PC Staff Report 3-15-16CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PROPOSED MOTION:
PC DATE: March 15, 2016 —0' z
CC DATE: March 28, 2016 (if necessary)
REVIEW DEADLINE: March 29, 2016
CASE #: 2016-06
BY: AF, RG, DI, TJ, ML, JM, JS
"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
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-
MAIGNG: 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 15, 2016
Page 2 of 9
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
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.
hi 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 /
kbllti
P '- (
yam- c)
Planning Commission
9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06
March 15, 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 15, 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.
Planning Commission
9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06
March 15, 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 backyard.
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 15, 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.
7f�
PROPOSED
�` • ,! y „��,1 - DEVELOPMENT
FFORMFORMOON CA
Image ' - - - - 1100
northwest of hom
p4yxG �' t; b fi Aiae,0
` � r s ,� �, r 4' r r4"•
t� (a f•. .�•�.
• t "y s �f e,� a ,,
�D a •�. d? bR.;C�� k:a� .� - :i,�
4
isr _
S j •.
i _
Planning Commission
9001 Lake Riley Boulevard — Planning Case 2016-06
March 15, 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 15, 2016
Page 9 of 9
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.
ATTACHMENTS
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.
8. Affidavit of Mailing of Re -scheduled 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 15, 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.
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 #2016-06, dated March 15, 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 15'h day of March, 2016.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chairman
t9 -G a; _
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANKASSFN
Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittal Date: PC Date: 3 1 1 tII CC Date: 3 60 -Day Review Date: 3
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
❑
Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................
$600
❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers.....
$100
❑
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
❑ Single -Family Residence ................................
$325
❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150
❑ All Others.........................................................
$425
❑
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700
❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..
$325
(Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
❑ All Others.........................................................
$425
❑
Rezoning (REZ)
through the development contract.
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..................
$750
$300
❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................
$100
❑ All Others.........................................................
$500
❑
Sign Plan Review ...................................................
$150
❑
Site Plan Review (SPR)
❑ Single -Family Residence ...............................
$150
❑ Administrative..................................................
$100
$275
❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500
Zoning Appeal ......................................................
$100
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).................
(_ thousand square feet)
Include number of existing employees:
Include number of new employees:
El Residential Districts .........................................
$500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units)
❑ Subdivision (SUB)
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently
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) ....................... 4O�.�O��............ $3 per address
( 12 addresses)
❑✓ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) .................................................... .......... $50 per document
El Conditional Use Permit El Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement
❑ Vacation ❑✓ Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) M❑ Easements( easements)
rJ GK-�} a �—� .�� TOTAL FEE: $486.00
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:
9001 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parcel #: 25.0242630 Legal Description: 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
❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................
$300
❑ Create over 3 lots ....................... $600 + $15 per lot
(_ lots)
❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150
❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150
❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700
(Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
❑
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........
$300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
❑✓
Variance (VAR) ....................................................
$200
❑
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
❑ Single -Family Residence ...............................
$150
❑ All Others .......................................................
$275
❑
Zoning Appeal ......................................................
$100
❑
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).................
$500
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently
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) ....................... 4O�.�O��............ $3 per address
( 12 addresses)
❑✓ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) .................................................... .......... $50 per document
El Conditional Use Permit El Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement
❑ Vacation ❑✓ Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) M❑ Easements( easements)
rJ GK-�} a �—� .�� TOTAL FEE: $486.00
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:
9001 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parcel #: 25.0242630 Legal Description: 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
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information
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 a plication ust 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:
Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information:
❑
Property Owner Via:
2 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 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.
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.
_;ter-hrJcp
• 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
2. 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 2160.06,
Subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter.
• Not Applicable.
SCANNED
Fence (blue line) runs along lot line of
Lyman Blvd. Starts at 30' corner r
triangle and runs for
6.5'. Note that location of lot line is
not
Fence
represented on this
iMQ screenshot from Carver County
website.
4e"
, C,
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
Surveyor's Certificate
SURVEY FOR :xcrto+nea
DESCRIBED AS 8.970 Lake R;7ey B;vd
.bea Aeed�td2d:asfen2a Taw 116 Rm n. (;300141
y+n [e,^N r�nesoa MIH aedne.*wnY d a .ac IY*9 N40+as6
:Prtawacxa d. as nrnuaA n
M aan43 b m praaa r]M aw
xrKr :ra d Lpve 9wawa!A wt Ca No. 194333 and ifffv!9. /
aeA iwaw In'a bau0•a u iGsx
iH fyiN.Dii•aiW h..afdwG SagMli tYinai SqA� �
Y'ro of s]ndc R saua Faz:, wf su t]aa.er4 rysxi xn - /
>xuw w+N m an3'+ar a maapa it eaw+es rax, x Mxnu N 1/ � _ 7.
3tff 5J Mn,gwas uwYxm•asx cl2 co fatr Nse9>%+'tAi'nl 1J/g
JM axtarl b?< 9^1��4]+�NxMr SIflY1W hH OM <iEN:N � //a
'ykdtC MydnM ub]I&e)m1ey,RgTs a]xhyY4y^!]dD � ,
Tftita6 ]9 ERpCS tit. iW1W.! Cf A3b. "i`i E(![ yCt[ gyyiT a %
ldaxa d 1f 59 }et a{yy a •Aps a C;ntsap t4 !q IcaM / /� r,
neAv(a x9a d NU P] Ye' aM a �d avt d L9 A:G2ri .'.i i'
nYi t] va.CMl YnCe fY!A� S3 i3 n'N8f OD f[[tnM f
-'y.[]d6VW d6'JI SO^YIo]�4!ruainaN'�aby(+a YS
.0, MMw erSaAsxvM ] 611exa d SeA.Ai U,axp a
aw anon M w rv}In.Otl »v.p x tai,u a LSOfi A•a xr] A
rrae� •ya d 4U At916xS AB mruk] b wmv, x•+s. x]m iY /� ,/ f„ %
Ixprta].S mnA..e:e argrq>Fax edeS"r2 n, v§49 Me thea+,.
fomeeavb. aacYrM. m6 wiA+we;MM a aeuGs d ^oN eT sea. ` J �
Ib'q ali$4a6Y a.ro 4crcrnbl*a aaM NvlHar.Vusd 3tnW y //
nlaMa mast an4bdfOlagees s]mnik]ie rsAtd]aa gem � £ J
rr-ma:nF
�m
_pg sit•xa]e�y d a vrc we 2694
xav]eA d rgA WAa b •M Penh wM m bbwn4 ero rose / `t' t
xrmr aro 4
.[nmeci3d en ptow]nM AVWteA PGxn Meme �A'.+s'aeN• v t
fauns ]9a4ied YYgaiMmnrme bea.nn a /a
.xn d x L 23 W91: M 36 Aegm V
3•CN tt"voads+W 4aw err wMri
w.Wa
a4aEa,: mIM WIG gta4.wDdtM mbv>]uraca. // �t' J J
re .aP• Y: 3.4^+s AS nt.]'.Mx ss xr�.ea E v a c xse d 4
J49 M1eL It+r<e mu'M11Y a OY.va:x d iG? 5y 4et yXy a nN1W J
'M IXMafl Mtge ael1.
2t I`,own LVited!Ci
ly! d b e®ren m2t sac+es as wq Ira esm
Fence (blue line) runs along lot line of
Lyman Boulevard. Starts at 30' corner
triangle and runs for 175'. Height
2.473
=
45 9
521.249
Top of Foundation -877.0
Go,age F➢oa
Bcsemenl Floor =8868.5(
Aprox Sewer Service +V fy
Proposed Eley. (y�
Existing Elte. +- —
Dronegs Directions =-�
Darloles Of -sat Stake -
MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
front -b Hame Side -fp
Rec. -75 Gorcoe Silo -m
I P WY CERIPY THAT f. M A IRE A COVMV RIFRESM3Mr7
Av
OF ,Mi 9l1U Wts CY Ill A99YE DES.RI PRLOM" A5 WRKTED
12R-,46
HEDLUI D
8Y ME OR Lp"R n MncT S#ERYSIN AM3 DOES 14T MM R? TO
//��/)
6N0w 3aipv[TYE n M EwGIpAQi . M fx E AS SNCf1A.
AR:
(eLVN(NG GNLINdGA/MC Nf/A'IN2TAC
20a] tm tri W.ro
Ee3w w 16,22
OAR �__ t5
Ga0 rec Nowa
12
rm (est) a 6606
em _Qat+Qj/� $OTA LIm1iE N ii]T4
Seel 1 m 2 Seaeis
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
February 18, 2016, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Variance – Planning Case 2016-06 to the persons
named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to
such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail
with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those
appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by
other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 16 day of Febytk AYIn , 2016.
—Notary Public
Kim I
Meuwissen, Depu Clerk
JENNIFER ANN POTTER
2 Notary Public -Minnesota
My Comml.m Expr" Jan 31, 2020
C
d
N
2
2
D O
C .N
d E
x E
V O
U
CL c
6 C
C
oma.
O C
Z d
N
l0
t
C
t
U
r
v N
_ N
.N 3
N
m t9 0 �o
Eo
N
0)
0" N
C-0 N
.0 .. C C
> N O E >"'6
N
w=om
0�, 'E
nv
C m
J O R N
0-0 N
N O d
N NOO >.a Q
C
aoE Eom
E'm
a'moE
aEN„5
�Oa NEN
om
T
@
N
@ coRnLp 0
t E
@ O)- N
@
mmEn8a
v .yy tO
c
L
�, C .�
p
-I� C=
C
m `o_v
C N
j
O
a N
� L -0 0 'N
O R'N
0) 0 N w 0 3 0.-
0
a)
oTYm.m; of
oQ
aUm mEU m.. V
d>
>
N >'
)
ai
E N _(/�
- N- N E= d'
N
Qac 'm om EdmS�o me m=
y
m�(D)
.L.. N
V
'"O
OEN oa) E
aa)) nuNi"m@oNEE
0 E
a;
c E I -`'c E
`_
m
a
c 0.
O
o
c 0J__
O 0
�Lv�
E N m O
N L
° E= mr
E m� o
F y
L
a
C
N
o w
O)� flC a
C p ` N
N i R E U
N
a t a v .. r m m m O E E
v@
@...a
3w
N
w
.0 U
N N @
f0 O)
O N J C
3 3
m°nUmEO"'=$ra'i'
mw� m rnm E Cpm
E O2
D.dO
N0
a=
O)CN�.L..C".L..
..L..
a) f0 OC 4) 0.,6
to
CN
d c
Tic
$O
O
U d
°
C C a) .� c0 E
O Lt y N N N N c
O
EM -
CD
D o
n
@ U
9@
m E p a O C
N'm0 @ aL L E= 0@
m
_`.5
r
co
co
u
N� N 3 -w CO
N .p
a N> N N a—
N ca Cw.�~ 0.
U R
°U�atm�_oa4
E..a=
co 0
`
N
>
0)
'O
LL.
0 w N N
N
C 0) 7 O>1@ ._ d 4)
L
=�_.
O
._ma -"d -so
O E E =a
Ern Ea0wmm
c
coda
N
L
C:
Y
d
U O O)N >
c N N N
@ N w c=
@ C 1] U i
n o o
p 7
C
U"
d
E'N
-0) OLLN>�?�
@@>
`
@>
.L..
..
CL OC'UC N'NCO
c
XO
:_mango-mayy;;°'
ado n-�rvc
N 9
@
L T h
y.
� d
LoQL)
a� J O) - a)
N N C N y N 0 0 0 Z
.NO N
oJ9'2mo
U 9 y =� m c� E n= J3 o- I D c
-L
^
U
N
@
JL
p..
J C'
N 0@ 3 N
N 0 E C' N a.
3 N @ C @ E p
@ OEm
°w'�nm
L
-
a)
0
L-. N U S N C@ c
e
N N N Y O) t_pi) O -0 E �
N U R
O a CD
-O
.oaecaEcy-.U3
's = "' -` n o f° aEi m m?_= c
n ° E 1° w
d
E N
U
C
N N
w Y N
C
>`
y
J a) >@
N@
CoC U@ 0 C
N NL
C J E
m m m
tau
@
J@@
@�--N0
_N
6
O D-'� O) W U U
N D C N
O ^p c O 1 C CU O
R N
"E5EE�owY Etc oS
=`m5 ScomEa `Ox `v�+_o'o
�
O
w�4-IE�d
�.
@
N E
N�-O_'G-aNLO
n@ NCS wRa
c a
_
@
m o
SEo ow EEm=wEan��'
°U
o p N@
NE
o N N@ 3@ Ec
c L �. N
�_ao = m$a�Wa'vanma
@
G
N YOU
a'S
YC
aC N'�k E
L@
3N0{Orz
>i E 'R 7
Ems`
N
N�F �Ewx. =En �c$m
=Uoo nE m E -o 'c0 c
N
R
U
aS
J
J@ L O N
U= U
3 .>. U @
N N
domr"=
�Uomn`Eac
N==
�-
C
U
a -In i—U a L
STN
J (.% J.R..- E n c> F
N U C
Emc act�E'
�'�
a�idmRo°taa�
(nQ
F @ Co a�
�cRoaQRN�>E
E dt
U'D
C C
I.-
��EE EWaeEam
F OU
�'InLL
Q'
W QH@@
Q� aV MV
,may ,�„ O J N O
- UN N"D UQ+.NNN
U'p
OE@N 85 mw.Nmm
N N
o_om�"�`�° m.r_t EEEain
..mo_55om�xf nE�c
N
Q N
Eau oQ �"Ea m°.n$UE_
d
y
7
gp
_E
..
..
Qd
.N..
5 eayEsesmwocTUy
:a `s 10y
~
O
m
0
=�
O N
U
Y =o_ EEm E n3'�ni w
°d
'a
N
O
V
N i-
N
'y E
(i N
U
n�`o`S�c
s ��o v
d
r
O
Q
p
60
Q R
0
r
@ y
L
N E
Y
3 U
�Et
wv n�mn_._,uD`o vm am
rc a E._s�wmntmEE6'Eu1O rn"
@
O
O
a
Q
0
a
L �
0
Lu co-
i' wo o.5
G
J
Q
QO.J
J
@
(�i.i
Z
v .
r
Ro
>10 3
N
w `o dE a= Ed
0)
0- N
`
d C
> N O-0 N
ca
ovf
'O
@ N
0 d
N 0O O N
N O >..- a+L N
C
N
c>.n EE 90 EEnr
=i")a @` gm E-. ��a�
G
7
N
N N O Q> m E
D)
'� cco a yEcw E a
Eodw `m
c
O C
0 C O
a J N _'^' y. O
c
wE Ec
b. wE>y
cd
j
LO
N
Ta)@ aN O
-0 '0 .N
O) Ur OC �N�
O 3 of
0
(7
W'E
0<
mUc
d d
t d
N >'
)
ai
E -cL
U N N
C N N y- yp.—
.0 N'� �
'C E
E
a'CmEc ^�'QEmrEm
vim'. Eg °10° o ff=d`w�c
£
CO
.L.. N
V
'"O
C
O N 0' U
O E
N N yj >@
N
a;
c E I -`'c E
`_
m
N
C a
C n rL
N a 0) J (%� C E
C to
m� o m "'o m'
.. E. m E
°' `
FL -°Y
O
C
.0
w 0 JE
E t/1 C NdoNL
S.UE L' w'U Ei m m,°.
oo�aEa
v
@...a
3
N
w
-O J O)y QC aO
N G p U
N � Lr,@Eo��OU
3
3R
3
t'�°- 5„°-5
° p u a v. m °u 3' 2 a n E
E d
0
0 O N N
c
o ? N C c
N f(D a
N N
d c
Tic
O.y
O
V N
O
O) C.L.. C "' L..
0 p y N a1 N C
O
E" E�d~Eaa 3S°
po�(6U
vCc
@E OO QOC
N N @n@L ELO@N'U
`cam«
_`.5
@
N
Nab 0 3 �� @
h ca m NF
9C.= �9tdH�o9�
c
(6 `�
`
N
> p�j
d
a y
L 0 '� d N -O -p
U E
N O)7 0 @!_' w N
N.0 t
Cl
J
-_ -w a'_�.Ea En�W
m
f0 d
1]
L
O) C
Y
0 0) � N j N
- N N N
N@ C V Y '� C .L+
Q E 0 O r
C O
C
Eng c� w
Awa c�mo`~ o_n wUc
d
E'�
0 LL
@@>
`
>
J'0 �L > aN V
J
0'L E O C'U N N c O
O
X s.
9mo ag---r9c .. Gcgd
Nv
-L
@
L >�
Y
d
Q M O) 0-_ N
N N C N N U N r
E C'
.N - A W
ci` v = torc9 ti.
cCi
_N
R
0
O@ 3
N Np)
oc 3 N o m
N @ C @ E c p
@ O
- „ommqs"'
_ Ec.- .0
az
L
-
C
mc
O
N U N c C
NNN Y>OE>E.
N D) N 0'O C
U@
00
'O p
q`
4E =nc`o_Eoo'v
" m E
s E? - . m yi"2w
U>
U
C
w N C
Y
C
T N
N..
.� J N > R.
O CT @�
@ C U@ 0 c Q
N NL @ U O
-N
c J E
m a m
mom
�9w `i-'oE;o$�o
@�J
@�--N0
j2 (D�EcocCa@)a).2
d
$3>ac)-4)4)co
M .
.cc=
E= s"�BEEa_°xvdN=aE
E1-TEw°m
�os
U
`o � N
�.
@
N E
N n'C- nNL �
o N @ n o
Qr N C_ w V
c L c a y
@
m o=
m¢o `o yw a
v--m.-anm
�Y�U
YC
CL a)3@EU
RNU NQ -D NO@GEO�
NmF °EaY.c_Ea�.t'm
Ry
G
N U
a'S
J°
J@ L''k N Ea
3.>. .E 3 N E O
N N N
=Uo o.om E-cwi02CBI"``
�m=fid
C
V
QU�Uln h(i d.L.+OJU
N
JO co a)
C
EE� `�ac'm"ccah
�-
NN@
O -r
ndJ
>.N TC Zan N'N>E
E
oSE Hcm EEN.EEa'a ym
F- OU
�/
LL�LL
(nQ
F @ Co a�
,may r- O J N O Nt
_ U N N-0 Ua
U'D
C C
>_� 3a:arnmm
E a?�m
N M,d;
�+
@ N
m2 mU
oaa �,tt ss
N
Q N
Eau oQ �"Ea m°.n$UE_
d
d C
@
7 3Li°1
EO -'`mos 'm not=on
E
Q�
Y
c caWavr�dggt�n��».�Ea=
co
:a `s 10y
L
U
'" mF`'m'aa-WUi°2'1O'm9a
da� .E oocct�o
°d
°
c
2
0 °
?
° E
;s oddEtst �»t=.=°
4)
6
Q
-9200
Q V
@
d E
3 Y
wa nm a; umov.d bm
@
O
O
O
O
L �
7 0
U
W@
daoo's�=Hop;�EE cmw`E
Ho
L`v')U Uniz f 0 n¢ E
G
J
Q
QO.J
to
(J00
Z Q
_=TA" IE':'m
v.
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
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
Thursday February 25, 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 Rescheduled 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.
Kim T. Meuwissen, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 2 day of , 2016.
clary Public
°� JENNi GRAN
J, Notary Public -Minnesota
My Commission Explrm Jon 31.T
1, 2020
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
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING
Dear Property Owner:
On February 18, 2016, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the
following proposal:
• Request for a fence height variance within the Shoreland Setback of Lake Riley on .98 acres of
property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF)
The public hearing has been RESCHEDULED for March 15. 2016 in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,
depending on the order of the agenda.
If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email:
dingvalson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us, or visit the project web page at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-06
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING
Dear Property Owner:
On February 18, 2016, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the
following proposal:
• Request for a fence height variance within the Shoreland Setback of Lake Riley on .98 acres of
property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF)
The public hearing has been RESCHEDULED for March 15. 2016 in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,
depending on the order of the agenda.
If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Drew Ingvalson at 952-227-1132 or by email:
_dingvalson(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us, or visit the project web page at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-06
Drew
From: Rosemary Kelly <rkelly07l@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 8:59 PM
To: Ingvalson, Drew
Subject: 9001 Lake Riley Blvd Project
Mr. Ingvalson,
As neighbors on Lake Riley, we reviewed the proposal for 9001 Lake Riley carefully as we walk by their home
every day. We understand and support their application for building a fence but object to the height and solid
material construction. We recognized that the home owners built on a rather busy street but we believe this
condition existed prior to their decision to purchase and build the house. We understand their desire to put up a
fence to keep people from trespassing. However, all other fences to insure privacy along Lyman are chain
fences less than 6.5 feet.
We. oppose the building of a 6.5 foot privacy fence. We believe such a fence would truly negatively impact the
aesthetic view along the lake where there is public access. It is not be in keeping with any other property on the
lake, would block the view of the lake from the public walkway along Lyman, and would establish a
unacceptable precedent.
Thank you,
Rose Kelly
Phil Sosnowski
9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN