Loading...
D-2. 9001 Lake Riley Blvd 16-06'h PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a three-foot fence height variance for a six-foot six-inch tall, 175-foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and 00% Decision." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is proposing a 175-foot long, six-foot six- inch tall privacy fence. This request requires a three-foot fence height variance since the maximum height permitted within the 75-foot shoreland setback is three feet six inches. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard (PID 25-0242630) Ryan and Carolyn Majkrzak 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.98 acres 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 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 2 of 9 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is requesting a three-foot fence height variance to construct a 175-foot long, six- foot six-inch tall privacy fence. The fence height is restricted to three feet six inches due to it being located within 75 feet of the shoreline. The fence will maintain at least a one -inch setback from all properties lines and will be approximately five feet from a public sidewalk located east of Lyman Boulevard. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5. Fences and Walls Section 20-1022. — Shoreline fences Section 20-1023. — Height. BACKGROUND In 2011, the City of Chanhassen vacated a portion of its right-of-way along Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard. Carver County has not updated its online GIS map to show this vacation of the right-of-way (see bottom left). The applicant submitted a new survey when constructing their house (bottom right) Staff has determined that the submitted survey (bottom right) is an accurate representation of the property. Property lines are shown in red. The subject house was constructed in 2013 in conformance with Chanhassen City Code. The applicant is now requesting a fence height variance to construct a six-foot six-inch tall fence to: • Decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard. • Reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard. • Prevent people from trespassing across their private property to access Lake Riley. • Provide privacy in their back yard. Image 3: Submitted Survey / APPP.OVED� J� — n, .�•-- � // r -� 1, Y/ )J ..... Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 3 of 9 ANALYSIS The subject property is located east of the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Boulevard intersection. The elevation of the site slopes downward from west to east, toward Lake Riley, with a high elevation of approximately 874 feet to a low elevation at Lake Riley of 865.3 feet, which is the ordinary high water level elevation for Lake Riley. An inlet channel to Lake Riley is located on the property. Also, there is a storm water outlet (culvert) from a wetland in Riley Ridge Park, under Lyman Boulevard and across the subject property, to Lake Riley (see below). The proposed fence located on the corner lot will be: • A privacy fence. • Six feet six inches tall. • 175 feet long. • Located outside of the required sight triangle. • Setback a minimum of one -inch from all property lines. Shoreline A fence of this type, height, and length is permitted by City Code within the Single Family Residential District. However, this fence is prohibited because it is located within 75 feet of the shoreline. Fences within 75 feet of the shoreline are prohibited from exceeding three feet six inches. Lakes are amenities owned and enjoyed by the public. Shoreland regulations are intended to assure that a proliferation of structures along the shoreline does not adversely affect the opportunities for the public to enjoy the resources. Fences act to obstruct views of, and from the lake. In an effort to mitigate this, fences must be setback from the edge of the lake at least 75 feet or they must be less than three feet six inches tall. Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 4 of 9 The variance request is not from the lake proper, but rather from the inlet channel into Lake Riley. This was likely an open channel connecting the DNR protected wetland to the west and Lake Riley. However, the placement of Lyman Boulevard necessitated the installation of a culvert. The applicant would not require a fence height variance if this inlet did not exist and the lake shoreline continued its natural path along the property (see Image 5 below). The outlet/inlet is a public water and may require maintenance. Currently, there is unfettered access to the outfall. With the placement of the fence, the access becomes encumbered. Any fence, if it were to be approved, would require the installation of a gate adequate to allow an excavator to gain convenient access to the outfall. Surveyor's Cerlificaf•c: SURVE1 ;'-^R :,~ �.. CES✓? 3ED AS M r.FfMAI..r.•T1..1.1: f•'b}«.v •e.w..•Ir or0.�• .r..• •�..A L.rvy 0'4 rJ.r..r.. I a .� r.q U }. rw �.aa�. r •. ••.�•r • w •.« r N r+r r err w �w w • r•aw �ri.r q9.D +n•• wLW..w�n.e... le...w ••.w M..e... e ..Ar•NV n w.rrivr1•. atK I�<. 4r.. •rw . rrw r l>te >o ten r+ • .ems• rr• r a ••v.e. • . IM Is .•.!. Y litre Nv. YrR \> •lwr.4 ••AIf. r. rery. ' •ii•r•rt•M Orr r.•r'•..YwAI M.. ••. •... . rr. �ieh•N1� •r.e• 710M M rrWry YgrV r/^T �i •�•.r• J• wrV. f M . rwY�. n W M • v .wrr �•'•• «M rf wlwnl . NUe. O 410• e..l Y.tl • myrr• N.• n.r•r ♦ ►. a..w Y•.S 1 •NAP a.;-W .. •"9 • iMH 1•►e'><• r'Yw. M�niw A •.taM N!R rrrt t•1 «i.r r .p: Ae. r N r»an -+ -r `.wy r.!••r :•.rrA•�• •.t M.Y. rr W y.t • q.N •.t.aN1 I..Nr r.l.0 er.•�p•fI10.r."qTr. WIC• r.w d rf r: M • IF•.. resowr Its" rrw I• V.M •I ..W.•rr a+Nder�....r M.vt..yr:. w.r .•..• tY .. rw. M r.rlr. M .r.w fw • ..ro M Lyman Boulevard. $tarts at 30' corner triangle and runs for 175'. Height of 65 BAtri : ate Ney fYrA �30C. D: t Proposed Fence a y X� 3 wlCK+SCD fxCv�RrJ!iS `'\� ` t lop M fereWla+ -l17.0 �1' Cp•tlM fav-e7�Y.uasr; eb9 YtNar) Uelte«evi t ba -!i!-! N•e. Sf•M SRns� -Vsl t7e GMa D.Kto's p.•ellrq OMx� Y•Me - ' .lie kf n rev: MO Qev(:e \.w air •. •tv AS !• .OYLt llYrvvi4. n9 tIOSl tOt IA�Or' •: Image 5: Proposed Plan,& M V H '- 1-1 • . .. NV ee S•c )S I. �1i• IK S`«• 1 W 2 "1., Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Rear Yard Privacy The applicant's basis for the fence height variance request is that they wish to: • Decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard. • Reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard. • Prevent people from trespassing across their property to access Lake Riley. • Provide privacy in their back yard. Staff visited the subject site and noticed that there is very little privacy/screening from the sidewalk and Lyman Boulevard and the applicant's rear yard (see image below). The applicant planted evergreen trees to try to provide privacy and screening, but these trees have proved to be inadequate. Lyman Boulevard is a busy arterial road and it is clear that that westbound traffic on this road could potentially impact the comfort of the applicants. It is a reasonable to expect some level of privacy in one's rear yard. Due to this expectation, city code permits six-foot six-inch tall fences on the non -garage side of corner lots, even though this side is also considered a "front yard" (where fences are limited to three feet or four feet in height). It is staff s determination that the applicant's request to construct a six-foot six-inch tall fence is reasonable given the fence's location and the lot's orientation. Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Public Views of Lake Riley A public concern to consider with this application is the loss of public views of Lake Riley. However, after visiting the site, staff noticed that the private property between the public sidewalk and Lake Riley is rather thickly vegetated. There are only a few points where the Lake is easily visible, even with the leafless vegetation in the winter. From the lake, the vegetation will significantly screen the proposed fence and should not cause a major change in character of the shoreline. Due to the considerable vegetation on the private property, staff believes that there will be a minimal loss in viewscape of the lake from the public sidewalk. The viewscape loss will not be substantial as there is significant vegetation that currently disrupts pedestrians view of the lake. Additionally, the viewscape from the shoreline will be minimally altered by the construction of the fence because of the existing vegetation. Tree Loss Per city code, the applicant can locate the fence no closer than one inch from the property line. The subject property line is approximately five feet from the edge of the sidewalk. The applicant has stated that they will need to remove six spruce trees (which the applicant states are diseased) that are located near the property line. The applicant might also need to remove a few additional trees that are located along the western property line for the installation of the fence. The removal of a few trees to install a fence is permitted by city code. The loss of a few trees along the property line should not alter the essential character of the property or neighborhood. F WWWA . . . . . . . ... PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR INFORMATION CALL 952.227.1100 & IRS "tV t 5A Al m - $ Av, 7,W Rk 14, 04 ... 4k hnage 10: Fence Location (facing southwest) Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Variances within 500 feet of the Subject Property Within 500 feet of the subject property, staff noted four variance requests. Of these variance requests: • Three were for shoreland setbacks. • Two were for hard surface coverage. • Two were for yard setbacks. Variance Address Description Action Number 9015 Lake Riley Approved- A 3.5 percent hard surface coverage Approved CAS 14-27 Boulevard variance to construct a patio. and Denied Denied- A 39-foot shoreland setback variance. A 5-foot front yard setback variance, 1.0 percent hard surface coverage variance, and a CAS 05-10 9015 Lake Riley 32-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved Boulevard demolition and rebuilding of a single-family home on a non -conforming property (minimum area). VAR 90-07 9051 Lake Riley A 10.35-foot shoreland setback variance for the Approved Boulevard construction of a new home. 9005 Lake Riley Request for an addition to a non -conforming VAR 85-21 Boulevard building (encroaching into front and rear yard Withdrawn setbacks). SUMMARY The applicant's request for a six-foot six-inch tall fence is reasonable. Based on the orientation of their property, it is clear that west bound traffic on Lyman Boulevard could potentially disrupt their comfort and use of the rear yard. The construction of the proposed fence will only minimally reduce the visibility of the lake from Lyman Boulevard. The view of the lake from Lyman Boulevard is already obstructed by thick vegetation and the proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, the proposed fence does not require a variance from the lake proper (as the fence will be located over 75 feet from the lake), but rather from the inlet channel into Lake Riley. Upon purchasing the home, the applicant should have had full knowledge of the location of the inlet and unique aspects of the property; however, the unique orientation of the lot and the location of the inlet channel were not circumstances created by the property owner. Based on this review, staff supports the variance request for a six-foot six-inch tall fence that is 175 feet long. Planning Commission 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06 March 1, 2016 Page 9 of 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a three-foot fence height variance request for a six-foot six-inch tall, 175- foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to the following conditions: 1. A gate, at least 14 feet in width, is included with the fence and placed so that City will have convenient access to the outfall should maintenance be required. 2. The applicant applies for and receives a zoning permit. 3. The applicant applies for and receives an encroachment agreement from the City. EVI ' 0111u_IOW10 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Applicant Narrative. 4. Aerial Image with Fence Location. 5. Google Map with Fence Location. 6. Survey. 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-06 9001 lake riley boulevard fence variance\staff report 9001 lake riley blvd.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Ryan and Carolyn Majkrzak for a variance from the maximum fence height of three feet six inches for fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2016-06. On March 1, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: Section 24 Township 116 Range 023 ALL THAT P/O GOVT LOT 2 24-116-23 LYING SE OF CENTERLINE OF LYMAN BOULEVARD PER DOC T90333 & 189939. CENTERLINE OF LYMAN BOULEVARD DESC AS: BEG AT W QUARTER CORNER OF SECT 24, TH S89*E WHERE E/W QUARTER LINE BEARS S89*E 2186.62'; TH ELY 28' ALONG TANGENTIAL CURVE 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to construct a 175-foot long, 6-foot 6-inch tall privacy fence along Lyman Boulevard. The shoreline fence section of city code is meant to protect the views of, and from the lake. The variance request is not from the lake proper, but rather from the inlet channel into Lake Riley. If the lake inlet did not exist, the fence would be permitted without a variance. It is not the intent of this chapter to protect the views of and from lake inlets, but rather to protect the views of and from lakes. As the proposed fence is located over 75 feet from the lake proper, the construction of the fence will be in keeping with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty of complying with the maximum fence height for fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback is created by a lake inlet located on the subject property. The maximum fence height requirement created by the lake inlet eliminates the opportunity for the property owner to construct a functional privacy fence between their rear yard and Lyman Boulevard, a busy arterial road. The property owner is requesting the variance for the fence to decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, and prevent people from trespassing across their property to access Lake Riley. It is clear that westbound traffic on Lyman Boulevard could potentially impact the repose and comfort of the applicant in their rear yard. Requesting a variance for a privacy fence is a reasonable request and the proposed fence should remedy the issues currently experienced by the applicant. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The intent of the request is not based upon economic considerations alone. The applicant has stated that the fence height variance request is to decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, and prevent people from trespassing across their property to access Lake Riley. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The difficulty of complying with the maximum fence height is due to the lake inlet on the property. This circumstance is unique to the property and was not created by the landowner. Generally, property owners are permitted privacy fences in their side and rear yards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of the proposed fence will minimally reduce the visibility of the lake from Lyman Boulevard., but the proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The view of the lake from Lyman Boulevard is already obstructed by thick vegetation and the construction of a fence will not cause a major change to the character of the area. 2 i 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 #2016-06, dated March 1, 2016, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, approves a three-foot fence height variance for a six-foot six-inch tall, 175-foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, on property zoned Single -Family Residential District, subject to the following conditions: 1. A gate, at least 14 feet in width, is included with the fence and placed so that City will have convenient access to the outfall should maintenance be required. 2. The applicant applies for and receives a zoning permit. 3. The applicant applies for and receives an encroachment agreement from the City." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of March, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN _, i Chairman 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHMEMSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: 1 !� PC Date: 1 At, CC Date: 60-Day Review Date: SectionApplication Typeapply) (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300 ❑ Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ( lots) ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots) .................................. $300 ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ Final Plat.......................................................... $700 ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 *Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 Variance (VAR) .................................................... $200 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ Administrative.................................................. $100 All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500 El Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) ElZoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500 *Include number of existing employees: *Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts a $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, ......................................... Plus per dwelling unit ( units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ✓❑ Notification Sign (City to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 ✓❑ Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address ( 12 addresses) ❑✓ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................................................................... $50 per document ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation ❑✓ Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements) $486.00 TOTAL FEE: Description of Proposal: Variance requested from Section 20-1022 "Shoreline Fences" of Chanhassen City Code. Request to build fence on property along Lyman Blvd of 6.5' in height and 175' in length. Property Address or Location: Parcel #: 25.0242630 Legal Description: 9001 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Section 24 Township 116 Range 023 Total Acreage: 0.98 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Requested Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: Single family home. ❑✓ Check box is separate narrative is attached. SCANNED APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Ryan and Carolyn Majkrzak Contact: Email or Cell Address: 9001 Lake Riley Blvd Phone: (952) 855-9780 City/State/Zip: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell: (949) 309-0907 Email: ryan.majkrzak@gmail.com Fax: Signature: Date: 1 /4/16 This allIp"'i"icationirust be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ❑✓ Property Owner Via: ❑✓ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing (required). SAVE FORM PRINT FORM I SUBMIT FORM SCANNED VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST PROPERTY INFORMATION Address: 9001 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Parcel: 25.0242630 Legal Description: Section 24, Township 116, Range 023 ITEM 1: COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM Submitted along with this checklist. ITEM 2: EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OR AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY Applicants are Ryan and Carolyn Majkrzak, named owners of property per City of Chanhassen and Carver County records. ITEM 3: APPLICATION FEE Submitted along with this checklist. SCANNED ITEM 5: WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: Property owners are requesting variance from Section 20-1022 "Shoreline Fences" of Chanhassen City Code. This section states "Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall have a maximum height of three and one-half feet in the rear yard (lake side). Request to build privacy fence along Lyman Blvd of 6.5' in height and 175' in length. ITEM 6: WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION OF HOW REQUEST COMPLIES WITH FINDINGS FOR GRANTING VARIANCE The purpose of the proposed fence is to provide sound, sight and trespassing protection for the single family home and side / rear yard. The lot is unique in that the side yard boundary is Lyman Boulevard, a main traffic artery running to the surrounding residential communities with a 35 mph speed limit. The noise and visual annoyance caused by this road are a nuisance to the subject property. For example, vehicles traveling southwest on Lyman Boulevard have headlights that aim directly into subject property's deck and dining area. In addition, individuals have trespassed onto the property from the Lyman Boulevard boundary to gain access to Lake Riley on multiple occasions. In the summer, people have cut through the yard to fish off the shoreline (and left trash on the property). In the winter, people have driven snowmobiles and dragged ice houses across the property. A fence is the only practical alternative to adequately address these issues. The current line of six 15'-20' tall spruce trees (shown in aerial map) has proven ineffective at providing sound, sight and trespassing protection. In addition, it has now been determined that these trees (placed in 2013) are diseased and will need to be removed. A new vegetation barrier of the thickness needed to address the sound and sight issues is not practical given the slope and shape of the yard. The current ordinance only allows for a 3.5' high fence within 75' of the shoreline. The location of the proposed fence is greater than 75' from the shoreline of Lake Riley, but does come within 75' of a drainage outlet that flows from a holding pond on the other side of Lyman Boulevard to Lake Riley. A taller (6.5' high) fence is required to provide adequate sight and sound protection from traffic on Lyman Boulevard. It is especially important because (1) the main floor of the residence sits at an elevation a few feet higher than Lyman Boulevard and (2) the ground slopes down from Lyman Boulevard to the location of the proposed fence for much of its length. The fence would be the minimum length required to meet the objective of sound, sight and trespassing protection from Lyman Boulevard. It would run along only about one quarter of the property's boundaries. The fence would not be readily visible from Lake Riley. It would be set back from the shoreline a distance ranging from 85 to 150 feet and would be almost entirely hidden from view by vegetation and the residence. In addition, it would be of a color that blends in with the surrounding vegetation (brown, tan, etc.). If anything, the ability of residents to enjoy Lake Riley may be improved as noise and sight pollution from Lyman Boulevard would be reduced. This request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: 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. This Variance request is consistent with the general purposes and intent of the chapter: • The Code allows for a 6.5' tall fence in side and rear yards. This location is a side yard. • The Code also allows for a 3.5' tall fence in an area within 75' of shoreline. • Thus, it is established that a fence is reasonable in this situation, it is a matter of the height of the fence. • The spirit of the 3.5' height restriction is to not unnecessarily impede the view of the lake. However, the area that this fence would come within 75' of is a drainage outlet. It would not come within 75' of what would typically be considered the shoreline of Lake Riley. In addition, there are a number of trees and shrubs in this area, many with heights that well exceed 6.5'. Thus, the fence would not stick out amongst the surrounding vegetation. �3CANNED There are no neighbors directly across Lyman Boulevard whose view would be affected by a 6.5' tall fence. The nearest neighbors are in the Reflections neighborhood, over 500 feet away from the fence and perched up on a hill such that the height of the fence would have no impact on their view. See Figure below for sightline of nearest neighbors. The length of the fence is being kept to the minimum needed to provide sound, sight and trespassing protection from Lyman Boulevard. The subject property boundaries are approximately 450' along Lyman Boulevard, 80' along Lake Riley Boulevard, 125' adjacent to a neighbor to the south and 325' adjacent to the city lot to the East. This application is for a fence that runs 175' of the — 980' non-beachfront perimeter of the lot. Thus, the fence would be present on less than 15% of the lot's non-beachfront perimeter. The fence would be constructed of high quality, durable solid materials (PVC or Trex) with a color that blends into the natural surroundings (tan, brown, etc.). In discussions with city staff (Robert Generous, AICP, Senior Planner and Terrance Jeffery, CWD, Water Resources Coordinator) the main concern expressed was ensuring adequate access to the drainage outlet so that City staff can easily perform any required maintenance and repairs. The property owners are willing to work with the city to ensure an acceptable solution, including constructing the fence with a gate to allow direct access. 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. The property owners' reason for the request is to simply be able to enjoy regular residential use of the property, such as: • Enjoying use of the side and back yards without excessive noise from Lyman Boulevard (main traffic artery with 35 mph speed limit). • Enjoy use of the deck and dining spaces without headlights shining in from Lyman Boulevard. • Not having to deal with people cutting through the yard to gain access to Lake Riley by foot, on snowmobile, or dragging ice houses, which has happened multiple times since the property owners purchased the property in August 2013. A fence is the only practical alternative to adequately address these issues. The current line of six 15 —20' tall spruce trees (shown in aerial map) has proven ineffective at providing sound, sight and trespassing protection. In addition, it has now been determined that these trees (placed in 2013) are diseased and will need to be removed. A new vegetation barrier of the thickness needed to address the sound and sight issues is not practical given the slope and shape of the yard. The property owners are willing to work with city staff to satisfactorily address any potential concerns with the proposed fence, including constructing the fence with a gate to allow direct access to the drainage outlet. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. • None of the arguments presented in this summary are based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The situation is caused by two unique attributes of the property not created by the landowner: 1. The side yard is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard, a main traffic artery running to the surrounding residential communities with a 35 mph speed limit. If this road was not adjacent to the property's side yard (for a substantial length of 450 feet), there would not be the same need for sound, sight and trespassing protection for the property. SCANNED A drainage outlet flows from a holding pond on the other side of Lyman Boulevard through a culvert under the road and across the subject property. The drainage outlet is only about 5-10' wide, 1-2' deep, and is not practically part of Lake Riley. Because the drainage outlet is present, the shoreline setback restrictions are measured from it. However, if the drainage outlet were not present, the setback would instead be measured from what would typically be considered the shoreline of Lake Riley. The entire length of the proposed fence is well over 75 feet from this shoreline, and the 6.5' fence height would be fully consistent with the Code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will remain unchanged. From the Lyman Boulevard side, the height of the fence will be lower than the height of much of the surrounding vegetation, and the fence will be of a color that blends into the natural surroundings (tan, brown, etc.). From the Lake Riley side, the fence will be set back from the shoreline a distance ranging from — 85 to 150 feet and will be almost entirely hidden from view by vegetation and the residence. If anything, the ability of residents to enjoy Lake Riley may be improved as noise and sight pollution from Lyman Boulevard will be reduced. f. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statute 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. • Not Applicable. i 4N, t .. IL Fence (blue line) runs along lot line of t Lyman Blvd. Starts at 30' corner triangle and runs for 175'. Height of 6.5'. Note that location of lot line is +, not correctly represented on this screenshot from Carver County ` y website. i SCANNED Fence (blue line) as viewed from nearest neighbors in Reflections neighborhood. Fence does not impact views from these properties. Note that actual fence color (brown, tan, etc.) would blend in with natural surroundings. ITEM 4: PLOT PLAN S"urveyvrIs Cc:rCificate SURVEY FOR :Norton tkmos DESCRIBED AS : 8910 Lake Ailey Blvd u men OW of Go-rn t lot 2 or recnon 24 Tow•Inq t 10 k•'yc 23. .;arse- Cony NNv,elc,a ttn2 sotAnant" Of a nx ytry 40 CO 4ret al oma4nf of of. m4awwf al npm swabs Jd 04 pram+ wtn To .craw irool LrO be W.AnJ c., DOovrw•t No 19033) am 109919. �ad Oral+ Irra . dswo.f M tUdws I I,aj,nnYQ of Ira woW 9a.lm coowr of wd a Socicn 24 *ww SA+a0 f:.�rws 063 mnWos S2 Y "4& Eaa. *two go •sot"wool %wlw I- f!// .rs 60,0 09 dow- 47 mr.Aos 54 secor.4s E.M. a OW.-- or + r f 06 W low, tawro• ••wry a dttuw or 28 GO fa.t tbrq a 1r p.m.l- .r n noncaw N the nonh Mwq a radrn of 000 of"a•d a rwnnl 1�2b N 02 daOrosJ 00 -to" 19 som'O'. men-e -%x1h 0s c.yee. •.9 / 1 --efts 49 secwds Laal. a dalance of 029 H AW fb•1ce 11sk Y a n / fat cJ 1192 *K a" a taWgr sal c..n• cfncava to he vxd. . a.vt0 a .OA of Wo 00 4et ant a central &Vr of 00 d:prms 51 7t, -,,fes Is Wonfs fldfn NOrM W Aeyroef 42 WA"M 01 seconds /� =s.1. a dam" of SW 50 %W to a pant t"" tally roknod b a• Pant: C : nwnoo nonnmW1j a dwroe or SW 01 Nat oWq a IrywOal to W. redW.W nr.rp a talus Of 45000 W d . .r W* "of or 70 Oe No 06 nW%Aa 30 Gleans. Inence Nam 19 )'1" 33 —Aro 26 seconds Eat s do3em• a 1 0 00 rew rllena• 4tI .rNeaNay. off=lj. and s0ralwdeta41. a dws:a of 9N 67 ket V , >• tivy a u+t fnwal us.e cancaw to m• satAn rwrq , .slut Of S 10 CO ce1 &W a onmal an* of tOl deg-. 15 -,nets 10-crania sd 0— 1 "'wo noel"s" of a aro WO 2500 tees -Ih-O.N af. neck~ at ngnt an2ns to rd O"W wa :'e roiew n2 &C tcd )r�� I /r )raw we --omtWrOg al the pWoi V doar0od port A tk o nottreamery a V 1r 1 1 dIrKa O'2a5�ILM YYq•CJI.i fO1lrJR td lf4 'dr7n.ef NV�i `/ 'w-4 of 450 00 feel. a &WIA style M 36 dop'ao1 27 'w0ts 56 -on& A14 IN dwd d wd —1: a , Mxtn 71 ocgtc.r :0.nnu4t. ;4 iw:o•ti Esa b N pWd of 0agrrin2 of n„ tw 10 W Nuat4o news Sam 30 dayrew 45 —Aeo 55 •• r* E a a (ass-- r V s ap teed, 1hWKe• WUtnenl s OMferl4e of 1' 1-1 atrq a tfrfe.v�el 1 "r.. r*rca a to th weer. t1a..y a rafr n . • t0 ter ens a 0"'1 . 1 ; :t 50 0@99•1 21 mnJtel 21 N..' :: ant Lid N.e Vwe Fence (blue line) runs along lot line of Lyman Boulevard. Starts at 30' corner / J triangle and runs for 175'. Height of o f , 6.5'. A ! f t $r4awdk+5q FI = 45 D=vows Ft - 1.249 Patio t - 52 Total 3,819 j _ Cc) j Ito f ��• i l• � � � t �1 a tr �v -_-r_�._ f -S , rr '{r•� scxe i twr - a tin _ ram 7 .Y•1 !L/� �-=�'_--� PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 877.t) _ � Top of Fwndotion` -• Caroge Floor =876.6(Llppor) 868.3(Lowdr) mor l Flo�868.3 Apfox. Aprpo. Sewer Service fe y> Proposed rev. �- MIN. SETBACK RE_C_ It K(V N' � Existing Elev. — Dro'noge D:rect,ws Front -30 Hors Denotes Cf`ae• S-c{, - • Rae• 75 rrom 6S5 3 Corc9e Sde 3:1 Co^t-v' i f.LRLOY CERTIFY n4AT 7tdS rs A T1ttE AND COAft".T QELMSFNTAf':cN .ce vo , 146 BY OF ABOV"E DLSeY DOESL-47T AS •d1R' HEDLUND TO BY WE OR U1gER W OtKCT StRERVSfON AND DUES NDT PiJRP(:R' TO WE R LPIOR W EC AND n»c SNOW WWOYEWFl9FS OR EWl ROA0JWF.%M F%CFPT AS SHCW/ PIA.YAMC !A'6INNIJUA6 SVRrlrl.%C 2035 Pr Cc& Drive Co2en. WN W22 DATE t61 fJ -�© _ IPA12, ae n.E '2 ao.x 651) 66:0 -I-/ REV _42/_tx/_1.1 ) gr •txcN. - wK+.t.rd3N 5:ftcr ti^ne: 1 0. 2 `.n••'• £P. (65f) 405 L66C6 4:: v2/ r�% '.I >,J NNL50"A LICENSE fi LLN '43I5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 18, 2016, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance — Planning Case 2016-06 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16 day of Febvbtar�) , 2016 Notary Public Lt Kim Meuwissen, Deputy Clerk W JENNIFER ANN POTTER Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2020 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a fence height variance within the Shoreland Proposal: Setback of Lake Riley on .98 acres of property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Ran & Carolyn Majkrzak Property 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-06. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please Questions & contact Drew Ingvalson by by phone at 952-227-1132 or by Comments: email at dingvalson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a fence height variance within the Shoreland Proposal: Setback of Lake Riley on .98 acres of property zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant: Ran & Carolyn Majkrzak Property 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-06. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please Questions & contact Drew Ingvalson by by phone at 952-227-1132 or by Comments: email at dingvalson(aD_ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. DAVID L ANDERSON DELBERT R & NANCY R SMITH DUSTIN BRABENDER 290 GREENLEAF CT 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8639 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC 2681 LONG LAKE RD ROSEVILLE, MN 55113-1128 REV TRUST AGREEMENT OF JOAN M LUDWIG 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 PETER DAVID MCINTOSH 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631 RYAN D MAJKRZAK 9001 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 NORMAN C JR & KIMBERLY GRANT 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8650 PHILLIP J SOSNOWSKI PO BOX 490 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0490 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7631