The URL can be used to link to this page

2. 6645 Horseshoe Curve VariancePROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves the reconstruction of a patio in the Shoreland Management Setback, Planning Case #2012 -09, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to conditions one through ten. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Shoreland Management Setback variance to allow for the reconstruction of a patio. LOCATION: 6645 Horseshoe Curve Lot 5, Rearrangement of lots in Pleasant View Carver County, Minnesota APPLICANT: Josh Koller 1875 East 50 Street Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 612 - 248 -3961 • 0 9 "I 1 11 OWNER: Carol Fieldhouse 6645 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 952- 913 -2402 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acres) ACREAGE: 0.86 acres (37,340 square feet) DENSITY: NA 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. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 2 of 8 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback to allow for the reconstruction of a patio on the lakeshore side of the property. The current home is set back 75.9 feet from the OHW of Lotus Lake. The current patio is set back 63 feet from the OHW. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and has a maximum allowable hard surface coverage of 25 %. Currently the property is at 28.27% hard surface coverage. The contractor and property owner are requesting to reconstruct the patio and staircase and add a retaining wall. The proposed patio would be set back 50 feet from the OHW and would encroach into the 75 -foot Shoreland Management Setback by 25 feet. The requested variance would reduce the hard surface coverage from 28.7% to 25.9 %. SHORELAND STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED Structure Setback 63 feet 50 feet 75 feet Impervious Surface 28.27% 25.9% 25% Staff is recommending approval of the variance request with ten conditions. ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, east and west of the subject property are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The lake is located to the south of the site. Access to the site is via Horseshoe Curve to the north of the property. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. • Chapter 20, Division 4, Non - conforming Uses • Chapter 20, Article XII, Shoreland Management District • Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) district BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 5, Rearrangement of Lots in Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The site is located just south of Horseshoe Curve and is located on the northern part of Lotus Lake. Lotus Lake is a Recreational Development Lake with an Ordinary High Water Level of 896.3 feet. The Rearrangement of Lots in Pleasant View was recorded in 1916 and the original house was built in 1918. The construction of the original house predates the Shoreland District Regulations but still conforms to the 75 -foot Shoreland Setback. Several additions to the house have taken place since the original construction. In 2001 the previous owner added a 32 -foot x 20 -foot addition. The addition replaced the initial porch and deck which was built in 1988. The initial deck encroached into the 75 -foot setback by five feet. The addition maintained the 75 -foot setback. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 3 of 8 Properties located in the Shoreland Management District are allowed one water - orientated accessory structure that does not meet the normal structure setback. The property has a shed located 40 feet from the Ordinary High Water level. This structure does comply with water - orientated accessory structure standards set forth in City Code, Chapter 20, Article VII, Section 20 -481, Subdivision 2. The City does not have record of a permit for the current patio and walkway. However, permits were not required for the construction of patios prior to 2004. Staff reviewed city records to determine if hard surface variances and shoreland setback variances have been granted along Horseshoe Curve, Lotus Trail and Pleasant View Road. These streets have properties abutting Lotus Lake. There have been a number of variances approved in this area for front and side yard setbacks to construct decks, houses and garages. The following table highlights shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variances in proximity to the subject property. Address Variance File Number Variance Action 3 -foot variance to the side yard 469 Pleasant setback, 29 -foot variance to the View Road 1984 -16 Shoreland Management Setback Denied to allow for the construction of a swimming pool, deck ands a. 6605 20 -foot variance to the Horseshoe 1991 -09 Shoreland Management Setback Approved with Curve to allow for the construction of a conditions single family residence. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 4of8 Address Variance File Number Variance Action 5.2 -foot variance to the side yard setback, 1.2 -foot variance to the side yard setback, 1 percent variance from the 25 percent 6650 Lotus maximum impervious surface Trail 1998 -14 requirement, 7,000 square -foot Approved variance from the minimum lot size requirement, 50 -foot variance to the minimum lot width/street frontage for the construction of an addition 16 -foot variance to the front yard setback, 5 -foot variance to the side 6681 yard setback, and 4 percent Horseshoe 2002 -10 variance to the 25 percent Approved Curve maximum impervious surface requirement to allow for the construction of a garage and house addition. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to reduce the impervious surface coverage by 2.37 percent to reconstruct a patio encroaching into the Shoreland Management Setback by 13 additional feet. The additional encroachment allows the property owner the opportunity to construct a patio. A patio is considered to be a reasonable and normal use of a single - family residential property. The new configuration will significantly reduce the hard surface coverage on the site by 867 square feet, resulting an adjustment from 28.27 percent to 25.9 percent. There is an additional building permit application filed with the city for the proposed deck that is indicated on the plan. The deck is proposed to create a safer transition from the house to the patio and replaces a portion of the existing patio. The current step does not comply with building code. Decks are not considered impervious surface and are not calculated in the hard surface calculations. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 5 of 8 l� q3n r sm a !Xf \ X , Z- Existing W° w xi e Aql.> " 'tea 1 a z --- ----------- ! Proposed The proposal will require additional grading to take place on the property. Grading can occur in the Shoreland Setback but must meet the conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 6120.3300 Subp 4 — Zoning Provisions for Shorelands. The grading must also comply with the conditions set forth in Chanhassen City Code §20 -481 — Placement and height of structures in the Shoreland Management District and §20 -482 — Shoreland Alterations. Staff believes the reconstruction of the patio will increase the safety of the site. Currently the patio and walkways are uneven and many areas could cause a person to trip and fall. Staff further believes that the proposed reduction in hardcover will result in a net decrease in runoff from the site. This benefit may provide a remedy for the erosion taking place on the site. --' zr-' !Xf \ X , Z- Existing W° w xi e Aql.> " 'tea 1 a z --- ----------- ! Proposed The proposal will require additional grading to take place on the property. Grading can occur in the Shoreland Setback but must meet the conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 6120.3300 Subp 4 — Zoning Provisions for Shorelands. The grading must also comply with the conditions set forth in Chanhassen City Code §20 -481 — Placement and height of structures in the Shoreland Management District and §20 -482 — Shoreland Alterations. Staff believes the reconstruction of the patio will increase the safety of the site. Currently the patio and walkways are uneven and many areas could cause a person to trip and fall. Staff further believes that the proposed reduction in hardcover will result in a net decrease in runoff from the site. This benefit may provide a remedy for the erosion taking place on the site. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 6 of 8 SITE CONDITIONS The site is largely wooded which may provide screening from the public water. The trees will also result in greater abstraction and less stormwater runoff than would be produced form a typical The site shows indications of erosion. The observed erosion is downstream of the more westerly protrusion of the existing patio and is likely the result of directed discharge from the hardcover. The grade to the lake ranges from 6.9 percent to 12.9 percent with one 13 -foot run at a grade of 30.8 percent. There is no bluff located on the property. The proposed deck as shown on the plan is proposed as a solution to the step from the inside of the house to the patio. The patio would encroach into the setback but would be considered as a replacement of the non- conformity rather than an addition. According to current Building Code, the step rise should be no more than 7 -3/4 ". The existing step exceeds this requirement. It should be noted that the applicant has not included the deck as part of the variance application. The applicant and property owner are largely concerned with the existing condition of the flagstone patio, walkway and staircase. residential lawn maintained in blue grass. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 7of8 The staircase has begun to erode away and has created an uneven walking path. The applicant and the property owner feel the existing patio and staircase should be considered as unsafe and unusable. Missing stones in the staircase and patio have created areas of one -half inch and one inch differentiation in surface level. t b Flagstone separoplig from staircase The proposed design has the possibility through the reduction of impervious surface to improve the water quality of the stormwater runoff from the site. Staff recognizes that the project constitutes an expansion of a non - conforming use. The net benefits to the water quality and potential screening of the patio as viewed from the public water appear to outweigh any deleterious effects of the expansion. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for the reconstruction of the patio located within the Shoreland Management Setback located on Lot 5, Rearrangement of Lots in Pleasant View, based on the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed deck can be no larger than indicated on the plan set provided with the revision dated June 14, 2012. 2. The proposed deck cannot be covered or enclosed at a future date. 3. Any proposed drainage, erosion control and grading must be shown on a plan and cannot be more than is required to meet the requirements of this project. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate remedies to the erosion problems on the western portion of the site. Fieldhouse Variance Request Planning Case 2012 -09 July 17, 2012 Page 8 of 8 4. The applicant must demonstrate that the patio cannot be constructed without retaining walls. Further, any walls determined necessary must be the minimum height needed to achieve the above parameters. 5. Any retaining walls exceeding 48 inches in height require a building permit and professional design. 6. The top and toe of any wall determined necessary should be shown on the plan. 7. Proposed finish elevation shall be shown on the southerly extent of the patio. 8. No tree removal may occur as a result of this project. 9. The existing hardcover must be reduced to no more than 25% of the lot area. 10. There shall be no expansion of the water - orientated structure located on the site unless the portion of the proposal located in the Shoreland Management Setback is removed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of the existing lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of the proposed lot survey. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2012 planning cases\2012 -09 6645 horseshoe curve shoreland setback variance\staffreport 6645 horseshoecurve.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 1 I' A 4 19 Application of Josh Koller for a Shoreland Management Setback variance to reconstruct a patio on property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case # 2012 -09. On July 17, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density use. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: Lot 5, Rearrangement of lots in Pleasant View Carver County, Minnesota 4. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The construction of a patio is a normal use associated with a single - family home. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty with the reconstruction of the patio is that the existing patio does not comply with the Shoreland Management Setback. The proposed patio will continue the non - conformity. However, the property exceeds city code requirements for hard surface coverage by 3.2 percent to 25.9 percent. Staff is recommending the hard surface be further reduced to 25 percent. This reduction will result in an improved condition compared to what is existing on the property. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is to permit the owner to enjoy the property in a reasonable manner. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The owner purchased a property which had an existing patio encroaching into the Shoreland Management Setback. The existing patio is eroding away. The proposed patio will encroach 25 feet into the setback. The owner is proposing to remove the existing patio and walkways and replace it with a smaller patio to reduce the overall hardcover. The reduction will result in an improved condition compared to what is existing on the site. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of a patio is a normal use associated with a single - family home and would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2012 -09, dated July 17, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al., is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2012 -09 for a 25 -foot variance to the Shoreland Management Setback for the reconstruction of a patio on property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF)." 2 ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 17th day of July, 2012. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman Planning Case No �? 6119_-6 q CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227 -1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: I er (/- Sa V -e%Al) bes Sjree-t- 1 4U' -t in/? Contact: 1. K Ater Phone -)_W- 3 flLee ( Fax: 651-455 - I `t3l1 Email: tier 6�)Soc R y,eA)Jes.A,i.c�vn Property wne Name and Address: �lo�1S (��rsesl��e Curve- G � 5 Contact: Phone: x -K13 -, 4U2 Fax: Email: *c-11 LL Q M/- . c,�,rk i' NOTE Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non - conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) X Variance (VAR) <' _00 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Q$2OO (City to install and remove) X Eperow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost" $50 UP /SPR/VACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor S TOTAL FEE $ 4GO" P cI - CKLC'r_ ail An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 %" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND Plgc I-~ CL�r -Z-F) — TOTAL ACREAGE: 5 - 3 !,O f► , WETLANDS PRESENT: q� YES NO PRESENT ZONING: �e i -� i ` " 1 REQUESTED ZONING: `V R PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 151 � CUO L REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: _Uc(`�n - FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (Either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or. purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the Tee 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. -1&gnature of Applicant Date' Signature of Fee Owner Date gAplanWormsWevelopment review application.doe SCANNED NO WETLANDS DBEs ENT: YES , . :f?PESENT Z�iTr11Nl;::. Y_ REQUESTE.tl ZONING. REQUEST �1-� �F�i S.J .3 ��,vY��d � �:t1A�6. � .. .... ... �...' --� E ',Eki#:: I f:lur�a € {. #€r u3 ul elX a€f €�5' FOR I TE. l~ f 1xQ lef #fug €€ tlf ant€ tte€ *~r �l.�a i.... - - and `rf��faf ; MP s� €P 11 th Il r sE �? �{#. e �€t€ �d pp1#ra€�le .w€ r E� a c ea i r�! ri�i i{fi x p 3s #o y # ie€ Plan s� 3=r 'sr#€r € �€n ,,{ ?' Cli°LP.,rf2#s€i ft3 {� ?�� {{�l i # ?F3 _: pp Cai�LZs`l "x halt .�3t {i11.d33 l#kif SI#{G' .5 �a 0; >� e aEa�l3# :i�.r t <`1� £:SF`sI� Opt sfcah* x 0Wr*; $ S fit {�L?sihf'. Ct O Tlhlw l its ;,€t +fir i 1 1 an! making a plicelon f� €il�� --scribe. y{� orllf ne � : :. �.. I :req. :. this yo € . " €s .. Pl' thse C � s iofaS cc. €� ar ;€ €� { ar aria €€fF l s P. :;l f g li l u €�l purchase €� { � # )f Ear l a fh s r raters t f CIOKI I Drupl#ca�.e ,Qrlt {�_ # s o ifle to fri ke 1.315 appli.0 ;Wo€, �t#id he fee 6%Mne€ i�as also �f��l li: {ls a��T;�,�r��; 1 will ltw : # r if {iE € F EE3i oaf fife r sAines for SUb€{#issl �fi of Mto...�1: ��el �� Tt��r��ta �f ��a �l €c�fl� #� €` �#:€c�{� € u w� ta3 fl L€d {1ifr al f 1 � r#s # ail . ;€l l €� fw -a f {i}tE{ + i{# € ,. �f . �tl €� �,tfr {� to €fo€ f= ;^$ . z fi n i� pr tcee<l t�a{fl{ i13 study. T� ace f?u €{E CO s# k eat 0F R{ owo' e . Dwe - .. - . ' -- -" - .^ ^.,.• '...__..._...y,,.., ----�. yeti. . . SCANNED ),t Iaitu"utn�iavc <:.z}�rtjr.ts:t csw;ji5Mi+,rzf3tirs;c�ia For property at: 6645 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen MN 55317 I am proposing the following for site improvement: The homeowners contacted me to take a look at their site because of erosion issues, difficulties maintaining the steep hill off the back of the house, a failing staircase, and a failing flagstone patio. The homeowners moved into the house as it is currently and have made no changes to the existing landscape. Once I looked at the site I noticed the issues my homeowners mentioned along with existing hardcover concerns, as well as existing tree concerns. After going through everything I came up with this plan to improve the conditions of the lot by trying to stop erosion of the hillside, maintaining the care of the existing trees and general nature of the lot. This is being done by the following. 1. Problem: • Homeowner is having difficulty maintaining the erosion of the hillside out of the back of the house due to the drastic elevation change and shade provided by the existing mature trees. There is existing grass and some edging with plantings but due to the elevation change along with shade from existing trees and tree roots being exposed nothing is growing and soil continues to erode down the hill to the lake. Solution: • Propose building a 4' tall retaining wall to hold up the upper level of the property as well as cutting down of the hillside to level out the lower part of the hill to stop erosion for continuing to occur. 2. Problem: • Access to lower level of the yard and the lake. There are existing stairs on site now that are much farther toward the lake that are falling apart and are unsafe and unusable in their current condition. Solution: • Build in with the boulder wall a staircase that does not go so far into the yard that is tied into the wall with 1' wide Chilton stairs to provide a save and easy way to get to the lake. 3. Problem: • Large uneven broken down patio along with small (not to code) landing from back door to the existing patio. Very dense shade and dead soil. Solution: • Replace existing stoop with small deck to lower to new paver patio to replace the existing stone patio. Provide new soil and plantings. Will shrink the existing hardcover and provide small sitting area in dead space and allow access from back door to the yard. SCANNED The property was purchased as it is now. As the property sits right now there is major runoff and erosion happening due to the steep slope off the back of the house and the existing mature trees that provide shade and a natural look from both the lake and the house. There is an existing large broken up patio with stairs that go into the home along with a very large broken down staircase from the upper yard into the lower yard. By doing this landscape we are trying to reduce the runoff and erosion along with possible pollution being carried into the lake, maintain the health of the existing trees, allow for easer maintenance of the property, and reduce the existing hardcover. Keeping in mind we are not changing the look of the property and are preserving it by leveling the yard keeping the tree roots buried and providing access from the house to the lake. This is not to save money for the property owners. It is to maintain the property, help keep the lake clean, provide a safe environment, and protect the trees and look of the natural surroundings. SCANNED Established in 1%2 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MTNNF.SOTA 'I 73rd, -Nash (263)560.3093 Mim'lu.FUvoo sm2s Fu N.. 560.3122 3urvP�urs C�rr�ifirtttr E 15TING CONORION5 SURVEY FOR: SOUTHVIEW DESIGN Property located in Carver County, Min Property Address: 6 Benchmark: Spike i ..ffi Elevat H0F5EH0E CPR V' t t L ` Essis f r bearings is ssumed INVOICE NO. 80221 F.B.NO. 1060 -31 SCALE: 1"= 30 • oenousroaroa"netaam.,a O Demon non lknunnnt "0.0 pew �ewgoenso panW EaWJw Gmbur UOT/NG HARDCOVER Re51dence 3/04 sq. ft Porches 461 5q. ft Garage 520sq.ft 5hed 60 sq. ft Driveway 49435q.ft Flagstone /293 sq. It Concrete / 54 sq. ft Total Hardcover = l 0555 5q. ft Area of Parcel = 37340 sq. ft Percentage of Hardcover = 26.27% Lot 5, REARRANGMENT OF LOTS IN PLEASANT VIEW Carver County, Mimesota The only easements shown are from plats of record or Informafion provided by dient I certify that this plan, spedfloation, or report was prepared by ms or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Llcensed lend Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnespta. Surveyed this 1st day of June 2012 Slgnea ' 9-'� A-,11 G;0.6 Re , Mhn. Rog. No. 21992 ' b rWa// 0 h` -- o s snoxcune 3s`'2 sy S N, Lot d S roc Lot 5, REARRANGMENT OF LOTS IN PLEASANT VIEW Carver County, Minnesota The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information Provided by client certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my diced supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed this let day of June 2012 sly.a n�eao .MNn. ae6w2,1ssz EslabliaWd in 1962 INVOICE NO. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY INC. F.B.NO. 1060.31 0-31 LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1' = 30' REGISTERED TINDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7WI 73M An Nenb (763) 566..3 • LkrotefFwglmn Nawmenr Mimup.lis, Mimexn 55 F....5663522 O Denote iron khan ment §ury -e jars CG; rtifirate A70.0 c-ewa �a,t, Flrveaon PROP05ED 51TE 5URVEY FOR: - ____ Denotes FiJYYq rxne.r SOUTHVIEW DESIGN HORSEHOE CQFVE 3 . t / L -76 06 \ f ' s> 2 p'� Basis t« \ . / � bear E - 1 \ - d Property located in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, ' \ 1 ^' Carves County, Mi®esod. f 909.3 Property Address: 6665 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhacsan, MN i '^' >- 905.6 55317 Benchmark: Spike in willow next to shoreline of lake near southeast lot tamer. Elevation =897.8 fea FX /57 /NG HARDCOVER Residence 3 / 04 sq. k Porches 461 sq.k Garage 520 sq. it Shed 80 sq. it Driveway 4943 sq.k Flagstone / 293 sq. k t s2 Concrete /54 sq. It rota/ Hardcover = 10555 sq. ft Area of Parcel = 37340 sq.k . rK *. "a Percentage of Hardcover = 28.27% Ef PROP05EO HARDCOVER Residence 3 / 04 sq. k Porches 461 sq.k Garage 520 sq. k a: Shed 80 5q. ft " „:,.• `"� ' 899. 6 9 Driveway sq. Y 4943 it 900. i - � ;; �r Concrete l 54 sq. k Prop, Patio 426 5q. it '. ' ' -- n ^� `:, t ° ''' Total Hardcover = 9666 sq. it ;�' • y' t o Area of Parcel = 37340 5q. k Percentage of Hardcover = 25.9% 905.3 � I O to 903.8 g�. mcrc � \ \ la+N llOrl M lme I R •`, /V, d No. 66 ' b rWa// 0 h` -- o s snoxcune 3s`'2 sy S N, Lot d S roc Lot 5, REARRANGMENT OF LOTS IN PLEASANT VIEW Carver County, Minnesota The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information Provided by client certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my diced supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed this let day of June 2012 sly.a n�eao .MNn. ae6w2,1ssz CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 5, 2012, 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 6645 Horseshoe Curve Variance — Planning Case 2012 -09 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. Kare J. Engel and Deputy erk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ._W , 2012. Notary Pub is KIM T. MEUWISSEN . Notary Public- Minnesota My commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a variance to allow for the reconstruction of a patio Proposal: on property located in the Shoreland Management Setback and Single Family Residential Zoning District RSF Applicant: Josh Koller, Southview Design Property 6645 Horseshoe Curve 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: ' Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2012 -09 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren Questions & by email at amellgren(c�ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952- 227 -1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a variance to allow for the reconstruction of a patio Proposal: on property located in the Shoreland Management Setback and Single Family Residential Zoning District RSF Applicant: Josh Koller, Southview Design Property 6645 Horseshoe Curve 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the p roject. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2012 -09 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Ashley Mellgren Questions & by email at ameligren(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952- 227 -1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER ANDREW T K ALLER CHARLES F LEINBERGER JR 6653 MERRY PL 6661 HORSESHOE CURV 6655 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4607 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 DAVID W & BEVERLY J KOPISCHKE 6675 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 DIETRICH S HAAR 6651 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 DORIS A ROCKWELL 6677 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD 6625 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 NICHOLAS J VASSALLO 6669 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK 6690 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9501 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6665 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 MICHAEL E & GLORIA LYNCH 6630 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 PAUL N GRANOS 6663 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 ROBERT L & ELVA HANSEN 6620 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH 6611 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 MICHAEL J & SHERRY WEIS 6660 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 PHILIP O & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 SCOTT A GAMBLE 6640 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 STEPHEN J & JEANNIE L WANEK STEVEN M GULLICKSON TIMOTHY J FIELDHOUSE 6615 HORSESHOE CURV 6613 HORSESHOE CURV 6645 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9526