The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 02-09-20150 CITY OF CHANgASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Administration Phone 952 2271100 Fax 952 2271110 Building Inspections Phone 952 2271180 Fax 952 2271190 Engineering Phone 952 2271160 Fax 952 2271170 Finance Phone 952 2271140 Fax 952 2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952 2271120 Fax 952 2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952 2271400 Fax 952 2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952 2271130 Fax 952 2271110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone 952 2271300 Fax 952 2271310 Senior Center Phone 952 2271125 MEMORANDUM TO- Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern DATE. February 9, 2015 SUBJ. Variance 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Planning Case #2014 -27 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council denies a 5 0 percent hardcover variance to permit the expansion of an existing patio and denies a 39 -foot shoreland setback variance and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision," Or "The Chanhassen City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28 5 percent hardcover to permit the expansion of an existing patio on the property and denies the additional shoreland setback variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision " City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vote by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that is less than three fourths of the members present shall serve as only as a recommendation to the city council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance request The applicant is requesting relief in the form of a hardcover and shoreland setback variance from the zoning ordinance to expand on an existing patio These variance requests would expand on existing approved hardcover and shoreland setback variances attached to the property (Planning Case #2005 -10) As a part of their application, the applicant submitted an alternative plan that reduces the hardcover variance request and does not require a shoreland setback variance. They now prefer the alternate proposal Fax 952 2271110 The property owner is proposing the patio expansion to create a connecting handicap accessible access to the outdoors The small lot size of the property hinders the Web Site property owner's ability to create a handicap accessible outdoor access and outdoor wwwci chanhassen mn us space. The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot lot size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square feet) If the property met this lot size requirement, the proposal would not require a variance. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 February 9, 2015 Page 2 Staff is supportive of the alternate plan to permit the expansion of the patio to provide access to the patio via the garage PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, held a public hearing on January 6, 2015 to review the proposed variance The Planning Commission was unable to support the shoreland setback variance request, but did discuss the applicant's alternative plan, which had a reduced hard cover expansion variance request The alternative plan does not require a shoreland setback variance The Planning Commission discussed the issue of increased storm water runoff and were concerned about the ability of the City to require the property owner to maintain storm water mitigation strategies. Staff believes that the installation of a landscape area of shrubs or other plant materials can reduce the amount of runoff going into the lake by providing an area for water to percolate into the ground. Furthermore, the Planning Commission was split on accepting the small lot size and inability to have handicap accessible access from all rear exits to the outdoors as a practical difficulty and that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner The Planning Commission voted two for and three against a motion approving the alternative variance request to permit the construction of 354 square -foot patio expansion that would put the property at 28 5 percent hardcover and would not further encroach into the shoreland setback The motion failed The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on October 7, 2014 to review the proposal The Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant and staff to further discuss the proposal These discussions lead to the revised plan prepared by the applicant The Planning Commission minutes for January 6, and October 7, 2014 are attached RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council denies the original variance requests and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision for denial, Or City Council approves a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28 5 percent hardcover on the property, and denies the additional shoreland setback variance and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions- The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit Todd Gerhardt 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 February 9, 2015 Page 2 2 Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the permit application ATTACHMENTS 1 Letter from Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowsk> dated January 20, 2015. 2. Email from Rosemary Kelly to Bob Generous dated January 15, 2015 3 Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) 4 Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval). 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 6, 2015 (revised) 6 Planning Commission Minutes for January 6, 2015. 7. Planning Commission Minutes for October 7, 2014 g \plan\2014 planning cases\2014 -27 9015 lake riley blvd variance \executive summary doe January 20, 2015 Denny Laufenburger, Mayor Bethany Tjornhom, Councilwoman Jerry McDonald, Councilman Elise Ryan, Councilwoman Dan Campion, Councilman City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Laufenburger and Members of the City Council: We appreciate the opportunity to present our revised variance request directly to the City Council and to identify pertinent information that was not addressed previously. We have worked directly with the Chanhassen Planning Staff and are in complete agreement with their recommendations As residents of Chanhassen, we have appreciated the thorough attention given to the variance process and the commitment to protect the nature of Lake Riley However, at the January 6, 2015 Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, I left the meeting with the feeling that our rationale for the variance request was not clearly presented. Perhaps there were misunderstandings between our original request and the revised and recommended variance request In order to be as clear as possible in regard to our variance, I am submitting this letter. The revised site plan in front of you this evening was developed directly with Chanhassen's Planning Staff, at the request of the Planning Commission, in order to be responsive to city requirements and neighboring precedents The Staff supported this plan, and provided a Resolution with Findings of Approval to the Planning Commission. The updated site plan was submitted with our revised variance request At the meeting, I believed that the Commission supported the revised plan as well as I was not asked any questions and we met their previous request to find a solution with city staff Without receiving questions I was unable to address the planning commission's concerns or clarify the details of our changes I did not elaborate at the time as I felt the revised request was reasonable, supported by staff, and clear Surprisingly, it was denied and moved to the City Council agenda for review Following are critical elements of our revised variance request that we, as homeowners, felt were not made clear to the Planning Commission: 1 We DO NOT request an addition to our current setback from the OHW (The original request was for a 39 foot setback.) 2 We REDUCED the hard surface request to 350 sq ft (2 7 %) This amount was requested to connect the existing patio with the garage access, for wheelchair accessibility The original request was for 551 sq. ft. (4.3 %) 3 We REDUCED the total site hard surface ratio request to 28 1% (12,900 sq ft ) This percentage is in alignment with our existing neighbors' homes (The original request was for 30%) 4 We REDUCED the full site /hard surface area to 3,619 sq ft by correcting an error of 55 sq ft of retaining walls per the City Planner's review, which is a 25 3% of hard surface area 5 Our impetus for requesting a variance is to be able to provide site - compliant ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility The interior of the home is built for wheelchair accessibility, but the site is not accessible My mother is 90 years old and dependent on a walker and wheelchair for mobility Our home is equipped with an elevator and on -grade access from the garage level that provides her full participation on the upper level of our home for all family gatherings However, she is not able to participate with us during the warm months when we are outdoors and lake -side. The two current patio thresholds leading to the lake are non- compliant in height (1/2" maximum vs 2" existing, the existing grade exceeds the 1' 20' slope limit (i e., rise per run), and access to the existing lower level exit doors do not meet maneuvering /a clear path of travel requirements We consulted an MN ADA specialist to review our existing conditions in terms of federal requirements and options 6. Our revised plan adds a pad in front of the garage to facilitate access to the lakeside through the on -grade garage. The pad would be connected to the patio at appropriate slopes In addition, doorways would be made ADA - compliant for maneuverability needs and provide access to the site. Our revised variance does not provide full access to the lake, only to the lake -side of the house thereby allowing persons with disabilities to participate in all activities 7 We would be agreeable to incorporate appropriate landscaping materials, as recommended by Staff, to absorb additional runoff if necessary Thank you for your consideration Respectfully, Rosemary Kelly and Phil Sosnowski 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 2 Page 1 of 1 From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly071 @gmail com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2.03 PM To Generous, Bob Subject: Re- Variance request - 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Mr. Generous, I am requesting that the review of our variance request be delayed until the February 9, 2015 meeting I waive the city's review timeframe through that date Rose Kelly On Jan 15, 2015 1.34 PM, "Generous, Bob" <b enerous ,ci chanhassen mn.us> wrote Rose, I'm sorry you are unable to attend the Jan. 26 City Council meeting You may submit a written request delaying the review to the next City Council meeting on Feb 9, 2015 As part of your request, please note that you are waiving the city's review timeframe through that date If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. :e1 Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard P O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227 -1131 bRenerousnci chanhassen mn us Chanhassen is a Community for Life — Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow file. / / /G./PLAN/ 2014 %20PIanning %20Cases / 2014 -27 %209015 %20Lake %20Rlley %20B1v 2/2/2015 _b��,YIA_OL � CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE. Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27. On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Chanhassen City Council makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3 The legal description of the property is P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293 86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247 87' TH N89 *E 714.51' TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11 86TH N44 *E 64.01' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N 4 Variance Fmdinas — 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 subject site is zoned Single - Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to permit a 39 -foot shoreland setback variance and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property The property also has a functioning 13 5 -foot by 13 -foot patio on the property that currently serves as an outdoor space. 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: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting with City Code The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and shoreland setbacks. The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere convenience c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth; however, the property has already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of the property. Any additional expansions of this non - conformity would be created by the property owner The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback. However, since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface may increase the runoff problem 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 #2014 -27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein DECISION "The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #2014 -27 a 39 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single - Family Residential District " ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of February, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY Mayor 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE AppcDoell Application of Phillip J Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 354 square -foot patio on property zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27 property address 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard On February 9, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The City Council makes the following- FINDINGS OF FACT 1 The property is currently zoned Single- Family Residential District (RSF) 2 The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3 The legal description of the property is. P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS - COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293.86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249.23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247.87' TH N89 *E 714 51' TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11.86' TH N44 *E 64 O1' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N 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 subject site is zoned Single - Family Residential District The purpose of the request is to permit a 3 5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 354 square - foot patio expansion Multiple properties in this area have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent maximum for shoreland properties Furthermore, the construction and use of a patio of this size within the building envelope is a normal use of the property in a residential district, therefore, it is keeping in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the RSF district 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 small lot size hinders the property owner's ability to create usable outdoor space on their property The subject property is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot lot size requirement for properties in the shoreland district (12,900 square feet) If the property met this lot size requirement, the applicant would not require a variance c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use. d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner Finding: The small size of the lot restricts the property owner's use of the property The lot does not meet the required lot size for shoreland properties and has a much smaller maximum hard surface coverage allowed than a property that meets this requirement e The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality Multiple properties in the area have outdoor patios and hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent maximum To mitigate flooding and environmental concerns, the property owner will provide landscaping that will reduce storm water runoff from the hardcover expansion 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 #2014 -27, dated February 9, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein 2 DECISION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Planning Case #2014 -27 a 3 5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square -foot patio expansion and denial of the a 39 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement on property zoned Single - Family Residential District " ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of February, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY Mayor CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: Deteber 7, 2 January 6, 2015 CC DATE: Oeteb er- 27 2014 (f f fie,.,,ssai.. innuar-y 26,2015 February 9, 2015 REVIEW DEADLINE: Deeem ber- 12 201 4 (extended 60 days fr-atii 10/14,114) Febrummy 3,-2W February 9, 2015 CASE #: 2014 -27 BY: AF, RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS "The Chanhassen Beafd of Appeals aiid Adjustments City Council denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision " SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage The property owner is also requesting a shoreland setback variance in addition to an approved 32 -foot shoreland setback variance This item was tabled at the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd (PID 25- 0240300) APPLICANT: Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. P.O Box 490 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 12 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0 29 acres (12,632 squar-e feet) (12,900 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. City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014 -27 015 February 9, 2015 Page 2 of l l PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff Additional information was provided that showed the original requested hard coverage was underestimated Following is the original staff report with revisions shown in strikethrough and bold format. The property currently has 3,324 square feet of hardcover (25.8 percent). The property owner is requesting an a variance to add an additional 4-9 4.2 percent hard surface coverage vaffa-nee to the property This is in addition to an appr variance, if approved, would expand the approved one percent variance for hard surface coverage to a 5.0 percent variance from the 25 percent hard surface coverage maximum (° total °r°° of 2 9 "°H° °Nt) The addition will put the total hard surface coverage of the property at X130.0 percent The property owner is also requesting to encroach an additional 7 feet into the shoreland setback an additional three feet set-baek vaf This is in addition to an appfeved 32 feet sher-elt setbaek vafianee (35 feet sher-eland sethaek vaftanee fn total) This request ts being made to lae t° ° rat,° 40 feet f e the ofdi ar- y high . ,,,t°« level If approved, this request would ivvucc. increase the approved 32 -foot shoreland setback variance. The expansion would put the new shoreland setback at 36 feet (a 39 -foot variance from the required 75 -foot shoreland setback. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20 -480, Zoning and water supply /sanitary provisions Section 20 -481, Placement, design, and height of structure Chapter 20, Article XII "RSF" Single- Family Residential District Section 20 -615. Lot requirements and setbacks BACKGROUND The Single- Family Residential District Chapter of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent " The Shoreland Management District Chapter of City Code requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be setback 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. On May 17, 2005, the City of Chanhassen approved a five -foot front yard setback variance, a 32- foot shoreland setback variance and a 1 percent hard surface coverage variance for the demolition and construction of a new single- family home (Planning Case #2005 -10) The applicant originally requested a 7 68 percent hard surface coverage variance and 41.3 -foot shoreland setback variance, but the Planning Commission reduced these variance requests for approval The proposed patio would expand on the shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variation City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27 Oeteber— 7, 2014 I°-- 61 2015 February 9, 2015 Page 3 of 11 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 240 551 square -foot patio to be leea4ed expansion to an existing 176 square -foot patio in the rear yard This expanded non - conformity would put the property over the allowed hard surface coverage maximum by 2-9 5.0 percent The applicant is also proposing to extend the patio beyond the existing setback by three 7 feet, locating the patio within 40 36 feet of the lakeshore's ordinary high water level The proposed patio would encroach into the required 75 -foot shoreland setback by -3-5. 39 feet The applicant is requesting the patio expansion to create a wheelchair- accessible patio and to pefint maintain aesthetic alignment with the house Hewevef, The existing property has an approximately 13.5 -foot by 13 -foot (176 square foot) concrete patio beneath the four - season porch. This area currently can be used as a wheelchair - accessible outdoor living area on the property (see images eirthe next page- below) The door located beneath the deck has a 3 -foot by 8 -foot pad and the door off the garage does not have a landing pad. The property owner is concerned that neither of these two doors can be used by someone with physical limitations. The applicant's request is to connect the patio beneath the porch to the area in front of the door beneath the deck and the area in front of the garage door with a concrete patio (see door locations and proposal on the next page). Jr r �i JT1 in AN .i�iAllrr Z, sI rr, Existing wheel chair accessible patio (approximately 13 5' x 13') beneath 4- season porch �`i�II I' It'll �r { t�o, ' City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 Oeteber- 7, 2814 February 9, 2015 Page 4of11 House Exits /Entrances I •55.1""_Ddot hMN D.* 54" i Stay F P_ Nrd 5,t— it mv>id iMa�gm u e�eW g�wh� � � e7roigard rani 9auuod vwQ WHna d be . Lhpeeed �.+ii� �9 hnm drk to kke Na !� Ad lean Dab b Ns MMk 9tig MA 6c Lnin 6. Lwn � S ' s SCANNED The euFfe t building at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard is at a higher elevation than the neighboring building to the north, 9005 Like Riley Boulevard. The northern 10 feet of the property contain a drainage and utility easement, which acts as the Emergency Overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond across the street Water flows between the two houses and down to Lake Riley. This location has a recent history of stormwater issues On June 19, 2014, a rainfall event caused the stormwater pond to overflow and flood the property to the north, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard Water surrounded the house and leaked into the basement The city's Public Works Department sandbagged the area during the storm to prevent further damage The reason for the shoreland setback and hardcover limitation is to protect the city's natural resources through limiting runoff into public waters Allowing a setback and hard surface expansion beyond the existing conditions could be harmful to the natural resources of the area and increase surface water runoff issues This property was originally given a variance for a front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface coverage. The proposed variance would increase the existing legal non - conformity of the presently functional property As seen bele on the next page, there have been multiple parcels surrounding this property that have requested variances Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests Of these variance requests, one was for the subject property City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27 weber– 7, 2014 J_-Hu-_—.y 5 February 9, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Variance Number Address Description Action Request for an addition to a non - VAR 85 -21 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. conforming building (encroaching into Withdrawn front and rear yard setbacks) VAR 90 -07 9051 Lake Riley Blvd 10 35 -foot shoreland setback variance for Approved the construction of a new home. 36 -foot shoreland /rear yard setback for VAR 92 -09 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. the construction of a deck and hot tub to Approved be located 39 feet from the lake 5 -foot front yard setback variance, 10 percent hard surface coverage variance and CAS 05 -10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. a 32 -foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved (subject property) demolition and rebuilding of a single - family home on a non - conforming property (minimum area) (continued on next page) City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 Oeeberz2914 February 9, 2015 Page 6 of 11 Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject site, three properties have hard surface coverage that exceeds 25.8 percent (the subject property's hard surface coverage), with the largest being at 29.3 percent hard surface coverage (the subject property is proposing 30.0 percent hard surface coverage). Additionally, four properties in this area have a shoreland setback that extends within the required 75 -foot setback; however, none of these properties have a shoreland setback less than 43 feet (the subject property is proposing a 36 -foot shoreland setback). NOW- r - Hard Surface Coverage and Shoreland Setbacks of Shoreland Properties within 500 feet of the Sublect Property :t 9 5% HSC - r� ----� 75' Setback F w v. 22 9% HSC !� • 60- Setback (Subject Site) 4 = • �L 25.8% HSC s 43` Setback 271 %HSC r r 43 = Setback .. 0 29 3% HSC 43: Setback • k 16 0% HSC 4 °' f---- 75" Setback r I • `' 27 1 °10 HSC 1 58- Setback j � ' City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 nc-teber- 7,-2-044 ianuaFy 6, February 9, 2015 Page 7 of 11 The subject property has an area of 12,900 square feet. This is significantly smaller than the 20,000 square -foot minimum required by city code for single - family riparian lots (Sec. 20 -480). Of the shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property, there are three other properties that do not meet the minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots (see yellow outlined properties in the image below). + a i - Lot Sizes of Shoreland Properties within 500 -feet of the Subject Property t`. 42,602 s f ItR " •; 12,900 s f Subject Property .i� 18,731 s f 20,909 s f T i 14,37 s f. City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 eteber7, 244-4 january 6, February 9, 2015 Page 8of11 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Lake Riley is classified as a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 865 3 feet The setback from the OHW is 75 feet as required by state statute and city code A variance was granted to allow for the construction of the house This variance allowed for the house to encroach 32 feet into this setback. The house is currently setback 43 feet from the OHW at its closest point. The pfavtded „'an no dimensions and was ineanststeiA - .t& the ueriui photograph shown to the right A review of the plans indicates that a four - season porch was approved in the fall of 2011 to extend an additional 13 feet beyond what was shown as the building footprint in the plan provided This is shown in green on in the figure -2 below The porch addition was consistent with the approved hard surface and setback variance The approved deck was to continue as the east wall of the four - season porch extended northward 19 feet. The gar-age wall, lae ted in the northeast eefnei: of the house, is the one eanstant between the two plans and was ttsed as the 5 Palo Wed ka'F ' 5 SaLn Aavm Dedd EJtiq Ded .d W_C _ Pael Bat49 if � � uuac Oaa.[al Pdn Ba — �+ x.dae lyo-aam 4)Iran 1}c ISlae 3ilry H9 Slate arc Bb�ftr.nwt `\ , Bbd SNGg wf may y�'� �'� 16iNMdlrem 8ermd \ Pwv X60 7"'4" +� �. `� Ji• .aJ Iran dal bpe Slav Sttg Hf b kan pdbbba �� Ex tan 6. Lan MCWT _ I> S. MCWT The proposed patio extends an additional 7 feet towards the lake from the existing deck. This equals a setback from the OHW of 36 feet. Residential properties are allowed one water - oriented structure no greater than 250 square feet in area within the setback, provided it is at least 10 feet from the OHW Water- oriented structures are included in hard surface coverage calculations for the property. However, the proposed patio is not considered a water - oriented structure as it is attached to the primary structure. Furthermore, Tthe size of this patio (existing and proposed) isestima4ed to be 11 exe ess of 730 feet o fly th e times lafger- than allowed 751 square feet, over three times larger than what is allowed for a water - oriented structure. A deck is not considered impervious and the area below the deck currently has a grass surface (besides the concrete door step pad) This encroachment into the setback and the additional hardcover area will only add to the degradation of the lake and the increase in runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. The aforementioned June storms saw significant damage along the shoreline that can be attributed to urbanization of the lakeshore area. City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance - Planning Case 2014 -27 Oetabef 7,-24 4 january 6, February 9, 2015 Page 9of11 ALTERNATIVE PLAN Through conversations between city staff and the applicant, a reasonable alternative plan has been created in case the Planning Commission City Council finds that a hard surface coverage variance request is acceptable; however, no further encroachment into the shoreland setback is supported by staff. The alternative plan, favored by staff, reduces the hardcover variance request and does not require an additional shoreland setback variance (see image below). The alternative proposal would expand the patio under the existing deck and to the northerly patio door in line with the existing setback. The addition will add 354 square feet (2.7 percent) of hard surface coverage to the property, but will maintain the existing 43 -foot shoreland setback. The hardcover expansion will put the total property hardcover at 28.5 percent. The hard surface coverage expansion (see gray area in the image below) will require a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties, a 2.5 percent expansion from the approved 26 percent hardcover variance (bringing the total hardcover to 28.5 percent). An issue expressed by the property owner is the lack of usable outdoor space. To add outdoor space without adding hard surface coverage, the property owner can install a retaining wall within the shoreland setback (it must be set back at least 10 feet from the OHW) and complete earthwork in the rear yard to make a flat grass area to the east of the patio (between the patio and the lake -see green area below). Any grading and retaining wall installed will require a permit and plans to be submitted to the City. i i Existing Hardcover E House i� .I ► FFT -• - Patio Expansion Ilk ;'I Hardcover Removed from Plan, Green Space— Retaining Wall I -: ,- I ._ !. _ _ _ Patio Expansion will maintain existing 43' ( shoreland setback City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2014 -27 o tober— 7 2014 February 9, 2015 Page 10 of 11 SUMMARY it appea-r-s that the vaff a-nee fr-am the 014W setbaek r-equifements is for- 4 5 feet to be withl" 3 0 root of the OH3A1 The variance from the OHW setback requirements is for 39 feet, extending an additional 7 feet from the existing approved variance setback of 32 feet. The current impervious surface coverage already exceeds the allowed 25 percent maximum for shoreland properties The deck is not eeiisidefed h,,,.,a,,, ver- so the aiily existing h,,,.,a,,, ve f where the fiew pa4f a f s proposed eansists of the 13'x 13' four season por-eh and the effiefete Pad in ffon4 of the Fr-eneh doefs it is estima4ed that the -proposed patio is in exeess of 730 squar-e feet meaning they ai-7e r-equesting mer-e than 525 sqiiar-e feet of additfonal ittffaee w thi the setbaek f am the 0144 The proposed expansion will add 551 square feet of hardcover to the property (a 4.2 percent expansion). If approved, the total hardcover for the property will be 30.0 percent. This will put the property 5.0 percent over the 25 percent hardcover maximum for shoreland properties. This area has a recent history of drainage problems that could directly impact the neighboring properties depending on the grading, which was not included in the plan submittal. Additional impervious surface would create additional untreated stormwater runoff discharging to Lake Riley. Urbanization of the shoreline has contributed to erosion problems along Lake Riley. To avoid adding water to an area that has confirmed drainage issues, and adding to the degradation of Lake Riley, the Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission City Council denies the variance requests and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision Should the Planning Commission City Council approve a hard surface coverage variance, it is recommended that the approval be for a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance to permit 28.5 percent hardcover on the property and deny the additional shoreland setback variance and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit. 2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. City Council 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2014 -27 r3ctebef 7201-4 015 February 9, 2015 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENTS 1 Findings of Fact and Decision 2 Development Review Application 3 Landscaping Plan. 4. Email from Nancy Smith to Bob Generous dated September 8, 2014. 5 Letter from Joan Ludwig to Chanhassen Planning Commission, Bob Generous, and Rose Kelly dated September 9, 2014 6 Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 7. Extension request dated October 7, 2014. 8. Extension request dated November 3, 2014. 9. Letter from Rose Kelly dated December 22, 2014. 10. To scale drawing of proposal from Rose Kelly. 11. Sketch Map g \plan\2014 planning cases \2014 -27 9015 lake riley blvd variance \cc staff report 9015 lake riley blvd doe CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE. Application of Phillip J. Sosnowski and Rosemary F Kelly for a variance from the shoreland setback requirements and hard surface coverage to allow for a 551 square -foot patio on property zoned Single- Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2014 -27. On January 6, 2015, 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 District (RSF) 2 The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density 3 The legal description of the property is P/O GOVT LOT 3 DESC AS. COMM AT NW CORN GOVT LOT 3 TH S ON W LINE 1293 86' TH N89 *E 16' TH S 249 23' TH N89 *E 49 60' TH N 247.87' TH N89 *E 714 51' TH N20 *E 304 42' TH N14 *E 470 07' TH N13 *E 11.86' TH N44 *E 64 O1' TO INTERSECT WITHLINE BEARING N13 *E FROM N 4. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following cntena 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 subject site is zoned Single- Family Residential District The purpose of the request is to permit a 39 -foot shoreland setback variance and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow a 551 square -foot patio expansion. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, permitting additional encroachment into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property. The property also has a functioning 13.5 -foot by 13 -foot patio on the property that currently serves as an outdoor space 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: Requesting to expand an existing patio is not a practical difficulty in meeting with City Code. The property has already been granted variances for hardcover and shoreland setbacks The site currently has a patio and its expansion is due to a mere convenience c That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to expand a patio for wheelchair accessible use d The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The use of the lot is limited due to its size and depth, however, the property has already been granted a variance for its construction, allowing them a reasonable use of the property Any additional expansions of this non - conformity would be created by the property owner. e The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality Finding: The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality Multiple properties in the area encroach into the shoreland setback However, since there already exists surface water runoff issues in the area, expanding hard surface may increase the runoff problem 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 #2014 -27, dated January 6, 2014, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein 2 DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, denies Planning Case #2014 -17 a 39 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement and 5 0 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 551 square -foot patio on a property zoned Single - Family Residential District " ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of January, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chairman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P O Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone (952) 227 -1300 / Fax- (952) 227 -1110 CITY OF CHMHASSEN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date Filed `T 60 -Day Review Deadline C- ' Section 1: Application' •• • ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for fading on -site sewers $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Single -Family Residence $325 ❑ All Others $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ In conjunction with Single - Family Residence $325 ❑ All Others.. $425 ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD $100 ❑ All Others ............................. ... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review $150 Planner ❑ Subdivision Case # ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Zoning Appeal $100 ❑ Administrative $100 ❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts* ............ $500 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area NOTE When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Include number of existing employees the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application and number of new employees ❑ Residential Districts ............ .... $500 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal Plus $5 per dwelling unit information that must accompany this application) ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES- Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) .-39 (� Property Owners' List within 500' $3 per address \ (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting) Escrow for Recording Documents 5er document (CUP /SPRNAC/�AP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) TOTAL FEES: $ Received from Rf ss.r o a fi Date Received .�. It.S11 ILt Check Number Project Name Patio Proposal Property Address or Location. 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Parcel # 250240300 Total Acreage Present Zoning 22 Residential Legal Description Lot 3, Sec 24, T 116 North, R 23 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes 21 No Present Land Use Designation Residential Existing Use of Property Residential Description of Proposal See separate narrative 0 Check box if separate narrative is attached Requested Zoning Residential Requested Land Use Designation Residential ❑ Create 3 lots or less $300 ❑ Create over 3 lots $600 + $15 per lot ❑ Metes & Bounds $300 + $50 per lot ❑ Consolidate Lots $150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment $150 ❑ Final Plat* $250 *Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ❑ Vacation of Easements /Right -of -way $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑✓ Variance $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single - Family Residence $150 ❑ All Others ... .... $275 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Zoning Appeal $100 ❑ Administrative $100 ❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts* ............ $500 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area NOTE When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Include number of existing employees the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application and number of new employees ❑ Residential Districts ............ .... $500 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal Plus $5 per dwelling unit information that must accompany this application) ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES- Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) .-39 (� Property Owners' List within 500' $3 per address \ (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting) Escrow for Recording Documents 5er document (CUP /SPRNAC/�AP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) TOTAL FEES: $ Received from Rf ss.r o a fi Date Received .�. It.S11 ILt Check Number Project Name Patio Proposal Property Address or Location. 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Parcel # 250240300 Total Acreage Present Zoning 22 Residential Legal Description Lot 3, Sec 24, T 116 North, R 23 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes 21 No Present Land Use Designation Residential Existing Use of Property Residential Description of Proposal See separate narrative 0 Check box if separate narrative is attached Requested Zoning Residential Requested Land Use Designation Residential APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application 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 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 I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Name Contact Address Phone City /State /Zip Cell. Email Fax Signature Date PROPERTY OWNER. In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods 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 I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Name Rosemary Kelly and Phillip Sosnowski Contact Rose Kelly Address 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Phone (952) 353 -4691 City /State /Zip Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell (612) 360 -8700 Email rkelly071 @gmail com Fax- (612) 467 -1920 Signature ' 1-� Date 8/11/14 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, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements 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. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name Contact Address Phone City /State /Zip Cell Email Fax Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information. Q Property Owner Via F/� Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name ❑ Applicant Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address ❑ Engineer Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City /State /Zip. ❑ Other* Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email. ` SCANNED Proposal Patio Construction Location 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Variance Request We are requesting the construction of a patio (see attached design) be allowed as an addition to our single family home in Chanhassen The planned construction plan is attached We are requesting a 240 sq ft variance for allowed hard space to build a wheelchair accessible patio. In addition, as the original construction of the house was permitted a 32 feet variance from the required 75 foot setback, this proposal was designed to stay within that limitation. The proposed patio is setback 43 feet from the lake, within the limitation of the current variance However, we are also requiring a variance to allow for an additional 3 feet setback to allow construction a curve of the patio for 8 4 feet to permit aesthetic alignment with the house The current hard space for the house. Overall Gross area to OHW = 14,650 sq ft Right of way = 1,750 sq ft Net area = 12,900 sq ft. Building area = 2,225 sq ft Concrete pad = 27 sq ft Retaining walls = 55 sq ft Stoop area = 89 sq ft 4 season porch area = 176 sq. ft. Sidewalk area = 170 sq ft Driveway area = 612 sq ft Total current impervious surface area = 3,354 sq ft Rationale This variance request is to ask for an additional 240 square feet of hard surface to allow continuity between existing hard space and wheelchair accessibility to the patio The reason for the patio construction is to make the lake and lawn on the lakeside of the house handicap accessible in alignment with the overall concept and construction of the house The previous owner clearly designed the house to be handicap accessible. However, financial limitations kept the original owner from constructing a reasonable access from the house to the lake even though the setback permitted such a construction and the additional hard space is minimal (240 sq ft ) Lack of a level, even surface to exit the house limits the usability of the lake and lawn to anyone who is handicapped. This is because the lawn immediately slopes and is uneven There is no means of outside handicap access to the lake except directly onto sloping lawn. There is already hard surface immediately under the deck and the four season porch, but these surfaces are not connected and under constant shade This proposal requests permission to simply connect these two areas with a level material to improve safety and access It is a limited extension of current patio construction in keeping with the aesthetics of the house design and within the original construction setback variance This request for 240 sq ft. variance of additional hard space is in harmony with the handicap accessible construction that was not SCANNED completed by the original builder This construction deficiency has become more apparent as we witness my 90 year old mother being unable to safely get out of the house to enjoy the being outside at the lake Conditions meeting variance requirements 1 We are requesting a 1 9 % variance to the current hard space zoning in order to construct a limited, level patio to improve our home handicap accessibility In addition, we are requesting a set back of an additional 3 feet for 8 4 feet in length to provide an aesthetic aspect to the construction This construction is consistent with the design and intent of the original construction of a handicap accessible lake home but not completed originally due to financial limitations of the homeowner We bought the house 4 years ago because the design was entirely handicap accessible As we made small changes to our house, it was always in alignment with this design Now, as we look to accommodate my elderly mother and our own health limitations, these features of the house are particularly important We plan to stay in this home the rest of our lives and we purchased it with that intention. We wish to improve design and accessibility of the house to the lake by completing a handicap accessible patio on the lake side of the house In addition, the current concrete patio has a step down that is not level with the doors making is impossible to navigate with a wheelchair so we wish to resolve this technical problem at the same time. This request to increase hard surface is by a very limited amount and is extended beyond the already existing hard surface to include a small area that allows for sun This proposal benefits handicapped and wheelchair bound individuals and remains consistent with the comprehensive plan of the original house design 2 The practical difficulty with compliance of the current zoning is that the hard space limitations keep us from completing a level, connected, safe patio area in order to make it wheelchair accessible Currently, it is not possible for a handicapped person to get outside the house safely onto a level surface We wish to correct this problem in an effort to align the house with its original handicap accessible design and facilitate access for ourselves and handicapped family members We believe this proposal is a request to use the property in a reasonable manner not currently permitted by limitations on hard surface for this property 3 This proposal is not based on economic considerations It is based on personal consideration for handicap accessibility for current family members and ourselves 4 The house design was left incomplete by the original owner We are asking for the variance to hard surface allowance by only 240 sq. ft. to improve the overall design of the house and to comply with the original intent of handicap accessibility Inability to provide access to the lake will create a current and ongoing hardship for full utilization of the property that we did not create 5 This is a very small scale patio that will only increase the hard surface of the house by 240 sq ft The proposal is designed to create an aesthetically appropriate addition while improving the function of the house The variance, if granted, would not alter in any way the essential character of the locality 6 This house is not an earth- sheltered construction SCANNED V, Zagreb Coreopsi5 3 Barberry 'Orange Rocket' Boulders in the I Felix 5preme Peony Fx tree / bed edging coLild cp arourd tHb tree . . . . . . . 13 Walker's Low Catbffrvt Ex I-or-,&IscqPe Ex Landscape x. AC Stone Eckjwi2 1 Paver Bancing Street ,,, Mail Box steps replace damaged throughout 5tctrc( La Ex Hall qSidewalk replace Wall Ex Hall entry gar-den hose 5 Feather Reed Ka-I Foerster' " 5 Sedum Auturm DeW Existing Deck Steps Daurspait Drain Box I -1 MI—MIT TIT� 43' from lake A 2 Pralne Dropseed 25 5q' of patio added atside Stone- or Block Nomment the exi5tirig vatIor-ice 11 CbLogol" Green Boxwood 45' from deck to lake 4CO From patio to lake Ex Law • Ex. LctUri Rm. KV&_ RII.V VD Ctvtrxwen D.. F& SCALF N FEET Driveway repair sunken slab Uaraye Current HOFd Surface Coverage Ex. Lawn F Note• Patio would only odd 2404 to P-AMIng harclsirface square footacr- SCANNEN 1 Annolaelle Hydrangea Stone Sitting Hall or Block 5itbnq Wall Paver Baking Ex 0-- Stone Sitting Wall or Block Sitting Hall , 'e Fx Ex Lown SCANNEN Generous, Bob From N R [nsmith3587 @msn com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12 35 PM To Generous, Bob Subject: 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Hi Bob, We have no issues with the variance Rosemary Kelly is requesting. The water issue is really more the holding pond that created the flooding this year. This should be addressed by the city. Thank you, Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. TO. Chanhassen Planning Commission Bob Generous Rose Kelly FROM- Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN 9/16/14 RE. Requested Variance at 9015 Lake Riley Blvd I am the neighbor to the north of this address. My concern about the proposed variance is regarding to the drainage to my property at 9005 Lake Riley Blvd When the property at 9015 was re constructed, a drain swale was eliminated between that property and my own The two properties used to be at the same level, and with the increased height and drainage of 9015, as well as all of the additional construction up hill from here, things have changed dramatically The drainage onto my property has been significantly increased Each year, the storm drains have had issues in heavy rain as well as in freezing periods in the winter. Additionally, my property has been suffering from standing water in the yard and on my back patio that is much greater than it had been prior to the re build next door and the density of ground cover in the general area. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Rose Kelly having the improvements to the property that she desires. However, I do seek assurance and oversight from the city to be certain that my property will not be further compromised by additional water drainage I seek assurance from the city planning department and the city engineering department that steps that have already been discussed will be implemented and that mitigation of future flooding to my property is being adequately addressed The city engineering has stated that they will 1 Clean the storm drains to assure that they are functioning properly and to capacity. And to make this area a first priority to mitigate for draining issues. 2. Clean the holding pond across the street from our properties to assure that it is holding the needed amount of storm water and draining properly 3. Re implement the drain swale between the two properties to properly direct excess storm water (This includes removal of the tree at the yard line to accomplish the Swale, and I am currently assisting in getting bids.) 4. Accomplish other re landscaping as needed to protect my property (including home and yard) from becoming over burdened with drain water Again, I am not opposed to homeowners having the improvements that they desire However, proper care and assurance must be given to assure that my property is not the recipient of water due to the addition of impervious surfaces and drainage that will again put me underwater again Further, I dust want to assure that professionals evaluate the variable lake level to assure that additional structures and improvements will not bring the lake level up to a level that will flood my property during heavy storms 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 September 4, 2014, 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 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance Request — Planning Case 2014 -27 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 marl 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. Kar J Enge qrt, Deput Jerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this c�h day of s`, be r , 2014 iJ1ElJV41SSEN Nota ry ublrc N1 - Minnes ota ry Public 2015 MY Com mission Expires Jen 31, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 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 Variances to exceed the impervious surface Proposal limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant Rosemary Kelly Property 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Location A location map is on the reverse side of this notice The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps at the Meeting 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project 2 The applicant will present plans on the project 3 Comments are received from the public 4 Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at www ci Chanhassen mn us/2014 -27 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerous(a�ci Chanhassen mn us or by phone at Comments: 952- 227 -1131 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 somethin 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, September 16, 2014 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 Variances to exceed the Impervious surface Proposal limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF Applicant Rosemary Kell Property 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Location A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps at the Meeting 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project 2 The applicant will present plans on the project 3 Comments are received from the public 4 Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses the project If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at. www cI Chanhassen mn us/2014 -27 If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by Questions & email at bgenerous(cD_cl Chanhassen mn us or by phone at Comments 952- 227 -1131 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 ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY DAVID L ANDERSON DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH 9079 SUNNYVALE DR 290 GREENLEAF CT 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI PO BOX 490 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -0490 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 PAUL JNESBURG 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639 REV TRUST AGREEMENT OF JOAN M 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 JUDITH N LEWIS 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 PETER DAVID MCINTOSH 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 RYAN D MAJKRZAK 9001 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 ev I * ) 1 4 i �a Generous, Bob From: Rosemary Kelly [rkelly071 @gmail com] Sent Monday, November 03, 2014 3 28 PM To: Generous, Bob Subject Extension I- Please extend the city review through Jan 26, 2015 for the variance request for property 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thank you, Rose Kelly December 22, 2014 Mr Robert Generous Senior Planner Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Generous, Thank you for your time to meet with me and explain the city's position for wanting to reduce the amount of hard surface requested on the variance We do understand the desire to minimize run off into the lakes in efforts to control erosion and we appreciate staffs willingness to allow us added hard surface under our porch. Although this helps, it does not fully provide the handicap accessibility we need for the home Since meeting with you, we have considered several revisions to meet the concerns you presented. As our biggest consideration is handicap accessibility, we have removed 144 square feet toward the lake but kept the portion along the house toward the garage as well as including hard surface to allow for a connection to the rear of the garage The garage was built with garage doors in both the front and the back This allows a handicap person to enter the garage in the front and then have access to the back yard and patio without maneuvering a wheel chair through the home (see attached image #1) A person can simply use the rear door for easy wheel chair access to the back of the home and lake. Having the additional hard surface extend from below the porch to the garage is essential in providing handicap accessibility to the lakeside of the house. In addition, it allows the most level access to the lake We request for a total of 350 square feet for the patio (see attached image #2) This revised plan meets the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of 5 feet width along the garage door that was not in the original proposal This addition was noted to be necessary to be handicap compliant and facilitate the access to the lake and patio through the garage with any type of mobility device We believe this revision is a compromise to our original request that would not negatively impact the lake or neighborhood and is a reasonable consideration for handicap access The surrounding neighbors are supportive of the request The only issue raised was an overflow problem from a pond across the road that drains along our lot line This issue is not related to added hard surface but to regional ponding which is being resolved by city staff In addition, the city has supported hard surface variances on several occasions, most recently for the Fretham project that was heard the same night you first considered our request (October 7, 2014) and which had higher percentages of hard surface than us Although they all have their individual meets it does show that minimal impacts are not detrimental to the lake. Since our last meeting we have a clearer understanding of the city's rules regarding shoreland We share these concerns as homeowners on Lake Riley and value what lakes provide. We do not want to harm any lake but simply enjoy them We hope this compromise to not extend any surface toward the lake but still extend toward the garage as access for our handicapped family members can be supported as a reasonable request Thank you, Rose Kelly 9015 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Rose Kelly Sketch Plan SK 1.0 OW E" CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hansen Minnetonka Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044 Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT /OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014 -27. Ingvalson. For those that don't know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson I'm a planning intern at the City of Chanhassen Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members. So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request As you might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also dust did some other calculations with that Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing shoreland setback The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the northwest side of Lake Riley Looking at the picture, image on the right we'll specifically be looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there's two actually requests for this Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent variance for hard surface coverage This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent maximum allowed Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4 feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property, like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission This approved Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance One percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These variances actually reduced the non - conformities with the property. The property had a larger hard cover percentage It was at 26 4 It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet So this is an image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005 The setback was 37 feet and the hard surface coverage was 26 A little over 26 percent And this is the existing property It has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8. These are images of the subject site The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the porch. It's about 13 by 13 I/2 feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house There are 3 exits from the rear of the property One underneath the porch. One underneath the deck and then one to the far right So here's an image of the request that's being made The blue you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion There are 3 house exits. The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed onto hard surface coverage The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is a 4 2 percent hard surface expansion Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500 feet of this property One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were passed Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface variance, there's also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed Three properties actually have hard surface coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent Four properties have setbacks that extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots It is 12,900 square feet. The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet There are 3 other properties within 500 feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there's some hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it's size exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we'd still include that area in the hard surface coverage and that's what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion. Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase drainage issues for adjacent properties So the alternative plan that was, came to between a conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet, which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion The addition will require a 3 5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you're looking at here in blue is the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion This patio expansion will not encroach any further into the shoreland setback It will maintain that 43 feet Another part of this alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space Due to the grade it's, there's very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property What we've communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn't be hard cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that can be used outdoors The recommended motion The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3 5 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan And be subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property Aller• Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew It was a great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you At this point in time we'll hear from the applicant If you could come forward State your names and addresses for the record, that'd be great. Thank you Rosemary Kelly Good evening My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen Aller• Good to see you again Ms Kelly Rosemary Kelly Yeah It's been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially From my aspect we had worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is not, actually they didn't never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair and we'd like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this design and so we eliminated that completely Finally we expanded only to the really the minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28 5. Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn't allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project I had no other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with that Aller Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage issues and... Rosemary Kelly. Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that because we knew the ground was going to freeze So that's been completed and that was kind of 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street It wasn't really from hard surface so much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior So that's been completed Aller- Great Any additional questions based on? Thank you Sir, did you have any comments? I know you came up together Are you moral support or9 Phillip Sosnowski• No additional comments I'm just here to support the, to Rose and address any questions that the commission may have of us Aller. Okay, thank you Nothing right now? Okay We'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion Yusuf• It seems like they've reached a consensus Aller- Well I'm not, I don't know whether it's a consensus When I first looked at this I saw the package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the numbers were wrong Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable. So I'm glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn't meet the variance requirements and that's what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them. Weick Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was another one Yeah. The only thing I'm, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you know if the house slants that way I know there's runoff from the street that comes down between the houses is the way I understand it I dust didn't know if the landscape was pitched such that it also runs you know into that yard as well But it doesn't. I mean everything looks like it's pitched down to the lake I don't know that adding you know concrete, hard surface against the house there and I'm certainly not an engineer but it doesn't look like it would add significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think? Hokkanen I don't know if it meets the requirements of a variance The legal Maybe you can explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance Undestad That's kind of the issue I have too I mean it's nice we're trying to move things back and all that but what's been granted previously on here and I just don't think it meets the requirements that we could say yes My opinion Aller When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non - conforming in the first place and it wasn't, my understanding it wasn't their property at the time but the builder came in Took away a lot of those non - conforming uses and issues but they still needed a variance It's still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the variance, and it's still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new construction as well So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues9 I mean that's Tom Goodrum- Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum. Aller. Thank you Tom Goodrum. The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County and Minnetonka Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and dust to address a couple of comments that you made. First of all, again we're thanking staff They're supporting the request after we met with them with this alternative plan One that we felt was reasonable for this site and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked us to go back Talk to staff. Work with staff We did that We came up with the plan supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up Again the property line, between the property owners, that's not part of this proposal That's a whole different issue and that's going to be solved so now we're just looking for what's a reasonable use for this site We're not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing Similar to the two lots next to us They're both 43 feet back as wise so we're not doing any more impacts to the neighborhood that already exist We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one dust next to us is 27 point something The one next to that, he's more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we're still in that ballpark. We're still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason we're doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family The house was built for that need Now that the family is reaching that age or have family members that have those needs, they're now discovering some of the flaws with this property and that's what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility Now that we have that need we're finding out that there's some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request Don't know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would support it as they supported the other uses on here The hard surface we're requesting is for access You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage Don't even have to maneuver within the house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of that house With the expansion we're asking for, you're pulling into the garage You get out of the car You go out the back of the garage and you're in the back of the patio, you know envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake You're not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering through the doors in the house Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio So the, again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before To work with staff Come up with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project There was a variances for hard 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 surface coverage for two lots One at 28 and one was at 30 percent There's one in 2013 for a hard cover I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to come up with something that everybody could support I sure hope that the Planning Commission understands where we're coming from Our request and that you can support us as well so thank you Aller Thank you Weick. Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that's underneath that deck, that's not, that's currently considered hard cover? Ingvalson No. Weick. No. Ingvalson• Incorrect It's underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage as long as water can penetrate through them Weick- Through, okay Ingvalson• So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that's right outside the door Weick Got it Thank you Undestad Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the existing? Yeah, that red There you go So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk The patio coming out of the garage back there What, is that about 4 feet? Ingvalson• 5 feet Undestad 5 feet And that transitions across the entire garage door back there? Ingvalson. Correct. Weick I think that's the minimum, right9 For wheelchair access. Ingvalson• For any Aller The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot, correct9 Undestad The 12,900 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Aller• So we are dealing with apples to apples? It's not something because of the reduced lot size, they're doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers Generous- Correct. Undestad• And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we're asking them if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we're kind of back to the how do we monitor there? How do we know? Generous- Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's basically with the initial design we'd be able to determine whether or not there would be benefit And the idea actually came up with the original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that's coming off of that hard surface. Undestad. So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design into that plan Generous. Exactly Aller Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control that process? Generous- We do. Weick. I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are. Hokkanen. Shrubs or landscaping. Weick Right. I mean there's no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is maintained, correct? Generous That's correct We don't take any securities or anything like that for that We would, the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they're going to Weick- Understood. Generous Right Weick Understood but again as we've talked about before if someone else were to move into the house, if something were to change there wouldn't be anything that would prohibit anybody from changing that landscaping, I don't think is there? N Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 Hokkanen- It does Weick- So it does? I guess that's my question Aller The condition would be there Hokkanen. The condition does but enforcement is the issue. Weick- Okay Aller- Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there's something going on next door. Hokkanen Right Aller Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you're going to dog Yusuf Not really wrestling I appreciate that they've been able to work with staff to come up with an alternate plan Seems like a nice agreement there Provided that the conditions are met of course. Aller Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one Yusuf I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014 -17, a 3 1/2 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aller I have a motion, do I have Yusuf. And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there. Aller I have a motion which includes conditions Do I have a second9 Weick Second. Aller Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014 -17, a 3.5 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions: Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 6, 2015 The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for the permit 2 Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Aller. So do we have a date for that9 Aanenson• Yes we do. Aller- January 26th Aanenson. Correct Aller So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City Council to be heard on January 26, 2015 So anyone wishing to follow this item to it's final conclusion should do so at that time Thank you one and all PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015 -01. Al -Jaff• Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan The site is located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86th Street, Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses The first one being neighborhood commercial Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had meetings with property owners within that area and It was mainly people, or property owners that had vacant land We just wanted to make suggestions We studied the area quite a bit and we needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider At that time, and while we were going through amending PUD's and cleaning up different applications 9 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT /OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014 -27. Generous- Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners The request before is Planning Case 2014 -27 is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners The property's located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a riparian lot on Lake Riley It's in the northwest corner of the lake The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it's guided for residential low density uses The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2 9 percent above what the 25 percent minimum requirement When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1 percent variance that was approved and they're adding 1 9 percent to that so a total of 2 9 percent variance The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a single family home located on that. There's a patio under a porch area and then there's a deck area in the middle of the house and on the northeast corner there's an open space. The applicant would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe the applicant has under estimated what they're actually requesting for a variance Their notes show that they're looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio We believe they meant in this area However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it's unclear from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75 shoreland setback In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the environment or the water resources in this area By increasing hard surface we will increase the stormwater runoff in this neighborhood The property to the north was inundated this June with one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending We looked at other variances in the area Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 There were 4 other requests One of them was for this property. It's the bottom one on that and that's the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the 75 shoreland setback It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home The other applications were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it under our shoreland accessory structure thing In that case you're limited to 250 square feet However we believe that there's approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent properties The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to the staff report With that I'd be happy to answer any questions Aller. I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives like wood decking or anything like that? Generous We hadn't directly brought that up but that is a possibility Under the City's ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained as ground area Aller Okay. I don't have any further questions based on the report Anyone? Okay Any from this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record that'd be great Rosemary Kelly Okay. I'm Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen Aller Welcome Rosemary Kelly Thank you And thank you for the time this evening I have a few comments to make in regard to the application and then the staff's reviewal of our application In the first application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the time it was submitted in July I think both individuals at the date of submission were not available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding and the measurements The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance is as you saw with the property it's the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface, particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home It's one of the reasons we bought the home and it's also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is 90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area The, in response to the staff's concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 accurate However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood The original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would have counted that as hard space because it's part of the home. In addition I kind of just went around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design we're expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface There would be approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition for say a shed or something within the setback allowance We're requesting approximately a 200 square foot variance of a setback My main point in all those numbers is to point out I'd be happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is Finally the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind The biggest problem that we faced this spring was that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a consideration of my neighbor There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers to reconstruct That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that's coming down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that has occurred in that area dust north of us of multiple homes So my request I guess is to dust state I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility that we plan to use the rest of our lives And I believe that we are within both the setback consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard surface area Thank you. Aller Thank you Just as a quick question So if I'm understanding you, you don't believe you need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you're saying that you fit Rosemary Kelly No, no. Aller You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage Rosemary Kelly Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet approximately still needs the variance approval I believe the setback requirement for like a shed or would fit, the amount we're requesting would fit in that allowance already And I'd be happy to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case Our intent is not to make an extensive patio. It's to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side Aller- Okay Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck? Rosemary Kelly- Yeah, actually we had discussed that The main reason to not do that, actually we just had, we're a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we had stucco pillars for the deck and what we're finding is because they're wood core, it's allowing water to come up into the core of the columns Where it's the concrete, those pillars are fine It's more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that's going to be durable I think Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 if we use wood deck again the water's going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so that was an unfortunate discovery. Aller Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you At this point we'll open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item So anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium State your name and address and speak either for or against Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Joan Ludwig Hi, I'm Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard I'm Rose's neighbor. Aller Welcome Joan Ludwig I'm the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that my situation is, I don't care what they have in their yard In fact I encourage everyone to have whatever works for them What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is going in the right direction and isn't going to put me under water again The City is working with us Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I'm happy with that My concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we've got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I dust want to make sure we've got the infrastructure to handle it. That's all I have to say Aller Great, thank you Joan Ludwig Thanks. Aller- Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners Any comments? Questions? Further questions Undestad. My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a little more time to work with staff. Hokkanen Or revise it Aller. Maybe it's premature Hokkanen. Maybe revise the plan and come back Aller- Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point? Aanenson• There's a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an accessory structure it's over the hard cover It would still need a variance so I think there's some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements Make sure we've got those correct. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 Aller So it's just a matter of amount that we're still going to need the variance. Still going to have to Aanenson- That's correct. But that doesn't mean we would be happy to work with the applicant Aller Sure Aanenson. If that's okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time Give an extension on the application we'd be happy to do that Aller I guess that's what I would be inclined to recommend Is, the applicant's here, are you interested in doing that? What I see, I think it's just a little bit premature and I don't, I just don't want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I'd rather give you the time to work with them and see whether there's some alternatives and move it forward with the extension on the application and that way you're moving forward with hopefully something that will be satisfactory to you in the future. Rosemary Kelly And that sounds Aller Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion. Aanenson Before you do that Chairman, we're at the end of the 60 days so before we do that Aller- Oh, so you need a waiver. Aanenson- We'd like to get a letter right now, if that's okay before you make the motion extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I'm dust looking for a blank piece of paper here Aller. How about we do this If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being received Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend the application past the 60 day because she's waiving the requirement that we rule because the alternative is that we deny Hokkanen. Do we have to put a time on the extension? Aanenson She's going to give us 60 days Aller- or grant but I'm inclined to. Campion Alright I'll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days. Aller. Well subject to receipt of the waiver Campion Subject to the receipt of the waiver 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission — October 7, 2014 Aanenson That's fine I think you're technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may Campion- Yes Hokkanen Second Aller. Any further discussion? Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60 -day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of6to0. Aller. Good luck Ms Kelly. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE -FOOT ONE -STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4TH ADDITION APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 2014 -29. Aller- We have received some alternate pages. Generous- Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There's pages and 5 and 18, there were some minor changes A strike through and bold format There's nothing really substantive to them but it's for accuracy and consistency in the report. Aller. Thank you Generous. Planning Case 2014 -29, Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail building that's being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company As you said it's located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site they'll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went forward so At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run it hasn't worked out that way Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses It's zoned Planned Unit Development so there are specific design guidelines That's the part of the reason why there's a variance in the request Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the Ponds 11 th Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size Under the PUD standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The 2