The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Staff Report 09-15-2015PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: September 15, 2015 Q — CC DATE: October 12, 2015 (if necessary) REVIEW DEADLINE: November 11, 2015 (60 day extension requested from September 12, 2015 deadline) CASE #: 2015-14 BY: RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS, SS "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 441 square -foot attached garage subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a shoreland setback and a front yard setback variance to allow construction of a two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland setback and front yard setback. The applicant requested a 60 -day extension for this item at the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (PID 25-6600270) Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 – 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.735 acres (32,025 square feet) DENSITY: N/A 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. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct either a two-story, 441 square -foot attached garage (see Option E) or a two-story, 621 square -foot detached garage (see Option F) on their property. The applicant has stated that Option E is their preferred option for this variance request. The proposed project is not allowed by City Code and requires a variance because it will encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. In addition to requiring a variance from the 75 - foot shoreland setback, Option E will also require a variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback. This item was first heard by the Planning Commission on July 21, 2015. The applicant provided four alternative garage locations for the Planning Commission to consider for a variance. Staff did not recommend approval for any of these four locations, but provided a fifth alternative that should be used if the Planning Commission found the variance request to be reasonable. The applicant requested a 60 -day extension prior to a decision by the Planning Commission. This item had a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2015; however, property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been renoticed for this item at the Planning Commission meeting on September 15, 2015. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures 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. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-905. Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND According to Carver County records, the house at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 1918. This structure is 31 feet away from the southern shoreland, or ordinary high water (OHW) level, and 75 feet away from the northern shoreland. In 1977, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted as authorized by Minnesota Statute. The Shoreland Management District section of City Code requires structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The principal structure on the subject site encroaches into the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 60 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 3 of 13 The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yards of the property, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The structure encroaches into this required setback 20 feet 2 inches, but the structure has legal non -conforming status due to it being built prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The buildable lot area on the site is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see light gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Image 1: Proposed Structures and Setbacks City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. AREAOF In IF - AiLSET&ACKS MID -SLOPE OF ARE ENFORCED GABLE 387 S.F.) 19'3" AT MID -SI - DORMER i - i - 21'-8" AT PEAK '—e LAKE i M/NNEWASHTA I - _ y a TING { 30' - ^A Sul PO TO BE �- Rapp17®�` M�lO1Y 1D GHEE -OP11MIFOMLY", { Y Say DRUM U8 � Y I CNGSENI EN'TURNOUT - r- _ DRIVE 4 Sm -k f' SEMI-PERVIIX% � N B, -too" - - - a �•. RNE-100 I '. 30 _ ' 3603 RED CEDAR POINT SETBACK•l w �u. po'� DRIVE EXISTING. _ 4 EXISTI j HOUSE -1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT I DRU ! o O I co *�+ RI CD > ---- SITE OF PREVIOUS FUEL _._... OHW E CNLTANNTERPO MPGA LAKE FROM SURVEY Docum NTAMORiO STATUS STATUS-ASSUMED'TQ BE -ASSUMED MINIVEWASHTA REMEDIATED --- o s io 2a eo City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 4of13 The only work permitted by the city outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (east of Option F). Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south into the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a private drive that provides access to the subject site and to the property to the east. The minimum width of the roadway as it crosses the property is 10 feet, per the survey provided by the applicant. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Furthermore, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact city utilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreland setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreland. Staff has worked with the applicant to eliminate those options north of Red Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed two alternatives that are all located south of the private drive (see Image 1). Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 5of13 The applicant intends to construct a two -stall garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly -constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The detached garage location (see Option F) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreland setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see Option E), while within the 75 -foot shoreland setback, will not encroach farther into the southern shoreland setback and will maintain the shoreland setback to the north. If approved, Option E will encroach into the 30 -foot front yard setback, but will not encroach farther into this setback than the existing structure. Image 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story garage. The plan proposes two locations for the garage structure, one attached and one detached. Both of these locations will require a shoreland setback variance. Option E will also require a front yard setback variance. Option E Option E (see Image 4) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square -foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. The homeowner will enter the garage from the north off of the private drive. This option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 6of13 This option will not require a shoreland setback from the northern shoreland, but the proposed garage will encroach into the southern shoreland setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreland). This variance will not expand on the existing non -conformity as the structure currently encroaches farther into the required setback than the proposed garage (Option E). This alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. However, the property owner's viewscape of the lake will be disrupted by Option E due to living room and bedroom windows located on this side of the home (see Image 5). City Code aligns the front yard of the property to the west of the home. As stated previously, the existing structure encroaches into the front yard setback. Option E will not encroach farther into the existing 9.8 -foot front yard setback that has been established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance since it is an expansion of the structure within 30 feet of the western property line. The majority of the homes along the private drive are positioned with their garage doors and main entrances facing north. The alignment of these homes along the private drive create a neighborhood where the east and west yards of homes serve more as a side yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback, than a front yard, which require a 30 -foot setback. Image 4: Option E I - I yi f� i� 11 rr~~+r I BITJM US a art 9603 RED CEi]AR POINT �-t DRlVF_ EXISTING i HaUSE - 19Q2 j S.F. FC.V.TPRINT Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 7 of 13 Image 5: Existing Conditions The placement of Option E will disrupt vehicle traffic along the private drive. To mitigate this issue, staff recommends that the Planning Commission attach a condition to this plan that requires the applicant to increase the private drive to be at least 10 feet (not to exceed 24 feet) wide at all sections of the drive to ensure traffic safety (see driveway expansion, gray area, in Image 4). This expansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property (23.9%), but it will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will require a smaller hardcover expansion than Option F. This alternative provides a smaller garage than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of garage stalls show that it will be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeowner. Another alternative that staff could have supported would have been to attach the garage to the northeast corner of the home, but the applicant does not wish to consider this option because it would require the removal of a mature tree. Option F Option F (see Image 6) is the applicant's second preferred option. Option F is a 621 square -foot, detached garage located east of the existing structure. This option will require only a shoreland setback variance. The homeowner will enter this garage from the north off of the private drive. This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private drive, but will require a short driveway extension be added to the south and a turnout extension be added to the north of the private drive. The turnout will be required to allow the applicant to efficiently park their car within the garage. Option F will also require the application to remove an existing fire hydrant south of the private drive and relocate it to north of the private drive (see red circle in Image 6) within the existing City easement. This option will increase hardcover to 24.9 percent and will require the removal of two trees. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 8 of 13 Option F has a shorter shoreland setback than Option E and will encroach farther into the shoreland setback (45.6 feet) than the existing home (44 feet). This alternative will require a 45.6 -foot shoreland setback variance. The additional hardcover at this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the public water viewscapes because there will be minimal screening of the structure from the public waters (see Image 7). Image 6: Option F -- i SEWPERVIMS DPIVE- 1 ._ INT- -TIN '92IF— PINT - - n Cn _ 1+ �. m 6 --_ Image 7: Subject Site from Pubic Waters Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Viewscapes At the Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2015, there were concerns voiced by the property owner to the west of the subject site. A main concern from this property owner was the potential loss of lake viewscape from a window facing the location of Option E (see Images 8- 10). While there will be a slight viewscape lost due to the potential construction of Garage Option E, this loss of viewscape is not substantial. Moreover, the 75 -foot shoreland setback is the ordinance that protects homeowners' shoreland viewscapes. The proposed project will maintain the north 75 -foot shoreland setback and will not require a variance. Image 8: View of Neighboring House (3605 Red Cedar Point Rd) from Private Drive Image 9: Window Facing Option E Image 10: View from below Window Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 10 of 13 Character of the Neighborhood Every property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreland setback (see Image 11). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the shoreland district standards were adopted (1977). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreland, or encroaching 51 feet into the shoreland setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreland variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 3). Approved shoreland setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreland setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreland of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet to 8 feet, allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. In addition, there has been one front yard setback variance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 3). Image 11 on the next page displays shoreland properties within 500 feet of the subject property (subject site in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Properties marked with an X are properties that have been granted a variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback. The existing structure on the subject property is currently setback 31 feet from the shoreland, encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Image 11: Properties within 500 feet that encroach into the 75 -foot Shoreline Setback Shoreland Granted Requesting a variance for the construction of a two -stall garage is a reasonable request. The applicant has also worked with staff to minimize the extent of the variance request for their proposal. The request is seen as reasonable because Chanhassen City Code requires newly constructed homes to have a two -stall, attached garage. Furthermore, constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the 11 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage (see Image 12 below). Image 12: Properties within 500 feet that have a garage Y. c" °tY b° ■ Garage No Gara Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 12 of 13 SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage. Garage Option E will require a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance and a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance. However, Option E will not expand on the front yard setback or shoreland setback non -conformities on the property. Garage Option F will require a 45.6 -foot shoreland setback variance. Option F will expand on the shoreland setback non -conformity created by the existing structure. Option F may have negative impacts on the water runoff into Lake Minnewashta, the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the removal of mature trees. Alternatively, Option E requires limited hardcover be added to the property, is well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any mature trees. Both options provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent hardcover maximum allowed for the property. There are several properties within 500 feet of the subject site that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Several of these properties, including the subject property, were built prior to the city adopting the shoreland management section of city code. Moreover, 8 of the 11 properties within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Staff believes that it is reasonable to request a variance to allow a two -stall garage due to the unique positioning of the property, the character of the neighborhood, and the existing requirement for new single-family, detached structures to have a two -car garage. Garage Option E is smaller than Option F (621 square feet) by 180 square feet; however, staff has found that this option will provide enough space to store two vehicles. Option E more effectively mitigates potential viewscape from the public waters issues and runoff harms, but this plan will require a front yard setback variance. However, Option E will not encroach farther into the existing shoreland or front yard setbacks. Furthermore, the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve more as a side yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. Option E will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require only a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property farther below the 25 percent hardcover maximum than Option F. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot shoreland setback variance and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 September 15, 2015 Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Revised Site Plan. 3. Affidavit of Mailing. 4. July 21, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes. 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 21, 2015. g1plan\2015 planning cmes\2015-14 3603 red cedar point varian"Vesubmittal 8-17-15\staff report 3603 red cedar point.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 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 Planning Commission tabled action on this application. On September 15, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to continue the hearing on this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L 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: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 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 construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. The variance request is considered reasonable because the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreland setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. 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 applicant's variance request to construct a two-story, two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreland on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreland and 30 -foot front yard setbacks, but the construction of the attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach further into the required shoreland or front yard setbacks. 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 construct a 441 square -foot, two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 59 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property and thus did not create the non -conformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Constructing a garage on this site will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as 8 of the 11 homes within 500 feet of the subject property have a garage. Furthermore, the granting of a shoreland and front yard setback variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple structures in the area encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreland setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1977) and the City of Chanhassen was established. There are also properties in this are that have constructed homes within the shoreland setback after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted six shoreland setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreland of 68 feet to 30 feet. The proposed shoreland setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreland, and will not encroach closer to the shoreland than the existing structure. The City has granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not encroach any closer than the existing structure and will be in keeping with the essential character of the locality. 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 #2015-14, dated September 15, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreland setback and a 20.2 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. The proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15"' day of September, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN F -W Chairman D D n n D 1 PROPOSED GARAGE (E)- 441 S.F. FOOTPRINT, ATTACHED TO EXISTING HOUSE 30' �_N HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 % OF LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 7982 (24.9 % OF LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED - 387 S.F.) o ----- -.- ------- - Y - V EXI TING Ll BIT MIND S BU POU TO BE R OV D (D G E V S BY PTION CHOSEN) LAKE MINNEWASHTA I ` i 3603 RED �• ' ,�� CEDAR POINT Pei° DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE -1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT 0.6�„ SITE OF PREVIOUS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION ON STATUS - ASSUMED TO BE REMEDIATED PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK DO SIBLE AND RELOCATED — �1 All HIN EABEME"T PER�CIT'Y I 2 'S)-OPTIONFONLY" I I I I EW TURNOUT- 296 S.F., SEMI -PERVIOUS F DRIVE - 100 II 30' II SETBACK CONCRETE ° 1 fo r rr ;I m op ' n a 00> cJn I 1 _ �iw ------- I -------E OHW WE INTERPObATU LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: REMOVES 4 MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 24.9% OF LOT, VOLUNTARY STORMWATER RETENTION IF REQUIRED OSITE PLAN ,•• = 30'.0" north ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W U 0 WZZ f N O W W °C as �uZ W a < 0 w U W p V m M PH E: Sch...t" Design mn �r _ � r' EXIS7J BITUM DRIVE �_N HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 2 OPTIONS: OPTION E: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + NEW WIDENING 489 = 7680 (23.9 % OF LOT) OPTION F: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 117 + NEW TURNOUT 298 - PAD 245 = 7982 (24.9 % OF LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED - 387 S.F.) o ----- -.- ------- - Y - V EXI TING Ll BIT MIND S BU POU TO BE R OV D (D G E V S BY PTION CHOSEN) LAKE MINNEWASHTA I ` i 3603 RED �• ' ,�� CEDAR POINT Pei° DRIVE EXISTING HOUSE -1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT 0.6�„ SITE OF PREVIOUS FUEL OIL TANK - PENDING MPCA DOCUMENTATION ON STATUS - ASSUMED TO BE REMEDIATED PROPOSED GARAGE (F)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT: 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK DO SIBLE AND RELOCATED — �1 All HIN EABEME"T PER�CIT'Y I 2 'S)-OPTIONFONLY" I I I I EW TURNOUT- 296 S.F., SEMI -PERVIOUS F DRIVE - 100 II 30' II SETBACK CONCRETE ° 1 fo r rr ;I m op ' n a 00> cJn I 1 _ �iw ------- I -------E OHW WE INTERPObATU LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. 2 OPTIONS SHOWN, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE: OPTION E: PREFERRED - REMOVES NO MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 23.9% OF LOT OPTION F: REMOVES 4 MATURE TREES, HARDCOVER 24.9% OF LOT, VOLUNTARY STORMWATER RETENTION IF REQUIRED OSITE PLAN ,•• = 30'.0" north ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W U 0 WZZ f N O W W °C as �uZ W a < 0 w U W p V m M PH E: Sch...t" Design mn 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a a 16 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE POINT DRIVE OEXISTING NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"= 1'-0" 0 OEXISTING WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" G ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W 0 W Z Z f yOuZ -I W QN Q Ice w = peuz W 0 = W p C710 m M Schematic Design NUMBER: ISSUE DA" ISSUE DATE PM X20 GARAGE OSIDE ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'•0" OSIDE ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"= 1'-0" 27' I I I I III 12 12 1 O LEVEL _ . _ _ J( DETACHED GARAGE OPTION IF" OFRONT ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" 23' 1 x8 RAKE, TYP. 1x10 FASCIA TYP. FLASHING AT DORMER 4:12 SHED BROW AT q1TRIM AND SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING L -_ar HOUSE II I� III II I II J 8 0 ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM W > V o: 0 W Z Z f y0Z W Q N Q w = p�vz W in _ W p �10 M PROJECT PHASE: Schematic Design PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUE DATE: ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY: PM Al GARAGE 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a s 16 POINT DRIVE OPROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8"=1'•0" ------------------------ ,rT OPROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - OPTION E Scale: 1/8"= 1' 0" 3605 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE ARCHITECTS 612. R 20. 6 19 0 MACKEYMALIN.COM W V Z� W Z Z 4A w W QN Ice a W S agVz W 0 S C7ixV W p M PROJECT PHASE: 5dhemasic Design PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUE DAIS: ISSUE DATE GARAGE 3603 RED CEDAR o 2 a a 16 POINT DRIVE OPROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION F Scale: 1/8"= V-0" GI J i ARCHITECTS 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN.COM �W■ W V Z W Z Z w W Q N 0:0_ imvz W 0 _ W o PROJECT PHASE: Schematic Design PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUE DATE: ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY; PM A21 GARAGE 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 3, 2015, 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 Meeting for 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Planning Case 2015-14 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subs2crirbaed and sworn to before me this :::�— day of 2015. Notary Put., u is CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Property Owner: On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the following proposal: Request for Variances to the 75 -foot Shoreland Protection setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects. Owner: Gregg & Kellie Geiger. The public hearing on this item was CLOSED; however, the Planning Commission tabled action on the request to allow the applicant to provide alternate options. This item will be placed under the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email at dingvalsonaci.chanhassen.mn.us. Information or visit the project web page at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Property Owner: On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the following proposal: Request for Variances to the 75 -foot Shoreland Protection setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback to construct a garage on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta). Applicant: Mackey Malin Architects. Owner: Gregg & Kellie Geiger. The public hearing on this item was CLOSED; however, the Planning Commission tabled action on the request to allow the applicant to provide alternate options. This item will be placed under the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, 2015 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email at dingvalson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Information or visit the project web page at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-14 BETSY S ANDING DIANE LEESON ANDING DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SCUBA 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 SUSAN S PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 KELLIE J GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pat Mackey 5200 Washburn Avenue So., Minneapolis Dave Bishop and Nelleke Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Road PUBLIC HEARING: 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2015-14• REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND PROTECTION SETBACK AND THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3603 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: MACKEY MALIN ARCHITECTS/GREGG & KELLIE GEIGER. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman Aller and good evening to the rest of the Planning Commission. I do not have a name still but I assure you I am working here. My name is Drew Ingvalson so if you have any questions for me feel free to ask. So as you said the variance request we have in front of us today is an expansion of an existing non -conformity. The location, like you already said is 3603 Red Cedar Point. If you look on the image on your screen it is, has Lake Minnewashta sort of on the north side and then also on the south side too and then as properties to the east and to the west. Here is an image of the existing structure at Red Cedar Point Road as constructed in 1918 so we're looking at much older neighborhood within the city and the request that is being made today is the property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two story, 621 square foot garage on their property. The existing structure is an existing legal non- conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreland and front yard setbacks. Here's a survey that we have of the property. There are legal non -conformities, as I already stated. The principle structure encroaches on the shoreland setback by 44 feet. If you look over here it shows its 31 feet from the shoreland to the south. It also meets the shoreland setback to the north is 75 feet from that shoreland setback, and then it encroaches on the front yard setback which is this west property line. This was changed per city code in the early 1990's. This was previously considered a side yard. This side of a lot but with our current city code it is considered a front yard so it encroaches into that 20.4 feet. It is set back 9.6 feet from that property line. Existing infrastructure. There is a road currently providing access to people on the street. It is a private drive. Not a public street. A private drive. There's also sewer and water mains that go through Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 this property. Originally the applicant was, wished to have their detached garage structure located on the north side of the road. This came to a halt when staff noticed that there were sewer and water lines going through that area and any placed structured on the far side of the property was very, very close to the shoreland so further conversations moved where that structure would be placed which I will talk to you about later today. Here is an image. The drive is approximately 10 feet wide along here. This is looking at the drive facing west. Here is an image of the drive east. The proposed project, there are multiple locations that are being proposed for this structure but all of them are a 27 foot by 23 foot garage. Option A, which you'll see over here is the preferred option. It loads off of the street from this way. It is preferred by the applicant, sorry to not infer any confusion. The applicant then prefers Options B and then option C next respectively. And the least preferred option by the applicant is the location of D which would be the only attached structure. Also for the location of the garage for options A and options B they would be required to remove some hard cover to meet the 25 percent hard cover maximum. That will be done by removing this location of the turn around. Speaking with our fire department that is not a preferred option to remove that turn around as it serves for safety vehicles. Options C and options D would not require to remove this area. However it has been proposed by the applicant to remove this area but it will not be needed for option C or for options D. First we have option A. Option A is the applicant's preferred option. This option will require a variance from the shoreland setback of 48.5 feet. It would locate the structure 26.5 feet from the shoreland and would access off of the private drive this way and then would access into the garage from the west. The hard cover for this one would be increased to 24.77. That would include removing that hard cover area from that turn around we talked about earlier and then also there will be 3 mature trees that would need to be removed for this option. Here is a view of where option A and option C would be located. We'll talk about option C a little bit later. It will be located in this area on a concrete pad where these cars are and this tarp and here is the shoreland facing to the south. Next option we have is option B which is the applicant's next preferred option. Looking at here on the image it is 24.6 feet from the shoreline. The variance required for that would be a 50.5 foot shoreland setback variance. The hard cover for this option would be increased to 24.33. Also removing that turn around area that we talked about before. This one option would require the removal of 3 mature trees and you would access off of the road and then load into the garage from the west. Next option is option C. It's located in a similar place as option A. This would be loading actually from the north, different from the previous two options. This one would require the largest variance. 53.9 foot shoreland setback variance. It would be located 21.1 feet from the shoreline. Hard cover would be increased to 23.28 percent. This is if the turn about was, turn around was removed. And then would be 24.95 meeting the ordinance of 25 percent hard cover if it was left there. This would also require the removal of one mature tree. Option D, which is the applicant's least preferred option. This will require the most variances. First it's going to require a 17 foot shoreland variance setback to the south. You set back 58 feet from the shoreline. As you can see the structure, the existing structure would actually be between the proposed garage and the shoreline. Then also it would require a 2 foot shoreland setback from the north. You can't see on the map. The shoreland would be up here. It's going to be 73 feet in that location. Also there would be a side yard setback, or a front yard setback required, excuse me for 25.9 feet. That would locate the structure 4.2 feet from the front yard, which is the far west property line only allowing a 9 foot 9 and a quarter inch separation between the homes. Speaking with building that would require a fire rated wall for that which would be an additional requirement for the building permit. Hard 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 cover for this location would be increased to 22.3 percent. That is if the turn out was removed, as you can see in red. If it was left there it would leave it at 23.78 percent with it still left. No mature trees would be removed in this area. The only hard cover expansion since location for D is actually on existing hard cover. The only expansion for hard cover would be the driveway that would need to be expanded to complete access. A large issue with this option is loading. It would be loading from the west which would make it fairly difficult to get around the existing property to the west and loading into that garage. The alternative plan that was created by staff would require a variance still for the shoreland setback to the south. Maintain, keeping that 58 foot variance and then would have a smaller variance required for the front yard. 20.4 foot front yard setback keeping it at 9.6 feet from the property line to the west, and maintaining what is currently existing on the house at this corner of the home is currently 9.6 feet away. With this option you'd be loading from the north. I'm sorry excuse me, the option to the south, or the option, this alternative option would maintain a 15 foot building separation which would not require an additional requirement from the building department for the fire rating. Hard cover would not exceed 25 percent for this option. The applicant's option which would remove the part of the turn out would put it at 23 percent. If it was left there it'd be a 24 percent. Looking at this dark area right here that would be maintaining the 10 foot driveway through here which, or drive that goes through the property. The applicant has proposed a larger area with the dotted area. That would keep it still underneath the 25 percent hard cover. And for this area just like option D there won't be any mature trees removed. Here is a view of option D and the alternative plan location. Here is the house looking from the north from the private drive. Here's a view of the neighboring house to the west. They have a garage on this side. There aren't any windows on this side for this side of the property. And as I said before earlier this property was built in, this structure was built in 1918 so looking at this image I'll walk you through a little bit of it. The yellow line shows all the properties that are within 500 feet of the subject property. And in red are all properties that do not meet the shoreland setback requirement. Some of these are because they were built before the shoreland setback was put in place. Also the yellow is the subject property which also doesn't meet the shoreland setback requirement. And there was a couple errors in the staff report that I'd bring up. First of all the staff report read that variances within 500 feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive on Attachment number 8 should actually read 500 feet within 3603 Red Cedar Point, the subject property. All of the variances that were given in there were correct. Just that error with the top address. And in looking at this, properties that have an X on them are properties that were given a shoreline setback variance. If you look on here there are 6 properties within 500 feet that were granted those. Properties that have a square around them are properties with a front yard or side yard setback variance. The largest shoreline setback variance granted in this area was 45 feet with the farthest property to the east. There's also been multiple variances for front yards. Looking at the largest one was back in 1979 with a 23 foot front yard variance but later was constructed with a 12 foot front yard. There's also been side yard setback variances granted and this was due to the properties currently. The properties we view, these north and south property lines are on the far east and west. Those are considered front yard and rear yards but per our city code prior to early 90's that was considered a side yard so there were side yard variances granted back in 1992 and 1988 cases. And it should also be mentioned that there was another, just something to clear up what the staff report that in 1986 it stated that was when the city started managing shorelands per our chapter of the city code and that was true in 1986 because there was an ordinance that was for statewide and that was when we adopted. That was 1986 but the city was enforcing shoreline Chanhassen Planning Commission— July 21, 2015 management back in 1977 which was a different statute by the State which was just for municipalities so that's why we have variances that were from 1979 for shoreline setbacks and other variances within the shoreland management. The recommended motion from the staff is the planning, as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the variance request to construct a two story garage that encroaches into the shoreland setback and front yard setback and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. However if the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds a reasonable request and wishes to grant a variance staff recommends that they approve a 17 foot shoreline setback variance and a 20.4 foot front yard setback variance to construct a two story attached garage subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. The driveway grade must not be less than .5 percent and must not exceed 10 percent. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns and the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. Here are the architectural plans that were provided by the applicant. These were for the 23 foot by 27 foot garage options that they gave. Options A through D. However staff would strongly recommend and encourage any, to have this also be a similar style that would match the house for an option or alternative option or any option that they go forward with. At that point I'd like to open for any questions that you may have. Aller: Questions at this point. Weick: I do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Did you calculate for options, I think it was A and B that had some, it was bumping up against the hard surface requirement. Did you calculate what that hard surface would be if they left the turn around? Ingvalson: I actually don't have that with me, no. Weick: Okay. Ingvalson: But it would be over the 25 percent. Weick: It would be over but. Ingvalson: Correct. Weick: Within a couple percent. Ingvalson: Correct. It's about a 1 percent difference. Weick: So for clarification if we were to approve one of those options we could ask for a variance there as well to keep that turn around. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. It'd be about a 26 percent. Weick: Okay. That's all I had. Aller: Anything else at this point? That was a great report Drew and I appreciate you going through each one of the options. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: So we'll probably be revisiting them in a minute. Ingvalson: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time we'll ask the applicant to come forward. If they'd like to come forward and tell us about their request. Gregg Geiger: Good evening. My name is Gregg Geiger and I reside at 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive. Aller: Welcome Mr. Geiger. Gregg Geiger: I'm joined today with my wife Kellie and my daughter Kelsey. I would like to give to you a little bit of a homeowner's view of the situation so maybe you can understand a little bit better. I appreciate Drew's report because now I can get through mine a little bit faster. The first couple side slides were already covered so next slide please. So in general at the essence here the request is for, we're seeking a variance for a new detached garage on a property that has no garage so that's the essence of it. So we've essentially survived a winter. We moved in in September of last year and we had, we experienced one winter so far and it was a fairly mild winter but certainly we recognize now the need for or the utility of a garage in Minnesota which we've lived in Minnesota for some time now but this is the first time without one. Next one please Drew. So Drew's already covered a lot of this stuff as far as the peninsula is concerned. There's a map. I'm sure you're all familiar with what Lake Minnewashta, this is the peninsula then that sticks out. The finger that sticks out running from west to east into the lake and our property is there shown in overhead in yellow. This is a view from the north part of the lake looking south at the north shoreline. Just to give you a flavor for what the peninsula looks like in terms of tree cover and in terms of what you can see in terms of building density. Next slide please. So the lot itself, again Drew's covered much of this. The blue outlines the house and the red is honestly where we park our cars so we, we use what is termed here the turn around as a place where we park our cars so this represents about 5 places that we can park. I indicated in the green circles here some of the major trees and some of those trees so for instance the cluster of trees on the north is, those are, that's a fairly large cluster of trees. They're pretty tall and they're very significant. The other, some of the other features then as we go through here and we, Drew covered up a little bit about this is that hard cover that exists on the mid-plane, midway between the two side yards is existing hard cover that would be affected by several of the options. Soon the next slide then I've just listed out some of the features that have already been discussed that make this lot somewhat unique. One is that it's bordered on two sides by Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 lakeshore. It is divided also, so we have the two side issues but we also have running down the middle then is the shared driveway as well as the sewer lines so. Sewer and water mains so we have a bit of a challenge of placement of any sort of structure because of that. I think we determined that approximately 390 square feet of buildable area exists if we apply all the setbacks and all the requirements to it so it's, it's a tough lot to build and we recognize that. There was once a fuel oil tank on the property. We understand it's been removed. We contacted the authority, authorizing agencies and such and have assurance that it has been taken care of but that fuel tank sat right underneath that, right near that hard cover that exists in the middle of the lot. Drew showed it as a picnic table type area there. It's right adjacent to that so it's a consideration. It's not something that we're necessarily concerned about but it's something that we have thought about. Next slide please. The garage option locations are shown. We've gone through them. They've already been discussed. I would answer any questions you might have about them. Again we note that these, the outlines shown here are all that original 23 by 27 application so they are not showing the proposed, the staff proposed 21 by 21 borders. Okay, that's fine. The next slide is good. So then this, this is again the, one of the shoreline views looking from the north looking south at the north shoreline showing you where those, where those various options would be. So option D in this picture is to the right. Options A and C are in the middle there and option B is to the left. You can see that big, that large clump of trees then that kind of in this view kind of obscure the house and those are significant, and the house itself has many trees around it that are large. Next slide please. So as far as the considerations are concerned, this is not based on economics alone. There is no garage for this single family residence at this time. The circumstances were not created by us or by many of the previous owners. It's a unique lot on a narrow peninsula. It was built in 1918. We believe and we intend to retain the essential character of the place. The architect's view that was provided earlier matches actually as far as stone work and as siding is concerned. What the existing house would look like so you, it will look like the existing home. And also the building density and scale will remain consistent. This is not a super tall structure. This isn't a super wide structure. It's a garage that will be consistent with what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. As far as mitigations are concerned, option A certainly has its challenges but we believe some of those challenges can be overcome. In terms of hard cover we note that all options are below the 25 percent and this option replaces approximately 225 square feet of existing hard cover. As far as runoff is concerned we believe that there are ways to reduce and mitigate the problems associated with runoff with good gutter design and rain gardens for instance could help in that regard and we would certainly work to make that sort of thing happen. The nearest property line setback in this particular one again for option A is approximately 60 feet. It's a decent way away from the neighboring lot. As far as shade tree removal is concerned, shade trees are important to us as homeowners and we would replace those with appropriate fast growing trees. Option D clearly has its challenges. It bumps up to an existing house so I'm kind of giving you the, we rated the options in terms you know A, B, C and D in kind of our priority order and some of that priority order was the setback. A was the furthest from the lakeshore. B was the next closest and C was the next closest there and then D just represents more of a challenge for us as homeowners and some of those challenges include the existing house that we would really have to get into that existing house and get into that structure and part of the existing house is the stone work of course around the house and that would be, it's not just taking down siding and putting in some joists and moving forward. There's a little bit more to it. There would be a little bit of a trap space between the house and the garage as indicated on staff drawings. That would M Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 be a very unusable gap as it currently stands. This particular option reduces the overall parking availability by about one stall and so if we have a two car garage and then we use those other two, two areas in the turn around that gets us to 4 stalls and now we've gone from a 5 to a 4 kind of capacity so it's a consideration. And of course the hard cover associated with increasing, giving a little bit of a bump to the driveway so that we can actually get in and out of the driveway would be a little bit of an addition to hard cover. Next slide please. And I mention that because the turning radius is very tight there. There's some marks on the driveway there that were placed there and the mark that is indicated is the one that is, is the staff recommended 21 by 21 square foot corner so that's the northwest corner of where the garage would be so we, and you can get a sense of scale there for, there's an ... that's parked in that particular spot where the garage would be so you get, kind of understand how big the space would be, and how challenging it could be to get in and out of that area. Next is again kind of adding to the driveway tortuosity here is, this is a view looking from the west to the east and you can see the house kind of jutting out there into the driveway so what the driveway does right now is it kind of comes to the house and goes around the house and comes out the other, comes out the other side there so there's a bit of a turn around there for our neighbors to get around. The point where the arrow is pointing is the point where the 21 foot by 21 foot garage would be. Would come to, to give you a nice idea of that. So at least from this particular view I don't know that it looks substantially different and again we would be keeping the character of the house there so it would look very similar to what it looks like now for approaching cars. So in short and then again back to the original request this is a request for a variance for a garage on a lot that has no garage currently. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. How many cars do you have now? Gregg Geiger: We have 5 cars. Aller: Five cars. And so you use the tum around. If there was a fire, the fire department wouldn't be too happy about that or? Gregg Geiger: Yeah they probably wouldn't quite frankly. It's a challenge. Now you know in the summer time everything's good. You just drive onto a large lot there. There's a wide open field. Certainly in the winter time it would be, anything in the winter regardless of whether there's a pad there or not it's going to be a challenge. Aller: You've got to push that snow. And then when we're talking about driving by the house to get out to the point, is there sufficient room to be safe for a car to go by there especially in the winter when we have to push that snow back or? Gregg Geiger: You know our neighbors are good about driving slowly and cautiously. Sometimes when you get visitors they may not be as familiar with the area and that's, I have a little bit of concern. I mean it really is a turn. It's not, you're not going straight. You're making a bend there so it's a challenge. Aller: How much hard cover is left to go around after the garage is there? As far as the driveway or the drive width. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: For which option? Aller: To go by. If the property has the D Ingvalson: If they have, so if you're looking at option D there's an added hard cover to that area. However it would not exceed the hard cover maximum. What was calculated by the applicant did not actually included that hard cover for option D in as another additional for hard cover. However for the, when you're adding that you're double adding because that area's already paved so when you're adding, you could actually leave that turn around area without having to go over the 25 percent or anything add on there. Aller: And if cars are parked in the turn around and there's a structure there, how much space is there for a vehicle to get around? Ingvalson: So there would only be 7 feet if nothing was added so that was why a part of that application would be requiring the applicant to expand that area with some more pavement to make sure that that was safe. I believe what was proposed by the applicant to turn it to a 13 foot wide area. While the majority of the road is 10 feet wide so we would be making it wider and that was a part of what staff would recommend for the alternative option was to maintain at least a 10 foot wide drive. What they have and then no wider than 24 feet. Aller: And if it went wider than 24 feet you're increasing the hard cover past the 25 percent. Ingvalson: Absolutely, it would be over the 25 percent so it would be also part of that. Would maintain the 25 percent hard cover. Gregg Geiger: If I might remind folks though if that were the case though then we'd be taking out some of the hard cover, that 225 square feet of hard cover over, or running the option of C as mitigating for hard cover. Aller: When you purchased the property there wasn't a garage there and what were your intentions? Did you buy the property intending to put this here or did you talk to people? Gregg Geiger: Yeah sure. We visited with staff before. I met Bob last summer so we were, we went in not assuming or not expecting a guarantee but saying is there a process that allows us to discuss this in a reasonable type fashion and we were assured that there was and indeed seems to be so. You know we recognize this as something that we were buying on hoping that we could get something but no guarantees... Aller: Great. Any additional questions or comments? Madsen: I have a question on option D. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Madsen: As I understand it encroaches on the neighbor's property a bit if you need to get in your garage that loads from the west, is that correct? Gregg Geiger: We're going to have to see exactly how that, I think that, how we could play that out. Again it's, there's two things that go on here. One is to get enough driveway space for cars to pass by and second is to get a turning radius to get something, some sort of car in there. Something beyond a Smart car perhaps. I don't have, I don't know Pat if you can discuss this. Pat Mackey: The intent with option D was that it would load, enter from the north because to enter from the west would require encroaching on the neighbor's property. Gregg Geiger: Yep so maybe that's the confusion Madsen: Oh so it would load from the north. Pat Mackey: Loading from the north. Aller: And for the record sir if you could state your name and address. Pat Mackey: I'm sorry. My name is Pat Mackey. I'm with Mackey Malin Architects. I'm the designer for the applicant. Aller: Thank you sir. Pat Mackey: Thank you. Gregg Geiger: I'm sorry for not making that clear. Madsen: No, thank you very much for that clarification. Aanenson: I would just say the garage ... the other way so that was some confusion on our part because that's not how the drawing showed it. Ingvalson: I apologize. If you look at the architectural plans it shows the 23 foot wide area being entering from that way so when you're looking at option D, this would be the 23 foot wide section. That is why that arrow is assumed to be entering from this way. Gregg Geiger: For D correct. Those are the original 23 by 27. Now we're kind of talking now about a 21 by 21 which makes the loading now from the north. Madsen: Okay the alternative rather than the D. Gregg Geiger: Yeah. I was referring A through D as locations correct. Madsen: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Gregg Geiger: And specific designs Pat Mackey: And if I may the elevations are, the options for any of the three detached options, we haven't dealt into the attached option. The aesthetic of it. Obviously the skin, the materials of it would be consistent with the existing house but the form shown there isn't something you can just push up to the existing house. There would be some finessing and reworking of the roof line. Consideration there. Aller: And if we were to take staff option would that be a shared wall then. Would it be connected to the house or would it be separate? Gregg Geiger: Correct. Pat Mackey: Correct. Yeah you could pretty much disregard the form that's shown on this sheet A-1 and we would kind of be starting with the form of the existing house and working with that. There's a solution there. We just haven't pursued it. Tietz: If it were detached, what's the intended use of the studio space and are there city regulations for how that space would be used? I'm not sure about that. Gregg Geiger: So if I could speak as the homeowner the intent for the studio space is, for instance my wife is a quilter and that would be a nice, would make for a nice area where she could have a permanent quilt area so it's not intended as. Tietz: But there'd be no utilities or Gregg Geiger: Well as far as electricity is concerned. Tietz: Well yeah but I mean as far as plumbing or. Gregg Geiger: Aside from what is necessary in a garage. Tietz: Okay. Gregg Geiger: If we talk about a heated garage for instance I don't know, we haven't kind of gotten down to those. That would be a gas line. Tietz: I guess I'd just be concerned that in the future if it became habitable and became a. Gregg Geiger: So hopefully a studio space would be habitable in the winter if we wanted. Pat Mackey: I think if I may we're talking about two different kinds of habitable. Tietz: Yeah. I'm talking about living space. Pat Mackey: There's no intent for this to function as a dwelling at all. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission —July 21, 2015 Tietz: Okay. Pat Mackey: And it's essentially utility space. Weather storage. Craft. You name it. Aller: Wouldn't preclude you from running a gas or electric line in there for purposes of a gas driver, things of that nature. Pat Mackey: Correct. Aller: Any additional questions? Weick: There are. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I noticed in one of your pictures there were other people kind of parked off the private drive. Are there other homes on the peninsula without garages? Or is that just overflow parking? Ingvalson: The majority of the homes on that drive have a garage of some sort and many of the variances that were granted were for, some of them were for a detached garage. Weick: Okay. And how much, and you're going to have to, if you attached the garage there were windows. I mean how, yeah thank you. How much does that impact, I'm not sure what the living spaces are behind there. You know what those rooms are. Gregg Geiger: So if we can just look at this particular drawing here, or photo here. Weick: Yeah. Gregg Geiger: The window on the right for instance is our bedroom. Master bedroom. On the left there, so there's the part jutting out that is sort of a family room. Sort of a large family room where we have TV and couch and chairs and such. And you can see the basement windows down in front. Weick: Okay. Madsen: With the family room are there windows on the other? Gregg Geiger: Yeah so it goes all the way around. Madsen: All the way around, okay. And on the bedroom are there windows on any other walls? Gregg Geiger: There's some windows over on, in this case the comer ... which would be the southwest. Southwest corner of the house. There's two windows right now. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Madsen: Okay, thank you. Gregg Geiger: One facing each of the primary directions. One window facing to the west. One window facing south. There's the other side of this jutting out family room. Aller: Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you sir. At this point in time we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone in the audience wishing to come forward speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Nelleke Knight: I'm Nelleke Knight and I live on Red Cedar Point 3605 Dave Bishop: I'm Dave Bishop. I live at the same place. Nelleke's from the Netherlands and English is not her first language so we're going to kind of present together. If you don't understand either one of us please let us know. It might be me. Aller: That's fine. I just ask that we don't talk over each other and we'll try to do the same. Dave Bishop: That sounds fine and thank you. We kind of go by north, south, east and west and the subject property is east of Nelleke's property and so they are, we are on the west side of them okay. My first question that I wanted to ask is I've gone through the record that is available to us on the internet and there was a letter from the landholder that was on the east of the subject property, the Papp's. I know I have a copy of it. I know it's not in the internet record and my question is have you guys all got a copy of it? And the answer is yes you do. Okay. My summary of their situation is that they object to all of these proposals as do we. I have to say at the outset it's a little frustrating that since this was first applied for there's been either 6 or 7 proposals and it's kind of wackamol for the neighbors as to you know what it is that we are responding to. First they were going to put it in the turn around area. Then they were going to put it on the north side. Then another place on the north side. Then they were going to put it on the south side right next to the Papp's. Setbacks, side setback. Then they have two that are kind of in the middle of the property and then they have one that's going to be in our side yard and now the city staff has even volunteered to do the legwork to propose yet another parcel which I'm going to call E because I don't know what to call the staff s suggestion for this but you know I have difficulties with the fact that all of these are a, we have an elevation for a detached 23 by 27 foot garage but there's no elevations at all for this so called D. Nelleke Knight. D. Dave Bishop: D and there's no elevations at all for the staff s so called E which is on our side of the property so we don't know what it's going to look like and we therefore don't have our right to give you input as to what we think the conditions ought to be should you make a decision to impose either D or E on us. I think that if they had originally come with an application and they had not even given you an elevation for D or E the City probably would have just turned it back and said the elevation, the elevations are critical to the application and we can't proceed until we get it so D and E are a black box. I'm going to assume that it is what we have been told and I'm 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 going to speak to what we know so far. There are two fundamental issues here. I'm going to break them down each as sub -parts okay but the one thing that I think is concerning to Nelleke and I is the concept that there's some kind of hardship by not having a two car garage here on the point. Now in fact of the 10 houses starting from the water and working your way up the point, 4 of them do not have garages. Six of them do have garages so there's a long history of not having garages on the point and in fact I would dare say 50,000 to 100,000 people in the metropolitan area do not have two car garages. It is not requirement and we have heard from the staff that you know if this was a new construction, well you would require that it have a two story garage. This is not new construction. If it were new construction there'd be 300 and some square feet to build on which means you'd build a shed, and even that you wouldn't build because that area happens to be in a 15 foot easement to the benefit of us and to the benefit of the Papp's which runs for ingress and egress through that area. And there haven't been any mention of this. The staff feels that it's a private easement so if you give the okay to put something in the middle of our easement then we have to go a court and undo that and our feeling is you should think about that when you decide whether it is appropriate to grant an easement that in fact intrudes on our 15 foot wide space in order to get into the property which is, it's actually a public easement so it's your, it's your opportunity to access that as well. Okay so as to the issue of you know is, is it necessary that you have a two car garage. The applicants had, and I'm not a power point guy so I don't help this. Do you have the ability to show video? Okay. I'm going to do this. Can you see that? There you go. I've been informed that this is the house that they sold in order to buy the house that they got. They gave up their indoor swimming pool and they gave up their 3 car garage because they felt living on the point with its beautiful views and its access to the water was worth an extra $100,000. It's not that anybody had any kind of a surprise that there isn't a garage there. There was a knowing decision that we're trading X in order to get Y and Y doesn't have a 3 car garage and I think that that is important because they aren't the first people to own this property. It's been owned by many people. Let's see do you have your affidavit Nelleke? Nelleke Knight: Yeah I actually gave it to you. This is Dave Bishop: We've talked with the city staff a month ago, 2 weeks ago, last Friday as to what was there on 3503 in prior years and we hear things like well your photographs could be photo shopped. They may not be accurate. We don't know what to believe. We can only go by the paperwork that is in our office and we don't, we can't actually do an investigation like call the applicant up and ask him what was there or actually go inside their house and take a look at what was there so with your permission I'd like to give you, this is an Affidavit ... so that there isn't any question as to whether or not we feel that we're telling the truth. Aller: Does planning have a copy of this already or is this the first time? Dave Bishop: It's the only copy that exists. You have the original. Aller: So what I'm going to ask before I even read this is that why don't we take a little bit of a break here and we'll take a recess for a minute and let's make a copy of this. Aanenson: Yeah, well we can adjust that quickly. The practical difficulty that we're dealing with here is a front and side yard setback. We didn't get into the issues of taking it to where they 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 wanted to go. We also did speak to the City Attorney regarding the right-of-way issue which there's a lot of ambiguity in that so we stepped away from that so we stuck to the issues. Aller: Right. Aanenson: I think we're putting a lot of other things now moving towards trying to, we were just trying to keep it clear on what we believe was the issue in front of you. If you want to take a minute to read that, be more than happy to take a quick recess. Aller: I do because I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Whether it gets advanced and of course will become part of the package but I don't know what's in it or whether it's going to be relevant to what we're talking about right now so we're going to make a copy and then we'll take a look at it. Dave Bishop: That's fine. I just want to respond to what I just heard Aller: Sure. Dave Bishop: If I understand you correctly, in order to grant this you have to meet 4 criteria. One of those criteria, at a minimum. You can deny it for any reasonable reason but you have to meet the 4 criteria and one of the criteria I think is that the hardship or the inconvenience or the difficulty should not be caused by the people who owned the property and what this affidavit is going to tell you is this property had a 2 car garage and the owners made the decision that they would rather have a larger basement and not have a garage and so when they say well we're only going to look at the narrow issues I take a little umbrage with that because. Aller: Let me just interrupt you. When you say owners are we talking about the applicant? Dave Bishop: No the people in the chain of title. And they take the property as they find it I believe. I'm not acting as a lawyer. I'm just saying as the next door neighbors it's our view that they take the property as they find it and the way they find it is that it has a 2 car garage already. They just decided, the previous owners just decided to board it up and that that creates a conflict with the requirement that it not be, the people in the title's actions that caused this to occur in my opinion. Aller: Okay, I understand your position. Dave Bishop: Okay. No not yet. They're going to take a break if I understand it. Aller: We'll take a two -minute break, or recess until we get a copy and then we'll take a look at it. We're in recess. The Planning Commission took a recess at this point in the meeting to make copies of an Affidavit submitted by Nelleke Knight and Dave Bishop. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Okay we're going to call this meeting back to order. For the record we received an Affidavit of Maria Knight and the original has been provided to staff to go with the file and we've received true and accurate copies of a two-page affidavit along with some pictures and I'm going to summarize that as a statement that you live to the west at 3605. That you bought the property and had been there for more than. Nelleke Knight. Well I live to the west of 3603. Aller: Oh at 3603. Thank you. Dave Bishop: No she lives at 3605 which is at the west of 3603. Aller: Right. Nelleke Knight. Yeah. Aller: So you are at 3605? Nelleke Knight: Yes. Dave Bishop: Yes. Aller: Okay. That you live there. That you know that the property at 3603 had a 2 car garage at some point in time. That garage was torn down by prior owners. Dave Bishop: It was not torn down. Aller: Just closed off. Nelleke Knight: Closed off, yes. Aller: Okay so, in the remodeling and that you believe that the variance should be denied because there was a choice made by the prior owner to forego the garage. And it's your position then that the new owners should be held to that standard to rely on what the other property owner did and that we are also bound by that. Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Aller: Okay. So that's a fair statement of what's in here and that will be attached, thank you. Dave Bishop: So the affidavit is to address the concerns that we heard from the staff that we weren't telling the truth and I think there will be another resident of the point that will reiterate the veracity of what that says that's coming later so you'll hear that again. This is, let's see. I don't want to get this out of order. Aller: So what other items are there? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Dave Bishop: Well I believe this is on cable TV isn't it? Aller: It is. Dave Bishop: Okay so they haven't seen these photos so what I want to do is just real quickly show them so there's a clear record. This is the house as it exists today. Aller: Okay I'm going to stop you there. It's part of the record now. We've read it and I don't want to take a lot of time looking at photographs of the condition of the property way back when. We're taking your affidavit at face value and we're going to move forward. Dave Bishop: Can I point out some things on the photo? Aller: Sure, if it has to do with the applicant's application. Dave Bishop: Yes. There are some things that the affidavit doesn't state. This is an 1985 picture that is part of the affidavit but it does not show, state that the reason the photo was in there is because this is, this is Nelleke's mother and this is the window that you can see going into the garage that we have shown you with the light on. Aller: Okay thank you. Dave Bishop: This was taken yet this week and the purpose of this is to show that the outside stanchion for the garage is here and you can see that there is a difference in the color for, and yeah it's hard to see from this but it sticks out in this area which constitutes the left side of the filled in area and this, you can see the line right here constitutes the filled in area over here and the original for the right side. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Now one of the things that, Drew maybe you can go back to it but one of the comments that I heard was that our residence doesn't any windows on the east side. Aller: Sir I'm not really concerned with your residence not having windows unless it's an impact. Dave Bishop: Oh it does. All I want to do is make it clear. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Because I think it was a misstatement and I want the record to be clear on it. Okay this is our residence and you can see that there is a garage and there's the east side of the garage but if you look beyond the garage you'll see that there's a window that it constitutes our front window and there it goes. Okay. So there is a window there okay and this is, this is what you would see. If you can turn this on. This is what you would see if you were looking out that 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 window. It's a little low but it kind of shows you the 3 points that I wanted to make clear. There was a proposal D and proposal D as it was originally stated was that they would build a garage that would come out this far and out this far. Now this is the road here. This is east going up this way and this is north going this way. So the original proposal was that the garage would be up to here. Yes, he's right. Up to here. This is proposal D. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. That's the part that's on our side of this. Now as you cansee proposal D is more than, I mean there's only like 4 feet or so to the far side of the road. It's right in the middle of the easement. Can you see that? Now if you look at what was originally proposed you'll see that there's an arrow indicating how they were going to get into this and the way they were going to get into this was not from the north like they said today. The arrow shows and what we're responding to is that they were going to drive in this way and the only way they were going to do that was to go right by our property. Right through our property. Right through the middle of our property. Aller: And there's an easement there. Dave Bishop: Yes there is and we own it. Aller: Okay and it's a shared easement so they have a right to drive on it. Dave Bishop: No, well this is a garage that is going to go from here to here and then from here and over to about here, okay. Now maybe they can squeeze through the easement to get into this car but they'll never get it into this car without going through our property. It can't be, I don't believe it can be done. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: Okay. Now that's their proposal. It made so little sense that we thought what they must have meant was that they would take their 27 by 23 two story garage and they would turn it this way. Okay so this is the line if they would do that and it suffers the same defect. Its right in the middle of the easement and it would block us and the Papp's from getting in and out of this area. Now the City said well we'll cut this down to 21 by 21. Well that puts the line right there. Okay. So this is what it looks like if you look out our window, okay. And this is my interpretation of what it looks like if they build what they said they were going to build. Now this is photo shopped. I admit that just to be illustrative, okay. You know this is what we're looking at now and this is what we would be looking at if they built it turned around so that the short side of this thing would be in the short direction rather than sticking out the long way. It still absolutely destroys the view. And this is what we have today and this is what we would have on the City's 21 by 21. This is just my guesstimate because I have no idea what the elevations are, as does anyone else because this is just pulled out of the air. It's just, there's no information on this one but that's what we lose. Okay now the other statement essentially was that, there's a 30 foot setback according to Chanhassen's law between our property and the adjoining property and if the City wants to change that I suppose they can but the fact that it is a 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 front yard under the City's statute does not turn it into a side yard because it looks like it. It is what it is. It's a front yard. It's a 30 foot setback. It's not a 10 foot setback. And this is the view we have now from the middle of our property on essentially very close to the lot line. And you can see back here the line for the garage. And this is harder to understand but we would see the tree and we would miss everything else if they built this on the property so it is a visual, a huge visual encroachment on us by accepting this 20 foot variance that's being requested in our opinion. We have been given I guess several times a survey purported to be on this property. The survey that we received on its face indicates that it located no boundary markers and we and the Papp's vehemently disagree on the accuracy of the survey. The permeable, impermeable service, impermeable surface statistics that the staff has been quoting you is based on what the surveyor told them but neither the City nor us have any way to replicate those and you know using my protractor and graph paper I didn't come anywhere near the percentages that they have. Some of which are numbers like 24.96 percent which makes we wonder if somebody fudged a square foot here and there. I don't know but I do know that Nelleke claims all of this area here, okay. Am I correct Nelleke that the Papp's told you that they claim the area here? Nelleke Knight: Yeah. Dave Bishop: Okay. I don't know what those percentages are but I do believe that is a disputed boundary and that although the survey might be made by a surveyor and whatever is on the line if he signed it, it doesn't make it any more accurate and so our position is those are disputed boundaries and that if you took into account those boundaries, D and E are even less feasible. Drew do you have something that shows A, B and C on it? It's hard to see here which is A and B. I guess I'll talk about B first because I think, actually the letters have changed. Yeah they've changed on this one from what they used to be. So B is now the one closest to the Papp's and I will refer you to the Papp's letter and I will simply reiterate that we agree and believe everything that is said in that letter as respects to it destroying the natural tenure of the point. The reason that there is a unique situation is that there's water on both sides. That makes it unique and therefore the State and the City have come to the conclusion that you need to protect these unique things by putting 75 foot setbacks on them. If you, you know junk this up with more structures it doesn't look like a point anymore. It looks like a peninsula and we, we believe that you know and the City apparently agrees with us that it's just totally inappropriate. Now this is a good time for me to talk about what it is they have actually proposed here okay. Aller: Let me ask you, do you have anything further on C or B? Dave Bishop: Yes I'm talking just about B now but my comments refer to A and C and B. All three of them. Aller: Okay. Dave Bishop: The concept of a two story, 27 by 23 foot, two car garage and studio is just horrid, horrid over reach. We suggested to them that they could build a two -car shed roof. Single story and blend it in so that it was almost unviewable and that was apparently rejected. We did have a meeting with the applicant and one of the things that applicant told us was that you know they M Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 want this second story as additional living space because we hear today that they want you know to do crocheting but what we heard at the meeting was. Nelleke Knight: Quilting. Dave Bishop: Quilting, I'm sorry. My mistake but what we heard at the meeting was that they have a son who is a fashion designer and that it is part of their family tradition for him to come back from New York City and spend 4 days building out his line and so in my view, in our view this is just a commercial enterprise and they want more space because the 2,800 square feet that they already have isn't sufficient to build this haute couture. Fine idea to do but that's why we have rental space. We don't see anything in the proposal that says no sewer. No electricity. No gas. No water. In fact the City has told us that if you allow this that there's nothing to prevent them from doing all of that and making this simply more living accommodations. They can say today they don't want to do it but you know at this meeting they said this is their tenth house I believe that they've bought. They've had 9 before this so although they say they want to be here forever, when it gets sold what the next guy does once you do the zoning is out of your control. You've lost your shot at it and now we have you know instead, basically instead of 2 houses to the water we have 3 houses to the water and that's not appropriate given the existing zoning and that applies to all 3 of those locations. Now applying to A and C, okay. This is a, this property had a somewhat interesting checkered history. It had a $1.1 million dollar mortgage on it. It was foreclosed on. Aller: Sir I need to stop you now because we're going way over, I'm trying to be lenient on what's coming in here but we can't be talking about what you think someone else is going to do. We can't be talking about what's been done in the past. What the mortgage on the property is. That's not before us. That's a personal business decision by the homeowners. If you have a lot line survey that you want to present, I'll look at the survey. If you have information that was directly told to you, great but speculation we can't have at this point. Dave Bishop: Okay I won't speculate. I actually observed that after this was foreclosed upon and went to the bank, the bank hired people to come out and remove the oil tank from this property. I observed them do that and I looked at the punctured hole in the oil tank and I observed the oil that was in the ground below the tank and I talked with them about their remediation. I talked with the guy who was doing the remediation and they said they weren't taking soil. They were just taking the tank. That's what I know of of my own personal. Okay second to that issue, after that occurred the bank hired somebody to monitor this and those people contacted us and they asked us if there was any contamination and so we looked because it wasn't purchased at the time. This was 2014 in December. The point I'm getting to is, they told us. They told us that we should look at our, what do you call it? Takes the water out. Nelleke Knight: Sump pump. Dave Bishop: Sump pump. They should look at our sump pumps to see if the sump pumps are picking up oil. Well it turns out that we couldn't discern it in our's because our's is pitch black so we went over to this property and we found oil coming out of their sump pump and we took photographs of it and we sent it to them but we heard nothing back. Now if you look on the 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 papers that were submitted to you they will tell you they have, they know they have a tank and that they know that there's an issue with building on that site. In my opinion I haven't seen anything that actually says it's remediated other than hearsay from people saying well we don't know whether there's a problem or not but one of the conditions if you should allow A or C is that that property underlying it be completely remediated. Okay that's my point. Aller: Thank you. Dave Bishop: Now what else, we've got a few others Aller: Anything that you haven't spoken on before? Dave Bishop: Yeah. If you decide to make some kind of a positive on this we object to it being a two car garage. We object to it being a two story garage. We object to it being used as a sewing room or commercial area or whatever. We believe that you can make as a condition that it be one story with a shed roof. We think that as a condition you can require that it not have sewer, water or heat other than electricity. In other words that it be a garage for two cars and not back door way of expanding a property for professional use or making it a habitable space. Habitable space. Anything else? Nelleke Knight: Sounds good Dave Bishop: Okay. Aller: Great, thank you sir. Dave Bishop: The only thing I would say is I understand you're going to close the public part of this hearing. I don't know whether it is your normal procedure, because I don't appear in front of you, to then like negotiate with the applicant on well would you do this. Would you do that but if you do decide to do that I would simply ask that you re -open the public part so we can respond to anything you decide to negotiate. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional members of the public wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing at this time on this item and I'll open it to discussion. I do have some questions for staff on the easement if we could discuss that a bit. Aanenson: Sure. Drew and Bob spoke with the City Attorney regarding the easement. It's written awkwardly and it appeared there was no public interest in that easement so clearly the property easement runs with the property owners. This is similar to the one that, if you recall the one just north off of Mrs. Carlson's property. The Frethem subdivision where we had the easement back in those, there were 3 homes on that private driveway. Written awkwardly and so there's some ambiguity there but there's no public interest in that and certainly it'd be the intent to keep the driveway the similar width that it is today but it would be. Aller: That's the reason for the additional pavement was to keep the width. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Ingvalson: Correct. Correct. Aller: And there are conditions on all these items which would require that proper building code standards were adhered to. Ingvalson: Correct. Aller: Anybody have additional questions based on the comments at this point? The two properties that are next door, did they each receive variances? Ingvalson: Yes. They both received variances. Looking back on our variance map. The property to the east was granted a 45 foot shoreline setback variance. That's the largest one variance that's been granted in this area from the shoreline. And then the property to the west was granted a 4 foot side yard to the east and then also a 2 foot side yard to the west setbacks and then also a 26 foot shoreline setback variance. Aller: Was there an indication on what those were for? Ingvalson: If I remember correctly I believe it says in the packet. It was for a, for the construction of a detached two stall garage and a second floor bedroom expansion. Or that would be for the property to the west. Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Okay discussion. We have a lot of options. Talk about A. Talk about B. Talk about C. Talk about D. Talk about E. We can start with throwing out the reasons why I prefer E if we're going to do it as a starting point and probably a finishing point because it's got the less impact. Safely wise. Audience: Would it be okay if you got closer to the microphone? Aller: Oh sure, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Audience: Yeah. Aller: Great, thank you. I apologize. Hokkanen: I said what about E. I didn't expand on it yet. I was just thinking about it. Let me think. Aller: E as opposed to none. I look at the. Audience: We still can't hear you. Aller: I look at the property and I look at the reason that I asked them about when they purchased the property was I wanted to see what their intent was coming in and there doesn't appear to be to me an indication that they didn't feel as though the property was going to be, or 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 this variance was going to be granted but they would be coming in to ask for the variance and in looking at the variances that have already been granted on a property that was developed in 1918 and we've done this before in other properties, I think it is a unique property. I don't think there's any question about it. I think it's an undue hardship on them, or I should say a practical difficulty upon them and I do think that it's a reasonable use of the property to have a garage. And I think what they're giving up here potentially is the ability to have 5 cars because they won't be able to park them all there. They're going to lose some parking spots so they are giving up things in order to gain the garage in this instance and I think it comports with the neighborhood as it exists. So I don't think it's an unreasonable use that they're asking for. I do think it's unique and I do not believe that they are held in any form or fashion, nor am I or we as a commission held based upon the decisions to follow what a prior owner has done in a new owner's application so that's my first blush response. Yusuf: I partially agree with that. If we are to proceed with an option I would be leaning more towards option E. Option E seems to encroach the least on everything and allows you to have the two car garage without really encroaching too much in the variances and all the setbacks that are required so option E would be the one I would be leaning towards if we proceed with this. Madsen: I also am leaning towards option E but I would like to see the plan of what would be built so that people could comment on it. YusuE To that point I just want to agree also, what was brought up by the most recent speaker here about utilities going to this, the two story garage we'd like to see that too. That would definitely be of interest so whenever, it would be maybe beneficial to have yet another review of the plans as we proceed. Tietz: If there were to be an option E, that's a very difficult corner of the home to work on. I think there is significant architectural re -work of a major portion of the home to make that fit. To make it work. You know I'm not here to suggest taking down trees but I am looking at that image right now and I don't know if that's a big cottonwood just to the east of the home but maybe there's another way of massing this structure tighter to the home and not getting a separation between the home and the B, C and A options and looking at the east side of the home. It's going to be a major, I think it's going to be a major architectural challenge regardless of where it goes and I think going to the east and possibly eliminating a tree or two might create a mass that's more acceptable to the neighborhood. Weick: I had similar, similar questions when I first looked at it. I think for you know I'm sensitive to you know both neighbors opposing building and for those reasons I think D and B are enough of an encroachment on, you know whether it be views or actual setback encroachments. If those really don't seem like great options and as we look in the middle I wondered why we couldn't push you know A and/or C closer to the home. Maybe there's trees there or something. It wouldn't affect the setbacks. In fact. Tietz: It might be better. Undestad: It would help. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Weick: It would be better right because you'd be further. You get to take advantage of that point if you put it over far enough right so that was also a question that I had. I still am concerned whether it's D or E on that side of the building. I know you would re -work the road and everything but it is, it's a pretty big structure either way to go on that side of the house. You know I lean more towards that A and C area if we were to consider a variance. Undestad: Drew have you looked at, have you looked at the gap between the house and A and C? Is it just the trees? Ingvalson: For the gap between A and C, this gap between here? Undestad: Yeah to move it closer to the house. Ingvalson: We have not. We took what was submitted. We reviewed this, what was submitted by the applicant. Undestad: Can we ask the applicant at this time? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: If we could have the probably the engineer come forward, or architect come forward. Would it work? Is this something that was considered? Pat Mackey: It was considered. Aller: And if it was considered why was it deleted as an option? Pat Mackey: There's the large cottonwood. There's a fire hydrant and there's the easement which I don't know if you can see roughly in the area where Drew's cursor is pointing. There's an additional easement. There is the road. There is the fire hydrant and there is the large cottonwood or the large tree which we're, everybody's interested in maintaining. Undestad: That's the one that you were just circling then? Ingvalson: Correct. This would be the large tree. Undestad: So again if we look at just moving the garage location, you're staying south of the hydrant. You're moving west towards the house. You're still staying away from the easement. Yeah, or even come back and attach it off that corner of it. I don't think you really need to go that close but it looks to me like you could slide it over. Stay away from the hydrant. Save the big cottonwood and stay out of the roadway. I don't see where the additional setback you're talking about interferes with that. Pat Mackey: As far as setbacks are concerned it's probably yeah, neither. Not significantly different than what A, B or C are. Are proposing. In terms of where to attach it to the house, the 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 least amount of disruption to the existing house in terms of the way the internal circulation of the house works out. You know again some of the confusion around D and it's offspring E relate from initially as a design strategy we were trying not to require that the garage and, you know that the opening up of the house be part of the garage condition. We were just trying to see what variables are in play here. What can we work with? What are our options in order of obstacles you know with setbacks and lot coverage and drainage, etc? That being said an option to the east, directly to the east of the house would be, I mean that's currently the front door of the house as it exists. It's got the primary views. The primary view windows. It just, so as you see you kind of enter around that house. It just kind of rejiggers the entire working of the entire main floor of the house, including the kitchen, the primary living area and the front door. So just in terms of is it possible? Yes. Anything is possible. That's why we're here talking about what options are. But in terms of additional requirements and just kind of what the entry cost of getting a garage is, it just seemed to be a greater entry cost than the other options. Undestad: Is it, again I'm still trying to focus on you're A and C on there just to slide it closer to the house but Alyson if they slide it over the fire hydrants lines up in front of the access point, would the applicant have the opportunity to pay for the relocating of the fire hydrant? Fauske: We could certainly work with the applicant on any relocation of the fire hydrant. The challenge being that it is a tight location. We'd have to work with the fire department as well to make sure that that hydrant's placed in an appropriate location. Undestad: Or potentially add one. Fauske: Correct. And you know there's a clear zone around it, a hydrant that the fire department requires in order to maintain accessibility to the hydrant so we would have to work around those parameters. Aller: And would that impact the turn around for a vehicle? Fauske: The existing turn around or a proposed turn around? Aller: The proposed turn around. In other words would it have to be increased or moved based on the hydrant being moved so they could get a truck to it? Fauske: Without doing a lot of analysis it would appear that in order to meet shifting options A or C to the west in order to gain access to either of those options at that hydrant perhaps would have to shift further east but I can't say for certain without you know taking pencil to paper. Pat Mackey: I would agree. I think C which enters perpendicular to the private drive to accommodate C and car turn around space and you know just able to get into the garage and fire hydrant, clear space I think C would, that hydrant would have to move pretty significantly. A may be more workable but once the easement and the easement around the hydrant, we knew the hydrant was there but when the easement was brought, you know was discovered we just stopped pursuing options in that area. It's an easement so. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Comments, questions from the other side Hokkanen: I don't feel I have enough information or options to make a recommendation without more research possibly. Can we do that? Undestad: I would agree. I think what we're all talking about is you know what the commissioners have stated is D's not really a viable option just from the impact to the house and what's going on. Hokkanen: No, correct Aller: Right. Undestad: B is pushing it all to the other neighbor who doesn't want it down there so I think that area east of the structure, you know where A and C, there's something that I think somebody can go back to the drawing board and try to get what you want within that area east of the house and. Weick: Further to that, you know we looked at reducing D from a 3 to a 2. I would assume you could look at reducing A and C the same way, right? If they're currently structured as a 3 car garage you could reduce the footprint to make it less. Undestad: I think they're 2 car. Weick: Are they? Aanenson: They're different sizes. Weick: Just different sizes, okay. Ingvalson: Different sizes. The options they've proposed is deeper. Its 27 feet deep with a 23 foot wide entrance so the deepness is what makes it larger. Significantly. Weick: Ah, because A certainly looks the same size as D to me but I'm not, maybe that's not. Undestad: Yeah, the proposal they had that shrunk it down was, was the E that doesn't show on there. Ingvalson: Correct the E is not shown on this. Aller: But I think what Commissioner Weick's asking is whether or not we can use the footprint of E. Weick: Right. Just trying to be sensitive to, I mean I get it. They're right. I mean the views. That property. Its gorgeous right and, man. Undestad: But I think agree though. We just probably need a little more. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Hokkanen: Research. Undestad: Little more research on this one, yeah. Tietz: And I'd like to really see A pulled as close to the house as possible with possibly not infringing upon the entry but I think from the plan that we have it looks like it could be done and if the hydrant has to be moved, the hydrant has to be moved. Hokkanen: If that's possible. Tietz: If that's possible and it's probably a distance to the end of the point or one way or the other I can't imagine a 10 foot, well we'll let the Fire Marshal decide on that. Aller: So how do we feel about, let me just poll. How do we feel about option B? Is that out for everyone? Hokkanen: Yes. Aller: So option B is out of the consideration at this time. Option D. Hokkanen: Out. Aller: Is out yeah, as far as what I'm hearing. Okay great. So we're looking at A, C, E and potentially now F. Hokkanen: Correct. Weick: It sounds like we're. Aller: And I think what we're really going towards is E or F. Weick: But as it pertains to this request, we're denying it. I mean is that? Aanenson: Mr. Chair you can also table the request... Aller: ...I wanted to see whether or not the applicant would be interested in signing an extension. Aanenson: They would need to because we're at the end of the extension. They'd have to sign that tonight but I also think it's clear, good that you give as much specificity of what your expectations are if they come back. Aller: Right. Hokkanen: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aanenson: Which is what I'm understanding you're doing, you're sticking onto A and C, then talk about the sizes of the garage and then I heard some other things. Architectural detail. Those are things you're looking for as they table and bring it forward so if that's your motion now as a part of tabling the motion that before you'd vote on that that the applicant would have to give us something in writing requesting an additional 60 days. Aller: Extension. So if somebody wanted to make that motion that would be posed as a motion to table. Dave Bishop: Are you going to open the public hearing for this new set? Aller: No sir, this is a motion to table so there's no need for public input. Hokkanen: I move to table this application. Aller: And do I have a second? Yusuf. Second. Aanenson: Okay before you vote can we get something in writing and if the applicant would otherwise you would have to make a motion one way or the other. If you want to give an extra 60 days in writing. Otherwise they're going to vote in a different way. They're recommending tabling. That'd give you 60 days... Aller: Basically what it would be doing sir is coming back. Working with staff on the items after you've heard the, and had an opportunity that you can actually get the Minutes and take a look at what's here. What we've discussed. We can continue on with a little bit of discussion but I think it's pretty clear what we're looking at for something to the east to allow for that to occur but it has to have some, the movement of the hydrant has to meet the requirements of the 25 percent. The architectural value has to be the same, similar as the property. Gregg Geiger: With F, what we're now calling F, closer that would be, yes. Easier to achieve in terms of...E. Aller: E is not yet off the table. I mean that's what I'm hearing. We're just trying to exclude things so we can get you to a point where we can actually focus on two really good viable options and come to a decision with all the information and at the new hearing we wouldn't be hearing any information we've already heard but we do want to see what you come up with. Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman just to be clear, all the other would be, and I'm not saying I know how you're going to vote but the other is you could vote in a different way and then you would still go up to the City Council because you could appeal it. Either party's going to appeal it and the City Council would have kind of this ambiguity of the conditions so you have a choice of that. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: What would the timing on the appeal be? They would have to put in writing. Aanenson: Right now we have it set for August I &, yeah. Aller: So it would go on August 10`h Aanenson: Yes. Aller: So that would be a consideration for your planning if you needed more time then you probably want to sign an extension and table it. Otherwise it would be heard by the City Council on August 10th if we decided to deny and you appeal that decision. Gregg Geiger: That was what I was not certain about is what exactly is the 60 days? Aller: So if you do the extension it will come back here. Gregg Geiger: Right. Aller: And as soon as you're ready you can meet with staff and we can get it back on and it will be heard. If it's with proper notice to the 500 foot individuals. So after that you can come back here. We'll continue our discussion and then there'll be findings and a vote. If we continue today then most likely what we had before us would be denied. You can appeal that and present whatever you wish to to the City Council on August 10th. Gregg Geiger: So the extension... Aanenson: Yeah I would prefer that you'd get that handed to me in writing right now before they vote. Aller: Right so if you could just put something in writing that you're granting an extension. Undestad: But just to clarify something between us here, the option E. The original option E was where D is? Aller: But smaller. Undestad: But and that's something we're still looking at. Aller: I didn't want to take it off the table. I wanted to make sure they had an alternative option in case this doesn't work out. They may look at it and say this is absolutely, we want to come back with E. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, we're waiting for him to sign it. He's trying to listen to your conversation. If we could, then we can all get clarity on, if that's alright. U:3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Pat Mackey: is it my understanding that E does not have enough information to move forward or. Undestad: No I think even on E we need, we need drawings. We need to know what's there Tietz: Drew I know you're back there trying to get this put together but if a revised A or if A moved closer and the D area that's currently a parking area and the turn out on the north side of the road, are we still okay with hard cover? Ingvalson: Yes. Looking at it without putting any numbers right down right now there would be a slight increase in hard cover if there was an option to attach to the east side of the house and there would also be a need to bump out the drive farther to the north to make sure you're maintaining that 10 foot wide drive. Tietz: Right Ingvalson: Looking at it, it would put it probably close to 25 percent. I couldn't say right now but that's hopefully something that we could get if we did get an option F as we labeled it. Aller: And I think we all have to remember we could exceed that if we choose to with a variance. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: No I just wanted clarification. Aller: It decreases the opportunity... Hokkanen: Stop talking. Aanenson: Alright, we have an extension and we have a motion on the floor with a second. And just to be clear, yeah. Aller: Okay we have a. Aanenson: If you maybe want to go through those points of we're looking for architecture. We're looking for relocation as close to the, the existing structure as we can. Aller: Correct. Aanenson: And all the other calculations would come back and we'll look at the hydrant and those issues. Aller: Hydrant and easement. Aanenson: Correct. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission — July 21, 2015 Aller: Make sure that we're on site with easements and. Aanenson: Total hard cover, yeah. Aller: And that the hard cover is not exceeding 25 percent is the goal. Any additional items to look at? Madsen: And just for clarification that would include what we're calling option E which would be on the west side and then option F which would be on the east side. Are we still looking at those two options? Aller: What we're calling them. You can come back with a clean, with a clean application that says option A and option B. Option C. Whatever you want to come back with but you do know how we feel about the other options already so. Gregg Geiger: Yeah, those are. Aller: So we want to focus on what potentially will work. So having a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Yusuf, any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Vusuf seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for variances to construct a detached garage at 3603 Red Cedar Point. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT AND TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1OP) AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD AT MOTORPLEX COURT — LAMETTRY'S. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK LAMETTRY. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and planning commissioners. Planning Case 2015-19. It's our public hearing tonight. The applicant is Rick LaMettry. It's for a conditional use permits and site plan review. The property is located at 1650 and 1651 Motorplex Court. It's on the west side of Audubon at Motorplex Court which is doing the research on this I found the addresses finally so it's just north of the railroad bridge that is on Audubon. The property is segmented into two parts. There's a small connection of land between the front and the back part so that's why it shows up there's two parcels but it's actually one. When Audubon Motorplex originally came in there were two properties except for their configuration was slightly different and as they've expanded the Motorplex over time we've adjusted the lot lines to take in part of the one parcel and put into the other. That's significant because of one of the conditional use permits that they're requesting. The Motorplex was approved in 2006. The site plan review at the time showed 12 buildings that they were including as part of their complex. One of the 30 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 621 square- foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." (Note: a motion for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact and Decision are also included at the end of the report.) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a shoreline setback and a front yard setback variance (Option D) to allow them to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it 0 kA e encroaches on the required shoreline setback and front yard setback." LOCATION: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (PID 25-6600270) APPLICANT: Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per4cre) ACREAGE: 0.735 acres (32,025 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. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two-story, 621 square -foot garage on their property. The applicant has provided four garage location alternatives (three detached and one attached) for review. Options have been labeled A, B, C and D, respectively, and have been listed in order of preference. The project, as proposed, is not allowed by City C e and requires a variance because it will encroach on the 75 -foot shoreline setback. In aMij.%iuiring a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback, one option will also require�`vlCe from the 30 - foot front yard setback. ✓✓ APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming e Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland management' district Section 20-480, Zoning and water sVply/s tart' p Section 20481, Placement, desfon,andlhcight of Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single-family'reside Section 20-615. Lot require$ierits and set VVV Chapter 20, Article XX HI, Division 1, Gener4W Section 20-905. Sinfa#ruly dwel ' BACKGROUND ` IL According toSlay unty re s, Y�ouse at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 1918. Thi sis 31 feet as�Y m the southern shoreline, or ordinary high water (OHW) level, and ; from the noTfiiem shoreline. In 1986, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted," authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 612 5Wthrough 612.3900. The Shoreland Management District of City Code requires sewered ItNs on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high level. The principal structure on the subject site encroaches on the required 75 -foot setback the ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 70 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. The only work permitted by the city that was completed outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (the location of Options A and C). Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south to the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 13 Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a private drive that provides access to the subject site and to the property to the east. The minimum width of the roadway as it crosses the property is 10 feet, per the survey provided by the applicant Image 1: Property Setbacks and Proposed Garage tiF,Et G£ML teR�F`H9Y!, rf£1+3X ARES.F.) 6Ei Br.C�(o TBISLOPE OF ARE EB GABLE -96I 9.F�•y'AT B10.5LOpE OF VJ s 77 \ - , O.adRr�rtr� avr= `. J CAKE FF`b134WVEY - '.� GI!YhfE0YA31tTk IY1�r `rJ �,A ss� n in Image I above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 4of13 cityutilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreline setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreline. Staff has worked with the applicant previously to eliminate those options north of Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed four alternatives that are all locatedso e private drive (see hnage 1). Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines ♦ �► W, The applicant intends to construct a 621 square -foot (23 -foot by 27 -foot) garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The three proposed detached garage locations (see options A -C in Image 1) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see option D in Image 1) will not encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback, but will encroach farther into the northern 75 -foot shoreline setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 5 of 13 Image 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) ri a,}yYyR, F4 S - 1 '{ rY ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing proposes four locations variance and one thg�j variance. �J Option A ` Opti n A,}j�� applicant's pre d�6ption (see Image t i ituated in the center 'ot&property and has the AaWge entrance facing west. This option will not disrupt the existing access for vehicles traveling on the private drive. However, Option A is located 26.5 feet from the southern shoreline, 4.5 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing principal structure. This VX4$ 'Ilk Vet a Z3 -foot b 27 -foot y foot garage. The plan rage s 1 of which will require a shoreline setback twL� setback variances and a front yard setback Image 4: Option A A s tiRD AR POINT FE EMSTING a_ -t-a FOOTPRINT - PENEMNIG NPGk drATM ON ASSUM TO BE 1 Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 6 of 13 option will require a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance. Being this close to the lake will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from th public water. hnage 5 shows the current view of the lake from the private drive (the chair tarp are in the proposed location for Options A and Q. This location will remo;Ar�p e trees and will require the applicant to extend the driveway to access the garage t. Overall, this proposal will increase the hardcover to 24.77 percent. Option B (ee 6), along W71 Option C; 7s,a applicant's next pref&re4obcation. This alternative sldc on the eastern side of the pert , but will maintain the 30- €o ear yard setback. Option B 1 also not disrupt vehicle traffic on the private drive due to the garage access being located on the western elevation and the garage not being located within the private drive. This option will be 24 feet 7 inches from the shoreline, 2 feet 1 inch closer than Option A and nearly 6.5 feet closer than the existing OAR Pol"T IE EXISIM ISE • 9'M FOOTPRINT -PENDINGIYP(A '`� IN iTATM ON Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 7of13 principal structure. This location will require a 50 -foot 5 -inch setback variance from the shoreline. Similar to Option A, the increase in hardcover in this location will increase run ft Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. location will also require removing three mature trees (including a 30 -inch diametej b s option will increase hardcover on the property to 24.33 percent. Minnewashta and is entiall 1 Y harmful to the'viewscapes fro AFK PREMA � public water (see Image 5 in Oph At10N Oto - A). This option will require the Tom'ABSUMEDTOBE IIE remval (o one mature tree. o+ � urr��o Or io on D (see Image 8) is the applicant's least -preferred alternative. This option is located on the western side of the property and is attached to the northwest portion of the house. The applicant has proposed expanding the private drive (425 square feet) for traffic since a portion of the proposed garage is situated within the existing drive. This drive expansion will create a 13 -foot wide driving path for vehicles. This alternative requests the shortest shoreland setback variance of all four options. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by two feet (73 feet from the shoreline) and the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) to the south. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback slightly more than the existing structure; however, to the south the proposed structure will not encroach any further than the existing structure. In addition, this proposed location will increase hard cover on the property to 23.78 percent. Overall, Option D will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and viewscape from the public water Option C owSO' Option C (see Image 7) is evenly preferred with Option B for the appli�t. tion C is located in a similar location as Option A; however, this alternative has the garagei roading from the north. This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private a and will also reduce the amount of hardcover added to the property for the project due , Vhortened driveway extension, in comparison to Options A and B. This optiow%my increase hardcover to 23.28 percent. ge Xption C Option C has the shortest shoreline ~ setback, 21 feet and 1.5 inches, of all �' four options provided by the -- applicant. This option is nearly 10 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. This alternative ° `, r would require a 53 -foot 10.5 inc 1N oornai a shoreline setback variance. S'111 to the previous two options. the �` A os increase in hardcover at his (Whtion + u ; will increase runoffo I a , - 1- -'- _ ---�._ s* Cpl.: � ! Minnewashta and is entiall 1 Y harmful to the'viewscapes fro AFK PREMA � public water (see Image 5 in Oph At10N Oto - A). This option will require the Tom'ABSUMEDTOBE IIE remval (o one mature tree. o+ � urr��o Or io on D (see Image 8) is the applicant's least -preferred alternative. This option is located on the western side of the property and is attached to the northwest portion of the house. The applicant has proposed expanding the private drive (425 square feet) for traffic since a portion of the proposed garage is situated within the existing drive. This drive expansion will create a 13 -foot wide driving path for vehicles. This alternative requests the shortest shoreland setback variance of all four options. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by two feet (73 feet from the shoreline) and the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) to the south. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback slightly more than the existing structure; however, to the south the proposed structure will not encroach any further than the existing structure. In addition, this proposed location will increase hard cover on the property to 23.78 percent. Overall, Option D will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and viewscape from the public water Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 8 of 13 because the garage will be located on existing hardcover, the structure will be significantly setback from the shoreline, and it will be screened by the existing building and vegetation. Since Option D is designed to load from the west, it will be difficult for the homeowner to access their garage due to the sharp turn radius needed to get around the neighboring house to the west. Further, this location will require the subject property owner to _ drive across the neighboring property (off the private drive area) to access their garage. The r — proposed private drive will be substantially altered 4'4 to accommodate the newly constructed garage. Unlike the previous three alternatives, Option D also requires a front yard setback variance in addition to the shoreline setback variance. The eastern property line is considered the front yard, of the property per City Code Section 20-615 (7). However, the positions of the homes along -the Red Cedar Point Road peninsula are situat - t tli he= private drive to the north of the homes)` this access property lines would be considered'fhc#side prooert setback. The proposed locatio fs''situated 4 et existing structure is current batik 9 fe the within the 30 -foot front setback). The propqxvi mage f O � or4iriance, even when considering that the neighboring property does not have windows on this side of their house (see Image 10) and that the required yard setback would be 10 feet if it were a side yard. tpolic street the west and east and would only have a 10 -foot from the western property line. The the property line (20 feet and 5 inches Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Image 10: View of Neighboring House (3605 Red Cedar Point Rd) from Private Drivg 1 Staff Recommeennddee ati n Staff has p pan alternativeithat could be supported if the Planning Commission determine at 1 is reasonable to approve a two-story garage on the site. Staff believes that an attacked a* is the most reasonable structure to provide parking because it will minimize negfteqMpacts and required variances. vAlVive Plan 4staff's alternative plan (see Image 11) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure, similar to Option D. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. This option will not require a shoreline setback from the northern shoreline, but the proposed garage will encroach on the southern shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) and will require a variance. This shoreline setback variance is less than the shoreline setback non- conformity created by the existing structure. Similar to Option D, this alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. Also, this option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Unlike Option D, the alternative plan will not encroach further into the existing 9.6 -foot front yard setback that has been Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance - Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 10 of 13 established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance since it is within 30 feet of the eastern property line. Image 11: Alternative Plan 94 . V 946 r ,9 — I, The placement �ltemative 94..G,- J 1 X948. plan will dis cle traffic sfi 7 X946.3 (' 0 � along th drive. To ?�20 946.5 L _ X946. mitiga ue, staff 7.07- �_ pJr r 947 I 4 ,e -__4r. , X546.6 re e s that the Planning ion attach a condition to r X44 7.3X 4s 4'cFss fA M 4 alive plan that requires � y, applicant to increase the rivate drive to be at least 10 feet r / K n i NISyE (not t xceed 24 feet) wide at all 1 ` ,re 4 . sec ' the drive to ensure s nN SHED FLOOR rl � 4(see gray area on E.Ev.®e4e.391l as an example of the k ;�8�'✓ FIN SHIED FL /t sion needed). This I ju .i ELEV. 5' FIN v r ggp xpansion will slightly increase ---25 9 the hardcover on the property, '9,Iy but will still be significantly Xs 2�4 s49.2 a ' o- ' below the 25 percent maximum —948 ° s .5" 9and will be less hardcover than -947- 94 WALL � � = the four options provided by the tia► \ 4 ' 46. applicant. This alternativO--pro s a sma than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review offe *1 is show tha I be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeown her alternative at staff could have supported would have been to attach the garke rthcast corner of the home, but the applicant did not wish to consider this option /Gvould require the removal of a mature tree. IVIIg Shoreline Setbacks of Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property *Every property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreline setback (see Image 14). Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). The closest structure is within 24 feet of the shoreline, or encroaching 51 -feet into the shoreline setback. There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found six shoreline variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 8). Approved shoreline Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 11 of 13 setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreline setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 fe the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. In addition, there has been one front yard set dance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot d setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 8). ` w The map below displays shoreline properties within 500 feet of the Lw in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreline ; with an X are properties that have been granted a variance from The existing structure on the subject property is currently setb encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Image 14: Properties withh4m ff5f the Property that Encroach on the -f t ShoreE erty (subject site 1 roperties marked 4 shoreline setback. from the shoreline, The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage that encroaches into the 75 - foot shoreline setback (and one option that also encroaches into the front yard setback). Options A, B and C will encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure. Option A requests a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance, Option B requests a 50 -foot 5 -inch shoreline setback variance, and Option C requests a 53 -foot and 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Option D will not encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure, but will still require a 17 -foot shoreline setback variance from the southern shoreline setback, and a two - foot shoreline setback variance from the northern shoreline setback. Option D will also encroach Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 12 of 13 farther into the front yard setback and will require a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback. In addition, Option D has potential garage access and traffic issues since there is such a sh turning radius required around the neighboring house to enter the garage from the west an because the proposed structures encroaches into the private drive. The homeowne#w' need to drive across their neighbor's parking pad to access their garage in this optic; Options A, B and C may have negative impacts on the water runoff intoLaWr washta, the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the rem07 ature trees. Alternatively, Option D requires limited hardcover be added to the pro well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any ma s. All four alternatives provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent ham} maximum allowed for the property. AdX There are several properties within 500 feet of the sub'ec I : Li encroach the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Several of these properties, including the ect p66perty, *built prior to the city adopting the shoreland management section of cityd Staffbel' t it is reasonable to request a variance to allow a two -stall garagbgevvile unique Tung of the property, the character of the neighborhood, and the existiirement fo e s gle-family, detached structures to have a two -car garage. Howdoes a variance for the four options provided by the applicant due tr environmental impacts these options would create. If the Planning Commission b s'lhat it ' ea ab a to request a variance for atwo-story two -stall garage, staff belie the alt lel to tion and plan should be used. The alternative gara^l Mmall iv21 square -foot garage plan provided by the applicant by 180 square fee ; ho s as found that this option will provide enough space to store two v 'cles.�he alt as mitigates potential viewscape from the public wat and runoff The alternative plan will require a front yard setback variance, th wly proposed garage will not encroach farther into the existing structure setb ck. ore, the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve Mo side yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. Mae.also allows for efficient loading into the newly proposed garage and will not disrupt , provided the applicant extends the private drive to at least ten feet wide by the proposed The alternative plan will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require nly a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property well below the 25 percent hardcover maximum. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to construct a two- story 621 square -foot garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request to construct a garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, but maintains the existing setbacks, Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 13 of 13 it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback v`vi `ce $om the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to constru tWo-story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: //►►pedrive,notto 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10*jAE exceed 24 feet wide. `` JJ 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not AMI /. 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainatAms. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a buildim om a City." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision -Denial. O 2. Findings of Fact and Decision-Ap#t 3. Development Review Application A tive 4. Site Plan with Options A -D. 5. Registered Land Survey wit tive PI 6. Architectural Plans. 7. Affidavit of Mailin o Hearin 8. Variances withi e 9. Letter from Fra Keith P my 10, 2015. g:�plan\2015 jo 20014 3603 red t wirr ncelresubmittal 06-05-2015tsteff report 3603 red cedar point.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: (DENIAL) Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story rage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback (Option D) on pr0e%G=fined Single Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. #` _ g On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as 1 of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider thi° i tion. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed varian ioceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makeiollowing: FINDINGS 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family tial Distit �* F). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhass 1 orehensi or Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the prop West 225' Except West 25' Block 4ar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findines S 0-58 of ty Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a v a. Varianggges s only be hen they are in harmony with the general purposes and iof s Chapt en the variances are consistent with the comprehensive pl Z* g: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of request is construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. While multiple properties in .s area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, the proposed options for locating the garage excessively encroach farther than is necessary into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. These encroachments will potentially harm the natural environment of Lake Minnewashta through increased storm water runoff and will potentially harm the viewscape from the public waters. Further, Option D will unnecessarily encroach on the front yard setback, potentially harming the neighboring property owner. 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 unique location of the property serves a practical difficulty in meeting the zoning ordinance. The property already encroaches on the shoreline setback and front yard setback; however, the proposed locations are not situated in areas that will "itt?ize the negative impacts of locating a 621 square -foot two-story garage on the ro Instead, the applicant has proposed garage locations that unnecessarily en er into the required shoreline setback and front yard setback than the exis ' e, which is a legal non -conformity. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic coe ons alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon a considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a 621 square -foot two -s age. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstanc e to the property not created by the landowner. Funding: The existing structure was cons tru in 1918,a prior to the City of Chanhassen adopting the shoreland c , as author kesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6 throu 0. The property currently has legal non -conforming statyr'1Q' prp y h r stances that are unique and not created by the landowner, but posed loc r the garage unnecessarily encroach farther into the ssetback and y d setback than what is needed for a two -stall garage. Any s n that eicends farther into the front yard and shoreline setback than the exist' n -confo , y wgtild be created by the landowner, not due to the circumstanco " the nr e. The essential character of the locality. JV indijajAj'he%ranting NOPIrTance that allows a structure to be located closer to the shjkelYfkjuld negativel3offect the viewscape from the public waters. Many of the lots mVVe borhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum requirements kbe e�aau a the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s, several cades before the district standards were adopted (1986). While multiple structures in area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement, nearly none would be as close to the shoreline as Options A -C, with the exception of water -oriented structures. Further, the small setback between Option D and the westerly neighboring structure would reduce the already small setback between the two structures, negatively affecting the neighboring property owner. £ 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. 1 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. T construct setbacks. A DECISION CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: (APPROVAL) Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square -foot two -ached garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. ♦` On July 21, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting aAreded of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consideration. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed vanby published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments make owing: FINDINGS A I. The property is currently zoned Single-Famiily ntial DiStllt (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhas rehensi or Residential Low Density. ♦ A`` 3. The legal description of the prop West 225' Except West 25' 1, kfflo4j,rdar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings i a 0-58 oty Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a v a. Vari s sh only be ten they are in harmony with the general purposes and if 's Chaptwhen the variances are consistent with the comprehensive pl -J ✓✓✓��/// Jk loding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the Tequest is to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. Further, the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreline setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. 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 applicant's request to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreline on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a w locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion will foot shoreline setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public t e existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreline and 30- front yar s, but the construction of an attached garage space will not cause the structure cToach further into the required shoreline or front yard setbacks. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic,& ft-3kat ons alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upo Vic considerations alone. The stated intent is to construct a two-story two -stall d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumque toge property not created by the landowner. fft� Finding: The existing structure was b in 1918, 68 y ore the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was ad t as au Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, P s throu .3900. The applicant recently Purchased the property and thuu�li�bi create nformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted � alter th al character of the locality. ��g: The � e vari ill not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple stru > e area n the 75 -foot shoreline and front yard setback requiremer 1 of the 104 n eighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet th miilklnum requirem, because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the e y. to m* 1900s, �eV" cades before the district standards were adopted (1986) an th C � of Chanhass%as established. There are also properties in this area that h cted homes within the shoreline setback after the district standards were a pt The City has granted six shoreline setback variances within 500 feet of the ject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 0 feet. The proposed shoreline setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreline, and will not encroach closer to the shoreline thane existing structure. The city has also granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 11 -foot variance from the required 18 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not be encroachemyloserthanthe existing structure and will keep with the essential character of the locality. 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. 2 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot sev fiance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance t uct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following condition The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 1 exceed 24 feet wide. _J 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a ADOPTED by the Chanhassen she` drive, not to day of July, 2015. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT y� y� Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard C V/� Cit Nl NSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 {y Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date:.. 1 r PC Date:% 1t -115 CC Date: 7' 13 /b 60 -Day Review Date: (Rarer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................$600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ...... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Single -Family Residence.................................$325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..$325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)...................$750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................$100 ❑ All Others .........................................................$500 ❑ Sign Plan Review.... ❑■ Site Plan Review SPR ❑ Administrative ........................ ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*.. Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of ( thousand square 'Include number of existinv employe( 'Include number of now employees: ❑ Residential Districts .............. Plus $5 per dwelling unit (Property Owners' ❑ Subdivision (SUB) # V ElCreate 3 lots or less.... WW..qL ..........................$300 ❑ Create over 3 lots ...... &III ... $600 + $15 per lot ❑ Metes & Boun .. .. .. ......... $300 + $50 per lot .. lots) ❑ Consolida $150 ElLot Line j nt.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat.....,`..................................................$700 Inckides+450 escrow for attorney costs' 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. �] Vacation of Ea ents/Right-of-way (VAC) ........ $300 (Additional recorliMees may apply) rte' ............... $15X Variance �AA� El Weiland,, ........ ❑ SircA 1W Escrow for Rec6rdir L cuments (check ❑ Conditional Use 4rmit ❑ Vaca ion ' V. [IMetgr *rids Subdivision (number of Permit (WAP) Residence...... Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .... NOL: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ............................................... .........................$200 3tion meeting)........., ' J ..... (&r address r'l/ ..... I ....................... Interim Use Permit Variance to be recorded: _) Site Plan Agreement Wetland Alteration Permit Eiel riptionofProposal: AVD1'1 Vb3 O� %i6W a j�•G}�t� pc„� `VII 1 I'll 4;T U D 1 O SP1, C.E Property Address or Location: !3 CP d 3 P-61> P, t%2&!A�� Itim a R Parcel #: ZSGGOOZ°i Legal Description: W•ZZ5 VbT1I $VeEr— 6e WO C 004 PotpR, C .;vJ v_e. Total Acreage: Q-T&S Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes WNo M1w1 t E*"VIC Present Zoning: &Sr Requested Zoning: ?.15r- Present .gfPresent Land Use Designation: N/a Requested Land Use Designation: N h Existing Use of Property: 511JA �,pyyyt�( I, pr,H +DW CIJ�.�1Ne. Check box is separate narrative is attached. 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 arndporrect. Name:_ 'aal� �s-i��!/ Contact: llQ3- .140 61S (0b Address: 36)b3 '1ZP� c4U,i2ke- fini'n i- �acl Phone: -7�.o 3 City/State/Zip: F&elsl�or � V�- t353/31 Cell: Email: -K\ — PROPERTY OWNER: In sign ni g this application, I, as property owner, have authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approv conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this appli be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an es ' t r study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are t�n e Name: ire t%Lee U -et `,z;;, --p Address: '✓ (Bd-�:-> Q,5.p J City/State/Zip: _&Cop f t'o,,r- VV) Email Signature: This application must be completed^ information and plans required b a'p Iff appropriate Application CheEldi$t"�,, applicable procedural requl[rem(ents. A determination of coinpletenes's of the written notice of agp6l9tigD deficiencies PROJECT FiIGIIIFEMif applicable) Fax: Date: full legal capacity to, and hereby do, *binding and agree to be bound by those I periods. I will keep myself informed of urther understand that additional fees may o any futhorization to proceed with the -7(o'2,_ Sr (e � US(on Date: VVI cc c / ('s 2 o t be n or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all ity O n provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the ��h Hing Department to determine the specific ordinance and Fn shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Contact: Address: ,,a� i�y/State ip: Phone: Cell: Erri#: .. Fax: Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ❑ Property Owner Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Engineer ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: Via: ❑ Other* ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: w June 22, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Bob Generous RECENED Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHAS4AS IN{iDEPT Variance Findings Statement: We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse south (side) requir cl,ya d from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 21.2 feet to allow ffietEonstrruction of a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zoned"RSf and is on a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewash{a,and currently has no garage. Applicant: Owner: Pat Mackey Gregg `pnd.�ICellie Geiger Mackey Malin Architects 3603 Red, Cedar Point Drive 5200 Washburn Avenue S Chanhassen MN 55317 612-220-6190 We submit the following justification for co(hpliance for grartkyp'a variance: a) Variances shall only be ppermitted when theyaroln' 1harmony with the general purposes and int'pnt\oF thris Chapter pnd'when the variances are consistent with the cotpprabehsive pJan. The granting of the variance (voutil,be cons*ent with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and thts,property°s e a single family home. b) When there air practical diff in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical diffi44kes", as used4n connection with the granting of a variance, means that tke propertV-6%vher.0roposes to use the property in a reasonable mann not permittgd by` .6,Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are (ftot limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property is bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement of the rectolied yard setbacks results in just 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with the `va)stmajority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is Nee *ntially unusable if following required district setbacks. proposed location for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, �, which caused some initial concern. Since discovery of the buried sewer lines and the unsuitability of the preferred location, the homeowners have contacted the MPCA and the bank/owner of the property prior to their purchase, and have been reassured of the soil suitability at this location Alternative garage locations have been investigated: I. The initial preferred location for the garage in the center of the lot (north of the private drive) has been found to be atop easements for underground water main and sanitary sewer lines, which would be difficult to relocate, even if that were allowed. We believe we are clear of those easements with the proposed garage placement (pending Survey verification). Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55AI0 1 612 . 220 . 6190 2. Attaching the garage to the northwest side of the house would require a significant modification and disruption of the existing house, provide only about 4' to the neighboring lot line, and allow less than 10 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, this option would require a 2 -property re -alignment of the existing road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. Pending an awaited survey that shows easements, there is reason to believe that the attached northwest location sits atop the utility and roadway easements. 3. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require an extensive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, and also require a existing road. The same concerns are true of hard cover, house or realignment as in the paragraph above, as well as eliminating the lake, a significant reason for the purchase of the house in 2014,0 A. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduce th I placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot a s The proposed garage placement walks the best@ne et een maximizing distance from both shorelines and Min, • i disru elements (road, house, utilities, tree cover, and vie al¢tt:of the JLfld AS view of the garage area. )stacles while existing site C) That the purpose of the variatio i of based u �t e�nomic considerations alone. \II The sole purpose of the requeste a e that 1 owners may have a garage for the existing single family hgrwe xt a site,_Zur et homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and C, ngo 1tave fu Vs of the property in the context of the neighboring properties. d) The plight -of {hp i downer to circumstances unique to the property not created by t'he'landowner. The property fins a Unjque situation! l'j_ar Bred by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Tho existing structufq was built in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All cur`re;n,t��consiTuction on foie grape iy and adjacent properties pre -dates the current lant�ovr�r� 'e)Vhe variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. T4iessential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is verwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and "detached accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. 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 Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220 . 6190 opo OJ 000O a°d°o e AmN(O m NiyO n n n N 0 5 0 00,0 mmmm wwn wwi n icon 0000 mamm 7nrCn 300008Oman xQ44 xx¢x uwww L_Z_2Z J J 'uwww iaaa ommm CMQQ Izzz )000 =FFF )000 _ PDF processed with CUtePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com (SI/FZ/9 PeslAa) mumenS DNVINVA W �0yu ypp�j w O 0?: ¢U>Up U WWO 'o �K K �9�2a � qi wk3Fo o- <ai , S��Ckk. ¢O�Z OLU DSS mg�Qp WW� Iwme O� j N d Q W> U J m YyyI mEb Hwm 2i mW�Wpii H z CC C•CJpFZ 1 -OG i¢9-.053wO 0WIdt COOOCC OM Him a LU 9 y� O %y • V N3SSVHN":. 803708£0J3N81N4Od tl3 W ie y �a�. gf S31V3�13nN31 P ? g opo OJ 000O a°d°o e AmN(O m NiyO n n n N 0 5 0 00,0 mmmm wwn wwi n icon 0000 mamm 7nrCn 300008Oman xQ44 xx¢x uwww L_Z_2Z J J 'uwww iaaa ommm CMQQ Izzz )000 =FFF )000 _ PDF processed with CUtePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com (SI/FZ/9 PeslAa) mumenS DNVINVA W �0yu ypp�j w O 0?: ¢U>Up U WWO 'o �K K �9�2a � qi wk3Fo o- <ai , S��Ckk. ¢O�Z OLU DSS mg�Qp WW� Iwme O� j N d Q W> U J m YyyI mEb Hwm 2i mW�Wpii H z CC C•CJpFZ 1 -OG i¢9-.053wO 0WIdt COOOCC OM Him a LU 9 y� O WO]'$JMdnJnSl,Sll'MMM :qaM woo'sJo,(anmsfsy®wo1 :po w3 x°j 44£9-499 (ZS6) I4£9-499 (zs6) OZ4S9 'uyy 'uol6ulwoolg 41noS anumV aloP1 £906 S1NviinSNOO W sa0A3Aws ow 'ONI '00 NOSNHOP 'S ANMVH O _ q W ,u LL � O M— !2 a a x / to VIM3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVHO MUC 1NIOd UVa30 a3a WW :3J.IS a30130 E)03UE) V 31'n3H :JOS AHdVHJOdO.LMm Ammns No11yo1duki3o tOl 3 y>s� ZLL IYN 5 5'43'15' E 1 936 p a, a`V i ii X O1 o E _� F ZU;;�N Ow Oi ZO F "pp�cV3V ° sY Z4I%�V UWV°'Q�p V VSWWVly Og W mm ` / oa WE 1 I s ` S I (w) ��n o O _ q W ,u LL � O M— !2 a a x / to VIM3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVHO MUC 1NIOd UVa30 a3a WW :3J.IS a30130 E)03UE) V 31'n3H :JOS AHdVHJOdO.LMm Ammns No11yo1duki3o tOl 3 y>s� ZLL IYN 5 5'43'15' E 1 936 p N Q a`V i ii X O1 o E _� F ZU;;�N $ I ` v WE -c iii i az r`r v ; le FME; #off U�oz a' S01 r� 0 o� n y a i do G L4 I WOSOB-E-L X a8r• a`V oy o o ii J o E _� F ZU;;�N $ v WE Z rcgo Q ay$ o pno $,n� eY v�° odd ? Asa aso o o Q " E 'm �W o �a o"" - /am„w Wx OGOOq�Q✓ U�� 01 rY U ; OK^ NII o° O QO G Z E. tr a E HE =_� wm� o da mrgwNa -JV Eoyn W °u e.00 °u5 togtq o 'moa 2�mE� ak'a h° z'.u✓ w�Qo EE °ioa`ioo V nS Nov�iw ri a viN` wm..w mti� c° le FME; #off U�oz a' S01 r� 0 o� n y a i do G L4 I WOSOB-E-L X a8r• a`V oy o o ii u o E _� F ZU;;�N $ v WE e, �8 �£ NW N3SSV14NVH7 d s VAG INIOd 8V03J 03Y E09E El; 3JN3O1S3b 130130 a 3JNVIN" 1 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 9, 2015, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Planamg�� attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a cop;Awners lin an and depositing the envelopes addressed to 4/1 fully prepaid thereon; that the by the records of the County records. subscribed and sworn to before me this + ^ day of 2015. Notary Publk. IS and was on July Xs'sen, Minnesota; that !u_blic Hearing for 3603 4 o the persons named on �� dressed to such owner, !Cited States mail with postage were those appearing as such and by other appropriate L� c c •N to d E S E v O U CL _c c 'c y R v� Z N N R C R s U 2 c C N d E 2 £ cv O a'c c �a Z as N R c c R t U v �& r 0-O N .0 -'L"•t � p �o w°man �`€ �W LL ML 'L'.0, ON N O p m > YNmyC~.cLm„« C � ata $yg� $Z,'8 °a'GEE c O� N y_ o a m J m c- h m m a) e 0� o m O C C Y m O X08 2 _7 v �- E E = g T d m N C•p A m �'- m J 3 p C m O) m o CL E C o 0 aE m m O m rno Nfr $ of adw^ y� b$g �A•p m�� m C �,m� o.m o 'N o, N0)M (aEca 50 g�E� m`Ea i yegg $¢¢ IX ypp 'cam>yg�nm y W M O m' m m I mm$oPo-- E«L a0 U y a W C 3 G c J a O m � E 0 (Ap 00 m bci� cimyE g8 S` s <�c goaE t WdCa [O N> m CD tf cs_Ow O E m O m V E da.L..LE m O V N3 ° m'O m >. J CUaN '-� E.m. C'y Ea€cEc Uvc He �^`� oo F$� Y m 0- N q o � D a C Q p c EL N m g (aCO 0co Y mPma�c-Nm°mV Y m ��EE�omF CL (0 > •E.0 33 g5¢3 c�.5 Em s Ps'm a8 �m�c dyO d 0 LL pY L U m �p C O N� O._mC C L•• C C m' w l0 E E NNmp O•ymm O m N N m L ' N Cm O J.F,w E`€vQ odn(nR o�n a c d c,v_ d Eo°p-pc `m }4 m 3 w m uN, a "-.•ommo 'na�c m`(a L m m �_. yrs a $��m�: ' €Ss�=ate mei 12aam) 4) (D E-0 mL0«om�.°.° aOO m3Z�,w0> L' -Oc) 0mm°-cm«�i=>��MJ m N 3a "B•N`mJm gtm �s�� SdD�s9. d m m �o��iv 'O C� C Bm p m N m m orny N c rn? o m m mmcm�$ a mE° cn� �atac�wgg�Y M R Em"` a=. L0=_ �1E6 E c NO+m°, W-0 mmJc�L a2a M S mo op'UU a T_E °'aEPU Uo°«MONO cE_ 2. �,ag_g»spa 3� $t@s�SQ"� 04 U 0>LOa«N 0Nco ma �C'S �N N O m m •p� w3mN oJUC•fAMlgra y/ C m __ `+$m -�woKE n`�ogmL•� V N _ OY t w m U Q•mp O. m C a. d .L-. m U L m C m C T = m U N m .L.. N w C '� r m °��E CL T. `CU J>_B,Q P�. m1' C mU WC a- mYWmo, QNw>mwC .NNL7m p OfmV m V C -O -Na) N a'C >fV m O m E OWa M U) yOm CJ O CESEmQ a`c E Ev=$W2 !p sE-dm Em tlLB CJ , C `i '0- 8 E O N N m R E V Q C O..0 m C L p m (� Oma i @ m C a'� >.d- O mc CR ..m O aC. m.� E c'l0 (0 r L m L m p 3 >+ ' C °) C N1m m O a $fig ama p'€ `4 go E E '° �.d c 'g N ay y J (O ami •D m U ,0 M OO�p ° O J m 6 C> 5 UU)F-ULL L m -a � O m N- m J(� =Nw C► y C E mN ad�•o �.� m m;O c '> E fl m .9 �� 5�9 ��c`®te e_ k�a m.E-�Em �9EE 1•-�^U�m m iMr.- Cl) s° Emaa m 0 c ib Nto 'ganry55555p@>@gm�E m°g:s�a$5�i S jg'fS E3 tFmmn vy - w f°n 0Ei 0) 0mai 8 mss °'$EL 5wsF €- .2-mS E"�= °m .y Ssm �nEm§ E m m mT c� �55�"°=2s�8 2 F c N C Ac 1a0 m etf >> E F c N C TC C C mE {L)p6.$c m�g �z d��gmS of m 1�yp a = am ms L "E mx sas8�,mxssm�g=a�a c J CL O W v Z Q 8a��58�'g_ mCGmE� mm� �oERcaEm� a ¢ a` o z a 52 �G3o= v �& r m 8yto v dr a 9 m N «. L N L �.__,W N 0 P. ..L m �'.c a w c �. N i3 y m L tl U♦ m im= d N m, U C c A 0 0 `.. m m WCL $gg E O a C A J 3 O a .N m 0 C cm am 'o S€@gym W m G L am a _> d �� m E«L a o N U m 3 �a c m{ T o c E 4g� �Uo3 9g=�=g U oES-gym za�ER�._mgWx- W d W [O 0 2 m'ry a Or 0 u c a C C' m a N O E m N U' `c_ O 0 0 m •- E OO.yd E JO m m p m.+�'..i m >. U J `"-.. E m E a,..i C m cS€aEc n'U o=8c c W EpN i• _' P o Vis_ U of u�m t i•- o Y m a c o E m d � d r w N 0 c 0 a c M p V w rm.. S y a c c m &- i s #� '� g $ € p- m m Y Y.. a— O m Cm c E m o�Sm O.P8 °Um«{ J CY •4L, mEp ` NNa!mNd a._� CO. 'y�', E m c�'m€W99S 5€ E _a5 '=F�ao�� oo�Lm- O d U) d C fi•c�E3r C .. m (0 0 0 a p C o..eamN m N N m L O m O. m C _- U _. E m $ S m S e $ L s 3 4) (D aOO m3Z�,w0> L' -Oc) = �0-��8 "B•N`mJm e N d v) -S (D 'O ?<a°s poPd pC Vm«ormm m o �m>O a= .ommmmcmLqoTEmEcC mag•W8=' `cgynomi E . UC 7�>> a L°yN O - 0 .E°'0 OGo.0o mC c m. o G•i+m JmS mO -acE€immm� 0Nco o(D o) SD �a�rm° m `/,.avm$. 0 C C m 40) E>c 'mV ��o: EE ^yj dO O ` E O C c m o 0 CO�C O pEmJ' m '_s9c-�ba„m c m °E mL= omL. m ° Umam comc•Nm- a L vM(a) -.�`oc. �.'m : m NCL- mE m m AcL C 6 m �a_sam s.og � n "s7a=m�'i A nf(3m5�YDmS°im' Qm e m - M 0pm0. (O CU 0 L Od °•Cm m-N E c'>> mm a3DsgmaeEE8mE`EW'rH ieS_2n_msnEE@ap• w 9£ E'€ m Cl) WN Pi o oNN iL N C O m 0 c ib Nto 'ganry55555p@>@gm�E m°g:s�a$5�i S jg'fS E3 °m .y Ssm �nEm§ E OL m mT Ir S�£m$o S°`aa F c N C Ac 1a0 m ° C c C OEC§..F$E`'i._g'w q5 iy m _ CL C1 Nmo$n�m=r§aa g gni PE (y0 O O Q ms L dE v rca Eb`',€S.ma_a �y��+ g$,� O J CL O.J W C3U Z Q �`�i (i 8€ma€'a3 $aa ffif'm BETSY S ANDING DIANE LEESON ANDING DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS JEAN D LARSON 292 CHARLES DR 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN ¢53$1-7721 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP KELLIE J GEIGER MARIA(b-kNr 113HT 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD 360�5.RIRE4 CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-77212CCIOR, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SOUBA STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSE EVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD 5901 CARTER LN EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 SUSAN S PROSHEK G 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD O EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 � 5 1 Variances within 500 Feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive Variance Number Address Description 18.5 -foot shoreline setback variance for the 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road construction of a single-family Lome 3618 Red Cedar Point Road 15 -foot shoreline and 8 -foot side 93-06 variances for the construction of a port k 1.5 -foot side yard and 14.5 -foot sjW setback 3607 Red Cedar Point Road variance for the constructio2 o a ed two stall 92-1 arae with a second floor 4 -foot side yard (east), a yard (west), and 3605 Red Cedar Point Road a 26 -foot shoreline ances for the construction of a deta o stall garage and 88-11 second floor o anion 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 45 foot shoreline sEt ack variance to construct an 87-10 addition to ekisting home 12- t front yard, a 2- side yard setback varix ces end a 7 -foo ine setback for the 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point nstnrofion of a s' home, 3 foot front ack variance and 7,500 re foot iance of the Shoreland 82-11 3618 Red Cedar- a e ance. 23 d setback variance 79 02 3613 Red Ce * Items highlighted in gray ar a set k 'ances. g:Iplant2015 planning mest20 point mina106-05-2015Warianm within 500 fee doe July 10, 2015 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance -Planning Case #2015-14 Dear Planning Commission Members, S G� C, s�► Thank you forgiving me the opportunity to share my thoughts and feedback on'the proposed development plan for the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Chanh`esso, A apologize for not being able to attend the public meeting in person on July 21, 2015. My name is Frances Paap and I have lived at 3601 Red CedarPointRoad in Chanhassen since July 2008 with my husband Keith, and our two children. We selected thls property a� a permanent place to live and raise our family. The things that attracted us to this locption are the401lowng: • Wide open views of the lake from every ryindpw of the e Wide open views from every ar4.o4the' r6perty. • The private lot along with the privAte Arive. • The knowledge that the City'gf.CltBnhassen�aa mance which states no structure could be built closer than 75 feet*.oT,ihe lake. is oy¢inance will preserve the views. • That all structures al`*Ii''t s private toad would be single family dwellings and would not be eligible or ha : hd'p ntial to be�� vided. These characters of „location wake this peninsula the beautiful place it is today and keeps the prop ,k high even in times,,of economic downturn. #nDpictures taken from our house facing the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. These ;how the view of the lake without any obstructions. Figure 2 - View Facing South helps the number of mature trees that would have to be removed in order to build at this location. A# 1 Figure 2 -View Facing South The property owners at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road have requested to build a garage at this location which will be inside the 75' variance. Granting shoreline variances for this size of structure will disrupt the harmony of the property and surrounding properties as the elevation of the detached 2 -car garage D V with studio space is 23'. The structure at this elevation will block the open views that exist today. On the proposed site plan there are options A, B, C, and D submitted June 23, 2015. The options of A, C, and D will be less obtrusive to our views, however option B will be next to our property line creating a complete obstruction to the view of the lake or our yard. Option D is in alignment with the other resident houses with their garages attached to their houses. The 2 -car detached garage with studio space will allow for additional residents to dwell at this location. In the letter dated June 5, 2015 under section: Variance Findings Statement, the use for the dwelling has not been outlined. A studio space above the detached garage is intended to be occupied, if this is the intention, the car traffic and congestion of cars will increase on the private ro�l� is also raises the potential for rental of the studio space in the future. a As residences of the adjacent property to 3603 Red Cedar Point Road t in agreement with the proposed request for development. We would request that the Ci hassen Planning Commission deny the request for variances. If on July 2V, 2015 the Planning Commission does gra0aptomove `tward with the construction of a 2 -car detached garage with studio spike t ives&me feedback to the location and appeal the decision. � O Sincerely,®� R n e I at Road, Chanhassen MN 55331