. Sacchet: There's nothing official to it. Garry Jones: Right, so it's just kind of, so then we just kind of go with it from that point. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Did you want to add anything sir? Rick Berland: Thank you again. Sacchet: Thank you. This is a public hearing so anybody who wants to come up and speak up to this issue, please do so now. Dave Headla: Okay. I'm Dave Headla. I live at 6870, I'm sorry. Chairman, commissioners and planning group. I'm Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway, just two houses north of the, Rick's. Sacchet: And Dave by the way has been a member of the Planning Commission in the past. Dave Headla: Pardon? Sacchet: You've been part of the Planning Commission in the past haven't you? 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Dave Headla: Yes, and it's interesting to. Sacchet: Want everybody to know that. Dave Headla: Hear you talk. I appreciate the way, the questions that you've asked. They've been good. Sacchet: Thank you. Dave Headla; I, well first of all, I don't know Rick. You know people in their 70's aren't all, need a lot of help. Rick Berland: But notice I didn't use you. Dave Headla: I strongly disagree that any trees were removed. I've lived out there just about 45 years now and if you look at the picture that was shown, I think that can be explained. That's a plan view. You're looking down. There's a lot of foliage on the trees that were lost. One was a huge limb that came off the willow tree and then any trimming would make it look like trees were removed, but they were not removed. I know the trees along the parkway. Maybe some brush was. I wish that you people could see what that property looked like before the Berland's came in. The ice tend to raise havoc with the shore and it raised havoc with my shore, and when they came in, they put in this rip rap. They greatly improved the lakeshore. The ice cannot tear away at the shore any more. The big boulders they put in, and the angle they put them in, I think that's really significant. It also helped for the power boats. Our shore takes a terrible beating from the power boats. Our place, we're on the west side of the lake and with prevailing westerlies, our lakeshore is, and the lake, it's pretty calm most the time. Particularly bare footers. They like to come roaring through there, and there's a lot of wave action. What they've done with that rip rap is going to minimize the wearing away of the lakeshore. As far as the actual location of where they had the fire pit, I walked down this morning to, so I could better understand what they were dealing with. I think, well between the rip rap and that stone wall behind them, it's, I don't know, 16-20 feet. Something like that. And it's strictly an estimate. I think they tucked that fire pit back in against the wall as far as practical. I think they used good judgment and so I don't see where they had an option there. Yeah, maybe they could remove a full paver. A few pavers to comply but that would be... And then another point, I don't know how valid that high water mark is. I've lived here a long time. Living on Minnewashta 45 years. I've never seen the lake come up anywhere close to that high water mark, and you can judge how high the water is by looking at Minnewashta Creek and the flowage that you have. And this year, when we had the rains there in '87 I think it is when we had that one foot rise in Minnetonka. The lake didn't come up that far, and by the time the drainage area started to come into the lake, the Minnewashta Creek had dumped that water, so I, I don't think that's really a valid thing to reject the permit. And finally both my wife and I really feel they've been a good steward of the land there and we'd recommend approval of the variance. Sacchet: Thanks Dave. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to address this? Please do so now. 84 7 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sharon Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sharon Morgan and I actually, I live inbetween the two of them. My house faces the other way. I have 3920 White Oak Lane and I own Outlot A right next to Rick and Judy. We've been there for the last 3 years. Not as long as Dave has, but we watched the whole progress of the work being done at the beach and you know I can vouch for them. No trees were ever taken. I have 3 kids. We're down there watching all the construction going on and no trees were ever taken. Maybe some brush was cleared out but no trees were taken out of there. They did lose a big limb off the willow but that was due to a storm and they got that cleaned up so maybe that's why the aerial picture looks a little bit different. Also, before they moved in there were tires in the water. There were iron rods in the water. There were old bar-be-ques over in the brush area, and it was completely dirty down there. There was old cans, garbage, and they did a tremendous job in cleaning all that up, so I think what they did really improved you know whatever, what runoff was going into the water there with all the debris and everything that was laying around there. And they have, they have done nothing but try to follow the city's guidelines after they found out about this moving that wall and I think they've done nothing but good down there and I really think the shoreline down there looks really good and that they've done a great job. And so I'd recommend that they have this variance approved. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes sir. Chris Knox: Hi, my name's Chris Knox. These guys don't even know who I am. I actually live on Minnewashta Parkway just up the street and I just was here tonight for another reason, just to observe but I happened to see them on my list and I can vouch for the fact that actually they have a very beautiful home. They replaced a real eyesore next to the park there, and they've done a beautiful job on the, and so has the landscape person, on the shoreline. We have a shared beach where I am and I think what they've done is a beautiful thing. I, as a Lake Minnewashta resident and their neighbor have no problem. I think the wisdom behind the table there which say that the circumstances here, I would just say again as an ad hoc comment here is that I would think that you would want to make a, approve their variance and let them have their beautiful spot. It adds to the neighborhood and I as a neighbor am glad they're there. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Anybody else? Please come forward Jerry Paulsen: I'm Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Sacchet Hi Jerry. Jerry Paulsen: I just picked up this report today so I'm basing my comments on general feeling. Not to minimize the, apparently you've made improvements to this property that are good. The fact is the city, the staff report recommends that you do not approve this because the findings show that they fail on 5 out of 6 of the findings to qualify for the variance as listed on page 6. They only qualify on the sixth one. I can see where, I think the burden of proof is still on the applicant to prove that they're complying with city ordinance and the old clich6 of ignorance of law is no excuse. They didn't perhaps explore in enough detail to find out explicitly what was required in line with the, before they went ahead with this improvement before realizing they were not in compliance. The current water line is really irrelevant to the ordinary high water RE 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 line. That's fixed by the DNR and doesn't change over many years obviously. I assume they got approval from the DNR to put rip rap on the lakeshore because the DNR would probably require that. So I don't think it'd be a hardship for them to modify their size of the deck slightly and not having old people fall off the edge there I don't think, but I think the burden of proof is to show that they do meet this setback from the ordinary high water line. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Anybody else wants to address this? Seeing nobody. Oops, there is somebody. Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. As a person who can see a lake but doesn't live on a lake I know that everybody who lives on a lake would like to have a fire pit and a patio down by the lake. It's just natural. However the ordinary high water line is crucial. This is what we base our code on. We have to know the ordinary water line and we have to obey that. The state requires that. Our city requires that and adding anything to the water requires a permit from the DNR. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Janet. Alright, anybody jumping up? No. Yes, go ahead. You can certainly add something to this Garry. Garry Jones: Yes. Again, Garry Jones with Design Acres and on the issue with adding stuff to the shoreline. There was a permit that was pulled. Sacchet: So you did have that permit. Garry Jones: Yeah. For the DNR for everything with the watershed. That was. Sacchet: So you're all clear on that one. Garry Jones: Yes. Sacchet: That's good to know. Excellent comment. Thank you. Appreciate it. Rick Berland: Could you tell them about your survey that you did? Garry Jones: Oh yeah. Sacchet: One more thing? Go ahead. Garry Jones: In regards to the high water mark, I shot it off the manhole cover which was, which is the hub to find the high water mark. And right now where I shot it, it's 10 feet 9 inches from the overhead. The high water mark, the OHW. So from the edge of the patio to the OHW is 10 feet 9 inches is what I've got. So which does comply with the net 10 feet. Sacchet: Okay, so we have a pretty good likeliness that we are in compliance with that. Okay. Alright, with that I do close the public hearing. Assume everybody's done their piece and bring it back to commissioners. Are we still awake? Rich, wake up. 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Slagle: I'm awake. Sacchet: Alright. Comments, discussion. What are we going to do with this? Papke: I'll start. When I read through this, this variance tonight, if you remember a week ago I made a comment to another after the fact variance request that we'd seen too many of these and we're establishing a bad precedent. And in preparation for tonight I steel myself to come in and make a firm stance and say, this is it. You know I'm going to vote on, and vote down every single one of these until we you know, until we deny one of these permits. But I think there's, what the applicant has done is in very, has been very respectful of the lake and the water quality and I think at the end of the day that's what all these ordinances are all about. I think there's been good testimonial here from the neighbors that this project is very desired by the local residents and I think we should just let it go. Sacchet: Alright, one comment. Any other ones? Tjornhom: I have a comment about this, last week's also. There's kind of a pattern developing where people, and this has nothing to do with Sharmeen or any of, this is just the city offices in general I'm starting to wonder about because we see this time and time again where people have tried to come in and do the right thing and they've complied with what their stamp says they can do, and then all of a sudden the rules have all changed on them or you know there's something wrong, and my whole thing is if I'm a citizen coming in and I'm wanting to pull a permit for something, I don't know all those questions to ask. I can't read minds and I don't know, I'm just an ordinary citizen wanting to put in a patio you know, and I just have to trust that the person I'm talking to is knowledgeable and is giving me all the information I need to, so I can invest in my property and do something nice. And so I think the applicant tried to do that again and somehow it fell through the cracks or something, and so I am, I approve their variance. I just, I think, I don't believe they cut trees down and I think they tried to be good citizens and... Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Anyone else? Claybaugh: I think with respect to issues like this, we have an internal problem within the city. We've discussed this before. I know you don't want to hear it but there is, anyway. With respect to the zoning compliance that you now put in place, that was our reaction to it. We've discussed that in depth. I sincerely think that that will have a profound effect in the future so we're not put in this situation hopefully once that ... to ever again. One thing I haven't understood about the City of Chanhassen, a lot of the other cities that I go to, to pull permits for zoning, so on and so forth, they have handouts there. They're standard handouts. Come in. You say this is what I'm doing. They say hey, here's the handout for it. Explains the things that people need to be put on notice about. It's very simple to do and people, you're going to get much better compliance doing it. Hoping it's something that they do in conjunction with this zoning compliance review. That's a very simple process. In the absence of some evidence that these people have been in before had been put on notice and then decided to disregard what information was told to them, and we've come down on the side of the resident. And certainly it sounds like this resident did their due diligence and I agree with fellow commissioners that 87 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 people that don't operate and function in that area, they don't know what they don't know. And when you come to the city and rely upon it, they rely upon that information. And I myself have been in situations coming into cities to pull information and a person's busy on a particular day and you're requesting something fairly benign compared to the other things that they have in front of them, and it's no problem. And this could have certainly fallen into that category. Your staff is certainly over worked and I guess with that, bottom line is I'm prepared to support the variance based on the testimony here tonight and nothing to add. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Anybody else? Dan? Rich? Steve? Lillehaug: It's reasonable. Sacchet: It's reasonable. You know, an after the fact variance is bad news but an after the fact requirement is even worst. Now if we go by like we've heard by some of the residents, if we go by the rules that are given to us. The hardship, the self created precedent. All these things. It doesn't look good if you look at what staff put together. But I think there's an over riding factor. What the fork in the road is, we have the applicant here. We have the person that came to the city here that, and we see the applicant did quite a bit in terms of moving a whole boulder wall to accommodate requirements. Now they're here for an after the fact requirement, are we going to hit them with an after the fact requirement to the after the fact? I mean it's kind of ludicrous doesn't it, so I think that over rides the rationale of, I mean it doesn't enter into the framework that the variance procedure is set up with. Because they did come to the city. It's tricky. I mean we literally get one of these about every meeting at this point. We've probably got about 3. You're about the third or the fourth one in the row that comes in like that, and each time we struggle with this and say, well. At some point we're going to have to put our foot down. I mean anybody can come in here and say well we talked to the city. But as long as it's realistic, I mean we should not punish the owners. I mean it's ... as I think it is so, plus in addition to unanimous support of the neighbors, that weighs in tremendously when it comes to variances so I'm prepared to let this go through. Not only that, with the testament we heard about the trees, I think it's not reasonable to have the tree requirement attached to it because we have very well corroborated evidence that there was no tree cutting except a dead one. That's my comments, so I'd like to ask for a motion. Papke: I make a motion that we approve Variance number 04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot ordinary high water level setback for a water oriented accessory structure, a 60 foot square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water oriented access structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water oriented accessory structure. It's getting late at night to be saying this. Patio that has been constructed with no conditions. Lillehaug: Second. Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary Highway Water Level (OHW) setback for a water oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 • the OHW on the survey for a water oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Tjomhom noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim M CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: December 7, 2004 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 12/28/04 CASE #: 04-42 BY: JM, LH, JS PROPOSAL: Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. LOCATION: Outlot B, White Oaks Addition APPLICANT: Rick & Judy Berland ' 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.18 acre DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. Staff is recommending denial of these requests. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY 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. Location Map Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 Lake Minnewashta Subject Property St Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. The construction of a patio does not require building permit approval. However, patios must meet setback, impervious surface and size limitations. The site is located on the western shore of Lake Minnewashta. The site is an outlot east of Minnewashta Parkway opposite 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Roundhouse Park is located just southwest of the subject property. Access to the site is gained on foot via Minnewashta Parkway. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 1-2. Definitions. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment, concrete slabs. Water -oriented accessory structure or facility means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (A) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: nrctures Structures Sewage Classes of Public Waters Treatment nsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural environment ISO 150 150 Recreational development 100 5 5 Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 3 *One (1) water -oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-481(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (E) Design criteria for structures. (2) Water -oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water -oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) if this water - oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least ten (10) feet; Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (A) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (B) Vegetation alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: i. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf -on conditions, is not substantially reduced; Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 4 ii. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; iii. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and iv. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (C) In no case shall clear cutting be permitted. BACKGROUND Outlot B was created as part of the White Oaks Addition, Subdivision #2000-9 which was approved by City Council on October 9, 2000. The subject property is owned by Rick & Judy Berland (applicant) who live at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. This property is attached to their lot as a requirement of the subdivision approval. The City received a complaint in July stating that construction activity was taking place in the shoreland area adjacent to 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. July 8, 2004 inspection revealed that a retaining wall and patio/fire ring had been constructed in the shore impact zone. In a letter dated July 12, 2004, staff explained that all construction activity must cease and requested the applicant contact staff to discuss plans for the property. Staff informed the Berland's that a variance was required. ANALYSIS Upon review of the as -built survey prepared by Allan Hastings stamped "Received October 29, 2004", staff offers the following comments and recommendations: Lakes The Shoreland Management ordinance was established to ensure the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The intention of the ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. Lake Minnewashta is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). City code states that water -oriented accessory structures cannot be greater than 250 square feet and must be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the OHW (Lake Minnewashta- 944.5 MSL). The existing patio is approximately 314 square feet and appears to be setback 8.5 feet from the OHW. This does not meet the City's Shoreland Management ordinance. The OHW is not on the survey. The 8.5 foot setback was determined by staffs best estimates. Tree Removal According to city ordinance, property owners may clear vegetation along a shoreline in order to secure a view of the water. The limitations for clearing are 30% of the lot width or 30 feet, which ever is lesser, Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 5 parallel to the shoreline. A review of aerial photos shows that the southern half of Outlot B had canopy cover. The area not covered by large trees and canopy cover is approximately fifty percent of the lot width. There should have been no vegetation removal on the southern half of the lot and because of the elevation difference between the home at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway and Outlot B, pruning the existing trees and shrubs would have allowed a view of the lake. During a recent inspection of the outlot, three trees remain although there may possibly be four, depending on the property line. The trees include two significant trees, an ash and willow on the southern end and a small diameter, multi -stemmed boxelder on the northern end. The applicant has placed landscape planting along the top retaining wall consisting of shrub species. The approximate area of canopy coverage on the site was 3,480 square feet. The two remaining trees at the southern end could account for half of the canopy coverage. Applying city ordinance for tree preservation, the calculations for replacement plantings would be as follows: 1,740 (3,480/2) x 1.2 (penalty replacement value) = 2,088 2,088 / 1089 (standard area for one tree) = 1.9 trees Staff recommends that the applicant plant two trees on Outlot B. They shall be deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control A retaining wall was built within the right-of-way for Minnewashta Parkway. This retaining wall was required to be moved out of the right-of-way because it was a liability to the City and a potential threat to public health and safety. Berland Variance Planning Case #04-42 December 7, 2004 Page 6 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria Finding: Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The applicant will be able to maintain a patio, just at a smaller size and further from the OHW without -the need for a variance. Also, property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake N innewashta and a dock). 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, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 7 Finding: The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake N innewashta. 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 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The size of the patio shall be reduced to two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 2. The setback of the patio from the Ordinary High Water Level shall be increased from 8 feet to 10 feet. 3. The applicant shall plant two trees on Outlot B which are deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter. 4. The Ordinary High Water Level shall be placed on the survey by a registered land surveyor." Berland Variance Planning Case #0442 December 7, 2004 Page 8 Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "ne Planning Commission approves Variance #04-42 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water -oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall plant two trees on Outlot B which are deciduous and a minimum of 2.5 inches in diameter." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. As -built Survey for Outlot B. 4. Letter from Rick & Judy Berland dated October 25, 2004. 5. Letter from Bennett & Sharon Morgan dated October 24, 2004. 6. Letter from Joe & Darcy Piche dated October 25, 2004. 7. Email from Bobbie & Dave Headla dated November 30, 2004. 8. Letter from Lori Haak to Richard & Judith Berland dated July 12, 2004. 9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. GAPLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-42 - Baland Variance\Berland Staff Repml.dac CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Rick & Judy Berland for a variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. Planning Case No. 04-42. On December 7, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Thomas & Jenny Wilder Request for a 1.5 foot variance from the 10 foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback for a water - oriented accessory structure, a 64 square foot variance from the 250 square foot maximum area of a water -oriented accessory structure and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. These requests are after -the -fact for a water -oriented accessory structure (patio) that has been constructed. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot B, White Oaks 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The applicant will be able to maintain a patio, just at a smaller size and further from the OHW without the need for a variance. Also, property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake Minnewashta and a dock). b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. c. The patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The patio increases impervious surface and adds run-off to Lake Minnewashta. 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. 5. The planning report #04-42 Variance dated December 7, 2004, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission the variance from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) setback and maximum area for a water -oriented accessory structure, and relief from the requirement of the OHW on the survey. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7`s day of December, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M Planning Commission Chairperson CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: • • ADDRESS: G'i- `fZ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TELEPHONE (Day Time) G% `f y TELEPHONE: &M9`i 2- 225-?a2Q Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: i r\r, IP — REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Rl (41,(a ( — -bens 4 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. l0- Z8-zoay Signature of Appl' nt� Date I C� -Zg • Zc�o�-/ Signature of Fee Owner Date n Application Received on D LS 6L4 Fee Paid ZSO0O — Receipt No. 53 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAplanVo \Developmeot Review Applimfion.Dl 15UR U1, FOR: SPRY JoQEs 33.87S88'5Z35')E RA m®�� I hereby certify that this is a trm apd '`cormct representation of a a tdW Same( 641�t11scIWEI on Qt1TLO 0-r , V414liE. OAK NODI1�{pt/, CANER County, Minnesota an on file and.of record 1n the Office of the County Recorder 14 and for laid County, 77ut I. eM a duly Registered Land Ourveyor under the Laws of thaSta of llin4eoeta. CRV OF CNANHA N Ak RECEIVED Allan R. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 17009 =2 gdesa :hems S. OW*AM RA11WNG M" Suite '!?0. Shakopae, Minnesota 55979 Phone 952 445 4027 III To: City of Chanhassen From: Judy and Rick Berland Re: Variance request to permit existing patio October 25, 2004 We have completed an improvement of our beach area Prior to beginning work, our landscape contractor, Gary Jones of Design Acres, brought our plan to the city and asked both whether we needed a permit and whether there were any restrictions. He was told that no permit was necessary and that no restrictions applied. Therefore, we proceeded in good faith that we had complied with all laws and regulations. All work and materials are of very high quality and every precaution was taken to protect the integrity of the lake. We cleaned up the area (old docks, fittings, pipes, old picnic tables, old tires buried under the rip -rap and in the water, deteriorating steps and an eroding hillside), trimmed dead wood from the trees, improved the rip -rap, which was eroding and deteriorating and installed new grass and plantings. Many neighbors have complimented us on the improvements we made, including all three immediate neighbors (all of whom support this request). As part of our improvements, we installed a patio for sitting near the lake. It is constructed of pavers and is built to be permeable and stable. We have several relatives in their 70s and 80s who need a level, safe place to sit. Also this will be our retirement home and we hope to remain for many years. Like the rest of the project, the patio was costly to install. Immediate neighbors: Bennet and Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Dave and Bobbie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 SCANNED October 24, 2004 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear City of Chanhassen, Subject: Variance for Rick & Judy Berland Rick & Judy Berland recently purchased the lot and the lakeshore outlot on Lake Minnewashta next to ours. They have recently put in a paver patio down by the lake as well as a number of other landscape improvements. We are writing to formally indicate that we have no issues or concerns with the patio or other landscape improvements already completed. We support a variance that would approve the patio and other improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bennett & Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 SCANNED To: City of Chanhassen From: Joe and Darcy Pichd Re: Rick and Judy Burland October 25, 2004 We are writing in support of our neighbors Rick and Judy Burland and the improvements made to their beach front on Lake Minnewashta. The work they have done to their beach and shoreline has beautified and cleaned the area to make it more attractive than it was before they owned the property. The fire -pit and patio they built has a very low profile and is not even noticeable from the lake. The Burlands are conscientious and respectful people who in no way are interested in harming the natural beauty of the lake or lake shore. Our hope is that you will allow them to keep the fire -pit and patio as it currently is. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Chanhassen SCANNED of Meltzer, Josh From: Dave Headla [dave6870@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:40 PM To: Metzer, Josh Subject: Fw: Berland variance request by Lake Minnewashta Subject: Berland variance request by Lake Minnewashta We live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway, the second home north of the Berlands. When we built our home, in 1961, Lake Minnewashta was still a "raw lake". Sewage was leaking into the lake, shorelines were not being bashed by power boat waves, summer homes or cottages were a common scene and the lake was being used as a causal recreation. As time went by sewer and water service was established, many larger homes became common and life became more lively on the lake. Fortunately an ordinance was established defining what could or could not be on or near the lake shore. In the past few years there has also been a change where homes have been built to view and appreciate our beautiful lake . Lakeshores are being protected with rip rap, and laws implemented to limit wave action on the shoreline. In effect, Lake Minnewashta is being used as a recreational activity as well as a passive activity. I use the term passive as a word where we just look and appreciate what we have. We believe our ordinance is appropriate for it can control what is happening on the shoreline. Our point is, what is going on and around Lake Minnewashta has been evolving in a positive manner and the Berland request for a variance complements this direction. We recommend approval of the Berland request. Bobbie and Dave Headla 12/1/2004 July 12, 2004 � C �I �TY�OF Richard and Judith Berland CHANUSENf-(� . 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior. MN 55331 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Administralfon Phone: 952227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Recent Grading and Installation of Structures at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior, MN Dear Richard and Judith: Running Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 This letter is to advise you that the City received a complaint regarding the Fax: 952227.1190 work that was recently done on your property at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Engineering An inspection on July 8 revealed that a retaining wall had been installed, a fire PFax:9522.27.1170 it had been constructed and work had been done within the shore impact Fax: 952227.1170 p zone of Lake Minnewashta. For your reference, please find enclosed the Finance City's shoreland ordinance. Installation of retaining walls over four (4) feet in Phone: 952.227.11 F@c 952.227.11107.10 height is regulated by Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) Section 1300.0120. Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Please cease all activity y, Faxa52.z2zmo yon -site and contact me no later than Wednesday, Recreation Center July 21, 2004 to discuss your plans for the above property. Additional 2310 Coulter Boulevard erosion control measures (primarily sod) will need to be installed immediately Phone: 952.227.1400 to ensure the protection of Lake Minnewashta Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135 if you have questions. Thank Natural Resources you for your cooperation. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Sincerely, - Public Warks 1591 Park Road CITY OF CHA SSEN Phone: 952.227.1300 FSenio.Center Senior Center ` Phone: 952.227.1125 Lori Hoak - Fax: 952.227.1110 Water Resources Coordinator Web Site www.d.chanhassen.mmus Enclosures cc: Dan Remet, Engineering Tech III Steve Torell, Building Official Jesse Carlson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District GAENG\1. i\Lettm\6900 Minnewubta Pwki ay.doe - - The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown. thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 0442 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback on property located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Applicant: Richard & Judith Berland. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planning Intern Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 25, 2004) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 24, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for after -the -fact variance to lakeshore setback, Richard & Judy Berland — Planning Case No. 04-42 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. KarA J. En el dt,e uty Clerk Subscribed and swo • i to before me thig�'�lay of 2004. c Not lic KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public Mimesota CARVER COUNTY MyCommWs on Expires111rM VVVVVV SCANNl0 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback Planning File: 04-42 Applicant: Richard & Judy Berland Property 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzerOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialrndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback Planning File: 04.42 Applicant: Richard & Judy Berland Property 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Comments: mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 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 commerciaUndustrial. • 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 Planning Staff person named on the notification. Lake Minnewashta Subject Property This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is no intended to be used as one. This n¢p is a cerlpilation of reeord5, inlorrhatlM and data located In various Gly, county. Scale and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for Meral W rposes only. The City does rat warrant that the Geographic Mlonretion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this rrep are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting rrieasurement of distance or direction or Precision in the depitlion of geographic features. H errors or discrepancies are fWnd please contact 952-22]110]. The preceding disdaner is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stah les §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this Mp acknowledges that Me City shall not bs liable for any damages, and eqPressly waives all dans, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold har iess the City from any and all claims brought by User, its erreloyees or agents, or thiM pares which ansa out of the users access or use of data provided. Lake Minnewashta This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is net intended to be used as one. This map is a CmrPlatm of records, infohnavch and data located in vancus city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, arta is to be used for reference W gfosee my. The qty does rat warrant that the Geographic Information Syslem (GIS) Data used to prepare this rrep are error free, and the City does nal represent Mat he GIS Data can be used for navigatmal, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting rreawrerten[ of distance or direction or predsion in the depiction of geographic features. ff errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-22]-110]. The preceding disdarrer is proyided Wrsumt to Minnesota Stables §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this rrep acknowedges that the City snail not ba liable for any damages, and in,p essly waves all darns, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold hamyess the City from any and all dxims brought by User, as employees or agents, or Mir Pares which ansa M of the users access or use of data provided. Public Hearing Notification Area Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 ren Lane Ln Lake Minnewashta Subject Property Kinqs Road Y M �� Q G ZZ' e, of a Lake St Joe�A¢a�� RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE DAVID L & DIANE E LIESER PO BOX 181 3881 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BENNETT J & SHARON M MORGAN SCOTT BOLIN 3920 WHITE OAK LN 3921 STRADFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD T & DIANE L HUNTER JONATHAN S DUSTRUD & 3961 STRATFORD RDG KRISTINA P DUSTRUD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LENNART J & DEADRA S JOHNSON WILLIAM J MUNIG 6240 CHASKA RD 6850 STRATFORD BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A & JUDITH F BERLAND RICH SLAGLE 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKY 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS DALE REICHERT 3901 STRATFORD RDG EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH M & DARCY S PICHE 3960 WHITE OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DARYL L & DEBRA A KIRT 50 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID R BARBARA M HEADLA 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Building Inspections July 12, 2004 CITY OF Fax: 952.227.1190 Richard and Judith Berland CHMMSEN 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Phone: 95217 F Fax: 952.2227.17.11700 Excelsior, MN 55331 7700 Market Boulevard zone of Lake Minnewashta. For your reference, please find enclosed the PO Box 147 City's shoreland ordinance. Installation of retaining walls over four (4) feet in Chanhassen,MNW7 Re: Recent Grading and Installation of Structures at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior, MN Administration Phone: 952227.1100 Please cease all activityon-site and contact me no later than Wednesday, y+ Fax:952.227.1110 Dear Richard and Judith: Building Inspections This letter is to advise you that the City received a complaint regarding the Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 work that was recently done on your property at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Engineering An inspection on July 8 revealed that a retaining wall had been installed, a fire Phone: 95217 F Fax: 952.2227.17.11700 pit had been constructed and work had been done within the shore impact zone of Lake Minnewashta. For your reference, please find enclosed the Finance City's shoreland ordinance. Installation of retaining walls over four (4) feet in P52v.11 Fax: 952.227.1110 height is regulated by Mnnesota State Building Code HSBC) Section 1300.0120. Park A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.221.1110 Please cease all activityon-site and contact me no later than Wednesday, y+ July 21, 2004 to discuss your plans for the above property. Additional Recreation center 2310Coulter Boulevard erosion control measures (primarily sod) will need to be installed immediately Phone: 952.227.1400 to ensure the protection of Lake Minnewashta.. Fax: 952.227.1404 - - - Planning It Please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135 if you have questions. Thank Natural Resources you for your cooperation. Phare: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 Sincerely, Public Works 1591 Park Road CITY OF CHA SSEN Mm: 952227.1300 V Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227 1125 Lori Haak Fax: 952.227.1110 Water Resources Coordinator Web Site www.ci.ehanhassen.mn.us Enclosures - cc: Dan Remer, Engineering Tech III Steve Torell, Building Official Jesse Carlson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District G: ENGU.orixLetters76900 Minnewashta Pukway.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding (rails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. ZONING Sec. 20-418. Enforcement procedures. § 20-477 (a) Violation of article VI, wetland protection, or of the terms of a permit issued there. under shall be a misdemeanor punishable by ninety (90) days in jail and a fine of seven hundred dollars ($700.00). (b) Any person who alters a wetland in violation of article VI, shall apply for a wetland alteration permit and shall pay a filing fee double the regular fee. The city council may require the violator to restore the wetland or take other mitigative measures. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 11, 4-25-94) Secs. 20.419-20-475. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. SIIOR.ELAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT' Sec. 20-476. Statutory authorization and policy. (a) Statutory authorization. This article is adopted pursuant to the authorization and Policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. (b) Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by Chanhassen. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20.477. General provisions. (a) Jurisdiction. The provisions of article shall apply to the shorelands of the public waters as classified in section 20.478 of this article. Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, lakes, ponds, or flowage less than 10 acres in size are exempt from this article. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland is exempt from this article. 'Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 217, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, repealed former Art. VII, §§ 20-476-20-478 and § 4 of the ordinance enacted a new Art. VII as herein set out in §§ 20-476-20.486. Prior to repeal, former Art. VII pertained to the Shoreland Overlay District and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 23, adopted Dec. 15, 1986. Supp. No. 7 . 1191 § 20-477 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland. area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this article and other applicable regulations. (c) Enforcement. The planning director is responsible for the administration and enforce- ment of this article. Any violation of the provisions of this article or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in conned tion with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. (d) Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this article shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the city and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by state statutes. (e) Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this article is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this article shall not be affected thereby. (fi Abrogation and greater restrictions. It is not intended by this article to repeal, abro- gate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this. article imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this article shall prevail. All other arti- cles inconsistent with this article are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20.478. Administration. (a) Permits. A permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall stipulate that an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be reconstructed or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this article. (b) Variances. The board of adjustments and appeals or city council shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the department of natural resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in subsection (c) herein shall also include the summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. For existing developments, the application for variance shall clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage. treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, shall require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system. (c) Noti/"ications to the department of natural resources. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland man- agement controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated representative and post• marked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plats shall include copies of the subdivision/plat. A copy of approved amendments Supp. No. 7 . 1192 ZONING § 20-479 and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses tinder local shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten (10) days of final action. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20479. Shoreland classification system and land use districts. (a) Shoreland classification system. The public waters of Chanhassen have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver/Hennepin County, Minnesota. (b) Moreland area defined.) The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed below shall be as defined in section 20-1 and as shown on the official zoning map. (c) Lakes. (1) Natural Environmental Lakes: Harrison Rice Lake Rice Marsh Lake St. Joe Silver (2) Recreational Development Lakes: Ann Christmas Hazeltine Lotus Lucy Minnewashta Riley Susan Virginia (d)- Rivers and streams (1) Agricultural: Inventory I.D. Number 10-8W 27-132P 10.1P 10-11P 27-136P Inventory I.D. Number Minnesota River—From west city boundary to east city boundary. (2) Tributary streams: Bluff Creek—From Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake). Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P). Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P). Supp. No.8 1193 10-12P 27-137P 10-14P 10-6P 10-7P 10-91? 10-2P 10-13P 10-15P § 20-479 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory Creek—From Lotus Lake (10-6P) to east city boundary. All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification herein shall be considered "tributary". (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions. (a) Lot area and width standards. The lot area (in square feei) and lot width standards (in feet) for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows: (1) Sewered lakes—Natural environment: Riparian Lots Area Width Nonriparian Lots Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 180 Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 270 Quad 130,000 425 65,000 360 (2) Sewered lakes—Recreational development: Riparian Lots Area Width Nonriparian Lots Area Width Single 20,000 90 15,000 90 Duplex 35,000 135 26,000 135 Triplex 50,000 195 38,000 190 Quad 65,000 255 49,000 245 Unsewered lakes—Recreational development: Riparian Lots Area Width Nonriparian Lots Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 (3) River/stream lot width standards. There is no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams. The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six (6) river/stream classifications are as follows: D ibutary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Single 150 100 90 Duplex 225 150 115 Supp. No. 8 1194 Agricultural Triplex 300 Quad 375 ZONING 7Hbutary No Sewer Sewer 200 150 250 190 § 20-481 (4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-2495; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Sewage Classes of Public Structures Structures 7Neatment Waters Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural 150 150 150 environment Recreational 100 75 75 development Rivers Agricultural 100 50 75 and tributary One (1) water -oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regard- less of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: Setback (in feet) (1) Top of bluff; 30 (2) Unplatted cemetery; 50 (3) Right-of-way line of federal, state, or 50 county highway; and Supp. No. 14 1195 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CrrY CODE Setback From: Setback (in feet) (4) Right-of-way line of town road, public 20 streets, or other roads or streets not classified. (c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones. (d) Nonresidential uses without water -oriented needs. Uses without water -oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. (e) Design criteria for structures. (1) High water elevations. Structures shall be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed shall be deter- mined as follows: a. For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; b. For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three (3) approaches, technical evaluations shall be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120:5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one (1) approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c_ Water -oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood - resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above_ the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind -driven waves and debris. (2) Water -oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water -oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) if this water -oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. Supp. No. 14 1196 ZONING § 20-481 b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least ten (10) feet; C. The structure or facility shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions; d. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but shall not be enclosed or used as a storage area; e. The structure or facility shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and L As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbod- ies, water -oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water -oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to four hundred (400) squarefeetprovided the maximum width of the structure is twenty (20) feet as measured parallel to the configura- tion of the shoreline. (3) Stairway, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up ad down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts shall meet the following design requirements: a. Stairways and lifts shall not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open -space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open -space, and recreational properties; C. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; d. Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e. Stairways, lifts, and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical; and f. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems a. to e. are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. (4) Significant historic sites. No structure shall be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. Supp. No. 14 1197 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) Steep slopes. The planning director shall evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation. (f) Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idential agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 322, § 1, 6-25-01) Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and panting areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf -on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3_ The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and Supp. No. 14 1198 ZONING §'20-486 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Sec. 20-483.'Ibpographic alterationstgrading and filling. Connections to public waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a Public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by this article and section 7, article III. Permission for excavations may be given only after the commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. _(a) Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. (b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternative exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. (c) Public and watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access -related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20485. Storm water management. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area, except as follows: (1) Thirty-five (35) percent for medium/high density residential zones; and (2) Seventy (70) percent in industrial zones within the Lake Susan Shoreland District. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20.486. Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows:' (1) Onsite sewage treatment systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in section 20481(a) of this article. Supp. No. 14 1199 § 20-486 CHANHA.SSEN CITY CODE (2) A nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment systema improper setback from the ordinary high water level. (3) The Chanhassen City Council has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. Chanhassen will require upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system identified by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed two (2) years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 105.484, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 for design of onsite sewage treatment systems, shall be considered nonconforming. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Secs. 20487-20-500. Reserved. ARTICLE VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following. (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. *Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 149, adopted June 24, 1991, amended Art. VIII, Div. 1, to read as herein set out. Prior to amendment, Art. VIII, Div. 1, contained §§ 20-501-20-505, pertaining to similar subject matter and deriving from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-1-5-18- 5), adopted Dec. 15, 1986, and Ord_ No. 136, § 1, adopted Jan. 28, 1991. t Supp. No. 14 1200 FUV aul 1 Yzr Fo- R - C) T' A% P �a V --- S 85652.35"E I W �� DF_P1OTF_S�RiCK�0E2.5 � DeNares RocKo2�c�ut�1 Eke�,91)S%�r7 co h I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a Qom+ �iAi� SURJPs( 0� LmAsC oil WTIAT 1B1 WIAWE OINK WirlD0, C—mWP-2 County, Minnesota as on file and of record c) �r N� � � -u•,%-rt.l.wv� •lam_ n � W MSS /►Vlt�� • N � ltlC wa A G•�L L 1•�-d r�� lei 2.414- 'd( I W �� DF_P1OTF_S�RiCK�0E2.5 � DeNares RocKo2�c�ut�1 Eke�,91)S%�r7 co h I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a Qom+ �iAi� SURJPs( 0� LmAsC oil WTIAT 1B1 WIAWE OINK WirlD0, C—mWP-2 County, Minnesota as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, That I,am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of r DatedAW- \\ T W pit( 1 5 tr V .r 11 1 I Al Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. Re,LCv-V- +AC-G-et'Ey Sul Fivisst Avenue H. 17009 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (� K-� �. �1•tiL :1 .LJ-L�F��i-Y• .f. �ii. �. •(_. Phone 952 445 4027 -Cor K-e--� ac r --c- S Date: November 10, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planning Intem Subject: Request for after -the -fact Variance to Lakeshore Setback on property located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Applicant: Richard & Judith Berland Planning Case: 04-42 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 29, 2004. The 60day review period ends December 28, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 24, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meting 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 L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediacom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. Location Map Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 Lake Minnewashta Subject Property St r�1� CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION • TELEPHONE (Day Time) ( — ap r; g OWNER: ,CQvne ADDRESS: 011- Ltz- CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TELEPHONE: _&M 9'�i:2 - `%25— 5/822 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit_ Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development` Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARMAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision` TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box M Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ili o 3000 7 0 TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: J i rte; IP — REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 1SPS�dPrlk is 1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /Q- Z2 -7,00N Signature ofnt� Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on O ZS 0`-i Fee Paid 2 -SO- Receipt No. bN I The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting_ If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Gdplan\for \Development Review Application.DOC To: City of Chanhassen From: Judy and Rick Berland Re: Variance request to permit existing patio October 25, 2004 We have completed an improvement of our beach area. Prior to beginning work, our landscape contractor, Gary Jones of Design Acres, brought our plan to the city and asked both whether we needed a permit and whether there were any restrictions. He was told that no permit was necessary and that no restrictions applied. Therefore, we proceeded in good faith that we had complied with all laws and regulations. All work and materials are of very high quality and every precaution was taken to protect the integrity of the lake. We cleaned up the area (old docks, fittings, pipes, old picnic tables, old tires buried under the rip -rap and in the water, deteriorating steps and an eroding hillside), trimmed dead wood from the trees, improved the rip -rap, which was eroding and deteriorating and installed new grass and plantings. Many neighbors have complimented us on the improvements we made, including all three immediate neighbors (all of whom support this request). As part of our improvements, we installed a patio for sitting near the lake. It is constructed of pavers and is built to be permeable and stable. We have several relatives in their 70s and 80s who need a level, safe place to sit. Also this will be our retirement home and we hope to remain for many years. Like the rest of the project, the patio was costly to install. Immediate neighbors: Bennet and Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Dave and Bobbie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 a �J^ � --- -. �uR FoF, �Y Eo� S 88'Sz 35"E 33, b-7 (Rm mho" W Ar sco zoke+ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a as•j�,jjp} $aRJF� DT l r Osc oit Q'UTIOT �I W14IT-E. ONK RDOM100, C FAWM county, Minnesota• as ,on :file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in -and for said County, That I,am .a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Sta e Dated:W�WST CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 41k Allan R. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 2;12 FITS:t (Aven�ne 8. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Suite Shakopee, Minnesota 55379*. Phone 952 445 4027 of Minnesota. 17009 SCANNED ELI I `JI N -7- -j ' wI I (Rm mho" W Ar sco zoke+ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a as•j�,jjp} $aRJF� DT l r Osc oit Q'UTIOT �I W14IT-E. ONK RDOM100, C FAWM county, Minnesota• as ,on :file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in -and for said County, That I,am .a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Sta e Dated:W�WST CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 41k Allan R. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 2;12 FITS:t (Aven�ne 8. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Suite Shakopee, Minnesota 55379*. Phone 952 445 4027 of Minnesota. 17009 SCANNED a ,a \e Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 5 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control A retaining wall was built within the right-of-way for N innewashta Parkway. This retaining wall must be moved out of the right-of-way because it is a liability to the City and a potential threat to public health and safety. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Funding: Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The property can be put to reasonable use (provide walking access to Lake N innewashta and a dock) without the need for a variance. Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 4 BACKGROUND Outlot B was created as part of the White Oaks Addition, Subdivision #2000-9 which was approved by City Council on October 9, 2000. The subject property is owned by Rick & Judy Berland (applicant) who live at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. The City received a complaint in July stating that construction activity was taken place in the shoreland area adjacent to 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. On July 8, 2004 inspection revealed that a retaining wall and patio/fire ring had been constructed in the shore impact zone. In a letter dated July 12, 2004 staff explained that all construction activity must cease and requested the applicant contact staff to discuss plans for the property. Staff informed the Berland's that a variance must be applied for. ANALYSIS Upon review of the as -built survey prepared by Allan Hastings stamped "Received October 29, 2004", staff offers the following comments and recommendations: Lakes The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Minnewashta (944.5 MSL) and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district. Lake Minnewashta is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Tote All structures must be setback a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The existing patio is setback 8 feet from the OHW. This does not meet the City's shoreland setback requirements. The shore impact zone is the first 50% of the structure setback (37.5 feet). Although staff did not visit the site prior to construction, a majority of the site was void of vegetation when staff inspected the site on July 8, 2004. Intensive vegetation clearing is not allowed within the shore impact zone. � S • N s I e a { I i 0. ,� 1 l,{l� tI 11 tl l f I i [74j el elo ! -`I l l It .:.�;,� rid - :�,�j • I=;,.,,a'--- ••maw ;�` .��q� a M,3_NNIWTZ y I I _ _ j I I I I' I jj �l I ti --------------- !jjii ! j it 7[ a u=I---- W j,lj'r ate T tt • ___YO_YB_+____ i �••�j U gI C 1. Ig ,jlti�'t}, il 7 ------- ri• [ ,3 jj, F1j1111;Jj � != 171 {�lj,�jj{,, 4 � �• j ijll' gall ' ,f 1 Ii1�=I{7,3,t#jl ,l=+,,j+tj, 'j nn allj',1�aja= s I�; li�latt;lilil) JIM �Wii{i1'tiI 1 p �— Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 7 Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the variance for a 67 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a patio based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: - 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. As -built Survey for Outlot B. 4. Letter from Rick & Judy Berland dated October 25, 2004. 5. Letter from Bennett & Sharon Morgan dated October 24, 2004. 6. Letter from Joe & Darcy Piche dated October 25, 2004. 7. Letter from Lori Haak to Richard & Judith Berland dated July 12, 2004. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. GAPLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-42 - Berland Variance\Berland Staff ReportAm Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 6 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, generally, to other properties in the RSF zoning district and shore impact zones. 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 patio will increase the value of the property; however, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. Grading and vegetation removal have taken place within the shore impact zone. This has provided a level area that can be used for seating, even if the patio did not exist. In addition, the costs associated with construction were incurred prior to obtaining all necessary approvals from the City. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance J=Z be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land onimprovements in the neighborhop¢ in which the j1 of land is located. -14 �� cw(/r..eCrl-i chk. '1'D I , 0 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 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: '"The Planning Commission denies Variance #04-42 for a 67 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a patio based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance. 2. The applicant -has a reasonable use of rth'e property." j �1 3 fin. Y1, T^cll vx '1c.w,,ov-cX c, ( jai &-tA AkA; �}r4.,/,J � Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 3 One (1) water -oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setbac a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. Sec. -482. Shoreland alterations. (A) Oenerally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into pu Nc waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slum 'ng, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. a (1) Vegetativn alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems aN the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are a mpt from the following vegetation alteration standards. (2) Removal or alte tion of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegeta n clearing within the/erosicontrol luff im t zones and on steep slopes is not allow . Intensive vegetatifor f est land conversion to another use outside of these as is allowable ias art of a development approved by the city council as a onditional use control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved the soil andervation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones d ons, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimmin trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site d accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access ths, be h and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -oriented accessory s ctures or fa ' ities, provided that: i. The screening o fractures, vehicles, or her facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf n conditions, is not subs tan i ly reduced; ii. Along ri rs, existing shading of water surfaces ' preserved; iii. Th bove provisions are not applicable to the rem OV of trees, limbs, or ches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards, d The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot wtor thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inw d within the shore and bluff impact zones. (C) /In no case shall clear cutting be permitted. Wilder Variance Planning Case #04-39 November 16, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance for construction of a patio within the shoreland setback. The site is located on the western shore of Lake Minnewashta. The site is an outlot east of Minnewashta Parkway opposite 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Roundhouse Park is located just southwest of the subject property. Access to the site is gained on foot. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 211477. General provisions. (B) Compliahse.,The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size ape of lots; the use, size, type and locatt of structures on lots; the installation atntenance of water supply and waste treatment syst the grading and fillin y shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivt ' of land sh in full compliance with the terms of this article and other applicable regulations. (C) Enforcement. The planning director is responsi r the administration and enforcement of this article. Any violation of the provisions of this article o lure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safegu established in connection with grant vvariances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdem or and shall be punishable as tdSf ned by law. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment, concrete slabs. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (A) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Structures Stnictures Sewage Classes of Public Waters Unsewered Sewered Treatment System Lakes aturat 150 150 150 mimnment Recreational development 100 5 5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: December 7, 2004 CC DATE: January 4, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: 12/14/04 CASE #: 04-42 BY: JM, LH PROPOSAL: Request for an after -the -Fact Variance for Construction of a Patio within the Setback LOCATION: Outlot B, White Oaks Addition APPLICANT: Rick & Judy Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 —4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.18 acre DENSITY: NA SUMMARV-OF REQUEST: Request for an after -the -fa ariance for ig a al of the request with -conditions. M ;dill Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. I I Hs-�u�T �LiRVE,Y FoR C (�PY JoNEs 1. LJ L .0 4ZIm IAW yoLs I S 8a°Sz 35"E 33.87 19± 10 BUJ' r f0 'f 'I co �w�►�C CC L) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a 00 b"jt+ SuW1Ft( 0! Lt44SC ori QuTLOT BI \NHIT- . OINK WMI00t CANEZ County, Minnesota as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, That I.am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Ste a of Minnesota. Dated: W��ST 2 f 4iW �% i'� 4 ti CITU OF CHANHASSEN V t RECEIVED ai Allan R.. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 17009 812 F.iwat Avenue 8, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Suite. ?>@, Shakopee, Minnesota 53379 Phone 952 445 4027 SCANNCD ea 1j 10 BUJ' r f0 'f 'I co �w�►�C CC L) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a 00 b"jt+ SuW1Ft( 0! Lt44SC ori QuTLOT BI \NHIT- . OINK WMI00t CANEZ County, Minnesota as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, That I.am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Ste a of Minnesota. Dated: W��ST 2 f 4iW �% i'� 4 ti CITU OF CHANHASSEN V t RECEIVED ai Allan R.. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 17009 812 F.iwat Avenue 8, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Suite. ?>@, Shakopee, Minnesota 53379 Phone 952 445 4027 SCANNCD Location Map Berland Variance Request 6900 Minnewashta Parkway City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-42 Lake Minnewashta Subject Property St CITY OF CIIANIIASSENf%'e' 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 July 12, 2004 Richard and Judith Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Recent Grading and Installation of Structures at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior, MN Dear Richard and Judith: Building Inspections This letter is to advise you that the City received a complaint regarding the P521 Fax: 952.227.1190 work that was recently done on your property Yat 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Engineering An inspection on July 8 revealed that a retaining wall had been installed, a fire PFax:9522.27.1170 it had been constructed and work had been done within the shore impact Fax: 952127.1170 P zone of Lake Minnewashta. For your reference, please find enclosed the Finance City's shoreland ordinance. Installation of retaining walls over four (4) feet in P2.211 Fax. 952227.1110 height is regulated by Mnnesota State Building Code (HSBC) Section 1300.0120. Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Please cease all activitypn-site and contact me no later than Wednesda Fax: 952,227. 1110 Ys Recreation Center July 21, 2004 to discuss your plans for the above property. Additional 2310 Coulter Boulevard erosion control measures (primarily sod) will need to be installed immediately Phone: 952.227.1400 to ensure the protection of Lake Minnewashta. Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135 if you have questions. Thank Natural Resources you for your cooperation. - Phone: 952.227.1130 - - Fax 952.227.1110 Sincerely, - Public Works - - 1591 Park Road / CITY OF CHAWIASSEN - Phone 9522211300 V Fax: 9522271310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Lon Haak Fax: 952.227.1110 Water Resources Coordinator Web Site wword.chanhassennn.us Enclosures - - - cc: Dan Renner, Engineering Tech III Steve Torell, Building; Official Jesse Carlson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District GAENGxLmn Letters\6900 Minnewashta Pukway.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charting downtown. thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 0442 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for an after -the -fact Variance to lakeshore setback on property located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Applicant: Richard & Judith Berland. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planning Intern Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 25, 2004) SCANNED �• •� YMf .p1�F,a <pOF WI%�• NORTI o 40 80 S. SIR / SCALE IN FEET Jf Q EXIcting Garage 0 If t f OC auu0l wa Min, L0,24k, Ycx7 /L1 i q/7eLC; C�t � el AT 41& J House '`IJ as stoked p — 2F- A188151135'e — Jm f u6 at :rLet 2. ep,� ? lJ N � � '.MiP wwiV "� Q r fl the to _ — .— — _ _ _ — — _ Gilt seg WSW 2°6.59 da(0,srl' seesrnt Y 7ts5 R �N Proposed Legal Description: v Lot 2.'Block 1 and oullot 8, WHITE OAK ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota, Except those parts of said Lot 2 described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly Comer of said Lot 2; thence southeasterly on an assumed tearing of South 51 degmes 48 minutes 44 seconds East, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 841.38 feet; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 87.28 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thanes northerly, along Bre west line of sold Lot 2 a distance of 50.88 feet to the point of beginning and there terminaling. And Commencing at the most northerly comer of said Lot 2; thence southeasterly on an asoumed bearing of South 51 dogmas 48 minutes 44 Seconds East, along the northeasterly One of sold Lot 2, a distance of 94.(48 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence southeasterly, along Bald northeasterly line, a distance of 21.48 feet to an angle point in the north line of geld Lot 2; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West a dhtance of 17.12 kat: thence North of __ •.._____1—nn--..-16-nn;Mn/6pn1....6.... �.�_... �n....,nnN.... NORTI o 40 80 w fl rl%7=m fJf SCALE IN FEET Jf Q AREAS: 05 31,344% Sq. Ft. — Remainder of Lc fJ 1 'tea it s 7,4200 So. Ft. — Oulof 8 Z loofa: Please note that this efhibil woe prepared without the bwefll of o 1 commitment or arty field work. The, iV may or may not be oddilionol easements encumbering this proper Beginning at the most northerly Comer of said Lot 2; thence southeasterly on an assumed tearing of South 51 degmes 48 minutes 44 seconds East, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 841.38 feet; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 87.28 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thanes northerly, along Bre west line of sold Lot 2 a distance of 50.88 feet to the point of beginning and there terminaling. And Commencing at the most northerly comer of said Lot 2; thence southeasterly on an asoumed bearing of South 51 dogmas 48 minutes 44 Seconds East, along the northeasterly One of sold Lot 2, a distance of 94.(48 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence southeasterly, along Bald northeasterly line, a distance of 21.48 feet to an angle point in the north line of geld Lot 2; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 35 seconds West a dhtance of 17.12 kat: thence North of __ •.._____1—nn--..-16-nn;Mn/6pn1....6.... �.�_... �n....,nnN.... 3uRveY FoR; C D0 S 80'52 35" E 33.81 _ --'_ 19t V) <C" I[J 2 _2 RYA PAWROLs I v LIN 10-7-- --- ,. tJ 88°5-t�5v,� I1� m r / 4'9 DEwotl✓5 RDC'KoR.906ucm 3CCI'iQ, -tinch-2O6i I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a evs biUilt SuRuN J Lmvsc ori (3L%TLO-r $I kN14ITF, OAK Nm moi ' CAnw R County, Minnesota as on file and of rocord in this Office of the County Recorder in, and for said County, Thatof 11Iam a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Ste e Dated. 6AS 1 2 .r ZWq CITY OF CHANHASSEN 616A a RECEIVED iki Allan R. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 212 F4wsf Avenue Z. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT suite iS6. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952 445 4027 17009 �1 I rtJ r � 1 l J _1 N �J �Wl 0 LIN 10-7-- --- ,. tJ 88°5-t�5v,� I1� m r / 4'9 DEwotl✓5 RDC'KoR.906ucm 3CCI'iQ, -tinch-2O6i I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a evs biUilt SuRuN J Lmvsc ori (3L%TLO-r $I kN14ITF, OAK Nm moi ' CAnw R County, Minnesota as on file and of rocord in this Office of the County Recorder in, and for said County, Thatof 11Iam a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the Ste e Dated. 6AS 1 2 .r ZWq CITY OF CHANHASSEN 616A a RECEIVED iki Allan R. Hastings. OCT 2 9 2004 Minnesota Registration No. 212 F4wsf Avenue Z. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT suite iS6. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952 445 4027 17009 DO NOT PROCEED Reco I&w 95 9-1 ti, .gym: or K T 0 l- e-vvt 4) LA MC_ F a -P,r Location Inspector. DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG City of Chanhassen 952-227-11 3.5 Contact A Ar Dept PLA Ng CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: JODY BERLAND Date: 11/01/2004 Time: 1:46pm Receipt Number: DW / 5583 Clerk: DANIELLE VARIANCE 04-42 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP VARIANCE 04-42 USE & VARIANCE 200.00 PLAT RECORDING 50.00 --------------- Total: 250.00 Check 21919 250.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! SCANNED Date: November 10, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planning Intern Subject: Request for after -the -fact Variance to Lakeshore Setback on property located at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Applicant: Richard & Judith Berland Planning Case: 0442 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on October 29, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends December 28, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concemed 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 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than November 24, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediacom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. L W Mlnre .ft O CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION EtcAarcl• • 1 OWNER: yYrC--_� ADDRESS: O'i- Lf,?- CITY FZ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT TELEPHONE (Day Time) y�� — ?D ,� i t} TELEPHONE: j�sM 2 2^ 225 — %/,�cl2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/MeteS & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box [✓1 Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an SY2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: C)LALA--R W NJe C)C 0,CO3Viot) LS -$300070 TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: YES NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: 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 authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /0- Z8 -zOoq Signature of Applicpnt� Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 10 ZS 0q Fee Paid ZSO00- Receipt No—DW /SS83 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:Xplan\fm \Developm t Review AppLcation.DOC To: City of Chanhassen From: Judy and Rick Berland Re: Variance request to permit existing patio October 25, 2004 We have completed an improvement of our beach area. Prior to beginning work, our landscape contractor, Gary Jones of Design Acres, brought our plan to the city and asked both whether we needed a permit and whether there were any restrictions. He was told that no permit was necessary and that no restrictions applied. Therefore, we proceeded in good faith that we had complied with all laws and regulations. All work and materials are of very high quality and every precaution was taken to protect the integrity of the lake. We cleaned up the area (old docks, fittings, pipes, old picnic tables, old tires buried under the rip -rap and in the water, deteriorating steps and an eroding hillside), trimmed dead wood from the trees, improved the rip -rap, which was eroding and deteriorating and installed new grass and plantings. Many neighbors have complimented us on the improvements we made, including all three immediate neighbors (all of whom support this request). As part of our improvements, we installed a patio for sitting near the lake. It is constructed of pavers and is built to be permeable and stable. We have several relatives in their 70s and 80s who need a level, safe place to sit. Also this will be our retirement home and we hope to remain for many years. Like the rest of the project, the patio was costly to install. Immediate neighbors: Bennet and Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Dave and Bobbie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 October 24, 2004 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear City of Chanhassen, Subject: Variance for Rick & Judy Berland Rick & Judy Berland recently purchased the lot and the Lakeshore outlot on Lake Minnewashta next to ours. They have recently put in a paver patio down by the lake as well as a number of other landscape improvements. We are writing to formally indicate that we have no issues or concerns with the patio or other landscape improvements already completed. We support a variance that would approve the patio and other improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bennett & Sharon Morgan 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 SCANNED To: City of Chanhassen From: Joe and Darcy Piche Re: Rick and Judy Borland October 25, 2004 We are writing in support of our neighbors Rick and Judy Burland and the improvements made to their beach front on Lake Minnewashta. The work they have done to their beach and shoreline has beautified and cleaned the area to make it more attractive than it was before they owned the property. The fire -pit and patio they built has a very low profile and is not even noticeable from the lake. The Burlands are conscientious and respectful people who in no way are interested in harming the natural beauty of the lake or lake shore. Our hope is that you will allow them to keep the fire -pit and patio as it currently is. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Joe and Darcy Piche 3960 White Oak Lane Chanhassen SCANNED y 1 nfratech Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. Collection System: Inspection • Cleaning • 7Fenchless Restoration Confined Space and Work Area Safety Equipment Pipe and Cable Locating Equipment ifft X3°1 CelebmUng 10 Years of Business in 20041 21040 Commerce Boulevard • Rogers, MN 55374-9341 Toll Free: 1-800-5334244 • 763/428-6486 • FAX 763/428-6489 WEBSrrE - www.infratechcatalog.cvm Map Print Output Carver County GIS Mapping Application II!'r P6 -r 1111111110L INUE IL ., kyr F r Legend PAW Tat us ftWP +� allox"` Map Created on: N 11-29-2004 Carver Mob County Awwvneo2w This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Page 1 of 1 http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_intemet_recap/map.asp 11/29/2004 .evel - Hydrographics Program - Division of Waters: Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 1 M ]it Mf r rr.•., Search the DNR ■ ariatanteir�us3WATERJ Site Map I Contact the DNR I What's New Newsroom Events > MN DNR Home > Waters > Surface Water > I)ydrogWhics > � Ordinary High Water Level Hydrographics Program The Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) is a term that many lake, Main page wetland, and river property owners hear, but it is often misunderstood. Ordinary high water level The definition of OHWL from Minnesota Statutes is provided below. It is very important to contact your local DNR Waters area hydrologist for a Ordinary High correct OHWL determination before attempting to alter your shoreline. Determinations ro. Minnesota Statutes 103G.005 Lake Outlet Dams ►- Subd. 14. Ordinary high water level. "Ordinary high water level' means the Naming Geographic Features boundary of waterbasins, watercourses, public waters, and public waters wetlands, and: Division of Waters 1. the ordinary high water level is an elevation delineating the highest Waters Home Page water level that has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to Programs: What we do predominantly terrestrial; 2. for watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the Contact us top of the bank of the channel; and 3. for reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the Permits operating elevation of the normal summer pool. Water resources data For more information, see Guidelines for Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) Determinations (II)NR Waters Technical Paper 11). Forms Publications Back to top Water education (Project C 2004 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copyright Notice. Web site policies: Accessibility. Linking. Privacy Water Statutes and Rules External links http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waterslsurfacewater_sectionthydrographicslohw.htmi 11/30/2004